Reader's Comments - Index of - Free

photo.net Learn Photography 

www.photo.net : Learn 

Beginners 

● Making Photographs: 

❍ Light 

❍ Lens 

❍ Film 

❍ Exposure 

❍ Camera 

featuring 303,881 images 

with 199,756 comments Sign in | Search: 

● Good photography with a point and shoot 

camera 

Learn from other photo.net users 

● the photo.net discussion forums 

● chat 

Technique 

● Book Reviews 

● Workshops, esp. 

● Film Recommendations 

● Using Filters 

● Using Tilt-Shift Lenses 

Caring for Equipment 

● Cleaning Cameras and Lenses 

● Camera Repair 

● Insurance 

Buying Equipment and Camera Reviews 

● Separate section: Equipment 

Interviews 

● Portrait photograher Elsa Dorfman 

● Professional photographer David Julian 

Background 

● History of Photography (timeline) 

● Optics 

http://www.photo.net/learn/ (1 of 2) [5/15/2002 7:15:35 PM] 

Taking Pictures 

● Portraits 

● Gardens 

● Architecture 

● Interiors 

● Ruins 

● Macro 

● Studio 

● Nudes 

● Underwater 

● Sports and Action 

● Concerts 

● Astrophotography 

● Star trails 

● Infrared and Ultraviolet 

● Pinhole Photography 

● Street Photography 

● Subsection: Nature 

Post-Exposure 

● Choosing a Computer System for 

Digital Imaging 

● Darkroom 

● Labs: where to get film developed, 

printed, or scanned to PhotoCD 

● Evaluating photographs: using a lightbox 

and loupe to find the winners 

● Storing slides, negs, photos 

● Notes on framing 

● Slide Projectors 

● Subsection: Digital Editing (PhotoShop) 

Publishing and Sharing 

● Scanning and Publishing on the Web

photo.net Learn Photography 

● the photo.net image sharing service 

● Consider Contributing articles to photo.net 

These are examples from 

Nudes Exhibit/Tutorial 

© 2000, 2001, 2002 photo.net, All Rights Reserved. Design by Ulla Zang. 

About Us | Photo.net FAQ | Advertising | In the News | Site Map | Related Sites | Contact Us | Terms of 

Use | Privacy 

The equipment reviewed on this site can be purchased at 

http://www.photo.net/learn/ (2 of 2) [5/15/2002 7:15:35 PM] 

This vendor supports photo.net.

Tips for Using a Point & Shoot Camera 


By Philip Greenspun 

Home : Learn : One Article 

Sign in | Search: 

Contents: 

1. Yes, it can 

be done 

2. Think 

about Light 

3. Just say no 

4. Just say yes 

5. Prefocus 

6. Burn Film 

7. Try to Buy 

a Decent 

P&S 

Camera 

Reader's 

Comments 

Support photo.net 

Retailers who support photo.net: 

Yes, it can be done 

Do you feel inadequate because you have a puny Yashica T4 in your pocket but your no-dick friend is 

lugging around a Canon EOS-1 SLR, Tamron 28-200 zoom lens, and moby flash? 

Don't. 

http://www.photo.net/learn/point-and-shoot-tips (1 of 35) [5/15/2002 7:15:46 PM]


You can get a better picture than he can, for the following reasons: 

● Your camera weighs 8 oz. and is weatherproof so you have it with you at all times. 

● You have a decent lens in front of the film; like most first-time SLR owners these days, he has a 

cheap low-contrast zoom lens. 

● He is using that moby on-camera flash as his primary light. You would never be that uncreative 

(at least not after reading the rest of this article). 

● Your camera has a better system for combining light from the flash with ambient light ("fillflash"). 

A professional photographer with a pile of $1500 lenses and a 

tripod is going to be able to do many things that you aren't. But 

rest assured that he carries a P&S camera in his pocket as well. 

The photo at right shows Bill Clinton handing out a diploma at 

MIT's 1998 graduation ceremony. I was in the press box with a 

Canon EOS-5, 70-200/2.8L lens, and 1.4X teleconverter ($2500 

total). In the upper right of the frame is a woman with a point and 

shoot camera. I would venture to guess that her pictures of 

Clinton are better than mine. 

Think about Light 

"He spoke with the wisdom that can only come from experience, like a guy who went 

blind because he looked at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it 

and now goes around the country speaking at high schools about the dangers of looking 

at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it." 

-- Joseph Romm 

My personal definition of photography is "the recording of light rays." It is therefore difficult to take a 

decent picture if you have not chosen the lighting carefully. (I've written an entire tutorial on light.) 

Just say no 

Just say "no" to on-camera flash. Your eye needs shadows to make out shapes. When the light is 

coming from the same position as the lens, there are no shadows to "model" faces. Light from a point 

source like the on-camera flash falls off as the square of the distance from the source. That means 

things close to the camera will be washed-out, the subject on which you focussed will be properly 



exposed, and the background will be nearly black. We're at a 

theater. Can't you tell from the background? That's me in the middle. The guy with the flat face and big 

washed-out white areas of skin. Part of the problem here is that the camera was loaded with Fujichrome 

Velvia, which is only ISO 50 and therefore doesn't capture much ambient light (i.e., the theater 

background). [Despite this picture's myriad faults, I'm glad that I have it because it spruces up Travels 

with Samantha, Chapter III.] 

Virtually all point and shoot cameras allow you to control the on-camera flash. What you want to do 

most of the time is press the leetle tiny buttons until the "no flash" symbol is displayed. The "no flash" 

symbol is usually a lightning bolt with a circle around it and line through it. Now the camera will never 

strobe the flash and will leave the shutter open long enough to capture enough ambient light to make an 

exposure. 

A good point and shoot camera will have a longest shutter speed of at least 1 second. You can probably 

only hold the camera steady for 1/30th of a second. Your subjects may not hold still for a full second 

either. So you must start looking for ways to keep the camera still and to complete the exposure in less 

time. You can: 

● look for some light. Move your subjects underneath whatever light sources are handy and see 

how they look with your eyes. 

● load higher-speed film. ISO 400 and ISO 800 color print films are the correct emulsions for 

P&S photography. ISO 400 film can get the same picture in one quarter the amount of time as 

ISO 100 film. 

● steady the camera against a tree/rock/chair/whatever as you press the shutter release 

● leave the camera on a tree/rock/chair/whatever and use the self-timer so that the jostling of 

pressing the shutter release isn't reflected on film. I often use this technique for photographing 

decorated ceilings in Europe. I just leave the camera on the floor, self-timer on, flash off. 

● use a little plastic tripod, monopod, or some other purpose-built camera support 



Yes it was dark in Bar 89. But I steadied the camera against a 

stair railing and captured the scene with my Minolta Freedom 

Zoom 28-70. Note that not using flash preserves the lighting of 

the bar. 

Just say yes 

Just say "yes" to on-camera flash. Hey, "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" (Emerson; 

slightly out of context). 

The on-camera flash on a P&S camera is useful. It just isn't useful for what you'd think. As I note 

above, it is not useful for lighting up a dark room. However, it is useful outdoors when you have both 

shaded and sunlit objects in the same scene. Photographic film and paper cannot handle the same range 

of contrast as your eyes. A picture that is correctly exposed for the sunlight object will render the 

shaded portrait subject as solid black. A picture that is correctly exposed for the shaded portrait subject 

will render the sunlit background object as solid white. 

Here the chess players are being shaded by some overhead 

screens while the background foliage is not. The on-camera flash 

makes sure that the foreground players are bright. In fact they are 

a bit brighter than they probably should be and note the washedout 

highlight on the leading edge of the table, which is close to 

the camera. This picture was taken by prefocusing on the shirtless 

player on the right, then moving the camera with the shutter 

release half-depressed to the final composition. Without the 

prefocusing the camera would have latched onto one of the chess 

tables in the center of the picture, quite far away. The foreground 

men would have been out of focus and also tremendously 

overexposed since an amount of flash adequate to illuminate a far 

away subject would have been used. [Note that most $1000 SLR 

cameras would not have been capable of making this picture 

except in a completely manual mode. Their flash metering 

systems are too stupid to couple to the focus distance. An 

exception is the series of Nikon SLRs from 1994 on with "D" 

flash metering.] 

Pressing the little buttons on a P&S camera until a single solid lightning bolt appears in the LCD 

display will keep the flash on at all times. Note that a side-effect of the "flash on" mode is that you also 



get the same long shutter speeds for capturing ambient light that you would with "flash off" mode. The 

standard illustrative picture for this has an illuminated building at night as the background with a group 

of people in the foreground who've been correctly exposed by the flash. 

Sometimes it all comes together, as it did here in Coney Island. Without fillflash, 

the ride operator would have been a silhouette. Prefocussed on the 

human subject's face. "Flash on" mode. 

Prefocus 

The best-composed photographs don't usually have their subject 

dead center. However, that's where the focusing sensor on a P&S 

camera is. Since the best photographs usually do have their 

subject in sharp focus, what you want to do is point the center 

sensor at your main subject, hold the shutter release halfway 

down, then move the camera until you like the composition. 

Virtually all P&S cameras work this way but not everyone knows 

it because not everyone is willing to RTFM. 

A side effect of prefocusing is that most P&S cameras will preset exposure as well. Ideal exposure with 

a reflected light meter is obtained when the subject reflectance is 18% gray (a medium gray). Exposure 

isn't very critical with color negative film, but you still might want to attempt to prefocus on something 

that is the correct distance from the camera and a reasonable mid-tone. I.e., avoid focusing on 

something that is pure white or black. This becomes much more important if you are using slide film. 

Burn Film 



If a roll of film is lasting three months, then something is wrong. You aren't 

experimenting enough. An ideal roll of film for me has 35 pictures of the 

same subject, all of them bad. These prove that I'm not afraid to experiment. 

And then one good picture. This proves that I'm not completely incompetent. 

It takes at least 10 frames to get one good picture of one person. To have 

everyone in a group photo looking good requires miles of film. You should 

have pictures from different angles, different heights, flash on, flash off, etc. 

My personal standard film for P&S photography is Fuji ISO 400 negative 

film. It enlarges very nicely to 8x10 and is great for Web presentation. 

Try to Buy a Decent P&S Camera 

You can read my buyer's guide. Basically what you want is a reasonably wide angle lens to capture 

your subject and the background context. Focal lengths beyond 70mm in P&S cameras are not useful. 

My personal ideal camera would have a 24-50 or a 24-70 zoom though actually in many ways I prefer a 

camera with only a single focal length because it is one fewer decision to make at exposure time. 

Zooms are more useful with full-sized SLR cameras because the user interface is better/quicker (i.e., 

you can turn the ring on the lens instead of pushing little buttons to drive a motor). 

Whatever you may choose to buy, you can help defray the cost of running photo.net by buying from 

Adorama, Photoalley, or ritzcamera.com. 

[ top ] 

Reader's Comments 

I seem to be leaving comments all over this site. My T-4 comment has to do with the use 

of flash. I am constantly taking pictures indoors and ligthing them with my Vivitar 283. 

I've had one of these units since 1976 and they remain a workhorse (my first one croaked 

after 6 years and my disassembly of it with a Swiss Army Knife). Anyway, every P&S 

camera suffers from weenie flash syndrome, including the Nikon 35Ti and Yashica T4. 

I've owned both. I finally went out and got a slave for the 283 and now happily bounceflash 

my indoor pictures. It works really well, lighting the whole room up, looking 

natural and soft, and the small camera flash even fills in the eye sockets a bit. 

As for the T-4, I took back my Nikon 35Ti and traded it in for 2 T-4s (one for wife, one 

for mother in law) about 3 years ago. They are so nice I just got a T-4 Super for my Dad 

when his old Nikon P&S packed up on him. I bought this last one from Camera World of 

Oregon with no delays, hassles or problems. 



Have fun with the T-4/283 combo. I wish they'd make it with a hot shoe, like the old 

Minox scale-focusing mini-35mm camera. 

M Cole 

-- Matthew Cole, January 19, 1997 

The new Ricoh GR-1 gives back complete control of exposure, focus, and flash to the 

photographer. The lens is a 28mm/2.8 symmar formula. It weighs 6 oz, has metal 

everywhere it needs to have it: top, bottom, back, film channel + more. Ricoh has so 

understated this camera that it will take most people years to figure out -- finally, there is 

a tool to have at all times, and take superb photos. I use it to take available light shots of 

musicians and dancers. Oh yes, its full frame 35mm, one inch thick, all black, costs $454. 

There's more. Center weighted metering down to EV 6. Then it switches to averaging 

plus the finder internally illuminates so you can see the shutter speed, exposure 

compensation (2 stops) and distance (ikons) in the finder window. Its a lot of fun! 

-- myron wolf, March 5, 1997 

I've had a Ricoh GR-1 for about a month and I've shot a dozen rolls of negative and slide 

(Velvia, E100S) film with it. I find that the 28 mm f 2.8 lens is very sharp and contrasty 

and yields nice colors. On the down side, it appears to be somewhat more prone to flare 

than my SLR's lenses, and there is no provision for attaching a lens hood. Exposure 

metering is accurate enough for Velvia; exposure compensation is through an intuitive 

(for me anyway) analogue knob. The camera is extremely compact and light, and the allmetal 

skin rugged. I found the camera control layout easy to understand, and the camera 

fits nicely in my hands. It cost $450; I think it's a superb camera. 

Some complaints I have are (1) the viewfinder is rather small for eye-glass wearers; (2) 

there is no cable release; (3) external flashes cannot be used; (4) on/off button is easy to 

activate inadvertently; (5) there's no weatherproofing; (6) no manual ISO setting; (7) no 

depth-of field information (even in the manual); (8) somewhat cryptic manual. 

-- Adrian Ferre-D'Amare, May 1, 1997 

I agree with Philip on his choice of the yashica t4 camera. I personally own 3 cameras... 

A canon elan iie w/ a couple of decent lenses, a yashica t4 and a canon elph APS 

camera... While each of these have their own merits and limitations... I have to say the 

flash metering system specifically fill-flash on the Canon Elph APS camera is the best I 

have ever used... 

-- Ravi Nagpal, August 28, 1997 



One thing about point and shoot cameras: they work best if you understand a little bit 

about exposure. Exposure meters in cameras try to make everything a medium tone 

(think green leaves---that's medium tone). If you're trying to take a photo that's bright, 

the camera will still try to render it medium tone. The solution in those cases is to get a 

lock on something medium tone but in the same distance, press the shutter release 

halfway down, and then recompose and shoot. 

Example: you're trying to take a picture of a sunset with the sun in it. Point at the horizon 

with no sun in it, press shutter halfway, point at the sun, and then shoot. 

This explains why all sunset photos taken with point and shoot cameras look too dark. 

Wish I'd known this a year ago. 

-- Piaw Na, December 10, 1997 

Here's another idea for a backup/travel camera. I recently found a 1950's German made 

Voightlander Vitamatic in the local camera store for $40! The lens is a 50mm/2.8 Skopar 

all-metal thing that looks like a miniature Hasselblad lens. It's completely manual and 

has a built in light meter (no batteries required). It even has a flash shoe and will sync up 

to 1/300th. Yeah... it's a little heavier than the modern P&S cameras... but if you need a 

backup camera... consider an old classic. 

-- Albert E. Anderson, May 12, 1998 

One of the nice things about returning to P&S photography with a fixed lens is that it 

sends u back to thinking about the basics of image making again. 

I've just spent the better part of the last 3 weeks trying out a few models of all the famous 

P&S single focal length cult cameras mainly to try and make a decision on which one is 

the most suitable for me. The experiences have been recorded elsewhere in the site, but 

with regards to technique, it just brought me back to remembering how to think about 

light, composition, perspective, support and basic camera handling. With these pillars of 

photography set straight, it is indeed possible to get shots on a P&S as good as any top 

notch SLR. 

It's true, u don't really need stacks of equipment to ensure u can take good photos. With 

the above fundamentals set out, u already have enuff to be an A student. With all the 

other bells and whistles, u may probably get to A+. But IMHO, since the 80/20 rule is 

applicable to most things in life, the last 20% may not be worth the extra cost or effort. 

Unless u r a perfectionist, or a professional, or both. 



-- T C Khoo, September 26, 1998 

This will be no revelation, but I think more and more who read this section have come to 

expect more and more capabilities out of the Point and Shoot category. And most aren't 

going to be happy with a Rollei 35 or a Canonet I think. Those who will admit to this no 

compromise will want to look seriously again at the Silver Hexar. Not a big camera by 

any means, grippable and well layed out- see Caruana's wonderful review elsewhere.(No 

offense to the GR-1 people, I havent tried it at all) On Program mode Hexar behaves like 

my Leica Mini III only better,-tack sharp lens. ( I have the option of setting it up so that 

the Hexar knows that outdoors I like a lot of DOF, but if forget and I set it at 2.8, at least 

it will give me some kind of photo.)OTH, when I shot at night from a hotel window last 

month I put it on manual mode, used the camera meter to find a gray tone and let the spot 

metering get the exposure. Then I pushed MF to get bam to infinity focus through a 

windown and I was good to go.( But if you think I didn't ALSO carry a T-90 with three 

lenses in my kit on the trip, you arent a member in good standing of the schlep- what- 

you-just- may need club.:-)either. 

-- Gerry Siegel, November 1, 1998 

I am a public school teacher, but have been doing serious photography, pro and hobby, 

since 1959. I have used everything from 4x5 through 6x6, 645, 35, etc. About a year ago 

I obtained a Leica CL from my repairman for a song, and loved what I could do with it. I 

totally hate photo mags that advertise "stepping-up" to bigger and bigger film sizes. I 

want to "step-down" to greater freedom, speed, and spontaneous artistry. Be that as it 

may, I bought a Leica Minilux last week (before I even knew that T-4's existed!!!), but 

enjoy this camera greatly. Here's the bottom line: I live in the San Jose California area 

and would like to gather serious P&S users for regular P&S only field excursions (a few 

times a year) with some sharing of results later on...and lots of fun, food, etc. If anyone in 

the S.F. Bay area is interested, feel free to send an e-mail with a phone number...mine is 

(408) 686-1441, so call if you like, but,please, no solicitors! Thanks, Todd 

-- Todd Fredrick, November 4, 1998 

good pages! just bought a yashica T5 and look forward using it, you set away my doubts 

over leaing my dear nikon behind for a while (wait till i get my first pictures, though) 

sure oone thing: ps is fast. 

-- jules l, January 30, 1999 

I don't know how many people have tried this old camera, but I've just gotten it from my 

mother: Ricoh 500 G. It must be a predecessor to the newer G's, but I hadn't heard of it 



before. It's a real rangefinder, having full manual control (as well as offering automatic 

exposure...which has proven to be reasonably accurate from some of my trials). I'm 

totally blown away by the quality of the lens in this camera. It's every bit as sharp as my 

SLR...although I haven't put it to the test with slide film yet. And it's tiny! Although 

heavier than my Olympus P & S. For those times when I have more than a moment to 

fiddle, but don't want to bother with my SLR, this camera is awesome. 

-- Heidi Weaver, January 30, 1999 

Just a short note to let you know about Fuji's Ga645 medium format P'n'shooters. After 

overdosing on gearomania, I've decided to get myself a one lens, one camera combo and 

work on fundementals and lighting. The GA 645 was perfect for me and the 645 neg 

enlarges quite gracefully to 11 X 14. It's exactly the same in operations as a 35mm point 

and shoot save for a few goodies such as vertical framing, cable release, tripod socket, 

etc. 

It won't fit in your pocket though... 

-- Benoit Doloreux, February 2, 1999 

I've recently started taking pictures with a P&S after having had some experience taking 

pictures with an SLR. I've had good results with my Yashica T5 (T4 Super in the US). 

I've experimented with its different flash modes and I found that the Fill-In flash works 

better than the Automatic Flash or Red-Eye Reduction mode. Even in taking pictures 

indoors with even lighting, I use the Fill-In flash mode. The camera does a good job with 

the exposure as it balances the light reflected by the subject and the background light. 

There's less overexposure on the subject, and less shadows on the background. One trick 

to reduce red-eye effect, I just tell the subjet to look at a light source for a moment and 

then pose. Also, I use the Super Scope (waist level viewfinder) frequently since I'm a tall 

person living in Asia. This eliminates the barreling on some pictures caused by the wide 

angle lens if you take them from a high viewpoint. It's also neat to take pictures without 

people knowing it. They all think that I'm just checking how many shots I have left, 

while I'm actually looking through the Super Scope and snapping away (without flash of 

course). Another point, if you're ever in Vietnam, check out the cheap prices of cameras 

in Ho Chi Minh City (former Saigon) and Hanoi. Their prices are competitive to those in 

the States and cheaper than in other countries in this region (i.e. Ricoh GR1 = 400USD; 

Olympus mjuII = 130USD). 

-- Ronald Gregorio, February 15, 1999 

I just got back from a trip to London and Paris and brought along my brand new 

Olympus 80 zoom deluxe wide. I am thrilled with the photos it took. I would highly 

recommend this camera to anyone. The wide angle lens came in very handy in sooo 



many instances. Has anyone had a good experience with this camera. This is my first 

experience with a point and shoot. it was nice having such a small camera and not my 

OM1 to lug along. 

-- kathy kane, February 22, 1999 

I have had the Yashica T4 (older model, now: T5/T4 Super) for about 3 years now. It is a 

nice P&S camera, cheap, with an excellent lens and exposes "correct" in standard 

situations (also for slides). I take it with me, when I want to leave the heavy stuff at 

home, or just as a supplement for the SLR equipement. The only problem I've had is that 

the rewinded to early a few times (at about picture 20). -> Would buy it again with no 

hesitation. 

-- Philippe Wiget, March 2, 1999 

A useful hint for people with active autofocus P&S cameras that lack an infinity focus 

button, like the Infinity ;-) Stylus Epic, I found on 

http://www.ans.com.au/~chrisb/photo/equipment/olympus/mjuii.html There Chris 

Bitmead says:"The Epic doesn't have an infinity lock (useful to shoot through windows) 

You can however get the camera to focus at infinity by covering one of the IR focus 

sensors with a finger or whatever and then press the shutter button half way. Then 

compose and shoot." That should do it. Though I didn't the results yet, I'm sure it will 

help. By the way Phil, about your site: the more I use it, the more I admire the great 

accessibility. 

-- Lex Molenaar, March 5, 1999 

I use the Yashica T4 for shooting stereo pairs. I originally had two of them mounted six 

inches apart (lens-to-lens) on a bar, but have abandoned this system because: 

1) I could never press the shutter buttons at exactly the same moment. 

2) My dear Catherine "borrowed" one of the cameras eighteen months ago, and uses it so 

much she has yet to return it. 

In any event, excellent stereo pairs can be taken with this camera simply by shooting the 

first picture with an object on the left side of the center circle, and the second with the 

object on the right side. If the scene has a concentrated light source such as a fireplace, 

there might be a problem with the difference in camera position resulting in different 

metering, but if the light is not near the center of the picture, it generally isn't a problem. 

-- John S. Wojtowicz, April 1, 1999 



Last year I purchased a Leica CL and then a Minilux (see previous comments for 

November '98), but sold the CL and bought a Leica M6 through a fine young man I 

"met" on the internet (minilux club)who asked me if I wanted an M6, bought me a 

beautiful used model (9606th made)with 2 lenses for 2K, and is accepting 

payments!!!...we've never met! True trust is a wonderful thing!...and believe that 

seriously...very rare today! However, after reading widely the Photonet P/S comments, 

and considering my need for a very pocketable camera (don't take an M6 on a kayak!), 

lens quality (asph elements), true ergonomics (pocket tapered design), and lens speed, I 

bought two Olympus Stulus Epic cameras (one for me and one for a friend, in fine used 

condition: one through e-bay and one from a "WTB" on Phil's Photonet ads today. I 

haven't run a single roll through, but I expect great things! This is not a rejection of the T- 

4, or others! The teeny-weeny size got to me and the tapered design was just what I 

wanted. I will, of course, run many rolls through, and post an evaluation. I am concerned 

about the comments on AF problems, but the spot meter is a GREAT addition! I do wish 

there was a reader's photo gallery on this site as there is on the Minilux and Hassie clubs. 

Phil...think about it...we can show our great stuff and praise each other as we so deserve! 

I'm still looking for San Francisco/San Jose CA Bay Area people interested in taking 

photo trips. I once taught adult ed classes in photography and had a great time on field 

trips, until these darned old P/S cameras came along and no one wanted to know photo 

basics any more! Look who's talkin' now! 

E-Mail if interested in setting up some trips this summer at fredrick@hotcity.com 

Todd Frederick 

-- Todd Fredrick, April 7, 1999 

After having read all of the comments, it makes me wonder why anyone but a 

professional would use a regular SLR. I just don't think that a P&S gives me enough of 

what I want. I don't take a lot of pictures but when I do I like lots of closeups and 

landscapes, plus some sports action. I just can't get that with a P&S. I am thinking of 

going digital for my P&S needs. 

-- Ron Lawrence, May 24, 1999 

I've pretty much lost my faith in point and shoot cameras. I may, however, purchase a 

Ricoh GR-1 because it has spot metering and apeture priority metering with 

override....the very things that are needed in a point and shoot. 

I still use my Minolta FZE, but only for things like signs, casual group portraits and 

times when I just need a picture but don't have my slr. They're just too unpredictable for 

anything other than snapshots. 



As to Philips paragraph at the top of this article, I'm sure if he had been standing next to 

the girl with the point and shoot, he would have taken a better framed, better exposed, 

sharper and more contrasty shot with his slr. 

-- Jim Tardio, May 25, 1999 

Sorry, Jim -- I disagree w/r/t Philip's example at the graduation. If Philip were sitting 

next to the woman with the point and shoot, he wouldn't have his big cache of gear with 

him -- a point & shoot is likely all he'd be able to bring to that position. 

...he would have taken a better framed, better exposed, sharper and more contrasty shot 

with his slr 

Better framed? No, that's entirely related to the skill of the photographer. Better exposed? 

With print film (and a little bit of brain power) it wouldn't make a difference. Sharper? 

Yes. More contrasty? Likely. 

But this is all missing Philip's point -- you can bring a point & shoot with you almost 

anywhere. You can whip it out at a moment's notice and get the shot. Hence the value of 

a point & shoot. They may not suit you, Jim, but that doesn't mean they're without value. 

-- Russ Arcuri, May 27, 1999 

Sorry Russ--I never said they were not of any value, and I never said I didn't like them. I 

said I am losing my faith in them. I also said I am considering buying a Ricoh GR-1, and 

still use my Minolta FZE. 

I really don't know what Phil would have been using had he been closer, but I would 

have had an slr with 1 or 2 lenses AND a point and shoot. 

And I just don't agree that a point and shoot is better than a cheap body with a slow 

consumer zoom and Moby flash. When Phil first wrote this piece I did, but after having 

gone through many of these cameras I've come to the conclusion, IN MY OPINION, that 

they're not much better than a disposable camera. 

For example: take the Zeiss lens away from the T4 and what do have left? A little box 

where the only control you have is turning the flash on and off. If light is indeed the main 

ingredient of photography...as Phil states...how do you capture it faithfully when you 

have no idea what the camera is exposing the film at? With practice all you have is an 

educated guess at best. How do you lock focus if the camera is on a tripod? How do alter 

film speed? 



Now, I know the purpose of this piece is to show the value of carrying a point and shoot, 

and Phil's anecdote about Clinton is valid. Obviously it's much easier to carry a point and 

shoot in your pocket than lug around a bag full of gear. A T4, Olympic Stylus, or 

whatever brand you use are great for this. But as so many folks on photo net are fond of 

pointing out, " You get what you pay for ". And for $150.00, or less, you don't get much 

more than the ability to slip the thing in your pocket. But, I agree, that that's better than 

nothing, and do that myself many times. With that, all I can do is echo Phil's guidelines 

for using these cameras in two simple rules. 

1. If people are in the photograph use fill flash. 

2. If there are no people in the photograph, turn the flash off and hope the camera 

chooses an appropriate setting. 

If you want some control with one of these cameras, it's going to cost you upwards of 

$300.00...around the same price as an entry level slr body with a slow consumer zoom. 

Just some thoughts. 

-- Jim Tardio, May 29, 1999 

I love taking pictures. After researching the current market I found the T-4 best fit my 

needs(I found out it has no problem with being carried around in my pocket). The more I 

read up on it the more fascinated I became. I shopped around and found that Cambridge 

Camera Exchange offered it for only $118.95. I placed my order via mail\phone. That 

was two weeks ago. After many long distance calls (many of which got me nowhere[they 

hung up on me five out of ten times I would call]) I have found out that "my T-4,"as I so 

dearingly refer to it, will not cost anything near the first expected price. $158.95. I have 

not let it get my hopes down, I am waiting by the mail box in a childish frenzy just 

imagining the fun I'm going to have with "My T-4." That's Cambridge Camera Exchange 

in New York. They'll hang up on you. 

-- luis villasana, June 2, 1999 

I'm using an Olympus Infinity Stylus /Zoom 115 for about a year and extremely pleased 

with its outstanding performance.It is definetely the smallest and lightest point-to-shoot 

camera in the world. It works perfectly on the panaroma mode.While taking close-up 

shots,strictly adhere to the close-up correction marks.I'm an ex-pilot and I must add 

Olympus Infinity Stylus is highly recommended for aerial photography. I have fantastic 

photos taken at 37.000 ft.Try to avoid buying from Singapore.I've had awful experiences 

in the past.Prefer the ones manufactured either in US or Japan. I also recommend 

Samsung Maxima Zoom 145 QD,Cannon Sure Shot Z135 and Pentax IQ Zoom 160 QD. 



G|rol Kutlu gkutlu@thy.com 17 June 1999 

-- G|rol Kutlu, June 17, 1999 

I'm beginning to feel like a collector of cameras!! Once I got serious about photography I 

got a used Nikon FM2 & 2 lens - 50mm & 28mm. I mostly use the 28mm as it suits my 

style. 

I've moved up to medium format which I love but I can't bring myself to lug my 

Hasselblad on a trip (I mostly fear I'll throw my back out -- rather than fear losing it). 

And there was this thing about being in clubs where all this exciting stuff is going on & I 

just can't capture it with my blad. So I got a P&S. I got the canon Z135 (a friend who 

teaches photography & has a couple of books out - Del laGrace, recommended the Canon 

Z115 and by the time I got mine the Z135 had come out). I read the manual but can't 

quite remember all the fine details in a club setting (but I'll be sure to try some of the 

recommendations here!). I still play with the settings & I've gotten some fun photos I just 

can't get with even my nikon. Tho I bring my nikon with it's 28mm lens & either TriX 

400 pushed to 1600 or one of the faster b&w films. I get different kinds of photos. 

Now when I travel and I'm wanting my medium format camera I just throw in one of my 

super light weight plastic cameras!! I prefer the lubitel for more serious work (it's much 

more flexable with all sorts of cool things like a timer, a hot shoe, shutter speeds & fstops) 

but I'm trying to learn my holga. My holga gets me plenty of funny looks because 

I couldn't find any black electrical tape so it's taped up with red tape. I've gotten some 

GREAT shots & it probably weighs less than an ounce! BUT I bring my P&S too!! I 

can't always shoot in daylight. 

(now besides all those cameras I also own 2 polaroid cameras!!) 

-- erin o'neill, June 20, 1999 

Well, I own one of the cameras that is often disparaged in this group. Its a 400si with 

(horror of horrors) a Sigma 28-80 lens, a second-hand Minolta 50mm f/1.7 and another 

second-hand Minolta 70-210mm lens. I also have a cheap Sunflash external flash. 

I like what I own because it gives me the flexibility to try out new things. I can try 

manual metering, aperture or shutter priority metering and manual focusing. While I 

have not attained genius-hood with my setup, I have taken quite a few photographs 

which make me a lot happy. 

I dare say that except for the bulk, my camera is no worse off than a decent point and 



shoot. And considering the price I paid for it I think it is worth more to me than a P&S 

camera would have been. 

-- Jagadeesh Venugopal, June 26, 1999 

All this arguing over p&s cameras is getting a little redundant. Correct me if I'm wrong 

here, but isn't the idea behind a p&s to either have fun in casual shooting situations, or as 

an emergency back up when your SLR is down, or unavailable? Sure, it's always great to 

see useful information about a camera before you purchase it, but lets not forget that the 

majority of the cameras here are under $200 ferchrissakes! AND, as we all know: you do 

get (sometimes less than) what you pay for. 

That said, here's a great idea for point and shoot fun: I've got a Yashica, and I love to 

play 'hot potato' with my friends. Just use the self timer to trigger the shutter, and start 

tossin' it around. I've gotten some really cool shots this way. 

Joe 

-- Joe Toole, June 29, 1999 

I'm glad to see that Heidi Weaver has discovered the Ricoh 500G. I bought one new in 

1977 for a trip to Wyoming and loved it. We took some great pictures, enlarged them to 

9.5 x 14 and they're still hanging on our wall. Then came Autofocus cameras and I put 

my Ricoh aside. Later I passed it on to my niece. I sometimes grow tired of the lack of 

control and limitations of Autofocus cameras, but still enjoy taking a small light camera 

with me. Then came E-Bay. For relatively little money I was able to bring a Ricoh 500G 

back into my house. It still takes great pictures and is an inexpensive and wonderful 

compromise when you need a little more control without a lot more heft. 

Mark Sussman 

-- Mark Sussman, July 15, 1999 

I have a Ricoh 500 given to me by a friend. It is a beautiful camera, but slow in use and 

clumsy...and heavy. I have an Olympus XA, also received as a gift. The lens isn't sharp 

or flare-resistant, and tiny controls are hard to use. I gave my girlfriend an Olympus 

Sylus Epic *35/2.8 lens) and, even on a tripod, the lens isn't very sharp. That is why I 

would stick to light SLRs like Elan with a 50mm lens whenever possible...the compacts 

seem to give too much in image quality and speed of use. 

-- Oleg Volk, July 30, 1999 



I bought a Leica Z2X couple months ago and went to New Orleans. The Z2X was such a 

pleasure to use and I got some of the most wonderful pictures of the old French Quarter. 

These are some of the best pictures I've ever taken using any P&S. 

-- Clarence Ng, August 5, 1999 

My perspective may not be especially alternative. I too own a T4 I purchased it almost 3 

years ago shortly after having many years worth of Canon equipment stolen. Well, I have 

been thrilled by the results this camera gave, so much so that I am thinking seriously of 

trying to stay with Zeiss Contax lenses. I am not sure what the difference is, contrast, 

colour balance? but I prefer the colour to anything shot on my Canons....go figure. 

HOWEVER, BEWARE!!! service in Canada is another story!!! Last Christmas I 

dropped it in a hotel parking lot oops and owww! The lens cover was broken, more than 

$100 dollars later, (well we can't expect warranty to cover impact damage can we) I 

happily gave it a little hug and proceeded to shoot again....problem, vignetting?!?! 

Telephone Yashica and explain, after sending directly to him with explanatory note, 

several weeks later it comes back with same problem, this time when I phone the 

manager had not seen it, techie had fixed by "adjusting" the meter??? After bitterly 

complaining, I have re-sent my camera and they are forwarding to New York. I hope 

your US service is better or I will not be able to talk myself into spending the kind of 

money necessary for some Contax gear. That said, before breaking, the T4 (T5 here) is a 

beautiful little camera. Highly recommend for hiking, biking etc. Graham North 

-- Graham North, September 7, 1999 

Good photography is in the eye of the user. 

My wife has no concern for obtaining adequate quality photographs. She merely wishes 

to obtain images which will induce a memory recall of the event. What I consider trash, 

she values. The P&S is geared toward those of my wife's bent where the object is not to 

produce art but rather physical records of prior events. By automating the artistic control, 

the average quality increases but the average art value diminishes. 

In contrast, I use photography as an artistic outlet. I shoot 35mm b&w, with a spot meter 

using the zone system and do my own printing. If I have no darkroom set up, I don't 

shoot. I haven't shot in years. 

Two extremes. 

Perhaps if I gave up some control, I would obtain more even if I enjoyed it less. 

My compromise is using a GR-1 with negative film. I will use store printing for my 



wife's film, and computer printing for my film. 

This compromise may better the both of us. 

-- byard edwards, September 10, 1999 

Monkey! 

-- Troy Hyde, January 13, 2000 

Ian's comments above are based on some degree of SLR/EOS snobbishness. Pity. It's not 

difficult to get decent photos with a point/shoot camera; the Stylus Epic's fast f/2.8 lens 

gets the job done nicely. So does my Yashica T4 super (f/3.5). I carry a mini-tripod with 

flexible legs to negate camera shake, or wedge my shoulders up against a wall or door 

jamb. And I usually expose at least two frames per subject, varying stance or lighting as 

called for. When I know I want something more complicated, I'll haul out my Nikon 

FM2n and its assorted lenses, but that's infrequent. Using outdated or cheap film for 

test/technique purposes is a great idea; instead of getting that tree-killing second set of 

prints, find a lab that will give you a free roll of "House brand" film; it's often made by 

one of the name manufacturers in Japan or Minnesota. 

-- Dave Baldo, January 13, 2000 

I know my viewpoint may not be similar to other people here, but it's here. P&S cameras 

may be great for "consumer" shots (i.e vacations, family gatherings, etc.) but in 

professional photography, nothing beats an SLR or TLR. I guess the reason 

manufacturers keep P&S in production is not for photographers to use them, or they 

would produce a small camera with manual apeture and shutter. I don't really know how 

a P&S is in the real world (since I do astrophotography), but it's hard to beat a good SLR 

with a telephoto lens. 

Jim 

-- James Jingozian, January 28, 2000 

After many years using only SLR equipment, I bought a Minolta Freedom Zoom as a 

take-along-at-all-times camera. Unfortunately, it proved to be extremely unreliable. It 

made me miss many opportunities when it just switched off (leaving the lens unretracted) 

at the moment of pressing the shutter. It ruined many pictures by focusing to minimum 

distance, even for landscapes with no foreground! It frustrated entire mountain trips by 

simply locking up. It took seven repairs to shoot a total of about 40 rolls of film, of 

which more than half was ruined because of camera problems. 



I have now discarded it, and replaced it by a Ricoh GR-1s. What a difference! This 

camera is very usable, extremely small and lightweight, rugged, allows a considerable 

range of manual control (which I missed so much with the Minolta), and so far I have not 

lost a single frame to camera malfunction. It works very well indeed! I'm very happy 

with it. 

This camera is an improvement over the already good GR-1, and I do highly recommend 

it (I have no connection to Ricoh other than being a satisfied customer!). Its main 

drawback is the lack of a zoom lens, but then, its 28mm f/2.8 is really good, and 

WOULD you expect a zoom in a camera this size? 

Recently I was able to photograph some lightning bolts with the Ricoh, something I had 

been never successful at when using the SLR equipment! Tomorrow I'm off for one 

month into the mountains, doing some flying and some climbing, and the Ricoh comes 

with me! 

Manfred Mornhinweg. 

-- Manfred Mornhinweg, January 31, 2000 

Although technically not point-n-shoot cameras, there are many compact 35mm 

rangefinders from the '70s that are almost as small and nearly as easy to use. Check out 

www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm for a rundown of the better ones. 

Personally, I'm quite happy with the Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII I picked up for $60 last year. 

While it can't focus itself, it does have a fairly accurate auto-exposure system (complete 

with exposure lock) and a fast (f1.7) lens, which means you can shoot ISO 100 film 

instead of ISO 400 much of the time. Better still, it has a leaf shutter (which means it 

flash-syncs at all speeds) and a manual film-speed dial so you control the amount of fillflash 

more accurately as well as adjust exposure to your particular taste. Another nice 

touch is the filter ring, which I use fairly often, as well as the fact that the meter cell is 

located _inside_ the filter ring, just above the lens. This means that it meters through the 

filter and thus automatically compensates for the filter-factor of whatever filter you use. 

On the downside, at 17 ounces, it's about twice as heavy as the typical p-n-s camera but 

it's still small enough to fit into a jacket pocket, if not a jeans pocket. Another plus is that 

the body is metal, not plastic, which means it will _dent_ instead of crack when it's 

accidentally dropped. 

Overall, if -- like me -- you prefer your photographic automation in small doses and 



metal-bodied cameras to plastic ones, then a compact 35mm rangefinder from the 1970s 

may be a better choice for you than an auto-everything plastic wonder from the 1990s. 

-- Jeffrey Goggin, February 5, 2000 

How about a used Contax G1 ? Its great little camera for you pocket, jacket that is. A 

little on the heavy side but if you want creative controls with interchangable lenes, this is 

it. I just wish Contax will make another pancake lens like their 45 f2.8 for it. 

-- William Song, February 18, 2000 

Always wanted a quality point and shoot camera to take on trips instead of lugging the 

old Nikon N90 or Canon EOS 1 but was't sure which one to buy. I just bought TWO 

quality point and shoots, a Leica Minilux and Nikon 35TI to compare and get the feel. I 

can only keep one but since I bought them used, I'm sure I can always sell the one I don't 

want at auction. My choice after 3 rolls of film? It's the Nikon 35TI. First, I wear glasses 

and they must have gone all out to make the Leica Minilux viewfinder as small as 

possible and I like to see shutter speeds in the viewfinder to know what I'm doing. That 

only gave me one choice, the 35TI. As far as the pics, both were about equal, perhaps the 

Leica may be a tad sharper but, in my opinion, the "feel" and handling of the Nikon was 

better and I can see what I'm pointing at. Anybody want to be a nearly new Leica? 

-- Jim Gemmill, February 28, 2000 

Yashica T4 Super. I have had it for several months, shot about 30 rolls of print film and 

couple rolls of Fuji Astia 100 (slide film, if you want to know what it is). I have only one 

word about it; this small camera is GREAT! Most of my pictures taken with T4 were 

enlarged up to 8x12". Slides were properly exposed and very sharp. Properly used "spot" 

meter allows me to cope with pretty tricky light conditions (like sunset in the mountains). 

Just aim camera at something with intermediate brightness (camera set at infinity mode), 

hold shutter button half pressed, recompose the picture, and shoot. Used with Kodak 400 

CN (black & white film for C41 process, you can develop it in any one-hour minilab) 

camera shines with it's highly detailed contrasty images, even in murky light conditions 

(overcast winter day, for instance). I heard that people report inconsistent autofocus with 

T4 resulting in blurry images. It never happened to me. In fact, my second camera 

Olympus Stylus, which was purchased last year CONSTANTLY blurs two-three frames 

in each shot roll. Camera was sent back to Olympus and they returned it with verdict 

"camera is absolutely functional"... The superscope in T4 is another great feature. 

Overall: My hat is off. T4 Super is waterproof, quiet camera with excellent Carl Zeiss 

optics. Great buy for $150. 

-- Yuriy Vilin, March 22, 2000 



Interesting ideas, Ian. But I'd like to see your pictures first. 

-- Yuriy Vilin, March 30, 2000 

I must say that I respectfully disagree with the preceeding diatribe against point and 

shoots. As has been pointed out elsewhere, a camera is a tool. A wise artisan will learn 

the strengths and weaknesses of that tool, and adjust accordingly. 

My own P&S experience has been most rewarding. First of all, if you view it as simple 

tool that can be used (with experience, and planning and reading the @#$@($* manual) 

you CAN take great shots. I know that some of my all time favorites were taken with an 

Olympus Stylus Epic. Framing, composition and having the maturity to realize that 

you're not going to get every shot, are part of the P&S experience. Also, if you have the 

camera with you, you can use it. A P&S, especially one with a spotmeter, that's with you 

beats all the fancy stuff sitting on the shelf at home. 

It's equally true that a T4 or a Stylus Epic aren't, and won't be, a good substitute for a 

good quality SLR under every circumstance. Or even some circumstances. When I really, 

absolutely, positively have to be cetain of getting the picture, (like, say, confirmations, 

graduations, etc), I do use the old SLR. But the P&S can go in the briefcase, glovebox, 

etc. I mean, how can you get that picture of Elvis without a camera. 

-- Bob Yates, March 30, 2000 

Amen, Bob. 

If you know how to use a P&S, you can indeed get some gorgeous pictures -- and my 

experience has been that these little cameras succeed much more than they fail. 

And, as others have pointed out, they keep getting better all the time. In the last decade, 

point and shoot cameras have taken a quantum leap forward in size, design, and optics. 

(You wouldn't have seen something like the Epic in 1990.) More of us can carry them 

more easily to more events, and thus get more shots we would have otherwise missed. 

And that's what puts the POINT in "point and shoot" cameras, isn't it? 

These cameras are tools, designed for capturing moments on the fly. But someone with a 

little patience and persistance can also use them to more creative advantage -- and the 

results can be rewarding, indeed. 



-- Greg Kandra, March 31, 2000 

If you believe Ian Cruikshank's comment just above, then you must conclude that the 

images produced by practitioners like Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, etc. etc. -- all 

produced by cameras with small viewfinders and slow lenses (old Leicas, mostly) -- are 

by definition uninteresting. That doesn't make sense. For that matter, a Yashica T4 is a 

better producer of images than a Leica IIIF! Better lens, w/ better film in it than was 

available in the old days. 

That doesn't mean it has all the advantages, however. The viewfinder is small, and I can't 

adjust its focus to my (increasingly) bleary eyes. And, I'm never quite sure of the frame 

I'm seeing. So, I'm looking for a used Hexar (black, please). I also shoot with an old 

Olympus 35SP and a Canonet GIII -- autoexposure, manual focus, sharp lens, made in 

the '70s, the Canonet even has moving frame lines for parallax compensation. 

Sitting in a big, heavy camera bag are my EOS Elan and EOS 620, my (very sharp) 28- 

105 USM, my 50 1.8 and a 19-35 zoom which isn't sharp but hey it sees interesting 

things. Why do they sit in the bag? You know why. They are heavy, intrusive devices. 

You can do great things with them, but if you shoot in a world full of people who you 

would prefer to remain unconscious of and undisturbed by your picture-taking, an SLR 

ain't the ticket. 

-- Tom Mandel, April 4, 2000 

Does anyone know anything about the Lomo camera? I have heard great things about the 

portability and creativity of this camera, but wanted to get some more opinions from 

some more "serious" users. One thing that sounded really interesting about it was that it 

was not fully automatic, allowing a lot of leeway for creativity. 

Thoughts? 

-- RF Briggs, April 4, 2000 

I loved the article! I just bought a Contax T2. My Nikon and it's 28-200 zoom is flying 

out the window! Phil Greenspun just answered why my photos lacked 'zing!' I learned a 

LOT from Phil, certainly enough to improve my photography and my equipment. 

THANK YOU, Phil! 

-- Hernan Mapua, April 7, 2000 

Fascinating comments on point and shoot cameras, SLRs etc, and an excellent site by 



Phil. As a newcomer to computers and the net but a camera nut since childhood, here are 

a few comments which may be useful (cf main site feedback): Cruikshank's comments 

seem elitist and unnecessarily inflammatory. I agree with all viewpoints. Surely the 

objective is the same: to create the best possible pictures by the simplest means - 

incidentally, the same philosophy which guided Oskar Barnack to invent the Leica. Thus 

the search for the ideal P&S seems perfectly valid. Phil is bang on. I agree, turn off the 

flash. It ruins mood lighting. I would like to see a P&S with an accessory flash and a 

bigger viewfinder - the bigger the better. How many pix to take? A film of one subject? 

Just one? Up to the individual. The goal should be to produce really good, memorable 

pictures. Thoughtfulness, not just firing off pictures as fast as possible, is the key. 

Comments on pre-focusing are helpful. Watching exposure is also critical. Even tilting 

the camera up to the sky to decrease exposure or down to the ground to increase 

exposure, then locking it in by half depressing the shutter (assuming your camera has no 

compensation) can help. Watch you don't throw the focus out of whack. Yes, a good 1.8 

50mm lens on an SLR is an excellent choice for some pictures, but the SLR is still bigger 

and more fiddly - it is! And the moving mirror makes it very hard to hold the camera still 

below 1/30th sec. A rangefinder camera is a better choice for low light (no blackout 

either). I do find heavier cameras are more stable at slow speeds though - perhaps why 

readers on this site still like the good old classic cameras. Not just Leica, though if you 

buy one I'm sure you won't be disappointed. Have you tried an Olympus 35RC for 

example? Not perfect but very capable. This feedback is useful, both to users and 

hopefully the camera industry. It's up to us photographers to tell them what we want! 

David Killick, Christchurch, New Zealand. 

-- David Killick, April 21, 2000 

Ian, just relax. If you don't use P&S thats your problem. Just leave this discussion along 

and let people choose their own path in photography. Your opinion is just one of 

hundreds and not valid in amateur photo world. I have lots of friends "amateurs" using 

all kinds of cameras (P&S, SLR, view cameras, rangefinder cameras...) at the same time 

with a great success and great pleasure. And, if you are a "professional", you do not need 

to read comments on this site. 

-- Yuriy Vilin, April 28, 2000 

Good point, Yuriy. Someone who clearly has no respect for point and shoot cameras -- 

and, in fact, expresses nothing but disdain for them -- has no business posting in a forum 

designed to help people use them better. What's the point? To make everyone feel bad? 

Or just to show off? 

-- Greg Kandra, April 28, 2000 



Does it matter what camera you use or even if you use a camera at all? I certainly don't 

always use a camera. I do photomontage and photograms and I also create pinhole inages 

and digital work. THe fact of the matter is if an image is of any depth at all. Is the image 

good? Pretty soon we might all be using digital or maybe photography won't be 

fashionable anymore. Unlikely, but feasible. 

Image: mike - pinhole school.jpg 

-- Mike Rossiter, April 30, 2000 

The Lomo camera is great, but it really depends on what you are looking for. It does 

colors very nicely and has a fast f2.8 lens. It tends to vignette a bit and it has many quirks 

about it. I like it because it's different, not 'technically' better. I already have a Nikon for 

my 'main' sharp photos, but I carry the Lomo around as a snap camera. I like the unique 

look it provides, as well as the unique feel of it. But it's certainly not for everyone. 

If you are looking for a more everyday snap camera that takes good sharper pictures, I'd 

recommend you take a look at the Olympus Stylus Epic (under US $100.!). The non 

zoom version has a fast f2.8 lens and produces quite nice images. I've used the Yashica T- 

4 Super as well, and it was very sharp, however not f2.8 as I recall. [I tend to like faster 

lenses since I don't like using flash on a point and shoot]. I like the build quality and 

ergonomics of the Yaschia better than the Olympus though. 

-- T T, May 17, 2000 

OK, to Ian and anyone else who doesn't see Point and Shoots as a respectable camera to 

use, I'm an undergrad photo major at Harvard and Nan Goldin taught here for a semester 

last year and she was a big advocate of the T4 (she also shoots with a Leica (non-point 

and shoot)) and under her advice, I bought a T4 and my photography changed for the 

better immediately. I had been shooting with a Nikon N70 with a 35mm, f2 Nikkor lens 

and for awhile, I was using both cameras because I didn't trust the T4 so I could compare 

the two and the $150 T4 was so much better than the $700+ Nikon SLR outfit I had. 

Technically, the T4 images were pinpoint sharp where the Nikon images weren't as 

sharp. I've had friends take 35mm slides taken with the T4 enlarged to 30x40 

cibachromes and had the sharpness hold extremely well. The fill flash is also amazing 

and the 1 second exposure without a flash lends to some really great images in lowlight. 

With a point and shoot, you begin to think more about the essentials to what make a good 

photograph, the photographic image itself. Henri Cartier-Bresson's negatives were 

terribly underexposed because he didn't care about every image being technically perfect 



as long as the photograph had a perfect image. Cartier-Bresson is arguably a much better 

photographer than Ansel Adams (I'm sorry but the amount of people who have your print 

in their downtown office building does not determine your greatness). When that 

'decisive moment' does occur, I'd much rather have my instant point and shoot than 

fumble with exposure and focus and miss that moment. No, matter how good you are 

with an SLR, you'll never be faster than a point and shoot. 

I've discovered that my subjects react differently to a point and shoot than to an SLR. It's 

nice to still see the face of the person photographing you and with my T4, I've gotten 

much more intimate portraits. There's just less of a barrier between you and the person 

you're photographing. I can carry my T4 everywhere, even to the beach where I wouldn't 

trust my Nikon. Sand has actually gotten into my T4 and I've been OK. I've run around in 

the rain in it, waded in pools with water inches below my camera, I've dropped the T4 on 

the ground once when I was drunk, and it still works like a charm. The unbelievably low 

price also allows me to not worry about it as much. I carry it around in my backpack or 

pocket without fear and literally have it everywhere I go. You never know when a perfect 

photographic moment can come. I actually own two T4s now so I can have two different 

slides films available at all times, an ASA 50 or 100 Fujichrome or Agfachrome for 

outdoor stuff, and a 200 ASA Kodachrome for indoor lighting... this way I don't have to 

run through a roll before switching films (I'll never be forced to use Velvia 50 inside in 

low light now). 

I'll still use my SLR once in awhile but getting good at a point and shoot is what every 

photographer should learn how to do before they really consider themselves good. It just 

adds such a different level to their photography skills. I'm sure some of Nan Goldin's 

photographs that are hanging up in the Whitney right now or selling at Matthew Marks 

for thousand of dollars were taken with her T4. When you can take a museum-worthy 

photograph with a $150 point and shoot, that's when you know you're really good. 

My two cents, Jeff 

-- Jeff Sheng, May 22, 2000 

Pretty heady stuff here, especially considering the subject of "point & shoot." For me, 

one of the great joys of photography is the ability to "capture and record" the moment. 

Something you can look back on a few years from now and enjoy. 

Currently, I own a Pentax ZX-10, which takes great pictures for me. I recently purchased 

an Olympus Stylus Epic and have been both pleased and frustrated with the results. (In 

other words, still learning its capabilities and limitations.) But I learned basic 

photography on a "gasp" Olympus focus-free Trip MD camera (about 40 bucks in 1987). 

This was/is a true "point & shoot" camera. 



Here's why: Because I didn't have to think about aperture and shutter speed, I learned 

how to compose a good photograph quickly. I learned how to balance subject with 

background. (Had to, DOF was 4 feet to infinity and background was ALWAYS a 

factor.) I learned about lighting and how to make the best use of the on-camera flash and 

other light sources. Most important, I learned what this basic camera wouldn't do and 

tried to figure out possible ways around it. Are these photos worthy of publication? 

Doubtfull, but I do enjoy looking at them immensely. Quality? I have to say, I had a 

couple blown up to 8X10 and they're quite sharp - even to the edge. But the one edge this 

camera has over the others, was the ability to pass it around to anyone in the room and 

get a decent framed (80%), focused (99%) picture. All I ever had to say was "just push 

the button." 

Here's the best argument for a point and shoot I can think of, and it relates to Phil's MIT 

graduation "being there" theory. I went to a convention in New Orleans a few years back. 

During an off day, I went around with my Pentax SLR and took some beautiful shots of 

the city and surroundings. Later that night, I had the point & shoot in my pocket and had 

pictures taken at dinner with old friends, on Bourbon St. with colleagues I hadn't seen in 

years, heck - I even ran into my ex-wife and posed with her while someone snapped the 

moment! That camera was passed around while people were enjoying themselves and the 

pictures refect that. 

Now when company comes over, I like to show off the photos of the city, but guess 

which ones I personally enjoy looking at more? Would those taken with the P&S have 

looked better had I used the SLR with the controls and better lense? - well, the one's I 

took early in the evening - probably. But the ones taken as the night went on, plus all the 

ones I'm in? - I really doubt it. 

My point is, don't underestimate the uniqueness and allure of the snapshot. They capture 

great moments. And point and shoots capture great snapshots. 

-- Jack Kratoville, July 23, 2000 

Hello! My experience with the P&S. Atention!!! I shot with print films. 

I tried 6 Big Mini cameras (BM 202. The first camera of the Big Mini series) Metallic 

body. 

First camera: Corners and side edges of the photogram (mainly the left one), completely 

fuzzy. 



Second camera: 50% of the completely fuzzy photogram!!! 

Third camera: idem!!! 

Fourth camera: A little fuzzy side superior and wild corners of the photogram. More 

fuzzy to f. 3,5 

Fifth and sixth camera: Lens: Very good of f.16 to f.5,6. Nevertheless, to f. 3.5 one slight 

fall of the sharpness from 15 mm of the photogram is appraised. Vignetting: Very slight. 

Distortion: Very sligth, in cushion. Exposure: Very good, CDS center weighted meter. 

Features: Very good: Flash Auto, Flash: Fill-in and Slow, (calibrated very well) 

Exposure compensation +1.5 and -1,5, Speed: 1/500 to 3.6 seconds (Excellent!!!). 25 to 

3.600 ASA. I have proven the Kodak Ektar 25 ASA, brutal sharp!!! And also 1.600 Fuji 

ASA, contrasts very high, but good sharp!!! 

Viewfinder: Good and clear. But does show a susceptibily to flare in extreme into-theligth... 

and the AF symbols cannot be watched... With less light the viewfinder is 

excellent. 

I make extensions of my negatives up to 18 cm by 26 cm. The result is excellent. My 

friends are surprised. The maximum of extension has been 30 cm by 40 cm. The also 

very good result. With my Big Mini (BM 202) I have made photos in all the possible 

conditions and results excellents: in the high mountain, in the snow, in the beach, in the 

grottos and warehouses very little illuminated. Very good nocturnal photos. (Speed 3.6 

seconds) 

Big Mini (BM 302): Same problem with the optics that my four first Big Mini!! 

I have tried 5 Olympus mju II (Stylus Epic) cameras: Apocalypse Now!!! Total 

disaster!!!! 

The first camera (Made in Japan!!!): excellent lens, but to f.2,8 slight but appreciable loss 

of sharp in the corners. Accurately AF. Accurately exposure. But him lack EV +1.5 and - 

1.5, The camara spoiled to the 30 days to use it!!!! 

Second camera: Horrible lens!!! (Parts Made in Japan, Assembled in Honk Kong!!!!) 

Third camera: More horrible lens!!! Defective AF. (Parts Made in Japan, Assembled in 

Honk Kong!!!) 

Fourth camera: When I extracted it of the box and I put the battery to him, it did not 

work correctly!!! Impossible to prove it!!!! (Made Parts in Japan, Assembled in Honk 



Kong!!!) 

Fifth camera!!!!: (Too Parts Made in Japan, Assembled in Honk Kong) Good optics (Not 

as good as the first Made in Japan) But AF vague. I to sell my Olympus mju II to a 

person less demanding than I. 

Pentax Mini Espio (UC1). Two proven cameras. No found problems. Viewfinder: 

Extraordinary, the best one of all the A & P!!! Lens: Very good. Nevertheless, to f. 3.5 

one slight fall of the sharp in the corners and edges; and also in the central inferior part 

(!). Versatility: Good, although not as much as the Mini Big (BM 202) 

Yashica T4. 20% of the photogram of the straight diffuse side!!!! 

Konica A4. (Second-hand, but new) I to buy by 22.5$. Good optical of f.16 to f.8-5,6 but 

to 3,5 mediocre: one slight fall of the sharp in all the photogram. Versatility: Normal. 

The Konica A4 is a "prototype" of the Big Mini(BM 202). The Mini Big, is far better. 

Leica Mini III: Impossible to prove it, the AF did not work... 

Zeiss Lomo LC1: Three bought cameras. The three spoiled in a year... Made in Est 

Contry: crap!!! 

Olympus, mju -1 (Stylus USA) (first mju series). Serious problems of sharp in the edges 

of the photogram. 30% to each side of the blurred photogram!!! 

Olympus XA with unit of Flash A11. I to buy used to 58$. Excellent, robust, very good 

features, in many aspects the best one of all. The very good optics in all the diaphragms. 

But of f.2,8 to f.5,6, very appreciably vignetting. The cause is the design of the objective: 

invested retrofocus. Of the best thing of years ' 80. 

I have been continuing using my old Big Mini (BM 202) for 8 years!!! No problems. 

And my brother also has a Big Mini (BM 202) and he is amazed. 

I to be crazy if I want to obtain the same optical quality with a A&P that with a good 

optics SLR. (Nikkor, Canon, Zeiss, Leica, etc.) Only good optics SLR, is worth 2 or 3 

times more than a Mini Big, or T4, or a Olympus mju II, It is impossible!!! If your you 

obtain equal quality with P & S that with a SLR (Nikkor, Canon, etc.), you must to bomb 

the factory of Nikkor, Canon, etc.!!! 

The manufacturers of cameras P & S, design very well their cameras of the high range. 

With good specifications, but when they make the cameras, they forget to maintain the 

quality of his products!!! We are deceived by the manufacturers!!! The quality level of 



its products is discontinuous. If you have luck when to buy P & S, you can be very 

happy, but if you do not have luck when buying your P & S, you are very displeased and 

you have many frustrations. 

I have wanted to be brief. I have more information of other simpler cameras: Super 

Olympus AF 10 Super, Canon AF 7, Rollei Prego 35-70... 

Thank you very much and I wait for your answers. Excuse me, my English is very much 

deficient. 

Jose M. A. L. (Spain) 

-- José Manuel Alvarez López, August 3, 2000 

I've just discovered this site but have owned a T4 since 1996 when my local camera shop 

recommended it for size & image quality. 

I am umcomfortable though with the "buy a T4 or else!" sentiment I infer from this page. 

A person makes a picture, the camera just follows instructions! The T4 has a great 

lens....and that's it. 

I've come to the following conclusions based on my pictures with the T4: 

1) The lens produces sharp and detailed images(with exceptions - see 2&3) - better than 

zoom P&S. Sometimes the images are breathtaking. 

2) The exposure system is not very smart or directional. For example, 

Landscape/building shots can appear underexposed due to a bright sky. 

3) Frequently, say 5 pictures in every 36, the Autofocus system fails to lock onto the 

foreground images 

4) The Fill in flash has a limited range - group portraits only work when there are 2 or 3 

people close to the camera. 

5) Film winding mechanism is dodgy in extreme humid conditions - fails to wind on 

after taking a picture, or catch on when loading new film. 

Summary: It's a great camera for image quality but, lens aside, is cheap and cheerful with 

regards to everything else - and when one element fails (i.e. exposure) so does the 

picture! 



Finally, I feel spoilt by the Zeiss lens and unable to sacrifice this quality for more the 

creativity that an SLR would give me on my limited budget (£400ish). 

-- Neil Cooke, December 20, 2000 

As several people have pointed out, P&S cameras have their own advantages that make 

them a tool that every photographer should possess. I have several cameras ranging from 

a Mamiya M645-1000s and Canon F-1N, to a Nikon Coolpix 990 and Pentax Zoom 90- 

WR. Of the five photographs that I've chosen to upload to Photo.net to date (I'm a 

relaitvely new user), it turns out that two of them were shot with the Pentax! I simply 

wouldn't have gotten the shot without it, because there are so many circumstances where 

I refuse to lug around a big rig. 

Photography is so much more than Zeiss lenses and rock-solid tripods supporting 8-bywhatever 

cameras that cost enough to feed a family in India for three years. It's all about 

the image, and the vision one utilizes to produce that image. 

Just as someone who actually goes out and *rides* a bike a lot can jump on a garage 

hoopty beater-bike and beat the pants off the neighbor down the block with the $5K 

titanium wonder bike, anyone can produce an image of worth with practically any 

camera/film/format. Just take a look at the pinhole camera section... 

Cheers! 

-- Jeff Warner, March 8, 2001 

If you are looking for a great quality P&S at a decent price, I recommend the Minolta 

Explorer Freedom Zoom. Yes, I have seen a few comments about its reliability but I have 

experienced none of that. I bought my Minolta 2 years ago and it has given me some 

great pictures. I have found that using a tripod produces excellent pictures as well as also 

using the prefocus. I wouldn't trade my little Minolta for any other P&S at this point. 

Jeffrey from Nashville 

-- Jeffrey B, April 19, 2001 

On Phil's "a good roll is 35 bad shots of the same subject and 1 good one" idea.... 

Digital P&S is ideal for this. 

With my Fuji Finepix 2400 and a 32 Mb card I can waste 70 something hires shots and 

not spend a cent. 



Where this pays huge dividends is in family shots. You simply cannot compose great 

shots of kids. You have to take them when and where they happen. 

P&S is great for that in that your grab camera, set up and shoot time is minimal. Digital 

is great because you can point and shoot and not cry over the waste when the kid 

suddenly runs out of frame between the press and the click. 

Besides, do you really want that hugely expensive SLR anywhere near mud coated, sugar 

encrusted, water flinging, tantrum throwing littles? 

Even just for pure experimentation, the digital is fun. 

-- John Carter, April 20, 2001 

I have mainly taken pictures with point-shoot cameras (whether using 35mm, APS or 

digital; and whether equipped with a zoom lens or not) and I find that you cannot just 

"point and shoot" your pictures. When I take pictures with these cameras, I make each 

shot a four-stage shot. First I make a "rough composotion" of what I want to capture. 

This is when I would operate the zoom control and, if using an APS camera or other 

"multi-aspect-ratio" camera, decide what aspect ratio suits the image I want to capture. 

Then I make sure that one of the key features is in the centre of the viewfinder. At this 

point, I then press the shutter release halfway and make sure that the "ready" lamp glows. 

Then I revert back to my original composition to finally take the picture. 

Some people think that using anything other than an SLR with total manual control 

offends creativity and "proper technique". But these compact cameras encourage users to 

concentrate on what they are to photograph, rather than spending time fiddling with the 

camera. 

There was also a time when I attended a wedding and took plenty of pictures with my 

Canon SureShot Zoom S compact camera. One of the shots that I thought about setting 

up was one of the bride about to climb into the wedding car (a mid-1970s Jaguar)after 

the ceremony. The professional photographer who was hired for this job didn't think 

about this as a possible wedding shot. But I organized the shot and he and I took it on our 

equipment. Later on, after the big day, I had the negatives from the wedding scanned to 

Photo CD and showed what I took of the wedding to the bride and I didn't realise that she 

was totally dissatisfied with the pictures taken by the professional photographer. She 

realised that I had some of the best pictures and I organised reprints of those pictures. 

Another good example was the one that I took of the "giving away the bride" procession 

with her with her father. She preferred my shot over the "official" shot; and I printed this 

shot off the Photo CD master using my computer and printer. 



-- Simon Mackay, June 25, 2001 

I agree with Mr. Carter's comment regarding the digital P&S and would like to point out 

that a digital P&S can also be a wonderful tool for teaching photography. I bought A Fuji 

2400 for my 13 year old daughter who has been interested in photography for several 

years. Digital gives her immediate feedback,approximately the same set of constraints 

and features as a film-based camera and virtually unlimited resources for 

experimentation at an amortized price of pennies a shot. 

We can do "assignments" together, each using our own camera, and compare results onthe-spot, 

to see what worked and what didn't and in many cases, reshoot immediately to 

emphasize the point. This appears to be a very effective method. We both learn a lot. 

-- Lyndon Guy, July 18, 2001 

Well thats done it! I had to make a choice between taking my 1959 Praktica IV SLR (and 

limited experience) my Fuji digital or purchase a P&S for my Holiday to the Dominican 

Rep next week. I felt I had to go with the Yashica T5 after the positive feed back from a 

considerable knowledge base(you lot!).I'm taking 200 film and I'm looking foward to 

grabing some great moments in time. I've decided not to take my Fuji digital camera for 

the simple reason that I seem to edit too many pictures out. I want lots of memories of 

this trip rather than a few well composed ones. 

-- Dave Hands, August 12, 2001 

One of the most important concepts to remember with P/S, rangefinder and SLR cameras 

is that each lens has its own personality. I have a Yashica FX-103 SLR with three lenses, 

a Yashica MG-1 rangefinder with a fixed 45mm lens, a Canonet QL-19 with a fixed 

45mm and an Olympus Accura with a 35-70mm zoom. I also have used several versions 

of Canon Sureshots and a couple of digitals. The sharpness varies much less than the 

overall color tone and esoteric "feel" of the images each produces and each lens' 

personality is consistent over the long haul. To sum it up, I say don't waste any time and 

energy quibbling over which format is best (a subjective term anyway) and use them 

all!!! I think most serious amatuers would find a depth and richness to their hobby that 

would never be there without experimenting with different cameras and most importantly 

different lenses. 

I love the advice in this article. To add my own bit to the piece, I'd have to say, when 

using a point and shoot, treat it as though you're holding a Leica. Think before you shoot. 

Overthink until great composition and desired effects become second nature to your 

technique. Above all, enjoy it and develop a wide array of styles. I'm glad I did. 



-- Tony Samples, November 23, 2001 

Bit the bullet, bought a yashica T4 super through the classifieds here. $130 from Toronto, 

brand new in box with warranty. Dis-satisfied with the puny flash, although I do like all 

the flash options. Bought a Konica flash bracket with built-in sensor, specifically 

designed for point and shoot cameras. Best $30 I have ever spent, also through these 

classifieds. Went to Washington DC and spent the day at the Air and Space Museum and 

burned 11 rolls of film between my new point and shoot and my old Canon AE1- 

Program with a 50mm lens (vs the 35mm on the Yashica). Used the same flash for both 

cameras. On the point and shoot bracket, the upright hot shoe portion is placed slightly 

ahead of the front of the camera so that the built in sensor facing the side of the camera 

can tell when the on camera flash goes off and then fires the main flash. (Vivitar 285). 

On the Canon set up, I have an old Roberts bracket (also bought here) which places the 

flash in approximately the same position relative to the lens but I used a sync cord with 

that. I had to guess on what to set the 285 flash on using 400 ASA film on the Yashica 

T4 Super. (Yeah, I know, but it's a big space with lots of stuff, and it's not for their 

magazine, but my trip album) So, I set the flash on Red, which gave me the equivalent f4 

and about 30 feet or so, plus whatever the P&S flash added. They don't allow tripods 

anymore, so I had my improvised monopod which is eyebolts screwed into the tripod 

sockets of the brackets with nylon rope attached, dangling down about 6 feet, and then I 

step on the end, marked with a black stripe, pull up to tension it, adjust the height of the 

viewfinder and get a nice, steady picture. Albeit some very strange looks and an 

occasional inquiry as to why. I think you will see more of these around, maybe... (God, 

he do go on don't he?) Bottom line, I shot several pictures with and without main flash on 

the point and shoot. These were not bounced, but direct! The difference was astonishing. 

I shot a panoply of large aircraft that hang in the main hall, using only the on-camera 

flash and with the automatic backlight compensation working perfectly (I was shooting 

against a 50'x200' window in sunlight), I got some crystal clear, dark outlines with some 

detail from the closest plane, a Ford Tri-Motor. You could see the propeller, but not 

much detail on the fuselage. Then I used the big flash on the bracket with the point and 

shoot. You could see every detail of the fuselage, the front engine, the landing gear, also 

the nose of the plane 30 feet behind was perfectly visible and the colors and some of the 

detail of the others, 50+ feet away were also visible. Then I shot another pair of an X-15 

rocket plane with the Wright Brother's Flyer framed under it's wing. The nozzle of the X- 

15 was approximately 8 feet from the camera. Without add flash, the rocket plane was 

perfectly exposed, but the Flyer was a little dim. With added flash, the X-15 tail section 

was over-exposed, the Flyer was perfectly crisp and clear. Some thoughts: My Vivitar is 

a semi-manual flash, not TTL If you are going to use a manual flash, try to find out what 

the largest opening would be for your point and shoot when using flash. Since the 

Yashica has a f3.5 lens, f4 on the flash would match OK, provided you were going to 

illuminate further than 15-30 feet or more. Point and shoots tend to open their lenses as 

wide as possible and control the exposure through shutter speed, the print film can handle 

the added light just fine. The offset of the supplementary flash also tends to eliminate 



some of the shadows caused by the on-camera main flash. The entire set up is easy to 

hold, but looks strange, since my flash is heavier and bigger than the actual camera. I 

love the T4 Super! Pain in the ass trigger sensitivity, that can be mastered with some 

training, crystal clear images, edge to edge, I have not noticed any vignetting. Hate the 

lens racking, focusing and shutter trip delay, but, again, training helps (and my step on 

monopod. The AE1-Program took superb pictures, as expected, I have used it for 20 

years, but considering the weight and the bulk, I will be using my T4 for most of my 

vacation stuff and light shooting duties. The slave flash bracket, judicious use of the 

flash, based on your distances and the ease of the T4 focusing has made a believer out of 

me. If you want to take superb group shots with natural color and none of the startled 

deer look, try using this type of fill flash to bounce off a white ceiling. My new sister in 

law preferred my candid pictures to the pro with the high bracket and Mamiya camera, 

although not in all instances, to be honest. (Why he didn't bounce and fill, I don't know) 

-- Peter Tower, December 31, 2001 

I use a 5 yr old Olympus Stylus and love the results but I've found that these cameras can 

take terrible pics if you don't Think. Since P&S cameras are marketed to the simpletons 

among us I came up with a nice acronym (no Thinking involved) to help my spouse 

shoot the occasional picture of the primary household photog (ME). I call it the "Three 

F's". One, set the Flash (usually OFF or Fill). Two, Focus the camera by pointing it 

EXACTLY where you want it to focus then push halfway. Three, Frame the shot and 

shoot it. (I could probably add a fourth F, as in FILL UP the FRAME if you're shooting 

FOLKs) The 3F's seem to work well for my 5 year old son too. Teach your friends the 

3F's and they'll take better pics of YOU... 

-- Mark Atwell, February 11, 2002 

I had a Yashica T4 super for about 4 years. Yes it was compact, weather proof, and fairly 

accurate with AF and AE. I sold it, and bought a Olympus 35SPn with a Zuiko 7 element 

42mm 1.7 lens. Sweet. This is a much slower camera to operate (manual focus). 

Although it does do AE, I bought it to use it mainly in manual mode, spot meter, and of 

course MF. It is one tough (metal) camera. Very, very versatile... it slows me down and 

makes me think more about where I meter and what pinpoint I want to focus on. My 

Hexar gives me the best of both worlds... P&S and total manual. But I've been toying 

with the Olympus more lately and it's a gas. The flash system uses incorporates GN and 

distance automatically therefore really accurate flash exposure (with ISO 100... anything 

else and don't forget to change the guide no on the lens setting accordingly) Add to the 

mix a cheap mechanical cable release, no AF focus resetting between pictures, and 

almost no lag time between shutter release and firing, and flash sync to 1/500 and ability 

to use hot shoe or PC cord studio flash. I guess I was lucky... the SPn that I have is the 

last model produced... pristine condition, with everready case also in pristine condition 

and a new mecury battery and a great flash to boot. I miss the waistlevel finder of the T4 



super though... 

-- David Bindle, February 14, 2002 

Add a comment | Add a link 



Use | Privacy 


This vendor supports photo.net. 


Cleaning Cameras 




http://www.photo.net/learn/cleaning-cameras (1 of 19) [5/15/2002 7:15:53 PM] 


Contents: 

1. Top 

2. Lenses 

3. SLR mirrors 

4. Flash Contacts 

5. The Camera Body Itself 

6. War Stories 

7. Gallery 

8. If all else fails... 

Reader's Comments


Remember that your camera is just a tool. Don't pamper 

it. You can always buy a new one. If you leave your 

camera in a closet, it will never get dirty or broken, but 

you won't have too many great photographs to show for 

yourself. Many of the best photographs can only be 

taken under conditions that will render your equipment 

wet and/or filthy. That's life. 

The photo at right was the result of spending six hours 

at the bottom of a canyon in the Navajo Nation. For the 

entire six hours, sand blew down from the top of the 

canyon and into my $20,000 Rollei 6008 system. Was 

there a sickening grinding sound when I focussed my 

$3000 50mm lens for the next few months? Yes. Did I 

have to send the camera back to Marflex (Rollei's US 

service) to be cleaned? Yes. Did the camera get stolen 

in Filthadelphia a couple of years later? Yes. So it really 

didn't make sense to obsess over the camera, did it? I can still enjoy this picture even if I can't use my 

6008 anymore. If I'd pampered the camera, it would just be in that much better shape for the crook who is 

using it now. 

Lenses 

Basic lens cleaning tools are a blower, a microfiber cloth, and lens 

cleaning fluid. Try to blast dust off the lens with the blower or 

canned air. Finger prints can be removed with a circular wipe of the 

new miracle micro fiber cloth (my favorite brand is Pentax because 

it is nice and thick; about $6). Persistent dirt should be removed 

with lens cleaning fluid, of which the safest is probably Kodak. 

Always drip the fluid onto the cloth and then wipe the lens; 

never put fluid directly onto a lens. My personal favorite is 

Residual Oil Remover, available in many camera shops for about 

$4. 

Even if your lenses don't look dirty, every few months you should give exposed surfaces a cleaning with 

Residual Oil Remover (ROR). Even if you were able to protect your optics from all environmental 

sources of filth, there would still be crud condensing on your optics as camera bag plastics outgas. ROR 

has a bunch of advertising hype about how you can get a full 1/2 stop of extra brightness from your lenses 

after a treatment. I haven't experimentally verified this nor do I believe it, but the optics do look visibly 

clearer after an ROR treatment. 

I don't like to obsess over my equipment, so I keep a B+W UV filter on almost all of my lenses. I count 

on replacing the filters every few years rather than being paranoid all the time. 

SLR mirrors 

http://www.photo.net/learn/cleaning-cameras (2 of 19) [5/15/2002 7:15:53 PM]


Don't even think about cleaning the mirror in your SLR. Maybe, just maybe, 

you could consider using a handheld blower to move a few dust specs off, but 

canned air is too powerful. Technicians clean mirrors with some kind of special 

viscous fluid and will often do it for free at camera clinics run by shops or 

conventions. Mirrors have very fragile surfaces and I wouldn't dream of getting 

near them with a standard lens cleaning solution or cloth. 

Remember: the dirt in your viewing system isn't going to show up on film. 

Flash Contacts 

Modern TTL flash systems have numerous contacts and if you don't clean them 

every now and then with a pencil eraser or something, you can be fairly sure of 

getting intermittent failures. 

The Camera Body Itself 

Camera and lens bodies are fairly well sealed against dust and 

moisture. So you don't really ever have to clean the exteriors of your 

equipment. On the other hand, if you don't want the dirt and crud 

that is on the camera body to work its way into your camera bag and 

from there onto an optical surface, it is probably worth wiping off 

the body with a soft cloth. Slightly dampening the cloth with plain 

water certainly won't do any harm, though I imagine that this 

wouldn't be Canon or Nikon's recommendation. 

War Stories 

I had a very interesting experience in New Zealand after smashing a UV filter on my Nikon 28AF lens. 

Gallery 

Here are some photos that I wouldn't have gotten if I'd been prissy about my cameras... 



From Samantha ... 

And from Italy ... 



If all else fails... 

If you got the picture but lost the camera in the process, you may need to visit one of the photo.net 

recommended retailers. 

[ top ] 

Hi, 


When shooting out, I always place some silica gel in my bag to get rid of excess moisture. I 

don't know how useful it can be but since the camera bag is not 'air-proof' and is lightproof, 

the potential for fungus growth is high. 

I use empty film containers and poke little holes in them, then pour enough silica gel into it. 

It is an easily refillable container and contains just about the right amount for a medium 

size bag. 

-- Angst Man, July 19, 1998 

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said. I'm reporting on Nikon information. The 

Manual - yes I do read it. It says, for glass surfaces such as lens; avoid using lens tissue. 

Use soft cotton moistened with pure alcohol. The Nikon consumer/tech reiterated that I 

read it right. "Use 100% pure methol alcahol. Con't use lens cleaners." Any comments from 

anyone? To be honest, I usually use one of the cloths you mentioned or a soft, clean 

bandana. I do know some filters from certain companies come with warn ings against using 

certain cleanrers, but by the time, I get ready to clean same, I've lost the instruction paper. 



-- M. Huber, August 25, 1998 

Reading from the Nikon F5 User Manual, page 151, it says: "Clean lens surface with a 

blower brush. To remove dirt and smudges, use a soft cotton cloth or lens tissue moistened 

with ethanol or lens cleaner" 

-- Rick --, October 25, 1998 

On microfiber lens-cleaning cloths, two recommendations. First, Herbert Keppler, who's 

been doing and writing about photography for more years than most of us have been alive, 

has some interesting thoughts (in the Dec. 98 Popular Photography, p. 25), in his brief 

piece entitled "Microdear microfiber cleaning cloths finally available in the U. S." Keppler 

says, "For years I have been raving about what I think are the best lens- and cameracleaning 

cloths anywhere--the Microdears, made in Japan by Etsumi Co. They are 

generously large and thick" but have been obtainable only in Japan. Now Adorama is 

importing them, in two sizes: 11"x11" for $10, and 14"x17" for $15. Keppler's piece also 

gives his own directions for their proper use: "Dust and light smudges are easily wiped 

away. To remove pronounced fingerprints or heavy, mucky stuff, breathe lightly on lens 

surface and immediately clean lens with light, circular motion of single-layer Microdear. 

Better yet, slightly moisten the edge of the Microdear cloth with lens-cleaning solution, 

alcohol, or, in an emergency, vodka. Then do your circular motion bit. Microdears are also 

great for cleaning outside surfaces of camera bodies and the like." Keppler claims that dirty 

Microdears "can be washed in soapy water" and when rinsed thoroughly and dried, "they'll 

be as good as new." 

Second, I like and recommend the Contax MicroStar microfiber antistatic lens-cleaning 

cloth, which is also generously large and thick. This is a top-quality lens-cleaning cloth. I 

bought mine for $15 from an Asian selling them at a camera show (mine is light green in 

color and says "CONTAX/Carl Zeiss T* Lenses" on the cloth; directions are in Japanese 

only). Sorry I can't tell you where to buy one. 

-- Dave Kemp, November 28, 1998 

Whenever I buy new shoes for my kids I grab the little silica gel pack from the shoe box 

and put it in my camera bag. I always have three or four of the little packs floating around 

in there. They lay flat in the bottom of the bag, so they don't take up space. The cameras 

stay dry and I have never had one tear or break open. Best of all they are free and easily 

replaceable. 

-- Dan Fordice, February 5, 1999 

I have had very dissappointing results with the cleaner that Phil recommends, Residual Oil 

Remover (ROR). I purchased a bottle recently, along with a pair of Wiko Microstar 



cleaning cloths. ROR's website recommends against using regular lens tissue, claiming that 

it is "not absorbant enough for ROR," so I sprayed this peculiar smelling chemical onto one 

of the Microstar cloths and wiped off the elements and filters of all of my lenses. 

After completing this process, however, I exhaled onto the elements to make sure that they 

were in fact perfectly clean. (A clean lens will fog uniformly, and any grease or fingerprints 

will appear quite distinctly.) I was very surprised to see all sorts of swirls and whatnot 

materialize on the elements. I polished of the fog and then tried again. They did appear 

somewhat cleaner this time, but nonetheless, the swirls persisted. 

Now you must realize that I am quite compulsive about my equipment, and especially the 

cleanliness of my optics, so, needless to say, I was somewhat perturbed. I accquired a 

flashlight, and, by the light reflected from the front element of the lens, distinct smears of 

grease or something could be detected. 

So I read the bottle. "Do not use with treated lens cloth." Well, Microstar is not treated 

(treated lens cloths being primarily of the anti-static type, such as Ilford's AntiStaticum), 

but perhaps this chemical was somehow breaking down the Microstar's synthetic fibers and 

leaving the residue on the lens. (I seriously doubted this, but it bore consideration.) Or, 

perhaps the cloth was simply dirty, and the oil ws being redeposited onto the lens. 

I washed out the Microstars and then used lens tissue with the ROR instead, hoping to 

eradicate my little problem, and guess what; the residue remained. However, a bit of 

ethanol diluted with water took the mysterious residue right off. Perhaps my bottle of ROR 

was defective, but I have since discarded it, and never plan to buy another. 

My recommendation? When you first accquire a lens, clean it with regular lens cleaner or 

diluted ethenol (NOT isopropyl, or rubbing, alcohol, but ethyl alcohol only). This is 

sufficiant to remove much grime that can accumulate on a lens (especially if it is used) and 

should be repeated periodically every four months or so. Remember, however, that 

overcleaning will eventually strip off the delicate coating of the elements. To minimize 

such damage, used canned air to blast dust and other abrasives off of the glass BEFORE 

rubbing a cloth of tissue over them. For intermediate cleaning, a microfiber cloth and the 

moist breath treatment are the safest approaches, and canned air is the easiest way to 

remove dust, especially on longer telephotos in which that rear element sits deep in the 

recesses of the barrel. 

-- Timothy Breihan, May 20, 1999 

I second the above negative experience with ROR (Residual Oil Remover) lens cleaner. I 

found it to work no better for most, and worse for many, types of lens contamination, than 

Kodak lens cleaning fluid. 



On a separate note, as per Keppler's recommendation in Pop Photo, I went to Adorama and 

bought the Microdear cloth, and found it to work very well. 

Alex Karasev 

-- Alexander Karasev, June 30, 1999 

I also noticed the slight swirls you get when using ROR, but it seemed to work well overall 

for cleaning. I just used it to clean a Canon 70-200 2.8 and a Sigma 170-500. After a year 

of taking the Sigma to the racetrack for horse racing photography, the lens' front element 

was so fouled with sand, dust, oil, etc that I was about to give up on it. Regular cleaning 

products like canned air and microfiber cloths did nothing to help it. After one ROR 

treatment, it was good as new! ROR even took off moisture spots that had appeared on the 

front coating. Sure ROR left a slight swirling pattern (only noticeable when viewed at an 

angle under flourescent light), but after some buffing with the microfiber cloth the swirls 

were pretty much gone. 

-- Derek Dammann, July 16, 1999 

A further comment on lens cleaners; since my last posting, I discovered a way to eliminate 

the greasy swirls that mysteriously appeared on my lens elements after a treatment with 

ROR. I have found that if you saturate a cotton facial pad with ROR, apply the liquid 

thickly to glass, and then immediately remove it with another dry pad, the swirls are 

eliminated or at least reduced to a degree at which a light buffing will remove them. 

The literature on Residual Oil Remover makes mention that certain tissues are "not 

absorbant enough for ROR..." My theory is, that since ROR apparently emulsifies oil, too 

much wiping simply redeposits the oil back on the glass. This is a somewhat half-assed 

explaination, and I'm not entirely convinced of its merit. What I am convinced of is that 

ROR seems a bit to fickle to warrant wasting my time with. I use others cleaners that work 

better. I would also ask if Phil has experinced any of the aforementioned difficulties, and, if 

so, could he please place a posting illustrating his solution. I would be interested in hearing 

additional insight. 

A final observation on Kodak lens cleaner. Reading the Contents label illustrates that it is 

simply ammonia diluted with water. I have often heard that ammonia is harsher on lens 

coatings than ethyl alcohol, and to my experience, does not work as well. (I use an alcohol 

based cleaner.) Does anyone have any insight here? Phil says that the New Zealander who 

extracted the glass fragments from his lens cleaned the glass with acetone, something I 

would never consider. Any comments? 

-- Timothy Breihan, August 24, 1999 



As far as Kodak Lens Cleaner, I read from the bottle that it is water and ammonium 

carbonate, which is different than household ammonia (ammonuium hydroxide). It seems 

to work OK, but I think most of the effect is that the water in the solution helps the tissue or 

cloth hold onto dust particles more effectively. As far as ethanol, Everclear is pure ethanol 

and is available at liquor stores in some states (Texas, Colorado, other he-man type places). 

Ethanol seems to dissolve oily spots beautifully, although the jury seems to be out on its 

effect on coatings. 

It would be useful to have some facts about what lenses are coated with and the reactivity 

of coatings with common cleaner ingredients like the above. I cannot imagine that 

condensed breath is totally non-reactive (especially if you've been drinking Everclear). 

-- Charles Mackay, September 5, 1999 

In my lab 100% ethanol and methanol are freely available and I use them to clean my lens 

all the time. Works great. Not a trace left. Methanol evaporates in seconds but it's toxic so 

be careful. 

-- Rocky Aaron, October 23, 1999 

Ethanol and cotton flannel are recommended by Nikon, so I doubt that they would harm 

lens coatings if used in moderation. If you are using Everclear, though, it might be a good 

idea to dilute it with distilled water, if for no other reason than to increase its evaporation 

time. That way, you can be sure to get all of the oil up with your cloth instead of having it 

remain on the lens as the ethanol evaporates. 

-- Timothy Breihan, November 8, 1999 

Since the above, having used ethanol denatured with methanol ("solvent alcohol") sold at 

my hardware store and the absorbent cotton that comes on rolls at local drugstore, I will 

never use anything else. After using dust-off, use one piece of cotton dampened with 

ethanol to remove dirt / oil / sludge, then dry with a fresh dry piece. (This technique is also 

advocated in one of Really Right Stuff's "white papers".) Lenses look absolutely like new, 

at least with Nikon glass. 

If you don't get all the crud off, the ethanol may leave a hazy residue (basically diluted crud 

that you have redistributed evenly around the lens). This happened to me once but a 

microfiber cloth removed it -- or you could just repeat the alcohol thing. 

-- Charles Mackay, November 17, 1999 

A quick note on the previous comment regarding ethanol-- ethanol not explicitly labelled 

200 proof has probably been denatured for tax reasons. While some ethanol is denatured 



with methanol, other denaturants which may be harmful to lens coatings include camphor, 

gasoline, benzene, acetone, ether, and kerosene (Merk Index, 11th ed., 1989). 

-- Dave Flanagan, February 2, 2000 

Don't forget to clean the insides of the lens cap too, and the back end of the lens as well 

might need cleaning. Also I have found that Zeiss lens cleaner cleaned even my dirtiest 

lens to a "like new" clean. thanks for all of the tips. 

-- Pat O'Neill, March 6, 2000 

For those folks who truly believe their "clean" lenses are clean, try this: grab a jewelers 

10X eye loupe and take a look at the lens. What appears to the naked eye as the cleanest 

looking lens will reveal its' true dirt, smudges, swirls, scratches, fungus and damage under 

a 10X eye loupe. Best to use a jewelers "triplet" eye loupe that's been designed for diamond 

grading with a black frame. They offer best color and image fidelity. The GIA sells them 

for about $70.00. 

(In fact, when you go shopping for a lens, bring the jewelers eye loupe with you. You'll be 

unpleasantly surprised at how many "new" lenses have surface defects, chips etc.) 

-- Marika Buchberger, March 19, 2000 

Just a note on blowers - don't pay a lot of money at a camera store for one. Instead go to 

your local pharmacy and purchase a rectal syringe, they do just as good a job for a lot less 

money. 

-- Ian Johnston, July 23, 2000 

As an alternative to cleaners and wipes, consider good ole scotch tape. Just use a small 

piece, touch it to your lens or filter and lift off. It removes oils, fingerprints, and dust 

without the potential of streaks or scratching or mess. I use it to clean the LCD screens on 

digital cameras. It works great, gets all the way up to the edge and will not scratch the 

sensitive (cheap) plastic screens. I have also, on occasion, used it to clean the mirrors on 

my SLR's. Nothings more annoying than a dust spec in the viewfinder. 

-- S.J. Polecat, August 11, 2000 

One observation I'd make about cleaning any sort of surface. Having some year of 

oexperience in cleaning residual contamination from surfaces being prepared for adhesive 

bonding on aircraft structures (where any trace oils would totally degrade the bond), it is 

traditional to use two cloths for solvent cleaning. The first one is soaked in the solvent and 

is used to dissolve the contaminant and put it in solution. The second, clean and dry cloth, 



is used to remove the solvent/contaminant solution remaining on the surface. These steps 

can be repeated if required using fresh cloths. 

For lenses, I would think a second step of treatment would suffice. What I can say from 

personal experience on lenses is that the Cokin lens cleaner seems to do a decent job when 

used with the two cloth approach. I always use the Kodak lens tissues and get few swirl 

patterns. 

In a pinch in the field, I've resorted to using a standard tissue (yuck) but followed that with 

a blow off brush to get rid of the inevitiable bits of fibre that deposit from the tissue. An 

imperfect solution, but sometimes an errant finger does actually get in front of my lens. 

Dave 

-- dave lawson, September 28, 2000 

Slide-Loc, OneZip... 

If your micro cleaning cloth or lens tissue has abrasives in it you may damage your lens. To 

protect the integrity of my cleaning materials I always carry them in Ziploc type bags. I 

especially like the ZipLoc, Slide-Loc and Hefty, OneZip bags. 

I find these bags are great for other things, for example quart size Ziploc Freezer bags are 

just the right size for 4x5 cut film holders. Charged and discharged batteries, exposed and 

unexposed film, lens hoods, camera manuals, etc. 

-- David H. Hartman, November 3, 2000 

just about the mirror cleaning i guess there is really no problem to keep it in good 

conditions cleaning it up with a soft pencil or that pencil ones you can mount in an air 

pump. 

-- oTTO zUCHIERI, November 26, 2000 

When you get that gray grunge buildup in the inscribed numbers on your lens' aperture dial 

or your shutter speed dial, try an old toothbrush dipped in any kind of alcohol. Shake off 

the excess, then go at it with a circular motion. The original paint will soon be shiny & 

bright. You can remove any left-over residue with a slighty-moist (H2O) tissue. This will 

also remove the crud from any other crevices on the camera. 

-- David Krewson, December 6, 2000 

Zeiss Lens Cleaner and old fashioned baby diapers. Makes the lenses "squeaky clean"!!! 



A note about the diapers: Make sure the diapers have been machine washed numerous 

times with NO fabric softener. Also, rinse them well in DISTILLED water to remove all 

residue. 

-- Marika Buchberger, December 29, 2000 

In my experience with cleaning multi-coated filters, optical glass can be cleaned to 

perfection with the following methods: 

1. Simple dust specks or lint: Use a blower bulb or blower bulb/brush. (obtainable at photo 

stores, chemical stores, pharmacies) Blow off the dust using the bulb. Sometimes a 

combination of brushing and then blowing works best. Make sure that if you use a brush, 

that it has never been in contact with anything oily, like your skin. If it has, you'll need to 

clean it with alcohol first. If you only have a blower and no brush, lightly knocking the dust 

particles loose with a clean 100% cotton cloth first, and then blowing works. In some cases, 

lint will be stuck in the rim of your filter. In that case, careful use of tweezers (I reccomend 

swiss army tweezers) to pull out the stuck lint. 

2. Dust, filmy residue, or specks: Use pure water (tap water is fine) with a 100% pure soft 

cotton cloth (a perfectly clean t-shirt is fine, but no cotton balls, they're too linty). In the 

case of mounted lenses, apply the water to the cloth. Then wipe the glass clean with the 

damp cloth, and then wipe dry with a dry part of the cloth. Do not let the water dry on it's 

own! 

In the case of filters, remove the filter from the lens, then hold the filter under the tap and 

rinse it completely with water, both sides, and then immediately begin to wipe the whole 

filter with cotton cloth until dry. If there is dust or lint left, go to method 1. 

3. Figerprints and oily residue: use ethanol and a 100% pure soft cotton cloth. A 95% 

ethanol, 5% isopropyl alcohol blend is perfect. This can be obtained from chemical supply 

stores. (I recommend tri-ess in Burbank, http://www.tri-esssciences.com) 

Apply the ethanol to the cloth and then wipe the glass with it. Make sure to dry it off 

completely using a dry part of the cloth. Do not let it evaporate without wiping. If there is 

residue, proceed to method 2. If there is only dust or lint left, proceed to method 1. 

4. If and ONLY IF there is a residue that could not be removed by methods 2 or 3, use a 

lens cleaner like Residual Oil Remover, ROR', and a 100% cotton cloth. Apply the lens 

cleaner to the cloth, wipe the glass with it, and then dry as best as possible. There will be a 

residue, so proceed to method 3. In general, filter manufacturers like Hoya, do not 

recommend use of lens cleaners. They say in some cases they can ruin the coatings. (That 

didn't happen though with my Hoya Super HMC UV(0)). 



What kind of pressure should you use when using the cotton cloth? The lighter the 

pressure, the better, but even medium pressure should not scratch your lenses or coatings, 

because cotton is soft. Don't press hard enough though for the glass to break! 

-- Eitan Adut, February 10, 2001 

I'm a bit surprised no-one's mentioned OptiClean for glass cleaning. Maybe it's not 

available outside the UK yet. 

Anyway, for those who don't know, it's a liquid polymer that you paint onto the lens and 

leave until it hardens. You then remove it by attaching a little sticky tab and pulling it off. 

Away comes the film along with every bit of gunge that was on the glass. 

It's quite expensive, but very good. It also doesn't rely on you having the right sort of cloth 

to remove it. 

-- Steve Rencontre, February 22, 2001 

I've used Kodak lens cleaning fluid with a Promaster cloth with squeaky clean success. The 

Promaster cloth is very absorbent, but I don't know what material it's made from (possibly 

cotton). I've tried the Microstar cloth, but found it to be not very absorbent, and sometimes 

left streaks. I always begin with gently blowing the lens off with some ReadRight 

compressed "air", then gently brushing it with a camel hair brush, blowing again, and then 

soaking the cloth fairly well with fluid, and gently dabbing the lens (and immediately dry it 

w/ cloth). I then use perhaps a drop of fluid on the cloth and gently wipe the lens down. 

There aren't usually any streaks due to the absorbency of the Promaster. If there are a few 

streaks, I just lightly buff the lens with the cloth, and in fact the resulting cleanliness is so 

thorough there's usually a slight squeaking here and there from the surface being spotless. 

I've tried Kodak disposable paper, but that just leaves damm streaks all over! Make sure 

your cloth is absolutely immaculate... PS: I just bought a Leland PowerClean Ultra Cloth 

which looks promising as well. 

-- James Allen, February 24, 2001 

Long ago, when I worked as a camera assistant on movie crews, I was taught to clean 

lenses with the three-tissue method: 1) Roll the first tissue into a fairly tight cylinder and 

tear it in half, then lay the two pieces side by side--the torn ends become the "bristles" of 

your lens brush ... point the lens down, and brush the grit off its face (if you don't point it 

down, you just push the grit around) then discard the tissue; 2) Bunch up the second sheet 

by grasping its corners and form a little wadded cushion ... put one drop (no more!) of lens 

fluid on it, and gently clean in a spiral motion from the center out, rotating the cushion so 

that a clean surface is constantly presented to the glass, then discard the second tissue; 3) 

Quickly (or you'll get waterspots from the fluid evaporating) bunch up the third tissue as 



you did the second, and dry and polish the glass in a spiral motion from the center 

outwards, then discard the tissue. Always clean your lenses gently--never scrub or rub hard. 

If you buy some lens tissue and you can hear it crackle when you wad it up, it's too stiff 

and harsh for your glass, so replace it. Before I start step two (above), I put the third sheet 

of tissue between my left ring and pinkie finger knuckles, so that it will be at hand 

immediately and waterspots won't form before I can dry the glass. Finally, keep a UV or 

1A filter over your lens all the time for protection (I know that's elementary but I'm a true 

believer, having replaced the filter four times on a lens I'm still using today) 

-- Donald Gentz, March 1, 2001 

Great Lens Cleaner! Regarding optics cleaning I have not tried ROR but there seems to be 

some dissatisfaction with it's use in some of the comments. For forty years I have found 

using liquid lens cleaners to be a horrendous experience, including alcohol, those from 

Kodak, etc. Recently I have found a totally satisfactory cleaner that actually makes the 

glass look clean! No swirls, residues, etc. In fact, the claim is that it removes all previous 

residual cleaner comtamination as well as normal oils and accumulations. This seems to be 

the case in my experience and it does it without special efforts. It is called Formula MC and 

it's website is at the bottom of these comments. I hesitate to use microcloths as the danger 

of reusing their surfaces poses a danger to my $1000 lenses even thought they work 

remarkably well. With Formula MC they are not needed or recommended. The safe method 

is to use two pieces of clean, unused lens tissue, a wet and a dry one, and the job is done in 

a minute or so with no threat to optics. I first blow away any dust from the surface, 

especially the crevices so I don’t dislodge any grit while cleaning, with a can of Dust-Off 

or similar product and perhaps a light blow at the finish to remove tissue lint. I do a test 

blow away from the lens and always hold the can upright. Never shake the air can before 

using it! Because I take care in protecting my lens surfaces and avoid cleaning unless they 

get a finger smear or really need it, I haven’t had a lot of need or experience using MC but 

can say that when I have used it its been a pleasant experience. I might mention that in 

using the 2nd tissue there might be what seems as residue but this appears to be part of the 

cleaning process and is removed by carefully wiping it away. The lens will come out clean 

and free of cleaning marks. 

Formula MC’s site is: http://www.pecaproducts.com/mc.html 

As an alternative there is another cleaner that I remember reading is the official one used 

by Hasselblad and other optics makers (possibly Leica). It is called Rexton Optyl-7. I have 

used it but prefer MC. I bought both these cleaners from Get Smart Products at: 

http://www.pfile.com/cgi/cart.cgi?db=dusters_cleaning.db&category=Dusters,+Cleaning+Supplies 

-- Pepe Alvarez, March 4, 2001 

I have lenses several years old that have never been cleaned directly. I always buy a new 

filter with each new lens. Upon receipt of the new lens, I immediately install the new filter. 



Smudges and dirt get removed from the outside of the filter with my t-shirt or whatever 

else seems handy at the moment. 

Shine a flashlight through your lens. Anything that is illuminated is effectively scattering 

light. Think about that. On an ideal lens, you wouldn't even be able to see the glass. 

A high powered flashlight will allow you to discover just how much dust actually resides 

on elements that are inaccessable. Zoom lenses seem to get the most dust internally, 

probably due to fluctuating air volumes within the lens tube. The amount of internal dust 

may convince you that cleaning the two exterior surfaces is rather trivial. 

With a high powered flashlight, you may also discover the effects of over cleaning a lens. 

The light will illuminate all those microscopic scratches in the glass left by cleaning 

procedures. 

I have also seen some lenses with oil residues on inner elements. These oil residues will 

take the form of fogging, spotting or streaking. I suspect that factory-applied lubricants are 

to blame here. 

In one extreme case, using a flashlight I saw a smudge with a small fingerprint on an 

internal element. This same lens happens to be the sharpest one in my collection (a 50 mm 

prime). Since this realization, I have devoted much less attention to the cleanliness of my 

lenses. 

A little scattered light seems to be ok. 

-- Alan Wallace Jr, March 7, 2001 

General advice. 

1. Use a bulb blower to dust off your lenses periodically. This is one of the safest ways to 

clean the glass. 

2. Use alcohol and lens tissues or cotton balls to clean persistent grime off the glass. I use 

ordinary alcohol rather than special lens cleaning solutions, because it evaporates quickly, 

wipes clean easily, and leaves no streaks. 

3. Use a lens hood on every lens, and consider an eyecup for your camera's viewfinder. 

These accessories help protect the glass from fingers, dust, facial oils, air pollution, impact, 

etc. They also deliver more contrast to your eye and to the film, by blocking extraneous 

light. 

4. Use your lens caps when you finish taking pictures, and when you change lenses. This 



keeps dust and oil off the elements, and prevents scratches and impact damage. 

5. Use UV filters to protect your lenses in hostile environments: rain, snow, smoke, 

extreme heat or cold. But don't think you have to use them all the time. Even the best filters 

will degrade contrast and resolution, which may or may not be noticeable. Bad filters can 

turn good lenses into mediocre ones. Always remove filters when shooting into the sun or 

artificial light, to prevent flare, ghosting, and reflections. 

6. Don't clean your lenses too vigorously or obsessively. There's always the chance of 

causing more harm than good. 

-- Ian Cruikshank, May 24, 2001 

I am amazed every time I read an article by someone who does NOT recommend a UV 

filter on every lens for protection. These are people whose work I admire and I feel they 

should know better. Included in this group is John Shaw who makes the statement "protect 

it from what?" in regard to a filter protecting the lens. 

In my previous incarnation as a working photographer I have witnessed the following: 

1)Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 falling from the roof of my car to the pavement below, 2)Same 

Nikkor 180 snapping off the entire front of a Nikon F2 following my being hit by a football 

player, 3)Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 being splashed with champagne in the locker room of a Texas 

League baseball team, 4)Nikkor 80-200mm f/4 lens taking a headlong dive from a bar to 

the tile floor below, 5)Nikkor 24mm lens attached to a Nikon F2 that slipped thorough my 

fingers and crashed to the dining room floor of my apartment, 6)Nikkor 35mm lens being 

splashed with flood water, etc., etc.... 

In every case, the front lens element was undamaged. I wore out one 24mm lens, there was 

no distance markings left on the barrel and it was no longer sharp until you stopped down 

to f/16, but the front element (and rear as well) were pristine. 

If you are working as a photographer or just caught up in the moment, you will many times 

expose your camera and lenses to rough treatment. You will stuff lenses in bags or lay them 

down on rocks (or bars) and not use a lens cap. It's called normal use and abuse for a 

working photographer or an amateur who does a lot of photography. It makes sense to 

protect the lens elements as best you can. And you can get a decent optical glass UV filter 

for a lot less than you can replace the front element of the lens. If you are worried about 

flare, etc., you can always take it off to make a photograph and put it right back on--it's not 

a permanent lens attachment. You need to protect the lens from the unexpected incidents. 

It's just common sense. 

-- Lee Shively, June 12, 2001 



I have noticed that often the humidity of finger soils the lens surface through the thin lens 

cleaning paper that I use. So I use it loosely wadded. Or I use it,sheet-wise, but I take 2-3 

sheet at a time. 

-- Alessandro Mattiacci, July 13, 2001 

I use double tipped cotton q-tips, and blow (hard) the dust off (and any gritty stuff that 

might happen to be there) then I use the 100% cotton q tip to clean off my breath from the 

glass. No scratches or problems. Cotton. 

-- Nathan Wynn, November 20, 2001 

I know lots of purists are concerned about the optical imperfections of UV filters. Instead 

of using one to protect the front element, I recomend a rigid lens hood to protect the front 

element from fingers, bangs, etc. 

-- Mike Barnhart, December 13, 2001 

Three cheers for ROR. I managed to clean an old lens that I thought would never come 

clean. It is a great thing to have in the bag. 

-- Roger Shrader, February 2, 2002 

Using a UV filter as lense protection is a double edged sword. Although a previous poster 

relates a number of "saves", I had a Nikkor 35-70 hit linoleum after a 30 inch fall - landing 

on the front end. The UV filter broke, scratching the front element. New front element from 

Nikon service = $200. It comes down to a question of luck... 

As for lense cleaning - 3M makes an excellent microfiber cloth specifically for optical 

cleaning. If you can locate a supplier, please post it - I was lucky enough to get a sample 

from a 3M rep but have been unabale to locate a dealer. 

-- Jason Monfort, March 1, 2002 

I'm a photographer by hobby only, but professionally I'm an optical engineer and have 

worked with all sorts of critical (and less critical) optics (infrared, visible, and ultraviolet 

lenses, mirrors, coated, uncoated, etc), and thought I'd throw in my two cents. 

Probably the most important thing to consider when cleaning optics: beware of SAND! I 

know that everyone recommends using those cleaning cloths in a circular motion, but that it 

is really an *incredibly* risky thing to do. If there is even one tiny bit of sand or glass or 

other hard material under that cloth, you just made a whole bunch of pretty *permanent* 

circles on your lens. This is also the reason why doing what you can to minimize how often 



the lens is cleaned is important. Perhaps you did make those circle scratches on your lens. 

But maybe they're not too deep. Do they scatter light and decrease the contrast on your 

negative? Sure. A lot? Probably not too much. But if you clean your lens once a week (or 

day?) and continue adding these scratches, it will become real noticeable in a hurry. 

For cleaning an optical surface, straight wipes are much better. And for those of you who 

are really paranoid, you should switch to a different part of the cloth for *each* wipe. That 

way, if you did pick up a bit of sand, you won't drag it across again on the next wipe. 

Dusting off lenses before using a cloth is important because it (hopefully) removes any 

abrasive materials. 

I would also definitely steer clear of using any cloth that isn't sold as a product specifically 

for cleaning optics. T-shirts may be nice and soft to the touch, but how sure are you that a 

spec of sand (or thousands?) isn't stuck in that shirt from the last time you went to the 

beach or worked in the yard (or there when you bought it)? Sure enough to risk scratching 

your $2000 300 mm Nikkor? It really isn't worth it. Paper towels, tissue paper, cotton 

swabs... I have seen all of these readily scratch glass. But these are not manufactured or 

packaged to ensure that they do not contain *any* abrasive materials. If you know anyone 

who has regularly cleaned their eyeglasses with tissues or paper towels for a long time, take 

a look at their eyeglasses with a really bright flashlight and you'll see what might happen to 

your lens. 

Why am I going on so much about sand? Because the damage is permanent. Once a scratch 

is there, it's not coming off. 

As far as cleaning solutions go... Again, I'd stick with ones that are supposed to be for 

optics. I am not sure what type of AR coatings are put on camera lenses, but many are quite 

durable and resistant to many solvents (we use isopropanol, methanol, acetone, toluene, 

sometimes even dish washing detergent). Since camera lenses are consumer products, I 

would expect the coatings to be pretty durable. But again, it comes down to quality... 

Rubbing alcohol has isopropanol in it but only a few percent. The rest is water, detergent 

and who knows what. I don't expect that the stuff sold as "pure" isopropanol is as good as 

the stuff I would use at work (reagent-grade, contaminants are measured in parts per 

million!) but it's far better than rubbing alcohol (and cheaper than reagent-grade too:). That 

goes for "exhaled water vapor" too... Do you know what's in it? Well I don't either, and I 

wouldn't risk putting it on my lens. Biological materials tend to be difficult to clean and 

corrosive if left on coatings for long periods (fingerprints can permanently damage a 

coating if left long enough). 

And here's a tip: If you've just put some cleaning fluid on your cloth and tried wiping off a 

fingerprint, and there's still some there, wet another spot of the cloth (or a new cloth) and 

wipe again. Don't continue to reuse the cloth that isn't working. The solvent can only take 



up so much dirt before it is saturated (remember chemistry class?), and more wiping just 

moves the dirt around, instead of dissolving it. 

Lastly, someone above mentioned that looking at your lens with a bright light will reveal 

any dirt and dust. That's just how it's done in the optics world. Just a word of caution 

though: even a brand new, freshly opened lens may show "a lot" of "imperfections" under a 

good bright light. I suppose only someone who is trained in inspecting optics can really tell 

what's normal and what isn't, but anyone can look for grossly wrong things. There should 

be essentially *no* smudges or other things which cover a large area on the lens. Most 

acceptable imperfections will be just little point-sized things. If you can count the dust 

particles on your lens, you're in good shape. If there are so many that you could never 

count them all, then you probably need a good cleaning. 

Hope this helps. Brian 

-- Brian McNeil, March 6, 2002 

Add a comment 

Related Links 

● Gemological Institute of America- At this site, follow the links to their on-line catalog of products 

(GEM Instruments). If interested, you can purchase a 10X triplet eye loupe from them. 

(contributed by Marika Buchberger) 

● Kooter's Geology Tools- Kooter's Geology Tools carries the Bausch and Lomb Hastings Triplet 

hand lens in 7X to 20X for $32-39. Stainless steel and black impact plastic. It should last a 

lifetime. (contributed by Mark Ingleright) 

Add a link 



Use | Privacy 




Where to Get a Camera Fixed 





● Top 

● Reader's Comments 

If you have a modern 35mm SLR or point and shoot, the most obvious thing to do is send it back to the 

manufacturer. So if you have a Canon EOS and live in the US, just send it back to Canon USA. You 

can usually find repair facility addresses and phone numbers either by surfing the manufacturers' Web 

sites and/or calling 800-555-1212. If you live in a strange Third World country, you can still FEDEX in 

a camera body with a credit card number and get your camera fixed by the US importer. 

http://www.photo.net/learn/camera-repair (1 of 8) [5/15/2002 7:15:58 PM]


If you have an old 35mm camera with sentimental value and are prepared to 

spend $200 to make it work again, you might think that sending it back to 

Nikon or Pentax or whoever would work. However, invariably the 

manufacturers don't really want to deal with models that are more than 20 

years old and will tell you that "parts aren't available." You need an 

independent shop that is willing to cannibalize junk bodies, machine parts 

from scratch, and otherwise exercise creativity. A traditional favorite is 

Professional Camera Repair in New York City: (212)382-0550. 

If you have a Hasselblad, consider sending it to Gil Ghitelman (referenced in 

my where to buy a camera article). He employs his own Hasselblad repair 

guy. 

If you have a broken Rollei, Linhof, or Rodenstock, then you want Marflex, (201) 808-9626. 

Boston's only camera repair legend is Steve Grimes, (508) 384-7107, skgrimes@aol.com. He solves all 

kinds of strange large format problems with custom machining. He also does bread-and-butter large 

format shutter repairs, lens mounting, etc. 

We're not experts on camera repair shops in every state. You'll probably get the best advice from our 

Neighbor to Neighbor service or the user-contributed comments (below). If all else fails, you may need 

to buy a new camera from one of the photo.net recommended retailers. 

More 

[ top ] 

● You can also learn more about camera and equipment insurance. 

Repair Shop in Tampa: 


In my Nikon N-series Comparison Chart, I refered to a little repair shop near the Tampa 

airport that did a nice job on my Maxxum 2xi after hours at a reasonable price. A search 

yielded the name and address of the place. 

V P Technical Inc. 

3434 West Columbus Drive # 104 



Tampa, FL 33607 

(813) 876-7099 

There seemed to be a lot of Kiev equipment on the shelves there so I believe that this is 

one of the few shops that repairs these cameras. Should you have trouble finding a repair 

shop that handles Kiev, I'd suggest you give this place a call. 

-- Don Atzberger, September 26, 1997 

If you live near but not in Boston, consider going to Sanford Camera Repair in Arlington 

MA. They are a factory authorized Nikon, Canon and Minolta repair shop(probably other 

brands also including medium format). 

They do an excellent job and they have a display case that's worth visting for by itself. 

It's full of destroyed cameras plus the cause of destruction(things like being driven over 

and sprayed with salt water). 

-- Paul Wilson, October 1, 1997 

If you have a Canon T-90 in need of repair don't bother sending it to Canon. They 

returned mine with a note stating that the "service life of the T-90 has just ended" and 

they no longer have repair parts. After several phone calls I found an independant repair 

shop with parts. Good luck. 

-- John English, March 1, 1998 

If you live in/around Baltimore and need your medium format and lighting equipment 

serviced, go see Peter Whedbee!!! This guy KNOWS Hasselblads and has a really good 

reputation amongst the local working photographers. His number is (410) 435-4481. 

-- Ken Eng, March 6, 1998 

A (the?) source for out-of-print user and repair camera manuals is John Craig, 

http://www.craigcamera.com 

If he doesn't have the original he will sell you a photocopy, in the same size and binding 

as the original. 

As usual no relation other than as a satisfied customer, etc... (found him by 

recommendation of the folks at KEH). 

-- Cris Pedregal Martin, June 8, 1998 



In the Boise area: 

Photek (3075 N. Cole, Boise, ID 83704, (208) 323- 7568) is a really great place. Their 

repairs are reasonably priced, and they seem to have a nice supply of used parts. They 

also have a nice selection of used lenses and bodies in good to excellent condition. 

-- Stephen C. Murphy, July 1, 1998 

This is a confirmation of the recommendation of Photek in Boise, Idaho. They can be 

depended on for superior quality and a reasonable price, in my experience. They've also 

more than once had in stock what I just couldn't find elsewhere. 

http://www.allworld.net/photek/index.html is their website. 

-- Dave Miller, February 5, 1999 

Why don't try to repair your stuff yourself? Many camera repairs turn out to be just 

cleaning, replacing light seals, or replacing broken levers. These jobs can be done by 

anyone who has reasonably good fine motricity, some patience, and a set of small 

screwdrivers, ring openers and a few other tools. The time invested is often less than 

what you would take to find out a service shop, pack the camera, ship it, etc. Living in 

one of those "strange third world countries" mentioned by Phil, I have no real option 

other than doing my own repairs. Shipping a broken camera to the USA would involve a 

very complicated and quite expensive "export and re-import" procedure. I have repaired 

a few dozen cameras and accesories over the years, both my own and those of friends, 

and found that in almost all cases the problem is something mechanical, often quite 

obvious. Electronic problems are much less common. It can be necessary to machine 

some part (this can get difficult!), but more often than not the sick camera can be healed 

without any special medicine! 

If you have a quite new $2000 camera that broke, and a nearby highly recommended 

service shop, and your hands are hardly able to handle any tool more delicate than a 

chainsaw, then by all means get it fixed professionally. But if the camera is 30 years old, 

worth $200, you have reasonable skills, and the nearest service shop that may accept it is 

a continent away, it would be a good idea to fix it yourself! If you mess up, at least you 

had the opportunity to see how cameras look inside! :-) 

Keep a tube of cyanoacrilate glue at hand. A lot of failures in autofocus mechanisms go 

back to cheap plastic gears sliding on the shafts! 

And a small anecdote: Once a friend asked me to repair his Canon (I think it was a T50 

or so). It looked like an electronic problem. He had replaced the battery without results 

(first things first!). Being an electronic engineer, I dived into the camera's circuitry, 



reverse-engineered it until understanding what was happening - power supply problems! 

I removed the battery, connected the camera to a bench power supply, and it worked like 

a charm... I put in a new battery - problem fixed! The explanation: The battery had a 

manufacturing defect, manifesting itself in very high internal resistance, while the 

voltage at no load was perfectly normal. When my friend replaced the battery, he bought 

the new one at the same shop, and got one from the same manufacturing batch, with the 

same defect!!! 

So, don't take anything for granted. 

-- Manfred Mornhinweg, May 21, 1999 

Southern California? Camera Tech of Anaheim for all old cameras. The guy has been 

doing it for 30 years and does a great job for a great price. Doubt he'd be too good with 

the newer stuff, but if it's a mechanical, as opposed to an electrical, problem, bring it in. 

David 

-- David Marhadoe, August 16, 1999 

if in jacksonville, fl. and need repairs, check out southern technical photo services. 

factory authorized for at least nikon and canon. super good prices and quick turn around 

-- Tony Padilla, October 17, 1999 

My Canon T90 needed a major overhaul a couple of years ago. The Camera Clinic in 

Reno, NV did a great job getting my favorite camera back into service. 

-- Michelle Dose, May 13, 2000 

trial comment. 

-- waikit lau, June 28, 2000 

In the Atlanta area, I highly recommend Camera Repair Japan (CRJ) in Norcross, just off 

Jimmy Carter Blvd. Excellent pricing and service. Compared to other service I've gotten, 

they certainly went the extra mile in CLA'ing my gear; it's the cleanest it's been since it 

came out of the factory 20 years ago. Tel: (770) 849-0555, Fax: (770) 449-7999, Email 

CRJCO@aol.com. I doubt you will be disappointed. 

-- Christian Deichert, July 3, 2000 



If you own an older Canon A-series Manual focus camera, send it to Karl Aimo in Mass. 

His E-mail address is AE1REPAIR@aol.com, he cought a problem with my AE-1 and 

repaired it for a very good price. He charged $65 to fix a jam, a dead hotshoe, and give 

the camera a CLA. The local camera shops in my area wanted $120 to fix the hotshoe 

alone. Great service and fast turn-around along with great prices. 

-- Chris Pitassy, July 9, 2000 

In Philadelphia, try to avoid Camera Brokers of Philadelphia (CBOP). Took a camera 

there for cleaning/adjustment in early August. Went back a week later to find out their 

repair technician wasn't (and hadn't) been around, so my repair waited until he returned. 

Received a phone call from him later, saying that my Canon SLR needed some other 

work - shutter repair, mostly - and that it would be another 2.5 to 3 weeks, and I would 

get a call. 

After waiting for the call (in the meantime missing the opportunity to take the camera on 

a trip) I returned to the shop today (October 2) asking the whereabouts of the camera 

since I had never been called. I was told that "the camera just got in today" by one 

employee, and then "the camera came in a while ago, and we called you." (The number I 

provided was a work number, so there's no chance I "missed the call or there was no 

answering machine" as I was told. Even so, wouldn't good customer service dictate that 

you keep calling until A.) you speak with someone or B.) can leave a message? ) 

In any case, the second employee I dealt with "didn't like my tone" and told me to "take 

my business elsewhere." I suggest you do the same. 

-- Michael Kmiec, October 2, 2000 

In the Washington D.C. area, I have experience with three repair shops: 

Mora Camera Service: Just off Wisconsin Avenue, near Tenley Circle in the District. 

Nikon only. Small, personal, and they can do most anything on a Nikon. Reasonable 

prices and decent turnaround times. Their work for me has always been first rate. They 

also sell used Nikon and Nikon-compatible equipment. Last time I was there, they had a 

rare 500mm f5 mirror lens at a competitive price. 

Alpha Camera: In the Clarendon area of Arlington, at the corner of Washington Blvd. 

and Wilson Blvd. This is another small shop, run by a Vietnamese guy who fixed Nikons 

for the war correspondents in Saigon. He has done some first-rate work for me on older 

mechanical equipment, cleaning fungus out of lenses and that sort of thing. Rates are 

quite reasonable. Don't be put off by the funky storefront, this guy does good work. I 

don't know how knowledgeable he is about the latest autofocus wonderboxes, but he is 



definitely the first guy I would go to for work on an older camera. 

Strauss Photo: Big, institutional, diverse, and slow. In a part of the District I would prefer 

never to set foot, Strauss does repair work for most of the camera shops in the DC area. 

They are factory authorized by several major manufacturers. I have had mixed results 

with them. They are basically good, but the operation is big enough that some sloppy 

work can slip through. Their size does mean they can fix a lot of stuff that a smaller 

outfit wouldn't have parts for. I don't send them Nikons any more; I wasn't real pleased 

with the last overhaul on my F3 and the camera wound up at Mora a few months later. I 

would still go to Strauss if Mora or Alpha couldn't help me. 

-- Bob Benzinger, May 26, 2001 

Stay away from MACK CAMERA and Repair, in Springfield, NJ. They are arrogant, 

ham-handed thieves. Unfortunately, they provide lots of extended-warranty service to 

camera shops all over, so many consumers may have no other choice. 

I live near Mack and recently brought them a Rollei TLR for servicing. I asked 

specifically to speak with their repair person before they worked on the camera. In fact, 

nobody called me, they went ahead with the work, and they returned the camera to me in 

much worse shape than it was before -- an exterior part entirely missing, a lock-lever 

detached, damage to the film transport mechanism and to the camera back/latch. This is 

beyond belief. When I complained that nobody had called, they said take your camera 

and leave, don't pay us--thinking I would be mollified. It was only when I got home that I 

saw what a botch job they had done. 

Now, the company president refuses my phone calls, ignores my faxes. My next step will 

be Better Business Bureau, then Small Claims Court, I imagine. 

Clearly, this company knows nothing about fixing real cameras. It is to be avoided at all 

cost. 

I would be happy to hear of others' experience with them. 

-- John Verity, February 4, 2002 

I highly recommend Superior Camera Repair and Exchange, in Woodland Hills, CA. The 

owner has done excellent work with my Minolta SRT-101 and XD-11 cameras, which 

most shops refuse to even look at. I had a short in my XD-11 which drained fresh 

batteries in less than a month; no problem, he fixed it inside a week. He loves working 

with classic cameras. 



-- John Wright, April 7, 2002 

Add a comment 

Related Links 

● Kominek Camera & Optical Repairs- We are an independant shop specialising in camera and 

optical instrument repairs. Located in Toronto, Canada, we offer service to most makes of 

cameras, including Leica, Canon, Nikon, Pentax and most other makes. We also service many 

older models, including Zeiss and Voightlander. (contributed by Roger Henriques) 

● Camera Repair Tips Page- In the course of repairing SLR cameras for almost 25 years, I have 

compiled this list of the most common problems that I have run across. To see if I have some 

tips about your camera just click on your brand name and jump to your model. The most 

common SLR cameras that I work on are listed. (contributed by John Titterington) 

● Bob Warkentin's Southern Nikonos- THE place to go for Nikonos service. Simply the best. This 

is where the pros send their Nikonos gear. I have been using them since the 1980's and have 

always been 100% satisfied. Also a very informative Web site. (contributed by Bob Benzinger) 

● Camera Fix Newsgroup- This is a newsgroup for hobbyist camera repairers to share experiences 

about repairing their cameras. Specializing first in mechanical and semi-electronic cameras, any 

related discussion is also welcome. You can subscribe from the link above, or send blank email 

to: camera-fix-subscribe@yahoogroups.com (contributed by Kelvin Lee) 

Add a link 



Use | Privacy 




Camera and Equipment Insurance 

Buying Insurance for your Camera and Equipment 

By Lisa Surati 



Guide Contents: 

1. Top 

2. What type of policy do I need? 

3. What if I use my equipment 

commercially only on occasion? 

4. I want to add a floater to my 

homeowners or renters policy 

5. I need a commercial policy 

6. Bottom line 

7. Survey Results 


Good camera equipment is not cheap. Most photographers spend years acquiring theirs. If you had to 

replace all your equipment at once, or even a portion of it, would you be able to? What would you do if 

faced with such a situation? Settle for a fraction of the equipment you once had? Stop taking pictures 

altogether and pick up a cheaper hobby? 

None of the above sound appealing? Consider insuring your equipment. If your equipment is insured, 

check the coverage and exclusions of your policy to make sure you have the coverage you need. If you 

lost all your equipment tomorrow, would your insurance company pay for the replacement value of 

your equipment? Would you face exclusions if you receive photography-related income? 

Understanding your level of coverage today could save you from being unable to shoot pictures 

http://www.photo.net/learn/insurance (1 of 12) [5/15/2002 7:16:03 PM]


tomorrow. 

What type of policy do I need? 

The type of policy you need depends on how you use your equipment. If you do not make any money 

through the use of your equipment, a standard homeowners or renters policy should cover against theft 

and fire, even when your equipment is outside your home. Typically, standard homeowners and renters 

policies cover you against named perils only. They also typically have deductibles. If your equipment 

is accidentally damaged, for example, you drop it, chances are it will not be covered under a standard 

homeowners or renters policy. 

If you use your equipment for non-commercial purposes, another alternative is buying an "all-risk" 

floater. This attachment to your homeowners or renters policy includes a schedule of covered items. An 

all risk floater generally covers the scheduled equipment against everything except specifically 

excluded perils stated in the policy (e.g., acts of war). So if you're walking down a street and you 

accidentally drop your camera and a car drives by and runs it over, smashing it into pieces, it's covered 

unless that situation is specifically excluded in your policy. 

If you use your equipment primarily for business purposes, you should be insured by a commercial 

inland marine policy. A commercial policy offers all-risk coverage for equipment, eliminates the 

potential of exclusions if equipment is used professionally, and offers a variety of optional floaters 

designed to insure against the liabilities faced by a professional (e.g., someone trips over your tripod). 

What type of policy do I need if I occasionally use my equipment for commercial purposes? 

That's a difficult question to answer. Some photographers who generate revenue from their work, even 

if it's not their primary source of income, need a commercial policy. Commercial policies are generally 

more expensive than personal policies and might be required depending on the value of your equipment 

and the level of income you generate from photography. It's not unusual for a photographer to talk with 

two different insurance agents and be told by one that they require a commercial policy while the other 

says a personal policy is sufficient. Your best bet is to talk to a number of insurance agents representing 

different companies and see which company will offer you the best deal. Remember that 

misrepresenting your information could cause your coverage to be denied. Worse, if you are offered a 

policy, misrepresenting your information could cause your claim to be denied, even though your policy 

is fully-paid! 

Due to interest from the community, photo.net has been talking to insurance companies about 

potentially offering a photo equipment insurance program for photo.net members. This program, which 

will not result in a dime of income to photo.net, could provide photo.net members with a professional 

exposure with some combination of all-risk worldwide coverage, competitive rates, coverage for leased 

or borrowed equipment and peace of mind that your equipment is properly covered. To determine if 

offering a photo equipment insurance program to photo.net users is viable, the insurance 

companies have asked us to post this survey to evaluate the demand for such a product. If you 



would be interested in participating in the photo equipment insurance program exclusively for 

photo.net members, please fill out this survey. 

I want to add a floater to my homeowners or renters policy 

Items of value, including photography equipment, that are not covered or have limited coverage on 

standard homeowners policies may be scheduled on a personal articles floater. Rates for insuring your 

equipment on a personal article floater vary among companies. Generally, you should expect to pay 

about $1.35 - $1.75 per every $100 dollars of equipment with no deductible. Coverage is usually in 

addition to your unscheduled property, giving you more coverage if there is a total loss. Most 

homeowners and renters insurance policies provide coverage against named perils only. If your camera 

falls off a shelf and breaks, it is not necessarily covered. Personal article floaters are usually written on 

an all-risk basis, meaning your equipment is insured against everything except specifically excluded 

perils. So, if you're leaning over the side of a boat to get the perfect shot, your strap breaks and your 

camera falls to the bottom of the ocean, it should be covered unless that peril is specifically excluded in 

your all-risk floater or if you intentionally threw the camera overboard. With a personal article floater, 

the burden is on the insurance company to prove that a claim is not covered. With a standard 

homeowners policy, the burden is on the insured. 

Personal article floaters provide broad coverage, usually with no deductibles. Generally, you're 

agreeing on the value of your equipment prior to loss. When you apply for a floater, your insurance 

broker will ask you to list all your equipment, the market value/replacement cost, serial number and 

other information on your equipment. The market value of an item is the replacement cost of the item 

in its current state, not a new piece of equipment. Generally, insurance companies replace insured 

equipment and do not pay cash for the value of the item. If you want cash to replace the item yourself, 

generally you will have to negotiate with your insurance provider. 

Personal article floaters can also cover items you've bought even if you have not told your agent. 

Policies can provide coverage for newly acquired items for up to 30 to 90 days if you pay a pro-rated 

premium. 

I need a commercial policy 

If photography is your primary income, or a source of income, a commercial policy might be right for 

you. Generally a commercial policy is more expensive than a personal article floater attached to your 

homeowners or renters insurance policy. You should expect to pay between $1.75-$2.25 per every 

$100 dollars of equipment with a deductible between $250-$500 per claim. A commercial policy offers 

a similar level of coverage for equipment as an all risk personal article floater, but eliminates the 

potential exclusion of equipment if used professionally. 

Additional coverage available on a commercial policy includes general liability, commercial property, 



workers compensation, commercial automobile coverage and umbrella liability to name a few. 

Most states require you to carry workers compensation insurance(they're so good in Massachusetts of 

keeping track of this even photo.net had to comply when sent notice after only a month of 

incorporation). Professional photographers operating a studio with employees could be liable for any 

and all costs associated with injuries in the event fo an accident. Professionals not only face this 

liability with full-time employees, but also with anyone they have hired for an assignment. Carrying 

workers compensation protects you from personally being liable for such costs. General liability 

insurance further protects you from third party bodily injury or property suits. 

Bottom line 

The bottom line is that you should get the type of coverage that best fits your needs before you're faced 

with the strain of having to pay for equipment, injuries, or other liabilities. If your equipment is 

insured, check your policy and make sure you have the coverage you need and that you will not face 

exclusion if you receive income from your photography. 

Photo.net Survey Results 

We ran a survey on photo.net to determine both if there was interest from the community for a 

photo.net insurance program and garner the type of demand. There is great interest as we received 699 

responses. We determined the average amount of equipment users wanted insured was 8452 and the 

median was about $5500. about 15% of the users had greater than $20,000 dollars worth of equipment 

to insure. We are currently looking at possible partnerships for a group discount for photo.net users. 

More... 

● Camera insurance thread in photo.net Q&A forum 

● Photo equipment thread in the photo.net Q&A forum 


A note about "theft" versus "mysterious disappearance." You may have theft insurance 

with your homeowners policy, which will cover your cameras if you are held up, robbed, 

or put in bodily harm in exchange for your property. But if you place your camera on the 

park bench next to you and three seconds later it is gone (stolen), it is not considered 

theft, but is termed "mysterious disappearance" by your insurance company. In this case, 

theft insurance will not cover you. If your camera is stolen from your office while you 

are out at lunch, theft insurance will not cover you. This is where the additional insurance 

discussed on this page will (hopefully) come into effect. 



-- Jay J. Pulli, July 10, 2000 

Jay, 

I'm not sure if I totally agree with your definitions of "theft" and "mysterious 

disappearance". 

I ran an insurance agency for 8 years here in New Jersey and what the insurance 

companies REQUIRE is a police report. If my camera is with me at work (as it always 

is), and it disappears from my bag, I have to contact the police to report a theft. I receive 

a report from the police, detailing the theft, which I then turn over to my insurance 

carrier who then pays me according to the terms of my policy. While the camera may 

have "mysteriously disappeared", it did not jump out of my bag and walk away on its 

own. Someone, a person, had to remove it without my knowledge. That's theft. 

"Mysterious disappearance", while it can apply to missing property, almost always 

applies to life insurance policies where the insured has "disappeared", usually without a 

trace. Under those circumstances, the insurance company can withhold payment until 

they are reasonably satisfied that the insured had passed away, and is not just simply 

hiding in a cave on an island somewhere out in the Pacific. One famous example of a 

"mysterious disappearance" was Amelia Earhart, the pilot. Although the Navy searched 

extensively, neither Ms. Earhart nor her plane were ever found. 

According to Black's Law Dictionary, "Mysterious Disappearance" can also be the loss 

of property under unknown or puzzling circumstances which are difficult to explain or 

understand. Leaving your camera on a bench and then finding it has disappeared is not 

exactly mysterious, puzzling, difficult to explain or understand. Either the camera fell off 

the bench in which case it should be on the ground near the bench, or someone removed 

the camera from the bench and this is then clearly theft. Now whether the insurance 

company decides to pay you for the missing property is another matter but again, if you 

produce a police report, the odds are clearly in your favor that the company will pay you, 

assuming of course, you have not filed 200 previous claims for theft of equipment. This 

is also a good reason to remember to READ your insurance policy carefully and 

thoroughly and consult with an attorney on any segment(s) of the policy that are not clear 

to you. 

A better example of "mysterious disappearance" as it relates to property, is if you come 

home to your apartment and find your stereo, computer and television set are gone and 

yet there are no signs of forced entry into the apartment. You will have a very tough time 

proving to the insurance company that those items were stolen from your apartment 

unless the police can trace the items back to someone who may have had access to your 

apartment such as a superintendent or landlord. Insurance companies want to see proof in 



the form of a police report, that clearly indicates broken doors, broken windows, or some 

other form of forced entry into your premises before they will pay you for a claim of 

theft. If the lock has been picked on your apartment door, the police can usually tell, and 

will or should include this in the report. (Meanwhile, head down to your locksmith and 

pick up a MEDECO lock) 

According to Black's Law Dictionary, Theft is defined as, the felonious taking and 

removing of another's personal property with the intent of depriving the true owner of it; 

larceny. Anytime your personal property "disappears", the insurance company has to 

assume the property was stolen and pay you according to your contract if you supplied 

them with the necessary documents to prove rightful ownership of the property and a 

report from the police indicating that the property has "disappeared" in a manner 

consistent with "theft"; you are innocent until proven guilty. Again, the key here is to 

read your policy and thoroughly understand what is expected of you in the event you 

have to file a claim with your carrier. Additionally, many states have laws which require 

insurance carriers to finalize all claims within a certain time frame. Check with your state 

insurance commissioner for details or again, speak with an attorney. 

-- Marika Buchberger, July 12, 2000 



For us with digital cameras, there is at least one company that bundles your digital 

camera with your laptop and peripherals (http://www.safeware.com/safeware/). If I read 

correctly, right now their Texas policy does not cover over $2000.00 in equipment while 

in transit (my laptop only cost $500.00 so if I were in Texas it might cover my camera 

(Olympus C-2500L), that is, until I buy the Nikon D1). I don't think they cover my 

equipment while I am here in Korea. 

And if I owned lenses, filters, hot shoe flashes and diffusers, stands, etc., who knows if 

that would be covered. 

I consider my IBM slimtop, smart media disk, PCMCIA adapter, cheap plastic stand, and 

camera all as part of my photography equipment. 

It would be great if there were an international insurance policy that would include your 

camera, laptop/peripherals, and photography equipment all under one bundle. 

That's my 2 cents. 



-- N. David Guarneri, July 17, 2000 

I have owned an insurance agency in California for the past twenty years and want to 

help my fellow camera enthusiasts. 

Most homeowner policies have SEVERE limitatins on "business" personal property. 

Some companies offer the option to purchase higher coverage and most of them will stop 

at $2500 with a 10% coverage off premises. They provide NO coverage for loss of 

income or extra expense. They are designed to cover only non-business exposures. 

Before you consider purchasing "commercial" insurance you should ask your agent or 

broker to see if you have options available on your existing homeowners policy. You 

may have to contact several different carriers to get the coverages you need. 

One company my agency is contracted with is Allied Insurance, a member of Nationwide 

Insurance. Allied offers a Home Enterprise Program (available in 10 states) which is 

designed to provide most of the coverges needed by the typical small business being 

operated from the residence premises. It combines personal and commercial coverages 

on one policy. It is designed for exposures such as barber and beauty shops, dog and cat 

grooming, florists, photographers, music instructors and tutoring, etc.. Professional 

Liability is specifically excluded. Other companies may have similar products available. 

Also, Personal Inland Marine Floaters, Personal Artical Flaoters, Scheduled Personal 

Property Endorsements are designed to add "all risk" coverage to specific personal 

property owned by the insured. This coverage is so broad as to include loss caused by 

accidently dropping a camera over the side of a boat. Don't wait until a loss occurs to 

find you have little or no coverge. 

-- Steven Hallbert, July 17, 2000 

For underwater gear I've been insuring through a company called DEPP, or Diver's 

Equipment Protection Program, and been happy with the coverage. The deductable is 

low and they cover most losses including flood insurance. Not cheap, but worth the 

money to me. www.ProgramServices.com 

-- Dan Carey, July 24, 2000 

I have an F1n outfit. I have valued the replacement cost today at $3725 Canadian. When 

i phoned my household insurance agent he ask me to register the serial numbers with the 

carrier. He explained that the equipment would be added on as a named risk. This would 

ensure that there was no confusion with the carrier. I dropped off the info and a picture of 



all the equipment as well and left it with him. Four days later i recieved the updated 

policy and to my surprise discovered that there was a ZERO deductable and it was a no 

hassle coverage ( As i requested ) and get this $26.00 per year on top of my home policy. 

Good deal or what? 

-- Michael Borisko, August 1, 2000 

The original article discused costs for personal articles floaters/riders on a homeowners 

policyin the range of $1.35 to $1.75 of value. I suspec that rates such as that are for urban 

areas where the acturial risks are relatively high. I mentionthis because the rates I have 

paid for years are much lower. Currently I am paying $0.13 per $100 of value for 

photographic equipment. Check with yoru insurance agent or broker. Even at $1+ this is 

relatively inexpensive insurance. 

-- Ted Harris, August 4, 2000 

I'm a "wanna be" professional photographer, still in the infancy stages of building a 

business. I contacted our personal insurer - USAA - about covering my gear. They don't 

insure equipment or inventory for business, so transferred me to their "General Agency" 

division. Their base coverage was $350 a year, and covered up to $15.0 at CASH value, 

not replacement value, with a $250 deductible. any suggestions who to call? 

I also hadn't even thought about insuring the office equipment! I've just added a CD RW 

and a photo printer. Guess I better check those out also. 

-- Steph Thompson, August 10, 2000 

If you are not using your photographic equipment as "professional" equipment, you can 

add it to your homeowners/renters policy as a rider, usually with little or no deductible 

but it's only covered if it's "non-professional use" and it's covered for it's stated value so 

make absolutely certain you know what it will cost you to replace the equipment. Keep 



this clearly in mind if you decide to go this route. 

-- Marika Buchberger, August 11, 2000 

I live in Vancouver, BC, Canada, a great city albeit one with one of the largest hard drug 

user populations in the western world. When you have a large group of addicts around 

you’ll realize they need a lot of money to support their habits. Two weeks ago my 

beloved GR1s and a T90 were ripped off when my apartment was broken into. I consider 

myself lucky...this is the first equipment loss I’ve had in 25 years. Since then I’ve tried to 

get all risk insurance to cover the $20K worth of equipment I use (as an amateur)...no 

luck: either the premiums are to high or I’m laughed out of the office. Phil how about 

trying to organize some kind of policy in Canada....Anyone else: do you insure in BC? 

With whom? Thanks Jim 

-- Jim Vanson, September 21, 2000 

Jim, if you use your gear for personal use only, a standard tenant or homeowner's policy 

will cover it. Just watch for what the perils you are insured against are, and check to see 

if there's an off-premises limit. 

I'm an insurance broker in Regina, Saskatchewan (Canada), and the carrier I've chosen to 

insure my home has no off-premises limit on personal property. I pay a $500 deductible, 

but given the value of my gear, that's okay. 

-- Jim MacKenzie, September 28, 2000 

If insurance is an issue with you NANPA members have an insurer who writes 

Commercial Inland Marine Policies for members. I assume that there is a lower rate for 

NANPA members. I found that my homeowners insurance limits would not come near 

covering a major equipment loss even if I didn't have related income. This policy is all 

risk and covers me in most foreign countries. The NANPA website is www.nanpa.org 

-- John Pickles, December 10, 2000 

My Insurance Company will list camera equipment in excess of 200.00 as scheduled 

items on my homeowner's policy. Items with a value less then 200.00 default to my 

standard homeowner coverage. This coverage is not as good as a scheduled item. 

Now, I have a lot of "stuff" with a unit price less than 200.00 when added together would 

be a great loss to me. Am I being too picky here or is there another way to insure my 

equipment? 

-- Michael R. Amodeo, February 16, 2001 



I recently had my residence burgled and most of my camera gear stolen. This was the 

first time I've had to deal with insurance companies, and I have to say I learnt a lot from 

it. Here are some comments for fellow naive insurance customers. 

The first thing is that I didn't think through my policy. My insurance policy covers 

camera gear up to $3000 Canadian. I'd bought all my stuff used and didn't think it was 

worth that much. Of course, the insurance covers replacement cost of new items. And a 

local camera store valued the stolen goods at $4600. Plus tax on top of that. My $3000 

coverage doesn't even come close to covering all the items I lost. So when calculating the 

replacement cost of your gear remember to factor in both new cost and taxes. 

Second, the policy replaces stolen equipment with the rough equivalent that's sold today. 

Sometimes that worked out to my advantage. I had an old Canon T50 camera stolen that 

was pretty well worthless. But the camera shop rated its replacement as the cheapest 

Canon SLR sold as a body (not a kit) - the Rebel G. A Rebel G replacing a T50 is a 

pretty darn good deal. 

However, I also lost a 30 year-old Pentax Spotmatic that was in excellent condition. 

Having that replaced with a Pentax MZ-7 is kind of sad. It's like saying, "Okay - your 

beloved 1965 Ford Mustang, your first car, is gone. Here's a shiny new 2001 Mustang!" 

It's not exactly the same thing. 

Finally, be absolutely sure to record every single item you own in a spreadsheet, with 

serial numbers for everything with serial numbers. And keep receipts and proof of 

ownership. Otherwise the insurance company may turn down parts or all of your claim. 

So. Yes, I had insurance. Did it help me? Well. Kind of. I can't replace much of what was 

stolen, and I'm not sure if I will. I could obtain a cash settlement, but it's not going to be a 

$3000 cheque or anything - the cash value is depreciated too. 

Still. If I get burgled again at least this time there isn't much to take. :) 

-- NK Guy, June 12, 2001 

I know this is really stupid of me but i don't have the receipts of many of many of the 

higher priced items that i own, and also one or two was given as a gift sans receipt ( 

Mamiya 645 outfit ) is there anything i can do besides photos and serial numbers that 

will be adequate proof to the insurance companies of my actual ownership of these 

items? 

-- Jared Zimmerman, June 17, 2001 



Add a comment 

Related Links 

● Seems to be a good deal.- http://www.maginnis-ins.com/our_products.asp These guys insure 

ALL your photo equipment including bag, cables, etc. WORLWIDE!!!!!!!!!!!! I even asked 

about if I droped my Camera off the side of a boat and where unable to recover it. They said it 

would still be covered. It's an all risk policy paid yearly. And the replacement cost is the NEW 

price. There's a $100 deductible per claim. The price is $2.40 per hundred insured up to $15000. 

I didn't get the premium for amount over $15k. Check them out. (contributed by Oscar Banos) 

Add a link 



Use | Privacy 


http://www.photo.net/learn/insurance (12 of 12) [5/15/2002 7:16:03 PM] 


photo.net optics section 

Home : Learn : One Section 

Optics 

Maintained by David Jacobson 


And still they come and go: and this is all I know-- 

That from the gloom I watch an endless picture-show, 

Where wild or listless faces flicker on their way, 

With glad or grievous hearts I'll never understand 

Because Time spins so fast, and they've no time to stay 

Beyond the moment's gesture of a lifted hand. 

And still, between the shadow and the blinding flame, 

The brave despair of men flings onward, ever the same 

As in those doom-lit years that wait them, and have been... 

And life is just the picture dancing on a screen. 

-- "Picture-Show", Siegfried Sassoon, 1920 

● Lens FAQ 

● Lens Tutorial 

● USAF 1951 lens test chart. Note this a reverse engineered unofficial version. It is easily scalable 

to any size. See the notes in the file itself. 

● Equivalent Lens Focal Lengths For Different Film Sizes 

http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/ (1 of 2) [5/15/2002 7:16:06 PM]

photo.net optics section 

David Jacobson 



Use | Privacy 


http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/ (2 of 2) [5/15/2002 7:16:06 PM] 


Guide to Framing 



● The Best Framers in the World 

● Notes on framing 



Anybody ever hear of "swiss framing clips" A.K.A. "gallery clips"? They are a way to 

hang a properly matted photo with out the bother of framing. They are very inexpensive, 

costing pennies for the clips, I don't know how much for the glass or plexi. So, one 

doesn't have to be a web-master to afford a good looking presentation. 

-- Tim Even, March 14, 2002 

Add a comment 

Related Links 

● Holton Studio Frame-Makers- Exceptionally beautiful handcrafted hardwood frames from a 

small studio of dedicated craftsmen. Of particular interest to fans of turn-of-the-century work 

(pictorialism, etc.), & settings (Craftsman Bungalows) Timothy Holton & staff are in fact truly 

versatile, constrained only by their quest for good design marked by artful simplicity. Holton 

http://www.photo.net/learn/framing (1 of 2) [5/15/2002 7:16:08 PM]


Frames are also available at Goldfeder/Kahan (see Philip Greenspun article) and a handful of 

other shops nationwide. (contributed by Tim Holton) 

Add a link 



Use | Privacy 


http://www.photo.net/learn/framing (2 of 2) [5/15/2002 7:16:08 PM] 


Guide to Editing 



● Adobe Photoshop How-to 

1. Sepia toning 

2. Sepia toning made easy 

3. Hand coloring 

● Fixing the gamma on your monitor 



The Gimp does have some issues on Windows, mainly: 

● Scanning problems. It refuses to scan from my Microtek Scanmaker 3700. 

● No printing option. 

● Opens a new Gimp instance for each file you click on the Windows explorer. 

Nevertheless, it is a great tool that works well otherwise. For those in a budget who can't 

afford Photoshop (would you rather pay for a Photoshop license or a film scanner?) a 

great choice is to use a lesser tool for scanning and printing - such as the one that came 

with your scanner, in my case, PhotoImpact 4 Lite - and use The Gimp for image 

manipulation. 

If you're wondering about available tutorials, there's an excelent book titled Grokking 

The Gimp available on Amazon.com as well as in digital form. 

Give The Gimp a try and save the money for equipment. 

http://www.photo.net/learn/editing (1 of 2) [5/15/2002 7:16:10 PM]


-- Ricardo J. Méndez Castro, August 28, 2001 

WRT GIMP: I have been using GIMP on Linux for a few years and have used it on 

windows for the last 18 months. As of 1.2.3-2002-03-10 it is stable and a lot of the plug 

in issues seem to have been fixed (But I haven't pushed this version hard yet). 

It still doesn't beat photoshop on windows but it is getting closer, it is now a VIABLE 

alternative. 

-- Mark Reeves, April 8, 2002 

Add a comment 

Related Links 

● Making fine prints in your digital darkroom- A three part tutorial on making fine prints in the 

digital darkroom. Features a description of an outstanding image editing program, Picture 

Window Pro 3.0, a powerful low cost alternative to Photoshop. (contributed by Norman Koren) 

● The GNU Image Manipulation Program- A free replacement for Photoshop. Unfortunately, as of 

July 2001, it only runs well on Linux. (contributed by Eric Hanchrow) 

Add a link 



Use | Privacy 

Comparison shop for SLRs (Canon, Nikon and Minolta), digital point-andshoots, 

and medium format cameras (Mamiya, Hasselblad and Bronica) and 

more at photo.net's ezShop. 

(Voigtlander Heliar 12 F5.6 shown) 

http://www.photo.net/learn/editing (2 of 2) [5/15/2002 7:16:10 PM]

Nudes 

Sign in | Search 

Gallery Learn Equipment Classifieds Travel ezShop Community 


Nudes 

by Philip 

Greenspun 

It doesn't have to be literal 

Does it tell a story? 

Here's an excerpt from "Career Guide for Engineers and Scientists" ... 

http://www.photo.net/nudes/ (1 of 21)12/08/2004 02:14:48 

This is one of my favorites nudes ever. I actually didn't see the picture until I got the film back. 

This is about 1/5th of a 6x6 negative that contains the model and a beach and some rocks and a 

whole bunch of other stuff. By itself, the picture is a loser. Cropped heavily, I would almost claim 

that it is art. That's one of the nice things about medium format. 

Rollei 6008, 250mm lens, tripod, Kodak VHC color negative film.

Nudes 

Rachel, PhD Biology UCLA 1992, enjoys the wealth of 

material comforts that she has accumulated during 10 years 

of hard work in science. 

(click on the photo for a 500x750 JPEG; click here for a 

1000x1500 screen-filling image) 

1100 square feet of bare hardwood floors called to me: "You will never have this opportunity again. Tomorrow you are going to move 

all of your worldly goods into this new condo. You'd better grab your Canon EOS-5, 20-35/2.8L lens, and TMAX 3200." The model 

and room both have to be bare to show the bleak poverty of the unemployed PhD. 

Here's another image that I had completely planned in my head before I picked up the camera. It 

was during the 1992 presidential campaign when women's rights groups were upset by the 

Republicans' rhetoric. I call it Republican Platform. I really should have gone back and redone the 

image using smaller feet to create the red, white, and blue footprints on the model. 

Body as Structure 


Remember when date rape was the subject of a TIME cover? This is the image they should have used 

IMHO.

Nudes 

I took this in 1981 when I was a junior at MIT. I used a dark brown blanket as the 

background and the overhead light in my dorm room for illumination. The camera was a 

tripod-mounted Yashica twin lens reflex (6x6), valued at approximately $100. 

In 1993, I tried to duplicate the picture with higher-tech equipment. I used a $5,000 

Rollei 6008, elaborate studio strobe system with softbox, and motorized seamless paper 

background. Even the model was higher tech (taller, thinner). The results? Pathetic. The 

room light was too bright for me to adequately judge the outcome with the strobes' 

modeling lights. Consequently, the image was much too high in contrast. 

Sometimes a brain is more important than a fancy camera. 

Motion 

Most nudes are static, heir first to the tradition of painting and then to the limitations of early cameras. But with $30,000 of studio 

strobes there is really no reason not to show the body in motion. Richard Avedon keeps his models constantly in motion so that he never 

gets a frozen deer-in-the-headlights look. To ensure that the light on each model stays constant as he or she moves, Avedon has 

assistants follow the models around with lights at the end of booms. 

http://www.photo.net/nudes/ (3 of 21)12/08/2004 02:14:48

Nudes 

(To create some images like these, start by reading the photo.net guide to studio photography.) 

Environmental Nudes 

I won't say that there is anything wrong with the picture on the left (standard studio shot; seamless background, medium format camera, 

softbox), but I really prefer the right hand "environmental nude." 


Nudes 

Mostly Covered is Usually Better 

This is one of my favorite images from Travels with Samantha. Fuji Velvia film is not really noted 

for its subtlety with flesh tones, and therefore you might prefer the version that I hand-colored in 

PhotoShop. (If you want to know how I did this, check out my hand coloring tutorial.) 

People get uncomfortable when staring at other people's genitalia, so it is generally best to either get rid of the genitalia or the face. 

Of course, Mapplethorpe made almost a whole career out of violating this rule so if you want lots of money and fame, you should 

probably ignore this rule. 

Covered by a Dog is Best 


me and George (please do not send email asking which one is the dog) 

George inspired me to write Travels with Samantha, which begins with his end.

Nudes 

Three Graces 

"I checked a few different sources for info on the 3 graces, and all I could find is that they are 

continually anointing mortals, making them appear extremely beautiful and immortal to their pursuers. 

But I couldn't find why there are three of them or why they are called "graces". I think there is some 

conflation with the Erinyes, who hounded Orestes after he murdered his mom, but then he sacrificed to 

them and they became Eumenides, and at the same time he sacrificed to the Graces. They are 

benevolent goddesses - that much I can say for certain." 

-- My classics nerd friend (Ph.D. from Princeton) 

At right is a copy of a classical statue at the Hearst Castle in San Simeon. Below, in declining order of fidelity 

to the classical traditional, are my interpretations of the theme. 


Nudes 

"Nothing Beats a Wet Beaver" 

That's the motto of the MIT men's water polo team. My friend Adriane and I did a fund-raising calendar (September 1998-December 

1999) of these beefcake-y guys. Send e-mail to her at age@mit.edu if you want to buy a copy to help the team (cost will be $10, 

available late August). 


Nudes 

Note: yes, this is the same Adriane with whom I built The Game. 

Is it Art? 

The line between art and pornography is fairly thin, but it is there. At right is a photo 

that I took as an MIT undergrad. A couple of photography professors loved it. They 

thought it was art, expression, new, whatever. They hated the arch nude above and 

preferred this one. Unfortunately they never did teach me how to describe this as a 

tortured artiste project and how to do more, or I'd be exhibiting in the Whitney 

museum... 

More Practical Tips 

Black & white infrared film tends to erase skin blemishes and imparts a lustrous luminous quality to human 

skin. It is worth reading Laurie White's Infrared Photography Handbook and then trying out a few rolls of 

B&W IR. 

Every now and then someone sends email asking "How do you get women to take their clothes off." My 

personal theory is that the world divides into two classes of people: those who like to be photographed and 

those who don't. Those who like to be photographed think they have beautiful bodies. Naturally, if they look 

good in a picture clothed, then they'd look better without all those ugly clothes standing between their 

beautiful body and the camera. If you therefore find some folks who have survived the constant assault on 

their self esteem by advertisers, the challenge will be to get them to keep their clothes on. It also helps to have 

a portfolio of high quality work. 

How to develop that portfolio? Here's a 12-step program: 


Nudes 

1. Read Making Photographs, our free online photography textbook. Concentrate on the "Light" chapter. 

2. Read our portrait photography tutorial; the challenges in nude photography are very similar 

3. Buy a camera with full manual controls and a fast fixed focal-length lens from one of the photo.net recommended retailers. If 

you've invested the time in arranging a venue and a model, you don't want to rely on automatic exposure. The fast (f/1.4, f/2 or 

f/2.8) lens is important so that you don't have to use flash for every photo. 

4. the photo.net guide to studio photography 

5. Practice (repeat). 

Big photo labs generally will develop tasteful nudes with no questions asked. I once asked the customer service department at Kodalux 

(now Kodak) and they said "if there is only one person in the picture, we're definitely not going to have a problem with it." There are 

laws in some states requiring labs to report photographers who bring in images of naked children. More than a few serious 

photographers have had unpleasant, expensive, and prolonged dealings with government authority stemming from what you'd have 

thought were easy calls (e.g., a San Franciscan who took his 8x10 view camera to a nudist colony and photographed families with their 

consent). 

Dead Trees 

Before burning film, you might want to spend some time with Nude & Glamour by John Hedgecoe. It is not 

my favorite hunk of processed tree carcass but it is very pertinent. 

If you are looking for inspiration rather than tutorial, you might leaf through the 425 smallish pages of The 

Body (William Ewing; Chronicle Books). This covers over 100 years of nude photography, right up to the 

repulsively hairy body of John Coplans, whose self-portraits definitely constitute one of the nastiest things 

one can do with a 4x5 view camera (actually his assistant takes the pictures; he just sells them for $5000 a 

whack). 

If you're looking for something more in the coffee table line, then Graphis Nudes (Graphis Press) gives you 

200 big well-printed pages of contemporary nudes. Not as huge and only 116 pages long, the Aperture 

monograph of Edward Weston's nudes can be awe-inspiring. Do you really have something to say that he 

didn't say back in 1930? And if so, is it aesthetic? 

More 

● an ancient page that used to have six in-line FlashPix nudes 

● the rest of photo.net 

● body painting 

Also check out the user-maintained list of related links at the bottom of the page 

Credits 

Photo of me and George by Rebecca Schudlich; lighting by me (in my studio); ProPhotoCD scan from 645 

negative courtesy Frank Caico. 

All other photos are copyright 1981-1995 Philip Greenspun and were scanned to ProPhotoCd by Boston 

Photo Lab, my favorite PhotoCD shop. 


Nudes 

Note: in order to assist parents in keeping their children from seeing my nude images, I have voluntarily rated this site using the PICS 

standard. If you wish to set up your browser to block nudity, simply follow the instructions at the rating bureau that I have used: http:// 

www.rsac.org. 

If you're a Web publisher and want to know how to quickly add arbitrary output headers on your site, you might also want to read my 

book on Web publishing philosophy and technology. 

philg@mit.edu 


Just looked over your photography pages, and found the info on B&W IR photography. 

I do a bit of freelance work, and I have done some work with IR at nighttime activities, such as dances, when a flash would blind 

everyone. I had quite good luck placing a #87 IR Gel Filter (Kodak) over my flash, an old Vivitar 283, set on auto in the "yellow" 

range. I was surprised to find that the flash read the IR light as if it was a regular flash. 

I got shots from about 50' in to about 15' (and no one was blinded). Of course any closer and people's skin began to take on a strange 

appearance. 

Just wanted to pass this on. Keep up the good work. 

Jim Rementer 

-- Jim Rementer, September 30, 1997 

The nude is one of the hardest subjects to do well. I have found through my galleries that the images which sell best are ones without 

pubic hair. For some strange reason -- prints displaying pubic hair seem obtrusive to the viewer, while the hairless versions are much 

more collected. Perhaps we can learn something from 17th century painters? Also, as far as shooting black and white of models, I use a 

red filter over my lens and dark haired models for some of my work with great success. The red filter "whitens" the skin tones and 

greatly conceals skin blemishes and discolorations. Photographers just starting out may want to try this outdoors against grass -- the 

grass turns very dark and contrasts well with the white skin tones of the model. To the artist, my praise. Of the hundred or so gallery 

sites I've visited so far -- yours in the best organized and most informative. Thanks! 

-- James Falkofske, October 8, 1997 

Isn't nudity being able to show who you are beneath the clothing, beneath the flesh, the person you are within the body. Being nude, to 

show yourself, be yourself, nothing covered nothing hidden, beneath the clothing beyond the body. 

-- Ruey Loke, April 9, 1998 

WOW!, first of all. Next, I think that your work is wonderful. You are one of the only artists I've ever read, that i truly able to write - to 

convey the emotion of their artwork into language, not just art. My mother is an artist (not starving, I'm happy to say), and I've learned a 

lot about art over my eighteen years of life. At least enough to know that you are a "genius" I use the term loosely, only because people 

throw the word around way too much, and the true essence of the word is lost. Thank you for your time, and your art. And by the way, I 

feel that the one controversial picture is art, not pornography. 

-- Jarrod Wolos, July 8, 1998 

WOW!, first of all. Next, I think that your work is wonderful. You are one of the only artists I've ever read, that are truly able to write - 

to convey the emotion of their artwork into language, not just art. My mother is an artist (not starving, I'm happy to say), and I've 

learned a lot about art over my eighteen years of life. At least enough to know that you are a "genius" I use the term loosely, only 


Nudes 

because people throw the word around way too much, and the true essence of the word is lost. Thank you for your time, and your art. 

And by the way, I feel that the one controversial picture is art, not pornography. 

-- Jarrod Wolos, July 8, 1998 

A comment on Mr. Wolos' note above: 

The image refered to on the gateway page that "might disturb or offend some people" has aparently been deleted. It was a photo of a 

stripper on stage, dark background, on camera flash, legs spread directly toward the camera. 

I disagree with Mr. Greenspun's choice of examples to illustrate the point that the line between art and porn is a thin one. The arm and 

sheets photo is obviously not porn - maybe it's art; while the (now deleted) photo was IHMO, soft core porn and not art. Both photos 

were far away from that thin line by my way of thinking. 

A photo balancing on that thin line might be the infamous Robert Maplethorp self portrait of himself facing away from the camera, bent 

over, with the end of a bullwhip inserted in his rectum. The lighting and sharpness of the large format photograph is very precise. Porn? 

maybe - a "penetration" shot. Art? also maybe - a statement about Maplethorp's lifestyle, shocking the viewer into forming an opinion 

of him, you pick the meaning or the reason. Viewers' reactions may change after considering that Maplethorp died of AIDS several 

years after making this photograph. 

-- Mike Rosenlof, July 14, 1998 

I enjoyed looking at your photos of nudes in motion. As a sculptor who does figurtive nudes in motion I am always pleased to find 

someone who can work with this fascinating subject. The photo reference books I use , however,are few in number: Thomas Easley's 

"The Figure in Motion" and the works of Eadweard Muybridge. The latter did not have $30,000 in strobes when he made his 100,000 

glass plates at Penn in 1888. Using the sun or whatever reflected light he could capture, he made such a statement that the artists of 

Europe treated him as a Messiah when he toured. It would be good if a photographer of today were such an artist that he would seek to 

duplicate 1/10th of Muybridge's work with modern equipment. The nude in motion has more than a front and a side. You have made a 

good start. Arne 

-- Arne Smith, March 6, 1999 

I see that the artist is somewhat dismayed that this is a very popular page of his, and feels that there are better works. I for one much 

prefer seeing a nude on a beautiful landscape, or a nude on an interesting and artistic backgrounds, etc. than most any other subject. 

The artist should ask himself: Why is the viewer bothering coming to his site to look at his nudes when there are literally thousands 

(probably millions) of sites out there featuring nude women in an astounding variety of positions and states of exposure? 

Because many, like myself, want to see TASTEFUL NUDES. Especially those of us that live in the United States where a nude body 

put in an elegant or sophisticated light is so rare to behold that it is craved like gold or money or other precious commodities. 

We will spend hours searching the net for a site that gives us nude people (most often nude women) in a high-resolution and highquality 

format, that (1) aren't sticking strange objects into their body orifices, (2) aren't surrounded by 800 orange, yellow, and red 

flashing advertisements, and (3) have words accompanying the image that make our minds actually think a little bit. 

For my part, I have found not a single other site on the internet or web besides this one that provides all these things, and FREE OF 

CHARGE to boot?!?! I'm surprised your page of tasteful nudes in high-quality format aren't visited so often that your web server 

doesn't halt completely! 

I have viewed your images (the non-nude ones, too) and enjoyed all of them. But because the nudes are the most rare and precious 

images in my society, at least, I keep coming back to them, like an addiction. I never have this urge to go to any of the 1,000,000 porn 

sites that are the alternative. 


Nudes 

Now a shameless plug: my web site, at www.philovivero.com/~philov has a super-small set of static pages that emulate this. No 

photographs of nudes, but a few image-manipulated drawings. No commercials, no credit cards. So maybe viewers would like to go 

there just to check it out for a little bit. 

-- Philo Vivero, May 6, 1999 

Beautiful images, I must say. Specially gorgeous is the picture of Heather combing Alex on a bench: the picture looks so simple... 

-- Ricardo J. Méndez Castro, May 25, 1999 

I would like congratulate you on your excellent photo layout well done!also the photo date rape really touch me.as a man I don't have 

any idea what a woman feels after a brutal attack. This photo gave me a tiny insight how horrible rape is.I feel that it is time for society 

to conditioning our young boys to be overly agresive and teach our sons how a man should treat others with kindness&respect.9years 

ago my wife and daughter were killed by a drunkdriver leaving me alone to raise our son God I hope i did my best. 

-- Gary Carnegie, September 13, 1999 

This site is simply superb, and of course the way tips are given on such type ofphotography is of great assistance for the amature 

photographer. Furthermore thephotographs are not at all obscene, these are the real class photograph. 

-- Babul K Jha, September 25, 1999 

I was extremely impressed with the shot of the nude with back arched that you did as a junior at MIT. It is actually quite unusual, and 

quite original in its feel. I agree that photography has little to do with the camera, and everything to do with what is in your head. Fine 

work! 

-- David Schwartz, September 28, 1999 

Phil, a picutre of your naked friend in an empty condo, or rather your narrative to it reminds me of an excerpt from one of Sergey 

Dovlatov's books, who had some mind-boggling humor leaning towars absurd, like a real Russian writer should. You might want to 

read his mamoirs of working for an Estonian newspaper in 1970s, where he describes a news photographer, who had cigarette-butts 

floating in the developer, etc. Anyway, this is a piece I translated from memory. "In a museum of partisan warfare somewhere in 

Russia... A large glass-clad display case with a human skull. The description reads - ""This is a skull of partisan Kowalczuk. Here are 

personal belongings of partisan Kowalczuk - a nail which he used to attack the German officer and a bullet from his skull."" ...Partisan 

Kowalczuk spared no expenses..." Love the site, BTW. 

-- Dmitry Zhukov-Gelfand, October 27, 1999 

I am 18 and just getting into nude photography. I really enjoyed looking through the photos because they aren't just pictures of someone 

nude, they are feelings, and personalities. I look for the more modern pictures to get my ideas from. I really think this will contribute a 

lot to my personal study of black/white nudes. Thanks for a site like this. 

-- Jessica Bruso, January 24, 2000 

i, myself, speaking as an artist of both audio and visual medium, can honestly appreciate some subtlety and simplicity, meaning that less 

is more and does leave the imagination and emotional charges open to the experience that "tasteful nudism" brings to the table. by not 

exposing everything to the naked eye, your senses are drawn more to the overall beauty and splendor of the subject rather than a blatant 

statement of mere sexuality, as such. the human element in and of itself is dynamic and multi faceted like a cut diamond, and it is the 

archetype for every perspective, that we perceive it as such. 

-- doug king, June 30, 2000 

well, I know within me that I see these things in a very different perspective. others would call it porno but looking at it even without 

the paints on the body is per se an art. what is wrong with other prople is their pre-conditioned judgment once they see this thing. one 

thing more, this concept of pre-judgment maybe to others would say it just came when they saw it but actually they were conditioned to 


Nudes 

be so. it was how they were brought up and what kind of environment they used to live in as their consciousness passess through time. 

Beowoulf Agate/LSD 

-- Leonard Dagaerag, July 3, 2000 

I dont believe showing off body parts, especially private parts, for viewing to the public is a form of art. In fact i think its embarassing. 

To me this form of activity could lead to a more negative society, a society without rules...maybe a society without dignity. We cant 

expect everybody to view these pictures as a form of art? Maybe these form of art should be constrain within its community and not to 

the open public especially where places that is accessible to the underage. This is just a comment. No intention whatsoever to offend 

anybody. Thank you. 

-- Razak Abdullah, August 2, 2000 

I think when it comes to decieding whether or not something should be considered ART or PORN, You must analyze your feelings. 

Does this photo that your looking at have focus, balance, and point of impact? or does it make you feel like you just took your viagra? If 

its's the later, then YOU individually have to deciede whether or not its pornography. I observed all the photo's posted. My personal 

feelings say its ART. Not because its in black and white. Not because there seems to be a layout in a respectable nude position, But 

because I FEEL its art. Thats what art is.....FEELINGS! 

-- Wud Upa, August 13, 2000 

girl in blue room 

An impressive site, but some words of criticism… first suggestion, perhaps you should use more serious models, or else have the 

models perform more serious acts and expressions. I find it very hard to respect a nude photograph of a person smiling or jumping when 

put in such a serious atmosphere as a white drop with diffused lighting, such as with the photos you posted of the female nude in motion 

or “The Three Graces.” Secondly, try bringing your subjects out of the studio. I enjoyed the photograph of the model in the bare condo 

because it gave the subject ground, reality and atmosphere (although your intended message was hard to accept: hardwood floors and 

clean white walls are not a typical sign of poverty!). Thirdly, and probably most importantly, research the zone system; try adding some 

contrast. Many of your photographs were so grey they bored me, and the only ones I actually stopped to view were the color photos and 

the one of woman’s back (torso wrapped in a towel, with a black backdrop). That one was exceptional; very beautiful. But in order to 


Nudes 

evoke any emotion from a work, light is the key in photography. My photography instructor constantly pounds, “We live and die by 

light.” Dramatic lighting is key in provoking any mood from a studio piece. These are the words of a 19-year-old photojournalism 

student who hates the studio and produces slightly-blurred movement shots, so you’re getting tips from a completely opposite view of 

photography. In fact, my jaw drops in awe of your technical abilities, for I am far from producing such beautiful prints! However, if 

your intent is to create a mood, at least consider my comments. I prefer criticism over empty praise, also, so forgive me if I seem harsh. 

To Razak, the one who commented that nudes are unacceptable and should be kept private in order to sustain dignity in society: 

OBLIVION in society is hollow and unacceptable. Children who are permitted to drink at early ages in other countries proceed to drink 

responsibly, while American teenagers are drinking themselves and others dead. Particularly with tasteful nudes, as this site displays, 

the unclothed body would be chuckled at less often by immature young adults if it was exposed more freely to them at youth. And 

besides, we all wind up getting laid at one point. My site: http://hometown.aol.com/tooonist/Tooonist.htm (this is a rough unfinished 

sketch of a page and is not NEARLY as impressive as this one is as far as construction goes!) 

-- Danielle E. Corsetto, November 12, 2000 

As someone who once had an interest in nude photography ( until society imposed restrictions on this interest ) it was refreshing to see 

this site. I think the nude in motion is very hard to do get right, your shoot of the girl dancing in the studio is a perfect example. A nude 

should not only be a record of the human body, but to give the mind something to think about, the photos' of the feet and arched back 

are good examples, and some are to please the eye with magnificent backdrop of nature that take the eye from the nude so she/he 

becomes second to nature. The one thing your site does show very well, is that even here in the work of a serious nude photographer, 

male genitalia is still somehow tabu, even if it was not conciously done so. Otherwise some very good photography, keep clicking and 

good luck with your future shoots. lance. 

-- lance A, December 12, 2000 

I like this page, but the author almost seems to apologizing for its existance in some places. Unfortunately, that attitude seeps into 

the rest of the site. I have a number of nude images - art, not porn - posted here on Photo.net, and I have been flamed, both on the 

boards and in private email, for them. I have asked the webmaster for help several times in dealing with the posted flames, and my 

emails are ignored. This is a site with many well-educated, intelligent members. They are surely aware that the nude has 

been a legitimate subject of art for centuries. Yet I still have to stuggle against criticism - not of my technique, which I do not mind, but 

attacks on my morals and my character for taking such photos. I think that of the admistrators of this site could be more supportive of 

artistic nude photography. They choose not be, which I find significant. I think it limits the site - people moan and complain about the 

boring photos here, but until the site administrators show support for more personally risky photos, thats mainly what its going to be. I 

like Photo.net - thats why I am here - but I wish it could be less...narrow. 

Amy Powers 

-- Amy Powers, March 10, 2001 

Phil, 

A few things. The first is that I really like your three graces and motion pieces. One of the issues with motion however is lack of 

context. You were clearly playing with an undeveloped concept and I regard it as a sort of a "sketch" for the three graces set. The thing I 

like most about "three graces is the humor you bring to the subject through the use of props. Others have objected that your studio offers 

too serious a setting for smiling joyous models, I disagree; your picture of the three graces skipping rope with the cloth was the first 

nude that has ever made me laugh. It captured a wonderful joie de vivre and speaks well of the working relationship among your 

models. 

The other thing regards Christina. You've framed it badly, tucking it away by itself and contextualizing it as a concession to thrill 

seeking teenagers. Why did you actually work with her? There must be a story behind it, and you have done some marvelous work with 

it. You've been accused on this comments page about being overly apologistic for your nudes. Nowhere are you more apologistic than 

there. Rethink the way you are contextualizing the images. 


Nudes 

-- Rich Furman, March 13, 2001 

I agree with the writer who said that a nude against an interesting backdrop posed artitically is totally captivating and much sought after. 

In fact I think that Phil has a lack of interesting backdrops in his nudes, although they are quite good. For a better example of nude 

photography in natural settings check out Erick Boutlier Brown, He is a Nova Scotian photographer with an impressive body of work 

that relates to the subject. I am grateful to Phil however, I want to get into nude photography and have found this site to be very helpful 

and informative on the subject. 

-- Traverse Davies, May 7, 2001 

Most of all I enjoy the different opionions verbaly fostered by the the viewers, reflecting so many things about us: our religious 

upbringing, that of our parents, personal (good & bad) experiences with nudity or members of the other sex, society, parents...I enjoy 

the shots for what they show: both the good and not so good. Light is the most important factor in shooting nudes, or anything else, 

certainly. I've found some bodies(skin) love light and the camera and even certain types of films and I love experimenting with the 

differences. Composition is second. Motion---nearly impossible to get right with nudes (what does one wish to say?). Sort of like 

catching a close-up portrait of someone blinking--half-closed eyelids are not so impressive. 

A note to anyone using B&W infra-red film. If you have a cloth (non-metalic) shutter you may experience exposure problems. IR light 

(or, technically, energy) can be kept away from the film only by metal enclosures so a cloth shutter will change your exposure, 

considerably. I've never tried making IR shots with a camera that had a cloth, focal plane shutter. Possibly a contact with Kodak might 

offer assistance. 

Jerry Revelle 

-- Jerry Revelle, May 26, 2001 

In the time since I made my first comment, I have percieved a shift in the general attitude of Photo.net habituees towards being more 

open to nudes as an legitimate art form. There are still some who will snigger and elbow each other in the manner of sixth grade boys, 

but I have also found some insightful and very encouraging voices here, and that really great for me. I hope that this general trend 

continues... 

-- Amy Powers, May 31, 2001 

I am surprised, and disappointed also, about the very reserved attitude I find on this page toward nude photography. I see two main 

bordering or parent genres of nude photography being portrait and artistic. Both are about exposing something of yourself or the person 

in front of the camera in the picture. For one person that will be very subtile but for the other it is more progressive, striking. That is 

what makes photography like any other art form so interesting: it's personal and it shows emotions that are not to be seen all the time. 

Remember what Freud says about art: "Art is a form of replacement-satisfaction for unfulfilled desires, like dreams. The difference is 

that art forms are not narcistic or a-social, but intended for other people to share and fulfill the same desires." Like Freud or not there is 

a truth in it. There is nothing dirty about it other than our nature. In normal life we want to hide it away and it can only come out in 

neurotic forms, whereas in art it is "exposed" in a different way that more people can relate to. . Artist in the widest form have always 

played a progressive role in history, alowing more of what's inside people to come out. Please don't be too reserved about nude. I'm not 

saying you have to share your ideas with everybody but this is a page for photographers and believe me, the distinction with porn pages 

if you will is more than evident: we don't have to defend it further. You're nude back with towel in B&W is really high quality and I 

loved the nude reflexion on top. Keep up the good work! 

-- Remco den Boer, June 5, 2001 

Someone with way too much time on their hands! 

-- Rog Schmidt, August 6, 2001 

I wish you would leave politics and photographic technique separate. Your photo of a woman being stepped on and your association of 


Nudes 

that with the Republican party is poor. Very weak indeed. Why not do the same but with a baby being stepped on by the woman who 

decided to kill it? And associate that with the Democratic party? See, not very appropriate either is it? 

Richard Martin 

-- Richard Martin, October 22, 2001 

As a amateur photographer who is looking to get into more nude-are photography I just want to thank you for giving me some insight 

and motivation on this art. 

Your insights and photos are wonderful, and they help me come to grips with my creative inabilities of which I am trying to conquer. 

Again, Thank you. 

Mark. 

-- Mark Smith, November 15, 2001 

In one of the above comments, Danielle E. Corsetto, (November 12, 2000) said "I find it very hard to respect a nude photograph of a 

person smiling or jumping when put in such a serious atmosphere as a white drop with diffused lighting..." 

Why only a nude person? Why would a smiling clothed person in such a 'serious' atmosphere be taken more seriously? 

While I agree that a beautiful face with a solemn expression has a high element of class, these type of 'candid' shots have their place, 

and I personally didn't have a problem with the setting. 

In fact, the contrast between the setting and the expressions is what I liked the most. 

Artistic nudes have the cliche of being serious, and solemn. They also have the cliche of depicting something depressing, like being 

alone and naked to the world, etc. "This is artistic nudity! No giggling allowed! That would be immature.." 

Here, for once we can see people in their natural state, expressing natural emotions. I think its quite appropriate. 

-- Clint Hobson, April 23, 2002 

I've little interest in labels individually assigned to images, nude or otherwise. I enjoyed this tutorial because it displays and explains 

photographing nudes. I don't expect to do much (if any) nude photography, but I still want the insight. 

I think your work is fantastic. I was impressed with the woman in the empty room. 

Jeff 

-- Jeff Bishop, May 11, 2002 

Shadow, Light, texture, setting, yes... but above all; beauty, strength, grace, intrigue... le femme mystique ... bring forth our sense of 

awe and wonder and impel us to LOOK again. Herein the child and the eye meet, something stirs within, and you are responsible for 

that. Thank you. 

-- Tom London, May 19, 2002 


Add a comment 

Related Links

Nudes 

● Geogre Losse's Portfolio- Landscapes and nudes printed in Platinum (contributed by George Losse) 

● Stereoscopic Imaging by Ray 3D- 3D Photography and Video by Ray Hannisian. Gallery includes: (contributed by Ray 

Hannisian) 

● Ollie'sOddities- Some strange and freaky photos from my collection, (contributed by Oliver Dunlop) 

● VINTAGE MALE PHYSIQUE PHOTOGRAPHY 1947-1958- Hand printed photos from the original 1947-1958 negatives. 

Male nude and posing strap models, leaning against pillars, on bear skin rugs, erotic, campy, beautiful. Rare vintage male 

erotica. Catalogs issued (contributed by David Parker) 

● Horst Werner Gallery- Artistic nude b&w photos by Horst Werner (contributed by Horst Werner) 

● Chip Page Photography- Photographer in San Jose Cal site shows his photography subjects ranging from glamour to his work in 

the local music scene, also his photos of more popular music groups, like Phish, Rusted Root. (contributed by Chip Page) 

● Jaakko Hucklebee- Sorry, I listed it wrong the first time. This one works. (contributed by Jaakko Hucklebee) 

● Dialogue Fine Art Gallery- Take a look at the photographs of Mark James Perry. The Claudia series of nudes is very good. 

(contributed by bill wheeler) 

● Chapapeela - Robert Baham Photography- fashion, glamour, nudes, and erotica celebrating the madding contradiction of 

Woman (contributed by Robert Baham) 

● Classic Images- Boudoir, Glamour and Fine Art Nudes (contributed by Fred Kost) 

● Debenport Fine Art Photography- Beautiful fine art female nudes photographed by Robb Debenport. Limited edition Iris prints 

available directly from the artist. (contributed by Robb Debenport) 

● Dale Austin- Online photographic gallery of nudes and other photography. (contributed by Dale Austin) 

● Works of H.Butz- The portfolio of New York's Henry Butz, alternative black & white fine-art figure photography, featuring one 

of the largest on-line collections of female nudes. (contributed by Henry Butz) 

● Zoran Ilic's Homepage- Zoran Ilic Art-Nude Photography,Pandora and Femina series. (contributed by Zoran Ilic) 

● Legrand Art Nude Photo Gallery- The beauty and poetry of incredible male art nude photos (contributed by Allex Legrand) 

● Axolotyl Studios- Various galleries showing environmental nudes, fine art photography inspired by art and literature, portraiture, 

wildlife & nature, and some reportage from the Minnesota Rennaisance Festival. Photographs are taken on colour, black & 

white, infrared film. (contributed by Pat Thielen) 

● Leroy Dickson's Web Portfolio- An educational work in progress, aimed at photographers of all skill level. Working on the site 

improves my knowledge and hopefully will yours. (contributed by Leroy Dickson) 

● JR Photo Jerry Rybansky- Photographer gallery fine-art figure and stock. (contributed by Jerry Rybansky) 

● EASTGALLERY- artist,gallery,paintings,photos,mask (just underconstruction) (contributed by Victor Lee) 

● photo gallery- Go to the part 'glamour' and 'portrait' (contributed by hans molenkamp) 


Nudes 

● Tepuis- Die Beschwörung des Lichts! fine art nudes (contributed by Eschke Yves) 

● Rene De Carufel Photography Gallery- Creative images in the field of commercial photography, as well as Fines Art Nude 

photography (contributed by Rene De Carufel) 

● Kurai Hoshi Liferoom- The pencil as a camera - realist liferoom studies of the nude by Gerald O'Connell (contributed by Gerald 

O'Connell) 

● Eagle Photo Labs- advanced photo services for all people. (contributed by john kinson) 

● Moonlighting - Fine art nude photographs of women- A series of portraits and fine art nude photographs of Australian women by 

Ian Scrivener. (contributed by Ian Scrivener) 

● Redd's PHOTO MUSEUM- An on-line Photo Museum in Taiwan. (contributed by Jui-Te Liao) 

● Tom van de Ven -- Photographs- "Queen of Heats" series of young female nudes. (contributed by mark james perry) 

● Nudes. Hector Hernandez Portfolio- A collection of nudes taken by a Mexican Photograper. (contributed by Hector Hernandez) 

● boy- 123456 (contributed by f chen) 

● Roller Gallery- This site displays over 15 years of fine art nude photography. Most images were taken outdoors, underwater, in 

canyons and caves, frozen waterfalls and on the streets of Chicago. (contributed by Dave Riemer) 

● Photographer.Ru - Everything about Russian Photography- Our site devoted to various aspects of photography. We have several 

sections: Museum, Gallery, Magazine, Portal and News&Events section. (contributed by Denis Korneev) 

● Art Spider: a Fine Art Search Engine- This site has hundreds of fine art nude photography sites. check it out and bookmark it! 

(contributed by mark james perry) 

● Art Nudes by Paul Ward- Studio and available light figure studies. (contributed by Paul Ward) 

● a head of your own design- A photographic exploration of metacyber nakedness the mask as a self portrait,looking,being seen, 

the erotic gaze as well as issues of power and control.A serious,funny,thought provoking discourse, that welcomes your 

participation and encourages you to probe the process of active imagination. (contributed by albert morse) 

● Jari von Behr, photographer Finland- Fine Nude Art photographer from Finland, models ect. (contributed by Jari von Behr) 

● Carsten Tschach Fine Art Photography- A selection of fine art, erotic and portrait photography created in the studio and on 

selected outdoor locations. (contributed by Carsten Tschach) 

● Interphoto.net - let the journey begin...- Travel photo Web resource plus great selection of free electronic postcards from around 

the world (contributed by Brano Gal) 

● Erotic Galleries- Erotic Galleries, Models and more (contributed by Collin Braun) 

● Alligator Angel - Nude Photography- A personal site - I am an evolving photographer of nudes. I do a lot of self-portraits, and 

images of other people, as well. (contributed by Amy Powers) 


Nudes 

● Digital Art: fine art nudes- Traditional Photographic and Digital Imaging applied to the female nude. Most images taken in the 

great outdoors. (contributed by Dave Riemer) 

● Iowa Nude Male Model- Nude Modeling for artists (contributed by mike emery) 

● "monochrome" Fine Art Photography- Online portfolio of Fine Art Nudes and Mindscapes and more photography by Japanese 

photographer Fumio Hanano. (contributed by Fumio Hanano) 

● Tepuis - english- the invocation of light! (contributed by Eschke Yves) 

● art-nude, the art-community- many different artists on one website (contributed by Eschke Yves) 

● Gothic Nudes- Nudes on the streets of the big citys (contributed by Gary Anderson) 

● Steve Cornes - Photography- Click to view the portfolio collection of Southampton photographer Steve Cornes (includes 

Portraiture, Fashion and Fine Art) (contributed by Steve Cornes) 

● black and white nudes- A collection by London photographer Nic Tucker. (contributed by Arthur Noel) 

● Erotic Photography with Live Broadcast Photo Sessions- Think tasteful intelligent imagery of the female form shot in 

collaberation with the models and sometimes live broadcast over the web. Check the schedule for upcoming events. (contributed 

by Carl Geers) 

● An experiment in nudes using projections- Slides projected on a nude female to create various illusions of skin texture. No body 

paint is used. Some slides for projection created digitally, but the end result is the photograph, not an alteration in the computer. 

(contributed by Matt Marquez) 

● Lux Vobiscum- Richard Bingham's gallery of photographs, various subjects, but mainly nude studies. (contributed by Richard 

Bingham) 

● Edwards Fine Art Nude and Glamour Photography- Free fine art nude and semi-nude photos. Five free galleries including 

Boudoir, Erotic, Fashion, Portraits and Glamour Model of the Month. Contemporary, Erotic and Nude Photography Website. We 

are always looking for new glamour models. (contributed by Tommy Edwards) 

● FINE ART + NUDE PHOTOGRAPHICS by Alexander Paulin- Fine art + nude photographics in b/w and high quality from the 

german artist Alexander Paulin. Look at his outstanding and unmistakable works in 14 galleries. ENJOY ! (contributed by 

Alexander Paulin) 

● Mark van den Hoven - Visual 4rt- The official site of Mark van den Hoven. Dutch painter and photographer. NEW erotic photos 

and paintings have been added recently. Just enough for the imagination. (contributed by Mark van den Hoven) 

● Darko Prokes Photography- Fashion, Glamor, Nudes & Erotica Celebrating the Madding Contradiction of Woman (contributed 

by Darko Prokes) 

● Menegatos Fine Art Gallery- A collection of Galleries including various Nudes. Abstracts, bodyscapes, figure studies, bondage, 

erotica, etc. (contributed by Tom Menegatos) 

● A Wandering Body- Nude essay in the ruins of a XVth monastery south of Portugal. Also graphic forms in Greece and portraits 

in Africa, Europe and Asia. (contributed by carlos pinto coelho) 

● PHOTO * NUDES- Finding a new form between art & porn, Photo Nudes showcases the nude photography of Ralph Nolte - 


Nudes 

featuring redhead model Marlene in an amazing variety of settings and situations. With 3D images, interactive sequences, video 

clips and extensive background info. (contributed by Ralph Nolte) 

● Artistic nudes from 3 continents- You might be tired of the trash you see under "Artistic nudes" category on the net. Give it one 

more try - see the difference between the faces, bodies and feelings from the 3 most beautiful continents, in a well designed 

interactive web page. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions/ideas about what you see. (contributed by Chaba Vigh) 

● Nudes / Erotic / Beauty - by Roman Sluka- art and commercial nudes photogallery selection of photos by roman sluka: nudes, 

photo, erotica, sex, art, fine art, photographer, beauty, elite nudes, models, provocative and romantic nudes, portraits, close-up, 

model portfolios (contributed by Roman Sluka) 

● Art nude photography by Ian Scrivener- An extensive photographic collection of art nudes, portraits and dance by Australian 

photographer Ian Scrivener. (contributed by Ian Scrivener) 

● Amit Bar Fine Art Photography- Black&white and colour photos of artistic nudes, body-paintings, landscapes, nature, snapshots, 

children and portrait photos, drawings and photo-collages. (contributed by Amit Bar) 

● d- d (contributed by yetofu fs) 

● Usefilm.com- A photo critique site for photographers with constructive critiques. (contributed by Al shaikh) 

● Victoria Anisova - Artistic Nudes- Black and White artistic nudes as well as colour glamour imagery. (contributed by Victoria 

Anisova) 

● ApertureX - The Sexier Side of Photography.- ApertureX is a free resource for photgraphers interested in glamour photography 

to learn and grow. Also, coming soon a photography contest. (contributed by Leroy Dickson) 

● * PHOTO NUDES *- The complete on-line collection of Nude Photos, Naked Adventures & Video Nudes. (contributed by 

Ralph Nolte) 

● Fine art nude photography- 


Nudes 

Fine art and stock photos - shopping 

See also:The Best Photos - Professional, Stock Advertising and Amateur Photos - www.propho.net (contributed by Gencho 

Petkov) 

● Expon.Net :: Erotic / Fine Art- Erotic galleries, nudes, fine Art. The meeting point in on-line Art. (contributed by Fran HP) 

● Jeff Norman - Photographer- Jeff is based in Essex in England. He specialises in portrait and figure photography. This was a 

quick attempt at a website which Jeff hopes to improve soon. Comments and communication are welcomed to mail@jeffnorman. 

co.uk (contributed by Jeff Norman) 

● A Brave Nude World!- A great index to fine art nude & erotic photography. (contributed by Ian Scrivener) 

● JB Microbabe- Great links to a wide range of fine art nude images of the world. (contributed by Ian Scrivener) 

● Gallery of Nudes- Extensive gallery of fine art nude photography form around the world. (contributed by Ian Scrivener) 

● Jerry Avenaim Photography- View the online portfolios of acclaimed photographer Jerry Avenaim. (contributed by Jerry 

Avenaim) 

© 2000-2003 Luminal Path Corporation and contributors. Member content used with permission. 

About Us | Photo.net FAQ | Subscribe! | Related Sites | Contact Us | Terms of Use | DMCA Agent | Privacy 

Backup Software | 

photo.net is sponsored by Digital Camera HQ 


Macro Photography 

Sign in | Search 

Gallery Learn Equipment Classifieds Travel ezShop Community 



"how to take close-up pictures of small 

things" 

by Philip Greenspun 

macro \'mak-(.)ro-\ aj [macr-] 1: excessively developed : LARGE, THICK 2: of or involving large 

quantities 3: GROSS 

Taking close-up pictures of small things is called "macro photography." I have no idea why. Perhaps because 

the small things in macro photography are generally larger than the things you are taking pictures of when 

doing "micro photography". If you really want to be pedantic then you should say you are doing 

"photomacrography". 

What Kind of Camera 

You probably want a standard 35mm single-lens reflex camera. You will see in the viewfinder what the film sees. If you have a lot of 

money, you can get a 6x6 single-lens reflex such as the Rollei 6008. That's more or less the same idea. If you have a lot of patience, you 

can do macro photography with a 4x5 inch view camera. 

In the digital world, true macro photography is possible only with single-lens reflex cameras that take interchangeable lenses, such as 

the Canon D30, the Fuji S1, the Nikon D1, and the various Kodak professional bodies. One nice thing about these cameras is that their 

small CCDs effectively magnify the image captured by whatever macro lens you've purchased. Thus a 100mm macro lens mounted on a 

Canon D30 effectively becomes a 160mm lens. And if the lens gives 1:1 magnification on 35mm film, you get 1.6:1 on the D30's 

sensor. 

Doing it all with a 50mm Normal Lens 

In the good old days a 35mm single-lens reflex camera came with a 50mm "normal" lens. These 

lenses were extremely light, rugged, and high quality so naturally the consuming public 

abandoned them for heavy, fragile, low quality zooms. But that's another story... Anyway, suppose 

that you are out in the woods with your Nikon and a 50mm normal lens and you want to take a 

picture of the tip of a pine needle. 

First, though, you want to take a picture of the moon. That's pretty far away, so you feel 

comfortable setting the lens focusing helical to "infinity". The "nodal point" of the optics will now 

be 50 millimeters from the plane of the film. [Note: exposure for the moon should be roughly f/11 

and 1/film-speed.] 

http://www.photo.net/macro/primer (1 of 8)15/11/2004 6:47:08 PM


The effort of setting up your tripod is so great that you become tired and fall asleep. When you wake up in the morning, there is a bear 

standing 10 feet away. You refocus your 50mm lens to get a picture of the grizzly. As you turn the helical from "infinity" to "10 feet", 

notice that the optics are racked out away from the film. The nodal point is a bit farther than 50 millimeters from the film plane. The 

lens is casting an image circle somewhat larger than the 24x36mm frame. Some of the light gathered by the lens is therefore being lost 

but it isn't significant. 

After snapping that photo of the bear, you notice that his fangs are glistening. These aren't going to appear very large in your last shot, 

so you move up until you are about 1.5 feet from the bear. That's about as close as the Nikon lens helical will let you focus. The nodal 

point is now pretty far from the lens. Extra light is spilling off to the edges of the frame , but still not far enough to require an exposure 

correction. The bear's face is 1.5 feet high. You've oriented the camera vertically so that the face fills the 36mm dimension. 36mm is 

about 1.5 inches. So that means you are working at "1:12". The subject is 12 times the size of the subject's image on film. 

You're losing some light, but also you notice that you don't have too much depth of field. A 50mm lens focussed down to a foot from 

the subject only has a depth of field of 1/16th of an inch at f/4. No problem. You haul out a big electronic flash and stop down to f/11. 

Now your depth of field is a whopping ... 1/2 inch. 

Looking down, you become fascinated by some pattern's in the bear's claws. Each one is about 1.5 inches long. You'd like to fill the 

35mm frame's long dimension with a claw, which means that the subject and its image will be the same size. You want to work at "1:1". 

But those scumbags at Nikon skimped on the helical. You can't rack your optics out far enough to focus at 1:1. It looks like that pine 

needle tip photo is completely out of the question. 

Why did Nikon limit your ability to focus close? For starters, at 1:1 your lens would be so far away from the film that it would cast a 

huge image circle. The standard 35mm frame would only be a tiny fraction. So only about 1/4 of the light gathered by the lens would 

reach the film. A scene that required a lens setting of f/16 at infinity would require a lens setting of about f/8 at 1:1. All this other light 

would be bouncing around inside your camera and lens, reducing contrast. Finally, a fixed stack of optical elements can't be designed to 

form sharp images at so many different focussed distances. 

Close-Up Lenses 

Your eyes don't focus so great on really small things either. Do you try to pull your cornea a foot 

away from your retina? No. You stick a magnifying glass in front of your cornea. You can do the 

same thing for your 50mm lens. Unlike your cornea, it even has convenient threads for attaching a 

magnifying glass. 

A photo shop could never sell you a "magnifying glass" for $50 so they call these things 

"supplementary lenses" or "close-up lenses". Good things about close-up lenses: 

● they don't require any exposure corrections 

● you can throw a couple in your pocket in case you need them 

Bad things about close-up lenses: 

● they aren't very high quality though they might be good enough if you stop down to f/16 and if you can find two-element closeup 

lenses (e.g., Nikon-brand) instead of the cheapo one-element ones. 

● you have to take them on and off constantly if you are taking pictures of things at different distances. 

I never use close-up lenses but they are described fairly thoroughly in the Kodak Professional Photoguide. 

At right: a model of Sacre Coeur, captured with a Minolta 50mm lens and single-element Minolta-brand close-up lens. The image has 

lots of problems but I think I was 11 years old when I took it. 

Macro Zoom Lenses 



Macro zoom lenses are not macro lenses. They don't allow significantly greater magnification than a 50mm normal lens and they 

deliver low quality. 

Macro Lenses 

What you want is a macro lens. Fortunately, it is difficult to buy a bad macro lens. This is 

kind of odd in a world where 90% of the lenses sold are bad. Here's my theory: Every day 

at least one man wakes up and says to himself "I have a 1.5 inch long penis; I think I will 

buy a big SLR like a pro. But I don't want to spend money on frills like lenses so I'll get a 

Tokina zoom." However, no man ever wakes up and says to himself "I have a 1.5 inch long 

penis. I think I will buy a macro lens so that I can make a 1:1 photograph of my penis and 

distribute this photo from my Web server. But I don't want to spend too much on this lens 

so I'll try to find a cheap Sigma." 

In short, anyone in the market for a macro lens is already fairly sophisticated and quality 

conscious. If you read USENET then you know that the world is full of people asking "is this $150 Tamron 75-300 zoom as good as a 

$900 Nikon 300 prime?" Can you blame Tamron/Tokina/Sigma for trying to separate people like this from their $150? But there isn't 

apparently a big enough collection of fools in the market for macro lenses to support a junky macro lens subcategory. 

In my humble opinion, the best macro lenses are the latest autofocus mount models made by Nikon (my primary 35mm system is 

Canon EOS, by the way). Nikon makes 60mm, 105mm and 200mm focal lengths. Each lens will focus continuously from infinity to 

1:1. You can shoot the moon and capture the bear claw without stopping to change lenses or screw in filters. How do these lenses work? 

Do they just have a much longer helical than the 50mm normal lens? Yes and no. 

Yes a macro lens helical has much more travel than a normal lens helical. You can watch the front element move an inch or two. 

However, these helicals aren't just pushing a stack of glass back and forth like the 50mm's helical. Inside one of the elements is moving 

("floating") so that the optical design changes to a more appropriate one for close-up photography. Thus you get sharp images at all 

focussed distances. 

How do you choose a focal length? The same way you do with a non-macro lens. If you can't get very close to your subject at a soccer 

game, you don't pull out a 50mm lens; you get a 300. If you can't get close to an insect without it getting scared and flying away, then 

you want the 200mm lens and not the 50. If you want to compress features in a woman's face, you don't get a 28mm lens; you get a 

105mm lens. It is the same with macro work; longer lenses give you a flatter perspective. 

What about other companies? Canon makes 50, 100, and 180mm macro lenses. All three incorporate floating 

elements. The 50 is cheap but it only goes to 1:2 without a "life size converter" (sort of like a telextender) that 

you stick between the lens and the camera. The 50 is also annoying because it has the ancient non-USM 

Canon motor. So it can't do simultaneous AF and MF like the ring-USM lenses. The 100 goes to 1:1 but also 

has the old-style motor. The 180/3.5 is a new design with three low dispersion elements, a tripod mount, and 

USM for full-time manual focus. It is also compatible with the Canon telextenders. At right, you can see 

about as close as one can get with the Canon 50 (from my Christina page; part of the reason that photo.net is 

banned by most of the Net censorship services). 

Tamron makes a newish 90/2.8 macro lens that goes to 1:1. It is probably pretty good. 



Exposure 

If you feel like spending a lot of money then what you want is a 6x6 cm Rollei 6008. The 

120/4 Zeiss Makro-Planar (same lens as for a Hasselblad) will set you back about $3400. 

That's right, you could buy a Nikon 105/2.8 macro lens and three N90 bodies for the price of 

the Rollei lens alone. 

Rollei probably has the most intelligently designed macro system in the world. 

I photographed these orchids at left in Hawaii with the 120 Zeiss macro lens, Kodak Gold 

100 film (120 size naturally), tripod, f/16 and 1/15th of a second. 

Unless you are using close-up lenses, when doing any kind of macro work, you always have to 

consider the effective f-stop. Even if you are using the SLR body's built-in meter, which will 

correct automatically for light loss, you can't turn off your brain. Why not? Because the effective 

aperture affects picture quality. 

Taking pictures through a pinhole results in tremendous depth of field but very low sharpness due 

to diffraction. This is why lenses for your 35mm camera stop at f/22 and don't go to f/45 or f/64. 

View camera lenses provide these smaller apertures for two reasons: (1) the lenses are longer (f/64 

on a 210mm lens is not all that small a hole); (2) the negative won't be enlarged very much. 

If you're at 1:1 and have selected f/22 on the macro lens barrel, you need to look at the lens markings and/or the close-up exposure dial 

in the Kodak Professional Photoguide to learn that your effective aperture is f/45. 

If you're using a handheld meter, then you absolutely must use these corrections (e.g., meter says f/22 but you're focussed down to 1:1 

so you set f/11 on the lens barrel). 

[Note: the modern Nikons, e.g., 6006, 8008, N90, show you the effective aperture in the viewfinder; the F4 does not; Canon EOS 

cameras do not. Another reason to go with the Nikon system if you are into macro photography.] 

Lighting 

A good quick and dirty lighting technique is to use a through-the-lens (TTL) metered flash with a 

dedicated extension cord (SC-17 in the Nikon system). A modern handheld flash is extremely 

powerful when used a few inches from a macro subject. That lets you stop down to f/16 and 

smaller for good depth of field. I sometimes just hold the flash to one side of the subject and have 

an assistant hold a white piece of paper on the other side to serve as a reflector. Anyway, you have 

enough power in the flash to pretty much use all the diffusion material that you can find. Let the 

camera turn the flash off when enough light has reached the film. 

Lighting is the most important and creative part of any kind of photography. I've written an entire 

book chapter on the subject so I'm not going to try covering it here. 

The Samoyed nose at right belongs to Alex. I captured it with a Canon EOS-5, 180/2.8 macro lens, and TTL-metered Canon flash. 

Below: a foot recently pulled out of one of those weird sandals with all the bumps. Nikon 8008, 60/2.8 lens, SB-24 lens with SC-17 cord 



Let's combine what we've learned until now: the aquarium 

Combining everything we've learned up to this point, let's look at a case study: the aquarium. The items inside are pretty close, so you 

need a macro lens. If you put a rubber lens hood on the front of the lens, then you can mush it up against the glass and avoid reflections. 

Now you need light. Well, you can just get a flash on an extension cord and point it into the aquarium from just about anywhere. 

Here are some examples from the public aquarium in Monterey, taken with a Nikon 8008, 60mm AF macro lens (set for manual focus), 

SB-24 flash, SC-17 extension cord. I wiped the glass with a handkerchief, asked my friend to hold the flash, and pushed the lens hood 

up against the glass: 

I'm still trying to figure out how I managed to get a lawyer in that last frame... 

Focus 

With a depth of field of around one millimeter for precise macro work, camera positioning and focus become critical. If you have a 

good tripod and head, you'll find that you have at least 10 controls to adjust. Each of them will move the camera. None of them will 

move the camera along the axis that you care about. 

That's why people buy macro focusing rails. These are little rack and pinions capable of moving the entire camera/lens assembly 

forward and back. You use the tripod to roughly position the camera/lens and then the macro rail to do fine positioning. 

I snapped the photos below in the garden of the Getty Center and, though I had a fancy Canon 180 macro lens, I didn't have a tripod. So 

I couldn't focus precisely and couldn't stop down enough to get sufficient depth of field. The results are rather disappointing... 

Beyond 1:1 the Canon Way 



In the Canon EOS system, going beyond 1:1 is as simple as calling up one of the photo.net recommended retailers and ordering a Canon 

MP-E 65 1X-5X macro lens. Mount lens on tripod, mount camera on lens, twist ring on lens, release shutter: 

(Flower interior at above left was captured with a traditional EOS film body; the jelly bean image at above right was taken with a D30 

digital body.) 

Beyond 1:1 with Nikon, et al 

Going beyond 1:1 requires more than buying a Micro-Nikkor and turning the focusing helical. In fact, you probably should read a real 

book by a real macro photographer. [Bob Atkins likes John Shaw's Close-ups in Nature .] 

Here's a basic introduction to the tools, though... 

First, you can get a bellows (flexible accordion) and/or some extension tubes. These will let you push the lens farther away from the 

camera body. Extension tubes are rigid and tough; they only let you separate your body and lens in fixed increments. Bellows are 

delicate but they let you continuously control the lens distance from the body. How much magnification this extra extension will get 

you depends on the focal length of the lens. If you have a 1000mm lens that already needs its nodal point 1000mm from the film plane 

to focus at infinity, then a 50mm extension tube isn't going to be worth much. However, if you have a 50mm lens, then that same 50mm 

extension will take you all the way to 1:1. 

Second, you probably want a "reversing ring" for your lenses so that you can turn the back element of the lens toward your subject. 

Why? Think about the normal way you use a lens. You are taking a picture of the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty is larger than 

24x36mm. So you point the front element of the lens at the statue and the back element at the (smaller) film. Your lens is designed to 

work like this, taking the large and compressing it into the small. However, if you are working at 10:1, where the tip of a pine needle is 

going to take up a big portion of the frame, you want the lens to take the small and expand it into the large. So you want to just flip the 

lens around. 

Third, once you've reversed the lens, you probably want some way to retain the automatic diaphragm. You want the aperture to remain 

fully open until just before your exposure and then close down to the selected shooting aperture. My old Rollei 6008 had all-electric 

lenses so you could do this with a clean and reliable electric contacts. Nikon has mechanically stopped-down diaphragms for backward 

compatibility so they can't do this; you end up with a strange dual cable release contraption. Canon EOS has all-electric lenses but in 10 

years they haven't figure out how to engineer a bellows or reversing ring so don't hold your breath (instead they make a kludge to adapt 

their ancient Canon FD macro system to the EOS). 

Beyond 1:1 the Lazy Way 



At left are a couple of Ant Robots built at the MIT AI Lab by 

James McLurkin. Photographed with Canon EOS-5 and Canon 

50/2.8 macro lens (lit by off-camera 430 EZ flash). This lens only 

goes to 1:2. 

At right is a detail of the ant claws, which was taken with the 

Raynox MicroExplorer. The Raynox is a set of close-up lenses 

available for about $150. I mounted the 6X lens on a Canon 35- 

350L zoom lens (the kit also comes with 12X and 24X lenses). Yes, in the end I stuck a 

magnifying glass in front of my lens. 

More 

Here is the original ant claw picture. You can see that vignetting was severe at f/16. Fortunately, I 

could see this in the viewfinder to a large extent with the DOF preview and Adobe PhotoShop 

papers over a lot of photographic sins. Vignetting is the principal drawback of the MicroExplorer 

and it is apparently worse at small apertures. 

A couple more example MicroExplorer shots (at left is an Ant robot 

detail; at right is a quarter on a $20 bill, full frame at f/8 (I think)). Note 

that vignetting is not as severe as it was at f/16 (above left). 

● Macro threads in the Q&A forum 

● review of Canon MP-E 65 1X-5X macro lens 

Macro photography is an equipment-intensive endeavor. If you need to add to your armamentarium, check out the photo.net 

recommended retailers. 

Top photo: Salmon roe. Nikon 60/2.8, Fuji Velvia, SB-24 flash, SC-17 extension cord, from Travels with Samantha, Chapter XII. 

Frog: Canon EOS 50 macro. 430EZ with Off Camera Cord 2. From my Costa Rica story. 

Orchids: Canon EOS 50 macro. Tripod and natural light. Fuji Velvia. From Hacienda Baru in Costa Rica. 

Text and pictures copyright 1991-1997 Philip Greenspun. 

philg@mit.edu 

© 2000-2003 Luminal Path Corporation and contributors. Member content used with permission. 




Backup Software 

photo.net is sponsored by Digital Camera HQ 


photo.net 

● Classifieds 

● Shop 

Photographing Comet Hale-Bopp 

Sign In/Register • 

Search 

● Travel 

A Quick and Dirty Guide to Photographing Comet Hale-Bopp 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

by Russ Arcuri 

● Forums 


● Gallery 

● Community 

This is a guide for people who want to take photos of the comet, but don't have a lot of specialized equipment for 

astrophotography. All photo.net regular readers will likely have an SLR, a tripod, and one or two fast prime lenses, right? That's 

all that's necessary for reasonably good pics of the comet. 

Equipment 

The camera: Any SLR camera with shutter speeds up to 30 seconds and/or "bulb" mode will suffice. If you have a modern SLR 

that uses battery power to keep the shutter open, pack an extra battery or two. You'll also want a remote shutter release or cable 

release. You can do without the remote release if your camera has a self-timer. 

The lens: My favorite lens for photographing comets is an 85/1.8. This focal length is long enough that the comet won't be a tiny 

blur on your pics, but short enough that the stars won't trail too noticeably in the exposures we'll be using. (I'll explain star-trailing 

below.) If you don't have an 85/1.8, don't worry - you can get reasonably good pics with a fast 50, like a 50/1.4 or /1.8. Oh, if you 

have an autofocus camera, you have to be able to turn it (autofocus) off. 

The tripod: Any tripod will suffice, but the heavier, the better. If you don't have a tripod, forget it. Beg, borrow, or steal one if 

need be. 

Other equipment: I'd also recommend bringing along a small flashlight, a stopwatch, and a pair of binoculars. 

[Editor's note: Where to buy all of this stuff? Check out the photo.net recommended retailers. Adorama has particularly good 

selection and prices for binoculars.] 

Film 

You can pretty much forget about slide film. Anything faster than ISO 100 suffers from terrible grain, and you'll need very fast 

film for good comet photos. High-speed negative film is the film-du-jour for astrophotography. 

I like Fuji Super G 800 and Kodak Ektapress Multispeed 640 (PJM) for photographing the comet. Others have had good luck with 

Kodak Pro 400 (PPF) and Kodak Royal Gold 1000. For simplicity's sake, take my advice and get the Super G 800. It's probably 

the easiest to find other than Royal Gold 1000, which I think is too grainy and has a color cast I don't like. Faster (ISO 1600-3200) 

films are much too grainy, IMO. 

http://www.photo.net/astro/intro (1 of 6)7/3/2005 2:14:43 AM


Procedure 

1.) While still at home, load your film into your camera, and take one picture in daylight or with flash of anything you want. (If 

you have a gray card, take a picture of that.) This "regular" picture will help the lab when you bring your film in to be processed. 

2.) Pack your stuff into a car. If you don't have a car, borrow one. Plan your trip so you'll arrive where you're going about an hour 

after sunset. If you live in a cold area, dress warm. 

3.) Get out of the city. This is extremely important. Find a spot at least 5 miles outside the city (suburbs don't count -- get at least 5 

miles outside of the suburbs, to avoid the glow of the city lights.) 5 miles is about the minimum. The sky won't be pitch black, but 

it will be dark enough for the pics. Be sure you drive out of the city in the direction of the comet - northwest. You don't want to 

have city lights between you and the comet. If you've got the time and the inclination, go further - 10 or 15 miles is even better. 

The first couple weeks of April are especially good because there is no moon in the evening/night sky. The moon's glow will 

drown out the fainter parts of the comet's tail when it is visible. 

4.) Find an out-of-the-way location, without much traffic, and a good view of the comet. Look at the comet through your 

binoculars -- this is absolutely the best view of the comet and tail you will get. 

5.) Put the camera on the tripod, and attach the remote release. 

6.) Focus the lens on the infinity mark. Be sure the autofocus feature is turned OFF. 

7.) Point the camera at the comet. It is bright enough that you should be able to frame it in your camera's viewfinder. You may 

want to include the branches of a tree, or other natural objects in the frame too. 

8.) Set the lens at its widest aperture, and do a series of exposures as described below. If you don't have a remote release, set the 

self timer on the camera to trip the shutter. The exposure times are: 4 seconds, 8 seconds, 10 seconds, 15 seconds, 20 seconds, 30 

seconds. 

If your camera does not support these shutter speeds, set it on "bulb" and use the stopwatch to time the exposures. Be sure to 

shield your flashlight from the lens. (I should have mentioned that a lens hood is quite valuable here.) Be careful not to shake the 

camera during the exposures. 

Every once in a while (between exposures) make sure the framing is still good. The rotation of the earth will slowly move the 

comet out of the frame if you're not careful. 

9.) Now stop the lens down one stop from its widest aperture. Again, do exposures of 4 seconds, 8 seconds, 10 seconds, 15 

seconds, 20 seconds, and 30 seconds. 

The rotation of the Earth will cause the stars (and the comet) to trail across the film in these long exposures, turning round star 

images into ovals or lines. However, it probably won't be very noticeable under 20 seconds. It will be noticeable in the 30 second 

exposures, but you may decide you like the effect. You can, of course, do longer exposures than 30 seconds, but the trailing is 

much more pronounced over 30 seconds. 

10.) If you have other focal length lenses, you can try them as well. Try to keep the apertures at f/2.8 or faster. Slower (f/4) lenses 

will work too, but you won't pick up as much of the tail. The longer the focal length in use, the more obvious the trailing will be. 

With a 135mm lens, the stars and comet will noticeably trail in a 15 second exposure or less. With a 35mm lens, you can do 30 or 

45 second exposures without much trailing, but the comet will be smaller in the picture. 

11.) When you get the film developed, warn the lab that they are comet photos. Tell them that if they have difficulty finding the 

frame edges, they shouldn't cut the negatives. Explain to them that the sky should be fairly dark, but it doesn't have to be pitch 

black. If they print the pics for a completely black sky, not much of the comet's tail will be visible. If they let the printing machine 



"autocorrect" the exposures, it will badly overexpose them, producing a medium gray sky -- yuck. You might also explain to them 

that the comet exhibits two tails - a bright yellow dust tail, and a dimmer blue ion tail going off at an angle to the dust tail. 

12.) If the lab is incapable of producing a reasonably dark sky, try a different lab. A good lab may be able to enhance the dimmer 

blue tail a bit to make it more visible. 

How'd they turn out? 

The pics should be good enough to impress your family and friends, especially if any of them tried taking pics of the comet with a 

point and shoot camera. Even more so if they used the built-in flash. (Don't laugh! One of your relatives did this just last night!) 

If you want better pictures than this, you need one or more of the following things: 

Have your film push-processed 

Fuji Super G 800 pushes well to 1600. Contrast and grain increase slightly, but higher contrast is good in comet photos and Fuji 

800's grain is fine enough that it can afford to be pushed. 

A darker location 

On top of a mountain, hours away from a city would be ideal. 

A tracking mount for your camera 

These counteract the rotation of the Earth, allowing you to leave the shutter open for minutes at a time without star trails. 

If you'd like info about tracking (barndoor) mounts, or if you want to be really envious of some terrific comet photos, see Brian 

Rachford's excellent Wide-Field Astrophotography Page. 

Good luck! 

Links 

● Bill Hutchinson's comet images, an extensive collection from someone who lives on Alaska's Kenai Peninsula 

Copyright 1997 Russ Arcuri. 

arcuri@borg.com 


Hey- I took pictures of the lunar eclipse a while back with my Rebel XS and my 35-80 with a minimum aperature of about 4. 

Jupiter was barely visible below the moon, but I didn't think that that would be a problem. I made most of the exposures at 20-30 

seconds. When I got the pics back from the lab, the first thing I noticed was the large white blotch over the moon! I guess it was 

jupiter, but I am sure that it was just barely visible. Can you help explain this? --ben yaffe 

-- Ben Yaffe, April 6, 1997 

I've gotten a couple questions via e-mail about photographing the moon and the comet in the same frame later this week 



(Thursday). Since this relates to the above question, and might be of general interest, I'm posting my answer here. 

Here's the problem: the moon is really, really bright -- thousands of times brighter than the comet. So the simple answer is that 

there is no single proper exposure for both the moon and the comet. The moon is an object brightly lit by the sun - the 

approximate exposure for it when it's full or nearly full is 1/film ISO at f/11. When it's a crescent the proper exposure is 1/film 

ISO at f/8. As you already know, the proper exposure for the comet is around 20 seconds at f/2 with an 80mm lens (or longer, if 

you have a tracking mount for your camera). 

The complex answer is this: you can do a double exposure. It won't be technically correct, but it will look cool. Here's how: 

First, using the longest lens you have, expose the crescent moon at 1/film ISO at f/8. For example, if you're using Fuji 800, the 

proper exposure would be 1/800 at f/8. Since most cameras won't do 1/800, you'd pick the closest thing, which might be 1/750 at 

f/8, or 1/500 at f/11 if your camera can't do 1/750. Place the moon on one side of the frame - be sure that your camera is set for a 

double exposure. 

For the second exposure, change lenses, put the comet on the other side of the frame, and expose for 15 or 20 seconds at approx. 

f/2. Now you have a picture with both the moon and the comet properly exposed in the same frame. 

If you really want to do a single exposure which shows the moon and the comet on the same frame, you have to simply let the 

moon overexpose. 

-- Russ Arcuri, April 7, 1997 

I also should have noted that the ECLIPSED moon calls for a longer exposure than the normal, uneclipsed moon. I'm not sure of 

the proper exposure, but it would probably be along the lines of 2-3 seconds at f/5.6. Perhaps someone who knows the correct 

answer to this question could comment? I'm really just guessing here. 

-- Russ Arcuri, April 7, 1997 

I think that comet shots are a great opportunity to "go digital". When I developed my Hale-Bopp shots, I found that I had a 

reasonable set of photos, but with one common flaw: grain. This was particularly in the sky and in the silhouette of the treeline 

against the sky. I've seen the same in a lot of other peoples' Hale-Bopp shots, which is why I'm bothering to post this. 

Here are two ways to fix such grain in an image-editor, once you have a scan of your image: 1. Slam all of the grainy stuff to 

black. This is easy to do (by adjusting the input range in the Image:Adjust:Levels dialog in PhotoShop, for example), but very 

heavy-handed. For example, it would obliterated the treeline mentioned above. 2. Use an agressive noise-reducing filter. I like 

median filters for this purpose. The problem is that if applied to the whole image, any filter agressive enough to suppress grain 

would also act upon the stars. The trick here it to create a mask including only the stuff you want filtered (should be everything 

but stars), and use that mask to control which pixels the filter can touch. The photoshop "Select Color Range" dialog is a good 

place to start for creating such a mask, though there are a vast number of other approaches. I hope this helps someone! 

-- Patrick 

-- Patrick Chase, July 7, 1997 

Two excellent photoshop ways of killing grain are as follows 

A. Either in the scanning software(Nikonscan) or in the Adjust curves, use the set black point tool on a dark area of the image. 

This will make it a smooth black instead of the grainy black. 

B. Convert to CMYK, change to the black channel by hitting CTRL+4. On this channel, use the dust and scratches tool, usually 

with a 4 to 5 pixel radius, and a threshold of 0 levels. If you find you lose too much image sharpness, hit CTRL+`, to get back to 



all 4 layers, and unsharp mask. 

Hope this helps 

Ben 

-- Ben Woodruff, November 16, 1999 

This article talks about only simple astrophotos, if you are taking pictures of Orion through a 12 inch telescope, you'll have more 

problems to worry about. A typical photo of deep space objects are going to last about 30 minutes or sometimes even longer. To 

eliminate the star circles you'll need a clock drive on the telescope set at the same speed the Earth is spinning at. Because you are 

not using a lens, you don't have to worry about expensive fast telephoto lenses, but you do need a fast telescope, f4 - f5(f5 on a 

camera lens is slow, but it's very fast for a telescope), a f10 telescope will take forever. Also, you should use a camera that has a 

mirror locking feature, a mirror slap can cause an object in space to move thousands of miles. You'll probably want to use a 

manual camera, since some auto SLRs can't hold the shutter open for 40 minutes, or if it can, the battery will get drained quickly 

on a cold night. 

-- Roy J, December 10, 2000 

Capturing images of beautiful yet elusive celestial objects is a thrilling experience for me. Like no other form of art, 

astrophotography empowers its participants to look back in history by taking pictures from photons that take millions of years to 

travel through the vast universe. Like other form of photography though, it requires both technical skills and aesthetic visions. My 

passion with astrophotography focuses mainly on capturing dazzling images of galaxies, nebulae or comets etc. on film. There are 

other areas of astrophotography (CCD-based or scientific-oriented) which I'm not going to discuss here. 

Most astrophotos we see on magazines or posters (except those featuring images taken by profesisonal observatories or the famed 

Hubble Space Telescope) require a camera coupled with a telescope or a long focal-length telephoto lens mounted on a equatorial 

mount. In general, the focal-length of the telescope/lens depends on the size of the object. The exposure time depends on the 

brightness of the object and focal-ratio of the optics. A good way to start taking astrophoto is to buy a used Schmidt Cassegrain 

type telescope (about $400- $800) with 8" aperture (such as the CelesXXon or the MeaXX brand). These telescopes are well 

suited for basic astrophotography of galaxies, star clusters, comets, moon, some planets and nebulae. They usually come complete 

with tripod, electronics (guiding system) and accessories (eyepieces). Exposure is usually long (from minutes to hours) and the 

guiding procedure can be tedious but the results are rewarding. Use fast films (ASA 400 - 800) or better yet, use hypersensitized 

films. Movements (wind, vibration etc) must be avoided and the atmosphere should be steady and the sky as dark as possible. A 

good source of reference is the "Sky and TelesXXpe" magazine or the "AstrXXomy" magazine. Have fun star-hopping and 

picture-taking!!! 

The author uses a PXXtax LX body, PXXtax SDHF 100 ED refractor with f/3.6 adaptor and PXXtax MS-4 mount. 

-- Tak-Ming Leung, March 9, 2001 

Have you ever thought about fujipress 1600??? The grain is razor sharp. Or what about b&w?????????????????????? 

does anybody ever try this with either a 200 or a 300??? you could get some good stuff. 

If you are just going for the stars, not a comet or anything, try this. Get some slow film (100-200 should do it). point a short zoom 

lens (35-70 or 28-80) at the north star, hold the shutter open for 2 min, and as you do, turn the zoom ring. Good times 

-- Rockne Roll, April 20, 2003 

http://www.photo.net/astro/intro (5 of 6)7/3/2005 2:14:43 AM 

Add a comment


Related Links 

● Wide-Field Astrophotography Page- If you'd like info about tracking (barndoor) mounts, or if you want to be really 

envious of some terrific comet photos, see Brian Rachford's excellent Wide-Field Astrophotography Page. -- An updated 

link with a little help from google.com (contributed by David H. Hartman) 

● Astrophotographer Jason Ware Featured at PixiPort- Jason Ware's AstroPhotography prints have been featured in several 

major magazines and catalogs. Here is a partial list: Nov.1993,Sky & Telescope Magazine,page 46. -Lagoon and Trifid 

Nebula. Jan. 1994,Astronomy Magazine,page 103. -Andromeda Galaxy. May.1994,Sky & Telescope Magazine,page 113. - 

Orion Nebula Jul. 1994,Astronomy Magazine,page 82. -Pelican Nebula. 1994-1995,Meade Instruments, Inc. Catalog Orion 

Nebula Region, page 27. Veil Nebula, page 29. Andromeda Galaxy, page 30. Jan. 1995,Astronomy Magazine,page 66/67. - 

Rosette Nebula. About the Photographs ALL of the photographs were taken using Meade Instruments telescopes. The 

photographs of nebulae and galaxies were taken using auto-guided time-exposure photography on Fuji HG400 film(120 

format). The original exposures, lasting between 2 and 3 hours, were then copied onto Kodak Vericolor Transparency film, 

from which an internegative was made for the final print. Each step increases contrast and color saturation. The moon 

photo was a short exposure on Kodak Technical Pan film. (contributed by Helyn Davenport) 

● Tripod Astrophotography- For anyone interested in building a "tangent arm drive",there are plenty of links to whet most 

appetites. (contributed by Mike Nicholson) 

Add a link 

© 2000-2005 Luminal Path Corporation and contributors. Contributed content used with permission. 


Disaster Recovery | Concert Tickets | Discount Bridesmaid Dresses 

Sponsor: Digital Camera HQ - Excellent reviews of Pentax digital cameras 


photo.net 

Star Streak Tutorial 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 


Star Streaks 

a tutorial by Philip 

Greenspun 

There I was, up in the White Mountains of California, 10,500' high in the Ancient Bristlecone Pine 

Forest. The tree in the foreground is probably 3,000 years old. They grow slowly in the dry climate that 

results from being in the rain shadow of the Sierra Mountains across the Owens Valley to the east. 

I stuck my Nikon 6006 on a tripod facing east, mounted a 60/2.8 macro lens (I think), and set the 

aperture for f/4 (ISO 50 color negative film). I opened the shutter with a cable release and screwed down 

the lock. Then I went to sleep for six hours. As the morning began to brighten, around 4:30, I unscrewed 

the cable release. No clunk. No motor drive whirr. It seemed that the lithium battery had died. I put a 

lens cap onto the front of the lens to block stray light and inserted a new battery. The shutter/mirror 

thunked closed and the camera wound up to the next frame. I then repeated this procedure with a Nikon 

8008 on an adjacent tripod. 

The Nikon had been loaded with my favorite landscape film, Fuji 

Velvia. Due to the higher contrast of slide film, though, the 

resulting image was much less interesting. Color negative film 

compresses the contrast in the original scene, so faint star trails 

were recorded right alongside the bright ones. Both the slide and 

negative films recorded brilliant colors where my eye could see 

none. 

Here's my advice to others interested in star trail photography: 

http://www.photo.net/astro/star-streak (1 of 9)7/3/2005 2:15:29 AM


● Use a tripod. Of course, if you're serious about landscape photography, you already have one. Big 

heavy stable ones are the best if you're looking at 6 hours of wind resistance. 

● Use color negative film. Ektar 25 is the best (f/2.8 or f/4 is probably the right exposure). Fuji 100 

would be my second choice (at f/5.6 or f/8). I used Afga Ultra 50 at f/4 but I don't really like this 

film in general (explained in my more general film recommendations). 

● A moon-free night is best. Failing that, point the camera in a part of the sky where the moon 

won't be. 

● Use a manual camera, e.g., Nikon FM, F3, (F4 can do it also, but I think the camera sucks). If 

your only camera is a fancy battery-dependent marvel, make sure you have fresh batteries 

available to make it close (and hope that it doesn't somehow close itself prematurely; if you aren't 

using a Nikon 8008 or 6006, you might want to test first). 

How to photograph the moon 

If you can't find a moon-free night then maybe you should try to get a good photo of the moon itself... 

Start with a tripod and a 200mm or longer lens. Your exposure should be f/11 and a shutter speed of 1/ 

film-speed (e.g., f/11 and 1/400th of a second if you are using ISO 400 film). The moon is illuminated 

by the full light of the sun, attenuated to some extent by our atmosphere. You could say the same about 

your friend's face on a sunny day, in which case you'd apply the "sunny 16 rule" and set f/16 and 1/filmspeed. 

Why the discrepancy? The moon is made of darkish gray rock. But we see it at night when are 

eyes are adjusted to the dark so it looks rather white. In order to have the moon appear white on film, 

you need to overexpose it by 1 f-stop, i.e., use f/11 instead of f/16. 

philg@mit.edu 


Next time you're shooting star trails, try this: Make your long exposure at a small aperture, then open up 

the aperture for another five minutes. You'll get a star at the end of the trail, and be able to make out 

constellations. I like to hang my hat on the camera for a few minutes in between exposures to make a 

slight gap 

-- Roger Carlson, December 13, 1996 

A point to remember and contemplate with star photography: 

as stars are point sources, the numerical aperture of the lens is not the determining factor in the exposure 

of stars. 



The actual _area_ of the lens is the determining factor. 

Thus a 200/4 has as much light-gathering area as a 50mm f1.0 ! 

So, I had problems recording good star trails on a 45mm f4.0; no wonder ! 

this has only a 11.25mm effective aperture... that 200f4 has a 50mm aperture ! 

thus, a shorter lens will need to be faster, or use faster film. 

Bear 

-- Barry Rowland, April 29, 1997 

You recommend a manual camera, because of battery consumtion and this is true for most of the modern 

cameras, but the old Canon EOS cameras (600-series) feature a mechanical lock of the shutter and draw 

nearly no current (25 microamps, this means a fresh 2CR5 battery will last for 50.000 houres ...) 

-- Helmut Faugel, June 17, 1997 

Concerning astrophotography and the recording of stars, there seems to be some confusion about fratios, 

aperture, focal lengths, etc. For point sources such as stars, it is the focal length, not the physical 

aperture, that determines the limits of what will be recorded on film. This is because the amount of 

background sky included in the picture varies with focal length and thus the amount of magnitudelimiting 

sky fog goes up as the focal length decreases. Longer lenses include less of the sky and 

therefore less of the sky fog. Since the stars are points, their light is not spread out as focal length 

(magnification) increases. This effect results in an increase in the ratio of starlight (point source) to 

skylight (non-point source) as focal length increases, and fainter stars are recorded before being limited 

by the sky fog. This light-source ratio is not affected by the f-ratio or physical aperture of the lens. For 

example, a 50mm lens at a dark site has a limiting photographic magnitude of about 11.5. A 500mm lens 

has a limiting magnitude of about 16. The magnitude scale is a way of estimating the brightness of an 

object, with each successive magnitude number being about 2.5 times brighter than the next one 

(magnitude 1 is 2.5X brighter than magnitude 2). The f-ratio does determine how fast the sky fog limit is 

reached. Exposures longer than that needed to reach the sky fog limit will not record fainter stars. 

For star trails, you should pick an f-ratio that will give you a decent star exposure for the faintest stars 

you want to record. For a given exposure time, too low a ratio will cause a fast sky fog build up with 

little contrast between stars and sky. Too high an f-ratio will result in fewer stars against a darker 

background. The f-ratio you choose will depend on the local sky conditions and the focal length of the 

lens for the reasons stated above. 

In visual astronomy, the physical aperture determines the limiting magnitudes of stars. At the same 



magnification, a 10" diameter scope will display objects at four times the brightness of a 5" scope at the 

same magnification. This is probably where the confusion arose. 

-- Vince Farnsworth, September 23, 1997 

Regarding long exposure star trail photography with camera lenses, remember that in a lot of climates 

moisture will condense on the lens surface as the temerature drops to dew point. So, your 6 hour shoot 

will be ruined by the lens fogging unless you take care to heat the lens element with a "dew chaser" 

assembly. The Kendrick system, http://kendrick-studio.com, is the best commercially available, or you 

can make your own using resistors and wire connected to a 12 volt battery source. Consult Sky and 

Telescope magazine archives for articles on this subject. The object is to keep your lens surface just 

above the dew point so it will stay moisture free. 

-- Greg Palman, May 30, 1998 

When the objective is to image faint stars, the aperture settings and focal settings are critical. Significant 

improvement will likely occur when optimal settings are used. Usually more sensitivity will be achieved 

by stopping down the aperture somewhat as reduction in illumination is more than offset by a reduction 

in the circle of confusion (ie less light but more tightly imaged). 

As for focus, while the factory scale is "good enough" for most purposes, the true infinity focus is often 

different slightly than that indicated. Experimentation pays dividends. 

If no time to experiment, a rough guideline is to reduce apperture 1 stop from wide open. 

For the curious, the circle of confusion will be reduced as the aperture is closed more than optimal for 

the above purposes until diffraction effects about the aperture edges add disproportionate degradation. 

For a typical 50 mm lens, the smallest circle of confusion is found about f/8. 

-- John Ohrt, October 28, 1998 

Since no one mentioned it, I'd like to add a quick comment on photographing (or just observing) the 

moon. The least "interesting" time to do it is during full moon. Since the light of the sun hits the moons 

surface almost straight on, you won't have the shadows that bring out surface detail like mountains and 

craters. Half and quarter moons are much more interesting because you can see more of the features of 

the terrain. 

-- Frank Wortner, March 24, 1999 

When's sunset? Where's the moon? When's the sun gonna come up? ...Get a Casio Fish-En-Time or 

Forester for $39 and you'll always know. Just punch your lat/lon into it and it tells you all that and even 

a graph of where the moon should be right now (if you're indoors and thinking about getting ready to 



shoot). It also can be set to calculate the events for past/future dates. A must for any star geek. I'm on my 

third one in 10 years now. 

-- Bruce Benson, March 26, 1999 

To avoid fogging your lenses, and to make a more overall enjoyable experience when photographing 

stars, make yourself comfortable. A cheap pup tent of sufficient height can house your expensive tripod, 

telescope, camera, your equipment, and you. Setup your tripod in the tent and point the camera out the 

main opening. If you shop around in a good camping store, you'll be able to find a tent that has a large 

enough opening for you to capture most scenes and leave enough room for you to pass by. (On very cold 

or windy nights, cut a small flap in the side or top of the tent, point the camera in that direction, and zip 

everything inside. Your tripod might end up just 1 meter off the ground, or you may need to never enter 

the tent while filming so as not to disturb the tripod.) You also might want to cut a large hole or flap in 

the floor of the tent so your tripod can rest on the earth rather than fabric. Now, a small non-combustible 

heat source placed in the tent will keep the temperature warm enough to prevent fogging. Voila! Your 

camera is safe(r) from wind, cold, and rain. Plus, you can always sleep in it! 

-- Billy Newsom, April 2, 1999 

I got an idea from Phil's comment about batteries dying mid-exposure during star trail photography. If 

you're interested in doing it, next time you get a low-bat light on one of your cameras, immediately take 

out the battery and save it to open the shutter on a star trail picture. So, next time you're going to shoot 

the stars, remove your current battery, insert an almost-dead one to open the shutter, and, to close the 

shutter in the morning, reinsert the original battery. Unless I'm overlooking something important, that 

should help. 

-- David Marhadoe, November 14, 1999 

It is worth mentioning that the Canon EOS 3 (with its unique shutter system) doesn't exhaust the battery 

when performing bulb exposures to anything like the extent of the EOS 5, and other electronic SLRs no 

doubt. I wish I had one! See http://www.canon-europa.com/Eos/ and look under innovations/rotary 

magnet shutter. 

-- Michael Wells, December 27, 1999 

For those who don't have a lot of money to spend on a camera body with a manual bulb setting, consider 

purchasing an old Minolta SR-T body with 50mm, 55mm, or 58mm standard lens. There are hundreds if 

not thousands of these available on the used market at any given time, and you can usually get them 

complete for under $140 (except the all-black models, as they're more collectible). 

They sell for less nowadays due to the fact that the mercury batteries they used are getting harder and 

harder to find. They're an even better deal if the meter is inoperable -- what do you care, you're not using 

the meter anyway! I personally recommend the SR-T 101: 1-1/1000 shutter, self-timer, DOF preview, 



and mirror lock-up. 

[Caveat: not all SR-T's which offered MLU when they were introduced had it near the end of the SR-T 

series' production; for some reason Minolta started mucking around with the features each model 

offered. You'll know the model you're looking at has MLU when you see the small circular switch on 

the lens mount housing, above the DOF preview plunger and right next to the self-timer lever.] 

For more information on SR-T's, visit the Minolta User's Group. 

-- Christian Deichert, May 1, 2000 

Roger said: 

Next time you're shooting star trails, try this: Make your long exposure at a small aperture, then open 

up the aperture for another five minutes. You'll get a star at the end of the trail, and be able to make out 

constellations. I like to hang my hat on the camera for a few minutes in between exposures to make a 

slight gap. 

Another idea is defocussing. Start the exposure with lens at infinity. Then, every so often (1 hour, say, 

on an all nighter), just barely twist the lens the other way, like so (that was obviously few minutes long 

at most, but you get the idea). You'll end up with a rather unique photo, heck, combine defocus with 

Roger's idea! 

-- Acer Iddibhai, August 24, 2001 

This page provided me with information, which after significant trial and error, resulted in this picture: 

Aurora Australis and Star Trails at Cradle Mountain The additional element of the aurora light 

contributed nicely to the picture. I can recommend f5.6 to f8 for Provia 100F. 

-- John McLaine, June 12, 2002 



View from kilimanjaro, 8-11:30pm 

I added a lovely 3.5-hour time exposure from 16,000 feet up Mt. Kilimanjaro just this summer. You can 

see the big image here. 

This is from my series on Star Trails. 

-- Dan Heller, August 5, 2002 

I'm surprised no one has mentioned reciprocity failure for long exposures. That is, the color shift that 

happens as certain films, namely Velvia, are exposed for long periods of time. Velvia will shift to the 

green pretty quickly, and over 3 hours, you're going to have a seriously GREEN sky. I've had 20 minute 

exposures with Velvia that haven't been a problem. There are three ways to adjust for this problem. 

first, use a FL-D filter. These are normally used to reduce the green tones you get when shooting 

flourescent lights. they shift back to 'white' by adding magenta. For long night exposures, this is perfect. 

The sky will shift right back to its correct color. (This may or may not be "black", depending on other 

gunk in the air that may have its own color.) 

Second, use Tungsten film. this is normally used to compensate for indoor shots where "tungsten 

lights" (normal lamps, etc) are too warm (red/orange). Tungsten film shifts towards blue to balance 

things out. Again, perfect for sky shooting. 

The third alternative is to use Color Negative film, which is not subject to the same reciprocity failure as 



slide film. I have only tried this once, and while it appeared to work, it's not clear whether it worked 

because "it worked", or because the lab that made the print balanced it out for me. 

-- Dan Heller, August 5, 2002 

im new to this but for star trails i bought a second hand pentax mg for 50 pounds verry cheap and the 

shutter is mechanical on bulb and there is a set 100x shutter speed for moon picturs on 100 asa/iso film 

to try youre moony eleven as i call it whith 

-- martin wright, September 3, 2002 

I have experimented with taking star-trail pictures and have found that my f90's 4-AA batteries just didnt 

cut it for multi hour exposures,my solution to this problem was to buy a second battery holder and hard 

wire a battery of any size you like (the right voltage of course) to the battery holder.The battery can then 

be recharged over and over and it will have plenty of juice.I just bought this stuff for my camera a few 

weeks ago.6V battery,a piece of coil wire and a new battery holder,it came out to about 50 bucks.now 

long nightime exposures with todays battery dependent cameras are not a problem! 

-- Jody Deboer, April 16, 2003 

I've been investigating star trails and use the following setup. Minolta SRT101 (fully manual) batteries 

removed as you're not going to try and meter on a dark sky :D I use the standard lens that I got with the 

camera (bargain on ebay I should add) 50mm f1.7. oh, and a cable release. I've been using kodak 100 

and 400 film with very nice results. For nice foreground effects try painting nearer object (trees, bushes 

whatever) with a flashlight. A couple of seconds over the entire area brings up the foreground nicely. 

Have fun! 

-- Ben Johnston, February 17, 2004 

With regards to astronomical photography, is not the Olympus OM1 the ideal camera? Fully manual and 

no batteries required. Still one of the favourites for telescope astronomy. 

-- jay rafiq, June 21, 2005 

Related Links 

Add a comment 

● the nocturnes- A resource for information about Night Photography and its intersection with all 

things Nocturnal - music, literature, other night imagery, poetry, pop culture, and science. 



(contributed by Lance Keimig) 

● Planetarium for Palm Computing Platforms- I've found this software for the Palm, Workpad, 

Pilot, etc. to be quite useful when trying to determine positions of the sun, moon, planets and 

constellations and when they will rise and set. (contributed by Michael Gindonis) 

● MyStars v2.7- I haven't tried to take stars streaks photographs yet, but reading this article and 

searching Internet to find a software to show sunrise and moonrise times, etc, I found this 

fantastic software in which you can see, in the screen of your computer, how to sky is in every 

point on the surface of the earth, at any time, in any direction you want. It really impressed me a 

lot, and, in addition, you can move in time, forward and backward, so that, you can see how your 

photograph will be. (contributed by Roberto de Castro Souza Pinto) 

● Star Trails on WildRays Photography- Some star trail photography from the White Mountains in 

NH. (contributed by Brian Post) 

● Lost America Night Photography- Night time desert photography by Troy Paiva. Heavy use of 

colored flash. (contributed by Markku Kivinen) 

● Star Trails from Around the World- Ever-growing page of star trails taken from high places 

around the world. (contributed by Dan Heller) 

Add a link 

© 2000-2005 Luminal Path Corporation and contributors. Contributed content used with 

permission. 

About Us | Photo.net FAQ | Subscribe! | Related Sites | Contact Us | Terms of Use | DMCA 

Agent | Privacy 


Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of dvd players 


photo.net 

Pinhole Photography 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 

Pinhole Photography - History, Images, Cameras, Formulas 

By Jon Grepstad 

Introduction 

Pinhole photography is 

lensless photography. 

A tiny hole replaces the 

lens. Light passes 

through the hole; an 

image is formed in the 

camera. 

Pinhole cameras are small or large, improvised or designed with great care. 

Cameras have been made of sea shells, many have been made of oatmeal 

boxes, coke cans or cookie containers, at least one has been made of a 

discarded refrigerator. Cameras have been cast in plaster like a face mask, 

constructed from beautiful hardwoods, built of metal with bellows and a 

range of multiple pinholes. Station wagons have been used as pinhole 

cameras – and rooms in large buildings. Basically a pinhole camera is a box, 

http://www.photo.net/photo/pinhole/pinhole (1 of 28)7/3/2005 2:15:39 AM


with a tiny hole at one end and film or photographic paper at the other. 

Pinhole cameras are used for fun, for art and for science. 

Designing and building the cameras are great fun. Making images with 

cameras you have made yourself is a great pleasure, too. But in serious 

photography the pinhole camera is just an imaging device with its 

advantages and limitations, special characteristics and potentials. By making 

the best of the camera's potential great images can be produced. Some of the 

images could not have been produced with a lens. 

Characteristics 

Pinhole images are softer – less sharp – than pictures made with a lens. The 

images have nearly infinite depth of field. Wide angle images remain 

absolutely rectilinear. On the other hand, pinhole images suffer from greater 

chromatic aberration than pictures made with a simple lens, and they 

tolerate little enlargement. 

Exposures are long, ranging from half a second to several hours. Images are 

exposed on film or paper – negative or positive; black and white, or color. 

Pinhole optics, by the way, are not only used in photography. There is one 

animal in nature which uses a pinhole for seeing – the mollusk Nautilus. 

Each eye has an accommodating aperture – the aperture can enlarge or 

shrink. In this drawing, originally taken from a book published by Arthur 

Willey in 1900, the eye is the oval opening to the upper right. 

History 

Early Observations and Experiments 

The basic optical principles of the pinhole are commented on in Chinese 

texts from the fifth century BC. Chinese writers had discovered by 

experiments that light travels in straight lines. The philosopher Mo Ti (later 

Mo Tsu) was the first – to our knowledge – to record the formation of an 

inverted image with a pinhole or screen. Mo Ti was aware that objects 

reflect light in all directions, and that rays from the top of an object, when 

passing through a hole, will produce the lower part of an image (Hammond 

1981:1). According to Hammond, there is no further reference to the camera 

obscura in Chinese texts until the ninth century AD, when Tuan Chheng 

Shih refers to an image in a pagoda. Shen Kua later corrected his 

explanation of the image. Yu Chao-Lung in the tenth century used model 

pagodas to make pinhole images on a screen. However, no geometric theory 



on image formation resulted from these experiments and observations 

(Hammond 1981:2). 

In the western hemisphere Aristotle (fourth century BC) comments on 

pinhole image formation in his work Problems. In Book XV, 6, he asks: 

"Why is it that when the sun passes through quadri-laterals, as for instance 

in wickerwork, it does not produce a figure rectangular in shape but 

circular? [...]" In Book XV, 11, he asks further: "Why is it that an eclipse of 

the sun, if one looks at it through a sieve or through leaves, such as a planetree 

or other broadleaved tree, or if one joins the fingers of one hand over 

the fingers of the other, the rays are crescent-shaped where they reach the 

earth? Is it for the same reason as that when light shines through a 

rectangular peep-hole, it appears circular in the form of a cone? 

[...]" (Aristotle 1936:333,341). Aristotle found no satisfactory explanation to 

his observation; the problem remained unresolved until the 16th century 

(Hammond 1981:5). 

The Arabian physicist and mathematician Ibn al-Haytham, also known as 

Alhazen, experimented with image formation in the tenth century AD. He 

arranged three candles in a row and put a screen with a small hole between 

the candles and the wall. He noted that images were formed only by means 

of small holes and that the candle to the right made an image to the left on 

the wall. From his observations he deduced the linearity of light. (Hammond 

1981:5). 

In the following centuries the pinhole technique was used by optical 

scientists in various experiments to study sunlight projected from a small 

aperture. 

The Renaissance and Post-Renaissance 

In the Renaissance and later centuries the pinhole was mainly used for 

scientific purposes in astronomy and, fitted with a lens, as a drawing aid for 

artists and amateur painters. 

Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) describes pinhole image formation in his 

Codex Atlanticus (Vinci, Leonardo, Ambrosian Library, Milan, Italy, Recto 

A of Folio 337), and Manuscript D (Manuscript D, Vinci, Leonardo, Institut 

de France, Paris, Folio 8). These descriptions, however, would remain 

unknown until Venturi deciphered and published them in 1797. The 

following translation from the Codex Atlanticus, in German, is by Eder 

(1905:27): "Wenn die Fassade eines Gebäudes, oder ein Platz, oder eine 



Landschaft von der Sonne beleuchtet wird and man bringt auf der 

gegenüberliegenden Seite in der Wand einer nicht von der Sonne 

gotroffenen Wohnung ein kleines Löchlein an, so werden alle erleuchteten 

Gegenstände ihr Bild durch diese Öffnung senden und werden umgekehrt 

erscheinen". [1] 

In 1475 the Renaissance mathematician and astronomer Paolo Toscanelli 

placed a bronze ring with an aperture in a window in the Cathedral of 

Florence, still in use today. On sunny days a solar image is projected 

through the hole onto the cathedral's floor. At noon, the solar image bisects 

a "noon-mark" on the floor. The image and noon-mark were used for telling 

time (Renner 1995:6). 

In 1580 papal astronomers used a pinhole and a similar noon-mark in the 

Vatican Observatory in Rome to prove to Pope Gregory XIII that the spring 

equinox fell incorrectly on 11 March rather than on 21 March. Two years 

later, after careful consideration, Pope Gregory XIII corrected the Julian 

calendar by 10 days, thus creating the Gregorian calendar (Renner 1995:7). 

Giovanni Battista della Porta (1538–1615), a scientist from Naples, was 

long regarded as the inventor of the camera obscura because of his 

description of the pinhole (lensless) camera obscura in the first edition of his 

Magia naturalis (1558). His description has received much publicity, as did 

his camera obscura shows, but he was by no means the inventor. 

The first published picture of a pinhole camera obscura is apparently a 

drawing in Gemma Frisius' De Radio Astronomica et Geometrica (1545). 

Gemma Frisius, an astronomer, had used the pinhole in his darkened room 

to study the solar eclipse of 1544. The very term camera obscura ("dark 

room") was coined by Johannes Kepler (1571–1630). At his time, the term 

had come to mean a room, tent or box with a lens aperture used by artists to 

draw a landscape. The lens made the image brighter and focused at a certain 

distance. Thus this type of camera differed from the pinhole camera obscura 

used by Frisius in 1544. In the 1620s Johannes Kepler invented a portable 

camera obscura. Camera obscuras as drawing aids were soon found in many 

shapes and sizes. They were used by both artists and amateur painters. 

During the 19th century several large scale camera obscuras were built as 

places of education and entertainment. The meniscus lens, superior to the biconvex 

lens, improved the quality of the the projected images. Several 

buildings or towers with camera obscuras remain today: The Camera 

Obscura at Royal Mile, Edinburgh; the Great Union Camera at Douglas, Isle 



of Man; the Clifton Observatory at Bristol, England; the camera obscura at 

Portmeirion, North Wales; the Giant Camera at Cliff House, San Francisco; 

the camera obscura at Santa Monica, California, the camera on the Mount 

Oybin in Germany, and others. A few large scale camera obscuras have 

been built in the 20th century. 

The First Pinhole Photographs 

Sir David Brewster, a Scottish scientist, was one of the first to make pinhole 

photographs, in the 1850s. He also coined the very word "pinhole", or "pinhole" 

with a hyphen, which he used in his book The Stereoscope, published 

in 1856. Joseph Petzval used the term "natural camera" in 1859, whereas 

Dehors and Deslandres, in the late 1880s, proposed the term "stenopaic 

photography". In French today "sténopé" is used for the English "pinhole". 

In Italian a pinhole camera is called "una fotocamera con foro stenopeico". 

In German "Lochkamera" and "Camera obscura" are used. The 

Scandinavian languages tend to use the English "pinhole" as a model – 

"hullkamera"/"holkamera"/"hålkamera", though "camera obscura" is also 

found, and is the term preferred by myself in Norwegian. 

Sir William Crookes, John Spiller and William de Wiveleslie Abney, all in 

England, were other early photographers to try the pinhole technique. The 

oldest extant pinhole photographs were probably made by the English 

archeologist Flinders Petrie (1853–1942) during his excavations in Egypt in 

the 1880s. Two of his photographs are reproduced in Renner (1995:39,40). 

It should be noted that Petrie's camera had a simple lens in front of the 

pinhole. 

Pictorialism and Popular Pinhole Photography 

By the late 1880s the Impressionist movement in painting exherted a certain 

influence on photography. Different schools or tendencies developed in 

photography. The "old school" believed in sharp focus and good lenses; the 

"new school", the "pictorialists", tried to achieve the atmospheric qualities 

of paintings. Some of the pictorialists experimented with pinhole 

photography. In 1890, George Davison's pinhole photograph An Old 

Farmstead (later called The Onion Field) won the first award at the Annual 

Exhibition of the Photographic Society of London. The award was 

controversial and led to a schism in the Photographic Society of London 

(soon to become the Royal Photographic Society) which resulted in the 

formation of the well-known pictorialist group, the "Linked Ring". George 



Davison's picture is reproduced in Renner (1995:42), and in some histories 

of photography, e.g. Michael Langford's The Story of Photography (Oxford: 

Focal Press 1992. p. 106), The Magic Image. The Genius of Photography, 

edited by Cecil Beaton and Gail Buckland (London: Pavilion Books Ltd. 

1989. p. 79), and Naomi Rosenblum's A World History of Photography 

(New York: Abbeville Press, p. 310). 

In 1892 the Swedish dramatist August Strindberg started experimenting 

with pinhole photography. About one hundred of Strindberg's photographs 

are preserved, of these three or four are pinhole images. 

Pinhole photography became popular in the 1890s. Commercial pinhole 

cameras were sold in Europe, the United States and in Japan. 4000 pinhole 

cameras ("Photomnibuses") were sold in London alone in 1892. The 

cameras seem to have had the same status as disposable cameras today – 

none of the "Photomnibuses" have been preserved for posterity in camera 

collections. Some years earlier, an American company had actually invented 

a disposable pinhole camera, the "Ready Photographer", consisting of a dry 

glass plate, a pinhole in tinfoil and a folding bellows. Another American 

company sold "the Glen Pinhole Camera", which included six dry plates, 

chemicals, trays, a print frame and ruby paper for a safelight. The very first 

commercial pinhole camera was designed by Dehors and Deslandres in 

France in 1887. Their camera had a rotating disc with six pinholes, three 

pairs of similar sizes. Pictures of these cameras are found in Renner 

(1995:43). 

Mass production of cameras and "new realism" in the 20th century soon left 

little space for pinhole photography. By the 1930s the technique was hardly 

remembered, or only used in teaching. Frederick Brehm, at what was later to 

become the Rochester Institute of Technology, was possibly the first college 

professor to stress the educational value of the pinhole technique. He also 

designed the Kodak Pinhole Camera around 1940. 

❍ Nick Dvoracek's collection of historical articles 

The Revival of Pinhole Photography 

In the mid-1960s several artists, unaware of each other, began 

experimenting with the pinhole technique – Paolo Gioli in Italy, Gottfried 

Jäger in Germany, David Lebe, Franco Salmoiraghi, Wiley Sanderson and 

Eric Renner in the USA. Coincidentally, many of these artists were working 

with multiple pinholes. Wiley Sanderson was a professor of photography at 



the University of Georgia and taught pinhole photography from 1953 to 

1988. During that period his students built 4356 pinhole cameras (Renner 

1995:53). 

Two scientists were also working with pinhole photography, Kenneth A. 

Connors in the USA and Maurice Pirenne in Great Britain. Connors did 

research on pinhole definition and resolution. His findings were printed in 

his self-published periodical Interest. Pirenne used the pinhole to study 

perspective in his book Optics, Paiting and Photography (1970). 

In 1971 The Time-Life Books published The Art of Photography in the wellknown 

Life Library of Photography and included one of Eric Renner's 

panoramic pinhole images. The June 1975 issue of Popular Photography 

published the article "Pinholes for the People", based on Phil Simkin's 

month-long project with 15,000 hand-assembled and preloaded pinhole 

cameras in the Philadelphia Museum of Art. (People came into the museum, 

picked up a camera, made an exposure. The images, developed in a public 

darkroom in the museum, were continually displayed in the museum.) 

In the 1970s pinhole photography gained increasing popularity. Multiple 

pinholes became rare. Many pinhole photographers experimented with 

alternative processes. A number of articles and some books were published, 

among them Jim Shull's The Hole Thing: A Manual of Pinhole 

Photography. Stan Page of Utah, a leading historian of pinhole 

photography, collected 450 articles on pinhole photography published after 

1850. In the USA, however, critics tended to ignore pinhole photography in 

art, whereas Paolo Gioli and Dominique Stroobant received more attention 

in Europe. In Japan Nobuo Yamanaki started making pinhole camera 

obscuras in the early 1970s. Although pinhole photography gained 

popularity, few of the artists were aware of the others' images. A diversity of 

approaches and cameras developed. 

In 1985 Lauren Smith published The Visionary Pinhole, the first broad 

documentation of the diversity of pinhole photography. The first national 

exhibition of pinhole photography in the USA was organised by Willie 

Anne Wright, at the The Institute of Contemporary Art of the Virginia 

Museum in 1982. In 1988 the first international exhibition, "Through a 

Pinhole Darkly", was organised by the Fine Arts Museum of Long Island. 

Cameras and images from forty-five artists were exhibited. A second 

international exhibition was organised in Spain the same year, at The 

Museum of Contemporary Art of Seville, comprising the work of nine 

photographers. A third international exhibition followed at the Center for 

Contemporary Arts of Santa Fe in New Mexico, also in 1988. According to 



Renner (1995:94), James Hugunin's essay "Notes Toward a 

Stenopaesthetic", in the catalogue of the Santa Fe exhibition, represents the 

most thorough analysis of pinhole photography in the 1980s. Eric Renner's 

book Pinhole Photography – Rediscovering a Historic Technique, published 

in 1995 (second edition 1999), mentions a large number of pinhole artists 

active in the 1980s and has samples of their work. References to some 

contemporary German pinhole artists who are not included in Renner's 

book, are found in the list of literature below. 

According to Renner (1995:90) at least six commercial pinhole cameras 

were manufactured in the 1980s. In December 2003 there were at least 48 

cameras on the market, from 18 manufacturers in the US, Europe, Australia 

and Asia. 

The Pinhole Resource, an international information center and archive for 

pinhole photography, was founded by Eric Renner in 1984. The first issue of 

the Pinhole Journal appeared in December 1975. The archives contain more 

than 3000 images. The journal has published work by over 200 pinhole 

artists from a number of countries. 

With the advent of the World Wide Web pinhole photography went online. 

One of the first artists to publish his work on the Internet was Harlan 

Wallach. By January 1995 Richard Vallon of Louisiana had established the 

Pinhole Resource on the net. Today a search on the net will return a large 

number of URLs. In April 1997 the Pinhole Visions web site was launched 

to support pinhole photography as both an art form and a learning activity. It 

is now probably the most important pinhole web site, with news and events 

sections, gallery, links to resources, directory of pinhole photographers, web 

based discussion forums and a discussion list. 

The first Worldwide Pinhole Photography Day (WPPD) was held on 29 

April 2001. 291 participants from 24 countries contributed images. On the 

second WPPD in April 2002 903 images from as many different pinhole 

photographers from 35 countries were uploaded to the online gallery. On the 

third WPPD in 2003 the corresponding figures were 1082 images from 43 

countries. 

Pinhole Photography in Science 

In the late Middle Ages the pinhole was used to study the projection of light 

through a small aperture. In the 16th century and later it was used in 

astronomy to study solar eclipses. In the 1940s pinhole cameras found their 



way into nuclear physics. It was discovered that pinhole cameras could be 

used to photograph high-energy X-rays and gamma rays. Pinhole cameras 

were deployed in space craft by the end of the 1950s and beginning of the 

60s to photograph X-rays and gamma rays from the sun. The first soft X-ray 

pinhole of the sun was made on 19 April 1960. The photograph is 

reproduced in Renner (1995:18). In the 1970s scatter-hole X-ray pinhole 

cameras were made. Today's pinhole cameras on space vehicles use multiple 

pinhole optics. The last 20 years the pinhole has also been used widely by 

nuclear physicists to photograph high energy in laser plasma (Renner 

1995:21). 

A few links to the use of pinhole cameras in science: 

❍ Ariel V: October 1974 – March 1980 

❍ The MOnitoring X-ray Experiment (MOXE) 

❍ The Polar Ionospheric X-ray Imaging Experiment (PIXIE) 

❍ Indiana University Astronomy Department: Solar eclipse 10 June 

1994 

❍ Astrophotography with a Pinhole 

Other Uses of the Pinhole 

Pinholes are also used in surveillance and spy cameras and are used in 

combination with a lens for photographing miniature models, e.g. model 

trains or architectural models. The pinhole increases the depth of field 

radically. Some photographers experiment with pinhole enlargers with one 

pinhole or multiple pinholes. And there are pinhole magnifiers and pinhole 

glasses. 

Cameras 

Basically a pinhole camera is a light-tight box with a tiny hole in one end 

and film or photographic paper in the other. 

A few commercial cameras are available – e.g. the 4 x 5 Rigby camera, the 

4 x 5 and 8 x 10 Leonardo Cameras, and the Zero2000 pinhole cameras 

(various formats). There are at least two cardboard kits on the market – The 

John Adams Pinhole kit in the UK and the kit made by Richard Merz and 

Dieter Findeisen in Germany. Most pinhole photographers, however, make 

their cameras themselves. The construction is simple. Commercial cameras 

in hardwood or metal tend to be expensive – some are very expensive – and 

they do not produce better images than a homebrew camera. 



Pinhole cameras may differ with regard to (a) focal length, (b) pinhole 

diameter, (c) number of pinholes, (d) image format, (e) flat or curved film 

plane, (f) type of light-sensitive material, and (g) other characteristics. 

(a) Strictly speaking pinhole cameras have no focal length. They have 

infinite depth of field. But for practical reasons the term "focal length" is 

used here to refer to the distance between the pinhole and the film or paper. 

Pinhole cameras may have short, normal or long "focal lengths"; they may 

be anything from ultra wide-angle cameras to long telephoto cameras. It 

should be noted that as the focal length increases, the apertures decreases. In 

other words, exposure times get longer (see Formulas below). (The formula 

for calculating the f-stop is f = v/d, where f = aperture, v = distance from 

pinhole to film or paper, and d = pinhole diameter.) Pinhole cameras 

produce fascinating wide-angle and ultra-wide angle images. Unlike lens 

photographs, ultra wide-angle images remain rectilinear. Straight lines are 

not curved at the periphery of the image. Beginners should start by making a 

wide-angle camera. 

(b) For any focal length there is an optimal pinhole diameter for image 

sharpness. A number of formulas and charts have been produced. Generally 

a smaller pinhole will produce a sharper image than a larger one. If the 

pinhole gets too small, the image becomes less sharp because of diffraction. 

See Formulas below. 

(c) Pinhole cameras may have one pinhole or several. Multiple pinhole 

cameras produce overlapping images or, with certain designs, panoramic 

images. Beautiful images made with a multiple pinhole camera are found in 

Knuchel (1991: cover, p. 35). The beginner should start with a camera with 

a single pinhole. My own experience is from single pinhole photography 

exclusively. Some advanced pinhole photographers sometimes use a slit 

instead of a pinhole. For a beautiful picture made with a single slit camera, 

see Knuchel (1991:53). 

(d) Pinhole cameras have widely differing image formats. Cameras are 

made from match boxes, 35 mm film canisters, baking soda containers, 

oatmeal boxes, cookie tins, bags or suitcases, big wooden cases etc. Vans or 

station wagons have been used as pinhole cameras, and rooms in large 

buildings. 

Some cameras were made to take a 126 film cartridge, a format which was 

discontinued by Kodak in December 1999, but which is still available from 

Ferrania or Film for Classics. There are pinhole photographers who use 35 



mm film (e.g. by removing the lens of a 35 mm SRL, taping or gluing a 

pinhole plate to a lenscap, and replacing the lens with the modified lenscap). 

A cheap 120 twin-lens reflex camera (e.g. a Russian-made Lubitel), an old 

120 (non-collectible!) folding camera, a 120 box or a Polaroid camera may 

fairly easily be turned into a pinhole camera. Some pinhole photographers 

use a large format camera, 4 x 5 in., 5 x 7 in. or 8 x 10 in., and replace the 

ordinary lensboard with a lensboard with a pinhole plate. Some make a 

lensboard with a pinhole turret, i.e. a disc with a circular configuration of 

pinholes in various sizes. 

Most pinhole cameras, however, are made from an ordinary box or 

container, with a pinhole plate in one end and a simple mechanism for 

holding the paper or film in the other. Often the film or paper is just taped to 

the inside of the box. Many pinhole photographers start out with an 

"oatmeal box camera", a camera made from a cylindrical container in 

cardboard or metal. 

In my view, best results are achieved with medium or large format film or 

with photographic paper in similar sizes or larger. In many areas 120 roll 

film is more easily available than sheet film. 

(e) A pinhole camera may have a flat or curved film or image plane. If the 

film plane is flat, there will be some light fall-off or vignetting at the corners 

in a wide-angle or ultra wide-angle pinhole camera. The image may be 

overexposed at the center and underexposed at the corners. This vignetting, 

however, may be exploited consciously as an esthetic effect. If one wants to 

avoid the light fall-off, the film plane should be curved so that the film at 

any point is roughly at the same distance from the pinhole. A pinhole 

camera may be made from a round ("cookie") container cut in two to form a 

semi-circular box. Film or paper is taped to the circular wall of the box. 

Many pinhole photographers also make "oatmeal" box cameras with curved 

film planes. In my own pinhole photography I use flat film planes. 

With flat film planes a pinhole has a usable circular image of approx. 125 

degrees. The image diameter is about 3 1/2 times of any focal length. The 

image will fade towards the edges because of the increasing focal distance. 

With curved film planes a pinhole camera may have a larger circle of 

coverage (approximately 160 degrees). 

Some photographers experiment with complex film planes. Examples are 

found in Knuchel 1991, which is an interesting source for studying the 

relationship between image and camera, and also one of the most interesting 



European portfolios I am aware of. The book has parallel text in German 

and English. 

(f) Pinhole cameras may take film or photographic paper. Black and white 

film and color film for prints have more exposure latitude than chrome film. 

XP-2 for black and white (available in 35 mm, 120 format and 4 x 5 in.) has 

extraordinarily wide exposure latitude and may be exposed as anything 

between ISO 50 and 800. The latitude makes it ideal for pinhole 

photography. Photographic paper for black and white has a low ISO rating. 

In my own pinhole photography I have used mainly Fujichrome 50 and 

Fujichrome Velvia, XP-2 and Ilford Multigrade III RC. Some photographers 

recommend mat-surfaced RC paper for curved image planes (paper curved 

in an "oatmeal box camera") to avoid a reflected fogged strip. Glossy paper 

may be used in cameras with flat image planes, where light will not be 

reflected. Some photographers use Ilfochrome paper with great success. An 

85B filter (sometimes in combination with an 81 or 82 series filter) may be 

used to change tungsten light to daylight. Because of long exposures 

reciprocity failure will often have to be taken into account when calculating 

exposure both for film and paper. 

(g) Pinhole cameras may also differ with regard to other characteristics. 

Cameras are made from different types of material: cardboard, wood, metal 

or other. For the beginner a camera made of cardboard may be the best 

choice. Cardboard is easy to work with. 

Some photographers use a grey neutral density filter to increase exposure 

times when using film where exposure times are short. Filters may also be 

used to control contrast in multigrade papers, or to control color when using 

color film or Ilfochrome paper. 

Many homebrew cameras have only a plastic flap or a piece of cardboard 

for "shutter". This is my own choice for most of my cameras. Hardwood 

cameras may have a simple moveable shutter. With short exposure times it 

is important that the shutter opens easily without vibrations. 

Some photographers make a viewing frame, e.g. by cutting a window the 

same size as the pinhole image in a piece of cardboard. A wire frame 

attached to the camera is another solution. The viewing frame is held at the 

same distance from the eye as the distance between the pinhole and the film 

in the camera. Pinhole photographers who use a large format camera 

sometimes use a larger viewing pinhole when composing the image. In my 



own pinhole photography I never use viewing frames. I tend to work for 

longer periods with the same camera and find I get a pretty good feeling of 

the image field. 

Some pinhole cameras are beautiful objects in themselves. The Swiss 

pinhole photographers Peter Olpe has made cameras from cardboard in the 

shape if small castles and buildings (Olpe 1992). The cameras are 

themselves objects of art and have been exhibited as such. 

I suggest the beginner starts by making an "oatmeal box camera" or a 

cardboard camera. 

Making a Pinhole Camera 

The Pinhole 

The most important part of a pinhole camera is the pinhole itself. Precision 

made pinholes may be bought. You will find a list of sources for pinhole 

sheets here. For most purposes, however, there is no reason why you should 

not make the pinhole yourself. 

The hole is made in a thin piece of metal, brass shim (available in some car 

supply stores) or metal from the lid of small box or glass container (bought 

at a supermarket ). Some use aluminium foil from a disposable baking pan. 

Ordinary aluminium foil is too thin. My own experience is with brass shim 

and thin metal from container lids. 

If the metal is taken from a container lid, it should be sanded carefully with 

ultra-fine emery paper (e.g. # 600) to remove any paint or varnish and to 

make it thinner. The hole is made with a needle. The edge of the hole should 

be sharp. The optimal diameter depends on the focal length of the camera, i. 

e. the distance from the pinhole to the film or photographic paper. Some 

formulas and charts are reproduced below. In general: the smaller the hole, 

the sharper the image. If the hole is too small, however, the image gets less 

sharp because of diffraction effects (light is bent around the edge of the 

pinhole). 

Place the piece of metal on top of some hard cardboard. Carefully poke a 

hole with a needle taking care that the hole is as round as possible. The 

needle may be put through a cork to make it easier to handle. Or you may 

put masking tape on the head of the needle. Hold the needle steadily in a 90 

degree angle to the surface. Turn the piece of metal and sand the back side 

carefully with fine-grained emery paper to remove the burr or debris where 



the needle point has penetrated. (The edges of the pinhole should be sharp). 

Then place the metal on the cardboard back side up and cautiously spin the 

needle in the hole to make sure the hole is round. The hole can be checked 

with a magnifier or an enlarger. You can also use an enlarger or slide 

projector to check the diameter of the pinhole. 

❍ Gord Holtslander's instructions in a file compiled by Bruce Barrett 

(#9) 

❍ The Pinhole FAQ's description 

Can Cameras 

Pinhole cameras can be made of many kinds of light-tight containers. A 

cylindrical cardboard container, e.g. an oatmeal box or a herb tea container, 

is easily converted into a pinhole camera for pieces of 120 roll film or 

photographic paper. 

1. Start by making a cardboard film holder. The film holder is made of 

two pieces of cardboard which fit the internal dimensions of the 

cylindrical box (Sketch). One piece (A) serves as the back of the film 

holder. The other piece is cut in two, one small piece (B) which is 

glued to A and a larger piece (C) with a cut-out window (D) for the 

film or paper. Use some good tape (electrical tape or other) to attach 

piece C to B. The film holder will be loaded in a darkroom by 

placing a piece of 120 roll film or photographic paper between A and 

C. 

2. The film holder fits into a groove on either side of the box. The 

groove is made by gluing cardboard strips to the insides of the box 

(Sketch). You may make a supporting back (E) for the film holder by 

gluing a piece of cardboard in the groove. This will make it easier to 

slide the loaded filmholder into the groove. 

3. Spray the insides of the box (including the lid), and the outsides of 

the cardboard film holder, with flat black spray paint. Make sure the 

lid is not translucent. If necessary glue some black plastic lining or 

cardboard to the lid to make it opaque. 

4. Make a hole in the front of the box. The "optical axis" should extend 

to the center of the window in the film holder – provided you are not 

looking for special off-center effects. 

5. Then make the pinhole plate. See above. 

6. Tape the pinhole plate to the front of the cylindrical box. 

7. Make a simple shutter by taping a flap of black plastic over the 

pinhole, e.g. plastic from a photographic paper package. The flap 



may be held in place by a rubber string. When you take a picture you 

remove the string, open the flap for the necessary exposure and close 

it. 

8. If you want a tripod bush or socket for your camera, use some 

araldite to glue a 1/4" or 3/8" nut to the bottom of the box. 

9. Since this camera has to be loaded in the darkroom, it will be 

practical to make several cameras. The cameras are easily carried in 

a bag. 

10. If you want a curved film plane for your camera, the cardboard film 

holder is left out. Film or paper is taped to the inside of the camera. 

A polaroid picture of some "oatmeal box" pinhole cameras which I made in 

1990, my first pinhole cameras, and a portrait made with one of the cameras 

on Ilford Multigrade III RC paper. The negative was scanned and then 

inverted by a photo editing program on my computer. 

Some descriptions or pictures of "oatmeal box" or "cookie tin" cameras on 

the net: 

❍ Wendy Mukluk's description of an oatmeal camera 

❍ Susan Addington's Venetian biscotti tin camera 

❍ How to Make an Oat Meal Tin Camera (Zero Image) 

4x5 in. Film Holder Cameras 

Some commercial cameras are manufactured for 4 x 5 in. or 8 x 10 in. sheet 

film. In my view, these cameras tend to be somewhat overpriced. 

Making a camera yourself is easy. The camera can be made of wood or 

cardboard. I build my own cameras from hardwood, mainly because I like 

woodworking and enjoy making beautiful objects in wood. Plywood or 

other materials may be used as well and require less effort. Cardboard is 

probably the easiest material to work with. 

A cardboard camera may be made from scratch from sheets of cardboard 

cut to the right dimensions and assembled to form a box which will take a 4 

x 5 in. film holder. It may also be made from an already existing cardboard 

box. The basic component – apart from the pinhole plate – is the film 

holder. The back of the camera is designed to accommodate a standard film 

holder. The inserted film holder may be held in place by a rubber string. 

Make sure the camera back is light-tight. Near the top the film holder has a 

locating ridge which is to fit in a groove in the camera back. The groove 



may be made by gluing strips of cardboard to the back. Some simple 

sketches of a 4 x 5 inch film holder camera made of cardboard: 

❍ Sketch a – Side view 

❍ Sketch b – End view 

❍ Sketch c – Front view 

❍ Sketch d – Top view of camera with back flap 

I usually use 6 x 30 mm oak strip (1/4" x 1 1/4") as the basic material for 

wooden camerasfor 4 x 5 in. film holders. The strips are glued together to 

form 6 mm sheets. The sheets are sanded carefully, cut to the right 

measurements and glued together to form a box with a simple spring back 

for the film holder. The following is a general description of the 

construction of a wooden 4 x 5 in. camera. 

1. Get a 4 x 5 in. film holder. 

2. Make a box of wood (Sketch 1). The internal width should be about 

20 mm wider than the film holder. The bottom piece (A) and the side 

pieces (B) should be about 40 mm longer than the top piece (C). 

Sand the wood carefully before assembling the pieces. 

3. Square moulding is glued to the internal angles in the camera to 

make the construction stronger. Sketch x. 

4. The back panel (D) is made of plywood. A window (E) is cut in the 

back panel, the same size as the film holder's window 

(dimensions ...). 

5. A groove (F) is made in the back piece for the film holder's locating 

ridge. 

6. Two strips of wood (G), approximately 6 mm thick, are glued to the 

back panel, one on the the left side, the other on the right side of the 

film holder. 

7. Two leaf springs (H) are made of a flexible sink drain (available at a 

reasonable price in some hardware stores). 

8. Each leaf spring is kept in place by a small piece of wood (I) screwed 

on to the side pieces. 

9. A hole (J) is made for the pinhole in the front panel. 

10. The pinhole plate (P) is attached to the inside of the front panel. A 

piece of wood (K) with a hole covers the pinhole plate; the piece of 

wood is screwed on to the front piece from the inside. 

11. A pressure panel (L) for the film holder is made of wood. 

12. Two strips of 1 1/2 or 2 mm brass strip (M), to go under the leaf 

springs, are screwed on to the pressure panel. 

13. A handle (N) may be attached to the side panel of the camera. 



A piece of cardboard is used for shutter, or a moveable shutter is added (O). 

For short exposures a cardboard is most practical as removing the cardboard 

creates no vibrations. 

The same design may be used for a 5 x 7 in. camera or an 8 x 10 in. camera. 

For an 8 x 10 in. camera 8–10 mm board or plywood may be used as the 

basic material. 

Sketches: 

❍ Sketch 1 – Three dimensional view 

❍ Sketch 2 – Side view 

❍ Sketch 3 – End view (pressure panel removed) 

❍ Sketch 4 – Pressure panel 

❍ Sketch 5 – Top view (with pressure panel) 

❍ Sketch 6 – Top view (pressure panel removed) 

❍ Sketch 7 – Moveable shutter 

Polaroid pictures of some of my hardwood cameras for sheet film holders: 

❍ A 4 x 5 in. pinhole camera 

❍ A 5 x 7 in. pinhole camera 

❍ An 8 x 10 in. pinhole camera 

❍ A 4 x 5 in. camera in its case 

❍ A 5 x 7 in. camera and its case 

Box Cameras for Photographic Paper 

A box camera for photographic paper can be made of a light-tight cardboard 

box, from sheets of cardboard or from wood. Peter Olpe (1993) has plans 

for a nicely constructed cardboard camera. 

I usually use wood for box cameras for photographic paper. Most of my 

cameras are constructed for the format 18 x 24 cm (approx. 8 x 10 in.). The 

focal lengths differ but all are wide-angle cameras. My preferred 18 x 24 cm 

camera has a focal length of 87 mm. Some of my "Oslo pinhole 

photographs" were made with this camera. 

Although it is easy to make a simple moveable shutter for these cameras 

most of the cameras have just piece of cardboard which is taped to the 



camera and opened or removed during exposure. For some of my box 

cameras I have made a reducing back for 4 x 5 in. sheet film. 

A sketch of a wooden box camera for paper 18 x 24 cm. Polaroid pictures of 

some of my cameras: 

❍ An 87 mm 8 x 10 in. camera 

❍ 8 x 10 in. camera with 4 x 5 film holder 

❍ Ultra wide-angle camera 

❍ Ultra wide-angle camera with 4 x 5 film holder 

❍ Collapsable 20 x 24 in. camera 

❍ Folded up collapsable 20 x 24 in. camera 

Camera for 120 Roll Film 

Cameras for photographic paper have to be loaded in the dark or under a 

safelight. They usually take only one sheet of paper at a time. This 

somewhat laborious process makes photography slow. The slowness may be 

an advantage – the photographer tends to plan his images carefully. But if 

you want to take more than one picture you will have to bring several 

cameras. Sheet film cameras and cameras for 120 roll film are practical for 

photographic tours. 

Some pinhole photographers modify an existing 120 roll film camera by 

removing the lens and replacing it with a pinhole plate. Others make their 

own cameras. Peter Olpe (1993) has plans for a cardboard camera for 120 

roll film. The text is in German. 

In 1991 I constructed a 120 roll film camera made of hardwood. I used oak 

bought at a local lumber yard. The camera has a flat film plane. The 

negative format is approximately 60 x 70 mm, and the focal length 45 mm. I 

usually use the camera for XP-2 black and white film or Fujichrome Velvia. 

Many of my "Oslo pinhole photographs" were made with this camera, as 

were my "Pinhole Photographs 1997–98". 

A basic sketch of the camera. A polaroid photograph of my 120 roll film 

camera and of the camera opened. 

A 126 Catridge Camera 

A pinhole camera may be made of a 126 film cassette and some cardboard. 



Descriptions and plans are found in Olpe (1993:16, 28–29). 

❍ The Exploratorium's description of a 126 cassette camera 

❍ Frugal Photographer's instructions for making a 126 "Instamatic" 

camera 

Other Cameras 

A few links to descriptions and photographs of various types of cameras: 

❍ Guillermo Penate's descriptions of various cameras 

❍ Doug Bardell's pinhole cameras 

❍ Caroline Knight's Polaroid zoom pinhole camera (#7) 

❍ Robert Kosara's Loch-Lomo camera 

❍ Making 35mm Film-Can Pinhole Cameras (Stewart Lewis 

Woodruff) 

❍ Fabio Quadarella's pinhole cameras 

❍ Dave Doler's panoramic camera 

❍ A 6 x 17 pinhole camera 

❍ Dieter Bublitz' pinhole cameras (in German) 

❍ Lochkamera zum Selberbauen (in German) 

❍ Omniscope and other unusual cameras 

❍ Thomas Hudson Reeve's paper cameras 

❍ Cecilie Haaland's "Phottery" (in Norwegian) 

❍ Thorsten Berndt's wagon camera (in German) 

❍ A van camera 

❍ Pinhole visions' forum on making cameras and pinholes 

Formulas 

According to Eric Renner at least 50 charts suggesting optimal pinhole 

diameters have been devised in the last 125 years (Renner 1995:118). In my 

own reading the last six years I have come across about fifteen charts or 

formulas, a few of which may be derived from the same basic formulas. It 

should be noted that the diameter of the pinhole is not really critical. But for 

every focal length there is an "optimal" diameter, i.e. a diameter which 

produces the sharpest possible image. The word optimal actually is not a 

felicitous term, since the pinhole photographer or artist may not be striving 

for the greatest possible sharpness. There are beautiful pinhole images 

which are intentionally softer than what is technically possible. A good 

pinhole image is something else than a blurred, out of focus, lens image. 



Up to a certain point a small pinhole will produce a sharper image than a 

larger one. If the pinhole is too small, the image gets less sharp because of 

diffraction. The hole should be perfectly round, without ragged edges. It 

may be checked with a magnifier or an enlarger. 

Joseph Petzval of Vienna apparently was the first, in 1857, to attempt to find 

a mathematical formula of the optimal pinhole diameter for the sharpest 

definition in a pinhole image. The British Nobel Prize winner Lord Rayleigh 

(John William Strutt, 1842–1919) worked on pinhole diameter formulas for 

ten years and published his work in Nature (1891). Lord Rayleigh's formula 

is still one of the formulas used to today. A number of others have been 

published since the 1880s. 

Lord Rayleigh's formula for subject distances above 1 meter may be written 

as follows: 

d = 1.9 * sqrt (l * f), 

where d = pinhole diameter, l = wavelength of light and f = focal length or 

distance from pinhole to light-sensitive material. 

For the wavelength of light different average values may be substituted. 

Often the value of the yellow-green spectrum is used, i.e. 0.00055 mm. 

According to Renner (1995: 117) most formulas used today are of the 

following general form: 

r = sqrt (l * c * f) 

r = pinhole radius 

l = wavelength of light 

c = a constant, usually a decimal fraction between 0.5 and 1 

f = focal length 

Platt (1989:73) provides the following optimal pinhole formula: 

d x d = f/k, where k is a constant of approx. 1300 

Dobson (1991) provides this formula: 

d = sqrt (f)/25 

Lord Rayleigh's formula and those published by Platt and Dobson all give 

somewhat different results. Andrew Davidhazy of the Rochester Institute of 

Technology lists several other formulas in a posting on the net. 



Four, slightly different, charts of optimal pinhole diameters are reproduced 

below. Some of the charts have been simplified by leaving out references to 

needle numbers. Holter's chart, published in Norwegian, has been translated 

by me. Platt's chart differs from the others by consistently giving smaller 

apertures. 

Focal 

length 

Best aperture 

diameter 

Bogre (1988) 

Equivalent fstop 

Exposure factor for 

f/22 

50 mm 0.29 mm f/174 63 x 

75 mm 0.35 mm f/213 94 x 

100 mm 0.41 mm f/246 125 x 

125 mm 0.45 mm f/275 157 x 

150 mm 0.50 mm f/203 188 x 

200 mm 0.57 mm f/348 250 x 

250 mm 0.64 mm f/389 313 x 

300 mm 0.70 mm f/426 376 x 

Focal length 

(mm) 

Focal length 

(mm) 

Platt (1989) 

Pinhole diameter 

(mm) 

fstop 

130 0.33 380 

210 0.40 500 

260 0.46 550 

320 0.50 650 

420 0.58 690 

550 0.66 800 

650 0.74 930 

750 0.79 960 

1000 0.91 1120 

Holter (1990) 


(mm) 

http://www.photo.net/photo/pinhole/pinhole (21 of 28)7/3/2005 2:15:39 AM 

fstop 

Exposure factor for 

f/16


10 0.14 70 20 

20 0.20 100 40 

30 0.24 125 60 

40 0.28 140 80 

50 0.31 160 100 

60 0.34 180 125 

70 0.37 190 140 

80 0.40 200 160 

90 0.42 214 180 

100 0.45 220 190 

150 0.54 280 300 

200 0.63 318 400 

250 0.70 360 500 

300 0.78 380 560 

350 0.84 418 700 

400 0.89 450 800 

Focal length 

(mm) 

Fuller (1992) 


(mm) 

Approx. fstop 

50 0.26 200 

75 0.32 220 

100 0.45 240 

150 0.55 270 

200 0.63 320 

250 0.71 350 

300 0.77 390 

350 0.83 420 

400 0.89 450 

500 1.00 500 

It should be borne in mind that for most purposes the diameter is not really critical, 

as the different values in the charts above may demonstrate. 



Larry Fratkin's Online Pinhole Calculators 

David Balihar's PinholeDesigner 

The Pinhole FAQ (English) 

FAQ du sténopé (French) 

Lochcamera FAQ (German) 

Postscript 

Photographers photograph in varying degree for (a) the experience or for (b) the 

images. When you photograph for the experience, the emphasis is on the process 

itself – the pleasure of the making a pinhole camera, the pleasure of planning 

pictures, and the pleasure of making pictures with a simple device. When you 

photograph for the images, the emphasis is mainly on the result. The pinhole 

camera is basically an imaging device with potentials which other cameras or 

techniques do not possess, e.g. softness of definition, infinite depth of field, 

rectilinearity. 

In photography certain subjects may be better suited for a particular technique than 

others. Photojournalists, for example, normally use 35 mm SLRs in their work. 

Portrait photographers often use medium format cameras. Architecture is best 

rendered by large format cameras. Also in pinhole photography some subjects are 

better suited than others. Long exposures exclude certain subjects, softness of 

definition exclude others. Infinite depth of field and rectilinear ultra wide-angle 

images represent a special potential. 

Beginners should start with subjects with clear graphic shapes or bright colors in 

sunlight. Cityscapes tend to make better pictures than rural landscapes with their 

soft lines and softer shades of color or grey tones – at least for the beginning 

pinhole photographer. Portraits may prove slightly more difficult than still lifes, 

objects, structures, buildings and cityscapes. 

Note: 

[1] English translation: "If the facade of a building, or a place, or a landscape is 

illuminated by the sun and a small hole is drilled in the wall of a room in a building 

facing this, which is not directly lighted by the sun, then all objects illuminated by 

the sun will send their images through this aperture and will appear, upside down, 

on the wall facing the hole". (Eder, 1945:39). 

Literature 

1 History 

Aristotle. Problems. I. Books I-XXI. With an English translation by W. S. Hett, M. 



A. London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1936. 

Eder, Josef Maria. Geschichte der Photographie. Halle a. S: Verlag von Wilhelm 

Knapp, 1905. (Chapter Three: "Zur Geschichte der Camera obscura", pp. 26–38. 

Eder, Josef Maria. History of Photography. Transl. Edward Epstean. New York: 

Columbia University Press, 1945. 

Hammond, John H. The Camera Obscura. A Chronicle. Bristol: Adam Hilger Ltd., 

1981. 182 pages. ISBN 0-85274-451-X. 

Renner, Eric. Pinhole Photography. Rediscovering a Historic Technique. Boston 

and London: Focal Press 1995. 176 pages. ISBN 0-240-80231-4 

Second edtion 1999. 228 pages. ISBN: 0-240-80350-7 

2 General (including cameras and formulas) 

Adams, Ansel. The Camera. Boston, Toronto, London: Little, Brown and Company 

1991. pp. 3–6. 

Bogre, Michelle. "Pinhole Revival". Popular Photography, January 1988, pp. 

46–53. 

Bogre, Michelle. "A Small Window of Opportunity. Pinhole Photography 

reappears after 50 years". American Photographer, December 1987, p. 18. 

Brenner, Paul. "Making your own Pinhole Camera". View Camera, July–August 

1996, pp. 58–59. 

Brenner, Paul. "Pinhole Cameras". View Camera, September–October 1995, pp. 

44–46. 

Chernewski, Anita. How-To Make Three corrugated 8x10 Pinhole Cameras: Wideangle, 

Normal, Telephoto. The Pinhole Format Co. 1999. 16 pages. # ISBN: 

0967914701. 

Clerc, L.P. Photography. Theory and Practice. London and New York: Focal Press 

1972, pp. 61–62. 

Die Lochkameras von Peter Olpe. Ausstellung in der Buchhandlung 'das 

Labyrinth', Basel/Nadelberg 17, 19. November 1992 bis 2. Januar 1993. Basel 



1992. n.p. 

Dobson, Michael. "Pinhole Power". Amateur Photographer, 23 March 1991, pp. 

52–53. 

Evans, John. "Custom Cameras. Spare Parts". Amateur Photographer, 9 December 

1995, pp. 46–48. 

Evans, John. Adventures With Pinhole and Home-Made Cameras. Rotovision 

2003. 144 pages. # ISBN: 2880467144 

Fuller, Tom. "The Pinhole Resource: At the Point of Lensless Photography". 

Camera and Darkroom, February 1992, pp. 44–49. 

Holst, Trond Kjetil. "Hvem trenger elektronikken?" Fotografi, 5, 1990, pp. 48–49. 

Oslo 1990. 

Holter, Tore. "Bygg ditt eget kamera av en kakeboks". Fotografi, 5, 1990, pp. 

44–47. Oslo 1990 

Howard, Dave. "Painless Pinhole. Small Format Photography Gets Off The 

Sidelines." Shutterbug, June 1998, pp. 42–48. 

Joseph, Cathy. "Through the Pinhole". Amateur Photographer, 8 January 1994, pp. 

20–21. 

Langford, Michael. The Book of Special Effects Photography. New York: Alfred A. 

Knopf 1981. pp. 32–33 and 146. 

Laverrière, Sophie. Chasseur d'images. Paris: Editions Gallimard 1974. pp. 88–93. 

Laverrière, Sophie. Fotografering er gøy. Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag 1975. pp. 

88–93. (Norwegian translation of the preceding.) 

"Make a Pinhole Camera". Photography, August 1954, pp. 46–49 and 90–91. 

Martyn, Roger. "A Hole in One". Practical Photography, August 1992, pp. 58–61. 

Merz, Reinhard / Findeisen, Dieter. Fotografieren mit der selbstgebauten 

Lochkamera. Augustus Verlag 1997. ISBN: 3-8043-5112-3 



Olpe, Peter. Die Lochkamera. Funktion und Selbstbau. Lindemanns Verlag 1993. 

48 pages. ISBN 3-928126-62-8 

Platt, Richard. The Professional Guide to Photo Data. Manchester: Mitchell 

Beazley, 1989. p. 73. 

Quinell, Justin. "Make your own 126 pinhole camera". Amateur Photographer, 8 

january 1994, pp. 23. 



Resnick, Mason and Wolff, Ilan. "Persistently Pinhole". Modern Photography's 

Film Guide, 1989, pp. 48–49 and 94. 

Shull, Jim. The Hole Thing. A manual of Pinhole Photography. New York: Morgan 

& Morgan, 1974. 64 pages. 

Shull, Jim.The Beginner's Guide to Pinhole Photography. Amherst Media. Inc., 

1999. 80 pages. ISBN: 0-936-26270-2 

Smith, Lauren. The Visionary Pinhole. Salt Lake City: Gibbs M. Smith, Inc., 

Peregrine Smith Books, 1985. 

Talén, C.W. Amatørfotografen. Kristiania (Oslo): Steen'ske Bogtrykkeri og Forlag 

1901. pp. 7–10. 

The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography. Desk Edition. London and New York: 

Focal Press, 1969. pp. 1124–1125. 

Voog, Geerlig. "Back to the basics. Drie Pinhole camera's van de Lensless Camera 

Manufacturing Company of Santa Barbara." Camera, 1, 1995, pp. 50–53. 

Wernersson, Mats. "Ta bilder utan objektiv". Aktuell fotografi, 5, 1993, pp. 60–62. 

Stockholm 1993. 

Wiklund, Peter. "Den hålögda kameran." Fotografi, 6, 1994, pp. 42–46. 

Helsingborg 1994. 

Young, Matt. "The Pinhole Camera, Imaging without Lenses or Mirrors." The 

Physics Teacher, December, 1989. 



3 Images and Portfolios 

Bachler, Thomas. Arbeiten mit der Camera Obscura. Lindemanns Verlag 2001. 95 

pages. ISBN 3-89506-222-7. Text in German and English. 

Die Lochkameras von Peter Olpe. Ausstellung in der Buchhandlung 'das 

Labyrinth', Basel/Nadelberg 17, 19. November 1992 bis 2. Januar 1993. Basel 

1992. n.p. 

Fuss, Adam. Pinhole Photographs. Washington and London: Smithsonian 

Institution Press, 1996. 64 pages. ISBN 1-56098-622-0. 

Jasud, Lawrence. "Tom Harding - Through a Pinhole Brightly". View Camera, 

September–October 1995, pp. 4–8. 

Johnson, Lizabeth A. "Rebecca Sexton Larson – Visual Diaries". View Camera, 

September–October 1995, pp. 22–28. 

Knuchel, Hans. Camera obscura. Baden: Verlag Lars Müller 1992. 72 pages. ISBN 

3-9067700-49-6 



Schröder, Hartmuth. Der Besucher. Magister Hölderlin baut sich eine Lochkamera 

und macht eine Spazierfahrt in die Zukunft oder Liebst Hölderlin, magst' 

weiterziehen? Hannover: Hartmuth Schöder 1993. n.p. 

Smith, Lauren. The Visionary Pinhole. Salt Lake City: Gibbs M. Smith, Inc., 

Peregrine Smith Books, 1985. 

White, Garrett. "Yasu Suzuka. The Horizon of Time". Camera and Darkroom, 

June 1992, pp. 34–39. 

Zwichenzeit. Camera obscura im Dialog. 20 Fotograf/innen und 7 Textautor/innen 

äussern sich zum Thema Lochkamera. ISBN 3-928126-60-1 

Some Pinhole Photography Links 

❍ Pinhole Visions 



❍ Pinhole Visions – Gallery 

❍ The Pinhole Resource 

❍ The Pinhole Resource – Gallery 

❍ The Pinhole Gallery 

❍ The Pinhole Format Gallery 

❍ Linsenfrei (Lensless, in German) 

❍ Nick Dvoracek Pinhole Photography 

❍ Microtopographic web (Sato Jun Ichi, Gallery 3: Pinhole) 

❍ Casado Pinhole Gallery 

❍ Pinhole Photography Australia 

❍ Dieter's Lochkamera Seite (in German) 

❍ David Balihar's Pinhole Pages 

❍ Pinhole & Beyond 

❍ George L. Smyth: Handmade Photoraphic Images 

❍ Edward Levinson's portfolios 

❍ L'Invitation au voyage (Philippe Moroux) 

❍ Martha Casanave's pinhole narratives 

❍ Toshihiro Hayashi's Gallery 

❍ The Pinhole Photography Webring 

❍ Worldwide Pinhole Photography Day 

gjon@online.no 

First published 1996. Last updated 18 December 2003. Copyright 1996 Jon Grepstad 


permission. 




Sponsor: Camcorder HQ - Excellent reviews of camcorders 


photo.net 


● Shop 

History of Photography Timeline 


Search 

● Travel 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 




● ancient times: camera obscuras used to form images on walls in 

darkened rooms; image formation via a pinhole 

● 16th century: brightness and clarity of camera obscuras improved by 

enlarging the hole inserting a telescope lens 

● 17th century: camera obscuras in frequent use by artists and made 

portable in the form of sedan chairs 

● 1727: Professor J. Schulze mixes chalk, nitric acid, and silver in a flask; 

notices darkening on side of flask exposed to sunlight. Accidental 

creation of the first photo-sensitive compound. 

● 1800: Thomas Wedgwood makes "sun pictures" by placing opaque 

objects on leather treated with silver nitrate; resulting images 

deteriorated rapidly, however, if displayed under light stronger than 

from candles. 

● 1816: Nicéphore Niépce combines the camera obscura with 

photosensitive paper 

● 1826: Niépce creates a permanent image 

● 1834: Henry Fox Talbot creates permanent (negative) images using paper soaked in silver chloride and fixed with a salt 

solution. Talbot created positive images by contact printing onto another sheet of paper. 

● 1837: Louis Daguerre creates images on silver-plated copper, coated with silver iodide and "developed" with warmed 

mercury; Daguerre is awarded a state pension by the French government in exchange for publication of methods and the 

rights by other French citizens to use the Daguerreotype process. 

● 1841: Talbot patents his process under the name "calotype". 

● 1851: Frederick Scott Archer, a sculptor in London, improves photographic resolution by spreading a mixture of collodion 

(nitrated cotton dissolved in ether and alcoohol) and chemicals on sheets of glass. Wet plate collodion photography was 

much cheaper than daguerreotypes, the negative/positive process permitted unlimited reproductions, and the process was 

published but not patented. 

● 1853: Nada (Felix Toumachon) opens his portrait studio in Paris 

● 1854: Adolphe Disderi develops carte-de-visite photography in Paris, leading to worldwide boom in portrait studios for the 

next decade 

● 1855: beginning of stereoscopic era 

http://www.photo.net/history/timeline (1 of 6)7/3/2005 2:16:09 AM


● 1855-57: Direct positive images on glass (ambrotypes) and metal (tintypes or ferrotypes) popular in the US. 

● 1861: Scottish physicist James Clerk-Maxwell demonstrates a color photography system involving three black and white 

photographs, each taken through a red, green, or blue filter. The photos were turned into lantern slides and projected in 

registration with the same color filters. This is the "color separation" method. 

● 1861-65: Mathew Brady and staff (mostly staff) covers the American Civil War, exposing 7000 negatives 

● 1868: Ducas de Hauron publishes a book proposing a variety of methods for color photography. 

● 1870: center of period in which the US Congress sent photographers out to the West. The most famous images were taken 

by William Jackson and Tim O'Sullivan. 

● 1871: Richard Leach Maddox, an English doctor, proposes the use of an emulsion of gelatin and silver bromide on a glass 

plate, the "dry plate" process. 

● 1877: Edweard Muybridge, born in England as Edward Muggridge, settles "do a horse's four hooves ever leave the ground 

at once" bet among rich San Franciscans by time-sequenced photography of Leland Stanford's horse. 

● 1878: Dry plates being manufactured commercially. 

● 1880: George Eastman, age 24, sets up Eastman Dry Plate Company in Rochester, New York. First half-tone photograph 

appears in a daily newspaper, the New York Graphic. 

● 1888: first Kodak camera, containing a 20-foot roll of paper, enough for 100 2.5-inch diameter circular pictures. 

● 1889: Improved Kodak camera with roll of film instead of paper 

● 1890: Jacob Riis publishes How the Other Half Lives, images of tenament life in New york City 

● 1900: Kodak Brownie box roll-film camera introduced. 

● 1902: Alfred Stieglitz organizes "Photo Secessionist" show in New York City 

● 1906: Availability of panchromatic black and white film and therefore high quality color separation color photography. 

● 1907: first commercial color film, the Autochrome plates, manufactured by Lumiere brothers in France 

● 1909: Lewis Hine hired by US National Child Labor Committee to photograph children working mjills. 

● 1914: Oscar Barnack, employed by German microscope manufacturer Leitz, develops camera using the modern 24x36mm 

frame and sprocketed 35mm movie film. 

● 1917: Nippon Kogaku K.K., which will eventually become Nikon, established in Tokyo. 

● 1921: Man Ray begins making photograms ("rayographs") by placing objects on photographic paper and exposing the 

shadow cast by a distant light bulb; Eugegrave;ne Atget, aged 64, assigned to photograph the brothels of Paris 

● 1924: Leitz markets a derivative of Barnack's camera commercially as the "Leica", the first high quality 35mm camera. 

● 1925: André Kertész moves from his native Hungary to Paris, where he begins an 11-year project photographing street life 

● 1928: Albert Renger-Patzsch publishes The World is Beautiful, close-ups emphasizing the form of natural and man-made 

objects; Rollei introduces the Rolleiflex twin-lens reflex producing a 6x6 cm image on rollfilm. 

● 1931: development of strobe photography by Harold ("Doc") Edgerton at MIT 

● 1932: inception of Technicolor for movies, where three black and white negatives were made in the same camera under 

different filters; Ansel Adams, Imogen Cunningham, Willard Van Dyke, Edward Weston, et al, form Group f/64 dedicated 

to "straight photographic thought and production".; Henri Cartier-Bresson buys a Leica and begins a 60-year career 

photographing people; On March 14, George Eastman, aged 77, writes suicide note--"My work is done. Why wait?"--and 

shoots himself. 

● 1933: Brassaï publishes Paris de nuit 

● 1934: Fuji Photo Film founded. By 1938, Fuji is making cameras and lenses in addition to film. 

● 1935: Farm Security Administration hires Roy Stryker to run a historical section. Stryker would hire Walker Evans, 

Dorothea Lange, Arthur Rothstein, et al. to photograph rural hardships over the next six years. 

● 1936: development of Kodachrome, the first color multi-layered color film; development of Exakta, pioneering 35mm 

single-lens reflex (SLR) camera 

● World War II: 

❍ development of multi-layer color negative films 

❍ Margaret Bourke-White, Robert Capa, Carl Mydans, and W. Eugene Smith cover the war for LIFE magazine 

● 1947: Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa, and David Seymour start the photographer-owned Magnum picture agency 

● 1948: Hasselblad in Sweden offers its first medium-format SLR for commercial sale; Pentax in Japan introduces the 

automatic diaphragm 

● 1949: East German Zeiss develops the Contax S, first SLR with an unreversed image in a pentaprism viewfinder 

● 1955: Edward Steichen curates Family of Man exhibit at New York's Museum of Modern Art 

● 1959: Nikon F introduced. 

● 1960: Garry Winogrand begins photographing women on the streets of New York City. 



● 1963: first color instant film developed by Polaroid; Instamatic released by Kodak; first purpose-built underwater 

introduced, the Nikonos 

● 1972: 110-format cameras introduced by Kodak with a 13x17mm frame 

● 1973: C-41 color negative process introduced, replacing C-22 

● 1975: Nicholas Nixon takes his first annual photograph of his wife and her sisters: "The Brown Sisters" 

● 1977: Cindy Sherman begins work on Untitled Film Stills, completed in 1980 

● 1980: Elsa Dorfman begins making portraits with the 20x24" Polaroid 

● 1982: Sony demonstrates Mavica "still video" camera 

● 1983: Kodak introduces disk camera, using an 8x11mm frame (the same as in the Minox spy camera) 

● 1985: Minolta markets the world's first autofocus SLR system (called "Maxxum" in the US) 

● 1992: Kodak introduces PhotoCD 

● 1997: Rob Silvers publishes Photomosaics 

philg@mit.edu 


"1961-65: Mathew Brady and staff (mostly staff) covers the American Civil War, exposing 7000 negatives" 

I wonder how I missed this... :):):) 

Cheers, Sreenivas 

-- Sreenivas Talasila, October 23, 2000 

First auto exposure mode camera? Pentax maybe? 

-- Jay J. Pulli, October 26, 2000 

Check out this URL for a more comprehensive study of the very beginnings up until 1920: A HISTORY OF PHOTOGRAPHY 

-- T T, October 27, 2000 

An interesting if somewhat spotty listing. 

There's a timeline called Pentax History that lists the introduction years for importent Pentax products. 

Quite a few of the listings predates what's in philg's listing or seems to be missing from his list. 

● 1954 - Asahiflex II, world's first SLR with an instant return mirror 

● 1957 - Asahi Pentax, world's SLR with a penta prism thus allowing eye-level viewing with correct perspective 

● 1960 - world's first automatic diaphragm 

● 1964 - TTL metering, the Spotmatic is the world's first SLR with ttl metering 

● 1971 - SMC coating for lenses, the world's first effective lens coating system. 

● 1980 - ME-F, the world's first 35 mm SLR Auto Focus camera 

● 1986 - world's first 35 mm compact with a built in zoom lens 

● 1997 - 645N, the world's first autofocus medium format SLR 

I'm sure that if someone took the time to properly research this subject, many more corrections and missing pieces of historical 

evidence could be brought forward. 

-- Kristian Elof Sxrensen, October 28, 2000 



The Nikon F was introduced in 1959, not in 1957. Have a look at http://www.cameraquest.com/fhistory.htm and http://www.mir. 

com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/michaeliu/cameras/nikonf/index.htm to verify this. 

-- Cesar Martin, October 31, 2000 

1993: photo.net started ..... also check out Masters of photography for short intro to great 

photographers and A History of Photography -from its beginnings till the 1920s . 

-- ranjeet utikar, March 1, 2001 

I guess the first 'photogram' was some ancient person falling asleep in direct sunlight with an object on their flesh (such as a fallen 

leaf) and waking to find the image faithfully recorded due to the tanning effect of the sun being obscured by the object. (First 

negative?) 

-- Trevor Hare, April 28, 2001 

Where is Canon? Canon EOS? 

-- David Magradze, July 13, 2001 

Since Disc is included, should we also add the current (debatable?) flop APS. I believe it was introduced in May 1996 (could have 

been June). Perhaps one of the biggest marketing and inter-company attempts at industry revitalization in the past 20 years? 

Agfa-Gaevert? 

1st modern One-hour photo? 

-- Brad Walker, August 23, 2002 

This timeline seems to be missing basic facts. for example it's "Joseph" Nicéphore Niépce and there is no mention of him teaming 

up with Louis Daguerre or that his son sold the families rights to the process which is how it got to be called Daguerreotype. 

perhaps this timeline should be replaced with one that actually shows the correct history of photography. 

-- Tegan Halliday, September 1, 2002 

Maybe someone should predict the future of photography! Like when will film no longer be sold in stores? When will the Nikon 

D600 be released? Thoughts about how PhotoShop 17 will be any different than PhotoShop 7? 

-- Jason Hudson, October 23, 2002 

In reading through the timeline of photography it seems that the initial intent was to document or record history/information. As 

photography progressed it seems that the purpose was maybe two-fold...first a purpose of compassion, documenting poverty and 

social injustice so that something might be done to help...second a purpose of anthropological voyuerism, documenting how others 

lived or died, war, famine, prostitution, homeless...Could this be accurate? Does this pose implications for modern photography? 

-- Chapin Young, March 5, 2003 

I praise this attempt at summarizing the history of photography. 



However, as a non-American fond and interested by the history of your country, I am saddened by the fact that, albeit your 

mentioning of a couple of photographic exploits related to your country (Lewis Hine and Walker Evans) you fail to even mention 

one of the most enourmous personal tasks, IMHO, in the entire history of American photography 

I refer to the lifelong dedication of Edward S. Curtis (1868-1952) who gave his entire life and fortune to record on photographic 

film the memories of the last native nations of North America from the Apache, down in the South, to the Nunivak in Alaska. 

I do feel sorry when so many modern photographers forget about such a great photographer and anthropologist. His task took him 

over 30 years -from 1895 to 1928- with an estimated cost in excess of 500,000.- $ (of the time) which was, partially, financed by 

JP Morgan -ironically-. 

The work was published under the title of "The North American Indian,...,in twenty volumes". It was published by the University 

Press of Cambridge, MA and of the 500 numbered sets originally planned to be printed (it is unknown how many were actually 

printed) only 272 copies were sold at a price of 3,000 $ each. 

His work occupied some five feet of shelf space. Curtis visited 80 tribes and exposed some 40,000 negatives and, even, filmed the 

Snake Dance. He, also, recorded with a primitive Edison wax cilinder, songs and music as well as writing down stories, legends, 

customs, etc. The hugest task related to the American Indians ever done 

Edward Curtis died unknown to all but some learned few. When he died, the New York Times published a 76 words obituary 

which ended with this terse statement: "Mr. Curtis was also known as a photographer" 

Since the times when it was believed that the best Indian was the dead one have long passed (or have them?) I would like a site 

like this rending hommage -or, at least, a mention-to this great American photographer. 

Should you be interested in knowing more about this great American photographer you can visit any of the following links: 

Edward S. Curtis Collection at library of Congress 

Smithsonian Institution’s Frontier photographer Edward S. Curtis 

The Curtis Collection Homepage 

-- Alberto Conde, September 22, 2003 

Related Links 

Add a comment 

● Albumen photography: History, Science and Preservation- An extensive site at Stanford on the history, processes and 

preservation of albumen photographs. Includes monographs on older processes, videos, exhibition, and discussion. 

Emphasis on historical processes. (The 1863 and 1864 books include how-to on almost every 19th C process.) 

Recommended! (contributed by Paul W Romaine) 

● The Development of 35mm Photography- Soon after its conception, 35mm cameras and 35mm photography have ruled as 

the most popular photography system ever. Yet few people know how this success came to be. It is often said that the Leica 

was the first 35mm camera. However, its introduction date of Spring 1925 was preceded by a number of other 35mm 

cameras. The idea obviously was to utilize the rather good, fine grained motion picture film for still photography. If we 

look at some of the 35mm cameras which were (unsuccessfully) marketed prior to the Leica, it should quickly become 

obvious why 35mm photography as we know it today is a direct descendant from the first Leica. (contributed by T T) 



● Hockney and Falco on mirrors and lenses at the birth of photography- Pushes the date of the earliest optical imaging 

systems in western art back to 1420s and 30s. Simpler than camera obscura - the guys would use a convex mirror to reflect 

an image of a very brightly lit subject onto a canvas shaded from the light then trace it. Explains why sudden outbreak of 

portraits of sunlit squinting people in this era. Painter David Hockney's views were first published in the New Yorker in 

January 2000, and have already been discussed on Photo Net. This link takes the story on to work done by optical expert 

Charles Falco and an expanded version of the argument in Hockney's forthcoming book. I've just watched a TV 

programme the BBC put out yesterday, which is very convincing. The most primitive mirror systems give a bright but 

small upside-down image you could easily paint from. Main benefit was an immediate improvement in rendering complex 

shapes like the folds in clothing and the reflections on armour - and a more photographic-looking depiction of people. 

(contributed by Ian Stobie) 

● Antique & Classic Camera Web Pages- Learn about the development and history of the CAMERA ! (contributed by D 

Colucci) 

● The Empire That Was Russia- (100+ years old color pictures) The photographs of Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii 

(1863-1944) offer a vivid portrait of a lost world--the Russian Empire on the eve of World War I and the coming 

revolution. His subjects ranged from the medieval churches and monasteries of old Russia, to the railroads and factories of 

an emerging industrial power, to the daily life and work of Russia's diverse population. (contributed by Denis-Carl 

Robidoux) 

● Economic History of the U.S. Photographic Industry- Describes employment, revenue, prevalence of cameras, and total 

end-user photographs taken from about 1890 through about 1995, with comparison to the growth of telephone service. 

(contributed by Douglas Galbi) 

Add a link 






photo.net 

Portrait Photography 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 



an exhibit/tutorial by Philip 

Greenspun 

A face devoid of love or grace, 

A hateful, hard, successful face, 

A face with which a stone 

Would feel as thoroughly at ease 

As were they old acquaintances,-- 

First time together thrown. 

-- "A Portrait" by Emily Dickinson 

http://www.photo.net/portraits/intro (1 of 37)7/3/2005 2:16:41 AM


I share a studio with a world-famous portrait 

photographer: Elsa Dorfman. We have access 

to the same location, background, lights, and 

equipment. But I'm not a portrait photographer 

and Elsa is. What's the difference? Elsa cares 

about people. She is genuinely curious about 

people she has never met and can connect with 

them in just a few minutes. After a one-hour 

session, she knows more about her average 

subject's life than I do about my sister's. 

Elsa uses a 20x24" Polaroid camera. Film costs 

about $50/exposure, so she limits herself to two 

exposures per subject. Yet her photo of me and 

Alex (at right) is one of the only pictures of 

myself that I like. I'm sometimes able to 

capture the essence of a friend's expression, but 

I give myself 36 tries with a 35mm camera or 

at least 12 tries with a medium format camera. 

Studying Elsa's artistic success has made me 

believe that the most important thing about 

portrait photography is an interest in your 

subject. If you are so busy working that you 

can't care about strangers then don't take their 

photos! Or at rate, don't expect those photos to 

be good. I'm reasonably happy with some of 

the portraits I took on my trip to Alaska and 

back because I had 3.5 months in which to be 

alone and learn to appreciate the value of a 

stranger's company and conversation. 

Location 



If you don't have or can't create a photo studio then you'll have to concentrate on 

environmental portraiture. Show the subject and also his surroundings. These tend to 

work best if you can enlarge them to at least 11x14 inches. Otherwise, the subject's 

face is simply too small. Taking photos that will enlarge well is a whole art by itself. 

Your allies in this endeavor will be slow film, prime (rather than zoom) lenses, a 

tripod, and a larger-than-35mm camera format. 

There are two elements to a photo studio for portrait photography. One is a controlled 

background. You want to focus attention on your subject and avoid distracting 

elements in the frame. Probably the best portraits aren't taken against a gray seamless 

paper roll. On the other hand, you are unlikely to screw up and leave something 

distracting in the frame if you confine yourself to using seamless paper or other 

monochromatic backgrounds. You don't have to build a special room to have a 

controlled background. There are all kinds of clever portable backdrops and backdrop supports that you can buy 

or build (call 1-800-CALUMET and ask for a catalog). If you absolutely cannot control the background, the 

standard way to cheat is to use a long fast lens, e.g., 300/2.8. Fast telephoto lenses have very little depth of field. 

Your subject's eyes and nose will be sharp. Everything else that might have been distracting will be blurred into 

blobs of color. 

The second element of a portrait studio is controlled lighting. With lights on stands or hanging from the ceiling, 

you get to pick the angle at which light will strike your subject. With umbrellas and other diffusion equipment, 

you get to pick the harshness of the shadows on your subject (see my studio photography article for more detail). 

There are some pretty reasonable portable flash kits consisting of a couple of lights, light stands, and umbrellas. 

These cost $500-1000 and take 20 minutes or so to set up on location. If you don't have the money, time, or 

muscles to bring a light package to a project then the standard way to cheat is to park your subject next to a large 

window and put a white reflecting card on the other side. Make sure that you bring a tripod because you'll 

probably be forced to us slow shutter speeds. 

Lighting 

The most flattering light for most portraits is soft and off-camera. A large north-facing 

window works, as does the electronic equivalent, the softbox (light bank). The Elsa 

Dorfman photo of me and Alex was taken with two large light banks, one on either side 

of the camera. Note that there are essentially no shadows. 

If your subject is outdoors, an overcast day is best. If the day is sunny, make sure to use 

a reflector or electronic flash to fill in shadows underneath the eyes. 

At right: In a New York loft, light coming from a bank of windows at left. Canon 70- 

200/2.8 lens on tripod. Possibly some fill-flash but I don't think so. Fuji ISO 400 color 

negative film. 

Want more? See my tutorial about photographic lighting. 

Lens 



If you want to flatter your subject, you'll probably want 

to deemphasize his nose. That means you want to stand 

at 10 or 15 feet away from him so that his nose isn't 

significantly closer to you than the rest of his face. 

However, at such a large distance from the camera, if you 

want to fill the frame with just your subject's face, then 

you need a high magnification (i.e., telephoto) lens. 

Typical "portrait" lenses are therefore between 90 and 

135 millimeters long (for 35mm cameras). Many 

professional fashion photographers use 300mm or 

600mm lenses, resorting to using a walkie-talkie or 

bullhorn to communicate with the model! 

At right: South Beach. Miami. Fashion photography 

capital of the world. Here a yuppie photographer (note 

Reef Runners) sneers from the back of his 600/4. He's 

unhappy with me for walking by with my Rollei 6008 and 

50mm lens. The model is way down the beachfront and 

he's using a radio to communicate with an assistant 

holding a reflector by the model (in yellow). 

With a Canon or Nikon, most professionals end up using their 70-200/2.8 or 80-200/2.8 zooms as portrait lenses. 

These 3 lb. monsters aren't very pleasant to handhold, though, and if you know that you're only going to do 

portraits, you're better off with a prime lens. Prime lenses are lighter and give better image quality. 

Unfortunately, the prime lens in this range that a serious photographer is most likely to own is the 100 or 105 

macro. These are very high quality optically but difficult to focus precisely since most of the focusing helical 

precision is reserved for the macro range. Here are some great portrait lenses: Nikon 105/1.8 (MF only), Canon 

100/2 USM, Canon 135/2 USM. 

There are folks who argue that a portrait should not be clinically sharp. I'm not one of 

them. If I could conveniently use a 4x5 view camera and the latest high-contrast 

Schneider lens for every picture, I would. Then I could get wall-size enlargements with 

good detail. Conventional wisdom, though, holds that even a standard Nikon 105 

macro lens is "too sharp" and that you should fuzz up the picture at exposure time with 

either a lower tech lens, a filter (e.g., Zeiss Softar or Tiffen SoftFX), or a stocking 

stretched over the lens. My attitude towards this has always been that if I wanted to 

fuzz up the photo, I could do it post-exposure under the enlarger or in PhotoShop. In 

any case, true connoisseurs of soft focus insist that you must have a lens with 

uncorrected spherical aberration. You can get spherical aberration either by using a 

very old camera/lens or by buying a purpose-built modern soft focus lens. I own a 

Canon 135/2.8 SF lens (example at right). With the twist of the ring, you can vary the 

softness from none (normal high-grade telephoto lens) to rather soft. I don't use this 

lens too much but the photo at right is luminous in a way that is tough to explain and would be difficult to 

reproduce in PhotoShop. It saddens me that Canon has not updated this lens with an ultrasonic motor, which 

would allow simultaneous manual and auto focus. That's why I have to recommend the 100/2 USM or 135/2L 

USM instead. 



As far as doing soft focus in other formats, Rodenstock makes an Imagon lens for 4x5 view cameras. It has 

perforated disks that you shove into the middle of the lens. Unfortunately, different softness and aperture settings 

affect the focus so you have to focus with the lens stopped down. In medium format, people like the old Zeiss 

150 lens for Hasselblad because it simply isn't all that sharp. 

Film 

Most people probably look better in black and white. If you want the sharpest results, 

you'll get them with Agfapan 25, Kodak TMAX-100, and Kodak TMAX 400 CN. 

Kodak's ancient Tri-X emulsion has enough grain that it may flatter certain subjects. I 

don't really like Tri-X in the 35mm format; the grain is simply too obtrusive. Tri-X 

works for me in 120 or 4x5 size, though. 

If you're doing color, you'll want subtle tones, low color saturation, and low-ish 

contrast. My favorite films are Fuji Astia, Kodak 100SW (ISO 100 slide) and Fuji NPS 

(ISO 160 color negative). 

See my film article for more on this subject. 

At right: my grandmother Shirley on Tri-X. 

Camera 

Any 35mm single-lens-reflex will work fine. The snob 35mm rangefinders are 

probably great, e.g., the Contax G2 or Leica M6 with a 90mm lens. The standard 

medium format approach would be a Hasselblad and a 150mm lens. If you have a 

flotilla of assistants like Annie Liebowitz, you could use the camera she uses: Mamiya 

RZ67. If you have a lot of patience, a 4x5 view camera with 270mm lens isn't a bad 

option. 

The worst possible camera is a zoom point and shoot. Their lenses are far too slow at 

the telephoto end. So you get f/10 instead of f/2.8 and your background is sharp 

instead of blurry. Or you have to use the on-camera flash instead of natural light. It 

really is a waste of film. See my point and shoot article for more on these otherwise 

remarkable cameras. 

Among the digital cameras, it is tough to do good work unless you have a true single-lens-reflex. The photo at 

right was taken with a Nikon D1. As of April 2001, an excellent digital choice for portraiture is Olympus E-10. 

[If you're in the market for a new camera, check the photo.net recommended retailers.] 

Environmental Portrait 



Here's a photo I took in Costa Rica. That's Diane Ewing, consummate 

horsewoman and proprietress of Hacienda Barú. Her face would be completely 

black if I hadn't used the built-in flash of my Canon EOS-5 body to fill in the 

shadow under her hat. I hope you'll excuse any technical errors in the photo. I was 

sitting on a horse myself. Canon 20-35/2.8L zoom lens. Fuji Sensia film. 

Note that with environmental portaits, you don't necessarily use a "portraitlength" 

lens. In fact, usually a wide angle lens of some kind is used, though 

probably closer to 35mm than 20mm. 

Here are some more examples of photos that might reasonably be called 

environmental portraits: 

Note: these are from my New York pages and Travels with Samantha. 

Do you really need the wide aperture? 



Is the 80-200/2.8 zoom useful? 

Well, you can tell me. The photo at left (Dieter) was taken with a 

Canon 35-350L zoom lens. I was traveling light in Costa Rica 

and didn't have room for a supertelephoto. The 35-350L slows 

down to around f/5.6 at longer focal lengths. The photo at right 

(Emma) was taken in Alaska's Katmai National Park. I was there 

to take photos of bears so I had my 300/2.8 with me. For my 

taste, the portrait of Emma is vastly better due to the shallower 

depth of field and consequently less distracting background. Too 

bad I was using Fuji Velvia film, which is not the best for skin 

tone. 

Though the big professional zooms are heavy and not as sharp as primes, I find that 

they encourage me to experiment. At right is a standard portrait that I took for my New 

York section. If I'd had a fixed 180 I probably wouldn't have been able to back up far 

enough to get in this much of Tal's body. On the other hand, if I hadn't been able to 

rack my Canon 70-200/2.8L lens out to 200, I might not have gotten the photo below 

(sadly the negative was damaged by the Duggal lab in New York). 

6x6: Give your subjects some room 

The rectangular format of most cameras encourages photographers to crop rather tightly around a subject's face 

or torso. The 6x6 cm square format encourages you to give subjects a little bit of space. 



http://www.photo.net/portraits/intro (8 of 37)7/3/2005 2:16:41 AM 

George, my old companion. This was hand-held with some Tri- 

X on the carpeted floor of an office building. I was using Adobe 

PhotoShop to crop this image for the Web when an art director 

from Hearst walked by. He grabbed me by the shoulders and 

shook me until I realized that it was the space in front of the 

dog that made the photo work. 

Roommates. The MIT nerd perfectionist in me can't avoid 

seeing the horrible technical flaw in this photo: the reflector 

edge in the lower left corner of the frame. 

Reading. From my Cape Cod series. This was taken with the 

80mm lens, a normal focal length for 6x6. If you're not trying to 

fill the frame with the subject's face, you don't actually need a 

telephoto lens to avoid an unflattering perspective. In medium 

format, this can have economic implications. A telephoto lens 

for a 'Blad or Rollei 6008 is about $2000!


More pictures of my family 

My grandfather Nick 

Gittes 

Generation 

Gap. 

Cousin Douglas and wife Leslie at Harry and Katerina's wedding. Fuji NPH lowcontrast 

wedding film, Canon EOS-3, 28-70/2.8L lens 

Pictures that I'm too lazy to write about 



(but that might give you a good idea) 

philg@mit.edu 


I just finished reading your portrait section and have to take exception with you about equipment. Not everyone 

can afford a Blad, I know if I brought one home it and I would be sleeping under the stars, or an EOS 1, N90, 

etc., these are really great cameras, but beyond most peoples means. Something I learned a very long time ago 

was how perfectly suited a TLR is to portraiture. Here is camera that allows you to constanly view your subject, 

avoiding closed eye shots, relatively comfortable on a neckstrap, easy to handle, and for flash a 500th sync speed 

is hard to beat. Unfortunatley those that are still produced are priced well beyond the means of mere working 

folk, but fortunatley their are alot in good to mint condtion used. Just browsing some ads, I've seen YashicaMat 

124G for $200-$300, MamiyaFlex with 80mm lens $175. These are just the tip of the TLR market, Minolta, 

Ricoh, Zeiss, Aires (with Nikkor lenses), are other companies whose TLRs are still available and repairable for 

under $300. So lets start a revolt and tell camera companies we're not going to spend 1K for a new camera. We'll 

go to the photo flea market, buy a used TLR, handheld meter, "L" bracket & strobe all for under $400, load it 

with FP5 or PlusX and go out and shoot portraits. 



Regards 

Rich Jacobs 

-- Rich Jacobs, February 11, 1998 

I sometimes use a Yashica-Mat 124G with the normal 80mm lens. Properly used, it can give superb results. The 

challenge for portraits is that the lens perspective is too close. And you're on your own for filters if you want a 

warm or soft effect. So, get creative, back up and crop the big square negative later. And speaking of film, 

because of the higher cost, you'll be enticed to slow down and shoot more efficiently. 

-- Albert E. Anderson, March 22, 1998 

Great article. 

I have a couple of points though. You mentioned in the article about film selection: "If you're doing color, you'll 

want subtle tones, low color saturation, and low-ish contrast. My favorite films are Fuji Astia, Kodak 100SW". 

Those choices of films kind of contradicts your statement though. Astia is considered by many to be almost 

"Velvia Light". Great color saturation but acurate skin tones. And of course, Kodak 100SW has high saturation 

too. That's what the "S" in SW means...the W means toward the warm tones. 

Fuji NPS is a great one though for low contrast/ saturation...which is why it's such a great wedding film. 

-- Scott Gant, June 28, 1998 

Scott's right of course about the ISO 100 slide films being pretty saturated. Still, that's sort of all that you can get 

these days in slide film. 

-- Philip Greenspun, June 28, 1998 

On the subject of using fast primes for portraiture, I'd like to offer a lens that is: Inexpensive,Sharp, and handy to 

use. That is the Nikon 100mm/2.8 E (AIS) lens that has been around for years. This lens is available (used) in the 

neighborhood of about $100 or so. Several lens raters have noted that this is a good lens for optical quality, but 

seem to downcheck it somewhat for mechanical quality because of the plastic build. That's not a problem for 

studio work though, and for the field -- just don't use it to pound nails. Any comments by others? 

Bill Briggs - unklbil@csonline.net 

-- Bill Briggs, February 24, 1999 

As a professional photographer specialising on location fashion and potrait shoots, I can vouch for the countless 

times an 80-200 f2.8 has saved me from many a tight corner. Shiv Saran 



-- shiv s, February 26, 1999 

I can only agree with Shiv S. Though a 2.8/80-200 zoom is indeed huge and heavy, it gives the freedom of 

getting closer to and getting further away from your subject without moving from the spot you're standing. Apart 

from the thus gained advantage of speed when trying to catch spontanious moment in just the right frame, I find 

it a huge advantage that, e.g. when working with a inexperienced model, you don't have to run around the place 

to get a close up or a medium or three-quarter shot, and thus avoid unsettling the model with the unrest otherwise 

created. 

-- Paul Koster, March 23, 1999 

I agree with Paul Koster. I recently purchased the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 D ( non S ), and it as sharp as my 135 f2. 

This is an amazing lens and it provides for great flexability. Although heavy, it's well worth it. Portraits have a 

great look. Give it a try, you will be amazed. 

Mark Tuccillo 

-- Mark Tuccillo, March 29, 1999 

Hi, 

Before I got my Canon, I was using a Nikkormat with a 50mm lens. Check out my photographs at http://www. 

tanchung.com. 

All my recent shots are done on a Canon EOS 28-105mm at the longer end. Tell me whether you can see the 

difference in quality. Except for the fact that the photos on my website are a little small, you can't really spot any 

difference. 

I agree with Philip that I want my original shots to be sharp and if I want some parts to be blurred, etc, I can 

always touch them up in Photoshop later. 

My point in showing you the comparison: it is not the lens/camera/film that counts but the eye. 

-- Tan Chung, April 8, 1999 

I do "environmental" portraits, where the subject is in their natural environment. After all, the point of a portrait 

is to reveal something about the subject. That's why I find most plain background studio shots sterile. It's always 

a struggle deciding how much of the background to include. Usually the old rule applies: less is more. The face 

usually says it all. 

http://www.accesshub.net/naturalight/PEOPLE/People.htm 

-- George Struk, May 18, 1999 



Pretty informative user friendly site. You know, one of the things that has always both fascinated me and irritated 

me is what I call the "expensive camera mystique" or ECM. I swore that ONLY a Nikon 90s or Canon EOSn1 

could take the great pictures. An impressive photo exhibit held by a woman armed with only a measly Canon AE- 

1 changed all that. The way I figure, some of my most favorite photos were shot on cameras many times inferior 

to the so called pro gear. I still however would like to own the 90s for its high ratings, lens availability and 

versatilty. It's a great camera to hold and prices on the model have dropped in recent years. I must add that 

portrait photography is my favorite category next to still life and I prefer b/w to color about 75% of the time. 

Nikon prime lenses are expensive but the only ones I want are the 20mm, 24mm, 85mm and 105mm macro. 

Hopeully I can find some used ones! Favorite shutterbugs: annie l. richard avedon linda mccartney (r.i.p.) 

mapplethorpe 

shutterbugs i disl 

-- greg b., May 30, 1999 

For the longest time, my main portrait lens was a nikon 75-150 3.5 Series-E. This lens was very sharp, and great 

in the studio due to the constant maximum aperture. When I got my F4s, I decided to get an 85 1.8 af, and have 

sworn by this lens ever since. The wide aperture REALLY makes the subject pop! I like this lens so much, that I 

sold the 75-150! 

-- Robert Mossack, October 20, 1999 

Hi Philip, 

Just visited your portrait photo page. Thanks for the infos, really helpful. However, you seem to concentrate in 

using expensive equips. For a lowly cheap (and poor) student like me, it's kinda hard to get them. Personally, I 

found out that using Canon 50mm/1.8 Mk. II is enough for my need. As I like to get up close and personal to my 

subjects. For candid portrait (capturing expression), it seems to me that people notice you less when you're close 

to them. They thought you were focusing on something else. I'm just an amateur, however, so my opinion might 

not be correct. Thanks again for the website, really helpful. 

Regards, fajar 

-- Fajar Reksoprodjo, October 22, 1999 

Here is what I did for buying portrait lens. First I bought cheap so called universal zoom lens. I think those lens 

really give some idea of charateristic focal length and give a chance novice like me to explore the different focal 

length. Eventhough quality of those lens was not great, To me It was acceptable. and later I can use as a preview 

lens for medium format camera that doesn't have camera meter. After analyze the picture I took, I can break 

down portrait into couple of the situation. 

1)Standard portrait: 2)Telephoto portrait:candid, natural unposed, long enough to be subjects aren't aware of 

them being photographed 3)Environmental portrait:The subject and surroundings are equally important 4) 

Detailed Body part:Macro works on portrait 5)Exaggerated body portion portrait:So called wide angle close up 

portrait, for thsoe fun special effect, Using a distortion a minimizing hadicaped body portion for example making 

short leg looks longer. 6)Group portrait:Family photo, wedding photo something like that kind of gathering. Then 



think each case what kind of the lens will be useful. For the case 1), Something like 85mm/1.8 or 100mm/2 will 

be useful. For2), 300mm focal length is minimum. For3), lens like 24mm 28mm 35mm will be ideal For4), 

Dedicated macro lens, or medium telephoto lens with extension tube For5), 24mm or at least 28mm will be ideal. 

this one should be single focal prime For6),35mm or 50mm will be ideal. 

next set the budjet.and study the which brand is ideal for me 

My choice for portrait lens was --> 

24mm/2.8 Eos USM(35mm format) 34mm/2.8 Sekkor manual(medium format)(this is 35mm equivalent focal 

length) 50mm/1.4EOS USM(35mm format) 93mm/3.5 Sekkor manual(medium format)(this is 35mm equivalent 

focal length) 135/2 EOS USM(35mm format)+Et-25 300/4IS EOS USM(35mm format)+1.4X 

I think this is minimum for the portrait. My point is this is almost every kind of the lens. I can shoot with this lens 

almost any kind of situation not just portrait nature, concert, indoor or outdoor event,sport, action etc. 

-- joon um, October 24, 1999 

I think it's a good idea to use a medium format camera for people pictures. I use a Pentax 645 with a 150 lens 

often. I do 100% black and white because I do it myself. I like having proof sheets that are viewable and 15 shots 

is economical but still greatly superior to 35 mm for portraits. I have a square "clunker" camera which is a 

Bronica S2A and a 75 mm Nikkor-Q lens, both 30 years old. That's nice for group shots or full-body shots. Like I 

said, the quality is superior to 35 mm and the proof sheets are easy to view. I like to use a medium-speed film 

like Plus-X or my all-time favorite is Agfa APX 100 which is sharper and gives a lovelier image than Plus-X, and 

it's generally cheaper. 

Another thing about people shots, I like to do the old-fashioned type of portrait that is mainly window light. Onehundred 

years ago, portraits were made with a soft north light from a window and I love that look in black and 

white. I generally make my pictures sharp too, or I'll use a very minor diffusion filter that barely alters the image. 

-- Paula Swaim, April 27, 2000 



Colin Hastings 

Actually, I started doing portraits with Tri-X and a Nikon FM2N and a Vivitar Series-1 28-105 lens. This portrait 



is an example. It's good quality, but it would be better in 645 format. The proof sheets were hard to view. This 

image is on Ilford MG RC warmtone paper, toned in selenium 1:8 for a chocolate look. The subject loved it. 

-- Paula Swaim, April 27, 2000 

There seems to be too much concentration on equipment and too little on the core subject which is people. I have 

noticed that the older I get, the less likely I am to approach people and take portraits in the street. I used to enjoy 

it so much, but now don't do it as much. How do most street photographers do it? Do you just click away? Do 

you try to engage the person in some conversation? Any pointers? Thanks. 

-- Marcelo Salup, December 22, 2000 

Good article, but a lot of the comments confirm the belief that most photographers are just equipment buffs. 

When I used to shoot professionally, I was appalled that when you get a group of photographers together in a 

room, invariably they are talking about equipment, not how to get the shot, marketing, composition, rapport, etc. 

Can someone please tell me what difference it makes whether an Nikon FM, FE, F2, or F5 are used to make an 

image? A camera body should be viewed as something to hold the film and lens and be good at that. I love it 

when I see great images being made on what some would call "inferior" equipment. 

-- Mark McCombs, January 9, 2001 

i liked the portrait article. but i also understand the other comments. it seems to me that about 80% of creative 

portraits is the photographer. Knowing how to use your equipment and its limits. I've seen some great portraits 

with equipment most people would have given to the kids. When in doubt shoot the picture. then analyze the 

results and learn from them. when you reach the limits of your equipment then move up. 

-- steve wall, January 28, 2001 

I have two lenses that I prefer to use for portrait: my Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 and my Sigma AF 70-200 f/2.8 HSM 

APO. Both of these lense are fast and allow shallow dept of field. 

I love the 50mm for getting "up close and personnal" with my subjects, where I can have that special interaction 

wich make for great candid portrait. It will ofthen gives a very intimate look to your portrait that is difficult to get 

with telephoto lenses. It is also quite fun to play around and improvise the shots with such a small tool (I use a 

Rebell 2000). Better yet, the 50mm cost 1/10 of the 70-200!!!. 

I usually use the 70-200mm with kids or when getting too close would intimidate the subject. It is also great for 

environmental portrait for its ability to compress perspective at the same time. 

For some examples take a look at: 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=107614 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=49319 



-- Ans Beaulieu, March 13, 2001 

I shoot with a Nikon N90 and a Yashica D. The Nikon is more for the action/fast moving pictures, and the 

Yashica is for my portraits and still lifes. I would like to scrap them both and purchase a Mamiya but the price is 

a little to high. I will say that despite the ugly appearance and technical limitations(by today's standards), my 

Yashica is a workhorse and for quality the 6X6 destroys 35mm. I shoot portraits of friends and coworkers using 

Ektachrome 100S and have never been happier. You'll never see them on the cover of Cosmo and Cindy 

Crawford isn't beatng down my door to have her picture taken, but I still get excited every time I see a roll of my 

pictures. At the end of the day I'm happy(for the most part) with the pictures I took, enjoyed the time working 

with the models, and look forward to critiquing(?) my own work. To me that's what the art of photography is 

about. However I wouldn't mind being in the business of photography either! 

-- John Kahmann, May 26, 2001 

The 8x10 camera is one of the most luxurious portrait tools available. I use this format for portraits taken in my 

home. If you can afford it - by all means...... Nothing beats the flattering presence of camera offered by an 8x10. 

Except maybe the 20x24 Polaroid. 

-- Bruce MacNeil, June 1, 2001 

Very good artical.Do agree that you bring up alot of highly priced equipment not everyone can afford.i've found 

that all of my pentax cameras are comfortably priced and do a wonderful job no matter what i'm shooting.On the 

comment made about street photography,its all about human contact.talk to people,make them feel comfortable 

with you and the sometimes scary to some people piece of equipment your carrying.I have been in the lower side 

of east philly and got wonderful shots of the people who live there and had great conversation too.Its a nice way 

to spend your sunday afternoon and it reacquaints you with you "people skills". 



-- margaret martin, June 2, 2001 

For portraits, technically, I have to say for the majority of the time I use my Nikon bodies (F100 and FM2n) and 

an 80-200mm 2.8 nikkor zoom and the cheap 50mm 1.8 made in china nikkor that costs around $100. 

Occasionally I might shoot with a 24mm 2.8 nikkor that is quite sharp and gives me distortions that for some 

reason I find pleasing and humorous. All three lenses give me what I want in doing portraits for people either 

posed or candid. I have a 105mm 2.8 micro nikkor lens but I never use it. People always stressed how this is a 

great portrait lens but I've found it to be a little limiting due to its picky focusing and awkward focal length for 

me personally. I much like the results with my 50mm or my 80-200mm lenses. Anyone want to take this macro 

lens off my hands for a price?? 

When I shoot portraits I always try to have conversations with my subjects about things like what they like, what 

I like, the news, weather, etc. I don't shoot and say "oh thats great," or "beautiful", I'd rather ask them "so where 

are we going for lunch?" or "did you see that guy on the news that attacked his dog?" I want let my subject relax 

and just be themselves. Thats why I like shooting people who are actors or just have a knack for it. But of course 

it isn't as easy as that. I think the main thing is, is just getting people to become comfortable even if it takes a few 

tries to get it right. But one thing I always like to do when I meet a subject for the first time, leave the camera at 

home. 

-- William Cordray, June 22, 2001 



Zeiss Sonnar 180 f2.8, shot 

I do a lot of "available light" environmental portrairture work, both indoors and outdoors using highly saturated 

(albeit "slow" 50 -100 ASA) films. My absolutely favorite lens is the Zeiss Sonnar 180 f2.8 multicoated lens 

(adapted to fit my trusty manual Minolta system) that allows me to take both indoor and outdoor shots when the 

subjects are comforable in a natural form and setting. Also with the big glass wide open, it allows me to take 

pictures in fairly ugly backgrounds without disturbing the composition Here is an example (also see the picture 

submitted). I dislike the tension of "posed" portraits, especially with younger people and children. When the 

subject is willing to go through some film and spend some time, I usually use the Minolta Rokkor 85/f2.8 

Varisoft lens, probably one of the best lenses made that would allow you to create photoshop-like (but much 

more natural) effects on your slide or negative. 

-- Emmanouil Skoufos, June 29, 2001 

Yashica T5, Kodak 400CN 

"The worst possible camera is a zoom point and shoot." 

I've to disagree with this statement. P&S camera can take good portrait too! The T5 has a f3.5 aperture. If u are 

close enough and light level is low, you too can have a nice background blur. 



-- Wee Keng_Hor, June 30, 2001 

To address Wee Keng Hor's comment: 

The Yashica T5 is not a zoom point and shoot. Heck, I have an XA, and I love it. Not all point and shoots are 

bad, just the zoom point and shoots where the F-stop at the long end falls below about f5.6. Even those are 

GOOD cameras, they just aren't ideally suited to portraiture. 

-- William Baguhn, July 9, 2001 

A portrait is a broadly defined term. Though my favourite head and shoulders portraits were and are taken with 

an old 1.4/85mm lens, a skilled photographer does definitely not need one to take good portraits. I do use 35 and 

50mm primes for people and my 28-70mm zoom is also used frequently, while my 135mm prime sits on the 

shelf. 

"Portrait" may even be considered the subject which requires the least specialised equipment in photography. 

-- George D. Gianni, August 11, 2001 

Ah, the vexed issue of street photography (see above). I'm generally pretty shy and have a hard time approaching 

interesting subjects. I have the best success when I wear a big grin and a have a neat appearance (this depends, if 

you're in, say the East Village of Manhattan, you can dress arty and you'll probably have better luck). Always, 

always ask before snapping away, unless you see a decisive moment, in which case have a chat with your subject 

afterwards. Be sensitive, too: during the recent nightmare here in NYC, I saw thousands of shutterbugs shooting 

away with what seemed to be little regard for the people around them. Personally, I feel this is intrusive and 

slightly unethical. But then, it's up to you to decide whether the art you create in these situations will transcend 

the exploitative quality inherent in photographing people at the limits of despair. On a happier note, many of the 

photos I've seen of the rescuers and survivors of the terrorist attack have been exceedingly moving. I salute 

everyone for their bravery. 

-- R Murray, September 22, 2001 

Regarding p&s zooms - I have a Samsung Maxima Zoom (38-145), and although it has gotten some great shots 

for me, I must say that in general - for portraits as well as general photog - the f/11 maximum aperature at 145 

can be EXTREMELY frustrating. It'll take great pics on a bright sunny day, but even on overcast days it'll 

sometimes "get ya". I'm poor, and a beginner, so I just have a Rebel 2000 w/the kit 28-80, (f/3.5-5.6), and even 

this is far better for portraiture than the p&s. It would be very cool to have a f/2.8 lens for portraits but frankly I 

just can't afford them. So that basically just means I have to control my background more. A bit more of a hassle, 

but it works. 

2 of my favorite portraits taken w/the cheapo 28-80: 

 

-- Elaine Robbins, October 15, 2001 



I'm not certain that a fast lens is required for portraits. Particularly not if we are shooting for a crisp image and 

softening it in Photoshop. It is just another step to blur the background, not too much trouble. 

-- Patryk Soika, November 14, 2001 

One comment I think others may find useful: If you're taking a portrait of a difficult subject, like a child who 

doesn't want to hold still or anyone who isn't comfortable in front of the camera, I've found that handing my 

camera over and letting them burn a couple of frames on me or anything else they'd like to photograph has fixed 

this problem 100% of the time. My son used to run from me when I said I wanted to take his picture. I had my 

tripod and the subject stool all set up and suggested he snap a couple of pictures of his stuffed animals with it. 

After he did that, I got a whole roll of portraits that he would never have allowed me to take of him before. 

-- Tony Samples, November 23, 2001 

You ask for a different perspective. This one may sound self indulgent but its factual. I know nothing about 

techtalk or f stops or even how to read light meter. But I take beautiful portraits so much so that I am asked by 

friends to take a couple of master frameable ones at weddings even when pros are there for the general 

photoshoots. I am an interior designer. Having taken some pics of my own work clients have asked me to do 

photo work for them. Portraits. I look through the lens moving it and the subject till I find that expression which 

in 2D is the same as I would see it in 3D. When I get the subject in his most natural element, specially laughing, 

which essentially means the showing of teeth, that makes a good pic. This is because frozen laughter is better 

than a frozen smile which starts out frozen and unnatural.Teeth are natural elements that add ivory or white color 

to a colored photos thus showing a kind of hot spot with the eyes. I use little background as I crop close. Always 

black. I shoot fast in a series with a Nikon F5 and Tamron zoom 28 to 210 on full auto. I pick the best out of 

postcard prints, design the cropping with a white bracket as I give the large 10 by 12s a thick 1" border of the 

white photopaper. I am lucky enough to be friends with the owner of the city's best studio where I frame the 

image on the enlarging plate. THIS PART IS VERY IMPORTANT. I could never tell the actual correct scale of 

the faces on paper until I saw this on the paper. I Ok this then the technician does his job. Sometimes a tilt to the 

face breathes unbelievable life to the portrait. But really, go for the laughter. It comes alive. Also I would never 

take a pic without studying the subject as others ordinarily see him. Ordinarily, with his gestures or expressions 

or tilt or agression and t shirt or tux . Ordinarily. Now I have just bought an F5 and must learn the sophisticated 

language of cameras. All my pics are easy daylight but with a handheld background. Amateurish. But they like 

the protype results. Keki Unwalla. 

-- keki unwalla, March 1, 2002 

Portraits are a subject where one can get away with pretty little in the way of equipment. Autofocus is a 

convenience but not a necessity. Lighting outdoors is as nice as lighting indoors, if you try for the same 

combination of lighting effect on the subject(the ratio business and the big light source business meaning 

naturally soft without soft focus lenses courtesy old "Sol". Late in the day or early in the morning I like. Even 

after sunset. I started this comment because I keep on thinking about the eyes,seen by some as the center of the 

soul thing and the place to focus critically. Because I dont want the eyes to be deadish looking I try to use a small 

flash to put a sparkle in them. Its formulaic true, but the formula is one that most subjects come to expect. Some 

people have really dark eyes that need it more than others. But the psychology of getting someone to relax is 

tough. You might need to waste some film doing that. Anybody that can do it with one or two frames, (as in big 

Polaroids)whoah my deepest admiration. Thats a portrait photographer. I like to use an 85mm which is not as 



sharp as the the sharpest lenses out there. Wide open it gives some softness to the edges and an out of focus 

background. Environmental work is the kind that is the supreme example of the art. These are the portraits that 

never get forgotten. Show some of the subjects life, and they relax more. And love the result more. A pretty face 

is a pretty face, but a person in their home or on their tractor. That is ageless. 

-- Gerry Siegel (Honolulu), March 17, 2002 

As always, an item on photo.net talking too much about cameras, lenses and films, and not enough about 

photography. 

I don't care whether you used an SLR, TLR, P&S, rangefinder, 35mm, 6x6 or even flippin' APS. I care what 

pictures you take. 

You don't meet up with other writers and talk about typewriters and pens. You don't meet up with other artists 

and talk about paintbrushes. So why do photographers always seem to spend hours talking about flipping 

cameras! 

-- Tom Morris, May 14, 2002 

Check out this Portrait of my 5 months old son 

-- Kalpesh Sheth, June 13, 2002 

Alex Lee's picture of Camille (two above at this writing) is a perfect example of the need for short-telephoto 

portrait lenses. If I were shooting her in a tightly cropped frame as he did, I would have used a 135mm, because 

beautiful as she is, I'll bet she goes on and on about her ski-jump nose. That's what a girl friend of mine called 

hers, but I loved it, too. Mr. Lee's objectivity has been clouded by his appreciation of her beauty, and the use of a 

short-tele would have made her nose less prominent, instead of exaggerating it, even beyond how she appears to 

the corporeal eye-brain connection that cancels out the phenomenon of optical physics, perspective. 

If Mr. Lee's intent was to lend emphasis to the subject's nose because he likes it, then his choice of a 50mm lens 

in a tight shot is appropriate. A subject with a broad, flat nose would be better served by use of a 50mm, the 

closer perspective narrowing the nose and bringing it out. The perspective shaping power of lenses is the first and 

most effective tool a photographer has to emphasize or de-emphasize a subject's features, for good or bad, or 

different. 

And to Gerry Siegel, I envy you your 20/20 vision, but when it begins to fail you so that you can't clearly see the 

image in the viewfinder as quickly as you used to, you'll think that AF is a Godsend and realize that it IS a 

necessity, because without it you'll lose shots. In portraiture or candid people photography, time taken to frame 

and focus, if more than an instant, is the killer of the first, honest expression, the natural smile and the subject's 

patience. After you've learned to see your AF's focus-lock indicators (depending on mode and lens) as quickly as 

you see a flash-ready light come on, then you can trust the camera and go with the shot you know you want, even 

if your eyes haven't caught up with the camera's yet. 



-- Malcolm Kantzler, July 14, 2002 

A 50mm lens is good lens to have especially with the new dSLRs. A 50mm becomes about an 80mm on my d60. 

Here's a portrait experimenting with colored gels: 

-- Paul Andre, July 22, 2002 

http://www.photo.net/portraits/intro (23 of 37)7/3/2005 2:16:41 AM 

Model: Jules 

More of my photos


Chestnut Hill Street Fair Mime 

I am in agreement with Alex Lee. Too many people view photos and one of the first things they check is the 

photo equipment. Professional equipment does not make for a professional photographer. Whatever equipment a 

pro is using, instead, becomes pro equipment. Any decent camera and lens will give great results, when used 

properly. 

-- Jeff Bishop, December 8, 2002 

The D-30/D-60 class of digital SLRs can certainly take fine portraits. I have been using my D-30 for that purpose 

for some time, and even an off the cuff "snapshot" can turn out quite well with this camera, an 85 1.8 lens and a 

bounced 550EX flash. Here's an example of one I shot around Christmas. ISO 100. 

Image:father.jpg 

-- Stephen Lutz, January 20, 2003 

As a new member of photo.net, it has been a real pleasure reading this article and the responses from so many 

members. Having been involved with photography since 1970, I would like to put in my two cents. My first 

camera was a Canon Ftb and I took some of my most flattering, sharp, and valued portraits with that camera and 

the 55mm lens that came with it. Today, I own my second camera, an Elan bought in 1992, before they started 

numbering them. I purchased it because of my failing eyesight; I could no longer see well enough to focus 

manually. I still take flattering portraits but with all the focusing assist of the Elan, I feel like I've lost some 

control of my portraits. Even still, I love my Elan because it allows me to still be involved in photography. So 

I've owned two cameras in 32 years. I've heard people argue about equipment for decades, and now that digital is 

on the scene, I'm listening to the digital/chemical debate. It all comes down to one thing though. Its the way we 

see. It doesn't matter whether its using a point-and-shoot or a Hasselblad, an S-100 or a D-1, its the final result 

that matters and in the case of portraits for pay, its what the client sees that matters too. When I listen to others 

talk about equipment, I really hear them talk about how they love to see, what a beautiful world they see through 

their own eyes, how their equipment helps them see, and how they want to share what they see with others. 

-- Jon Revere, January 24, 2003 

I found the Portait article to be very informative, the only comment is that I personally like zooms they allow me 

a student on a budget to get the photos I want without having to dish out for extra lenses, I currently use a 

Minolta x-700 for studio work, and a canon eos 1n with a 70-200mm 2.8 sigma for outdoor,location work. I am 

not a portrait photographer, I shoot rock bands but have been hired to photograph bands for promotional work 

and I like the lens I have just fine. I think tele zooms do have a place, the optics are really good, and the allow 

more creative freedom. -Mark 

-- Mark Whitaker, January 31, 2003 

The portrait page is good, but I agree with a couple of the comments that there is too much talk about equipment. 



I have a Blad with the 180mm, and the M6 with the 90mm, and the F5 with the 80-200 2.8. What I've discovered 

is that all that is not nearly as important as the lighting and the connection with the subject. You should expand 

you those areas, as those seem to be where a photog can distinguish him or her self. 

-- Bruce Thee, February 12, 2003 

Hi, I am a Photo-journalist based in India and occasionally dabble in location fashion shoots...a Nikon 80- 

200/2.8ED is great, but, this new 135/2 DC and a simple 50/1.4 can do wonders. Have you ever tried a portrait 

with a normal lens ? I am also dying to see Nikon's 70-200/2.8 VR...guys feedback please ! 

-- Anamitra Chakladar, February 24, 2003 

I guess "pro" photographers really have some egotistical need to fill when they talk about all their equipment and 

techniques you know the Rollies and the Hassies and the Nikon F's LONG FAST AND MOST OF ALL 

Absurdly Expensive, I mean you can buy a car for the price of an outfit.But I hate to bust your bubble folks most 

of the above lesson is nonsense. ANYBODY can take a great Portrait with something as cheap as a $269.00 

Nikon N65 with a stock short zoom lens,some Kodak Portra asa 160 or 400 NC or VC film set on apiture priority 

or (A) and an $79.00 flash attachment. Give the subject some natural light morning or evening is best a nice 

background and VIOLA!!!! Unless you want to be able to shoot the bull in psudo-intellictual photog circles its all 

a bunch of HOOIE!! I'll put any of my pics up against the best of the best and let the masses be the judge.Not 

some bafoon who likes to hear him or herself talk. This page reminds me of a Jackson Pollak review of fine art. 

-- ben michalski, September 20, 2003 

Reading this article, I wonder if it is meant for amateurs or pro. For amateur, the equipment must be pretty 

humble, by your standards. It would be good to encourage amateurs to take pictures with simple and humble 

equipment. Otherwise, some beginners might go away with the impression that we need expensive equipment to 

take great pix, including portraits. I have taken quite a few rolls of portraits, both in a studio environment and 

outdoors, using an F80 and a Tamron 28-200XR and a 50D F1.8. They are sharp enough for me, at 8x12 

enlargement. Upon scanning the negatives, viewing them on the screen at full size, I am pretty satisfied with it. I 

find that I am naturally shooting at around 100-110 of the zoom. I would like to get a SIMPLE 105 prime lens for 

this purpose, but what is available are those with macro or soft-focus. These are not so suitable and expensive. 

We should all concentrate more on composition, lighting, colour, contrast, film, rapport with the subject.... and 

less on the equipment, as someone has said that most modern equipment are better than most photographers. 

Image:00330002.JPG 

-- Vic Chui, September 27, 2003 

I appreciate that someone wrote this article, but like a lot of people, i find it too much focusing on the 'what' of 

equipment rather than the 'how-to' use equipment... if i want to read about 'what' equipment, i will read in the 

equipment sections... However, the 2 best peices of advice I have had about photographs came from the lens 

section of this learning forum on Photo.net, and a photographer friend who said that pictures taken from above 

are thinning to the face... both of these might be said to be obvious, but that is why i'm reading a learning section 

right? I do plenty of experimenting with my camera, so finding my own perspective is a task i reserve for myself, 

but what about tips on the basics, like placing of external flashes, and camera angles... these are things that are 

useful for the sort of people reading a learning section... Some of my best pictures that i am saving were taken 



before i learned how to do anything other than put camera in auto and click... and they can certainly could have 

been better (and i choose not to post-shoot-alter my pictures with what i feel to be artistic merit, so i have to do 

my learning)... 

another comment is on the oddity of one person who commented that artists don't get together and discuss 

brushes, they just paint, but wouldn't it make sense that a person with an artistic eye who lacks the how-to 

knowledge ends up putting together a mediocre result? I have taken many pictures that are great scenes, but lame 

2D reproductions of that moment... the art is in the heart, but the expression of it is in the method... for an 

example, look at the comment by keki unwalla... an excellent example of someone who has a great eye, but 

admittedly knows little about the working of the equipment... now, when more powerful equipment must be used, 

keki has to start to learn how to use the equipment a little more to correct for the failing of the physical eye... in 

the end, it is true that the eye makes the picture, but there is still a place for the technical discussion... if you don't 

believe that, try painting a ceiling mural with a stick and mud... at some point, you have to move forward... and 

when you do, you will need to learn how to do that in an informed and educated way. 

-- Keiran Earl, October 31, 2003 

definetly visible blurring with big zoom lenses 420mm/2.8 

-- Orlin Stoilov, February 4, 2004 

I photograph children predominantly and find a prime 50mm 1.7 lens a godsend. Some children are quite 

intimidated by the long lens - even when you sit back and I have snapped some of my best shots with the tiny 



50mm wide open - usually in the kids own home. The small size of the prime seems less intimidating and wide 

open with no flash - they often don't even realise you are taking their picture. 

-- Amanda Radovic, March 7, 2004 

Look into my eyes... 

This is a lovely article, its nice to keep coming back and seeing newer posts. As there was a mention of 

photographing children, i am not sure if kids are very intimidated by the cameras, yes they do get attracted to it 

and inquisitive about it, but all it needs a colorful distraction and they forget you or the camera exist. I find kids 

to be the best subjects to shoot, and i think i would love to do more of child photography, done a few so far with 

a Canon G2 and the results are good, atleast for me :). But i do agree, i would love to shoot with a SLR and a 

50mm 1.8 lens to get more candid shots. cheers! and happy shooting! Just a note, the picutre attached looks better 

when viewed big to see the reflections in her eyes, you can see the photo in my portraits folder here - My 

Portfolio 

-- P r a d e e p R a g h u n a t h a n, May 8, 2004 



I would like to post a couple of portraits here. I am not a member. Can someone show me the simple way of 

doing this? I have the photos on computer.Thanks, 

-- keki unwalla, June 25, 2004 

Since I started with photography I rather the art photos than portraits, but when I got home and showed my work 

to my friends and family, the said "how come you dont take a pictures of us" I said why not!!!, what I've find out 

is work with a NON DISTRACTIVE Background, set your camera at the highest apperture (small f/number) to 

blur the background, also try green on the background, works really great. Here is an example of my friend and 

his girlfriend portrait. 

PS: I am new in this, please comment. 

Regards, 

Miguel Torres 

Image:Jose y Laura 2.JPG 

-- Miguel Torres, July 4, 2004 

I agree with the other postings that there is too much discussion about camera bodies and lenses. Most any 35mm 

SLR will generate the same portrait results, with only marginal differences in metering performance. The author 

DOES provide a service by touching on the use of alternate lighting sources and backgrounds. I suggest that 

inexperienced photographers look at their shots with an eye towards what they don't like. Is the perspective 

wrong? Was the lighting or exposure unflattering? Does the background interfere too much? Is the focus good? 

Was the subjects expression and body position appealing? The things that bug you most are the things you need 

to resolve...Example...My biggest problem used to be (and often still is)uneven/harsh/contrasty lighting when 

outdoors. The fix for this was not to buy a Canon 1Ds. I picked up a compact 5-in-1 reflector and a flash unit. 

Bang...problem improved and learning has taken place. Take this approach and pick off YOUR issues and you'll 

be taking better portraits. 

Image:Sammy.jpg 

-- Michael Hansen, July 5, 2004 



First Smile- EOS Elan in P&Shoot mode 

I'd like to offer a balance here. What seems so obvious to me is the level of comfort of the portrait photographer- 

doing what feels most natural to them. Among all the diverse tastes and techniques of us as photographers- there 

are inevitably going to be techno-driven, budget-driven, and prestige-driven photographers. Each of the best are 

complimented with a good eye and a level of comfort in what they do. If the fact that you have the sharpest glass, 

most perfect combination zoom, or incredibly high-priced equipment makes you confident- perhaps this shows in 

your work! If, like me, you lack the budget (and fear damaging,) expensive equipment- using lower-priced 

equipment may be a necessity. You may be more likely to take your "crappy" equipment somewhere that another 

shooter, safeguarding a prized Hassy, will not. This will give you an edge in some circumstances. 

I've moved from camera and system to system, as life's budget required it, and I can say unequivocally, that I 

have the same tendency to fail or exceed that I have always had. Few things have changed, except where I?ve 

used the knowledge of my shortcomings in constant trial-and-error. In no particular order, I?ve shot with highend 

Canon, entry-level Minolta, Olympus XA, 4x5, twin-lens, and now digital. 

I find my latest woes being that of learning the capacity in shooting, editing, and printing in digital. This, for the 

first time ever, has been a technical dilemma for me. At all other times, it has been an issue of what is 

comfortable for me to use. I can totally understand the need and want for expensive equipment- I understand that 

you can get to a level where this is the only thing holding you back from -consistently- getting the images you 



really want. I think technocrats and elitist-types both understand that a community college student with a ?crappy 

system? has every potential in the world to create an image that ?beats? that of the pro with the high-end 

equipment. 

Be comfortable in what you choose- and learn to use the tools you can afford. If you?re fidgeting around with a 

system?s features at the moment which is supposed to be immortalized in film- you?ve completely defeated your 

own purpose. Don?t let that moment slip away?forever. 

Thanks everyone for creating this article, keeping this net going with such great opinion and experience! -Shawn 

ps- Sorry about the question marks. I have no idea why they appear, but can't change them, either. 

-- Shawn Sauerwine, October 18, 2004 

When I finally took the plunge and went digital the salesman who sold the camera to me summed it up best. He 

said people come in the store and ask "Does this camera take good pictures?" He wants to tell them "That 

depends on who is standing behind it." I don't know a lot about the technical parts of photography, being self 

taught there is a lot of it that I just don't get. I find for portraits a long lens gets the best results. It is intimidating 

to the subject to be right in their face. 

-- DEBBIE MORTON, November 13, 2004 

It is nice to come back after a couple of years and see people still excited about this article. 

Juan Carlos www.juancarlosphoto.com 

-- JuanCarlos Torres, December 4, 2004 

I love Debbie Morton's comment about good pictures. It's not the camera that makes a good picture, but the 

photographer. And, as Philip commented in the article, the photographers who most consistently make good 

portraits are people who are genuinely interested in their subjects. 

Whatever equipment you have, learn how to use it. Learn it so well that you don't have to think about it. Every 

camera and lens has its strengths and limitations. Utilize the strengths of your equipment. 

My father was a very challenging photographic subject. He put on his "camera face" whenever a camera was 

aimed at him. I finally made a good portrait of him with a $2.50 plastic camera, because he didn't take it 

seriously. 

I am sympathetic to Rich Jacobs' plight. (The first comment in this thread.) Indeed, there are many fine twin-lens 

reflex cameras in the used market. I began photographing with a 1940s-vintage Kodak Twin Lens Reflex that had 

been my mother's. It was a fine camera, albeit with its unique set of limitations. 

One challenge I've had making portraits with a twin-lens reflex has to do with the fact that you look down onto a 

ground-glass viewer rather than through an eye-level viewfinder. I've found that often my subject is looking at 



me rather than at the camera, so that in the photograph he is looking above the viewer. Generally this is not a 

good thing. (Recently I've used a digital camera with a tilting LCD display. Working with children I often hold 

the camera down at the child's eye level and look down at the tilted display. This produces the same challenge as 

the twin-lens reflex.) 

Regarding the disadvantage of a point-and-shoot camera of always having much depth of field, the same is true 

of many digital cameras, particularly those without removable lenses. Most digital cameras on the market have 

very small sensors and therefore very short focal-length lenses. Short focal-length lenses produce great depth of 

field, even at a relatively wide aperture. With such cameras, to get the least depth of field (for a blurred 

background), zoom all the way out and use a wide-open aperture (small f/stop number). 

There are as many ways to make portraits as there are people making them. Be creative! 

-- Arlin Geyer, December 9, 2004 

I own a Canon EOS 50mm/1.8, and a Sigma 70-200mm/2.8. The first lense I bought new for ~$75.00. The Sigma 

I bought used for ~$400.00. 

I've taken fantastic portraits with both. 

-- Heather Thivierge, December 18, 2004 

That picture of your gandfather with the dog...I don't like it. I personally think it is an example of a horrible 

portrait. Not that I can say much, i've only been shooting for a year, but i am practicing, and I would never use 

that photo as an example for anything. This is just my personal opinion on the content and execution of the 

photograph...not on you as a photographer. 

-- Emily Rose Bennett, January 3, 2005 

In his wonderful book "Once" photographer/author Wim Wenders provides a brillient and gritty perspective on 

capturing images. Of importance to this thread on portrait photography, Wenders notes, "Taking pictures is 

always an act of presumption and rebellion." 

I have observed through the years that the formula for a good portrait requires that the "permission" of the subject 

be in equal or greater measure to the "presumption" of the photographer. So too, the photographer's rebellios 

drive to capture an image must be accompanied, again, in equal or greater measure, with respect for the soul 

within the subject. 

A good portrait, of course, will exhibit good light and composition, but if it is to capture the imagination of 

anyone not related to the subject, it will exhibit passion and respect. 

Image:So warm PN.jpg 

-- Patrick MacDonald, January 6, 2005 

A good portrait can tell a lot about the subject, not just show the forms. For that, it helps if the subject is 

comfortable with the photographer. 



Having some attribute of the subject can help establish the person's character also. 

-- Oleg Volk, February 9, 2005 



Grandmother and granddaughter playing cards 

I think nothing equals spontanous photos of people, when these are not aware of being photographed. Here is my 

favourite (me on the right, long ago), photo by my father. 

-- Maria Bostenaru, March 26, 2005 



Portrait in red 

I was surprised to read about the recommandation to take pictures of people in black and white. 

And there is an aspect not mentioned at all in the article regarding the so-called environmental photography: the 

accordance between the colours of the background and those concerning the clothes, hair, eyes of the subject. 

I try to illustrate this with a photo of my daughter (thanks to her for the translation, I speak no english) in the 

Japanese Garden in Monaco, taken in April 2003. 

-- Magdalena B., April 8, 2005 

Related Links 

Add a comment 

● William McEwen - Portrait Photographer- Black and white portraits taken with an 8x10 view camera. 

Includes a portrait gallery and technical information. (contributed by William McEwen) 

● Leslie's Photo Gallery- A fun portfolio of some of my favorite photographs. (contributed by Leslie 



Dickson) 

● The Golden Magazine- One of the Best in Denmark (contributed by Kenneth Villadsen) 

● Beanboxers Photography- The Casual Portrait. Fashion/Portfolio. Indoors & Out. On location too. 

(contributed by Mitch Sprowl) 

● Contemporary Potrait, Celebrity, and Nude Photographs- Discover works by some of the top artists in 

Europe and elsewhere at PicassoMio.com (contributed by Allan Majotra) 

● Paul Andre : Experimental Fashion & Fine Art Photographer- Many experimental portrait photos with 

beautiful models! (contributed by Paul Andre) 

● Edwards Fine Art Nude and Portrait Photography- Edwards Photography specializes in portrait, fine art 

nude and glamour photography. Please visit our site to view our portrait gallery. (contributed by Tommy 

Edwards) 

● Portrait Photography Tips- Concise listing of invaluable portrait photography tips. (contributed by Sean 

Noonan) 

● Art Photography Gallery by Nick Chaldakov- Fine Art and Stock Photography Gallery - abstract 

impressionism, and realism in black and white, portraits, travel, landscape and digital photography. Stock, 

links, rings, add URL. (contributed by Nick Chaldakov) 

● Mark van den Hoven - Visual Art- Official site of Dutch painter and photographer Mark van den Hoven. 

NEW photos added recently (contributed by Mark van den Hoven) 

● Menegatos Portraits- Color and Hand printed black and white portraits and other infromation. 

(contributed by Tom Menegatos) 

● Portraits from 5 Continents- Striking images capturing the moment from Asia, Europe, Africa, Australia, 

and North America (contributed by Todd Brown) 

● Grlamour Portrait Photographer in California- Glamour Photography in the eyes of my Nikon Lens 

(contributed by Rick Photographer) 

● Candid Children's Photographer- Jennifer Fox-Armour is an Atlanta based photographer who specializes 

in capturing the ever changing and fleeting, moments and moods associated with childhood. (contributed 

by Jennifer Fox-Armour) 

● Anthony Jones | Portraits- Black and white corporate and editorial portraits by UK based photographer. 

Commissions welcome. (contributed by Anthony Jones) 



● Portrait & Art Nude photography by Ian Scrivener- Beautiful art nudes, portraits and dance photogrpahy 

by Australian photographer Ian Scrivener. (contributed by Ian Scrivener) 

● Digital Media by David Ball- An assortment of media, but the photo section might be of most interest to 

folks on this web site. (contributed by Dave Ball) 

● Caryn B Davis Photography- Speciliazing in fine art documentary portraiture and photo essays. 

(contributed by Caryn Davis) 

● Visible Grain - Black and White Photography- A black and white photography portfolio, of portraits, 

events, protests, shootings, apartment fires, travels, dead birds, and street scenes (contributed by Rev. 

Donald Almquist) 

● Portrait Oil Painting from Photo- e-softtech.com can turn your photo into everlasting oil painting on 

Canvas. The painting is really 100% hand-painted by our artists. (contributed by Fu Wing Cheung) 

● Fine Art Pencil Drawings- instantpainter.com offers pencil portraits from your photo. (contributed by 

tanata madraiter) 

● old photo to new- I am from China ,I study land manage speciality .I have graduated for 4 years . I work 

about computer the whole time.It is my gusto.All is my sely-study. Now ,I set up a little numerals photo 

room .I like dance,drawing,web,computer. I like English but not good at it. (contributed by ts lsz) 

● Don Satalic | Portraits- Portraits of children and their families. (contributed by Don Satalic) 

● Juan Carlos Photography- wedding photographer in portland, salem, corvallis, eugene and other oregon 

cities (contributed by JuanCarlos Torres) 

● Luca Patrone Advertise photography web site- Here you can find some portraits made for advertise or 

editorial, also some fashion and glamour shots (contributed by luca patrone) 

● Mary Ball Photography- Here are some natural wedding portraits from Vermont to Virginia weddings and 

DC weddings. (contributed by Mary Ball) 

● Image Galleries Lee Hinton-McLaughlin Photographs- high quality photographs, portraits, documentary 

and editorial portraits. Urban street scenes and humorous photos by Lee mclaughlin. Links to 

Documentary film work. (contributed by Lee McLaughlin) 

● LINSY LOOSE PHOTOGRAPHY- A portfolio of high quality pictures from a belgian photographer. 

Portraits, fashion, journalism, music and travelphotography by Linsy Loose. (contributed by linsy loose) 



Add a link 


About Us | Photo.net FAQ | Subscribe! | Related Sites | Contact Us | Terms of Use | DMCA Agent | 

Privacy 


Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of Video Games 


photo.net 

Spectral Selectivity 


Search 


● Shop 


● Travel 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 



by Ed Scott dotted.dog@worldnet.att.net 

and Hollis Bewley hbewley@wco.com 

Spectral selectivity is a technique for creating images which uses intentionally limited ranges of radiation 

in the ultraviolet, visible or infrared portions of the spectrum. It has uses in artistic and scientific 

photography. 

Early day photographers often needed to work around the inherent spectral sensitivity limitations of the 

photographic materials available to them. Their photographic materials were sensitive primarily to blue 

light. Rich blue skies photographed much too light while vegetation and skin photographed too dark. 

Look closely at the actors and actresses in early motion pictures. Often the white powder makeup they 

used did not get applied too close to their eyes and the result can be quite comical in close-ups. 

Fortunately, current photographic materials extend well past the approximately 500 nanometer upper 

limit of early day imaging. 

Modern photographic materials are available with sensitive to a wide portion of the spectrum, ranging 

from 250 nanometers (ultraviolet) to 925 nanometers (infrared). There are many applications for the 

selective use of this spectrum. Specific characteristics of a subject can be emphasized or selected out by 

limiting the range of spectrum used to create an image. Colored filters are the primary tool for selective 

use of spectrum with conventional photography. Digital image editors open up some new possibilities 

for the creative use of spectral selectivity. 

The topics linked below provide an introduction to spectral selectivity, some technical information for 

http://www.photo.net/photo/edscott/spectsel (1 of 4)7/3/2005 2:16:52 AM


making use of it and a few typical applications. 

Color Vision 

Contents 

● Color Vision - Human perception of different wavelengths of light 

● Color Space - The color space defined by three color sensors 

Reproduction of Color 

● Tri-Color Photography - Spectral response of tri-color filters 

● Color CRTs - Spectral response of Cathode Ray Tubes 

● Color Slide Film - Spectral sensitivity of Kodachrome 25 

● Web Browser Color - Down coloring an RGB image to 8-bit video 

Photographic Spectral Sensitivity 

● B&W Films - Spectral sensitivity range of B&W photographic materials 

● Exposure Meter - Spectral sensitivity range of exposure meters 

● Panchromatic Film Ad - Photos from an early ad for panchromatic film 

Filtering Spectrum 

● Color Filter Absorption - Absorption curves for some typical color filters 

● Filter Factors - Exposure adjustment for B&W photography 

● Light Source Color Temperatures - Color temperatures for some common light sources 

Masking Spectrum 

● Combining Images - Masking off a range of spectrum by combining images 

● Raster Ops - Useful Adobe Photoshop raster ops for masking spectrum 

● A Notation For Spectral Selectivity - A tool to plan and record complex operations 

● A Spectral Selectivity Metric - The digital image as a spectral selectivity data set 

● Image Color and Tone Mapping - Altering images in an imaging editor. 

Infrared Photography 



● Infrared Characteristics - Infrared conditions and recommendations 

● B&W Infrared - Spectral sensitivity of Kodak HS Infrared film 

● Color Infrared - Spectral sensitivity of Kodak Color Infrared film 

● Infrared Exposure - Determining exposure for infrared film 

Ultraviolet Photography 

● Ultraviolet Characteristics and techniques of ultraviolet photography 

● Ultraviolet Photographic Materials Spectral sensitivity plots for UV films and filters 

Applications 

Links 

● Camouflage Detection - A WW-II Kodak ad for infrared film 

● Forest Vitality - Measuring the health of conifers with infrared 

● Infrared FAQ - Some useful information on infrared photography 

● IR & UV Photo Info - A page of technical information on UV and IR photography 

● Infrared Gallery - An infrared photo gallery with some nice IR images 

● Joseph Paduano's Web Page - Author of The Art of Infrared Photography 

● Invisible Light - A nice infrared photography site with a many links 

● The Ghostly Gallery - A nice collection of B&W infrared photos 

● Color Infrared - A small collection of color infrared photos with filter examples 

● Beyond Photographic Infrared Georg Dittie's Thermal Infrared & Thermography site 

● Satellite Imagery - A collection of interesting satellite images 

● Kodak Aero Infrared - Kodak pages on Aero Infrared film for aerial photography 

● Digital Infrared Cameras - Product information on Kodak digital infrared cameras 

● B&H Photo - Mail order photo dealer that stocks infrared films and filters 

● Freestyle - Mail order photo dealer that stocks some infrared films and filters 

http://www.photo.net/photo/edscott/spectsel (3 of 4)7/3/2005 2:16:52 AM 

C1997 by Ed Scott - 

and Hollis Bewley - 

Return to photo.net



permission. 




Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of home theater 


photo.net 

Photography of Gardens 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

How to Photograph Gardens 

● Learn 

● Equipment 


● Forums 

● Gallery 


● Community 

Make sure that you have an image showing the garden and its context, i.e., the surrounding buildings 

and landscape. 

http://www.photo.net/architectural/gardens (1 of 13)7/3/2005 2:17:06 AM


Include people in the garden for scale: 



Wherever possible, show views framed by objects or structures within the garden: 

A general view of the garden works best if the image has a distinct foreground, middle ground, and 

background: 



Here is an example of two "flat" images. The one on the left seems to be a failure photographically. The 

one on the right comparatively successful. How to explain the difference between the two images 

below? Perhaps the designer of the garden intended the right-hand view to be dwelt upon whereas the 

left-hand view is seen only from a path. 

Here are a few more foreground-middle ground-background images that seem to work reasonably well... 



If there is flowing water in the garden, a tripod and a slow shutter speed (1/4 second or longer) are best 

for capturing the spirit of the water: 

If there are bridges in the garden, either capture the reflection or the path over the bridge: 



Check for underwater life... (some of these images would have been improved if taken with a polarizing 

filter to remove surface reflections) 

Get some images of single plants or flowers but remember that even a comprehensive inventory of these 

won't capture the design of a particular garden. 



When photographing sculpture in the garden, try to capture as much of the context as possible. Your 

images shouldn't look the same as if you'd brought the sculpture into a photo studio. 



Don't neglect interesting architectural details within the garden. Iron gates and stonework are 

particularly photogenic. 



Try for color balance, remembering that red and yellow are two or three times visually more powerful 

than green or white. In the images below, note how easily red can overwhelm your eyes. 

Practical Details 

Whenever possible, use a tripod. Unless it is very windy, elements of a garden won't be moving around 

much and you'll get higher quality images as well as have the freedom to employ smaller apertures. The 

small apertures will give images a wider depth of field, i.e., more objects will be in focus from 

foreground to background. 



If you can't use a tripod, make sure to pack relatively fast lenses 

(f/2.8 or faster) and ISO 400 film. Among the ISO 400 films, my 

favorites are professional color negative films, intended for 

weddings. These have less color saturation and contrast than 

consumer films and therefore will render distinct green tones more 

distinctly. Check the photo.net film page for our latest 

recommendations in professional ISO 400 negative film. Most of 

the images on this page were taken with Fuji NPH or Kodak Portra 

400NC film; click on the thumbnails for technical details. If you 

are using a tripod, you can indulge in the luxury of slide film. Again, pick one with a painterly palette 

and good separation among green tones. 

A 50mm lens on a 35mm SLR camera can be ideal for garden photography. It can focus close enough to 

isolate a plant. The normal perspective gives a viewer an accurate idea of what the garden will feel like. 

A 50/1.4 lens is fast enough to permit good photography without a tripod, assuming extensive depth of 

field is not required. 

You can do some fun things with a wide angle lens. It is useful for exaggerating the structure of a formal 

European garden or getting a frame-filling picture of a sculpture while still including a lot of 

background. Here are a couple of examples taken with a 20-35mm zoom lens: 

A telephoto lens is good for compressing perspective and is particularly good in European gardens with 

their lanes of trees. Here are a couple of snapshots from Giardino Giusti in Verona (sadly they are 

miscaptioned as being from the Boboli garden in Florence): 



Text and pictures Copyright 1990-2000 Philip Greenspun. Most of the pictures are from the photo.net 

Japan guide, the public Chinese Garden in Singapore, Powerscourt (south of Dublin, Ireland), the photo. 

net Sweden guide, the photo.net California guide, and the photo.net guide to Italy. If you click on a 

thumbnail image you'll get a larger photo with a caption underneath. 

PhotoCD scans by Advanced Digital Imaging. 

philg@mit.edu 


A few things I would like to add concerning photographing gardens. As a professional photographer 

who shots gardens for a living a really important aspect of gardening photography is getting colour into 

your shots, which could be from plants, flowers, painted walls or sculptures. Also eliminating unwanted 

background material, ie: if you are shooting a Formal English style garden and there is a giant palm tree 

growing next door, avoid it at all costs. Also try shooting from different perspectives, on the ground, 

from the top storey of the house or from the top of a fence. Also try and be sensitive to the overall 

aesthetic of the design, if it is a Japanese garden be aware of the way the garden is designed and why. 

Cheers Brent. 

-- Brent Wilson ' The Shallow DOF Man', January 12, 2002 





Hawaii orchids in a window in Germany, winter 2004/05 

Also that single flowers can be shot in another environment as a garden: above my hawaii-orchids with a 

winterly landscape from Karlsruhe in the background. 


Related Links 

Add a comment 

● Omar Bahra Gallery- Images for syria Damascus city , fort Omayyad Mosaic Palmyra Aphmea 

Swidaa Emirates Al Ain Dubai Abu Dahbi Khor kalba Underwater persomal images (contributed 

by Omar Bahra) 

● Villa Filoli Gardens- Beautiful gardens in the Bay Area (SF) (contributed by Uwe Steinmueller) 

● Floral Photography- Some nice examples of good floral photography. (contributed by Al Soles) 

● egzotik meyve-PEPINO- TURKEY Trabzon (contributed by pepino pepino) 

● Harika meyve feijoa-( feiko )- Turkey Trabzon (contributed by pepino pepino) 

Add a link 


permission. 






photo.net 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

How to Photograph Architecture (Exterior) 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

Photography of Architecture (Exterior) 


Search 



● Community 

This is an example-based tutorial on photographing buildings. 

Your pictures need not be pretty 

Architectural photography at its best will convey the experience of being in and around a built environment. In the case of the Dachau Concentration Camp, this won't result in comforting attractive images. 

Below is a parking garage in Kyoto. The colors and industrial appearance of the structure are remarkable in the middle of a city known for its ancient temples and gardens. The purpose of the image is to capture the 

feeling of walking by the structure, not to delight or decorate. 

A supermarket exterior is a subject that will probably never make a wall-worthy image by itself. However, the image below (from the Hawaii flowers collection) captures the spirit of being in the parking lot at 

night: 

http://www.photo.net/architectural/exterior (1 of 23)7/3/2005 2:17:26 AM


Give old buildings some space 

In general, the older the structure, the more environmental context is required. 

Using your hands or your mind, crop the preceding images to include just the structures and see if they would still work. Also, compare them to a few modern buildings where hardly any context is required: 



(The Big Boy pictures are also a good example of coming back repeatedly to a building in order to capture it in different lights and weather.) 

Farms are a good example of where the structures don't make any sense removed from their context: 

Even a bit of space helps 

If you're not capturing an entire village or farm, it still makes sense to think about the space around your subject. Even a little bit of context helps anchor the image. For example, the image at right, from the sunset 

district of San Francisco, shows us a house clearly enough to serve as a real estate advertisement. The fragment of the house to the left, however, isn't wasted space. It tells us how tightly packed the neighborhood 

is. 

In the image below, the sidewalk, the fragment of street, the pedestrian, and the little open market to the left of the shop help establish the Guatemalan context: 



Step back and use a telephoto lens 

Back up from an work of architecture and use a telephoto lens to compress the perspective. This often brings out an interesting pattern. 

The images below, from Provincetown, Cape Cod, show the increased abstraction of a telephoto perspective. The picture on the right was taken with a much longer lens than the one on the left. 



Include the Fence 

A fence can be an important image element. In the left-hand photo below (from Gotland, Sweden), the fence works with the trees to frame the barn. It helps that the fence is not brightly lit and is a bit out of focus. 

The viewer's eye will therefore naturally be drawn to the main subject of the photo, i.e., the barn. In the right-hand photo, from Cape Cod, the fence immediately clues a viewer into the exclusive nature of the beach 

club. 

Straight on Till Morning 

Sometimes a direct approach is all that you need: 

Watch the Shadows 

Before color, Hollywood directors and cinematographers worked carefully to cast interesting shadows into scenes. Here are some examples of images where shadows set the mood. 



Watch the weather 

What's the best weather for photographing buildings? Consider the following photo, from Travels with Samantha: 

The sunlight adds punch to the fire hydrant and makes urban life seem more appealing. However, if you were trying to show people details in the buildings, a high overcast day would have been much better. For 

example, here is an image from Visby, Sweden: 

The Drama of the Staircase 

It would seem that staircases are inherently dramatic. 



Lead the eye by leading the person 

If your composition includes a visible footpath into the scene, it should naturally draw the viewer. 



Natural Frames 

It is a contrived and hackneyed idea, but it does work to use natural frames. If you're working without a tripod, you probably won't be able to stop down the aperture enough to get everything into focus. But it is 

okay to have a soft frame and a sharp subject. 

Private Courtyards 

Public Squares 

The left-hand image, from Rome, has a classical composition leading the eye into the center of the frame. But the overview image to its right conveys a truer feeling for the Spanish Steps. 

Michelangelo designed the Campidoglio (left) to be viewed from above. The photo at right is from Burano. 



Here is a Soviet-built memorial to the Second World War in Berlin: 

People 

Include people in an architecture photo if they give unexpected information about how a building is being used. 

Don't forget the sculpture 



Swimming Pools 

Occasionally, a swimming pool is a work of art by itself, as in the image at left (Hearst Castle, from the photo.net California guide). But most of the time, a pool is best used as an abstract element in a composition 

from above, as at right (Israel). 

Fountains 



Narrow Streets 

The narrow streets of Europe are always interesting to American eyes. We're accustomed to structures built on an inhuman scale (cf. the Mall in Washington, D.C.). To get a better-than-average picture of a narrow 

European street, start by looking for an arch: 

Both of the above images could have been better. In the left-hand image, the subject (woman on moped) could be more interesting and more engaged either with the camera or another subject. In the right-hand 

image, some of the black shadow should be cropped out. 

If you can't find an arch, try filling the foreground with an interesting subject of some sort, e.g., this old Citroen: 

Another effective technique is to use a long lens to compress the perspective: 



Bridges 

"Streets flooded. Please advise." 

-- Robert Benchley (telegram to his editor upon arrival in Venice) 

The three pictures below show increasingly less literal views of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. My favorite is the one on the right. It isn't a very good view of the bridge--one can hardly see that there are 

two towers--but it shows tourists gawking at the bridge's construction and an avid cyclist using the bridge. 

For the next bridge, the story behind it is more important than the structure. This is the Dike Bridge on Chappaquiddick, a subisland of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts (almost part of Cape Cod). In 1969, Ted 

Kennedy drove off the side of this bridge into the water. He abandoned his passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne, to her death by drowning. Kennedy did not report the incident to the police until the following morning 

and was found guilty of leaving the scene of an accident. The bridge fell into disrepair and was subsequently rebuilt to absurdly heavy duty standards. The photographs below therefore concentrate on the superstrong 

guard rails and the heavy metal gate that is used to close the bridge every night. 



The next example is that most tired of photographic subjects: the covered bridge. For starters, here is the Chamber of Commerce view: 

One approach is to get inside the bridge: 

Another is to wait for darkness or gloomy weather: 

Here are a couple of early morning Brooklyn Bridge photographs. This is one of the best bridges because of the unusual cabling pattern and also the backdrop of the Manhattan skyline. 



San Francisco's Bay Bridge is a poor stepchild to the Golden Gate in terms of photographic coverage. However, if you get off in the middle of the bridge, at Treasure Island, and are willing to do a little bit of 

creative parking, you can get a good picture of the bridge as it is used: 

Below we return at different times of day and from different vantage points to capture the multiple moods of the Ponte Vecchio, in Florence: 

The stone bridges of Europe are spectacular: 



Doors and windows 

Details 



A good architect is a fanatic for detail and some of the most beautiful parts of a structure are best captured in isolation. 

Night 

A lot of buildings become more interesting at night: 

Modern 35mm single-lens reflex cameras have such good metering systems that the suggested exposure for a picture like the ones above is almost always within 1 f-stop of the best exposure. With slide film, it is 

probably best to take 5 bracketed exposures at 1/2 f-stop intervals. With color negative film, take four pictures: one at 1 f-stop less exposure than recommended, one at the camera's recommended exposure, one 1 f- 



stop over, and one 2 f-stops over. 

Industrial 

The world of industrial architectural is the world of the large but simultaneously extremely detailed. If you're using a 35mm camera, use a tripod, sharp lenses, and slow fine-grained film, as with these photos of the 

Glen Canyon Dam on ISO 32 Kodak Panatomic-X film: 



Here is an image from Vallejo, California taken with the Fuji 617 panoramic camera: 



Ruins 

A good perspective on a ruin is some rubble in the foreground and the standing structure in the background: 

For ruins in the American Southwest, the best images almost always show quite a bit of context (these are from New Mexico): 

Perspective Correction 



The average building is taller than the average photographer. This is the source of 99% of the distortion in the world's architectural photos. Distortion isn't always bad. Note the converging vertical lines in the 

following image, the Cathedral of San Giovanni in Laterno in Rome: 

This is an extreme example and it comes from cozying up to the facade of the building, mounting a wide-angle lens (14mm) to the camera and tilting the camera body back so that the entire facade fits in the frame. 

This has the effect of projecting a flat surface (the front of the building) onto an angled surface (the film). Hence the distortion. Is it bad? The photo isn't very descriptive or accurate. It won't be bought by any 

guidebook publishers. However, it expresses the idea of the enormous cathedral looming over mankind better than a perspective-corrected image. 

Suppose we have a humbler building, like this wood-framed house in Cambridge that contains a few condominiums: 

The above left image was taken with a 24mm wide-angle lens held parallel to the ground. The vertical lines in the subject do not converge. All is well with the photograph except that the composition. The bottom 

third of the frame contains the snow drift on the city sidewalk. We're trying to get a picture of the house. In the middle photo, we've tilted the camera back. The snow drift is out of the frame but notice that the 

vertical lines are converging. The house appears to be falling backward. In the right-most photo above, we've kept the camera level, with its film plane parallel to the building facade. To change the composition, 

we've shifted the lens up. This is only possible with a view camera or a special perspective correction lens on a 35mm camera. In this example, the lens was the Canon 24mm tilt-shift (TS) lens. Perspective 

correction lenses cast a larger image circle than necessary to cover the 24x36mm frame of a 35mm camera. However, it is possible to exceed the limits of the lens, in which case the corners of the frame will 

perceptibly darken: 

The above left photo, of the same house in Cambridge as above, is taken with the camera level to the ground. The composition contains far too much of the street and the roof of the house is cut off. The center 

photo is shifted up enough to center the house. The right-most photo above shows that the Canon 24mm TS lens can be shifted beyond the limits of its image circle--note the dark corners at the top. Below is an 

example from Sweden: 



A cheaper method that yields much higher image quality, is to use a view camera: 

a 17mm lens with the camera back tilted 

up 

a 24mm PC lens shifted up 

Click on the photo above to view a larger version and note the detail in the church. This photo was taken with Kodak Tri-X film (ISO 400) in 1981. The camera was on a tripod at about the same height as the very 

bottom of the church steps. Raising the lens eliminated the uninteresting green lawn in front of the church and included the steeple in the composition. See "Choosing a Large Format Camera" if you're interested in 

joining the view camera club. If you hope to do architectural photography commercially, the view camera is an essential tool. Clients will expect you to use one. 

Whether you use a view camera or a tilt-shift lens on a rigid camera body, you'll need a tripod. 

(See "Using Tilt-Shift Lenses" for more on the topic of achieving correct perspective with a 35mm SLR system.) 

Hardware 



Buildings don't move. Ergo, only a lazy photographer would use fast film or a handheld camera to take a picture of a building. The professional approach is to start with very slow film for 

finest grain, between ISO 25 to ISO 100 for a 35mm camera. Generally a large depth of field is desirable in architectural photography. The viewer should have the choice to look at any 

part of the structure and find it in adequately sharp focus. Large depth of field implies a small aperture. A small aperture plus slow film implies a long shutter speed, too long for steady 

hand holding. Consequently, any serious architectural photographer will carry a tripod. 

As noted in the perspective correction section, a professional architectural photographer will always have some means of controlling perspective, generally with a view camera. 

For capturing the sweep of a courtyard or exaggerating the lines of a modern building, wide angle lenses are useful. A 17-35mm professional zoom is adequate 99% of the time. For 

showing a building and its environment in natural perspective, carry a 50mm lens. For compressing perspective and isolating inaccessible details, carry a telephoto lens of at least 200mm 

in length. 

Finally 

Sometimes buildings are just beautiful... 

Text and pictures Copyright 1990-2000 Philip Greenspun. 


philg@mit.edu 


Great photography and great technique notes as always, but just one little quibble: you note that in general, older buildings will require more environmental context. This may well be true in the countryside, but in 

most cities, if you want the building to look old you'll probably want to crop out the McDonalds next to it. (Unless you specifically want the contrast, that is...) 

Two weeks back, I walked around Tokyo with a camera in tow, trying to capture what the city would have looked like before the war -- if you've ever been to Tokyo, you'll know that this is a very difficult task 

indeed! Due to the profusion of pachinko parlors and whatnot, I had to frame my pictures very carefully to avoid breaking the illusion... but I think a few of the pictures succeeded quite nicely, partly because I 

didn't even try to squeeze the whole building on film, just an evocative part of it. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself: 

● http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=71687 

-- Jani Patokallio, November 27, 2000 



About context and older buildings: I wonder if the rule is really about old/new? It seems to me that all the buildings that benefit from context relate to their environment. Newer buildings are often designed without 

consideration of their surroundings, but this is a design choice (or failing, if this choice never even occurred to the 'architect') rather than an inherent property of new buildings. Older buildings generally were 

designed to function as part of a larger fabric, so they lose something when shown in isolation. 

-- Sean Foy, December 3, 2000 

Correct perspective. 

I think there are missing "feature" of this guide. Many people that are new to photography do not have the kind of lenses, or a view camera to correct the perspective. 

If you are using a digital camera, or scan your pictures or dia you can easily correct for perspective "errors" in programs like Adobe Photoshop. Probably also in most other image editing software. 

The drawback with this technique ("Free Transform" in Photoshop) is that you will most likely loose contrast or detail. 

-- Anders Widman, July 21, 2002 

re: Perspective - yes it's true, the casual user will not have the smarts (why would they?) to have a tilt-shift lens for their 35mm SLR (film or digital). You can rent them and I can say at least Canon's will integrate 

with the D1 series. I can only say this having seen the pins on the lens body. It's not hard to correct in Photoshop if you use a specific app-plug in such as Image Align PRO which is geared to architectural 

photographers. If you do the correction before resizing, loss of detail, etc isn't an issue. 

-- Nick Gorski, February 2, 2005 

Related Links 

Add a comment 

● Something About NAKI- "Abstract Portrait of Architecture" - Images from Photo Exhibition at the De Young Fine Art Museum of San Francisco,2000. (contributed by NAKI STUDIO) 

● Fine Contemporary Architectural Photography- Discover photographs of architecture and exteriors by leading contemporary photographers at www.PICASSOMIO.com (contributed by Allan Majotra) 

● James Willis Photography - Bibliotheca Alexandrina- Site focussing on images of the new library in Alexandria by the UK based architectural photographer James Willis. (contributed by Ian W.) 

● Mark Brown's Photography: Tokyo Architecture- Photography of modern architecture in Tokyo. (contributed by Mark Brown) 

● Grabshot- Website showcasing the informal 'human environment' images of UK stock photographer Ian Watts (contributed by Ian W.) 

● Industrial Ruins (Black & White)- Haunting landscapes of industrial ruins. (contributed by Don Satalic) 

● Cambridge in Colour Photography- Architectural photography of Cambridge University in England, primarily at night or in low-light. (contributed by Sean McHugh) 

● Andrew Prokos Photography: New York City Architecture- Black and white and color photos of New York City architecture and landmarks (contributed by Andrew Prokos) 

http://www.photo.net/architectural/exterior (23 of 23)7/3/2005 2:17:26 AM 

Add a link 




Sponsor: Digital Camera HQ - Excellent reviews of digital cameras

photo.net 

Photography of Architecture (Interior) 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

How to Photograph Architecture (Interior) 

● Learn 

● Equipment 


● Forums 

● Gallery 


● Community 

This is an example-based tutorial on photographing building interiors. 

People and Interiors 

The most commercially profitable images of interiors are those devoid of people. Shelter magazines like 

to enable their readers to project themselves into a pictured dream house. That projection isn't possible if 

the rooms are already filled up with strangers. Nonetheless, many of the pictures of interiors that are the 

most successful as photographs are those that show people relating to what the architects have built. 

Here, for example are a few snapshots from the photo.net Japan guide: 

http://www.photo.net/architectural/interior (1 of 14)7/3/2005 2:17:36 AM


The photo below, of the Great Hall at Ellis Island, wouldn't work nearly as well without the two 

teenagers waiting where so many immigrants waited for so many hours and days (from the photo.net 

New York exhibit): 

People don't always improve an image but they always change it. Below, for example, is the Great Kiva 

in Aztec Ruins National Monument in Aztec, New Mexico (from the photo.net New Mexico exhibit). 

The photo at left, without people, conveys more accurately the feeling of being in the kiva. Probably this 

is because the people aren't using the architecture in the way that the architects intended; they are merely 

posing for an unseen photographer. The human presence doesn't ruin the image, however. It might be a 

better choice for a travel guidebook than the empty kiva. 

Similarly, as part of a page describing Hearst Castle, these two people-filled images give a better record 

of the experience of touring the castle than do the detail images underneath: 



San Francisco's Museum of Modern Art opened as a beautiful building with hardly any art. Pictures of 

the stark atrium without people might give a viewer the impression that the museum hadn't opened yet 

when the photos were taken. With the people, though, the idea of a building filled with human beings 

fruitlessly searching for art is conveyed (from the photo.net San Francisco guide). 

Careful with the Light 

Most photographic film and lenses are designed for handheld use outdoors. As soon as you take them 

indoors you discover that, on average, it is much darker indoors than outdoors. You won't be able to 

create a sharp image handholding your camera indoors. Suppose that you stop the lens aperture down to 



f/11 to ensure adequate depth of field (objects at differing distances from the lens all in reasonably sharp 

focus). You'll now need to leave the shutter open for a 1/2 second to get enough light to the film to make 

an image. You won't be able to hold your camera steady for 1/2 second. You have two obvious options: 

(1) carry a tripod, and (2) illuminate the scene with an electronic flash. 

A flash is a lot easier to carry than a tripod. Many cameras have built-in flashes. So why not use the 

flash for an interior architecture photo? Because you won't capture the architecture. 

Rooms and houses are designed around light. Architects who've read A Pattern Language will tell you 

that you need light from two sides of a room in order to be comfortable in that room. If there is a 

window on only one wall, the light inside the room will be too contrasty. Architects are very careful 

with windows and artificial lights. 

What about simply sticking the camera on a tripod and using the self-timer or cable release to make a 

long steady exposure? It can work, as in this photo below, of medieval Skansen village in Stockholm 

(from the photo.net Sweden guide): 

We don't mind the contrast and the fact that we can't see detail in a lot of the furniture or the door. The 

photo gives us an idea of what it is like to use a desk hundreds of years ago in Sweden. A commercial 

client, however, anxious to sell desks, would demand that a flash or hot light be used to reduce the 

contrast and render detail in the shadows. 

Where a room has a well-designed artificial lighting system, a commercial architectural photographer 

will often use the existing lights and fixtures to balance the natural light. How is this possible when the 

sunlight from the windows is so much more powerful than typical incandescent bulbs? The 

photographer travels with a huge bag of bulbs and will go through a room replacing every bulb with a 

higher output photoflood. In addition to higher output, tungsten photo bulbs have a consistent color 

temperature. If a closer match to the color temperature of the window light is desired, the light bulbs 

through the house may be replaced with electronic flashes. Adorama sells a $20 slave flash, guide 

number 75 at ISO 100, that screws into standard a light bulb socket. 

Hollywood goes farther. If it isn't sunny outside and they want warm light from the windows, they park 



a bank of powerful HMI lights outside the window pointing into the room. 

If you're lazy, you can just set the tripod on the floor and accept whatever color temperature comes your 

way: 

If your assignment does not call for the warm glow of incandescent light, get hold of a Minolta color 

temperature meter and/or Kodak Professional Photoguide and find the right color correction filter. This 

becomes much more critical when the room is lit with fluorescent light. Very few people or objects look 

good with the sickly green cast of daylight-balanced film exposed under fluorescent light. For a film 

camera, the solution is a Tiffen FL-D filter screwed over the lens. One of the luxuries of photography 

with digital cameras is that you can simply press the "fluorescent white balance" switch and get very 

close to the right color balance instantly. Even with a digital camera's ability to set white balance 

arbitrarily, you still need to think carefully when combining different light sources. 

The Drama of the Staircase 

You won't have to work hard to get a dramatic staircase image. Stand at the top with a moderately wideangle 

lens and point the camera down. The first image below is from the Vatican museum in Rome. It 

was taken with a Yashica T4 point and shoot camera's fixed 35mm lens, the camera steadied by holding 

it against the handrail. 



(Final photo courtesy Eve Andersson, taken with Canon Pro70 digital camera.) 

Don't Forget to Look Up 

Especially in Europe, spend a lot of time looking up towards the ceiling for interesting photos: 



The straight "record of what was painted on the ceiling" photo can be made with almost any camera, 

even where tripods are prohibited. Set the camera to "no flash" and "self-timer" modes. Place the camera 

on the floor in the middle of the room, lens pointing up. Press the shutter release and back out of the 

way. Ten seconds later you've got your ceiling. 

Go Wide 

Fact 1: very few commercial clients are going to thank you for making their rooms look small. Fact 2: 

very few architects are going to accomodate your desire to knock down a wall so that you can get the 

entire room into a photo with a 50mm normal lens. Conclusion: you want some very wide angle lenses 

for architectural interiors. 

To take in most of a room from a doorway you need a 17mm or wider lens. For example, the first image 

below is taken with a 43mm lens on Mamiya 7 6x7 format camera. This is equivalent to a 21mm lens on 

a Nikon or Canon SLR. Much of the dining room is cut off. The lens was perfect for detail, such as the 

hot tub overlooking the ocean, but not always wide enough for an entire room at one sweep (from Cape 

Cod): 



By comparison, a 14mm lens on a 35mm camera captures an entire motel room from the doorway (also 

from Cape Cod -- this is the room where Mary Jo Kopechne stayed the night before her death (in Ted 

Kennedy's car, off the Dike Bridge)): 

Go Tight (or at least normal) 

Wide, wide, wide all the time makes for dull photography. Sometimes you can highlight details or reveal 

patterns better with a normal (50mm) or longer lens. 

Go Fast (in public) 

In public interiors where the use of tripods is prohibited and flash is either prohibited or won't capture 

the mood that you've found, use a fast lens. A lens with an aperture of f/2.0 will work in light that is 1/4 

as bright as that required by a cheap zoom lens's f/4.0 maximum aperture. Going to f/1.4 from f/2.0 



allows photography in light that is half as bright. Going from f/1.4 to f/1.0 is another doubling in lightgathering 

capability. Below is a photo from Elvis's Graceland mansion. Both tripods and flash are 

prohibited on the tours, making it a natural occasion to drag out the Canon 50/1.0: 

Be Industrious 

Industrial interiors are some of the most interesting. Don't be shy about asking permission to enter and 

take some photos. Oftentimes the people who run a factory will be proud to show you around. Here is an 

old hydro plant interior from the photo.net driving tour of Vermont: 

Have Fun 

Look for humor in and around building interiors. Below are visitors at the Getty Center being 

entertained by a huge puppet, the whole scene further distorted by the use of a 17mm lens. At right is a 

hopskotch grid that breaks up a monotonous corridor in the Stockholm aiport (from photo.net guide to 

Sweden): 



Outdoors Indoors 

Look at the windows per se and the view just beyond the windows... 

Also look at interior gardens and courtyards: 



Indoors Outdoors 

Eventually the indoors will become outdoors and it is always interesting to see nature reclaiming her 

territory: 



Get out the big cameras 

Building interiors don't move much. Once you've carefully lit the scene and lugged a tripod to the right 

spot in the room, you might as well try to achieve the best possible image quality. Most professional 

architectural photographers use medium format and large format cameras. The extra bulk and weight is 

irrelevant given the complexity surrounding the rest of the project. Furthermore, medium and largeformat 

cameras make it easy to expose Polaroids that verify light balance and exposure. 

The image below was taken with a Rollei 6008 6x6 SLR (from the Sierra Nevada). Click for an 

enlargement and examine the detail. 

More 

● Professional Interior Photography (Michael Harris 1998; Focal Press) 

● Interior Shots (Pro-Lighting) (Roger Hicks 1996; Amphoto) 



● How to Photograph Buildings and Interiors (Gerry Kopelow 1998; Princeton Architectural 

Press) 

Photographing interiors can be an equipment-intensive endeavor. If you need to add to your 

armamentarium, check out the photo.net recommended retailers. 

Text and pictures Copyright 1990-2000 Philip Greenspun. 


philg@mit.edu 


Living room 

Not only a tripod or a flash may help dealing with interior light. Here taking an ISO 400 film instead of 

100 leaded to a true representation of the original colours in an interior photo. 




Related Links 

Add a comment 

● Interiors by leading & emerging contemporary photographers- Explore interiors photography and 

other themes at PicassoMio.com (contributed by Allan Majotra) 

● Grabshot- Website showcasing the informal 'human environment' images of UK stock 

photographer Ian Watts (contributed by Ian W.) 

Add a link 


permission. 




Sponsor: Satellite TV HQ - Excellent reviews of satellite TV 


photo.net 

Photographing Ruins 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 


● Learn 

● Equipment 

by Shaun O'Boyle 

● Forums 

● Gallery 


● Community 

Ruins are one of the richest and most interesting photographic subjects to be found. By ruins I'm not necessarily 

referring to old stone circles, columns and coliseums, although they are certainly not to be discounted. Many of the 

ruins pictured here are recently abandoned sites, places that tell stories about the recent past of our culture, and 

comment on our transition to the present. These sites have the content and material to keep a photographer fully 

occupied with the task of making images and building stories from the rubble and fragments left behind. Ruined 

buildings and sites are natural storytellers; they have been the containers that we fill with the stuff of living and work. 

These ruins still carry on a complex dialogue with their surroundings; discovering and elaborating this dialogue is 

part of the task when photographing these places. While there is no one way to photograph any subject, below are 

some hints on how you might approach the task of building a story from the bits and pieces of a ruin. 

Context 

Your ruin needs to be placed in context, the landscape surrounding the site shows how it fits, or doesn't fit 

with its environment. Go wide and step back to relate the subject with the landscape. Many of the older ruins 

were built well before anything was near them, they were slowly encroached upon by sprawl, development 

and the growing urban environment. 

http://www.photo.net/architectural/ruins/ (1 of 19)7/3/2005 2:17:50 AM


The wide shots can contrast the surrounding landscape of the area with the surprising and unexpected site of 

a deteriorating ruin. 

Historical Reference 

A good way to introduce a ruin is to show a historical photograph juxtaposed to a current photograph. This 

will go a long way in showing how the building has or has not transformed over the years, and will create an 

interest in examining the details. 



Go Wide 

Wide aspect shots broaden the view and give more information about the surrounding landscape and are 

perhaps closer to what we see when we look at views such as these with the naked eye. You can achieve 

these photographs by cropping a normal frame down, using a wide format panoramic camera or by stitching 

together multiple frames using software. 



Examine some of the larger details and see what is initially interesting about the place. If the site is a 

building you might be looking at the facade or other details that are unique to the building. 



If the site is an industrial or institutional ruin you will find that each location is quite unique, depending on 

what the place once manufactured, processed, warehoused or healed (or any combination therein). Look for 

the structures that start telling the big story about what the place once did, or to give a sense of the mood you 

are trying to convey about the subject. 



Look at different ways of framing your subject with parts of the architecture or structure. This will give the 

subject additional references to its site and may create a more interesting composition than a straight on 

shot. Doors and overhead structures are a natural for this type of framing. 

Pulling out details from the overall structure can sometime make sense of an otherwise overwhelming and 

confusing image. In the case of a steel mill where the function of the structure is pretty much a mystery to 

anyone but a steel worker, familiar forms give access and an avenue for understanding what the function 

might be, or at least allows us to say "that sort of looks like a house or barn buried in there". 



Look for text and words, it creates an immediately accessible link to a place, object or function and gets the 

viewer involved in a very direct way with the site. 

Stitching shots together to form a panorama is an option for sites that are just to big to fit in even a ultra 

wide lens, plus you maintain a normal lens look to the shot. Overlap many frames to be sure the stitching 

software will be able to connect the shots together. For this shot below I used a tripod and swiveled the 

camera so that the viewfinder was overlapping about 1/2 of the previous frame. 



It is a good idea to always use a tripod when shooting buildings, ruins and similar sites. You want to keep 

the camera level and rock steady while composing and carefully framing your shot with exactly the 

information you are trying to capture, and you are doing all this while thinking about getting your exposure 

and depth of field correct; too many things to keep track of and get right while hand holding your camera, 

especially if you use a hand held light meter. When you move into the interiors of these ruins the reasons 

will become more obvious with exposure times usually in the range of 1 to 30 seconds and longer. 

It helps to lead your viewer into the interior of the building just as you would experience when walking into 

the building yourself. Show a doorway and an entrance area, a hallway with details beyond to pull the 

viewer in. 



Most modern ruins were designed and built in the days before electric lights were in use in every room. 

These places are often beautifully lit with natural light coming in through windows and skylights. Take 

advantage of the available light for your exposure and use the tripod for the long exposures necessary in the 

low light. This will show the rooms as the occupants experienced them, and as the architects who designed 

them intended the spaces to be experienced. A flash is workable in a pinch when there is no natural light 

available, but it is necessary to get the flash off camera and carefully placed, preferably with more than one 

flash to paint the room or object with light. Another option is to open your shutter and paint the room with a 

hand held flashlight or other light source, but this can be a slow process that requires a lot of time and 

experimentation to get correct. 



Film choice is important for shooting long exposures in dark interiors. Good results can be achieved using 

negative film, especially when the goal is to scan the images. While there are no hard rules, slide film can 

get blocked up and become very dense from the many shadow areas making it difficult to get good scans. 

With negative film the shadow areas of the photograph are the thin parts of the negative, usually making it 

an easier task to pull detail from these areas. Negative film also has a wider exposure latitude allowing 

several more stops of information to be recorded on film. 

Check the film suggestions on this site for further recommendations regarding the latest information on 

films. Pay special attention to the reciprocity characteristics of the film as well as color shifting over long 

exposures. B&W film is an attractive option for shooting ruins, it will give a completely different mood to 

the photographs than color would. B&W films archival stability is an added attraction. 



My initial experience using a digital camera for longer interior exposures is good. Color balance holds well, 

better than film in many cases. Look for features such as the ability to set shutter speed and aperture 

manually. A histogram for checking your exposure in the camera is very handy, you can then decide if you 

need to re-shoot immediately, a huge digital advantage. Digital cameras can take the place of a Polaroid 

camera for doing test shots. Noise is an issue with long exposures on digital cameras, and this should be 

tested prior to critical use. Lower asa settings seem to help this. 



The 5 shots here were taken with a Canon S30 3.2 m-pixel digital pocket camera. The blown out 

highlights in two of the shots demonstrate the S30's intolerance for over exposure. Some of the higher 

end digital cameras may handle this better. Negative film would likely have held more detail in those 

areas. The S30's exposure range seems quite close to slide film in this regard. 

Use furniture as a hint of the age of the ruin, and as a way for your viewer to access and relate to the space. 



Look out of the building from the windows. This will put you in the place of the former occupants and 

perhaps give the viewer a perspective on what it was like to be inside the ruin when it was occupied. 

Look for objects that people handle, things that people touch and use; things that can have a personal 

meaning to someone. It can make a personal statement and create a powerful contrast to the ruined 

industrial or institutional surroundings. 



The details can be the most powerful aspect of a ruin, it is where personal items and objects at a human scale 

can be examined and allowed to tell the tale of their past. 



Move in and examine the subtlety of each object and explore the relationship to the rest of the 

structure. Treat the site like an archaeological find, all the details tell a part of the whole story, each shard 

can give meaning to the big picture. 



In conclusion, you may find that in your part of the world there are unique places that once played an 

important role in your local history, they may be worth a peak since this is the heritage we have gained from 

the past. That old ruin on the edge of town may have more to offer than a quick glance would suggest. This 

is living history, often much more interesting than the cleaned up versions found in a museum. 

Ask permission from the owner of the property before you attempt to photograph an abandoned site since 

most sites are posted against trespassing. These places can be quite dangerous so use common sense and 

caution when moving around these sites. Be aware that there may be air born toxins in these older buildings, 

asbestos dust and lead paint among them, so a quality respirator (not a paper dust mask) is an essential piece 

of gear to carry. 

Top 

Text and photographs Copyright 1983-2002 Shaun O'Boyle. The photographs are from The Modern Ruins Essays 

viewable at OBoylePhoto.com 

so@oboylephoto.com 


Although the wider perspective puts the building in context, a lot (if not most) ruins are impossible to photograph in 

a wide enough perspective to do this. 

Quite often it is a good thing not to put the building in context like this, as by it becoming a ruin, people have 

forgotten what it was used for, a lot of others don't know it is even there. It's the smaller things, the human factors, 

that make the big difference. 



Also, nature taking over - trees, bushes, make these views hard to get physically. 

Saying all this, I'd love to get some wide angle stuff on a lot of places. 

-- Andrew Tierney, May 2, 2002 

You left out what could be the most important piece of information about this subject and that is how to find places 

like this. So, how do you find these buildings and how do you gain access? 

-- Paul Wilson, May 15, 2002 

Regarding the question about finding ruins: 

The means I use isn't a method per se, but seems to work pretty well. 

A lot of urban ruins can be found in transitional suburbs. Areas which used to be a mix of houses and factories, but 

which are now in between. The warehouses and manufacturers have packed up and left, but the developers have yet 

to move in. Along rivers is a good place to look, and if you are in a port city, just upstream from the ports. Near 

railway lines is another good place to look. It usually doesn't matter if the lines are abandoned or still in use (but be 

aware of which applies!). 

The biggest issue is access. Trespass is not fun, but a little courtesy runs a LONG way. If a security firm operates on 

site, contact them and ask how to go about getting in touch with the owners. And more often than not, a lot of great 

details can be photographed without ever setting foot on a site. There is an old mill near where I currently live with 

some AMAZINGLY (by modern standards) detailed brickwork. 

In rural areas, well, ruins are everywhere. Along train lines is still a good one, since so many railway stations have 

been shut, pretty much everywhere in the world. Old farm buildings are another standard, but the most interesting 

ones (in my opinion) are the ones which are still just good enough to still be used. In the wool growing regions of 

Australia there are some amazingly decrepit gates, fences, sheep ramps which are still in use. Get a wide angle lens 

on some of those and you can have a lot of fun with perspective and putting things in, or out of, context. 

-- Keith Lenghaus, May 16, 2002 

First I want to say, "Thank You" for publishing this article. It is a great inspiration to me everytime I visit it. There 

needs to be many more articles that illustrate how a COLLECTION of images can be used to tell a story instead of 

trying to say everything in one shot. 

On a more practical note, I'm wondering what equipment tricks and techniques you have come across in working in 

these abandoned landscapes. You mention getting access to these sites. Is there a pre-made liability waiver that you 

can present to someone to get access to these sites. You mention the sunlight that is often inherent in these types of 

places. Have you ever had cause to use a flash? Some places I have encountered are definite candidates for fill flash. 

If you have had to use flash, could you comment on any suggestions to keep in mind; maybe diffusion techniques 

you have had success with. 

I'd also be interested to see what you experience has taught you about lense selection. I'm particularly curious about 



any use of telephoto lenses you may have had. A wide to short tele range goes without saying. I'd like to know if 

you've ever had cause to use anything 200 or greater to compress images. Obviously these would come in handy for 

isolating details, but I'm curious if you have any examples of landscape shots that you have compressed with a 

telephoto. 

-- James Clarke, January 11, 2003 

First, great work Shaun. Lots of excellent new shots since I last went to your web site! 

Since finding ruins is part of the trade, I won't give out to much, but one really basic step that I've learned is - ask the 

locals! Most people know their neighborhoods. On a recent trip I was in Youngstown, Ohio photographing a steel 

mill (the bankrupt CSC mill for you steel mill fans). When I got off the interstate I saw an industrial surplus store. I 

picked the young alternative-looking lady at the counter to ask if there were any cool ruins in the area where I could 

take pictures. She easily directed me to some buildings she knew that ended up being decent (a burned out cement 

mill and some sort of small foundary). Note that I made some profiling-type assumptions about who and where to 

ask- think about it a little and don't be afraid to ask several people- they can't close any doors. 

-- Frank Abbato, May 17, 2003 

Sunset over the ruins of the Ceusescu regime in Bucharest, Romania (in 2002). 

I hope this known, at least to some readers. During the Ceausescu regime in Romania, large parts of the city were 

"furnished" with new blocks of flats, corresponding to the view of the dictator on a better housing. In some cases, 

place for them was made through demolishment of old and valuable urban substance, about which literature was 

written. 



Since the residential quality of these multiple housing buildings was low, after the change of regime there was little 

interest to finish the numerous buildings started. I photographed once the raw reinforced concrete frames in the stage 

these are left till today, as it proved to be a useful documentation for the structural system of buildings from the same 

time, for my research. 

Here I did not include one of those photographs, but a more atmospheric one: a sunset in Pieptanari, over a not 

finished so-called "Circul foamei" (Hunger circus), which was the name given to food supermarkets built during the 

Ceausescu regime (as they used to be empty - no food). I guess so that the picture has a message. 

-- Maria Bostenaru, April 8, 2005 

Related Links 

Add a comment 

● Art nude & portrait photography by Ian Scrivener- An extensive photographic collection of art nudes, 

portraits and dance by Australian photographer Ian Scrivener. Locations often used include abandoned 

buildings, industrial zones & ruins. (contributed by Ian Scrivener) 

● Modern Ruins and Urban Exploration- A good index with many links to various ruins and other delerict 

structures across the globe. (contributed by Alejandro Ruiz) 

● Fading Ad Campaign- Fading Ad Campaign is a photographic project documenting vintage mural ads on 

building brickfaces in New York City spanning nearly a century. It has become a metaphor for survival for me 

since, like myself, many of these ads have long outlived their expected life span. Although this project doesn't 

deal directly with HIV/AIDS, it is no accident I've chosen to document such a transitory and evanescent 

subject. Of the hundreds of ads I've photographed, many have already been covered up, vandalized, or 

destroyed. But still many silently cling to the walls of buildings, barely noticed by the rushing passersby. 

(contributed by Frank Jump) 

Add a link 



Privacy 


Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of digital cameras 


photo.net 

Studio Photography 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 


Why go into the studio? 

Rent or buy? 



Studio photography is easy because you can get exactly what you want. Studio 

photography is hard because you can get exactly what you want. 

Soft light, hard light, hair light, background. Everything is under your control. 

If you are a tremendously creative person who knows how to use studio 

equipment, you'll get wonderful results. If you are uncreative, you'll have very 

flat and boring results. If anything is wrong with the lighting balance or 

exposure, you'll have nobody to blame but yourself. 

Most big cities have good rental studios that come complete with lights, backgrounds, and often 

assistants. This is the way to go if you have a big budget and know exactly when you want to shoot. 

Having your own studio, especially at home, is great for spontaneous work and also because you can 

http://www.photo.net/studio/primer (1 of 17)7/3/2005 2:18:01 AM


take some of your equipment on location. 

Ceiling or floor? 

Decide whether you want your studio to be floor-based or ceiling-based. A 

floor-based studio means that you have lightstands for the lights and 

background supports for the background. All of these supports are very 

lightweight because they are designed to be portable. You'll be treading very 

carefully and/or you'll be knocking things over. 

In a ceiling-based studio, you mount background rollers on the ceiling and a 

rail system that allow flexible positioning of lights anywhere within a 

rectangular area. A ceiling-based studio costs about $1000 more than a floorbased 

one but is a much nicer place to work in my opinion (remember that I'm 

6' tall, 200 lbs, and move with the grace of... an MIT student). Also, you'll still 

need at least some of the floor-based stuff for location work. 

I personally bought a Bogen rail system for my house when I had to give up my 3000 sq. ft. studio in 

Cambridge. It cost about $1200 and really made studio photography much more enjoyable for me. The 

coolest part of any rail system is the pantograph light support. These pull down from the ceiling and are 

cleverly counterbalanced so that they just stay wherever you leave them. You just grab a light and move 

it up or down an inch and it stays there. Pure mechanical design magic. As far as I know, the Bogen 

system (extensive brochure available from them), a FOBA system (imported by SinarBron), and the 

Calumet system (1-800-CALUMET) are the only rail systems available in the US. 

The Lights 

Decide what format camera you'll be using. Bigger cameras require smaller apertures to get adequate 

depth of field and hence more light. Decide how big your subjects are going to be. Head-and-shoulders 

portraits require much less light than automobiles. 

I don't have enough experience with hot lights to tell you how much light you need, but there are many 

good books for cinematographers on the subject. With flashes, 500 watt-seconds is sufficient for 35mm 

photography of people at full-length or 4x5 photography of tabletop subjects. Most serious studio 

photographers start with about 2000 watts-seconds, which is adequate for 4x5 photography of large 

subjects, and will rent another pack if they have to light something huge. 

Sunlight 

If you have any windows in your studio, you might be able to use the sunlight coming in. The color 

temperature of sunlight varies from about 2000K at sunrise to 4300K in the early morning to 5800K at 

high noon in midsummer. [Note: the sun streaming into a window is different from what you get if you 



take your subject out into the open. "Daylight" is a combination of sunlight (around 5500K) and skylight 

(approx 9500K), averaging to around 6500K in the summer. Clouds or shade push the color temperature 

much bluer, up towards 9000K, though an overall overcast is usually 6000K.] 

Hot Lights 

Once you know how much light you need, decide whether to go hot or cold. "Hot lights" are tungsten or 

Metal Halide Iodide (HMI) lights that burn continuously. The big advantages of hot lights are 

● you can always see what you're going to get, even if you mix with ambient light. You don't need 

Polaroid tests, fancy meters, and a good imagination. 

● you can use hot lights with movie, video, and scanning digital cameras 

Not too many still photographers use hot lights, though, because they have the following disadvantages: 

● heat. Thousands of watts of heat that make the photographer sweat, the models sweat, and the 

props melt. 

● tungsten color balance. Kodak makes some nice tungsten color slide film but if you don't like it, 

you'll have to filter your lights and lens like crazy to use your favorite color films. 

● limited accessories. It is much easier to control a light source that isn't hot enough to light paper 

on fire. You can experiment with electronic flash without burning your house down. With hot 

lights, you must make sure that your diffusers, soft boxes, umbrellas, etc. can handle the heat. 

HMI lights are mercury medium-arc iodide lights that burn at a color temperature of between 5600K and 

6000K. They produce about 4X the light of a tungsten bulb with the same wattage because less energy is 

wasted as heat. Also, you don't have to waste energy and light filtering to daylight color balance. That 

said, if you get yourself a 36,000 watt Ultra Dino, you won't exactly be shivering in the studio. The 

smallest HMI lights seem to be about 200 watts. 

Cold Lights 



"Cold lights" are electronic flashes, much more 

powerful than the ones on your camera but basically 

the same idea. Studio strobes come in two flavors: 

monolights and powerpack/head systems. The 

business end of both is the same, a flash tube 

surrounding an incandescent bulb. The incandescent 

bulb, usually around 100 watts, is the "modeling 

light," used by the photographer to judge lighting 

effects and ratios. These aren't very effective if the 

ambient light in the studio, e.g., from windows, is 

high. Most photographers burn a few Polaroids to 

make sure that the lights are properly set. 

A monolight has a wall outlet on one end, a flash tube 

on the other, and a big block of capacitors in between. 

These are nice for location work because you don't 

have have a lot of cables running around. Using 

several monolights together isn't as much of a problem as you'd think because (1) good monolights have 

a 4 or 5 f-stop output adjustment control, and (2) most monolights have a built-in slave so that when one 

fires, they will all fire. 

In a powerpack/head system, you have one big heavy capacitor-filled power pack and a bunch of 

relatively lightweight heads connected by high-voltage cables to the powerpack. You can adjust the 

lighting power among the heads and also the overall light output. These are the most flexible and most 

commonly used studio flash systems. Flash power is specified in watt-seconds (joules), somewhat 

confusingly abbreviated as "w/s". 

Choosing a brand of studio strobes is a similar process to choosing an SLR camera system. If you buy 

the wrong brand, you may have to scrap your entire investment as your ambitions grow. I don't have 

enough experience with monolights to suggest a brand, but Sunpaks are cheap (around $350 each for 

400 w/s) and have been around for a long time. I certainly wouldn't buy anything cheaper or more 

obscure than those. Calumet sells some 750 w/s monolights (around $500) with a 5-stop output 

adjustment and I would think they would be easier to work with, especially because they take all the 

light-control accessories made for standard Calumet flash heads. 



In powerpack/head systems, Novatron should be the 

cheapest system you consider. Anything cheaper 

probably won't work in the long run and won't fit any 

of the standard light control accessories. Novatron 

sells kits that include cheap umbrellas and light stands 

in a big plastic case. You can use these to go on 

location as long as you're not worried about some bigtime 

professional walking by and calling you a girlieman 

because you don't have Speedotron. The kits 

range in price from about $500 (240 w/s, two heads) to 

$1000 (500 w/s, three heads). The main problems with 

Novatron are that (1) the packs only have adustable 

power output over a 2 or 3 f-stop range, and (2) the 

heads won't take more than 500 or 1000 w/s of power. 

If you feel like spending twice as much money, you will no doubt be very happy with Speedotron Black 

Line, Norman, Dyna-Lite, or Calumet systems. These allow you to pump 2000 or 3000 w/s into a single 

head, adjust over a 5 or 6 f-stop range, have more powerful modeling lights, and are presumably more 

reliable in heavy use. Many of these systems offer interesting zoom heads that allow adustment of the 

light cone angle. I share a studio with Elsa Dorfman and use her Broncolor strobes. These are another 

factor of two more expensive than other "professional-grade" systems and yet I don't really notice any 

difference using them day-to-day versus Novatrons. 

Warning: there is a brand of mail-order flash called White Lightning (Paul Buff) that is sold as X wattseconds 

for N dollars. These supposedly aren't such horrible flashes but the watt-seconds figures are 

absurd. The true output is something like X/2 in which case the monolights aren't any cheaper than 

other cheap brands. 

Note for high speed photography: Studio flash systems generally take between 1/200th and 1/1500th of a 

second to dump out their light. This is fast enough to freeze much motion but won't stop a bullet or give 

you a perfectly sharp splash. Studio strobes are designed for relatively long illumination times because 

color film actually suffers some reciprocity failure at the very short exposure times of on-camera flashes 

that aren't working hard. In other words, Kodak and Fuji don't guarantee that you'll get correct color 

balance at 1/50,000 of a second because the red, green, and blue layers of the film respond differently to 

being illuminated for so short a time. If you want to do high-speed photography, your options are (1) use 

an on-camera flash set for 1/32nd power, or (2) get a studio strobe system specifically designed for stopmotion 

capability. 

Note: Call 1-800-CALUMET to get a catalog with a good selection of studio flashes with illustrations. 

Kapture Group sells equipment for high-speed photography. 

Light Control 



Whatever lighting system you get, make sure that it is reasonably popular. Otherwise, you won't be able 

to get any accessories to fit. You need to be able to control whether the light is hard or soft. Hard light is 

generated by a small and/or far-away light and results in strong shadows. Examples of hard lights are the 

sun (not small but quite far away) and bare bulbs. Soft light is generated by a large diffuse light and 

results in shadow-free images because there are many paths from the light source to the object. 

Examples of soft light are an overcast sky, a north-facing window close to the subject, a bulb reflected 

off an umbrella placed close to the subject. 

Another dimension to control is diffuse/specular. A diffuse source contains light on many different 

angles whereas specular light is organized in parallel rays. Specular light doesn't bounce around the 

studio filling in shadows and lowering contrast, spilling onto the background, etc. 

Old-time photographers relied on silver umbrellas to get a somewhat softer light source. With white 

translucent umbrellas, you can use them like a silver umbrella and bounce off them (losing about 1/2 the 

light, which will go through and away from your subject) or shoot through them, which results in 

slightly harder light with the same 1-stop loss. However you use an umbrella, you'll generally get a 

diffuse light source. 

The modern religion is the softbox, a reflector-lined cavity covered with a white diffusion fabric. The 

best of these, e.g., the PhotoFlex MultiDome, allow you to remove the front fabric to get a "sort of hard" 

light, to place or remove an interior baffle to get a "slightly less soft" light, and to warm up the color of 

the light with a gold reflector. Because softboxes surround the light head, you lose much less light than 

you would using white umbrellas. Note: the M&M's image at the top of this page was done with a 

softbox. 

Some photographers put a big grid over the softbox to create a large specular source. Louvers create the 

same effect but only on one axis. An inexpensive honeycomb grid will turn a strobe head into a specular 

light source, albeit not a very large one. Photographers who use these tend to use many, "painting a 

scene" precisely with pools of light. Strobe head grids are $50-75 each or sold in sets with different light 

angles for about $200. 

Snoots sit over a light head and turn it into a very small light source. These are usually used for hair 

lights. You can stick a small honeycomb grid over the snoot to tighten up the cone of light thrown by the 

snoot and also make the light more specular. 

Barn Doors are black metal flaps that sit around a strobe head and keep the light from going where you 

don't want it to go. This is Hollywood technology from the 1920's. If you really want to control the angle 

of the light cone thrown by your head, you should probably get a zoom head or a bunch of grids. 

Reflectors are really too general purpose to be called "studio equipment" but they are essential studio 

items and, if cleverly used, can eliminate the need for additional strobe heads. A favorite of mine is the 

PhotoFlex Litepanel, which is a huge sheet of gold/silver reflector, white diffusion fabric, or black light 



absorber in a plastic frame. You can light through this and turn it into a huge softbox, bounce off of it to 

bring the contrast ratio closer to that magic Kodak 3:1, or take it outside and have an assistant hold it to 

filter the sun. Another essential item is the disk reflector (e.g., Photoflex Lightdisc) which stores 

compactly but springs open to a large round reflector with a steel frame. I usually buy them white on one 

side, gold on the other. 

The most important word in studio light control is "gobo". Hardly anyone knows what it means, but you 

can't beat the mysterious sound. It actually is short for "go between" and refers to anything that you stick 

in between the light and the subject to cast a shadow, diffuse the light, or whatever. 

More: see the Photoflex Web site for a wide range of standard professional products and/or the Calumet 

catalog. If you really want to understand the art of lighting, read books written for film makers and also 

look at old black & white movies (before they had color, they used lots of interesting gobos to add 

shadow patterns on white walls and other boring surfaces). 

Flash Triggering 

If you have hot lights, you don't have to worry about this; they're on all the time. If you have strobes, the 

camera has to tell the strobes when to fire. This is traditionally done with a sync cord. Sync cords come 

in many lengths and are available coiled or uncoiled. The one thing in common that they all share is that 

they suck and you will trip over them and probably break something very expensive. It is much better to 

use a wireless trigger of some kind. Personally, I use a Wein Infrared SSR kit (about $200), which 

consists of a small on-camera hotshoe-connected flash with a filter over the front that only passes IR 

light. The other half of the kit plugs into your strobe powerpack and waits for the IR pulse from the oncamera 

unit, then triggers the flash. There are various radio slaves (e.g., Quantum) that also perform this 

function, possibly better in a large studio or outdoors. 

I'm so high on a fully wireless studio that I also bought a Wein slave trigger for my flashmeter (see 

below). 

Flash Metering 

Unless you have a very unusual camera (e.g., certain Rolleis and Contaxes), you will not be able to 

meter flash exposure with a through-the-lens in-camera meter. Virtually every professional carries a 

handheld flashmeter. This is a $500 device that measures ambient light, light ratios, how many pops of a 

studio strobe system you'll need to shoot at f/64 with your view camera. 

Almost everyone uses a flash meter in incident mode. You stick a white diffusion dome over the meter 

and hold the meter in front of the subject's face, with the dome pointing back at the camera. Then you 

push a button on the meter and it triggers the flash (assuming you have it connected via a sync cord or 

Wein system). The meter then reports the appropriate f-stop to use. This gives you a reading that is 

independent of the subject's reflectance. In other words, if the subject is white the meter doesn't get 



fooled into thinking that it is a brighter light and if the subject is black the meter doesn't recommend 

opening up two more f-stops until the subject is rendered as though it were 18% gray. 

Though nobody was ever able to figure out how to use it, the standard professional meter for many years 

was the Minolta Flashmeter IV. I own one. I think I know what half of the buttons and switches do. I 

have two owner's manuals for it. Minolta came out with a completely rewritten one because nobody 

could understand the first one. The new Minolta Flashmeter V is better/simpler. 

The nicest meter I've used is the Gossen Luna-Star F2. It takes one standard 9V battery that you can buy 

anywhere. It only has six buttons and their functions are obvious. I was able to use all but one of the 

meter's modes within 60 seconds of putting in the battery without reading the manual. 99% of what 

you'd need to know from the manual is printed in four sections on the back of the meter. The meter is 

great for computing lighting ratios. You press the measurement button once to take a snapshot reading. 

You press and hold it while sweeping the meter around a scene and the Luna-Star F2 draws you a graph 

at the bottom of the display of the contrast range (e.g., f8-f16). Every time take a flash reading, the meter 

also shows you the ambient reading with an unobtrusive little bar on the same graph. Unlike the Minolta 

meters, you don't need a "reflected attachment" and an "incident attachment." The naked meter works to 

measure reflected light. Add a plastic incident piece and you can measure incident light. Add a little 

viewfinder and you've got a 5 degree spot meter. It is a great design and smaller than competing 

products. Nit: It only meters down to EV -2.5. That's a couple of stops less light than most pro SLRs but 

not as good as some other handheld meters. 

The Background 

The basic professional background is seamless paper. 

This comes in rolls 53", 107", and 140" wide. I find 

the 53" size is too confining and leads to stiff poses 

and nasty little slipups where a corner of the frame is 

not covered by the background. On the other hand, the 

140" size is not really necessary most of the time, 

which is why it is only available in a handful of colors. 

The 107" width is about 9 feet and that's a good size 

for most people. A roll costs about $30 and you should 

have white, "studio gray", and black for starters. Every 

time I try to use colored seamless, I end up with a 

Sears portrait studio look so I've stopped trying. Bogen 

makes a nice "Auto Pole" system that lets you mount 

several rolls of seamless conveniently (a few hundred 

dollars; can even be motorized). 

For location work, Photek's Background-in-a-Bag 

system is kind of nice. These are big sheets of what looks like crushed velvet that you just duct tape up 



against a wall. They cost about $130 and fit into a included gym-bag. 

Calumet makes a really slick "Tote-a-Round Muslin" system that leans up against any wall and gives 

you that classic studio muslin look. They are around $300 each but I haven't tried them. 

Camera Support 

This is where most readers would say "duh, use a tripod." First of all, if you're doing 35mm or medium 

format work with strobes, you don't need a camera support because the flash freezes motion. But if 

you're using hot lights or big cameras or doing something creative, you probably need some kind of 

camera support. A tripod is in fact usually the wrong tool for the job. 

A tripod is inconvenient. Since using the center column to adjust height is the sure mark of a fool, you 

have to adjust all three legs to raise or lower the camera. You can't usually get really low or really high 

or really hanging out over your subject with a tripod because the legs get in the way. 

Part of the reasons that tripods have such shortcomings is that they are engineered to weigh less than 250 

lbs. If you want the most stable support for a fixed weight, a tripod is the right design. Once you accept 

the idea that a camera support can weigh more than the photographer, then there is more freedom of 

design and you'd probably come up with a Studio Stand. This is basically a very heavy rigid single 

column off which you hang crossbar arms off of which you hang tripod heads off of which you hang 

cameras. There are wheels on the bottom that you can lock. The columns come between 6 and 12 feet in 

height and prices range from $350 to $3500 depending upon features and stability. 

Cool Stuff 

You went into the studio to have fun. Now it is time to stock up on mylar, strange oils, dead flowers, 

interesting vegetables, and play. If you want to spend more money, there are lots of interesting ways to 

do it. Rosco makes a huge range of colored filters to stick in front of lights plus fog machines ($350- 

700) to add mystery. A wind machine (around $500) will give human subjects that active look. 

Trengrove artificial ice cubes and related products will help you do that Chivas Regal ad. 

If you really want to be mod, though, what you need to do is get hosed. The Hosemaster is a $5000 

machine that lets you paint with a fiber optic wand of light. Since you are lighting each part of the 

subject individually, you can do just about anything you want. Infinite depth of field? Just keep 

refocusing the camera. Make one part of the subject diffuse? Put a stocking over the lens while you're 

hosing that part. A nice highlight on the pen tip? Leave the hose on the tip for awhile. 

I've personally never used a Hosemaster, but it was all the rage when it came out in the early 1990's. 

You couldn't open Photo District News without seeing some beautiful Hosemaster work. Personally, 

though, I don't like the idea of spending fifteen minutes painting a scene on a Polaroid and then doing it 

all over again for the final chrome and then discovering that I screwed up somehow. 



More 

● photo.net guide to body painting 

● nudes 

● Creative Lighting Techniques for Studio Photographers 

● Studio & Commercial Photography 

Studio photography is an equipment-intensive endeavor. Check out the photo.net recommended retailers 

for the full-line professional camera shops that stock studio gear. 

Credits 

I'm grateful to John Tice (jontic@vt.edu) for educating me about specular/diffuse light. 

Text and pictures copyright 1982-1995 Philip Greenspun 

philg@mit.edu 


Putting a honeycomb grid over a softbox does not necessarily turn that diffuse light into a specular light, 

but it does head it in that direction. It all depends on the size of the holes in the honeycomb and the 

thickness of the honeycomb material. I've used largish diameter honeycomb hole material that 

maintained a pretty diffuse lighting pattern in terms of the subject, but still gave me a fairly quick cutoff 

outside the lit area. The Degree of Specularity depends solely on the angle subtended by the light in 

relation to the subject. In other words, if you're standing in the middle of the desert and being lit by the 

entire sky (and no sun), your light subtends an angle of almost 180 degrees relative to you, the subject. 

That's seriously diffuse light. On the other hand, if you're being lit ONLY by the sun, which is, relative 

to you, a very tiny one or two degrees of angle, the sun is rapidly approaching being a point source, and 

the shadows are very hard-edged indeed, and that's seriously specular light. The sun could actually be a 

very diffuse source if you were only a few miles from its surface. At that point, the sun, which is HUGE 

relative to you, would be taking up nearly half of your available vision, as does the sky in the desert, and 

it would be diffuse. And, of course, you'd be fried. The interesting point, here, is that for any given size 

of light source and any given size of subject smaller than the source, the closer you move the light, the 

more diffuse it will be. Most light sources are actually combinations of specular and diffuse light. If you 

take a piece of translucent fabric and put it between the light and the subject, you usually get that 

combination. The closer you bring the fabric to the light, the less fabric area you're lighting, the 



narrower the angle subtended by the light as seen from the subject, and the harder the shadow edges. 

The closer you bring the fabric to your subject, the softer the shadows will appear. 

-- anonymous anonymous, June 25, 1997 

Photogenic Machine Co. in Youngstown, Ohio also manufactures and sells an overhead rail system for 

supporting your lighting in the studio. 

-- Scott Rogers, April 6, 1999 

One should bear in mind that strobe selection is as religious an issue (at least to some of us) as camera 

selection. I own several white lightning strobes and really like them. The market is flooded with 

monolights at the moment so I am not pushing a particular brand. But I think that on a limited budget 

one will get more value for the money using monolights over powerpacks/light modules. 

-- Dick Damian, May 19, 1999 

White Lightnings are nice equipment - a good value, reliable and powerful (f16.4 @ 10' w. umbrella). In 

some location situations, they can have advantages over powerpack lights (placing an accent light 30 to 

50 feet away from the power packs). 

Your website is terrific. 

-- Mike Matcho, May 31, 1999 

I just want to say that I am new to the photography buisness, but I also have a wealth of knowledge 

when it comes to theatrical lighting. If you find anyone else who does or learn about theatric lighting, it 

will do wonders for your studio. I am a strong beliver in fernels and ellisodal reflectors. Experiment with 

gels, play with focus. They do get hot but if you have a high celing studio a portable dimmer pack, you 

can have a LOT of fun playing around with diffrent lights and colors. I really recomend rosco colors. 

They also have gel finders you can get so you can sample and find which colors you want. The one thing 

I really have to say when it comes to photography and all other arts.. DARE TO BE DIFFRENT! People 

forget this. The greats are great because they shocked and suprised the world. Just give it some 

thought..... Great site love it. 

-- Chris Leher, June 20, 1999 

Chimera, the softbox people, publish a chart in their catalog comparing the effective output of a wide 

variety of studio flash equipment, both power pack/head and monolight systems. Provides useful, 

objective information in contrast to manufacturers' hype. 

-- Steve Singleton, July 2, 1999 



Watt second / Joule ratings can be very misleading as they relate to the supplied electrical power and not 

the actual light output. Guide numbers are often not much better because they depend on conditions and 

reflectors defined by each manufacturer. A specific example of this are semi-pro monolights of similar 

price from two popular UK manufacturers: 

The Courtenay Solapro 300 has a 300 Joule rating and a guide number of 52m @ ISO100 

The Prolinca 400 has a 400 Joule rating and a guide number of 51m @ ISO100 

On the face of it there's not much to choose between the two and the Prolinca is more popular because of 

its (irrelevant) higher Joule rating and the fact that it sits at the bottom of the much larger Elinchrom 

professional range. However, further investigation reveals that the Courtenay is even more efficient than 

it already appears and has a 1 to 1.5 stop light output advantage when measured under the same 

conditions. This is because the Courtenay spec. is based on a 65 degree reflector and the Prolinca on a 

special 52 degree reflector that concentrates the light more to improve the paper specification. 

I don't know where else these models are available, but I'm sure the moral of this tale applies to 

manufacturers around the world. Sadly, reviewers don't often pick up on this fine, but important, detail 

and it's up to the individual photographer to test the products under the specific conditions that they will 

be used. 

-- Sean Sedwards, August 23, 1999 

Hi guys.. I seem to always run into this nagging delinquent conversations about brand "X" being better 

than brand "Y" and "Z" put together. Forgive the interjection (and the wet blanket statements to follow), 

but I've always been under the impression that the photographer will do whatever is necessary to achieve 

the effect intended. And, regardless of the tools used, is considered to have succeeded when that given 

initial intended effect is achieved. 

That being said, I've often challenged students of mine to outshoot me with their expensive cameras 

while I use the cheapest cameras of all time... the China made "Seagull". Costing no more than US$60, I 

can make the fixed focal length, twin lens beast (el cheapo) perform most of my commands. 

Bare basics come to mind: 

Composition, exposure, timing, color balance, tonality, subject matter, just to name a few. 

While I find it simply tickling when I stroll into a camera store, to hear the ever unceasing Nikon vs. 

Canon Wars, or the Mamiya Vs. 'Blad rampages, I cannot but feel sorry that we, have all fallen prey to 

the "prestigeous snob elite" bug. 

"WOW! look at that BIG 600mm lens" "My Leica M6 has a custom ostrich skin leather replacement" 



catch my drift? 

Equipment discussions are more targeted towards the less informed, while techniques are continually 

learned. 

Let's have a ball discussing techniques instead. Anytime... 

Michael Chick 

-- Chick Michael, January 7, 2000 

Thanks Michael! 

Being new to photography, I'm trying to gain ideas and techniques from anywhere I can. I'm excellent 

with buying the latest and greatest, I learned this well from other hobbies, however photography is the 

first hobby that lets me express a more creative side, it is currently the unused one. 

I am really tired of hearing this equipment that equipment and I tend to get caught up in it. I am just now 

starting to learn that I can change light with simple and inexpensive props in the studio. One would be 

surprised as how well a flash with a pocket bouncer bounced into some white poster board (hanging 

from a ceiling fan) will do. I was amazed! I would really like to hear more stories like this! 

While I know practice is what really helps I know we could discuss some more basic techniques. As a 

beginning photographer do you know how hard it was for me to find someone to explain how strobes 

worked, setting the ratios, etc. I would think this would be at the beginning of the book! 

J.R. Farrar 

-- J.R. Farrar, February 7, 2000 

There is an old story of a famous English photographer called David Bailey, of the likes of Vogue, wide 

angle pix of the Beatles etc., who was at a camera club and asked what light he prefered using. He said 

"Available light". You mean daylight the class responded. "No, available light" Said Bailey. Slightly 

confused the class asked if he meant tungsten, or flash. "No, available light!". They were still confused. 

"Available light," Said Bailey "Any bloody light that's available, I'll use it!!" Get the point everyone! 

Don't obssess about equipment because, The camera doesn't take the photo, the photographer takes the 

photo!! You can take great photos in the studio with a 40w lamp bulb if you know what you're doing, 

even one candle!! Keep snapping. 

-- John-Christian Jacques, February 8, 2000 



When using studio flash don't forget about THE HOME DEPOT school of lighting. Hardware stores 

have lights, clamps, black plastic, to cover windows,etc. Corragated dryer vents cut into 10 inch lengths 

makes great snots for lights, its even adjustable. To tighten the pattern pull on the vent and it lengthens 

and makes the light pattern smaller. Also if you mix tungsten light with flash the tungsten is yellow and 

can be described as warm. It looks good on the background. Go to your nearest hardware store and 

think. Thom Wolf, TWFV@netscape.net 

-- Thom Wolf, September 28, 2000 

So nice to see somebody finally admitted tripods are not needed at all times and to admit that hot lights 

have some advantages. I have been a "serious amateur" for years and am finally in the process of setting 

up my studio. I intend to specialize in infants and children but it has been an uphill battle convincing my 

husband that I don't have to use a tripod to run a studio. 

With kids, they do not hold still for more than a fraction of a second at a time. If I use a tripod, or 

anything else that keeps me from moving the camera, then I WILL miss the best shots. 

Also, with hot lights (provided you have enough room to bounce them) you don't miss shots due to the 

flash cycle time. Some of the best faces happen just after you take the first shot. You need to be able to 

snap again immediately. 

Thanks for the info. 

LizM 

-- Liz Masoner, March 11, 2001 

A few notes: 

-Colored acetate/polyester/mylar/whatever in front of lights are not filters. They're gels. Filters go in 

front of the lens and are optical grade, while gels are made only for lights. Don't mix them up. 

-A softbox with a grid does not change the quality of the light. It only restricts the light from spreading. 

-Low end strobes have a wide variance in color temperature. If you plan on shooting chrome in the 

studio with a cheap system, and want predictable results, you had better get a color meter and know how 

to use it properly. It would save much trouble to just purchase the high quality strobe system. If you're a 

professional, you can't afford not to. 

-- Ad T, June 21, 2001 

this issue of what lights or any other equipment to buy is kind of silly. What you use is linked to how 



you shoot and you develop your style and knowlege of equipment through experience. In the meantime 

you use what you have available. Granted, its fun to use studio lights and if you've got the money and 

the desire, well then why not. personally id buy what the rental houses carry so i can get accessories 

when i need them. But its not the only way. I shoot for a living and i frequently use desklamps, florecent 

lights fixtures, cieling lights, or whatever. when i was starting, i was sure i needed strobes. I finally got 

some and as soon as i had them came to the realization that my best work happened when i used more 

inventive light sources. My absolute favorite light (i shoot people) is day light through a window or 

reflected off a wall. Sometimes I walk around until i see the light i want reflecting off a building. the 

point is that photography requires adaptability, inventiveness, and imagination. Not brand x or tool y. If 

someone needs a colour meter its because their client needs accurate color and by the time anyone is in a 

position to have to worry about it they will know this stuff. Saying you need piece of equipment x is like 

saying you need an f1 race car to drive for a living. If you want to race in the f1 circuit then yah, if you 

want to deliver milk then maybe not. 

very happy to see this dialogue happening. The photoworld needs forums badly. 

-- dvd wmth, September 30, 2001 

I'd like to challenge the author's comments re: White Lightning flashes. I have used one of their model 

10000 units for a number of years. I find that the performance is exactly as claimed for output. Did you 

conduct your own tests to determine that their WS ratings were inflated by a factor of 2? 

Generally, I found your site to be very helpful and informative. Your comment about Paul Buff, 

however, seems to qualify as a "cheap shot." I find no test data to back it up. 

-- William Croninger, February 28, 2002 

I would just like to give a small bit of advise to those of you who want to get the best out of your flash 

meters: when you have a flashmeter that has variable shutter speeds and you want to find out how much 

the flash is blasing out, (this is especially evident with outdoor portraits) set your meter shutter speed to 

at LEAST 1/500th of a second. This will cancel out most (if not all) of the ambient light that will alter 

your readings. I specialize in outdoor portraiture, and was amazed at the difference in meter readings 

when I learned this. For me, it was a good two to three stop difference. You may try and get other 

results, but this is what I have found to be more effective. Jeremy Hall 

-- Jeremy Hall, April 17, 2002 

I'm a first year photo major, and I've been shooting for no more then two years. With that background in 

mind, I found the Minolta Flashmeter-IV to be totally self explanitory (contrary to the opinion of the 

author, who found it to be muddled and confusing). It doesn't have too many buttons, and even without 

the user's manual I was able utilize most of its functions. 

-- Tom Eldred, October 17, 2002 



my favorite is the one with the really bad lighting... oops, that doesn't narrow it down. The one with the 

guy on his toes. You just do not see enough photos with the background stand in the actual frame. LOL. 

As if the shadow of the man on the un-lighted backgound isn't original enough for a studio shot! lol 

-- robert barzilla, February 15, 2003 

That's a bit of a stick to White Lightning, and an unfair one. While some of their claims may seem a bit 

ridiculous, I've compared my WL 600 (300 ws) to my Balcar Monohead (300 ws) and I do get about a 

solid stop and a half more output from the White Lightning. Also, the White Lightning is far more 

reliable. 

As far as pack vs mono... there are advantage and disadvantage to each. I say take advantage of both, 

and mix up what you have. I own Balcar mount monoblocks/ heads, then I also use Speedotron 

Brownline as well. I have the advantage of the rock solid base of Speedotron and the finesse of the 

monos, along with being able to use accesories that are unique to each. 

Favorite for the Speedotron: their version of the Mola reflector (22" Grid Reflector; super beauty light). 

Add the grid attachment with the Light Sock diffuser and you have an amazing beauty light. It's always a 

good idea to diffuse behind a grid for the main light. It softens the specular aspects of the effect and 

makes everyone look pretty amazing under it. Great for reproducing the "Hollywood Galmour" look. 

Don't forget your fill lights though! 

-- Jeremy du Brul, January 1, 2004 

Hi, 

I am a beginner and I like it that way. I enjoy reading and learning form Photo.net. I have a good 

workshop which I also use for photography. I take photos of violins, the ones I make. I use four lights 

each with 60w bulbs. I use a backdrop and dental floss to hang the violins on. I use a tripod with my 

camera and Tech-Pan. The results are predictable end good for my purposes. 

I think it all depends on what you want to shoot and why. 

Cheers. 

-- ben conover, May 31, 2005 

Related Links 

http://www.photo.net/studio/primer (16 of 17)7/3/2005 2:18:01 AM 

Add a comment


● Reflectors, Scrims, Gobos, Light,- CALIFORNIA SUNBOUNCE: the most sturdy collapsible 

reflector system is still verry lightweight (contributed by Geller Wolfgang Peter) 

● MSE (Matthew's Studio Equipment)- For light control equipment used by all the best "grips" in 

Hollywood. Primarily film making gear, but just as useful for still photographers. Includes 

Stands, Scrims, Gobos, etc. Built to last years of rough handling by tough guys with nicknames. 

Many items are less expensive (and better made) than their "photo" equivalents. (contributed by 

Matthew Kees) 

● Mole-Richardson- Hollywood lighting, includes HMI and Quartz lamps, stands,etc. Used by 

George Hurrell in many of his famous "glamour" portraits. Wide variety of lamps and prices -- 

"baby" size perfect for still photography. Used equipment available. (contributed by Matthew 

Kees) 

● George Hurrell- George Hurrell's vintage and contemporary portraiture and glamour photography 

of Hollywood stars. Hundreds of images by a master studio photographer. Other master 

photographers' work also featured. (contributed by Eric David) 

● Luca Patrone advertise Studio photography- Here you can find some example of creative studio 

shooting, expecially some shots with strong body-painting use, big banks for extreme-beauty, and 

trash - fashion. (contributed by luca patrone) 

Add a link 


permission. 




Sponsor: Camcorder HQ - Excellent reviews of camcorders 


photo.net 

Underwater Photography Primer 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 




Underwater photography combines the challenges of (1) trying to make an aesthetic statement that hasn't 

been made by thousands of photographers who've dedicated decades of their life to the craft, with (2) 

trying to stay alive. 

The easiest way 

Get into submarine. Get out camera. Point. Shoot. Here are some examples from my 800' dive in the 

Cayman Islands. 

The second easiest way 

http://www.photo.net/underwater/primer (1 of 23)7/3/2005 2:18:13 AM


Snorkeling is much simpler than SCUBA diving. The key to 

snorkeling is to remember that the human body will always float. It 

just doesn't float high enough that you can breathe easily. 

However, if you add a few inches of extension to your mouth, your 

natural floating position will be more than sufficient for breathing. 

You can thus stay in the water for 8 hours without exerting any 

energy and wait for interesting subjects to drift or swim 

underneath. 

If you're staying near the surface, you don't need a camera that can 

handle the pressure of deep water. There are some point-and-shoot 

cameras that have been augmented for snorkeling. My favorite is 

the Nikon Action Touch. It has a very high quality 35/2.8 lens and 

autofocus above water. Underwater, you set the subject distance 

with a convenient dial. There is a nice big switch that turns the 

built-in flash on or off. 

The Action Touch sold for about $150 in the late 1980s. Nikon 

took it off the market and since then there haven't been any cameras like it. Basically the Japanese have 

decided that nobody is intelligent enough to manually focus a camera. So all the cheap underwater 

cameras are fixed focus underwater and I don't think any have nearly as high quality a lens or metering 

system as the Nikon. I exposed quite a bit of Fuji Velvia (ISO 50 slide film) in the Action Touch. 

Oh yes, if you're going to do this these days, you should probably look for a used Action Touch at one of 

the photo.net recommended retailers and pick up some ISO 100 slide film for sunny days and ISO 400 

print film for cloudy days. Note that most underwater photographers use slide film despite its attendant 

narrow exposure tolerance. I think that is because prints can never convey the drama and brilliant colors 

of the underwater world. 

Here are some snapshots from my Action Touch: 



Note that the Action Touch ends up being a great camera for rafting, kayaking, heavy rain, or any other 

time when you need a high quality waterproof camera but don't need high pressure resistance. 

The bad thing about snorkeling is that nearly all of your photos will end up having a "looking down" 

perspective. Here are a couple from Hawaii (taken with the Nikonos V, described below): 

Some of the newer digital cameras are being marketed with accessory underwater housings. See the 

Canon S100 review and also look at the Sony DSC-P1. 

The hard way 



Strap some tanks on your back and dive. In theory, if you take your pathetic Action Touch with you it 

will be crushed by the water pressure. In practice, people say that Nikon overengineered the product so 

that it can withstand quite a bit more than its rated 10 feet of pressure. I wouldn't take it beyond 30 feet. 

The cheapest way to take pictures while SCUBA diving is by putting your standard camera into a plastic 

bag. A plastic bag?!? Not just any plastic bag. A thick German plastic bag made by ewa-marine with a 

metal screw-down zip-loc top. These ewa guys make plastic bags for cameras ranging from regular P&S 

to SLRs with various combinations of lenses and flashes. 

I have some ewa-marine bags. To my amazement, they do not leak. 

However, I've never been able to use them successfully. The last 

time I tried the ewa bag was on a liveaboard trip to the Great 

Barrier Reef. I stuffed a Nikon 8008, SB-24 flash, and 60 macro 

lens into the bag. As soon as I got to about 30 feet underwater, the 

bag was pressing up against the camera to the point that the 

controls were inoperable. The AF drive wasn't strong enough to 

rack the lens out against the pressure of the bag. I got a few 

snapshots but they were mostly pathetic in quality. Oh yes, with 

my 20mm lens there was pronounced vignetting from the housing (example at right). 

Now that we're deep 

Oh yes, now that we're deep underwater, let's talk about 

fundamentals rather than gear for a moment. One fundamental fact 

is that water magnifies. Thus you end up needing a wider angle 

lens than you thought. A 20mm lens is not especially wide for 

underwater use. 

If you have a longer lens, why not just back up? The problem with 

backing up underwater is that water tends to absorb red and yellow 

light. The more water between your subject and your lens, the 

bluer your subject will be. If your light source is on your camera (i.e., if you are using a flash), every 

extra foot of water between you and your subject addings two feet worth of bluing (one as the light goes 

from the flash to the subject and one on the way back to the lens). 

Underwater photographers are thus very fond of very wide lenses and very powerful flashes. 

Back to the Gear 



If we don't like the plastic bag idea, what about sticking a rigid plastic housing 

around a standard camera? This works and is in fact what most professional 

underwater photographers use. The oldest and most popular brand of 

underwater housing is Ikelite. The big New York shops on my list of camera 

retailers will carry them (also the ewa bags). 

I haven't personally played with housed SLRs so I'll move on to something 

that I have tried: real cameras that are inherently waterproof and pressure 

resistant. 

The most popular example of this idea is the Nikonos V. This is a rugged little 

rubber-coated body that takes interchangeable lenses in 15, 20, 28, 35 

(standard lens; works above water too), and 80mm lengths. The camera gives 

you aperture-priority or manual exposure control with center-weighted TTL metering. Optics and image 

quality are excellent. It is a real camera that you can take into the shower. 

I hate the Nikonos V. 

Why? To focus, you flip the camera over and stare at the front. Then you turn a dial until the correct 

distance is indicated. Then you flip the camera back over and take your picture. 

Nikon fixed all of this with their Nikonos RS SLR, introduced with great fanfare in 1992. From the 

feature list, it looked basically like a water- and pressure-proof Nikon land SLR. Everything was 

automatic if you wanted it to be, the viewfinder offered super high eye relief (since the user was 

presumed to be wearing a SCUBA mask). There was an amazing 20-35 zoom lens and a tempting macro 

lens. 

Warts? The Nikonos RS was staggeringly priced (almost $10,000 for a system). The camera would flood 

and require expensive repairs, which Nikon invariably blamed on user carelessness (though these same 

people had been using the Nikonos V for many years with no problems). I talked to a guy who sold his 

and what he hated was the lack of neutral buoyancy: "I would hand the camera to my wife and then have 

to adjust my BC; I don't want a camera that becomes part of my weight system." 



Nikon discontinued the RS system in 1996. 

Nikonos V Gallery 

Here are some snapshots that I took above and below the water in Hawaii with a Nikonos V and the 

standard 35mm lens. 



Is it all worth it? 

One of the best moments of my life was snorkeling in Kealakekua 

Bay on the Big Island of Hawaii (this is where Captain Cook was 

worshipped as a God and then subsequently stabbed to death by 

Hawaiians (1779)). I was about 1/2-mile out in the bay, drifting 

and look down at three reef sharks (about six feet long). They 

swam off suddenly and I looked up to see that a school of dolphins, 

perhaps 60 in number, had entered the bay. They were 200 yards 

from me and I started swimming toward them. By the time I'd 

moved 10 yards, the school was all the way down at the other end 

of the bay (1/2 mile in the distance). 

I gave up. 



To my immense joy, the dolphins started coming back in my direction. They were heading straight 

toward me, occasionally one would leap but mostly I just saw 20 dorsal fins out of the water at a time 

(the other dolphins swimming underneath). My joy eventually turned to fear when I thought that perhaps 

a direct encounter with 60 bottle-nosed animals traveling at 30 miles-per-hour would not be pleasant. At 

the last minute, when the dolphins were no more than 15 feet from me, they dove about 10 feet 

underwater and swam directly underneath me. Some of them rolled on their sides to get a better look up 

at me. I snapped their picture with a Nikonos V. 

When I got the images back, I found that the dolphins were only faintly visible on film. My eyes had 

adjusted to the blue light but the film did not. The contrast between dolphin and water, dramatic to my 

eye, was very subtle. 

(Thanks to Kathy Bauer and her crew at Advanced Digital Imaging for pulling out the image on these 

PhotoCD scans.) 

My decision 

Actually I've decided that it isn't worth it, at least most of the time. I have enough trouble taking decent 

photos on land and enough trouble getting back to the boat or beach alive (I'm a novice SCUBA diver). 

The work of photographers like Christopher Newbert (Within a Rainbowed Sea) is so good that I know 

I'll never approach it (leaving aside issues of natural talent, I know that I'm not going to go into the water 

every day for ten years as he did). So I enjoy the underwater scene while I'm privileged to be on vacation 

and underwater. Not every activity has to be productive. 



More 

● fun with decompression illness 

● Q&A forum threads on this subject 

● Camera Tech, a San Francisco shop specializing in underwater photography 

● ewa-marine, German plastic bags 

● Ikelite, makers of SLR housings 

● Subal USA, importers of Austrian SLR housings 

Underwater photography is an equipment-intensive endeavor. If you need to add to your 

armamentarium, check out the photo.net recommended retailers. 

Text and images copyright 1991-1998 Philip Greenspun. 

philg@mit.edu 


At last! A page on u/w photography! It is interesting to see a 99 and 44/100 percent land photographer's 

view on this subject. 

The fact of the matter remains that the lens is the most important part of u/w photography. The Nikonos 

V is a good camera, but with the standard 35mm lens it is useless. A good lens (at around $1600) is the 

15mm wide angle. 

If you are serious about getting good photos u/w, you will need a housed system. Yes, a Nikon F90s/ 

N90x with an Ikelite/Subal/Nexus/or one of the many other housing manufacturers. This is a clear cut 

situation where yes, Nikon wins over Canon, although in Japan there are many housings for the Rebel G 

(New Kiss) body. 

Whereas all the serious land photographers are arguing about ballheads for their tripods, u/w 

photographers are debating the merits of synch cords for their strobes and dome ports for the housings. 

Come over to the uw-photo mailing list to see for yourself. 

For the casual photographer, the best solution seems to be the Ikelite Aquashot 3e housing which accepts 

the Fuji Endeavor APS camera. Dave Read has an excellent resource page at http://www.ph.utexas.edu/ 

~read/aquashot/aquashot.html and Ike of Ikelite frequently posts on uw-photo. His customer service is 

equalled by none. 



Most of us have enough problems with land photos as it is. My advice to would-be u/w photographers is 

this: Before you start trying to take photos underwater, make sure your buoyancy skills are near perfect. 

I have seen many divers crashing into the reef, destroying corals and trying to take photos while flailing 

around. Please become a good diver first before you start to compound the difficulty of your dives with 

carrying a camera around and trying to take pictures while hovering motionless over a reef. 

A good place to start would be by taking an introductory course such as the U/W photographer specialty 

or even a full week course on a liveaboard with a pro like Jim Church. 

See you all underwater. 

-- Matthew Endo, July 22, 1998 

As a novice diver I didn't find that staying alive (or even close to neutrally buoyant) was a big problem. 

However, I found that getting more than a few acceptable pictures per roll was one. In my case, I think it 

is because I was mostly trying to do wide-angle pics with a 15 lens on the Nikonos, and this is basically 

manual (the ttl didn't seem to expose properly a non-centered background) fill-in with part of the backlit 

(pictures taken looking down are usually less sucessful) subject at close-up distance. I am not sure this 

would be that easy even on the surface. Besides you have to estimate distances modified by water, orient 

the flash, and you can't pop out a flashmeter ! I am wondering if with a modern housed camera, af, and 

auto fill-in it is not much easier. 

-- Quang-Tuan Luong, September 7, 1998 

Let me suggest that UW Photography requires such anal attention to equipment that a good idea is to 

buy from someone who actually knows the equipment: ABSea Photo ocean@primenet.com Next to 

LAX. This is not like getting an N90 w/ a 180mm and SB24.B&H will not help you here. I'm not an 

owner nor related to him. 

-- Douglas Cummings, November 9, 1998 

I recently purchased a Minolta Vectis Zoom for kayaking. Sure it's a lot heavier than the disposables I've 

been using - it doesn't float so I can't just toss it to a friend - but I took it for granted that some genuine 

optics and a true zoom would improve my snapshots and maybe turn some into true photos. So far, I 

think the disposables actually have a slight edge in picture quality! 

-- Alon Coppens, November 20, 1998 

A quick hint for setting up a Nikonos....mount the lens upside down....then rather than having to flip the 

camera completely over to read the scale and set the distance you can just look down onto the top of the 

lens and set it.....saves a couple of seconds and is alot less distracting to the u/w life than waving you 

system around in front of them...tom 



-- Tom Skiba, February 26, 1999 

Underwater photography is completely different from land photography. There are no tripods (at least 

not usually), objects underwater are not where they appear to be or the size they appear to be, you work 

within limits of a tank of air and one roll of film per dive. To become proficient at underwater 

photography requires hundreds of underwater hours, good scuba skills, and usually a large investment in 

scuba trips, scuba gear, and photo gear. Avid underwater photographers usually start with a disposable 

camera or an inexpensive point and shoot of almost any variety - then they move up to either a Sea & 

Sea Motormarine or Nikonos V. The Nikonos V has for many years been the standard of the industry. 

Housed cameras are popular amoung serious photographers primarily because their close up and macro 

capabilities surpass the Nikonos V. I can't believe you could pooh pooh the Nikonos V simply because it 

has 'inconvenient controls'. With practice you learn to use them by feel, not by `flipping the camera 

over'. That camera is probably the standard of the indurstry and can do amazing things in the underwater 

environment. I am sure with time something higher tech will come along, but in the mean time, give the 

note to this camera that it deserves. I have seen many talented land photographers become talented 

underwater photographers in just a short period of time - once they master some basic scuba skills. The 

first choice of these individuals when they stop renting and start buying is almost always the Nikonos V. 

-- Elaine Jobin, June 5, 1999 

I've been a SCUBA instructor for just over 5 years now, diving for 9 years, while having an interest in 

photography all my life and I can tell you something about underwater photography -- it's not as easy as 

it looks. There are so many factors from natural light absorption, diffraction from particulate, lack of 

stability from current and not being able to rest on something without harming it (and possibly you!), 

restricted constraints from air to film on a given dive, and many more that a successful underwater 

photographer must overcome for just a few successful shots. 

One thing that I feel is crucial is the photographer's diving skills. He/she/they must be comfortable in the 

water under a variety of conditions and positions before they can distract themselves by taking pictures. 

It still amazes me how my air consumption skyrockets as I try to line up shots. The most important skill 

for any diver is buoyancy control -- the ability to comfortably hold his depth in the water at a given 

depth (while rising and sinking a few inches as breathing occurs). 

I've done most of my southern diving in areas of current, including Cozumel, where you very often you 

don't get a second shot of something as you drift. One trick I found useful while coasting across the 

bottom at about 3 or more knots is to preset your focusing distance before hand. As you drift, you may 

be lucky to come around a coral head to find a barracuda or something else worth taking a snap in the 

range you just set. Very often, one shot is all you ever get. If you do get the chance to stop or slow down 

for a few shots, by all means, take three but if the current is pulling you along so stopping will tire you 

or harm the coral, try pre-setting your camera. 



As for housing an AF for underwater photos, I don't believe that is possible due to light absorption 

properties of water. As reds and soon the yellows are absorbed in the first 5 to 10 feet of water, the 

camera's autofocus system will have difficulty focusing on anything. Even in macro ranges, there may 

not be enough light getting to the sensors to properly activate the AF system. Then, if the water is turbid, 

the AF gets even worse. Maybe someday 

Please remember -- don't touch the coral, they are macroscopic organisms -- even "lightly" with your 

finger is like you being "lightly touched" with by with the weight of a small house. 

-- Michael Donis, June 30, 1999 

I started serious photography under water, then moved topside. It's no easier dry. 

The Nikonos V ended up as my main tool, with a 20mm UW Nikkor as I couldn't afford the 15mm, 

together with Ikelite 150 on TTL. I also used an OM2 in Ikelite housing, though less successfully and it 

was bulkier. The Ikelite housings are less costly than the fancy ones and work well. 

Aquatica seems to make nice housings for Nikon / Canon -- if I were doing it over again, this plus a 

Nikon F3 with the big screen sportsfinder and 20mm lens would be a top choice. Forget AF as it is all 

wide angle or macro anyway, plus there are complex lighting problems as noted above. 

All this stuff will leak if you are not super careful about O-rings, maintenance, washing in fresh H20, 

etc. It is expensive or impossible to fix once flooded. Count on losing stuff to occasional disaster. 

Being a good diver with bouyancy control is very helpful. (Consider wearing wetsuit pants so your legs 

don't sink.) Gently lowering the whole camera rig off the side tethered to a line and picking it up after 

you enter the water is also handy, reverse the same procedure exiting the water. Just remember to haul it 

in after the dive ;-). 

-- Charles Mackay, September 11, 1999 

Underwater photography isn't for everyone. However, lots of people really enjoy it as a hobby, artform 

or profession. Other's couldn't be bothered with all the equipment hassles and would rather spend their 

time looking at cool stuff. Nothing wrong with that, but eventually somebody asks, after a dive trip, 

"what did you see?" and then there is no substitute for photography. A Nik5 and 35mm lens? Many 

outstanding images have been created with less than that. Of course, a wide lens has lots of advantages 

underwater. The depth of field is really useful with a manual focus camera and getting close to the 

subject often results in better color rendition since water absorbs red light so much more quickly than the 

rest of the spectrum. How about a disposable camera in a housing? Nothing wrong with that. The Fuji 

Endeavor in an Ikelite housing is a great tool for U/W, without taking a second mortgage out on the ol' 

homested. A housed SLR? Nice, flexible system. Autofocus. A parallax-free viewfinder. All kinds of 

lenses at a fraction of what the few available Nikonos lenses cost. Complex and bulky, but attractive 



nonetheless. 

-- Dan Carey, September 14, 1999 

There are basically only two types of underwater phtography worth investing time and money for. 

Firstly the amphibious camera of which only the Nikonos V and the sea and sea motor marine II 

approach giving acceptable results. The advantage or disadvantage is that both cameras are basically 

what you would call manual. You have to set the focus distance yourself, the aperture and onthe MMII 

the exposure. This is fine for those land based photographers who learned from the basics but not for 

those who jumped into the F5 arena and used P mode all the time (sad yuppies). Having said that the 

Nikonos V is the industry standard amphibious camera and NOTHING can beat its 15mm wide angle 

lens.(not even housed 15mm)However, macro shots with the Nik V are a bit of a pain as you can not tell 

if the subject is in focus or not. The next step is to use a housed SLR. Nikon dominates this arena 100 to 

1 at least! There are a number of manufacturers who do do housings for canon (INON, Sea and Sea) but 

these generally are for the cheap machines such as the Kiss (rebel i believe in the US) which doesn;t 

even have auto-focus tracking. Try photographing a darting clown fish without this feature! The best 

housings on the market are Nexus, Subal, Aquatica, Inon and Sea and Sea. Don't even think about using 

an Ikelite housing. Yes, they are very cheap but they are rubbish. I don't know anyone who is happy with 

them. Most people end up with rubber bands strategically placed because the shutter is so hard to 

control! My solution to the myriad of housings is to have a F90X with 105mm macro or 60mmmacro 

housed in a Sea and Sea housing with a Nik V screwed on top with a 15mm lens. Thus i can take macro 

and wide angle on the same dive. It works a treat! Hope this is of interest. 

-- Howie Wong, September 30, 1999 

Before considering what equipment to use, I would suggest getting an u/w photography course. My 

girlfriend finally followed my suggestion and took the Padi u/w course; the quality of her pictures has 

improved dramatically; she now understand better the limitations of her gear and might refrain from 

taking a pic if she knows it won't turn out OK. The 100$ cost of the course is a small investment, 

considering the cost of all the pics one has to throw out ... For myself, although being an avid topside 

wildlife amateur, I prefer to enjoy the dives without having to worry about handling the gear. Maybe one 

day ... 

-- Herman Hiel, October 14, 1999 

At a request of a photo.netter, here is the information for the underwater photo mailing list, uw-photo. 

Basically, to subscribe, you send an e-mail message to majordomo@world.std.com with "subscribe uwphoto" 

(no quotes) in the body of the message. 

Here is part of the welcome message from Ken Hancock, list administrator. I have snipped out the rest 

for brevity. 



UW-PHOTO is a mailing list devoted to discussing all aspects of underwater photography. Topics in 

UW-PHOTO can include equipment, video, schools, techniques, and even showing off. UW-PHOTO 

will become an archive for items related to underwater photography which will be accessible through 

UW-PHOTO, anonymous FTP, and the World-Wide-Web. 

Ken Hancock kenh@vgi.com 

-- Matthew Endo, November 8, 1999 

The Kodak one time use waterproof camera worked great on my scuba trip. We took the camera all the 

way down to 100 feet and it did not leak. However, it will not work below about 13 feet of water. It did 

not work when we were diving deep, but once after we went up about 13 feet it worked again. The 

camera is under twenty dollars. It's a very worthy investment on diving trips. 

-- Han Liu, April 16, 2000 

I just recently went on my first ocean dive (my forth open water dive ever) with an underwater camera, 

and I must first of all agree with the other comments that if you are new to diving you should wait until 

your buoyancy skills are under control before you take out a camera. I didn't do too badly, but the worst 

problem was a huge increase in air consumption that meant I was surfacing ten minutes before everyone 

else had to. The next few trips I take I'll stick to topside photos. 

However, I took an option that I have not seen mentioned here - I rented an underwater camera (in my 

case the Nikonos V). That's a wonderful choice if you just want to try underwater photography to see if 

you like it before you spend a LOT of money on equipment. In my case I didn't have many good pictures 

but I had a handful (out of seven rolls of film) that convinced me I will make the attempt again someday. 

You can rent cameras from just about any SCUBA shop, in my case it was about $100 for a ten day 

rental. 

I have to agree with Philip in disliking the Nikonos V for having to adjust the aperture on the front of the 

camera so the shot would be properly focused. I think that slight errors in this department ended up 

making a few shots that would have been really wonderful turn out slightly fuzzy and thus 

disappointing. If you do rent a camera, try and rent one with some sort of autofocusing! 

Also, be very attentive to the seals on the camera. I had no trouble with camera flooding over the course 

of four days diving, as I made sure to very carefully inspect and relubricate the o-rings on the camera 

every time I opened it up. It takes a lot of care to keep a camera healthy in deep water, so that might be 

something to think about before you buy or rent a camera - are you willing to put the kind of time you 

need to for proper equipment maintenance? 

-- Kendall Gelner, April 26, 2000 



Unfortunately, there is no perfect system for underwater photography. All have their positives and 

negatives. For more underwater images and trip reports involving underwater photography visit my 

website at http://www.underwaterphotos.com 

-- Steve Norvich, July 21, 2000 

HELLO UNDERWATER PHOTOGRAPHERS, 

I am quite sure that there are many ways to approach U/W photography and mine is but one. I have 

about 25 years experience with this and have recently made it my No. 1 professional pursuit. My work 

has been feted by Dr. Sylvia Earle and I have recently been awarded one of the Juror's awards in the 

prestigious Ellipse Gallery Photo Show in Arlington, VA. I believe that my success is based on several 

factors as listed below: 

1) Take lots of photos. Dive all day. dive into the night. Fight off that urge to quaff a beer when the sun 

sets and wait for the most spectacular creatures to emerge from their dens. Lighting is also easier after 

pesky surface light is gone. 

2) Dont give up. It takes a while to figure out what your doing. 

3) Always take a spare everything. U/W stuff breaks, leaks and corrodes. You will always need a backup 

especially if you are a long way from civilization. 

4) Go to the really great dive locations. Although this is an aspect of how much money you have, it 

really is worth it. Nothing is more boring than a picture of a rock. 

Happy hunting 

Billy Reese 

email:whalestail@hotmail.com 

703/535-7878 

Image:IMG0015.gif 

-- william Reese, October 4, 2000 

I read this page about two years ago for the first time, having forver been excited by the possibility of 

taking photographs underwater. If there is anything I could offer to supplement this, I'd say that 



everyone has their preferences and their pocketbooks. I settled for an Ikelite underwater camera housing 

w/100a substrobe. I took it underwater for the first time in Tulamben, Bali, Indonesia. The visibility was 

poor, and there was a rough surge on the black stone beach. I loaded two rolls of E100VS, one roll of 

Ektapress, one roll of Ilford Delta 400, and one roll of EBX100 on our four dives and one snorkelling 

excursion. I maxed out at around 100 feet off of the wall, did the wreck in the day and at night, and 

thoroughly enjoyed the entire experience. The manual control I had and versitality of the lenses and 

filters of a full-range SLR system, made the N70 and ikelite housing the perfect choice. I used a sigma 

zoom 28-80mm with +4 filter and sigma 80mm 1:2 macro with +7 filter. After I got the hang of the 

system, positioning of the strobe, and boyouncy control (the housing is already nearly neutral so not 

much problem there), I let loose. The only real problems I encountered were with exiting the water on 

the night dive onto the beach over the stone beach, in the surge. The housing and strobe are large enough 

that they throw you off balance out of water. I managed to thoroughly slice up my legs and arms, and get 

a nasty gash accorss my stobe. Luckily the thing is built like a tank and it still works perfectly. I got my 

slides and prints developed the next week. I was very happy with the results. Follow URL to photo from 

first dive. I got some more successful ones later, and am ever improving with time, but I figure this is a 

pretty good score for a first camera/dive. 

URL:http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=82739 

It's a bad scan, the actual image is sharper than it appears here. 

Anyway, thanks Phil, and always take size and weight out of water into consideration. The nikonos sure 

wins over there, though I'd still stick with a housing aby day. 

-- Karsten Moran, November 5, 2000 

I've been into photography for 22 years, diving for around 18 years and into underwater photography for 

the last 4 years. I was happy with F stops and shutter speeds and totally at ease underwater. Underwater 

photography was going to be a breeze. Image my surprise when my bouyancy control went to pieces and 

my air consumption doubled. After a couple of dives I started to relax and now I feel uncomfortable 

diving without a camera. 

I started with a Nik V and it is a great camera but it does require extension tubes , a close up kit or a 

wide angle lens to get the best out of it. With macro kit focus is fixed and set before you get in the water, 

you can pre aim the strobe as well. This is definitely the best way to get some good shots in the bag 

when you are first starting out. The disadvantage is that you use a framer, a set of goal posts that your 

subject has to sit in. Most fish are just not happy with this set up. With a wide angle lens lighting is 

much more difficult but the depth of field is huge so again accurate focussing isn't a huge problem. 

I've now moved on to a Nikon F60 in an Ikelite housing. I've seen it suggested in this forum that AF will 

not work underwater. Sorry but it works a treat on most subjects. It does struggle with low contrast 

subjects in murky waters but even here in the UK it's rare that I can't get it to focus. I've also read a post 



that states that the Ike housing is no good. I have to disagree. I'm sure it's not the slickest housing to use 

but it does the job. The shutter release is spot on and the ports are as good as any others I've seen. I'm 

quite pleased to have saved money on the housing to spend on extra ports and lenses. 

How does the housed camera compare to the trusty Nik V. For macro work it's superb. I am not stuck 

with one magnification, selected before getting in the water and I've no framer to scare the fish. For wide 

angle it's closer to call but through the lens viewing wins the day in my book. You also have the 

capability to use zoom lenses with the housed camera. 

-- Ken Byrne, November 22, 2000 

I just wanted to give my 2 cents worth about a previous equipment comment (you all have covered the 

bigger issues very well!). A previous comment about autofocus systems within a housing just isn't true. 

Autofocus works extremely well underwater. Color absorption has nothing to do with the autofocus 

system, it focuses based on contrast. I've been doing u/w photography for about 8 years and have had a 

housing for my N90s for 3+years. The only time I've had problems with the autofocus was when it was 

just too dark (can and does happen on dry land) AND I did not have my spotting light mounted on my 

housing. The spotting light is a flashlight which allows you to see your subject in less than ideal lighting 

conditions and also provides enough light for autofocus to work. At night I use it as my dive light. 

During daylight hours I estimate that I've had to use the spotting light maybe 5% of the time. 

Just wanted to clear this up. 

-- Ken Aaron, January 14, 2001 

A few points that haven't yet been covered, or could use some clarification: 

Housed Cameras: Focusing a housed camera is completely different depending on whether you are using 

a dome port or a flat port. A flat port reduces the included angle of the lens, but focuses just like a 

regular lens. A 35mm lens is more or less equivalent to a 50, etc. Most u/w photographers use a flat port 

ONLY for macro work. A dome port, on the other hand, does not affect the included angle of the lens, i. 

e. a 20mm lens under a dome port covers the same 94 degrees or whatever that it does on land. 

HOWEVER, the lens focuses not on the subject, but on a "virtual image" projected on the dome port. 

The virtual image is much closer than the real image, so you are using the close focusing capabilities of 

the lens even if the subject is a hundred feet away (not that you are likely to get a picture at that distance 

anyway). So, to use a dome port you need a lens with excellent close focusing capabilities, or a screw-in 

closeup lens, or an extension tube. Many underwater photographers like the 24mm Nikkor because of its 

excellent sharpness at extremely close focus. BTW, depth of field is very high with a dome port, you 

hardly ever have to refocus the virtual image. I used to use a 24mm on a Nikon FE inside an old 

compact Tussey housing and was quite pleased with the handling and the results. 

Strobes and backscatter: Perhaps the biggest problem in using a strobe underwater is backscatter, the 



reflection of light off tiny particles suspended in the water. This problem is at its worst if the axis of the 

strobe is close to the lens, just like redeye above water. The solution is to move the strobe at least two 

feet from the axis of the lens and at a fairly sharp angle, e.g. aiming down and from the side at the 

subject. This is why advanced u/w photographers are seen with rigs that look like a spider crab. Some 

photographers don't even bother attaching the strobe to the camera (except for the synch cable). They 

just handhold the strobe on a long arm. 

This is getting long, I think I will cover a couple of other issues in another post. 


A few points on the Nikonos: 

You don't need a housing to get professional results. Lots of pros use the Nikonos for most of their 

underwater shooting. The 20mm lens will get you lots of good wideangle shots. The 15 is better, but if 

you can't afford it, don't sweat it. The 28 is useful for longer shots of medium-sized fish. Forget the 

35mm lens except with the closeup kit or macro tubes. It is, however, handy for rafting, kayaking, 

skiing, etc. There is also an above-water-only 28mm that is no longer made. The Nikonos shines for 

macro and closeup work where you can set up a fixed focus, aperture, and strobe power. 

Models of the Nikonos: 

Nikonos V: This is the current model. Having been around since the 1980's, it is the only Nikonos many 

newer divers and photographers have ever seen. It is not, however, the only option. 

Advantages: Auto exposure. TTL flash. Bigger viewfinder than older models. Better sealing than the 

Nikonos IV (but not as good as the Nikonos III). Slightly faster flash synch speed than Nikonos III. 

Conventional loading and handling, i.e. you don't have to take it apart to load it. 

Disadvantages: If it leaks, you have a very expensive paperweight - and every underwater photographer 

floods a camera sooner or later. Most flooded Nikonos V's blow out the electronics beyond repair. I got 

a couple of milliliters of water in one once and it was gone. Nikonos guru Bob Warkentin makes desk 

pen sets out of flooded Nikonos V's - and he makes a lot of them. Another minor disadvantage is that 

you can't mount the old version of the 15mm on a Nikonos V - the rear element interferes with the TTL 

exposure sensor. This really isn't much of an issue anymore - if you're enough of a dinosaur to use an 

old-style 15, you've probably got several Nikonos III bodies to put it on! 

Nikonos IV: A transitional model, with flip-open back, autoexposure, no manual shutter speeds, and no 

TTL flash. I cannot imagine why anyone would use this POS except for snorkeling. The sealing is 

terrible - in an effort to make it easier to load than the early versions, Nikon used a gasket on the back 

rather than a true compression-type O-ring seal. It is flood-prone, and of course a flood will fry the 

electronics just like a V. The SB-101 autoflash, an underpowered unit with an external sensor, is if 



anything even more useless than the camera. This is the Nikkorex of underwater cameras. 

Nikonos III: I own six of them, vs. one Nikonos V, so that tells you my opinion. This ancient mariner is 

all mechanical, all manual and built like a tank. It demands operator skill, not least to load it since you 

have to take it apart in three pieces. If it is properly maintained and inspected it is the least likely of ALL 

underwater cameras to flood, and even more important, you can recover from a flood in the field! I once 

flooded a Nikonos III on an exploratory expedition aboard the old Pacific Nomad in an obscure part of 

Fiji. I took it apart, cleaned off the back of the lens, and put the rest of the camera in a bucket of clean 

fresh water. Then I went diving with my other camera. When I got back from the next dive, I took it out 

of the water, blew it out with an air hose, and put it in the engine room overnight so the heat would dry it 

out. The next morning I loaded it with film and went diving. It stayed dry and functional for the rest of 

the trip. I sent it in for overhaul after the trip; I still have the camera and it still works. Try that with your 

auto-everything wonder! 

The Nikonos III has a few disadvantages: It's really old, so service can be an issue. The combined film 

advance/shutter release takes some getting used to. The tiny viewfinder is useless underwater; you need 

an accessory finder. You need to get an accessory external meter (expensive) if you want to take pictures 

with available light. And, of course, being all-manual it is slow to change settings if you suddenly get a 

photo opportunity that you aren't set up for. The Nikonos III works best with a tray and strobe arm that 

is set up for the camera and its ancillary meter, add-on trigger, etc. and these old setups can be hard to 

find in decent condition. Nonetheless, it remains my go-everywhere and do-everything camera. 

Nikonos II: There aren't all that many of these left in service. It is similar to the III, but the wind 

mechanism isn't as strong and there are a couple of other disadvantages. I wouldn't bother; they aren't 

any cheaper than a III and offer no advantage. 

One last point on the Nikonos: there is really only one place to get it serviced. Bob Warkentin in Texas 

is the master. Nikon USA has a rotten reputation among u/w photographers for slow service and high 

prices. There is also a lot of buzz that the warranty on a Nikonos doesn't mean much. I personally would 

never send a Nikonos to Nikon for any reason except a recall (that reminds me, the SB-103 strobes are 

subject to a safety-related recall). I have ALWAYS gotten my Nikonos work done by Warkentin and it 

was always first rate, on time, and reasonably priced. 


Not everyone floats so you may want to check on this before you do something stupid. 

-- Aaron Taylor, January 23, 2002 

There's a 3rd option: Freediving. I moved from scuba to freediving several years ago and have not 

regretted it. I have an underwater web page off of each of my Bonaire and Anguilla web sites: www.jonz. 

net/Bonaire/ , and www.jonz.net/Anguilla/ . Both sites are a little "long in the tooth" and require updates 



from numerous visits to these islands since the web sites were first thrown up. 'Til now I've been using 

an Ikelite AuquaShot housing that uses Fuji (and Kodak) disposable flash cameras. Results are decent -- 

certainly `ok` for web publishing. I am now moving up to a Nikon Coolpix 2000 with (again) an Ikelite 

housing. We'll see how that turns out. 

-- Marvin Jones, May 29, 2003 

Rolleimarin with camera 

The Nikon Action Touch is mentioned in the discussion. I have one but have never heard it mentioned 

by anyone else. I do use it for wet and snow conditions, and as my standard Point and Shoot camers. It's 

also great for swimmming pool pictures. 

I have been a scuba diver since 1947 and have used several camera housings, the first of which I built 

myself, rated at 300' housing an Argus C4. 

My current housing, probably not known to most above-water photographers, is the cadillac of housings, 

the Rolliemarin IV, which is used with my Rolleiflex 3.5F. This housing has all the camera controls 

available to the diver and includes the ability to swing close-up lenses and filters into position 

underwater. 

Don Williams La Jolla, CA 

-- Don Williams, June 16, 2003 

My wife teaches marine science and needs a simple point-and-shoot camera suitable for wet 

environments. We have gone through about 8 different cameras: three minolta weathermatics (110 film), 

two minolta 35mm, two canon sure-shots, and a canon elf (aps). The minolta 35mm died way to soon 

from a leak as did one canon sure-shot. After two years of wrangling canon sent me a replacement. The 

Elf was good except I don't like aps film (expensive to process) and my wife got her finger in the image 

on half of the shots. It worked OK for me, however. It was pretty rugged; it survied having me dump an 

entire bushel of scallops on it as I emptied my catch bag into the wrong box, getting kicked around the 



floor of a boat, and other such modest abuse. Any such camera requires great care to be sure the seal is 

clean. You need to carry q-tips in your bag and use them between every film change. Avoid running 

them under the sink because the pressure is greater than that at 15 feet; just immerse them in a dishpan 

of clean water to rinse off salt water. 

If anyone knows of a good UW camera of this ilk, please advise! 

-- Robert Hall, July 4, 2003 

After years of SCUBA diving I concluded that u/w photography can produce interesting views of fish, 

coral and other unusual underwater creatures. However, the wonder of the underwater experience can 

seldom be captures on a still frame. Even the best u/w photographers rarely capture the experience. I 

think this is due to the limitations of the gear in the u/w environment. On the other hand, I found the u/w 

video is truly capable of conveying what the underwater world is about. For example, I have a 30 second 

video of an eagle ray dancing right in front of my video camera lens, I put it to music..... no way you can 

convey this with a still frame. I think that in the underwater medium, it is movement of the subjects that 

creates the image. 

-- Joseph Liftik, November 15, 2003 

Don't go out and buy U/W gear, rent it on location. I always rent and have no bother finding outlets 

where I can do this. In Hurghada there are 5 outlets, Sharm has 7 that I know of. Decent PADI 5* dive 

centres will most probably have kit to hire, if not at they will point you in the right direction. 

If after several dive trips (IMO it will take this many to become accustomed) you feel a need to mve 

forward in this area, then consider buying gear. I have shot images on over 50 dives now and I'm still 

ages from even considering buying my own kit. 

-- Paul Alford, February 11, 2004 

Related Links 

Add a comment 

● Utah Diving Pages Photo Clinic- One of the best tutorials I've found for underwater photography, 

from beginner to advanced. Highly recommended! (contributed by Ignacio Feito) 

● Jim Church Liveaboard Underwater Photo Courses- Jim teaches underwater photography while 

on a liveaboard, where you can focus all your efforts on getting great photos. It doesn't hurt that 

the liveaboards are all in world class dive spots, so you'll have an abundance of photographic 

subjects. (contributed by Matthew Endo) 



● Light-Under\Water: B&W u/w photography by Marcelo Mammana- Bilingual website on black 

and white underwater photography by photographer and designer Marcelo Mammana. It 

currently features two galleries: "Wrecks" and "Scenes & Portraits". An online magazine with 

articles on u/w photography and dive travel started in December 2000, and is updated on a 

monthly basis. Free photos to be used as wallpaper are also available. (contributed by Marcelo 

Mammana) 

● Underwater Photography by David Glennie- Australian photographer David Glennie takes us 

through his journeys to Kimbe Bay, Papua New Guinea and The Great Barrier Reef with words 

and pictures. (contributed by Morgen Brown) 

● UW Photo in Palau with Nikon Coolpix 990- Approx. 300 photos taken in Palau with a Nikon 

Coolpix 990 and an Ikelite housing. Also includes a journal, usage tips, etc... (contributed by Eric 

Cheng) 

● Underwater Photography by James Lee - Deepscape Photography- Underwater photographs of 

shipwrecks, marine life, coral and artificial reefs from around the world. Red Sea, New England 

Shipwrecks, Truk Lagoon, Little Cayman and Bikini Atoll. (contributed by Jan Allinder) 

● Zena Holloway - Underwater Photography- Site showcasing works by one of the UK's leading 

underwater photographers. (contributed by Ian W.) 

● Underwater Fetish Fotography- Making Of of the Underwater BD Shots of Sir X in the red sea in 

Egypt. (contributed by Oliver Jörns) 

● In Depth Photography by John Chandler- A "world apart!" John Chandler's on line gallery 

documenting his Underwater Photography and diving expeditions world-wide. (contributed by 

John Chandler) 

● Marine Photos, Articles, and trip reports- Includes many under water images from various exotic 

locations around the world along with trip reports from the viewpoint of an underwater 

photographer. Provides articles with useful tips on macro and wide angle photography as well as 

interesting marine life behaviors. (contributed by Steve Norvich) 

● Wetpixel.com- News, Reviews, and Forums for Underwater Digital Photography (contributed by 

Eric Cheng) 

● Eric Cheng's Underwater Photography- Underwater images taken with a Canon D60 Digital 

SLR (contributed by Eric Cheng) 



● MVPix.com: Underwater and travel photographs- scuba divers, corals, fish, sponges, other sea 

creatures, cityscapes, landscapes, animals, people from the travel destinations we have visited, 

and photographs from the Montreal area. (contributed by Jean-Sebastien Morisset) 

● www.UnderwaterPhotography.com- A very popular site devoted to underwater photography. It 

has a photo contest, forums, library, photo course - in fact everything you need to know about the 

subject. I like the digital zone best. (contributed by Austin Netherwood) 

● Sergey Parinov Underwater Photo Gallery- Collection of macro and wide-angle pictures made 

with Nikon film SLR and Nikonos V. (contributed by Sergey Parinov) 

Add a link 


permission. 




Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of Software 


photo.net 

Sports Photography -- Capturing the Fleeting Moment 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 

Sports Photography 

by Rob Miracle for photo.net. 

(punctuated by some photos by Philip 

Greenspun) 

We have all at one time or another been captivated by sports images. It may 

be Kirk Gibson’s World Series Homerun, and the image of him running the 

bases, overcoming the pain he was in or an image of high flying Michael 

Jordan slam dunking a basketball with his tongue out. We have all been 

captured in the moment of human drama. We all like a good action photo 

and, in particular, if your kids play sports, you want to remember them in 

their toils. 

Quality sports shots are somewhat difficult to come by. Most people have limited access to events to 

photograph them. The further away you are from the event, the harder it becomes to capture the event in 

a pleasing manner. Sports are an event where crowd control is important, not only for the crowd's safety, 

but for the players also. There is nothing more frightening than to be on the sidelines of a football game, 

focused on a play in the field, when out of the blue a 250 pound line backer drives a player into your 

legs or a foul ball comes crashing at your $8,000 lens! 

Location, Location, Location! 

http://www.photo.net/sports/overview (1 of 21)7/3/2005 2:18:22 AM


You can only photograph things you can see. The closer you are to someone, 

the better you can see them. Sports are no different. You have to get as close 

to what you are shooting as you can. Typically, for a photographer with a 

press pass, you can get to the sidelines or other similar locations. You 

generally will not be permitted on the playing field. Depending on the sport, 

you most likely will be limited to designated locations. For instance, at most 

Division I football games, the media cannot shoot between the two 35 yard 

markers. For most people, the situation is even worse. You probably don’t 

have press access and are stuck in the stands for your shots. Get as close a 

possible. Even if you make it to the sidelines, you will be jostling for space 

with many other photographers, both still and video who have worked hard to 

get there and have the same job to do that you have. 

You also have to be familiar with the sport to be able to capture the moment. This means knowing where 

to position yourself for the best action. This is critical because of angular momentum that will be 

discussed in the section on freezing action. Not only does it matter with the subject, but the background. 

Look at what is going to be behind your subject. While we will try to minimize the impact that a 

background has, it will still be unavoidable. So you need to position your self where the background is 

the most pleasing. 

The Decisive Moment 

Sports and Action photography is all about timing. Its about reacting. Its about 

being in the right place at the right time and its about execute. These are all 

qualities of the athlete and those of the photographer as well. Each sport has 

predictable and unpredictable moments. Under "Knowing your Sport", you 

will learn about these moments for individual sports. For instance, in 

basketball, you will have opportunities to photograph layups, jump shots, free 

throws, etc. Understanding the timing of these predictable actions allows you 

to capture the peak moment, when the action is most dramatic. 

By knowing these moments you can anticipate the action. This helps in two 

ways, one it helps you with focus which will be discussed in a later segment, 

and secondly it helps you snap the shutter at the right time. The saying goes 

"If you see the action you missed it." This basically means if you wait for the 

soccer player to head the ball then press the shutter release, the ball most likely will be sailing out of the 

frame. You have to push the button before the action so that the mirror has time to flip out of the way 

and the shutter open and close. There is a delay between the image hitting your optical nerve and the 

shutter closing. You have to, through experience, learn what that time is and adjust for it. 

Required Equipment 



Most sports are shot on 35mm cameras because of their portability. While 

some photographers have captured great sports moments with other format 

cameras, we will concentrate our efforts on the 35mm arena which is the most 

commonly used gear. 

"Its not the equipment but the photographer who makes the picture" is 

generally a true statement. However with sports and action photography, 

having the wrong equipment means not getting the shots you want or need. 

This relates back to the section on location. The further away, the longer the 

lens is needed to capture the same image in the frame. Different sports require 

different lens lengths. For instance, basketball is generally shot from the 

baseline or sideline near the baseline. You generally can get good results with 

an 85mm lens in this situation. However, by the time the players are at mid 

court, you need a 135mm to capture them. If they are playing under the far goal, a 200-300mm lens is 

needed to fill the frame well, yet for shooting a soccer game, a 300-400mm lens is needed for just about 

anything useful. 

Generally, for a 35mm camera, each 100mm in lens focal length gets you about 10 yards (9 meters) in 

coverage. This coverage means that on a vertical format photo, a normal human will fill the frame fairly 

well. Thus, if you are shooting American Football from the 30 yard line with a 300mm lens, you will be 

able to get tight shots in an arc from the goal line to mid-field to the other 40 yard marker. As players get 

closer, your lens may be too long. Many photographers will carry two bodies with two different length 

lenses for this reason. 

Lens speed is also a critical factor. The faster the lens, the faster the shutter speed you can use, which as 

the lens grows longer, this becomes even more important. This will be covered in the freezing action 

section in more depth. If you look at the sidelines of any Division 1 college football game or an NFL 

football game, you will see people with really big lenses. These range from 300mm to 600mm or longer 

and even then, they may have a 1.4X converter or 2X converter on. You need fast shutter speeds to 

freeze action with long lenses. Every F Stop you give up requires a faster film or less freezing potential. 

Most consumer grade long lenses and zooms have variable apertures, but most are F5.6 at the long end 

of the lens. F5.6 is good for outdoor day time shots, but becomes very inhibiting for night games and 

indoor action. Most people use lenses that are F2.8 or faster. These lenses are very expensive. A 400mm 

F2.8 sells for over $8000 US. They are also very heavy and bulky. Using a monopod is a life saver with 

these big lenses. 



Besides these long lenses, you need a camera that can drive them. 

Today, most new cameras are auto focus. Auto focus makes this 

easier on us, but the AF systems are not fool proof. Luckily, many 

sports lend them selves well to manual focus, so sometimes you 

can get a bargain on a manual version of a lens to use on a manual 

camera and still get good photos. However AF comes in handy for 

a few sports. Hockey and Soccer involve many subject to camera 

distance changes. Motion is less predictable and these sports are 

some what harder to manual focus. Football, Basketball, and Baseball are quite easy to manual focus. 

You may also need a flash with a high output. I personally do not recommend a flash at any sporting 

event. I find the results unpleasing. However the new modern flash systems produce great results. Some 

sporting events like gymnastics and others are no-flash events. It is best to talk to an event official 

(referee, coach, etc.) before using your flash. Flashes will be covered more in the section on lighting. 

Other equipment which can come in handy are remote triggers. These allow you to mount a camera 

where you cannot be during the game and remotely triggering it, recovering it after the event. Basketball 

and Horse Racing are two good examples of sports where great photos come from someone who never 

sees the viewfinder while they are shooting. Pictures of NBA stars slam dunking the basketball taken 

above the rim or the winner of the horse race thundering by are done remotely. 

[Editor's note: Among digital cameras available in April 2001, the most suitable cheap camera is the 

Olympus E-10. A working sports photographer would use a Nikon D1, Canon D30, or one of the Kodak/ 

Nikon or Kodak/Canon professional bodies. Where to buy all of this exotic stuff? Your neighborhood 

camera shop won't have it. Check out the photo.net recommended retailers.] 

Depth of Field -- Isolating the subject. 

Most all dramatic sports photos are shot with the lens wide open or one stop from wide open. This is 

done for two reasons. First you need all the shutter speed you can get, which means shooting wide open, 

but just as important, it has to do with isolating the subject. As the aperture on a lens opens up, less and 

less of the photo is in focus. The longer the lens, the more dramatic the change. The larger the distance 

between the subject and the background the more out of focus the background will come. If you use a 

long lens and a fast aperture, then your subject will stand out and the background elements will have less 

impact on your photo. 

Reducing background noise is an important goal in many photographs, sports action or not. In studio or 

landscape settings, you have time to control the elements that make up the picture. Action photography 

is a "grab it now" type of shooting and you live with the background that is there. If you open up the lens 

to its maximum, you will find your subjects standing out and becoming memorable. 



When you are shooting sports, in particular football and soccer, keep in mind that plays shot on the far 

side of the field are closer to the background than shots on the near side of the field. Thus if you are 

shooting a soccer player moving the ball down field and the player passes in front of the bench when 

you snap the shot, you will have a very distracting background. It may be hard to separate the player and 

ball from the background noise. Fences, signs, poles, bleachers, stands, and people on the far sideline 

can really mess up a good shot. Even though you might be shooting wide open, the background will be 

too prominent in these shots. Should they be avoided? If you have better shots, don’t use it. However, it 

may be your best shot. Shoot it, just be aware that distracting backgrounds are more problematic on 

shots on the far side of the field. 

Focus 

An out of focus shot is pretty useless. There isn’t much you can do with them other than throw them 

away. So achieving crisp focus should be a goal of every one. Today’s AF cameras do a very good job 

of focusing, and focusing quickly. AF has really made a lot of photographers lazy. I used to manual 

focus everything, but now that I have an AF system with AF lenses, I let it do my work for me. 

However, many times, manual focus works better. To understand this, you need to know how auto focus 

works. The camera takes a series of measurements across its AF sensors. It looks for contrasting lines. It 

moves the lens until these lines achieve the maximum sharpness. These sensors are located in the 

viewfinder of the camera. Different camera models have different sensor configurations and different 

capabilities. These sensors either are a simple spot meter in the center of the view finder. A line of three 

sensors that run across the viewfinder. Or a cross which run side to side and top to bottom. Generally, 

these sensors do not cover the full range of the view finder and your view finder will have markings 

showing where the AF sensors are. 

If you are following a football player as he runs down the side lines, or a horse as it heads over a water 

jump, you start by pointing the camera at the subject. If you have a spot AF sensor, you have to be dead 

on the subject or you will find a focused background and a blurry subject. Wide horizontal sensors will 

allow you to lead your subject a little bit or allow you to compose shots that are off center. However, 

when you turn the camera to shoot a vertically framed shot, your sensors now run up and down. There 

are two things to be aware of here. First the AF is now vertical, thus your subject now has to be in the 

middle of the frame again, just like the spot sensor. Depending on the AF sensors in your camera, they 

may not focus on horizontal lines as well as vertical and you may find the AF less than responsive. 

However, you are shooting vertical sports, like volleyball, shooting vertically works pretty well. 

Depending on your composition, many sports photos are shot vertically. Humans are vertical people and 

if you are trying to get a good shot of your favorite baseball player cranking a home run, you want to 

turn the camera to a vertical format. Luckily, baseball lends itself well to a small AF sensor for pitchers 

pitching and batters batting. 

Some of the high end cameras have a cross pattern of AF sensors and they are generally selectable. By 



using a sensor array in this format, you have good vertical and horizontal sensor patterns regardless of 

which way you hold the camera. 

For those times where AF isn’t working well, or if you have a manual focus camera, you need to 

understand how to focus. There are two primary means of focusing a camera: Follow focus and Zone 

Focus. Follow focus is where you keep your camera on your subject, rotating the focus collar attempting 

to keep the subject in focus. This works very well on side to side movement, where the camera to subject 

distance is not changing rapidly. You might use this method for football, auto racing, or other events 

where you turn side to side following the action. This requires practice to get down. A good way to 

practice is to go out to the street and follow focus cars as they drive past. 

The second method is called zone focus. Here you expect the action to take place at a particular place, at 

the goal mouth on a hockey rink, or at the jump point on a long jump event at a track meet. You can 

focus on the area you want to be sharp and when the subject moves into the zone, you then take the 

photo. This is timing related. You need to practice the timing on this as well, Both of these methods 

allowed photographers to capture fantastic photos before the invention of auto focus and will continue to 

into the future. Even if you have an AF system, you should learn to follow focus and zone focus because 

there may be times where your AF isn’t available (low light, low contrast situations for instance) and 

you need to be able to come back with the shot. 

Composition 

Faces 

"Give me faces" or "I want to see faces" is a common cry from the 

photo editor because that is the cry he gets from his bosses. The 

face is the primary source of emotion in a shot and that emotion is 

what makes or breaks a shot. Shots of the subjects backside just 

don’t cut it. Don’t waste the film on a back shot unless you can see 

part of their face. When shooting a sport you need to be aware of 

the players locations. For instance, in basketball, if shooting from a 

side line, you only shoot people taking jump shots from the top of 

the key around the backside away from you. Any one taking a 

jump shot on your side of the court will be a shot of their back side. If you can’t see their face, leave it 

on the cutting room floor. 

Some sports, faces are hard to deal with. Football, Hockey, and Baseball tend to be difficult to catch 

faces depending on the level of play. Youth hockey for instance involves face cages on the helmets. 

Football at all levels of play involve face cages. Baseball caps create harsh shadows across faces. The 

easy solution is to use a fill flash to try to get past these barriers, however, flashes are generally not 

friendly for sports due to limited range and the possible distraction. Still its best to get the cage in the 

shot because the face will show through better than the back of the helmet. 



Vertical/Horizontal 

There are two ways to hold a 35mm camera that effects the composition. This was discussed somewhat 

in the focus section regarding the AF sensors. You can hold the camera in the traditional way where the 

long side of the film is horizontal to the ground. This is a horizontal or landscape format. If you turn the 

camera so that the long side of the film is perpendicular to the ground, you are now shooting vertical or 

portrait format. 

Many modern cameras have an additional release that allows you to hold a camera in a traditional 

manner (left hand under the lens, right hand along the right side of the body) as opposed to the old way 

of shooting vertically (left hand under the lens, right hand on top of the camera since the camera was 

rotated 90 degrees left). These vertical releases have been a wonder for sports photography since it 

allows the camera to be held in a more stable fashion. 

Why would you want to do this? Think about the shape of humans. They are taller than they are wide. 

To fill the frame with a person playing a sport, they fit the frame better while holding the camera 

vertically. Even in a tight head shot, it fits better vertically. A lot of sports shots, in particular if it is of 

an individual is shot vertically. Horizontal shots are used more showing conflict. 

Individual vs. Conflict. 

The vertical vs. horizontal decision needs to be made based on 

your desired goal in capturing the scene. If you are highlighting an 

individual, you should shoot vertical. A majority of photo 

opportunities in basketball and baseball come from individual 

efforts. 

However, there are times where you want to show the conflict in 

the scene, for instance two hockey players fighting for a puck 

along the dasher boards, or a soccer player being pursued by the 

defense. To capture these multiple people, you typically will have to shoot horizontal. You should make 

a conscious decision before you fire the frame as to your goals in capturing the shot. 

Rule of Thirds 

There is a common photograph rule called "The Rule of Thirds", which says that if you divide the frame 

into a thirds vertically and horizontally and place the subject where the lines intersect, the resulting 

photo is more interesting. Camera manufacturers don’t believe in this because their AF sensors are 

centered in the camera. 

For Sports photography, following the Rule of Thirds in principle is a good idea. That is lead your 

subject into the frame. If you are shooting a football player running left to right, leave more room on the 

right side than the left to imply that he is going somewhere. Shooting the player leaving the frame is 

poor composition. If you are shooting a tight "portrait" style shot, have the subjects head on a "Rule of 

Thirds" line. If you fill the frame, you should be in pretty good shape, just leave some space on the 



frame in the direction the player is facing. 

Framing 

Depending on how you get your photo output, you should be aware that many cameras do not show the 

full frame. Because of this many labs "enlarge" standard prints to approximate what you see in your 

viewfinder. If your camera shows the full frame, like many high end cameras do, and you fill the frame 

with a person, the 4X6 coming from the lab will in all probably crop part of the frame in a way you do 

not like. I cannot count the number of times a soccer ball has been cropped out due to this enlarging 

factor. 

If you scan from the negative for your publication, you have more control in capturing the whole frame. 

Get to know your output methods, lab habits, etc. If you find you are loosing parts of your frame, don’t 

fill the frame as tight. 

Know your Sport, Know your Players 

Each sport is different in the techniques used to capture the moment. Each sport has a limited number of 

unique shots. You can only shoot so many basketball games before you start feeling like, "been there, 

done that". Each sport also has opportunities to get "safeties" . A safety is a shot that is easy to get and 

will give you something to publish if you fail to get good action. For instance, I was shooting a baseball 

game. In the visitors at bat in the second inning, the skies opened up and it started raining. I had time to 

shoot the home team in the field and at bat once. Realizing the pending weather, I concentrated on 

getting some simple usable shots instead of waiting on some excitement at a base, like a steal. Safeties 

include things like batters batting, pitchers pitching, basketball players shooting free throws, the 

quarterback under center. Take times when the action is slow to get some good tight shots to use in case 

no good action materializes. Shoot your safeties first, concentrate on action later. You always want to 

come back with something. 

Its also important to spend some time at an event and not rush the assignment. Many photographers are 

under intense deadlines and cannot devote enough time to their sporting events and it shows in their 

work. I expect one usable shot every 20 frames. I like to shoot at least 72 (2 -36’s) per event and I can 

come out with several usable shots and some fantastic ones. If you go to a soccer game and shoot a 12 

exposure roll, don’t expect much. 

Its very important to know the sport you are covering. You have to know the coach and their coaching 

style. You have to understand some basic fundementals of the game or you will become very frustrated. 

For instance, in football, if its 3rd down and 1 yard to go, don't expect a pass, but point the camera at the 

full back. In most likelyhood, he will be getting the ball, unless its late in the game and they have to 

pass. Or don't wait on a steal at 2nd base with 2 outs. Coaches hate making the last out of the inning on 

the base paths. 

You also need to know players and their habits. Some players are full of emotion and tend to display 



their pattened moves. For instance at a local high school girls soccer match, I got a dramatic sequence of 

a player doing a cartwheel throw in. I knew it was coming and I was prepared for her move when she 

got the ball. 

Knowing your sport goes beyond the rules and players. Know your coaches and what tends to make 

them emotional. Get fan shots or cheerleader shots with their emotion. A co-worker once told me "even 

a blind pig gets an acorn once in a while". Any photographer will eventually get the "action" shot, but 

sometimes you need that crying cheerleader after a loss, or fans in costumes going nuts to completely 

tell the story. The game goes beyond the boundries of the field and the rule book. 

Baseball 

Baseball is one of the hardest sports to shoot. The action is unpredictable. You wait and wait and then 

when you are half asleep, something happens. Much of the field is out of range of normal zoom and 

telephoto lenses. Depending on the level of your sport, you will need long lenses. For most regulation 

fields (90 feet between bases, 350+ feet to the wall), you need 400mm or longer if you are shooting from 

the dugouts. It lets you shoot all the infield positions reasonably tight from the dugout/press area. The 

near base can be gotten with a 200-300mm lens. If you are shooting little league, you can get away with 

a 200-300mm lens because of the smaller fields unless you are trying to catch the outfield. Night 

baseball is too poorly lit and you need professional long telephotos to capture good images here. 

Your safeties in baseball consist of the pitcher, throwing the ball, the batters batting, the catcher catching 

or getting a sign from the dugout. After these shots, the game becomes a little less predictable. When a 

batter hits the ball to an infielder, you have to find the play, aim the camera, focus, and fire. Generally its 

too late. What you have to do is kinda keep the camera pointed at the short stop or the second baseman. 

Keep the camera near your face, but you need to watch the play. In particular, if you are standing where 

you can see the batter's stomach, you are in risk of getting hit by a foul ball. If you see the batters back, 

you will rarely see a foul ball. Once you have an idea of where the play is going, you can adjust, focus 

and fire. If you are shooting from the first base dugout, 3rd and Short Stop should be about the same 

distance away, so you can zone focus here. Likewise, from the third base dugout, 2nd and 1st are about 

the same distance. 

Once runners get on base, spend a few batters focused on an open base in front of the runner. Thus if a 

runner is on first and no one is on second or third, there is a good chance for a play at second base. It 

could be a steal or a double play. If no one is on, concentrate on first base. If multiple people are on, 

concentrate on either the fielders or on home plate. You have to wait and be patient. Baseball games are 

long and you will opportunities. Make sure to get your safeties. If you get into a pitching dual, your 

safeties may only be shots of the pitchers. 

Basketball 

Unlike baseball, basketball is the easiest sport to shoot. Action is contained in a 100 foot x 50 foot area. 

There are two objects (the nets) where the action always heads. Basketball is a game of limited shots 

though. You can shoot jump shots, lay ups, free throws, blocks, dribbling, and defense. Zone focus 



works well in basketball. You know lay ups are going to happen close to the net, so focus on the net and 

wait on the action to come to you. Your focusing techniques will vary somewhat if you are on the side 

line or base line. If you are on the baseline, zone focus is the best method. If you are along the side, you 

can follow focus. Your safeties are free throws and players dribbling or looking to pass. At these times 

action is minimal and you can get some good tight shots of players. 

Basketball (and other gym sports) is probably the worst lighting situation you will get into, however, 

you can get away with much slower shutter speeds. When a player drives for a lay up or takes a jump 

shot, they almost pause at the top of their jump. This is the peak of the action and the shot should be 

taken then. Since they have stopped moving for a millisecond, that is the best time to freeze them. Once 

you have these shots under your belt, you can then start working on emotion shots, blocks, and other 

action which may not come along as often. 

Generally you can get away with anywhere between a 50mm and 135mm lens with 85-105 being 

optimal. This lets you cover out to about mid court. If you want to shoot shots under the far basket, you 

will need a longer lens. However a fast lens, like an 85mm F1.4 is an excellent choice for most of your 

basketball action shots. 

Football 

Football is also an easy sport to shoot but may be one of the most equipment intense sports. Most of the 

time, you will be shooting at night and fast glass is required. Motion is predictable and a student of the 

game can almost predict the plays to allow you to get ready. Knowing your sports allows you to know if 

its a passing situation or running situation so you know where to focus your attention. For instance, in a 

football game, if it is 3rd down with 1 yard to go, you can be pretty comfortable that a running play is 

coming. So get your lens pointed at the backfield and get ready. 

Football affords the fewest safeties. You can get the QB getting ready to pass or the coach on the side 

lines. However, the action shots are plenty. You will get opportunities to photograph the quarterback 

throwing the ball and running backs running the ball. Make sure you get these shots. Then you can go 

hunting pass plays to the receivers. 

If you have freedom of movement, you want to set up 5-10 yards down field from the play. That way 

you get the QB and running backs coming at you. If you are stuck in photo zones between the goal line 

and the 35 yard marker, you will be limited to shooting plays that occur in that area. Big glass is 

important to football. If you have freedom of movement, a 300mm F2.8 is the ideal lens. However if you 

are restricted, you either need a 2x on the 300mm or a 600mm to reach plays on the far end of the field. 

If you are patient or shooting youth league, you can get away with an 80-200 zoom. You will have to 

wait on more plays to come your way. You wont get much in the middle or far side of the field. 

Since football movement is up and down the field and most photographers shoot from a side line, 

football is a follow focus sport. It is a pretty easy sport to follow focus because the subject to camera 

distance changes constantly, so once you start focusing, you should be able to time your turning the 



focus ring with their movement. 

Soccer and Hockey 

Auto focus was invented with soccer and hockey in mind. These two sports 

involve rapid changes in direction. The subject to camera distance changes 

so fast, its hard to follow focus because in an instant, the play is heading 

another direction. Zone focusing is a bit more applicable, except there is no 

guarantee the play will enter your focus zone. AF solves this problem 

because it tracks the play better than you. These two sports alone are the 

reason I moved from manual cameras to auto focus. 

Soccer is a game where you need long lenses. Generally, you have good 

access to the side lines. At the major league and college level, there may be 

some limits, but they probably are not as tight as football because the number of players on the sidelines 

is much less. You will typically shoot from the touch (or side) lines, though you can get some real good 

shots from behind the net or along the goal line. The lens of choice for Soccer is a 400mm F2.8 or 

longer. Many pro soccer photographers will have two cameras. One with the long lens mounted and a 

second with an 80-200mm zoom. This gives me some flexibility in composition while giving me the 

length needed to capture this large field game. If play gets close, they can switch bodies and go to the 

shorter lens. 

Soccer is a good game to get some dynamic and exciting photos. Your safeties include players dribbling 

the ball and throw ins. Get these shots and then work on catching headers, traps, corner kicks, and goalie 

saves. Soccer headers require the most accurate guessing on timing. The ball will be out of the frame 

quickly. It takes a lot of practice to capture these. 

Hockey, while similar to soccer in its unpredictable movement, has an advantage of being played in a 

smaller contained area. An 80-200mm lens is good for shooting hockey regardless of where the play is. 

To get shots on the far end of the rink, up to 300mm may be needed. Hockey however has some quirks 

that you need to be aware of. Frequently you are limited to shooting through the glass which limits the 

angles you can shoot or through chain link fence for outdoor roller hockey. Some arenas you are limited 

to one location and have a small hole to shoot though and you most likely will be competing with other 

photographers for this real estate. 

The ice or deck wrecks havoc with your camera’s meter. You will need to overexpose by at least one 

stop in ice rinks to get white ice. This takes away from your available shutter speed. Your safeties 

includes faceoffs, and players skating with the puck/ball. Good shots can be had of the goalies, though 

many of your shots will be of players on the rink. 

Volleyball 

Volleyball is a rarely covered event, with beach volleyball getting more press than the traditional gym 

based variety. Volleyball can yield some rich, colorful and dramatic shots given the need and desire to 



take them. Your access in volleyball venues will vary drastically. For instance, during a high school 

game, you may be permitted to shoot along the sidelines, or not far behind the end lines. As the level of 

competition goes up, you will be moved further and further back. In beach volley ball, you probably will 

not be permitted in the sand pit at all. So pack a long lens and some sun block (for the beach game). 

Volleyball shots are tricky to use auto focus on. If you are shooting from behind the lines towards the 

net, the AF could trigger on the net, the back of the opposing players, the back wall, or just about any 

point in between. It is best to use a vertical sensor for this sport since people are going up and down and 

there is little side to side movement. For manual focus, you want to zone focus. From behind the end 

line, most all action at the net will be at the same distance from you, so focus on an area just a little 

behind the net and leave it there. 

For shots along the side lines, it is best to shoot at an angle to capture the faces. These are the best times 

to capture digs and diving players as you should have a fairly un-obscured view of all the players. 

Traditionally, volleyball follows the "Bump Set Spike" ritual. Learn who the diggers, setter, and hitters 

are. Then take your time working on a shot of the individual skill you want to capture. Your setter will 

be easy to track and get shots of. Digging is a bit tricky since it can come from any were on a given half 

of the court, be a low or high dig, involve a dive or other less than predictable motion. Hitters/blockers 

are fairly easy to capture since that area of play is somewhat limited. 

Your safeties are the player serving and the setters since they are fairly easy to capture. Next work on 

your hitters/blockers followed by digs. 

Golf 

Golf is a fairly easy game to shoot as far as action goes, but it is one of the toughest because of the 

nature of the game. That is you can get good action shots if you can get there at all. Consider the 

following. Golf is a long distance, one direction game. It is played over a course of thousands of yards in 

a some what straight path and it is played from hole to hole. Secondly, it is a quiet game where the 

slightest distraction is not allowed. Finally, for your safety, your access to swing areas is limited. 

The first problem is addressed by one of two methods. First, you can camp at one location, such as a tee 

box or a green on one hole and shoot multiple people as they pass you. Or alternatively, you can with the 

permission of the course, use a cart and follow individual golfers. Cart paths are narrow and heading 

against the grain is difficult. Ideally, you will learn the course and find a spot where you can shoot both 

green play and a tee box with minimal movement. 

Even at 400mm, you may not get close enough for good tight shots. Longer lenses are almost a must for 

capturing competitive golf. If you are shooting recreational golf, say your beer buddies, you can get 

closer and a lens in the 200mm range will suffice. Any focus method will work since the players are 

basically standing still. Golf, in particular at the pro level is very sound sensitive. Turn off the AF (you 

don't need it any way) and go to a slient manual focus. If you have silent AF lenses, such as the Canon 

USM or the Nikon AF-S lenses, then you can AF. Some events may require you to use a sound blimp 



around the camera if your shutter/motor are distracting to the golfers. 

There are a few main golf shots, in most all cases, they are individual shots. The primary action golf 

shots include a shot during the back-swing, a shot near impact of the ball, a shot after the follow-through 

with the golfer looking for the ball or any time during a putt (but be quiet). However, there are a lot of 

opportunities for safeties in golf. Any shot of a golfer studying the course, be it looking at the scorecard, 

messing with the golf bag, talking to the caddie, or lining up a putt are easy shots to get. These are times 

where the firing of the shutter will be more tolerated. Also, shots after the follow-through are considered 

safe shots. The action is paused and you know its going to happen so getting them is somewhat easier. 

Don’t forget that a lot of good golf shots, and other sports for that matter do not involve play at all. One 

of my personal favorite golf shots was of a greens keeper changing the pins. 

Track and Field 

Track and Field meets are a lot of fun to shoot. You get a lot of variety of shots, multiple opportunities 

to shoot most participants and events and there generally is a lot of emotion displayed during a track 

meet. The most difficult things about track meets are logistical. 

Access can be restricted depending on the level of play that is being photographed. At a high school 

meet, there is little in the way of restrictions. Just stay out of the participants way, or out of the way of 

projectiles like shot puts and discus and you are okay. As you climb the ladder, access gets tighter and 

tighter. Even at NCAA Division I level meets, the access is still pretty good. Pro level, Olympic, or 

Major Events will be more tightly controlled due to the size of the event and the amount of media 

present. Access will be restricted to particular shooting areas. 

Logistically, track meets are hard to cover because multiple events are going on at once. If media 

movement is controlled, you may only get to shoot one or two events. But at a more relaxed meet, you 

will have more freedom to scoot from event to event. Because of time, multiple heats/attempts and so 

on, the track will generally be filled with races while the inside of the track contains the field events. 

There are no specific safety shots in a track meet, but the individual events are fairly easy since almost 

all movement is predictable. Track events all move one direction. Shooting the finish, or turns provides 

the most dramatic events. For the hurdles, it is pretty easy to time the players as they peak over the 

hurdles. Relays, with the baton passing is probably the hardest part to capture because the runner taking 

the baton may obscure the runner handing it off. Use follow focus to catch runners and they move past, 

or zone focus if you are working on the finish line. 

Field events, like wise are very predictable. Events like the high jump, long jump, and pole vault involve 

participants running towards an object, and then jumping over it. This is a zone focus heaven. Use a little 

depth of field (F5.6 or so) and focus on the bar for the high jump and pole vault and fire as they start up 

and over. You should catch them at the peak as they hurdle over the event. If you didn’t get that run, 

don’t worry, each player generally takes two or three shots and there are multiple players. 



The Long jump, and its cousin, the triple-jump are pretty easy. They are also zone focus events. If you 

are at the end of the pit, focus just a few feet into the pit and fire when they hit the board and begin their 

jump. After a few jumps, you should have a feel for when they peak at their jump and will nail a few 

really good jumps. If you have to shoot from the side, you still zone focus over the middle of the pit, 

track the runner as they head down the track and fire when they go airborne. 

The throwing and hurling events are likewise easy to shoot. The players have to stay within a confined 

space, so zone focus and you will do well. Try to catch them when their face is towards you and when 

their emotion is at its best or just after the throw. 

If you have good access, you can get some great shots with an 80-200mm lens. If you are restricted you 

may need a 400mm or longer, but in most cases you can get away with smaller lenses. 

Gymnastics and Figure Skating 

Gymnastics, as a rule, is a no flash event. While a flash may be tolerated at a basketball game, or a night 

football or baseball game, its generally a no-no for gymnastics. The participants are easily distracted and 

the slightest hesitation can cause serious injury. The bad thing is most gymnastics happen is poorly lit 

situations. Lighting will be covered later. 

Like Track and Field, gymnastics is a series of events with individuals performing. The events go on 

simultaneous to each other and depending on the level of the meet, your access may be limited to 

minimize distractions. With the exception of the floor program, most of the gymnastics events are kept 

in a small area which makes focusing easy and the movements are predictable. Even with the vault, your 

object is to catch the vault itself or the landing. So you will probably want to zone focus most of the 

events. The floor exercise will require follow focus or auto focus. Your lens choice will vary too much 

by access, but like other indoor sports you want the fastest glass available. 

Events like the balance beam, rings, parallel bars, and the uneven bars provide several opportunities to 

capture the athletes in artistic, athletic, and emotional poses where capturing the moment is somewhat 

easier. The vault and floor exercises require more timing to get good shots. However, for the floor 

exercises, its about emotion anyway, so catching the cute smiles and ballet style poses is critical to 

telling the story more than catching someone in a tumbling pass. 

Figure Skating combines the problems of gymnastics with the problems of hockey. You are limited by 

your access to off ice and you have to compensate for the white surface. Lighting isn't as good as a 

hockey game. Frequently, the lighting is spot lights, so knowing stage lighting is important. The 

programs can be predictable and are generally published before the event so you know when the triple 

jumps are coming. Lens length is determined by proximity to the surface but again, you want the fastest 

glass possible. Autofocus is a good idea for Figure Skating, though some success with follow and zone 

focusing can be achieved. 

Motorsports and Racing Events 



These sports are generally fairly easy to photograph. They generally occur during the daytime and you 

can get away with longer slower lenses. AF isn't quite as important because the action occurs in a very 

precticable fashion. You can follow or zone focus easy enough. Safety shots are the partcipants racing 

past you. The challenge for racing sports is to show motion which will be covered shortly. You don't 

want your Forumla 1 car looking like it is sitting still. Also much more importantly, there is a lot to the 

game other than the cars or horses running around the track. The pits/paddock afford some of the best 

shots. Be ready for an accident. They can happen at any time. 

The biggest problem with racing sports is the distance from the track. You only have the partcipants for 

a brief time on each lap and in the case of the ponies, you only get them for one lap (per race). You will 

need big lenses in almost all circumstances for the race itself. Your shorter lenses work well for crowd 

and off track shots. 

Freezing Action Shots 

So far, we have discussed each event and they types of shots to be taken. Safeties generally are taken at 

times where the action is minimal, and we don’t have to concentrate as much on freezing the action. But 

what sells, and what the viewers want to see are people suspended in mid-air. They want to see the crisp 

ball laying just off the receivers finger tips. To do that, we must freeze the action. 

Freezing the action requires fast shutter speeds. Most modern, high end 35mm SLRs have a top shutter 

speed of 1/8000th of a second. Except for a speeding bullet, this is about fast enough to catch anything 

you or I are likely to shoot, even an Indy car blasting around the track at 230mph. 

But it isn’t that simple. Lets first discuss a standard photographic rule of thumb, which is the minimal 

speed for hand-holding a lens. The minimal shutter speed for hand holding a lens is 1 divided by the 

focal length of the lens. Thus a 50mm lens should not be hand held any slower than 1/50th of a second. 

A 300mm lens should not be hand held at less than 1/300th of a second. If your camera does not have 

shutter speeds between say 1/250 and 1/500, then you round up. So for a 300mm lens, your minimal 

hand hold speed may be 1/500th of a second. The more proficient you get, the more likely you are to be 

able to cheat by one shutter speed. A monopod is the preferred way for action photographers to gain 

additional steadiness. It can generally buy you one to two shutter speeds of hand holding. 

Not only has it become more difficult to hand hold these lenses, it becomes harder to freeze the action as 

well. The lenses get heavier and harder to hold. Your breathing and heart beating and muscle strain are 

enough to cause still objects hard to capture. Longer lenses not only magnify the scene, they magnify the 

apparent movement. If a runner passes through the viewfinder with a 50mm lens attached in one second, 

then at 500mm, the same person moving at the same speed will pass in 1/10th of a second. 

Generally, to freeze action, you need at least two full shutter speeds if not more faster than the hand hold 

speed. So for our 300mm lens, you will need at least 1/1200 to 1/2400 to freeze action with this lens 

(rounding up, that’s 1/2000-1/4000th of a second). Even at these speeds, you may have to follow side to 



side movement, called panning to have the movement crisp when you expose the film Lets say you are 

shooting a car racing event. Even at high shutter speeds, if you hold the camera still and wait on the car, 

you will capture a blur. By matching the movement of the subject with the movement of the lens, you 

minimize the relative motion between the two. 

For subjects coming to you or heading away, their apparent movement isn’t as great. Many people make 

up some of the action freezing by getting things coming toward them. 

Film is critical in freezing action. Each increase in film speed gets you one more shutter speed. So if you 

shoot an event with ISO 100 film and the best you can get is 1/500th of a second, switching to an ISO 

400 film gets you to 1/2000th which may be enough to freeze the action. Going to ISO 1600, will take 

you to 1/8000th of a second. 

Adding high shutter speeds, fast films, monopods, panning, or shooting objects as they come toward 

you, and capturing action at its peak will let you freeze fantastic shots. 

Giving the illusion of movement. 

Many new action photographers worry about freezing action, trying to get the crispest shots possible. 

Even veteran photographers will try for crisp shots, but they are not afraid to allow some blurring. 

Stop and think about it for a minute. A baseball pitcher throws the ball, the batter swings the bat. Your 

eyes don’t freeze the action precisely, so why should your pictures. A blurring bat, or an elongated ball 

leaving a blurry arm imply movement. As long as most of the body and the face is crisp a little motion in 

the hands, feet, and projectiles is acceptable and in many cases desired. This is another little cheat in not 

having that fast of a shutter speed. 

Some times, we slow the shutter speed down intentionally to amplify the movement. We have all seen 

shots of runners where the background is a blur their arms and legs are a blur, but their body and head 

are fairly well focused. Combining panning, slower shutter speeds, and predictable movement and you 

can capture some very dramatic pictures showing all kinds of movement. 

These types of shots require patients, work, and a lot of experimenting. Don’t hesitate, when at an event 

to experiment with different techniques . . . after you get your safeties and your primary shots. 

Lighting and Film 

Lighting conditions are the single worse bane to sports photographers. There simply are no good lighting 

conditions. During the day, under bright sun, there are harsh shadows and it creates shots that have too 

much contrast. Morning and late afternoon shots are somewhat better if you can get the light behind you, 

but you still end up with some rough shadow conditions. Overcast skies drops the light level too low for 

using really long lenses or the shots don’t have popping color. 



As the sun sets, or if you move indoors, the lighting is generally enough to let the players see the ball 

coming at them. No two facilities are lit the same. You will find situations where little league fields are 

better lit that college fields. You will find that different arenas and stadiums have different color balance 

lights. Some facilities will even have bulbs of different color balance which makes some shots 

unprintable. 

Most modern pro arenas have fairly decent lighting and the color balance is pretty good. Professional 

teams need lots of media coverage and after years of complaining, they have created decent lighting for 

the media to use. 

Critical to the sports and action photographer is the choice of film. By now, you should understand the 

relationship of film speed to aperture to shutter speed. As light goes down, shutters slow down, apertures 

open up, and film speed increases. 

Most indoor sports events either require the resources of Sports Illustrated to mount strobes in the 

ceiling, which are not distracting to players as a strobe blasting in their face, or require using high speed 

film. Most indoor sports are shot at ISO 1600 with fast (F2.8 or faster) lenses . 

Under these conditions, you can get away with 200mm or less in lens. That means you need to get a 

shutter speed of around 1/400th to be able reasonably freeze the body while allowing limited motion in 

the extremities. However a lot of time, the available shutter speed will be less than that. You do the best 

you can. You can increase film speed, which will increase grain and contrast to compensate. You can 

buy faster lenses, like a 200mm F2.0 or an 85mm F1.4. You can switch to a shorter lens to lessen the 

impact of motion. Remember, you can freeze action well at 1/250 with an 85mm lens but can barely 

hand hold a 200mm lens at the same speed. 

Color slide film is limited in film speed. Most high speed color slide film has the grain of an ISO 3200 

print film. Depending on your use, grain may not be too bad. Most newspapers use low line count 

screens for their half tones, and a lot of grain will be hidden in the half tones. Most high speed films are 

not very sharp and lack color saturation. 

Lets take a couple of common films that are used by sports photographers: Fuji 800 and Fuji 1600. If 

you shoot Fuji 800 at 1600 and push process it (over develop it to make up for underexposing it). You 

will increase grain and loose some shadow detail. However Fuji 800 under these conditions still 

provides more pleasing shots than Fuji 1600 rated and developed normally. Even pushed to 3200, Fuji 

800 provides good results. 

Not all films are designed for push processing. Most color C-41 based films develop their layers at 

different rates and the normal 3 minute, 15 second development time is the amount of developing where 

all layers come out right. Overdeveloping can cause uncorrectable color shifts. Some films are produced 

with push processing in mind, like the Kodak Extapress line of films. Fuji doesn’t say one way or 



another about Fuji SuperG 800, however many press photographers use this film and push it all the time. 

Pushing film is a common process. Most places that develop slide film (process E-6) or Black and White 

will push film upon request. However color print film (process C-41) is a different story. Most locations 

will have a lab that will do it, but most mini-labs will not. Either the operators are not trained on 

changing the time, the management does not want them to forget and then ruin future films when they 

forget to reset the machine, or the machine just isn’t capable of using different times. You may have to 

search to find a lab to push C-41. 

Of course, you could soup your own. Processing film is a seminar in itself, but if you are scanning the 

negatives for production, you rarely need prints anyway, so the equipment necessary to develop film is 

minimal. 

Emotion 

Shots that lack emotion are ho-hum. They lack energy. They lack story 

telling ability. If there is no emotion, then there is little desire to view it. 

Most tight action shots of players will be emotional. Regardless of level, 

these players, when they are exerting themselves, exhibit emotion. From the 

little tee-ball player messing with her hair and her helmet, to the strain of a 

pole vaulter working to get over the cross bar, there is plenty of emotion to 

be found in sports. You will, from experience be able to edit out the shots 

that lack emotion and do not tell the story. But it requires shooting and 

shooting. 

You should also look for emotion from other sources. As years of ABC’s Wide World of Sports told 

us . . . The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. Make sure to save film to shoot the players after 

their events. Or during their events, don’t always focus on the ball, but on the emotion after the big 360 

degree slam dunk. Don’t forget to look for emotion in the coaches and the fans. A lot of the best shots 

come from the crowd. 

Where to Start 

This seminar contains a lot of hints and it talks about a lot of high level gear and access. It’s important to 

understand that not every photographer will be able to take this information and expect to step onto the 

hard wood at Chicago Stadium, sit in the press gallery and expect to capture Grade A shots of Dennis 

Rodman in his antics. To get to that level, you have to have a proven sports portfolio and work for an 

agency who can get you access. 

Before you get to that level, you have to shoot a lot of minor sporting events. The best place to start is 

your local youth leagues. Early in my career, I got broken in on high school sports, but through my 

experience there, I got to shoot for my college papers and year books. That allowed me access to shoot 



NCAA Division I sports early on. But I would not have had that opportunity without having developed a 

portfolio from my early days of shooting. 

Local youth leagues provide you great access and opportunities to use smaller lenses to capture shots. As 

your portfolio develops, you can approach shooting at higher levels. You can get a lot of practice and 

experience here which is valuable when going to "The Show". 

Today, I am back shooting for a small town paper and the highest level of sports that I have reasonable 

access to is high school. Even though I have been to "The Show", I still enjoy getting pictures of 5 year 

olds when they catch their first ball or score their first goal. 

You may however get opportunities to shoot pro games from a fan’s perspective. Depending on your 

location in the arena, you can get some reasonably good shots. Take your long lens and some high speed 

film and make the most of it. In these situations, freezing action isn’t as important as being able to hand 

hold the lens. The players will be at such a distance that their movement will be like a person closer to 

you with a normal lens on. As long as you have enough shutter speed to get a steady shot you should be 

able to get memorable shots. 

Summary 

One final note. Don’t rush your action assignments. Spend some time, and expect to burn some film. 

Only through practice and looking at the results and going back to it will you get the timing and skills 

needed to one day capture world class shots. 

More 

● 100th Boston Marathon, photographed by Philip Greenspun 

● Head of the Charles 1998 

● MIT soccer photos by Philip Greenspun 

● "Where to buy a camera" -- retailers that actually stock the big long lenses 

● Canon 600/4 IS lens review 

Text Copyright © 1998 Rob Miracle; Photos copyright 1994-1998 Philip Greenspun. 

Sports Photos give us a sense of being there. 

Add/View Comments 



rwm@mpgn.com 


Predeal, Romania, 1985 

Maria 

Sports can be not only for preformance, but also for the family leisure. 


Related Links 

Add a comment 

● Luca Patrone Advertise photography- In the gallery "various" some creative shots made with 

extreme fish eye optics. I like this lenses for sport and action (contributed by luca patrone) 



Add a link 


permission. 






photo.net 

Concert Photography, A Tutorial for photo.net by Steve Mirarchi 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 


Concert, Stage, and Low- 

Light Photography 

A Tutorial by Steve Mirarchi 

Part I: Introduction. Getting credentials, ethical considerations, who buys this kind of photography, 

why we'll never make a living at it, the stress of six ISO 1600 rolls in ten minutes with no flash. 

Part II: Equipment and Basics. Beginner's gear, what you don't need, exposing for stage lights, shutter 

speeds, aperture settings, how to put it all together. 

Part III: Film. Which films do what, negs versus chromes, push processing. 

Appendix I: Flash. Creative shots when you're allowed to use flash. 

Further Reading. Jon Sievert's Concert Photography is a superbly organized, exhaustively detailed, 

and wonderfully accessible book that any aspiring entertainment photographer should read and that even 

veterans will find helpful. Including over 100 superb photographs from Sievert's extensive archives, the 

book provides lessons, tips, and examples in both written and visual forms. The sheer enormity of 

Sievert's place in the industry bowls you over as you turn page after page of the appendices, which list 

thousands of contact names, numbers, magazines, and trade publications. If you foresee music 

photography as continual in your future efforts, this should be one of the first books you buy. 

About the author of this tutorial: Steve Mirarchi is a commercial photographer who specializes in 

http://www.photo.net/concerts/mirarchi/concer_i (1 of 2)7/3/2005 2:18:30 AM

Concert Photography, A Tutorial for photo.net by Steve Mirarchi 

portraiture and the music industry. His images regularly appear in magazines like People, Rolling Stone, 

Entertainment Weekly, Vibe, Playboy, and numerous others. His work is syndicated by Retna, the 

preeminent entertainment photo agency in the world. When not photographing clients in his studio or 

fulfilling his duties as Photographer-At-Large for the Boston Phoenix, he is either teaching at Brandeis 

University or writing yet another draft of his Ph.D. dissertation. 

Special thanks: Philip Greenspun, who financed the scanning of many of the images contained herein. 

Ed Hamrick and his excellent program Vuescan, which allowed the scanning of many other images 

contained herein. 

Don Baccus, Bob Atkins, Sean Yamamoto, Glen E. Johnson, Thom Hogan, Darron Spohn, Dan Brown, 

Mark Windom, Steve Bingham, Mark Ciccarello, Scott Eaton, and Bobby Downes for their extensive 

comments and suggestions. 

God, for everything. 

Above: Pat Metheny, as featured on the cover of the 1998 Ibanez guitar catalog. 

All Text and Images Copyright 1996-2000 Steve Mirarchi. All rights reserved. 

Steve Mirarchi 

Return to photo.net. 


permission. 




Sponsor: Camcorder HQ - Excellent reviews of Sony camcorders 

http://www.photo.net/concerts/mirarchi/concer_i (2 of 2)7/3/2005 2:18:30 AM

photo.net 

Street Photography 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 



a tutorial and exhibit from Philip 

Greenspun 

"Stare. It is the way to educate your eye, and more. Stare, pry, listen eavesdrop. Die 

knowing something. You are not here long." 

Walker Evans (in a draft text to accompany the hidden camera subway photographs) 

My favorite thing about street photography 

What I like best about street photography is that it is possible to look in more than one place at once. 

In this photo inside Greenwich Village's French Roast, I was 

trying to get a picture of the tuned-out New Media exec with the 

women conversing in the background. I guess I got the photo that 

I wanted, but there is also a dog fight going on outside. I'm pretty 

sure that I didn't see that in the viewfinder or in real life. 

[Note the careful use of on-camera flash and ambient exposure so 

that the lighting is evenly balanced on subjects both inside and 

outside the restaurant.] 

http://www.photo.net/photo/street-photography (1 of 31)7/3/2005 2:18:44 AM


Volume, Volume, Volume 

note the black dog in the corner 

note the photographer in the upper right corner 

I'm not even sure what to say about this, but I can guarantee you 

that the scene (Venice Beach, from my California series) didn't 

seem quite this varied in real life. 

Garry Winogrand is famous for having exposed three rolls of Tri-X on the streets of New York City 

every day for his entire adult life. That's 100 pictures a day, 36,500 a year, a million every 30 years. 

Winogrand died in 1984 leaving more than 2500 rolls of film exposed but undeveloped, 6500 rolls 

developed but not proofed, and 3000 rolls proofed but not examined (a total of a third of a million 

unedited exposures). 

This is the kind of dedication that you need to bring to a street photography project if you hope to 

achieve greatness. 

Technique 

The classic technique for street photography consists of fitting a wide (20mm) or moderately wide-angle 

(35mm) lens to a camera, loading high-speed film (ISO 400), and pre-focusing the lens. Pre-focusing? 

How do you know how far away your subject will be. It turns out that it doesn't really matter. Wide 



angle lenses have good depth of field. If your subject is 10 feet away and the lens is set for 12 feet, you'd 

probably need to enlarge to 20x30" before noticing the error (assuming a typical aperture). This is why 

the high-speed film is important. Given a fixed shutter speed, the faster the film the smaller the aperture. 

The smaller the aperture, the less critical it is to focus precisely. The extreme case of this is a pinhole 

camera, for which there is no need to focus at all. 

Street photographers traditionally will set the lens at its hyperfocal distance. This distance depends on 

the lens focal length and the aperture but the basic idea is that it is the closest distance setting for which 

subjects at infinity are still acceptably sharp. With fast film and a sunny day, you will probably be able 

to expose at f/16. With a 35mm lens focussed to, say, 9 feet, subjects between 4.5 feet and infinity will 

be acceptably sharp (where "acceptable" means "if the person viewing the final photograph doesn't stick 

his eyes right up against it"). 

A modern alternative is to use a camera with a very high-performance autofocus system and a zoom 

lens. The Canon EOS bodies coupled with the instant-focusing ring ultrasonic motor Canon lenses 

(about half of the EOS lenses use these motors) are an example of what can work. Paradoxically I find 

that I was able to work as quickly and get as high a yield of good images (these are from Guatemala) 

with the Mamiya 7 rangefinder camera: 



Whether you go modern or traditional, many of your pictures will be ruined due to poor focus, subject 

motion, hasty composition, etc. So don't feel bad if you only get one great picture out of 1000. If you're 

using a digital camera, you won't even have to lose sleep over how much film and processing you're 

wasting. 

Gallery 

Miami, 1995, part of my Costa Rica story 

Canon EOS-5, 35-350 lens, program autoexposure, Fuji Super G + ISO 400 

neg film 

This photo illustrates the advantages of the Canon 35-350L lens (a $2000 

photojournalist's toy). I took it from the passenger seat of a car stopped at a red 

light. The rain lead to highly saturated colors. Canon EOS AF 



a few from Sweden... 

and Germany... 

and Ireland.. 



and Israel (Ireland's neighbor in the UN, separating Israel from Iraq).. 

China is one of the world's best places for street photography because (a) there are so many people, (b) 

so much happens out in the open. Here are a few images from the photo.net guide to China: 



Japan is a good place to see extremes, either people practicing ancient ways or people overwhelmed by 

modernity. Here are some images from the photo.net guide to Japan: 

More 

● Street photography in New York City 

Text and images copyright Philip Greenspun. 

philg@mit.edu 




It would have been nice if some black and white street pictures had been included as well. B&W has 

been the aesthetic (and practical) choice of many street (as opposed to reportage) photographers, because 

especially in a street setting with random colors everywhere, B&W clarifies the intent of the image. This 

is not to say powerful color street photography is not possible. There are many who practice it-but the 

novice reading these pages might do well to give B&W a try as well. 

-- Mani Sitaraman, November 23, 2000 

"careful use of on-camera flash"? Excuse me, but the flash is extremely visible in the photogrpah. 

-- Jan Mattsson, November 24, 2000 

The flash light is reflected in two of the windows - the upper window of the door in the left, and the one 

above the [right hand side] girl's head. It is also reflected in the man's spectacle frames, in his watch's 

strap and bracelet, and on his shoe. The man in the foreground is significantly more exposed than the 

two women, and is rather flat due to the shadow less nature of on-camera flash. There is considerable 

glare on both the doorframe and the post supporting the rear window. I don't think flash was appropriate 

here; it was certainly not used carefully. 

When I saw "Street Photography" I jumped for the link immediately. I was rather disappointed, like 

others, that there are no black and white photographs. B&W, to me, epitomizes street photography. I 

could only spot one photograph (the first one, girl on steps) in which the subject was actually the person 

for that person’s own intrinsic worth - a street portrait, if you know what I mean. Preferably candid. The 

one of the girl on the steps is good, although the sunglasses detract from it. Eyes always hold expression. 

Of course, asking the girl to take the glasses off may not have went down well. Posed street photographs 

can be good, but I have yet to see one that doesn’t appear obviously posed. Pics of many different 

people, in different countries, all chatting on phones, are interesting for documentation, but to list them 

as teaching examples on "street photography"? The Venice Beach photo is interesting, in a different 

way. There is nothing candid about it - six people are staring directly at the camera lens. Nevertheless, it 

has got tremendous detail, and showcases a wide variety of human beings, young and old, male and 

female, black and white, fit and fat, introspective and out-going, and even a good ole dog (looking rather 

bored with it all). Colour was appropriate here. Well done with this one! 

-- Samuel Dilworth, November 25, 2000 

If flash had not been used in that photo, the interior of the coffee shop would probably have been 

underexposed. Maybe a bounce flash should have been used. 

-- Andrew Grant, November 26, 2000 

Actually, myself I like the way the flash is visible in that photograph: the flash reflection makes you 



aware of the photographer's existence there (then you have the media exec, two women, the dogfight and 

the photographer taking the picture). IMHO it makes the photograph a little more interesting. 

-- George Bielinski, November 26, 2000 

Hey, if you want B&W, can't you just use the "Desaturate" command in Photoshop? It's a digital image 

at this point.... 

-- Michael Yacavone, November 28, 2000 

My dear friend Michael, those photographs were *taken* in colour. The photographer knew this, and 

composed accordingly. You cannot simply desaturate a colour image in Photoshop and get a decent 

B&W image. The *style* of your photography, at camera level, must change in B&W. Try using 

"Desaturate" in Photoshop, with the images on this page, to see what I mean. A good colour image will 

nearly always be poor in B&W (and vice-versa, if you go to the bother of colouring it). 

-- Samuel Dilworth, November 28, 2000 

Sorry but I do not feel this page demonstrates street photography. The images mostly look as if taken 

with telephoto lenses. (Shyness or cowardice?) 

Where are the stories? All the best 'street' photographs I can think of tell some sort of story. This was 

'tourist photography'. Not bad pictures but not exactly crammed with expression of the human condition. 

For an object lesson in Street Photography try Bill Brandts images from the East end of London. All 

taken with Normal lenses so the photographer had to interact with his fellow humans rather than 'grab' 

sneak shots out of car windows. Making pictures rather than Taking pictures. Gaining a bit of empathy 

before 'shooting' your victims. Some of these pictures are hit and run. Also when photographing poverty 

try and preserve the subjects dignity because otherwise it is an unequal relationship. After all, you (and 

others) are getting good mileage out of the 'quaint' depravation you picture with your 2000 dollar 

'photojournalists' 35 - 300mm lens so try and give something back to them. 

Maybe this is why Bill Brandt is a legend and Phil isnt. 

-- Trevor Hare, November 29, 2000 

If you're ten feet away from your "victim" while carrying an 80-200 2.8 lens, would you characterize 

that as "shyness" or "cowardice?" One can make a lot of successful arguments against PhilG's 

photography, but he's certainly not timid. Telephoto lenses serve very well to isolate subjects, and to 

preserve candidness - which many people feel (differently from you) is the essence of "street 

photography." I use all focal lengths in its pursuit. 

For what it's worth, I also agree that traditional street photography is done with B&W film, and that 



"desaturating" a color shot doesn't really substitute. All of the really good ultra-high speed films best 

suited for stealthy shooting are B&W anyhow. 

Image:RockCenter03b.jpg 

-- Colin James, November 29, 2000 

The 'shyness or cowardice' was prompted by Phils own comment about taking a shot whilst in a car with 

a telephoto. 

The essence of street photography is not to isolate the subject from the surroundings. We are not dealing 

with biological 'samples' here but People operating within their environment within their lives. 

Ask yourself how you and your family would like to be treated by a street photographer? Shot from a 

distance anonymously, detached from any context, your images used to entertain a rich American. 

Or would you prefer the photographer to have the courage to attempt some sort of rapport and some 

understanding and enter into your space with you rather than put you under his lens like some bug for 

inspection? In other words to treat you with some respect as another human rather than just image 

fodder. 

Greater photographers than us have tussled with this subject. Try getting hold of 'Perspectives' by Don 

Mccullin. It contains an excellent essay on the morality of photographing poverty , squalor, misery and 

war and even just ordinary folk going about their normal lives. 

Phil has elected himself to be a tutor on the subject of street photography but doesnt deal with any 

questions beyond the technical ones. I feel strongly about people being having their images, unwittingly, 

'mugged' from them. 

-- Trevor Hare, November 30, 2000 

Street photography? I am certainly not a specialist in classifying photography but I can hardly imagine 

that most of the above pictures would fall into this category. Whether they are taken with a 24, 35, 50 or 

85 mm lens on a colour or B+W film with or without flash is irrelevant, as long as they express 

something about the subject. And street photography tells a lot about the photographer and his 

interaction with the subjects. 

What I can see in most of these pictures is a mocking attitude of a selfish photographer who was very 

very remote from his victims (not only physically) and sometimes felt uneasy. The Tsukiji Market 



picture could have been taken by a vegetarian who hates fish. The fruit lady in Costa Rica would 

possibly not like her picture taken like this from behind. And the young lady on the steps has no more 

expression than the plurality of dogs in most of the pictures. Strangely enough, sometimes I felt these 

photos demonstrate "Dogs in Street Photography" instead of individuals in daily life. 

BUT: I do like three of the pictures, actually Phil at his best. The nuns and monks along with that 

American (?) tourist with a funny hat behind the lady with a cell phone in Jerusalem, the twin 

newspapers in Tokyo subway and, best of all, the man reading newspaper in Dublin. If this one were in 

black and white, we would have missed the colour of his tie! 

-- George D. Gianni, November 30, 2000 

I'd like to add that I too take a lot of random photos on a daily basis. I started with Canon EOS cameras 

then switched to the Canon Digital Powershot 20 and now also use the Canon G1 with telephoto lens. 

Digital makes it so much cheaper and incites me to more experimentation. I mount the G1 on my car 

window mount from Bogen and use the remote to shoot while I'm driving. The car in essence is the 

viewfinder and I find myself circling the block or making uturns for better light or shooting angles. (No 

accidents or near misses yet!) The remote allows me to zoom and shift shooting modes and the G1 

accepts the EOS external flashes! Give it a try! It also works in a daypack or briefcase. 

-- t. bomba, December 2, 2000 

This is turning into an interesting discussion. I can see both sides. I remember before I got into 

photography a young lady "mugged" me with her camera. I was fishing for musky, and looked the part. 

She was trying to be a street photographer, trying to take a candid shot, and I caught her. I scolded her, 

too, and when she defended herself with, "well, you're in a public place", I really scolded her. But now 

that I have picked up an interest in photography, and have looked at images, I like seeing candid shots of 

people. And I like it when the people don't seem to notice the camera (hence the word candid, I guess). 

Not that a candid shot requires anonymity, but many of the best street shots I have seen appeared to be 

taken candidly and anonymously. Just my opinion, which has changed over the years. Getting to know 

your subject first sometimes helps, but sometimes random shots of strangers yeilds good results, too. 

-- Mike Morgan, December 3, 2000 

For another perspective on street photography (actually subway photog.) see http://www.davebeckerman. 

com/ and click on the article "Photography on the subway." I like his writing and love his photos. 

In addition, Jeff Spirer, a regular of this phot.net community, has some excellent stuff at www.spirer. 

com. 

No offense to Phil, but the work of those guys is what I think of when I think of street photography. As 

mentioned by others, I favor the B&W aesthetic for this type of photography. 



-- Efrain Sain, December 4, 2000 

This is not a perfect fix for color pictures...but if you change it to grayscale or desaturate it then go to 

brightness and contrast you can make the shadows and what not more prominet so it looks more like a 

B&W. 

-- joe bob, December 29, 2000 

There is a great deal more to 'street photography' than merely photographing in the street. These images 

miss the mark for me I am afraid. 

-- Gerry Walden, December 31, 2000 

While I respect Trevor Hare's opinion, I could not disagree more with him. Cartier-Bresson was known 

to have covered up his Leica when on the street to hide his intentions from his subjects. Andres Kertesz, 

whom Cartier-Bresson said that we all indebted to for pioneering street photography, sought to capture 

life at its most candid on the streets and cafes of Paris. Garry Winnograd also had the ability to take 

someone's picture without them noticing though he was more or less right on top of them. Read the intro 

to his book if you don't believe me. 

I would have loved to have befriended and talked to all the people that I have taken pictures of or 

wanted to take picutres of. But all of my photos would have turned into snapshots: people conscious of 

the camera and probably smiling into the lens. 

The potential for street photography to be rude and exploitative is monstrous and this is something that I 

struggle with everytime I step outside. This is where I agree with Trevor. But every situation is different 

and there are times where I have refused to expose any film because it did not feel right and I have 

subsequently missed incredible opportunities. There cannot be any edict dictating what is right or wrong. 

These decisions are up to each photographer to make according to their own system of values. 

And I am thankful that Phil has created this page for us though in the end, it is very disappointing. Are 

there no street photographers on staff at photo.net? 

-- doug kim, February 19, 2001 

Ah, the essence of Street Photography: 

"This photo illustrates the advantages of the Canon 35-350L lens (a $2000 photojournalist's toy). I took 

it from the passenger seat of a car stopped at a red light." 

Using only the equipment you can find on the street... ; ) 



-- Jeff Warner, March 8, 2001 

Trevor Hare talks about "gaining a bit of empathy before shooting your victims", and accuses Phil of 

"hit-and-run" photography. I wonder if he would consider Cartier-Bresson a hit-and-run photographer. 

HCB never tried to interact with his subjects or "get to know them". He didn't bother considering 

whether they would "like" the way he chose to photograph them. Based on the historical record, I'd say 

he pretty much INVENTED Street Photography. HCB devoted most of his effort to blending in, like a 

"fly on the wall", so he could get pictures of people WITHOUT DISTURBING THEM. I think being 

inconspicuous and unobtrusive is the most important thing in street photography. You must travel fast 

and light: no photo vest, no camera bag, one small camera and a small prime lens or two, no flash. If you 

really want to emulate the greats (Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, Winogrand, Evans), use a meterless 

camera and learn to evaluate the light yourself. 

-- Ian Cruikshank, April 5, 2001 

I moderate a STREET PHOTOGRAPHY dicussion group where we share photos and ideas with each 

other... 

http://www.geocities.com/photomoderator 

Take a look if interested 

-- Dave Ramirez, April 13, 2001 

After having HCB recommended to me so many times (I have 2 books of his work alongside books of 

numerous others so I am familiar with him) i found this article interesting to read. Yes HCB, himself, 

does NOT like having his picture published and is taking legal action against it happening!! What was 

good for his 'subjects' is unacceptable to him.... 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4135295,00.html 

I am not going to take too rigid a stance on this but it does point back to my comments, above, about 

putting yourself in your 'subjects' shoes and how would you react in their place. 

-- Trevor Hare, April 28, 2001 

Why exactly street photography must be black-and-white, taken with wide-angle lens close to the 

subject? What a religious approach. This page contains great pictures and I specifically like that they are 

in color and are DIFFERENT from what I've seen. I am glad that it is not yet another traditional BW 

street photo gallery. 



-- Mikhail Arkhipov, April 30, 2001 

FWIW, the reason Henri Cartier-Bresson doesn't want his image widely published is because he wants 

to be able to photograph people anonymously. If everyone knew what he looked like it would give new 

meaning to the phrase "celebrity photographer." You may think he's being overly sensitive, but imagine 

if Henri's face was as familiar as Ansel Adams'. He'd be constantly distracted by people wanting to shoot 

the breeze or asking for autographs. Henri just wants to shoot a few frames and continue on his way -- 

the same opportunity he affords his subjects. 

-- Gordon Lewis, May 8, 2001 

>>This photo illustrates the advantages of the Canon 35-350L lens (a $2000 photojournalist's toy). I 

took it from the passenger seat of a car stopped at a red light. The rain lead to highly saturated colors. 

Canon EOS AF 

I had to buy my 35-350 lens. Some people get all the luck. What did the driver think? 

Very well done article, but I too would have liked B&W. 

-- Leslie Koller, May 28, 2001 

I live in New York City, and do street photography. I have nothing against colour but it can distract the 

viewer from the "decisive moment" that the photographer wanted to capture. Besides for me B&W is an 

advantage since I do my own printing and can make disturbing objects in the backgound less obstrusive. 

The choice of lens does not signify anything except for the fact that it is only an instrument to capture 

the moment, if using a tele lens has better chance of capturing the moment isolated from the background 

and if it improves the chance of being unnoticed then so be it...I use a 70-300 and a 17-35 and shoot 

from a distance or from close range...but it is true that a street photographer cannot afford to be shy or be 

afraid to confront or pacify his subject in situations. In one situation a man in New York city in a fit of 

rage asked me for the roll of film...I told him to get lost and so he did while making threats of calling the 

police. 

I like to capture fleeting moments, candid portraits and this does not give me an option to introduce 

myself to my subjects with my visiting card before I take the shot...I believe that empathy for the subject 

- if important to the photographer - should show in his/her work...morality is a subjective issue, not an 

absolute one...I am not the one who can figure out whats on a person's mind if and as he knows that he is 

being photographed...did he like being photographed? Did he dislike but was too polite or shy to tell me 

that he didn't want to be photographed? Well...as long as I do not know, I assume implicit permission 

from my subject. If I wanted to find out explicitly I would be talking and not capturing the moments that 

I wanted to capture. I wonder what would Elliot Erwit do if he was required to obtain permission before 

he took the wonderful pictures showing the moods and moments of dogs.[this is not no imply that dogs 



are same or differnt from human beings as photographic subjects ;-) ]. As Elli Wallach said in the movie 

'The Good Bad and the Ugly' - "When you shoot, you shoot, dont talk"...it was shooting of a different 

kind though but its principle applies to street photography as well. 

But it is also true that the photographer can introduce himself to his subjects and win their trust and take 

pictures over weeks and months...this improves the chances of better framing, lighting and yet capturing 

the candid mood and the moment since the photographer is not viewed as an alien any more and can 

work at close range without worried about being spotted.Often I visit a place where I am familiar face 

now, at least to quite a few, and returning with gift prints helps to build a friendship. I can take pictures 

with the candid mood working at close range...sometimes point blank with a wide lens But that is 

fundamentally different from the pictures you take as you walk down the street while trying to keep 

yourself inconspicous. 

Many beginner photographers think that people dont like to be photographed and this may be true in 

many places but from my experience in taking people shots in streets of Tokyo, New York and Calcutta, 

I can say that it is not generally true...many do like to be photographed, many dont even know if they are 

being photographed and most apparently dont care even if they know. There are a few who are paranoid 

about being photographed and certainly I am not going to let the moment pass by making such an 

assumption. If someone finds out - as sometime someone always does since not everybody can blend in 

like a fly on the wall - and expresses dissent, I shall respect that. Although, in some situations I have also 

asked permission before shooting. 

The street is a public place and the photographer has as much right as the artist with a sketch book 

making sketches of people. The problem is that the barrel of the lens pointing at someone could have a 

different psychological effect than the brief glances of the sketch artist. 

Street photography is not about photographing poverty, squalor or misery, it is not about photographing 

homeless people on the streets, it can show humorous, funny, sad, joyful etc moments. 

If the street photographer is a "mugger" as is suggested in one of the previous comments then HCB is 

the greatest "mugger" known so far and I would dream about being a "mugger" like him and of course 

never be able to achieve that dream. A true street photographer's natural instinct is to shoot first and to 

worry later. 

-- Ananda Chaudhuri, June 27, 2001 

> FWIW, the reason Henri Cartier-Bresson doesn't want his image widely 

> published is because he wants to be able to photograph people 

> anonymously. If everyone knew what he looked like it would give new 

> meaning to the phrase "celebrity photographer." 

Cartier Bresson is 92 years old. AFAIK, he hasn't been taking pictures for quite a few years, dedicated 



instead to painting. 

As for street photography, I'm no expert, but none of the images in this page do much for me. An image 

doesn't just work because it is a candid picture of a stranger in the street. It needs interesting expressions, 

or action, or striking composition. Here is how I feel about this issue, with some examples of pictures 

that didn't make it into my galleries. 

I'm a beginner at this, and suffer horribly when trying to get close to people and photograph them. But 

that's part of what makes it interesting. A long telephoto would take the fun out of it. 

-- Juan Buhler, July 25, 2001 

This is my first visit to photo.net and so far I like it. Everyone will see a picture or body of work 

differently, and have various interpretations of said work, and it is good that we can express our 

comments openly. However, I believe comments of Amanda Chadheri were to the point and exactly on 

target. I agree 100%. All this about getting to know the subject, etc., cannot apply at all times, as many 

great photographs would be missed. If you fully believe that you have to get to know the person, try 

street photography in the arab world, where they still believe the lens on a camera is the evil eye and will 

capture/steal their soul. I broke into street photography in Morocco, and it wasn't easy. Also, why is it 

called street photography? Why not just people photography, or moment photography, because that is 

what it truly is. 

Richard Dean Williams August 4 2001 

-- Richard Dean Williams, August 4, 2001 

I doubt that HCB had to worry about getting a model release for his photos. I like the shot of the lady on 

the stairs. It makes me wonder what she's waiting for. Who is she going to share that quart with? Did 

you have to approach her for a release? All of these questions make it an interesting photo to me. I've 

taken quite a few similar shots but never approached the subject so are they doomed to the albums I keep 

them in? 

-- Joe Photo, August 12, 2001 

I don't know if you would consider this the same as 'street photography', but there's some excellent [what 

I would call] 'urban' photography at http://www.urban75.org/photos/, ranging from New York to 

Birmingham, England. They're mostly devoid of people but are still very evocative - almost as if the 

absent commuters, pedestrians, workers and residents leave a mark on the street even when they're not 

there. 



-- James Gleeson, August 20, 2001 

An interesting discussion. Its all subjective - either you like the work or you don't. I've photographed 

both candid and interactive shots of people from Brazil to India to China. Sometimes candid is 

appropriate, sometimes its not. But if you don't shoot, you won't have a photo. It looks like what 

everyone is discussing is the definition of street photography - my question is, is there one and does it 

matter? 

The links that other comments recommended are great! 

-- Eric Riutort, December 2, 2001 

A comment on Trevor Hare's November 29, 2000 entry: He says: "Sorry but I do not feel this page 

demonstrates street photography. The images mostly look as if taken with telephoto lenses. (Shyness or 

cowardice?)..." He prefers to use "a Normal lenses so the photographer had to interact with his fellow 

humans..." 

On the contrary, interacting with the subject can often disrupt the candidness of the shot. Real life 

changes abruptly when the subject is acutely aware that he is being photographed. 

Trevor adds: "Also when photographing poverty try and preserve the subjects dignity...". I agree totally, 

and to do just that, a distant shot often seems more appropriate to me. How can a down and out person's 

dignity be preserved when a photographer is in his face saying, in effect, "let me take your picture 

because you are so deprived."? Cowardice to take a shot from a distance? I think it can be a sign of true 

respect. ---B 

-- Brian Sharkey, January 11, 2002 

Some of the best street/candid photography shots can be seen from "Life" magazine.. Here, I like the 

shot "Canal Street Manhattan 1995". 

-- Belinda Tan, January 16, 2002 

I find it very interesting that more hasn't been said about people and their right not to be photographed. I 

consider myself a very serious amateur. I enjoy photographing just about everything and have had a 

considerable amount of formal art training at the University of South Florida as well as technical 

photography training at the Art Institute of Fort Lauderdale. The moral and legal issues of 

photographing people against their wishes intrigues me. 

It is my personal opinion that everyone (excluding people who knowing place themselves in the public 

eye) has the right to determine how and when their image is used. The justification that an image is art 

or that the image could not have been captured in any other way should not be the justification for a 



photographer to use another person’s image. It is a matter of integrity and I feel that anyone who violates 

this rule affects the integrity of every photographer. 

-- Ray Cerx, April 11, 2002 

Hmm. I have come to the conclusion that street photography is my favorite outlet for my lust for 

photography. When I first came to photo.nt this was the first post I read as the "street photography" title 

caught my eye. I believe that the idea of street photography is simple in that you are out to capture 

fleeting moments that describe an environment or people interacting and the medium in which you do 

this I think matters not. I first started my street photography using a 28-135mm IS lense on a CanonA2 

(eos5) body. This was fine as I was free and clear to frame almost anything that I wanted to at almost 

any distance(that 135mm would alow). I also had my hassleblad camera out on sunny days shooting 

street stuff and that was actually twice as much fun though I would sometimes become the subject rather 

that what was infront of my lense (hehe) I then picked up a nikon f3 and a 24 mm lense. Ahhhhhh. I 

found myself getting much closer(sometimes 3 feet) to my subjects but the outcome is amazing. I like 

both colour and blacknwhite film but I do feel that B&W film alows more focus on composition as to 

not have the colours govern the images. I have colour and black and white images in my folders here on 

photo.net if anyone is interested. http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=170873 http://www. 

photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=171338 feel free to contact me or tell me of more street photography 

sites too , I would love to see more ! 

Image:BabatundeMartins.jpg 

-- Babatunde Martins, May 18, 2002 

This article and the one on Winogrand prompts me to put down a question that has been at the back of 

mind which I find relavant. Perhaps others have a view to contribute. 

At the most basic level the question is "So I love taking pictures. Walking around I often find I see 

things as a sequence of pictures. If you capture all these images, what do you do with them?" 

I feel Winogrand must have had similar feelings. Hence, a million pictures later and a third of them 

unedited. There must be something pyschological about capturing the image. But what do you do with 

them afterwards? 

Does anyone have the same feelings or have some other insight into this matter? 

-- Simon Shapiro, July 23, 2002 

For Brian Sharkey. 

A Bill Brandt picture (photojournalistic for Picture Post magazine) of a socially and economically 

deprived person living amongst the squallor of a post war , East London slum , taken with a Normal lens 



at close quarters , with the subjects full knowledge and (I would judge) the subjects dignity is totally 

preserved!..... 

http://www.orst.edu/dept/humanities/newsletter/2000-spring/images/lambeth-walk.jpg 

-- Trevor Hare, August 1, 2002 

As to what I do with all my street photos. I just have lots of negatives archived in folders. I dont print 

everything. Much of what I have on photo.net is scanned negatives. I sometimes will see someone I have 

taken a photo of in passing and give them a card to contact me, I give them a print as my own payment 

back to them (thats nothing for I have taken there image and If I show anyone and its anygood, thats 

promotion leading to more money for me so why not?) I have heard street photography described as "the 

stolen art" This is why I tend not to take pictures of the deprived for I see little point in exploiting. And 

when I have, I give them money, a lunch or a dinner for the guy laying in the street drooling/ starving / 

drunk, that someone photographs then posts here for self agrandisement gets none of that glory if hes 

half smiling or not. 

-- Babatunde Martins, August 2, 2002 

It seems a more apropos name for this subsection would be "guerilla photography" since the nature of 

the subject matter is almost a mystery until it's encountered. Furthermore, I understand the other readers 

who note that the flash is present in the picture. My concern is based on this. How can you truly catch 

people unawares using a flash in public? Don't they notice things like that? And do you have to get 

releases from them if you decide to exhibit or sell their likenesses? 

-- thomas scott, November 24, 2002 

In the end using flash or not will only make an impact on your standing once you have taken the photo. 

Using the flash will obviously draw attention altering the living aspect of any images past the first click. 

Not using flash may give you more chances at capturing the slice of life without the blast intrusion of 

flash. It all depends on how you wish to be in your environment. Do you want to document or become a 

part of it? It will show in the images. Personally I think that street photography turns quickly into 

outdoor studio candid portrature when flash is introduced. 

-- Babatunde Martins, April 15, 2003 

> Maybe this is why Bill Brandt is a legend and Phil isnt 

This sounded like a very cynical comment itself. Legend or not, from what I know is, despite your 

disagreement with Phil, I won't be into photography today, if it wasn't for Phil. So, please give him a 

credit. I believe his contibution in making photography knowledge available online/public for free is 

undeniable. 



THANK YOU PHIL :) 

-- F D, May 7, 2003 

I do not support quantitative approach to photography. One of the Marxist axioms was that “quantity 

will convert itself into quality”. After 50 years of social experimentation the communism fell miserably. 

Although I admire work of Gary Winograd, and his lifestyle (of taking thousands of pictures) I believe 

in those few pictures selected for publishing. I advocate restrain in manufacture of garbage! 

-- Wieslaw Zdaniewski, May 13, 2003 

for all you who say the photographer must interact with their " victims" to be a real street photographer, 

what's the point? are we talking candid photography or social work here? and just because they happen 

to be poor or disheveled or one race or the other or drunk or hungry or whatever else you can think of, 

they are still a part of our culture, like it or not. and i think that making a record of that is what is 

interesting. fifty years from now people may actually enjoy seeing "us" as we were. some of the most 

interesting photographs i can remember looking at were of people. in their natural surrounding. acting 

natural. it allows one to see what it was like living at that particular time in history. to interact with 

people and then take their photo is more like a snapshot. posed expressions and fake settings. as for 

shooting from a vehicle, so what? was the photo interesting? was it well done? isn't that all that matters? 

"street" photography is about what you find on the "street". period. i have taken candids using a point 

and shoot walking down the street. i have also asked permission first. i have also used a telephoto from a 

vehicle, because if i had been seen taking the picture, i would have probably gotten into a fight or worse. 

some people just don't trust a photographer. they either think they are 5-O, or they will do their best to 

recover the picture. and then you have a problem. for those who stick to photographing "safe" people, 

( and for those knuckelheads who wonder what i mean by "safe", i mean your typically white middle 

class surburbanite) i guess you can try to ask permission first or become chummy and then ask if you 

can "log their photo for posterity". but then it isn't candid. is it? and nothing can ruin a candid shot more 

than a posed facial expression. i photograph the seamier side of our culture in a different way than i 

photograph the "safe" people. you have to, where i live. they respond totally different. as for invasion of 

someone's privacy, too bad. if they are out in public i will take their picture if i damn well please. i don't 

post them anywhere nor do i sell them. i think they are an interesting segment of our society and maybe 

someone else, someday will think so too, and enjoy them just for what they are. there are any number of 

techniques you can use. and they are all "street" photography. and so, to those of you who won't take a 

candid picture of a homeless person because they don't want to injure their dignity, try asking them 

sometime. and while you're at it, ask them when they allowed their dignity to take it's leave in the first 

place. just make sure you have an escape route planed in advance. 

-- perry atristain, January 30, 2004 

QUOTE My dear friend Michael, those photographs were *taken* in colour. The photographer knew 

this, and composed accordingly. You cannot simply desaturate a colour image in Photoshop and get a 

decent B&W image. The *style* of your photography, at camera level, must change in B&W. Try using 



"Desaturate" in Photoshop, with the images on this page, to see what I mean. A good colour image will 

nearly always be poor in B&W (and vice-versa, if you go to the bother of colouring it). UNQUOTE 

In my world, a good image should work in both Colour & B&W, i.e. desaturate and it's still a good 

image. Now, a mediocre colour image might not work as a B&W.... 

-- Paul Alford, April 16, 2004 

"i have also used a telephoto from a vehicle, because if i had been seen taking the picture, i would have 

probably gotten into a fight or worse." This was written by Perry on Jan. 30th. This is an example of 

what future street photographers should not do. Perry's pathetic tactics illustrate what is wrong with 

street photography. I am a social worker who serves the homeless mentally ill in Detroit. I also do street 

photography with this population. I approach them respectfully and I intend to use their images for their 

benefit in the form of advocacy. Peep show voyeurs like Perry do not respect people. I'm not surprised 

that some one might be offended when he is shooting from a car window like a nature photographer 

taking a picture of a bison. Photography can be used to acheive wonderful objectives and also can serve 

to make some morally crippled individual feel good about himself/herself. The way Perry and many 

others approach photography makes the camera a barrier between people rather than a bridge. People do 

have a right not to be photographed. It doesn't matter if they are in a public place or not. If they do not 

consent to the photograph, your are shamefully violating their privacy. Some people might be surprised 

to find out that when you approach a person like a human being they usually consent to being 

photographed. Perry likes the seemier side of life. Perry likes the dirty underworld. The lower socioeconomic 

classes are so heavily photographed because the upper classes have denied them the basic 

human tenets of individualism, privacy and autonomy. They are, to Perrys of the world, helpless fish in 

the barrell waiting to be 'shot'. It should be noted that the more priviledged classes have never been 

photographed in the way that the poor have because they have the financial and social means to remain 

hidden. Access to their world is exclusive. Access to the poor is viewed as a right to Perry, not a 

priviledge to be granted by the subject. Perry should know that these poor people are fathers, cousins, 

uncles, friends, co-workers and neighbors to some one. People in their lives care about them. People 

who know them care about them. If you want to photograph some one get to know them, even if for 10 

minutes. Ask them their name, what they like to do, and so one. You know what is really sad? Many of 

the people I have met as a social worker and as a street photographer are more ethical and respectful that 

the disgusting Perrys of the world. They are often victims of circumstance, crime, systemic prejudices, 

unemployment, mental illness, substance abuse, and a crumbling social welfare system. They try hard to 

keep their head up and keep trying despite the odds. They hope, pray and beg for a better future. They 

try, fail, and then try again. And when they are on their back at their lowest moment a car pulls up, a 

lens comes out and... 

-- John Gallagher, May 3, 2004 

"People do have a right not to be photographed." You're an idiot. The supreme court has already ruled 



that anyone in a public setting does not have the right to privacy. Any one can take a picture of them if 

they wish. 

-- Joe Smith, May 16, 2004 

People do have a right not to be photographed 

A lot depends of course of the country you are in. Here in Australia... 

"A person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed." 

(Dowd J, NSW Supreme court, R v Sotheren (2001) NSWSC 204) 

-- Andrew Nemeth, May 17, 2004 

>> A lot depends of course of the country you are in. 

In France, Article 9 of the Civil Code expressely forbids taking pictures of persons in public places, 

without his or her prior written consent. 

Worse, you're not allowed to take pictures of many buildings, either, the most famous case being the 

Eiffel tower. Not much risk in taking a snapshot, but forget contests or pro work, without filling out the 

necessary paperwork... 

K 

-- Christian Harberts, May 17, 2004 

Joe: Frankly, I'm embarrassed for you for two reasons in particular. The first is that you would turn to 

immature name calling to express your frustration towards people you disagree with. This demonstrates 

that you are not capable of engaging other adults in a mature manner. I will, despite my reservations, 

attempt to approach you in such a manner. The second reason I am embarrassed for you is that you did 

not understand the basic concept I clearly raised in my previous comment. In no part of my comment did 

I mention legal barriers for photographing people. I wrote explicity and solely on the ethics of 

photographing people. Kindly read my comment again so you can better understand where I am coming 

from. There is no constitutional ammendment requiring we say "God Bless You" when someone sneezes 

but we do it anyway, don't we? Likewise, there are no laws preventing someone from calling a nonaggressive 

stranger an "idiot" but we don't do it. Or maybe I can excuse you from the latter statement? 

-- John Gallagher, May 28, 2004 

Really poor article to credit as being a tutorial. I agree about the 'careful use of flash' comments as it is 



clearly NOT careful, but clumsey and very full on. Perfect balance of interior exterior levels reduces the 

sense of divide, it looks unnatural. 

'Street photography' is not my thing, I agree completely with the sentiments expressed that it can be very 

intrusive and unwelcome without obtaining permission from the subjects. Law is not the issue here, its 

just basic manners. 

-- Tony Brown, June 21, 2004 

Speaking of equipment. I am a bit surprised nobody mentioned Digicams with swivel LCD viewfinders - 

Canon Gs and the likes. They make nearly perfect weapons for street shooting. You just keep your 

camera at the waist level and frame your shot without even looking in your subjects direction. In most 

cases you can stay next to your "victim" without drawing attention to what you are doing. Here is a few 

candids I shot this way to kill lunch time http://www.pbase.com/tratov/strangers 

-- Alex Tratov, October 8, 2004 

The most enjoyable lens I own is my 12mm-24mm Aspherical. This is a non distorting fish-eye that 

allows me to get in close---up close and personal - for real! - If I shoot even three feet away from the 

subject, the punch is gone. Standing about 12 inches from this London lady added to the personal 

contact feeling for both of us. She enjoyed the attention and conversation as much as me. I did ask first 

if may shoot. I usually do. Her sincerity and comfort was easy to capture this way. But, would have 

never been possible with a long lens. I suggest a short lens and a large smile to shoot with on the street 

whenever possible. I would also recommend aiming for cohesive messages if only simple ones to 

illustrate emotions or a state of being like; joy, despair, courage, love, humor, etc. See: blind leading the 

blind, for example. I find that a smile and a clear heart goes a long way to get invitations into other 

peoples lives. Even if only for a few moments in the continuing 'special world' of travel. 

- Cheers and good luck on the street - Lee McLaughlin 

Image:blind leading.jpg 

-- Lee McLaughlin, October 29, 2004 

Here is a sample of the close-up London Lady. Taken with 12mm lens in London August 2004. - Lee 

Mclaughlin 

Image:london grin.jpg 

-- Lee McLaughlin, October 29, 2004 

I have read all the comments re - street photography. Some were quite harsh, while others were 



encouraging. I guess all though, like my own, are just each individual's opinion whether right or wrong. 

People have a right to their opinion, and in the same respect people have a right to privacy. While some 

may consider street photography voyeuristic or intrusive, others just enjoy capturing everyday life and 

that may include people on the street. I can see why some people feel uncomfortable taking a stranger's 

photo without permission, in case the stranger actually does mind. But sometimes talking to people 

beforehand, removes the natural behaviour of the person. When someone knows that you are taking their 

picture, they tend to play up to the camera or at least not act naturally. It can change the whole 

expression of someone and the way they behave and in doing so, changes the whole mood of the photo. 

Talking to the person and asking permission, may also stop them doing whatever it was you wanted to 

capture in the first place. I've always thought of photography as capturing that one moment in time, that 

will never be repeated exactly the same way. To capture every emotion and essence of the scene as 

naturally and as realistically as possible. In some cases you don't have an opportunity to approach 

people, they may be on the move or doing something that doesn't exactly need your input. (For example 

the dog fight outside the shop door in the photo above, they may not have been in the mood to discuss 

your photography options!) Rightly or wrongly, that's my opinion. If you are doing something in public, 

then you reasonably suspect that you are in full view of everyone around you, and that may mean having 

your photo taken. (Granted you may not want it caught on film forever for all and sundry.) Anyway, I 

guess I agree with both sides, it's a difficult argument between capturing a moment in time exactly as it 

naturally progresses and the ethical dilemma associated with doing something without a person's 

expressed consent. A photo taken in the moment allows others to see us as we really are and if we 

stopped to ask for permission, then maybe such emotive photo's as 'Arnaud Blanchard's' in the link 

below, would be lost and we would never have an opportunity to see the variety of life. 

-- karen brookes, December 1, 2004 

To preface, I'm no expert, nor do I do this for a living. I'm just a hobbiest. :) 

I would have to say that I have shot both candids as well as post-introduction photos of people going 

about their lives. I'm usually fairly close, and I'd say the subject usually notices me after a couple of 

shots about 50% of the time. Greater than 95% of the time when I drop the camera and give them a big 

smile, they smile back. I shoot everything from folks begging on the street, to well-to do commuters. My 

intent is not to exploit them, but rather to capture a slice of life as I see it. I neither seek out poor areas or 

rich ones to shoot - I shoot my surroundings. Under no circumstances do I continue shooting if I get a 

negative response (the subject holds a hand up or gives an unfriendly gesture or acts defensive) - 

however this rarely happens. Most often it is simple curiosity as to what I might be interested in 

shooting. 

It is darn near impossible to get a proper "slice of life" candid shot with a subject who knows you're 

there. They might stiffen up, stop, smile and/or look at the camera. Their entire demeanor can change. 

While sometimes this works for the shot, sometimes it does not. 

Introducing politics into this argument is unnecessary. Whether rich or poor - they are in public. Does 

this mean you should act like a papperazzi (sp) and get in their face no matter their reaction? Certainly 



not. It does mean that if you see that someone isn't enjoying the attention, you apologize and move on. It 

is fallacy to suggest that one must sit and ponder for days on the lives of those around them. I'm not 

concerned about whether they are "struggling against a crumbling socio-economic system" or whatever. 

That isn't what photography is about (unless you're a political photo-journalist ;) ). To me photography is 

about creating images that remind me of where I have been, where the world is/has been, and - decades 

down the road - what life was like at that time. What you might encounter in a day to day existance. 

The ethics, I think, lie in your intent (are you Jerry Springer or someone who is interested in capturing 

images of the times and places in which you live and play - I wish I had such images from when my 

great-grandmothers and fathers were living), and in your actions post-shot if they notice you. Naturally 

I'm not going to offer to pull the film out of the camera and trash it, but neither will I continue shooting 

near someone who is uncomfortable with it. To walk down the street introducing myself to everyone that 

might fall under the lens is a waste of everyone's time - mine and theirs. Naturally, if I see a shot that I 

think might warrant more than a quick composition and shot, I might stop and ask the subjects if they 

would mind if I shot a few images. To those that abhor a candid shot in a public place - tell me you 

haven't ever taken a photograph that had people in it that you hadn't talked to first to make sure it is ok - 

not even at a local attraction or monument. 

The answer - it lies in the middle. I don't believe you should stand on a city street for an hour trying to 

get a shot that doesn't have anyone in it that you might think was traumatized in the past or dumped on 

by an evil rich society - nor do I think you should continue to shoot if someone expresses a dislike. Just 

be polite and keep a friendly smile on your face and you'll do fine. :) 

-- Garry Morris, December 30, 2004 



Street from Prague 

Goldmakers street (hope translation is correct), Prague, 1984 

Golden times of black and white photography, at least in Romania, where the film was developed. 


I'm a new member who was excited to run across this site entirely by accident, and immediately 

subscribed. Several of the comments above concerned the particular role of B&W street photography, 

and although I may be getting more than I bargained for, I would appreciate feedback on the B&W street 

photographs I have posted on my website at www.abramsBW.com 

Dick Abrams 

-- Richard Abrams, April 17, 2005 




Having read through this article, and after looking at some of the recent work in the street gallery, I have 

realised that I have long been a great fan of this genre, without knowing that it existed in its own right. I 

agree and disagree with many points raised here, particularly the fact that street photography is to me at 

least a 'shady' passtime. Shady as in keeping out of the way of my subjects. I am merely recording a 



moment of public life as I see it. 

I have always had a manual SLR, but have recently been using an Olympus C8080 for my everyday 

shooting. It has to be said that candid photography is a whole different game when you have a swivel 

screen, 28-140 fixed lens, and the capacity for hundreds of pictures in one 'sitting'. I am however, not 

forgetting my film roots, as I have just purchased an OM2-S to accompany my tired OM1, and my new 

digital tool. 


Related Links 

Add a comment 

● folio's photo page- Dedicated to street photography in and around Tokyo, Japan, especially in 

Shinjuku, Harajuku, Daikanyama and Odaiba. (contributed by Akira Sudoh) 

● World wide street photography- Street Photography by an ex-university professor turned 

commercial photographer. Street Photography between assignments around the world. Very 

people oriented. (contributed by kirk tuck) 

● STREET PHOTOGRAPHY Discussion Group- Share ideas and images about street 

photography. (contributed by Dave Ramirez) 

● Full Frame Images- Unique black & white (street) - decisive moment/documentary photographs 

of life in Worcester, Massachusetts. (1969-1981) Hometown of Robert Goddard, Abbie Hoffman 

and Denis Leary. Included are classic images from various locations throughout the United 

States... Also showing a small sample of color street images... By Robert M Johnson (contributed 

by Robert M Johnson @ www.fullframeimages.com) 

● Black & White Street Photography in Tokyo, Japan- Tokyo scenes taken--mostly in Black & 

White--by Billy Woolfolk. (contributed by Billy Woolfolk) 

● Black And White Street Photography Of Peter Thoshinsky- Black and white street photography 

from the perspective of a street cop. (contributed by Peter T) 

● Enrico Gallingani Photography- Street Photography and Urban Abstraction (contributed by 

Enrico Gallingani) 



● Striking Images from 5 different Continents- Images that capture the moment in 40 different 

countries. (contributed by Todd Brown) 

● Digitalstockart.com- Come check out the raw photographic ability of professional kodak digital 

cameras. COmbined with high tech digital editing. (contributed by Michael Maddaloni) 

● Side-ways- This site may not fall under the regular definition of street photography, but it 

defenitely is literally street photography that is shown. (contributed by Beer Clement) 

● Sydney Unposed- In-close, colour people photographs taken in and around Sydney (Australia) 

from 1998 onwards. Street shots; beach scenes; photos taken at sporting venues and indoors in 

supermarkets, stores or malls. All images were taken from the front (Say No To Butt 

Photography!) and at 2-3m using 50mm or 35mm lenses. (contributed by Andrew Nemeth) 

● no rules. street photography- can you live without the rules? (contributed by fiveam T) 

● Interpretive Street Photography- A different approach to 'street' photography. (contributed by 

Tom Watson) 

● Contact Photos- Contactphotos.com is the website of photographies showcasing the work of 

photographer Arnaud Blanchard. (contributed by Arnaud Dine) 

● Sladephotography- Some nice photos from Europe and Asia. Mainly B&W. (contributed by jordi 

vollom) 

● amsterdam based photography- a personal site of me displaying some amsterdam based and 

travel related photos, also some portraits and other work, love some comments, its still not very 

well selected and organized. (contributed by Jasper Uhlenbusch) 

● Pink Headed Bug- John Brownlow's site showcasing his own street photography. He also runs a 

street photography mailing list on Topica. (contributed by Peter Norby) 

● Street Snapshots- Professional works in B&W and Color.intresting snapshot in street 

photography (contributed by Kamran Khoshi) 

● Grabshot- Website showcasing the informal 'human environment' images of UK stock 

photographer Ian Watts. (contributed by Ian W.) 



● kijkgat - streetphotography mostly 50mm- streetphotography by dutch photographer Nils 

Vermaning, all pictures in black&white and mostly 50mm (contributed by nils vermaning) 

● Street Photography Forum- An add free, pop up free forum to discuss street photography and post 

images. (contributed by David Russell) 

● Streetwise Photography by Lee McLaughlin- A collection of moving images shot on the street 

around the world. Some heart-wrenching, some funny - people caught on the strteet going about 

their lives. After three decades of street photography it is time to publish a book. Here are a few 

images from this collection. (contributed by Lee McLaughlin) 

● Street Photography by Lee McLaughlin - Lessons for Street Shooting- I love the street. I love 

people. I truly thrive on the experience of capturing those fleeting moments of irreverance and 

humor. I almost allways carry a camera at the ready. Usually 2. Currently I am using Canon 

10D's... one with a 12-24mm lens for my close up work and the other body with a 100-400 for the 

stuff that I can't get close to. Although I can shoot from 'a safe distance', I prefer to be in close 

proxcimity to my subjects. To talk with them and exchange energy in some way that is not 

invasive. I do this with a smile and an honest heart. I have been all over the world and I have very 

little trouble in my photographic pursuits. I recommend frequent smiles and digital gear as the 

best tools for street shooting anywhere. Happy hunting. (contributed by Lee McLaughlin) 

● OBLEKTIFIMDEN -Photo- Meyve photos (contributed by pepino pepino) 

● Freelance Photographer- Street photography from my daily walking and moving around. 

Professional quality images, but with a touch of quirky built right in! (contributed by Roy 

Caratozzolo) 

● Richard Abrams B&W Photography- B&W street photographs from around the world, 

concentrating on musicians, street performers, laborers, and just plain folks. (contributed by 

Richard Abrams) 

● Photos of Countries- A collection of more than 1500 photos of daily life scenes from more than 

30 countries by photographer Hans Rossel (contributed by hans rossel) 

Add a link 


permission. 






Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of computers 


photo.net 

photo.net nature forum 


Search 


● Shop 


● Travel 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 

The photo.net Nature Photography Pages 

...nature has ceased to be what it always had been - what people needed protection from 

Now nature - tamed, endangered, mortal - needs to be protected from people. 

When we are afraid, we shoot. But when we are nostalgic, we take pictures 

Susan Sontag - On Photography (Commenting on Photo Safaris) 

By Bob Atkins for photo.net. 

You may also wish to visit the Bob Atkins Photography pages 

"The FoundView checkmark guarantees that a given photograph depicts only the forms 

and shapes that were seen at the scene when the picture was taken." 

This site supports the efforts of the FoundView organization 

If you would like to contribute an article to these pages, please take a look the article contribution page] 

http://www.photo.net/photo/nature/ (1 of 4)7/3/2005 2:18:51 AM


I would like to thank all those who have sent in contributions to these pages and, of course, Philip 

Greenspun without whom these pages would not be possible. 

Discussion Forum 

● Nature Photography Q&A Forum - Database backed and searchable. Always something 

here. 

❍ Here are a few selected threads from the discussion forum: 

❍ Gitzo Carbon Fiber Tripods 

❍ Good, cheap, Older Equipemnt for nature photography 

❍ Why do you do nature photography? 

❍ Where and when to photograph birds in Florida 

❍ Image manipulation and ethics in nature photography 

Guides and Reference Articles 

● The Nature Photography Guide - A good place to start 

● Composition:Getting beyond the Snapshot by Gloria Hopkins 

● Composition II: Composition in Nature Photography and the Elements of a Photograph by Gloria 

Hopkins - 

● Starting out in Nature Photography A beginner's guide to chosing equipment. 

● Carry-on Luggage Restrictions Will it fit on an aircraft? 

● Telephoto Zooms and Teleconverters by Bob Atkins 

● Photography of the Sun, Moon and Stars - by Bob Atkins 

● Hand Picked Links - Just what it says, links to nature photography sites! Check for what's 

● Butterfly Photography by Jakub Jasinski 

● Mirror Lock Up by Bob Atkins. What it is and why it's needed 

● Magic Light by Larry Sizemore - Some thoughts on the qualities of light 

● Macro Photography by Philp Greenspun on photo.net. 

● Shooting Nature with the Yashica Mat 124G by Darron Spohn 

● General Bird Photography FAQ by Arthur Morris 

● Macro photography with the Canon EOS system - from the EOS FAQ. Extension tubes and 

dipoters 

● Reciprocity Correction data - How to modify/filter long exposures on slide film (Kodak and Fuji) 

Field Ethics 



● Effects of Flash Photography on Nocturnal Birds 

● Ethical Nest Photography - A guide by Grover Larkins. 

Equipment Reviews from photo.net 

● Canon 

● Nikon 

● Pentax 

● Tripods and heads 

Photo.net nature reviews (not currently in the photo.net review section) 

● Kinesis "SafariSack" beanbag 

● Canon EF500/4.5L USM 

● Canon EF75-300 and EF100-300 lenses 

● Gitzo Carbon Fiber Tripods - Models 1227 and 1325 

● Bogen Ball Heads - Models 3038, 3055 and 3262 

● Bogen Tripods - Models 3021, 3001 and 3051 

● Tamron 300/2.8 LD (IF) 

● Canon wide angles for nature work; 24/2.8, 28-105/3.5-4.5 and 20-35/3.5-4.5 

● Kinesis L525 Long Lens Bag 

Image Critique 

● Introduction and Rules 

Travel and Locations 

● Tundra Swans in the NJ Pine Barrens by Bob Atkins 

● Viewing and Photographing Mountain Gorillas in Bwindi Impenetrable Forest, Uganda by Kelly 

Flynn 

● Churchill by Frank Brabec. Polar bears and birds in northern Canada. 

● Galapagos by Shun Cheung. 

● Yellowstone National Park by Frank Brabec 

● The Florida Everglades by Grover Larkins 

● Yellowstone Trip Report by Ted Hendy 

● Kenya Photo Safari by Shun Cheung 

● Antarctica and South Georgia Island by Shun Cheung 



● Venice Rookery (Florida) by Shun Cheung 

● Brazos Bend State Park, Tx by Jim Bridges 

● Calling with camera and tent on the emperor penguins (Antarctica) by Fritz Pölking 

● Southern Utah National Parks by Shun Cheung 

Top Photo: (C) Copyright Robert M. Atkins, All rights reserved. 

Western Coyote, Yosemite NP, Canon EOS system, EF 300/4L lens. 

Bob Atkins 


permission. 




Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of mp3 players/accessories 


photo.net 

Choosing a Computer System for Digital Imaging 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 


by Darron Spohn, January 2002 

This article discusses what you need to consider when choosing a computer system 

for digital imaging work. Digital imaging, in this context, is defined as getting a 

still photograph into a computer and preparing that photograph for printing. If you 

are shooting with digital cameras you can skip the section on scanners. This article 

will discuss general principles in choosing a system, but will not delve into specific 

hardware recommendations. 

Computer hardware is evolving rapidly. What is state of the art today will be off 

the market in nine months. 

Choosing a Monitor 

This discussion starts with monitors for the simple reason that the monitor is 

critical to a digital imaging system. Just as light is the most important element in a 

photograph, the monitor is the most important component in the digital imaging 

workstation. 

Get a monitor that gives you control over the individual electron guns. This may 

take a bit of research on your part, but it is essential to matching screen display 

with printed output. Another consideration is aperture grill versus shadow mask. 

Aperture grill monitors are sharper than shadow mask monitors. This is not 

important in most tasks, but when you're looking at a 24x30 inch image at actual 

size to clone out dust and scratches it is vital that you have the sharpest monitor 

possible. Research the various manufacturers' web sites for specifications. Look at 

the aperture grill models only, and make sure you see something that states the 

monitor gives you individual controls over the R,G, and B intensity, and the white 

point settings. 

You also want a monitor with a flat screen. These cost a bit more, but are well 

worth the extra expense. The flatter screen means you won't stare at distorted 

corners when you're working on your images. Spend the extra money and get the 

flat-screen. 

http://www.photo.net/photo/computers (1 of 33)7/3/2005 2:19:07 AM


Then consider size. Most people assume bigger is better. It isn't. Look over the 

specs carefully. You'll notice that smaller monitors are significantly sharper than 

larger monitors. Seventeen-inch to 19-inch monitors offer the best compromise 

between sharpness and screen area. This has not changed in the last 10 years. The 

problem is that a 17-inch or 19-inch monitor is too small for your images and all 

the tool palettes you'll need to work on them. The solution is to use two monitors. 

Get a 15-inch monitor for holding your tool palettes. You won't believe how much 

time this will save you until you use a dual-monitor setup. 

LCD monitors are just now (early 2002) maturing to the point where they may be 

useful for critical color work. Their advantage is a smaller footprint than CRTs, 

meaning they take up less desk space. LCD monitors do not flicker like CRTs, so 

are easier on your eyes during long work sessions. The disadvantage is that LCD 

monitors remain two to three times as expensive as CRTs with the same usable 

pixel dimensions. 

Calibrating the Monitor 

You need a monitor that gives you hardware control over the white point and the 

individual electron guns so you can calibrate it properly. PhotoShop ships with a 

built-in software calibrator. The Macintosh OS ships with a Calibration Control 

Panel. Adobe ships Adobe Gamma with PhotoShop. Ignore these tools. They're 

good enough for non-critical work, such as desktop publishing or web 

development, but the only way to properly calibrate a monitor is with a hardware 

sensor to measure the colors, and software that lets you adjust the red, green, and 

blue separately. Optical makes a very nice calibrator for a good price, but - as with 

all things in the computer industry - things will change with time. Ask on the photo. 

net non-archived forum for current choices. 

How Much RAM Do You Need? 

Before deciding how much RAM to purchase you need to decide how you're going 

to scan your photos. If you want a home desktop scanner for getting 35mm images 

into your computer you'll need a lot less RAM than someone who shoots 4x5 film 

and sends slides to a service bureau for drum scanning. 

Also consider how much post-scan manipulation you'll perform on the files. 

Cleaning up dust and scratches does not increase file sizes. Using multiple 

adjustment layers in PhotoShop can easily double or triple the file size. Keeping 

these files in RAM so your computer doesn't access the scratch disk frequently will 

speed your work tremendously. For example, consider a typical 35mm slide 



scanned on a home desktop film scanner. These usually come in around 25MB. 

Add some adjustment layers and you may be working on a 75MB file. If you shoot 

medium format or 4x5 film and send your slides to a service bureau for drum 

scanning you'll receive 300MB files. Add a few adjustment layers to those and you 

can see the file swell to 900MB. That is when 1GB RAM can quickly become too 

little, and you'll hear your scratch disk churning away as PhotoShop writes 

information to the disk. 

If you're working on 35mm images you'll want 512MB RAM to give enough room 

for the OS, PhotoShop, and other applications. Larger formats require more RAM. 

The answer is simple: get as much RAM as your computer will hold. 

Choosing the Computer 

Processor speed is not as important as you might think. This statement will seem 

quaint in 10 years, but computers have gotten so fast that processor speed is a 

secondary consideration. PhotoShop craves RAM. Budget for RAM first, then 

decide how fast a computer you can afford. 

Macintosh, PC, or Linux? 

This is a never-ending debate here and on many discussion boards. Because of the 

volatile nature of computer hardware, any recommendations in this article will be 

outdated in a few years. Who knows what is coming down the line three to five 

years from now? But you have a decision to make, and you're spending a lot of 

money on a system, so you want to get the best platform for the long term. If you 

post a question on the non-archived forum regarding platform choice you'll get 

conflicting opinions from both Macintosh and Windows camps, with perhaps a 

Linux proponent chiming in. 

The best advice is to study the current market and see which platform offers the 

best color management tools. As of this writing, the Macintosh still leads in the 

color management department, but Windows has made great strides. Linux, despite 

its devoted following, does not offer much in the way of color management. Only 

you can decide which platform is best for you. Just don't swallow the old "(Insert 

platform here) has the most software available" argument. How much software do 

you need? If that software is available for a particular OS, then that platform will 

work for you. What is more important, preparing your photos for printing or 

playing games? 

Also consider the processor's true speed, not just its MHz rating. Judging processor 

speed by MHz rating is like judging a car's speed by the size of its engine. There 

are other variables at play here. The following information will be outdated 

quickly, but it serves as a reminder to do your research and consider the total 



package before making a decision. Apple's current G4 computers top out at 

867MHz. Intel's Pentium processors top out around 2Hz. Taken at face value, you 

would assume the Intel-based computers are twice as fast as Power Macintosh 

computers. They aren't, at least not in PhotoShop. The G4 is a RISC chip, and 

processes more instructions per cycle than do the Pentium chips. The 867MHz G4 

is actually as fast or faster in PhotoShop than the 2GHz Pentium IV. Ironically, the 

1.3GHz Pentium III is faster than Intel's latest Pentium IV. Again, do your research 

on current models so you don't make an expensive mistake. 

Almost any computer you can buy today is more than fast enough for all but the 

most demanding professional needs. Expansion room is more important than RAW 

speed. Most bottom-of-the-line computers have limited expansion capabilities, 

making them unsuitable for using as a digital workstation. 

The decision often comes down to your comfort with a platform. Unless you are 

willing to learn a new operating system and its foibles, you're better off sticking 

with what you know how to troubleshoot. When something goes wrong you need to 

fix it, not wait around a few days while a friend gets time to come over or you have 

to take the computer to a shop and pay shop rates for fixing a software problem. 

Hard Drives 

Go for capacity. A few years ago SCSI drives were the only game in town for 

digital imaging. No longer. Today's ATA drives are often just as fast as SCSI 

drives, and cost less than one-third what an equivalent size SCSI drive costs. You 

can spend more money on a SCSI drive and save a few seconds here and there 

while you're opening and closing files, but the day will come soon when you need 

more capacity. Those seconds will seem unimportant when you find yourself 

installing a larger drive so you can work on your images. Go for capacity. You 

won't regret it. Get a 7200 RPM drive with a 1MB or larger cache, and make sure 

the access time is under 9 ms. If your computer doesn't have one already, invest in 

an Ultra ATA 100 or faster drive controller too. 

Whatever computer you choose, make sure it has multiple drive bays and a power 

supply that can support the drives. You will run out of drive space eventually. 

Adding a drive is easier that replacing a drive, and less expensive than adding an 

external drive. 

Having multiple drives opens another possibility; striping. You can buy software 

that writes to two drives simultaneously, yielding noticeable gains in read/write 

performance. This used to be the exclusive domain of SCSI, but recent software 

works on ATA drives as well. Most of the new ATA controllers include striping 

software. 



Backup and Storage 

There is a plethora of storage options available, and the future will undoubtedly 

bring more. Current choices include CD-R, CD-RW, DVD-R, and DVD-RW. ZIP 

and JAZ drives, although available as of this writing, are not suitable for digital 

imaging. ZIP disks are too expensive per MB, and Jazz drives never caught on in 

the marketplace. 

CD-R (CD Writable) media are the least expensive of your choices. One 

disadvantage is you cannot change the information once you write it to a CD. That 

is also an advantage, as you cannot accidentally overwrite your files. Also, if you 

write multiple sessions to a CD you'll see multiple CD icons on your screen when 

you pop the CD into your computer to retrieve a file. This is a minor annoyance 

unless you write dozens of sessions on one CD. 

CD-RW (CD Rewritable) has the advantage of allowing you to write over existing 

data, much like your computer's internal hard drive. This can be a disadvantage if 

you delete an important file. CD-RW blanks are currently much more expensive 

than CD-R media. 

DVD-R (DVD Writable) writes to DVD discs, of course. The advantage is DVDs 

can store much more data than CDs. The disadvantage is that writing that data can 

take a long time. This is not an issue if you use them only for backup. Start your 

backup program before you go to bed and remove the media in the morning. 

DVD-RAM (DVD Rewritable) is more versatile than DVD-R, but the blanks cost 

more. 

Also consider how you will share files with service bureaus and editors. Every and 

service bureau editor has a CD drive. Not all have DVD drives. If you're working 

with a service bureau it is a simple matter of asking them what media they can 

accept. If you work with just a few editors you can do the same. However, if you're 

sending work out to many media seeking work, CD is the safest route. 

Don't buy your blank media at a discount computer store. You can never know 

where the media were manufactured, and thus have no idea how the disks are long 

term. Buy known brands, or go to CR Recordable.com and order online. 

Scanning 

Before deciding on a scanner you need to decide what you want to do with your 

images. Do you want to print 8x10s from an inkjet printer? Or do you want 30x40 



fine art prints? Any desktop film scanner will do a decent enough job for making 

small prints from an inkjet printer. Only a drum scanner will capture enough 

information for 30x40 fine art prints. There is a middle ground of course, but you 

should carefully consider your needs, your standards, and the limitations of 

affordable scanners before deciding to purchase one. 

Scanner manufacturers throw around DPI and Dmax ratings to impress consumers. 

DPI improves with each generation, and advertised Dmax ratings of home scanners 

inch closer to those of drum scanners with each new introduction. Be very skeptical 

of these claims, especially when it comes to Dmax. There is no industry standard 

for measuring Dmax, so marketing departments are pretty much free to claim 

whatever figures they think will drive sales. 

Even worse, no manufacturer publishes signal-to-noise ratios. S/N is the biggest 

drawback to home desktop scanners. You can find several models with similar DPI 

and Dmax ratings, but when you use them you'll see noticeable differences in 

noise. Compare those scanners with a drum scan, and you'll clearly see the 

difference. Where drum scanners capture clean details, home scanners exhibit 

muddiness. This is not an issue for 90 percent of the people using home scanners. 

As mentioned, they're good enough for printing to inkjet printers. 

Don't let this dissuade you from buying a desktop film scanner. They're certainly 

good enough for most peoples needs. Newspapers around th world use desktop 

scanners and get results far better than in the old days of shooting halftones and 

color separations. Desktop scanners serve well to get your work in your computer, 

where you can publish it on the Internet or write it to CD to send to prospective 

clients. And inkjet prints, when done properly, are indistinguishable from lab 

prints. But if you're after that last 10 percent of quality, nothing you can afford to 

buy will do the job. 

This is where service bureaus come in. They can afford the best equipment because 

they can spread the cost out over hundreds of customers. Beware, though, that not 

all service bureaus are created equal. The majority of them specialize in prepress 

scanning, and their standards are simply not high enough for the fine art market. 

Look for a service bureau that employs fine art photographers and specializes in 

working with the fine art market. The photo.net archives contain many 

recommendations for good service bureaus. 

Software Choices 

There are many choices, but only one standard. PhotoShop is the standard. Every 

service bureau has PhotoShop installed on its computers. If you're going to work 

with a service bureau, PhotoShop is your only choice. The publishing industry 



grew up with PhotoShop, and there is an entire sub-industry devoted to making 

PhotoShop work better than even Adobe intended. 

But is PhotoShop your only choice for home use? It depends upon your budget and 

comfort level of striking out into uncharted territory. If you can afford PhotoShop, 

and need occasional help when things don't go exactly right, then get it. Most 

bookstores have entire sections devoted to PhotoShop, so you can easily find 

tutorials and guides for this software. If you have a lower budget, or a pioneering 

spirit, your choices are more flexible. 

Photo Elements is a scaled down version of PhotoShop available for Windows and 

Macintosh platforms. It doesn't have all the features of PhotoShop, but if you just 

want to use a cheap film scanner to get images on the web and share with friends 

and family, PhotoShop Elements does the job. Be aware, though, that PhotoShop 

Elements will not let you use ICC profiles, making it unsuitable for critical color 

work. 

Corel PhotoPaint has its admirers, and is also available for multiple platforms. 

People with experience using PhotoPaint are welcome to add comments at the 

bottom of this article. 

For Linux users Linux, the GIMP is a nice image editor. As mentioned previously 

though, color management tools are lacking, but the GIMP has an excellent 

interface and, best of all, it is free. Color management tools may appear as Linux 

matures. The GIMP is also available for Windows and Macintosh OS X. 

For other recommendations see the Digital Imaging Software category in the 

archives. 

Printing Choices 

How you intend the print your photos will determine everything else. Inkjet output 

at home will require far less RAM than preparing files for a high end printer (the 

current state of the art is the CSI Lightjet 430). Printing technology changes as 

rapidly as computer technology, so study the current market and make your 

decision based on today's needs. 

Inkjet printers have improved tremendously in the past few years. Early color inkjet 

printers had poor archival properties; the prints faded into oblivion in a matter of 

months. Printer manufacturers and third parties have improved their inks and 

papers to the point where inkjet prints can often exceed the life of minilab prints. 

They can look better too, if you prepare the files properly. If you want to share 



prints with friends and family, inkjets are the way to go. 

But if you have higher aspirations, you'll need more computer power and a better 

scan than you can get at home. Again, this is where service bureaus come in. 

You're not going to get fine art quality out of a home printer, no matter how good 

inkjet printers get. They'll always lag behind the state of the art, because of cost 

simple engineering economics. A $250 inkjet printer cannot be designed and built 

to the same standards as a $250,000 continuous tone printer. Consider your needs 

and make your choices. 

Should you get an inkjet printer for proofing your images before sending them to a 

service bureau for high end output? Absolutely not. This statement is going to stir 

come controversy, but consider the ramification. Proofing on one device for output 

on another device throws more variables into the equation. Those of use who 

struggled with math in school understand the importance of minimal variables. 

Proof on the same device you use for final output and you'll avoid a lot of 

headaches. 

Budgeting Decisions 

Now you're ready to get down to the details. Where do you spend your money? 

Choose a monitor or, preferably, monitors. Buy an excellent monitor for your 

working monitor, then get a cheap one for your tool palettes. Next, decide how 

much RAM you'll need. Look up the price of RAM, and plug it into your 

spreadsheet. Then add in the software. Now you'll see how much you have left over 

for a computer and peripherals. 

Low end system 

● 512MB minimum for working with 35mm originals 

● Software = PhotoShop or other 

● Monitors = 17-inch for images, 15-inch for tool palettes 

● Backup device = CD-RW 

● Scanner = low end film scanner 

● Printer = inkjet for sharing files with friends and family 

● Hardware calibrator for monitor 

● Computer = Whatever is left in your budget 

High end system 

● 1GB minimum, but more is better 

● Software = PhotoShop, there is no other clear choice 



● Monitors = 17-inch or 19-inch for images, 15-inch for tool palettes 

● Backup device = CD-RW, DVD-RAM optional 

● Hardware calibrator for monitor 

● Printer = Laser printer for business use, let your service bureau worry about 

proof prints 

● Scanner = Don't bother. Do it right and send your originals to a service 

bureau for drum scanning. 

● Computer = Whatever is left in your budget 

One More Consideration 

If you're serious about the fine art market, you should honestly evaluate your 

computer skills and the cost versus the benefit of preparing the files yourself. 

Doing the prep work gives you absolute control over the final image, but do you 

have the skills and inclination to sit in front of the computer and prep the files 

yourself? Do you know how to set up a color management workflow that will 

succeed outside your home or office? 

Before the advent of digital imaging very few photographers bothered printing their 

own color work. They'd shoot the images, then drop off the film at a lab for 

processing and printing. Unless you have extensive darkroom experience you'll 

find this whole process frustrating. And it will not put money in your pocket. Think 

about this if you're running a business. You might find that you're better off letting 

a service bureau work with your files so you can spend your time generating new 

images. Your images are your income, after all. 

Conclusion 

You need RAM, but you also need a monitor with hardware control over the 

individual electron guns. If you cannot calibrate the monitor, you will not know 

what your print will look like. You will then churn out endless trial-and-error 

proofs trying to get a good print. Fortunately, you can save money by purchasing a 

smaller monitor. Buying a 17-inch image monitor and a 15-inch palette monitor is 

less expensive than buying a 21-inch monitor, and gives you more screen real 

estate. Unless your workspace is cramped, buy two monitors. You will be glad you 

did. 

Do not sacrifice RAM in your budget. Without adequate RAM you'll find your 

system painfully slow, no matter what processor it features. You're better off with 

maximum RAM and a slower processor than with minimum RAM and a faster 

processor. 

Operating systems are a tertiary, although important, consideration. Both Apple's 

Macintosh OS and Microsoft's Windows have more applications available than you 



will need, and both can run the one critical image editor you will need. If you're 

printing at home exclusively your image editor choices are extensive. If you're 

printing commercially or sending your files to a service bureau, then you will need 

Adobe PhotoShop. As mentioned above, the digital graphics art industry grew up 

with PhotoShop, and it is the one application you can know will work at any 

service bureau worth using. 

But Ultra ATA hard drives in the largest capability you can afford. This is one 

purchase you can safely put off until you need the extra capacity. Hard drives are 

getting larger, faster, and cheaper all the time, so waiting is a good idea anyway. 

Buy a computer with plenty of expansion room. You'll want internal hard drives 

unless you need to carry your drives from place to place. 

This information will help you decide what computer equipment you need, but you 

have to decide if digital imaging is right for you. Computers, like cameras, are 

tools. Having the right tools to do the job is important, but the right tools are 

useless unless you have the skills necessary to use them. If you have those skills 

then you're well on your way to success. If you don't have the skills then you'll 

need professional help. There are many people offering digital imaging workshops, 

and they're a great way to start. 

Photo Classroom run by West Coast Imaging 

Santa Fe Workshops 


You're not going to get fine art quality out of a home printer, no matter how good 

inkjet printers get. 

My experience (including dye sub, Frontier and Lightjet) has been quite the 

opposite, though I'd be glad if someone could point me to an output device that 

produces a better image than my Canon 800 inkjet. 

-- Vuk Vuksanovic, January 16, 2002 

Some would argue that the Epsons are better. One problem with Canon's 800 is it is 

limited to 8x10. Canon has a new printer coming out that will address this issue 

though. The other Epson advantage is more papers to choose from including some 

very nice matte papers. 



The high end Nikon 8000 desktop scanner can scan Medium format and costs 

around $3000. The quality is probably good enough for most purposes. 

If you use a digital SLR be aware that Kodak seems to favour the Apple platform 

somewhat and if you shoot with a Canon and want to use RAW files, a Windows 

PC will offer you many more options. Canon's own software is poor but they make 

an SDK for the PC platform only which has resulted in several excellent third party 

applications. 

-- Andrew Grant, January 16, 2002 

About the different kinds of drives, I think deciphering the family of DVD drives is 

probably one of the most confusing decisions when building a computer system 

nowadays. This is a good link from CNET if anybody wants to learn about the 

different types. 

http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/0-1091-8-6270835-5.html?tag=st.co.1091-8- 

6270835-1.txt.1091-8-6270835-5 

IMO, I disagree with the article that DVD-RAMs are more versatile than DVD-R/ 

RWs. I think it depends on whether you find use for DVD-RAM's double sided 

disks or not. Unlike DVD-RAMs, DVD-R/RWs can author movie disks(using 

DVD-R disks) which may be important to some, and they are generally faster than 

DVD-RAMs. DVD-R/RW seems like the most popular format right now (I think 

this is what Apple's Superdrive basically is), but the DVD+RW (not mentioned 

here) is also popular since it allows you to use the drive like a hard drive, but it 

may not be as economical as the DVD-R/RW, depending on your usage. Confused? 

So am I;) 

As far as the different types of CD-R/RWs to get and some other good information 

on them, here's another good article. 

http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/0-1091-8-8020643-1.html?tag=st.co.1091-8- 

8020643-4.subnav.1091-8-8020643-1 

I thought it was interesting that budget Comp/USA disks had a lower BLER 

(BLock Error Rate)than the pricey Sony disks. The Yamaha disks though 

outperformed them all. However, as the article mentions, you should not expect any 

consistency from budget CD-R/RWs like the CompUSA ones, because they may 

use different OEMs for different batches. 

About striping your disks, if you're planning to do this, it's worth mentioning that 



you need to make sure you buy 2 disks that are *identical*. Also keep in mind that 

striping (RAID 0), will also increase the chances of disk failure since you are 

splitting your data between 2 disks, and if one of them dies, all is lost. Having said 

that, I still use a RAID drive on my computer, and just make sure to back up my 

data every now and then. I'd also recommend motherboards with hardware RAID 

controllers rather than software RAID control. 

-- Tommy Huynh, January 16, 2002 

On the G4 side, take a look at the Acard IDE PCI card - it gives you four more IDE 

(ATA100) drives, and has hardware raid. Superfast, and exceptionally stable. Also, 

in the DVD issues, having a drive like the Pioneer mounted in the latest Apple 

products not only allows you to save files, but the included software lets you make 

slide shows on DVD for clients. A good way to show off a portfolio, and at 5 bucks 

a disk, beats the heck out of prints cost-wise:) 

-- Robert Landrigan, January 16, 2002 

Speeding up your machine for extensive processing. 

Okay, just a few words from experience; my company (one of the big US imaging 

companies) builds a specialist solution for high speed Photoshop and image post 

processing. The input files are 75-100mb in size from a specialist scanner, but the 

image manipulation is faily standard - cleanup/scratch removal/sharpen/etc... using 

custom tools and Photoshop as an option. 

The core spec machines is: 2*PIII 1ghz 

1gb RAM 

Promise IDE RAID - with 2 pairs of 2*40gb-9ms-2mb cache-7200RPM disks 

(Striped to RAID 0 for speed) 

Running Win2k Pro 

The big speed gain in part comes from the dual processor, but mainly from the 

RAID subsystem, which is surprisingly inexpensive. All the parts for this can be 

bought surprisingly inexpensively (not sure of $ price, but les than a comparable 

Dell box) and it blazes through the applications. Win 2k or Winnt4 will let you 

make the most of the speed. 

Hope this might help... 



-- Paul Gittins, January 17, 2002 

A point that needs to be emphasised when considering striping drives for speed: 

this will half the reliability of your drives. Backup then becomes critical, and the 

risk of downtime rebuilding a system goes up. That's not to say striping is all bad, 

but it's something to bear in mind. 

-- Rodger Donaldson, January 17, 2002 

It's nice to see some general recommendations here, but I think two important 

aspects are completely missed: 

1) Establishing a color management workflow is not the simplest of tasks. Expect 

to spend substantial money and/or time "learning the ropes" until you get the 

required results. 

2) No matter how much money you have and no matter how much hardware you've 

bought, learning PhotoShop intimately will take a long time. Don't expect to see 

magnificent results overnight. 

-- Dan Wolfgang, January 17, 2002 

..."Should you get an inkjet printer for proofing your images before sending them to 

a service bureau for high end output? Absolutely not."... 

I really don't understand this comment. This is common practice. It's farily simple 

to profile a certain printer and duplicate its output on a good inkjet. Certain inkjets 

can be used with software like Adobe PressReady - which does a fantastic job at 

simulating CMYK press output on cheap inkjets. HP has just started shipping a 

whole line of pre-press proofing inkjets (starting at $800). 

-- Steven Lyons, January 17, 2002 

Perhaps this title should have read "Choosing a(n) (Ideal) Computer..."? Albeit the 

thrust of this article is to address new computer system purchasers but there are 

many of us out here running with adequate (as per Adobe specs) systems that may 

only need a bit of tweaking. Yes, our systems are slower and Yes, they may be less 

than desirable but probably are 'good enough' to start with. 

As example, I'm printing with an Epson 880. With this printer I lose out on having 



6 colors (mine is 4) printing with 'longlife' inks (definitely not mine). But while this 

printer is a 'family' printer with school reports being run through it, I'll forego the 

better image quality for cost savings. 

The way I look at this is that I'm still in a learning curve manipulating images in 

my spare time (I have another real day job to pay for my hobby) and until I get 

more comfortable with all the aspects of digital manipulations...I'll make do 

(realizing my limitations). 

After all, I may dream of a Porsche but I won't buy one to learn to drive with. 

-- Richard H. Weiner, January 17, 2002 

Doug, establising a color management workflow is a whole 'nother article. I've got 

mine down pat, but I'm not sure I have the experience to write an article outside the 

scope of what I'm doing. Any volunteers? 

-- Darron Spohn, January 18, 2002 

My 2 cents: 

Backup and Storage. 

A mere 2400 dpi, 16 bit/channel TIFF scan from a 35mm slide frame is about 50 

megs. This is almost 10% of a CD! And, if you are serious about preprocessing, 

you want to save a separate copy of the same image on different stages of 

preprocessing so you can easily revert to any later on. Think about it if you do tons 

of scans and want to use CD as your storage. 

Scanning. 

Selecting your desktop scanner be very careful not to go with total amateur 

solution. While result of one frame scans from many scanners may be very similar, 

it is your time that counts here. Make sure that your selection equipment: 

- can be properly calibrated, 

- has auto-focus capability, 

- can batch process bulk loads of frames slides, 

- can batch process strips of 35 mm film, 

- can batch process entire rolls of 35 mm film, 

- works with Silver Fast (or something alike), 

- automatically removes impressions of dust/scratches (read about digital ICE), 

- supports some fast connection to the computer (SCSI or, I guess, USB 2.0). 

These requirements will make sure that your will not spend most of your time 

scanning you photos. 

I would also slightly disagree with Darron as far as drum vs desktop scanners 

quality comparison. Some relatively cheap scanners can give you the same quality 

as many drum ones. It is the processing time and high specialization (features like 



built-in CMYK separation) that makes drum scanners better for large print shops. 

Printing Choices. 

Consider sending scanned, preprocessed files to a digital lab. They will "print" your 

work on a real photographic paper. Of course, based on your targeted audience 

(friends/family vs fine art) you may want to select different labs that give you 

different processes, results, source scans requirements and, finally, prices. 

-- Pawel Loj, January 20, 2002 

I'll confine my comments to the PC world since I'm not very familiar with Macs. 

SCSI: What makes great is not so much ultimate speed and throughput but that it 

offloads the I/O processing from your CPU. This means that you system will 

continue to be responsive when moving a lot of data. ATA100 (and now ATA133) 

disks will move a lot of data quickly but they will bog down the main CPU making 

the machine unresponsive. Som IDE RAID controllers will also offload the 

processing similar to a SCSI controller. I have used and own both SCSI and IDE 

based systems and the SCSI systems are more responsive. 

Processor: Seriously consider going to a dual processor system. Once again, this is 

about not having the system bog down. Dual processors will make multi-tasking 

much easier. 

If my budget were limited, I'd probably pick dual processors over SCSI. 

-- Paul Wilson, January 21, 2002 

I felt like this article just lacked the "meat" that I was hoping it would have. 

Leaving out the mid-range options seems like a mistake to me. I'm using the Canon 

FS4000US scanner and Epson 1280 Photo printer, and am having a great time with 

the digital darkroom. I'm blown away by the quality that I'm getting right off the 

bat; I'm sure I'll improve as I learn new techniques. This article came across to me 

as relatively discouraging -- the exact opposite of the experience I'm having right 

now. 

-- Scott Hill, January 21, 2002 

Vincent J M: 

You post: "look at the Wilhelm research fiasco". I have used the Wilhelm pages for 

deciding on printer and paper. Has something happened (fiasco) that I have not 

seen? 



-- Per-Christian Nilssen, January 25, 2002 

Scott Hill is right on with his comments, I too use a Canon FS4000 scanner at the 

input end and an Epson 2000p at the output end, and I am very pleased with the 

prints I produce with these peripherals. My computer is a thrift shop mac 7300 that 

I maxed out to 512 megs of ram it works fine with photoshop elements and the 

Canon scanner plug in. 

-- Richard Alan Fox, January 25, 2002 

I am just about to decide for a (probably Epson 1290) printer and have already a 

scanner and computer. So, information about reasonably priced system calibration 

methods, tricks and solutions are of interest for me. I have already found a few 

articles that I will add to the links below. If others know more resources, I would be 

glad to hear about them. 

-- Philippe Wiget, January 31, 2002 

Nice article, Darron. However, I would argue a few points. SCSI hard drives , in 

my opinion, are still a better way to go. 1-They don't bog down the CPU when 

under heavy load. 2-If you ever do run out of ram, and it does happen, you won't 

think your computer just died. 3-And lastly, when opening and closing very large 

100 meg or larger files it makes a huge difference. I run a P4 at 2 gig with 1 gig of 

fast RDRAM and a Seagate Cheeta spinning at 15,000 rpm. With access times 

around 3.6 ms and throughput near 70 megs per second, it does make a big 

difference in my work time. At $100 an hour, the SCSI drive has already paid for 

itself a couple times over!! 

As an example, I just opened a 100 meg tiff file in less than 1 second, rotated it 90 

degrees in less than 1 second, and closed it in less than 1 second - while still on the 

internet AND running other programs! Photo manipulation is very time consuming 

and every bit helps. As for which platform is fastest, that's like saying which is 

faster, Ford or Chevy. It depends on which Ford or Chevy, who the mechanic is, 

and what he has done to the engine. If anyone would like to do some comp tests, I 

am game. We would need the same image. (Easy enough to download a large 

image from one of the digital camera sites and make it larger - say 100 megs). I am 

always interested in faster ways to work!!! 

Again, a great article. 

-- Steve Bingham (www.dustylens.com), January 31, 2002 



Reading the most recent comment I thought it was pertinent to touch base on the P4 

debacle and RAM. 

The Pentium 4 is fast in clock speed, but spins its wheels. It just doesn't have the 

grunt power needed to truly chug through photoshop work. A 1.13 Ghz Pentium 3 

will outpace it in most any imaging process. Also, RDRAM is a relatively lost 

cause now. Its pricy and posts minimal speed gains for a considerable increase in 

cost, even simple PC133 SDRAM will perform admirable. DDR RAM is probably 

the best way to go, however it hasn't realized its full potential, and right now its 

hard to say whether it ever will. They hardly stepped in the doorway of second 

generation DDR ram, and if they had made it to the third generation as planned, 

we'd all be weeping over our modest SDRAM and RDRAM. The third generation 

would have been able to produce several times the performance over normal 

SDRAM (depending on the system and who's designs you followed) but the overall 

performance would have definately been higher. 

I guess that's all dreaming right now because the second and third generation DDR 

rams haven't yet come to be. Even with that though, an Athlon at approximately 

1.2Ghz with 1gb DDR, a Pentium 3 1.13 Ghz with 1Gb PC133 SDRAM or a G4 

with 1gb of ram will all perform well, and easily trample all over a Pentium 4 

(sorry intel, you blew it). 

Incidentally, a rumor in the computer industry that leaked from intel supposedly is 

that the P4 will be remarketed as the Celeron. Food for thought. 

-- Carl Smith, February 4, 2002 

A word about Filesystems, Drives, and OSses 

Some here have said many good things about SCSI drives ; it is true that SCSI is 

faster, but this is mainly because the fastest drives (ie 15000rpm) are not available 

in IDE, and the SCSI controller offloads the processor too. However, regarding the 

Bang for Buck, an IDE raid wind hands down because SCSI drives that are faster 

than IDE are also horrendously expensive. 

Regarding processor load, this depends a lot on the OS too. Win95/98/Me is 

incapable of asynchronous I/O, ie. the processor is used 100% during disk accesses. 

This is the same for Network accesses. They are also not real multi-task OSses. 

They are slow. 

XP and 2000 will, on the other hand, work like you'd expect and let the processor 

run your apps during disk accesses. An IDE drive will maybe use 5-10% of your 



cpu, a SCSI will use


shaddow mask monitor is much more apropriate for viewing and editing photos on 

screen and picture also looks more natural and ergonomic (less irritative). But I 

have to say that this is so when evaluating high priced shaddow mask monitors like 

those from EIZO which I generaly prefer. 

-- Joze Volf, February 16, 2002 

For those choosing Windows, I would also strongly suggest steering clear of any 

Windows 9x/Me platform and choosing Windows XP. Solid as a rock, and a true 

multitasking/multiuser OS. 

Re. file systems, I have to disagree with one of the comments that you should 

choose FAT32 over NTFS on an XP system. When formatting, FAT32 volumes are 

limited to a maximum of 32Gb on Win2K/XP. This is a significant limitation, 

IMHO. While NTFS does need defragmenting for best performance, this can be 

done easily enough. I use a product called DiskKeeper that runs in the background 

and keeps my disks defragged automatically. There are many other benefits of 

NTFS, including transaction logging, automatic rollback, security, compressed 

folders, virtually unlimited partition size, etc. 

-- Gary Voth, February 18, 2002 

It always amazes me to hear anyone worrying about "archival" print stability from 

a print made originally from a negative/positive already scanned into very high 

quality digital form. The digital form which is saved on hard disk, cd, or now dvd 

will last forever and can be transferred to many other storage device with no loss of 

information. But more to the point: you can reprint the digital file anytime you 

want and expect nothing but dramatically increased quality every time you print it. 

You will throw away many evolutions of cheap ($ 100 to $500) ink jet printers 

before you have to worry about achival quality of the prints you've made. You will 

be printing them again in 1/10 the time at 10 times the quality of the print you are 

now worried about having archival qualities. What strikes me as most important in 

this review is the time and cost of "my labor" to produce prints from home 

equipment. As much as I hate the cost of letting professionals do it form me, I still 

think I'm better off spending my own time taking new photographs than sitting in a 

small room fighting with my computer. Someday, however, I'm sure I will have the 

latest Mac, scanner, and printer! 

-- Larry Kincaid, March 3, 2002 

Overall a very well done article. I use PaintShopPro instead of PhotoShop. PSP 

(from Jasc Software) handles all my photo manipulation needs and makes TIFF 

files which are 100% compatible with Photoshop files. PSP costs less than 



Photoshop - enough less that you can buy a SCSI drive with the difference! 

-- Ray Paseur, March 5, 2002 

One compromise between the processor load of the typical IDE drive and the cost 

of SCSI drives is to invest in a high-end IDE RAID card. (A currently-shipping 

example is the Adaptec ATA RAID 2400A.) These cards include a dedicated RAID 

processor (often an Intel i960-family chip), thus presenting a much smaller load to 

the main processor in the computer. 

-- Dan Tremitiere, March 14, 2002 

Rather than giving a direct feedback to the article, I would rather talk about my 

own experience with regards digital darkroom equipment. I have a Mac G4 with 

640 MB RAM and 40 G drive. I have an Epson 1280 printer that can print up to 

13" x 19" and a midrange Epson Scanner. I use MIS archival dye/pigment inks on 

Somerset Archival Photo Enhanced (Textured Finish) watercolor paper. The prints 

I get from this set up are museum quality comparable to very expensive giclee that 

one can get from service bureaus. BTW, gicleé prints are in reality just prints 

printed in expensive inkjet printers using pigment inks on archival fine art 

watercolor paper. 

Below, are some of the links I went through while doing research on printers, inks 

and papers. I hope that you will benefit from these sites as I did. 

• http://www.fineartgicleeprinters.org/ • http://www.digitalartsupplies.com/ • http:// 

www.tssphoto.com • http://www.visual-artists.com/ • http://www.einks.net/lyson. 

html • http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/arcnew.html • http:// 

www.legionpaper.com/digital/resellers.htm • http://www.peimag.com/site_central. 

htm 

-- Ayos Kah, March 26, 2002 

Hi, 

I enjoyed this article. I was wondering of anyone could elaborate on the dual 

monitors. How is it done. Besides a monitor, what do you need. 

Andrew 

-- Andrew Delianides, March 26, 2002 



A quick note about CRT vs LCD. Some profiling software & hardware do not work 

with LCDs. For instance, the EZ Monaco color probe does not work with LCDs, 

according to the manual. 

I don't know if it is just a way to prevent the suction cups from damaging the LCD 

screen. Among the links below there is an article from Luminous Landscape which 

deals with a Mac product which works with LCDs. In any case, should you choose 

to use a LCD, always check if it is compatible with your profiling solution. 

-- Fabrizio Giudici, April 11, 2002 

Hard Disks: IDE RAID (promise fasttrack 100 with 4 x4 40GB WD ATA100, 

raid0) worksfor me, never seen anything better, the only thing that beats it is 

SCSI160 raid, and a controller for this is way too expensive. Works awesome on 

XP. FAT32 is still way to go (Pierre is right), no it is not limited to 32gb, an 

fragmentation of MFT and such is not an issue then. Gary is wrong, and NTFS 

really gets slower, and cannot be read from a plain boot disk in case of crash. 

DiskKeeper is slowing you down and you have to pay for it too. 

Inkjets: Epson 1280 works for me as well, the main cost is still ink and photo 

paper, cheaper than any lab print still. 

Monitors: I have two 20" trinitrons. Works great as well, got them refurbished at a 

great price. Photoshop Interface Improver is nice to have as well. (ATI Radeon 

7000 VE card) I could not even think to go back to 15" or 17"!! 

-- Carl B, May 10, 2002 

A word about Archiving and Storage 

Lets look at the basics for a bit, ~20Mb/image will give you no more than 32 

images/CD!!! At the rate at which we shoot, we will have to burn 1 cd per "roll". 

Add to that the time for burning time. All this equals frustration. RAID drives 

sound good for now, but does anyone know about lifetimes on these puppies? 

The main question however is, what happens a few years from now when SCSI 

drives, RAID, IDE, CDRW and DVDRW, etc. are passe? How does one migrate 

upward? 

I am struggling with this as my digital collection grows to a few gigs in a few 

months. With slides you know you have a tanglible medium in you hand! 



Any pearls of wisdom anyone? 

-- Ajoy Prabhu (www.AjoyPrabhu.com), May 22, 2002 

The following is gleaned from what I have read from reliable online and print 

sources as well as my own experience. 

Dual monitors (aka Dual Head) -- There are two ways to do this: use a video card 

that has two outputs, or use two video cards. I have not tried to use two video 

cards; I expect there would be difficulties with resource conflicts. Probably best to 

use two cards from the same manufacturer. 

Matrox used to be the king of dual-head (and quad, etc.!) cards. Now ATI and 

nVidia have also gotten into the act. If you don't care about 3D performance 

(mostly used in games), Matrox is still an excellent choice. I have used a number of 

their cards, albeit with only one monitor, and had no complaints. Their 2D quality, 

which is what you need for photo editing, is legendary. Their software (driver) 

support for dual-head is supposed to be good and the cards run about $120 for a 

G450 dual-head with 32MB video RAM. 

ATI makes a number of dual-head cards. I have a Radeon 8500 which works OK. 

ATI's problem has always been with driver support but they seem to be improving. 

Their 2D quality is also good. ATI used to make all their own cards but now they 

also sell chips to other companies so it is more difficult to know what you are 

getting. Lots of choices from


SCSI vs. IDE/ATA: I think that most people would benefit little from SCSI. Its 

main advantages -- faster seek times and the ability to handle multiple access 

requests intelligently -- are of use where one needs to get lots of little files spread 

all over the disk(s) rather than loading one big image file. Modern IDE/ATA 

controllers often use less cpu time than SCSI. A 7200 rpm ATA-100 or ATA-133 

drive will give decent performance and double the capacity at half the price of a 

10000 rpm U160 SCSI drive. Better to spend your money elsewhere. Seagate and 

Maxtor make dependable drives. Avoid IBM; they have had some reliability 

problems recently with their IDE/ATA drives. 

dual cpu -- Here is a review where they compared Intel and AMD systems using 

photoshop and a 50 MB file: 

http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=45000321 

Notice that the dual-cpu setup doesn't provide much benefit. It may be that the 

system is limited by RAM bandwidth, or Adobe didn't optimize very well for 2 

processors. This may not apply to Mac systems, for which Adobe is known to 

optimize photoshop. If you are trying to run many programs at the same time, a 

dual-cpu system would probably be more responsive. If the memory performance is 

really the limiting factor (as the reviewer claims), then Macintosh systems should 

be at a disadvantage relative to the systems in the above article. I haven't seen any 

comparisons involving large files on both modern Mac and PC though. Probably 

best to pick whichever operating system you feel more comfortable with. 

software -- Microsoft started putting useable color profiling in Windows with 

Windows 98. It is reportedly identical to what was used on Macintosh at the time. 

The Mac version may have been improved since then but I don't know how or what 

effect this would have. Adobe Photoshop Elements reportedly *does* support color 

profiling. It is limited to sRGB (appropriate for output to a web page) and Adobe 

RGB (what you would use to print on your color inkjet). It doesn't support things 

like CMYK, which is what commercial printers use. Photoshop LE, etc. do not 

support color profiles. 

Note that Windows 98 (and possible ME as well) may limit the amount of RAM 

you can use to 768MB. Windows XP has a number of drawbacks, mostly related to 

security. Windows 2000 is probably the best of the bunch for photo editing. 

printing -- With inkjet printers, you aren't buying a printer. You're buying an ink/ 

paper system. The printer is cheap and not intended to last decades. Would you 

want a Leica M2 if you could only use 1950s film with it? Using the latest inks 

usually requires the latest printer. Printer companies reportedly don't make money 



from the printers; they make it from the ink and paper. This is one reason to buy 

name-brand supplies, it supports the companies. I would not buy off-brand ink 

anyway as it can ruin the printer. 

Ink comes in two basic types, dye or pigment based. Dye based inks don't last as 

long as pigment based. Some printers use pigment for black and dye for color. 

They cannot be used together, which is why you can get color shifts in the black 

areas, especially if you aren't using color profiling correctly. (They use pigment for 

black because it gives better text quality.) I only know of one printer that uses 

pigment based color inks: Epson 2000P. That is why they claim the images will last 

100 years if printed on the correct paper (e.g. Epson heavyweight matte) and 

protected from bright light, smog, etc. 

There are two ways to squirt the ink onto the paper. One way involves heating 

some of the ink to boiling, which produces pressure and forces it through the 

nozzle. The other way uses a piezo-electric device, which flexes when current is 

passed through it and forces the ink through the nozzle. Printers that use the first 

method usually have the head built into the cartridge so it is replaced every time 

you buy a new cartridge. This is usually touted as an advantage, but I figure that 

they wouldn't do it unless they had to; boiling the ink probably would clog the 

nozzles after a while. 

There's my two cents worth. Hope it's of use to someone. 

-- Brian Breczinski, May 28, 2002 

I used digital cameras for a while then realized that while digital images would 

only ever be as good as the resolution in which they were taken, negatives could 

always be rescanned. Film cameras can be as small as digital and there are some 

very sharp cameras around. From an archival point of view your negatives are way 

better than a CD too, but when you do this you need more computer than if you just 

shoot digital and download the images from the camera. 

The Nikon Coolscan 4000 is the cornerstone of the system. It has fairly nice 

software included with good download support from Nikon for new versions and is 

very easy to use - feed in the negatives, choose output size and format, crop, adjust 

color and go. It's quite fast, and works on a Firewire interface, they even include a 

PCI Firewire card in the box. I can't scan prints or pages but I don't really need to. I 

haven't used any other negative scanners so I don't know if this is really the best - 

but it's very, very good. 

A Macintosh dual-1GHz G4 does everything else. It's easy to use and the included 



iPhoto software is good enough for checking out what you've scanned, even if it 

isn't the best way to organize a lot of images. If you've looked at a Mac before and 

rejected it because of the operating system you owe it to yourself to take a look at 

MacOS X. Until a month ago I had been a Windows user since version 3.1... 

The number one thing is RAM - more is better. It is as cheap now as it has ever 

been so go for a full gigabyte. If your vendor is charging more than $100 for 256M 

that's way too much - see www.mushkin.com for RAM for any system, with a good 

return policy. The second thing is hard disk - storagereview.com provides excellent 

reviews of hard drives, and their leader board is a good way to choose the fastest at 

any given time. Fast hard drives make a big difference. In IDE right now the 

Western Digital 120G with 8M cache (not the 2M cache version) is great. In SCSI 

the Seagate X15-36LP series is even better. 

Arguments over choice of computing platform are possibly the biggest waste of 

time on the internet so take my views with a grain of salt and look at them all 

before handing over your money. Most of all be clear about what you expect from 

your computer and see your candidate systems do that before committing to 

anything. Take along a CD with a >50M TIFF image and see it loaded, 

manipulated and printed - if your sales person won't or can't do that they shouldn't 

get your money. 

-- Adam Eberbach, June 19, 2002 

My digital darkroom workhorse? Amiga 1200 w/8Mbs ram, '040 cpu, SCSI drive, 

Epson 880 printer, working off Photo CD's (when required), photos scanned on 

Windows ME platform in PNG format on HP ScanJet 3200 scanner, and then rewritten 

to JPEG format on Amiga Cross-Doss for printing at a digital color lab. 

Photogenics, Personal Paint, Image FX for image manipulation. Who needs 

Photoshop? 

-- Juan J. Garza, November 26, 2002 

Excellent general article. I'm not sure why the author felt the need to poo-poo 

complete home solutions and promote outsourcing for "fine art." Every year massmarketed 

printers and scanners get closer to the big-bucks hardware. Some will 

argue they can't see the difference now. 

I love the dual-monitor recommendation since most people rarely think about it. 

My ATI Radeon 7500 (now on sale at $75) dual-output is very stable in WinXP 

with the latest drivers and two medium-size monitors are way cheaper than one 

monster. 



One item nobody mentioned is you should not use multi-session CD-R because one 

bad write will kill your ability to read the rest of the disk. Not to mention that namebrand 

CD-R blanks are absurdly cheap now. The storage boxes cost me more than 

the disks. 

I'm a big fan of RAID 0 on-the-mobo with ATA drives. SCSI drives are just too 

expensive and termination-tempermental. As far as reliability, all your irreplaceable 

image work is stored on CD-R or other media, right? If not, I can still buy four 

ATA drives and get mirroring (reliability) cheaper than the SCSI solution. And for 

system crash recovery you DO use back-up software, right? 

I have a similar problem with dual-processor mobo's. Good concept but the mobo 

price is jacked up so far above single-processor versions it just isn't worth it. 

The question of memory is a little trickier. The format (EDO, SDRAM, DDR) is 

not so critical if you buy as much as you need up front. More important is to get 

decent quality memory. You might not think this but some of the cheapest no-name 

memory modules are unstable and will contribute to system instability in 

mysterious ways. I do not really understand why this should be so but I have 

experienced it myself and so have others. 

The article did not dwell much on I/O's but any new box I put together has to have 

Firewire and USB2 ports to maximize peripheral choices. Again, for me, SCSI is 

entirely optional (been there done that, no big value). 

-- Eric Arnold, December 18, 2002 

Inkjet printers have improved tremendously in the past few years. Early color inkjet 

printers had poor archival properties; the prints faded into oblivion in a matter of 

months. 

And exactly how many current inkjet printers offer "archival" print stability? Your 

only choice is the Epson 2000P (since it has been around a while - I know there are 

newer printers too) which is not exactly cheap, and the claims of archival stability 

(100? 200 years?) cannot be verified in real life. There is yet no agreement among 

the experts on how to measure archival permanence of prints by accelerated testing 

- look at the Wilhelm research fiasco. 

What I do know is that many prints I have made from Epson 870 printers are fading 

after 6 months. They are turning orange. This is at least better than the 3 months 

which my Epson 750 gives me. The papers used were Epson PGPP (3 months on a 

750) and Premium semi-gloss (6 months, slight but noticeable fading). 



Printer manufacturers and third parties have improved their inks and papers to the 

point where inkjet prints can often exceed the life of minilab prints. 

That's a really tall claim. Have you done real tests? What papers and printers were 

tested? Any links? Were Fuji Crystal Archive and Kodak Royal tested? Who did 

the testing and under what conditions? What kind of accelerated aging tests were 

done? 

-- Vincent J M, December 19, 2002 

I thought I'd had a few comments on Corel PhotoPaint, a rather nice digital imaging 

program. 

My first encounter with a real graphic program was with CorelDraw 3, something 

like 10 years ago. (CorelDraw is Corel's vector imaging program, counterpart to 

Adobe Illustrator.) My uncle was using it at the time, and I decided to learn about 

how it worked. At that time PhotoPaint was a minor add-on to CorelDraw and only 

a minor improvement on Windows 3.1 Paint program. As the versions went, Corel 

progressively expanded and developped the Corel Draw graphics suite, turning 

PhotoPaint in an amazingly powerful program without actually inflating the price 

tag. 

I haven't tried the latest version (PhotoPaint 12 I believe.) but I've work quite a lot 

with versions 7, 9 and 10 and they were all real good. Every time I read a tutorial 

about photo editing, it was based on Adobe PhotoShop. Everytime I was able to do 

the same thing with PhotoPaint. The tools have the same name. The settings are 

very similar. The set of commands in a picture editing program can only vary so 

much. 

Now I understand that some people really need some of the arcane functions found 

only in Adobe PhotoShop. It is also true that for a professional potographer, the 

digital editing program is a rather minor part of the investment. But me, I'd rather 

pay one third of the price, use the remainder for a bigger monitor or a new lens and 

get a nice vector drawing program as an added bonus. 

In case I didn't really get my point across, if you're building a digital editing 

workstation from scratch, I suggest you take a real good look at Corel PhotoPaint. 

Serge 

-- Serge Boucher, February 2, 2003 



I feel there are some good points and some misleading points made in this article. I 

am a graphic designer and have more experience in this area than in my hobby 

(Photography). I'll start with the accurate points that should be emphasized. RAM, 

RAM,RAM - It's like money, you can't have too much. I personally prefer http:// 

www.memorytogo.com I spent around 2 hundred for 2 gigs for my mack there 

almost 2 years ago. Monitors are very important, but LCD's still haven't reached the 

quality found in CRTs when comparing dot pitch, aperature, or pixels per inch. As 

far as having two monitors, it's more costly by the time one upgrades the video card 

and cables then bying one solid 22inch CRT. Personally I chose the Philips 

Professional Brilliance, for price/color control capabilities. The best color control 

on the market to my knowlede in that found in Lacie monitor calibration systems. 

A point of disagreement regarding the need for less quality for desktop publishing. 

I produce posters which are 24'x36" and need not only reproducable fine art quality 

imaging but also the ability to create an 8pt type face for a copyright. In terms of 

storage capacity DVD's are great for archiving but at around 10 bucs a disk, they 

are not the choice for backups. I will add some more points when time allows. One 

other note in terms of software. Buy at educational pricing, even if it means you 

have to pay 180 bucs at the local community college, you save thousands on 

software. To view some educational pricing on software like Photoshop, 

Pagemaker, Quark or Wacom Intunous Tablets check out http://www.journeyed. 

com 

-- Kyle Nolan, February 21, 2003 

Concerning CPU and RAM choice, currently the way to go is AMD. On a cost and 

performance side the Athlon and the P4 are more or less equivalent. One month the 

Intel is the fastest, one month the AMD is: it does not really matter what you have, 

just buy a CPU one or two steps behind the cutting edge and you will get the best 

performance for your bucks (i.e. right now that would be an Athlon XP 2400+). 

Where you really save money is on the RAM: RAMBUS modules (the ones used 

by the latest P4 motherboards) are about TWICE as expensive per megabyte as 

DDR modules (the ones used by Athlon motherboards)! If you want 1 GB of RAM 

that can be a nice amount of money, almost the difference between a (good) CD 

burner and a (entry level) DVD burner. Speedwise, in principle RAMBUS should 

be faster than DDR. In practice you won't see the difference. Last but not least 

when shopping for DDR memory, get the PC-2700 modules (333 MHz bus clock), 

not the marginally cheaper PC-2100 (266 MHz). Don't buy PC-3200 (400 MHz) 

DDR: most motherboards support only 1 (one) PC-3200 module, that is 512 MB of 

RAM. If one day you want/need more memory you'll have to throw away your 

hugely expensive super-fast PC-3200 module and get two PC-2700. Well done! 

Concerning backup devices, IMHO a CD burner doesn't make much sense: I scan 

my 35 mm film on a Canon FS4000 and the resulting Photoshop files are around 



100 MB each (at 14 bit/color, 4000 dpi). That means 6 or 7 images per CD. 

Ridiculous. Get a DVD burner. Among DVD burners, possibly the best buy at the 

moment is the Sony DRU500: it can burn basically any kind of DVD media (DVD- 

R/RW, DVD+R/RW, DVD-RAM...) I have it and it's absolutely great. 

Hard disks: I have a humble 120 GB ATA-133 7200 RPM hard disk (not a SCSI) 

and I can still open a 100 MB Photoshop file in a few seconds. Whether a SCSI 

hard disk is going to be faster than an ATA-133 depends on many factors, but 

especially on the SCSI controller you have. Unless you have a fancy controller with 

plenty of on board cache, you won't see much of a difference between SCSI and 

ATA disks. The ATA's, though, are cheaper and you don't need an additional SCSI 

controller that, in my own experience, can be an endless pain in the a** (because of 

compatibility and performance issues). 

Linux: great OS, I use it at work and I love it, but there is nor a decent color 

calibration tool, neither a package comparable to Photoshop (there is "The Gimp", 

but I find it doesn't come even close to PS 7, unfortunately). 

-- Roberto Totaro, February 24, 2003 

Great news! Photoshop Now Works in Linux! http://www.codeweavers.com/ 

products/office/supported_applications.php 

It may not be free, but If you need to keep a windows box around for photo editing 

like I do, you can chuck it now. 

-- Robert Cohen, April 29, 2003 

I just wanted to share my own "backup" sollution. I bought two identical 200Gb 

($200 each) disks and installed them as D: and X: on my Windows XP system 

(installed on C:). I save all my work on D: and every night at 03:00 am the system 

starts to xcopy (with lots of flags) everything on D:, that has the archive flag active, 

over to X: and resets the archive flag on the original file. So if I add a picture or 

modify an existing image, it will be copied the next noght. Once a week I copy all 

my work out on a DVD-RW and store it in my safe. 

I started with this after I had, anot so plesant, experience with a disk crash om my 

system. Lots of pictures from my digital camera and a few Adobe Premiere projects 

diappeared!! I had all work stored on a Western Digital SE 200GB disk. The NTFS 

partition was "Unreadable" from Disk Manager from within Windows XP. I read 

lots about this problem and discovered that a progra called R-Studio (R-tools 

Technology Inc) could help me. And it could!!! It scanned the entire disk for a few 



hours and then displayed the entire directory structure. R-Studio was able to restore 

all files but 5 to another disk - I was releaved I can tell you. Since then I went for 

BACKUP! 

-- Robert Nilsson, July 27, 2003 

I just want to add a comment regarding monitor suggestion. 17" monitor is really 

not for photo editing (and other tasks). I would go with 21" CRT monitor with flat 

screen (do not confuse with flat panel). I work on 21" Sony G520 and really love it, 

and there're better quality monitors out there. 15" is really miniscule, I think -- and 

wouldn't suggest it to anyone who will work with photos. Besides monitor size, you 

should also look at resolution. I think 1280x960 is optimal. Monitor frequency is 

also very important, as if it is low (60hz or so) you will not be productive and hurt 

your eyes. To have high frequency (100hz or above) with high resolution you will 

also need a good video card. 

-- Sunimoto Sato, September 10, 2003 

In response to RAID commentary: 

I've a set of 60 GB IBM 120GXPs in a Promise RAID-0 array. They continue to 

function well in tandem after nearly two years. Despite this luck, I'd still caution 

those attempting to use such an array without backup. 

Oddly however, my more recent 120 GB WD1200JB is significantly faster, 

particularly in write times. Read benchmarks are nearly identical between the two. 

Given how quick IDE drives have become, I doubt I'll deal with RAID in the 

future. 

I'd like to re-emphasize Phil's RAM comments. RAM is everything.History states 

in particular toss it back like candy. If you're into serious multitasking like I am, 

and beat the tar out of PS, take the largest image you intend to play with and 

multiply it by 15. That's how much RAM you may need to cover a probable worst 

case scenario. 

DI 

-- David Indech, September 20, 2003 

Very interesting article. I'd like to add two things : 

SCSI drives are faster. When you install the OS and main applications on a IDE/ 



ATA drive, the system sometimes slows down or nearly freezes for a second before 

you get control back, and this lack of responsiveness can be annoying. I've changed 

computers a few times over the years, and once I looked at transfer rate/seek time/ 

etc and "deduced" that SCSI wasn't worth it. It's the only computer-buying decision 

I've ever regretted. 

By the way, forget benchmarks : they don't give any relevant information. The only 

way to judge a computer's speed is to actually use it to do the work you have to do. 

-- Serge Boucher, January 4, 2004 

ARCHIVAL LIFE: One should be aware that archival life is dependent on BOTH 

ink and paper types. For instance, prints from my canon i965 fade very quickly 

when printed on standard canon paper. However, when printing on Ilford papers, 

fading is much less of a problem. I've had photos on my wall (not under glass) for 

about 6 months now with no visible fading - hopefully this will last. One should 

also not place the blame entirely on the printers. Be careful where you keep your 

photos; for instance, keeping them near a fridge or laser printer may result in severe 

fading due to high ozone levels. Equally, keep photos away from air conditioning 

and direct sunlight. Even lab photos will fade readily if not looked after. 

Also worth noting is that the prints I get from my humble inkjet are very difficult to 

distinguish from lab prints. Given this, the benefit of having your own printer that 

you know really well should not be underestimated - it provides so much more 

control than the average lab. IMHO any standard of digital photographer should 

have an decent inkjet (or equiv) even if only to provide proofs. 

-- Fergus Kane, April 3, 2004 

On the archival media side, don't overlook magnetic tape - whetever DAT/DDT or 

DLT. While it is much more expnsive than just getting a CD-RW drive, the media 

is much more archival oriented than CD-R / CD-RW is ever going to be. It also 

comes in large media (starting in 10 - 15GB per tape). 

If you *are* going the CD-R / CD-RW route, you should absolutely read some of 

the articles that have recently been published about its potential for not being longlived 

at all. 

-- Sander Vesik, May 8, 2004 

Well these days there is a program out there that will let a linux/unix based PC 



decode the Canon and other RAW images. The program is called dcraw.c .This 

actually work on Windows and Mac OSX. You just have to compile it your self 

and it is not that hard. After using dcraw I noticed that 99.7% of my pictures where 

sharper and the color was much better too. 

-- William Leming, September 10, 2004 

Doug, establising a color management workflow is a whole 'nother article. I've got 

mine down pat, but I'm not sure I have the experience to write an article outside the 

scope of what I'm doing. Any volunteers? 

-- Darron Spohn, January 18, 2002 

Don't be shy, Darron. Do it!!! Desperate to learn more. My wife and I quickly 

learned that the long pole in the tent is the relationship between what we see on the 

monitor and on the paper. 

-- Donald Trask, September 15, 2004 

With regards to the monitor specs: I do a lot of photograph restoration and it took 

me months to find the right monitor. I ended up getting the 17" NEC MultiSync 

FE700 in 2000 - it's now 2005 and i have no complaints or regrets. I've been 

contemplating going with LCD, but have yet to find one that convinces me to part 

with my FE. 

-- George Frost, May 13, 2005 

Related Links 

Add a comment 

● Digital Photography and Color Management- Helpful information on 

Apple's site, explaining color management and ColorSync technology, 

which is supposed to insure that the colors on your monitor are the colors 

you'll get on various output devices. (contributed by Tom Coppedge) 

● Calibrating & Profiling LCD Displays- An article on the luminous 

landscape site. (contributed by Philippe Wiget) 

● Monitor Profiling and Calibration- Another one on luminous landscape. 



(contributed by Philippe Wiget) 

● Computer darkroom- Articles concerning color management and 

Photoshop (contributed by Philippe Wiget) 

● Learn how to scan- An amateur photographer gives a fantastic lesson on the 

details of digital imaging. Not a way to transform your photos, but more 

how to get your scanned images to look like the one on the light table. 

(contributed by Brian E) 

● Famous Chinese Finearts- Born 1937 in, Chongqing, China, FengFu Fang 

graduated from the Art institute of Southwest China Normal University in 

1960. He is currently a Professor, the Dean of the Birds&Flowers Painting 

Teaching and Research Section. a Creation Research Fellow of the Art 

Research institute of China, and a member of the Artist Association of 

Shichuan. (contributed by Yihua Fang) 

● SmartDraw Digital Photo Editor- SmartDraw Photo Editor, Organizer, and 

Publisher Software all in one easy-to-use Program. Free Trial download 

available. (contributed by Tim Marks) 

● Custom 35mm Film & Slide Scanning Service- Comprehensive service 

options and attention to detail. Also, lots of info on things like resolution, 

dynamic range, etc... (contributed by William Bloodworth) 

Add a link 


permission. 




Sponsor: Digital Camera HQ - Excellent reviews of Canon digital cameras 


photo.net 

Evaluating Photos 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 


● Learn 


● Equipment 

● Forums 


● Gallery 

● Community 

Contents: 

1. Top 

2. With slides 

3. With negatives 


"With the camera, it's all or nothing. You either get what you're after at once, or what you 

do has to be worthless. I don't think the essence of photography has the hand in it so 

much. The essence is done very quietly with a flash of the mind, and with a machine. I 

think too that photography is editing, editing after the taking. After knowing what to take, 

you have to do the editing." 

-- Walker Evans, 1971 

You've taken a bunch of pictures. How do you evaluate them to decide if they are any good? 

With slides 

http://www.photo.net/photo/evaluation (1 of 17)7/3/2005 2:19:24 AM


Your pictures will mostly look gorgeous because slides can hold at 

least twice as much contrast as prints. You will pat yourself on the 

back for being a photographic genius. 

The first thing you need is a color corrected light table. Don't waste 

your time trying to build your own. For one thing, the appropriate 

fluorescent tubes are plenty expensive so you might as well have a 

decent box to put them in. 

Everyone says the Macbeth Prooflite, the JUST, and the Kaiser boxes are the 

best, but I can't find anything wrong with the Acculights, which are less than 

half the price ($160 for a 14x24" box). I've had one in my home studio for 10 

years and it still works great. B&H sells these by the truckload. 

Set a slide-saver page (I like the Beseler polypropylene ones myself) down on 

the light table and start stuffing it with mounted 35mm slides. Use a Sharpie 

super fine point pen to mark the top of the plastic page with a roll ID. Note 

briefly which are decent pictures but basically behave like a robot. 

Once you've got all your rolls organized into slidesaver 

pages, put them back down on the light table 

and look at the good pictures with a loupe. A very 

good loupe. With the money you saved on the lightbox, you can afford the 

best: a Schneider. Get the 4X for viewing 35mm full-frame ($110, comes in 

several exciting colors now). When you see the sharpness and color saturation 

of your images through the Schneider loupe, you will quit your day job. Too 

bad your photograph will never ever look this good as a Cibachrome, on a 

magazine page, or on a Web page. 

[There are other loupes worth having. If you make 6x6cm images, you will 

love the Schneider 6x6 magnifier ($215), which can also be used with 35mm 

images almost as effectively as the 4x. You might also want a high 

magnification loupe for deciding whether something is sharp enough and/or too grainy. PEAKs are 

cheap but I'm not convinced that they are useful. Schneider makes a 10X ($231) loupe that is probably 

excellent but I haven't tried it. 

A lot of people from Rodenstock to Hoya make imitations of the Schneider 4X loupe. They aren't much 

cheaper and I don't think they are worth the hassle of investigating.] 

Use the Sharpie to mark the really good pictures or put a Post-It at the top of the page with the 

worthwhile frame numbers noted. 



For price and selection, Adorama is probably the best place in the U.S. to buy light boxes and loupes. 

With negatives 

Prepare for a confidence-destroying experience. Proof prints are generally terrible but the negative 

contains a lot of information that can be extracted with careful printing or with PhotoShop. 

My favorite way of evaluating proofs is to have an enlarged contact sheet made. This can only be done 

by pro labs with 8x10 enlargers. What they do is flatten all the negs between glass just as they would for 

a regular contact sheet, but then stick the whole mess in the enlarger and project onto a 16x20" sheet of 

paper. This costs about $30 but lets you look at a whole roll at once. If your time is valuable it can be 

worth it, especially because you'll never spend a minute trying to match a proof to its negative. 

[ top ] 


I've used the Schneider 4x loupe, the NPC 5.5x Prolupe, and the Rodenstock 4x loupe in direct 

comparisons on approximatley 1000 slides. 

The Schneider 4x gave excellent color, excellent contrast, and uniform sharpness across the entire frame. 

It was possible to see the whole frame from one viewing spot, even with eyeglasses on. The only 

significant criticism of the Schneider is that it is made from light gage plastic, and fairly delicate. 

The NPC also gave excellent color rendition and excellent contrast. It too was uniformly sharp over the 

entire frame. Because of the larger power of magnification, slightly more detail is discernable with the 

NPC than with the Schneider. The NPC is harder to view with eye glasses on. The NPC is very robust - 

it is made from aluminum and plastic and it weighs about twice as much as the Schneider. 



I liked the Schneider and the NPC so well that I have kept them both. I see these as complimentary 

products. 

The Rodenstock was less satisfying. The primary gripes are: 

1) The skirt diameter is barely large enough to cover a 35mm frame, so placement of the loupe is more 

critical than it is for either the Schneider or the NPC. 

2)My sample was not able to deliver a uniformly sharp image across the whole frame with a single focus 

setting. You could either have sharp corners or you could have a sharp central region. You could not 

have both simultaneously. This is in spite of the touted aspherical lens. Maybe other samples are better 

in this regard. 

3)The Rodenstock didn't seem to present as bright an image when used to view prints as the Schneider 

or the NPC. 

I sent the Rodenstock back to the vendor after a week of direct comparison with the other two loupes. 

-- Glen Johnson, December 19, 1996 

I have been using a Porta-Trace 1012-2 light table, and it is a very nice product. This unit can be 

purchased with two 5,000K lamps, and its surface is exactly the right size to view one archival slide 

storage page at a time. The cost was only $49.95 at B&H in fall of 1996, and there is also a carrying case 

available for less than $25 more, Two lamps used to cover a 10x12 surface provides very bright, even 

illumination. 

If you buy one, they include a plastic strip that you can attach to the viewing surface to provide a "stop" 

to keep stuff from falling off the table when it is in the raised position. Don't put this strip where they tell 

you to put it. Install it between the screws at the bottom, instead of above the screws - that way you can 

rest your archival slide storage page on this strip and still illuminate the entire page. 

-- Glen Johnson, December 19, 1996 

I have to second Glen's comment on the Porta-Trace lightboxes. The 1618-3 is very nice for looking at 

two archival pages of slides (1 roll of 36 slides) at once and the three lights give a very uniform 

illumination without significant hotspots. Pearl Art Supply has a great deal on these every few months 

for $79. 

-- Andrew Kim, February 2, 1997 

Someone asked how to contact PortaTrace, but the question has been removed from the Q&A area. 



PortaTrace can be contacted at 

Gagne, Inc. 1080 Chenango St. Binghamton, NY (no zip given) 607-723-9550 

If you want to buy one of their tables, check out your local camera stores, or call B&H. 

-- Glen Johnson, June 25, 1997 

Well, making a lightbox on your own can be a rewarding experience. 

Bulbman (Reno, Nevada, 1-800-648-1163) sells 15" to 24" Colortone 50 and Phillips Ultralume colorcorrected 

fluorescent bulbs (5000K, Color Rendition Index 90 -- normal household lightbulbs are 

usually 3500-4300K, CRI 60); they're around $14 each. Home Depot sells complete light fixtures for 

around $5 (made by Light of America), or you can assemble some yourself using end fixtures and 

ballasts for half the cost. Your local plastic/acrylic shop can sell you lightbox white, 1/4" acrylic cut-tosize. 

The base box, at least 8" deep to give even illumination to acrylic surface, can be made of 

assembled wood pieces, or even plastic storage boxes -- painted flat white. 

It cost me around $85 to make a 24x20, 4 lamps, 60w lightbox. Bright, color-corrected, and comfortably 

fit four pages of slides. 

I got the idea originally from a posting in a rec.photo newsgroup (don't have the poster's name and email 

address handy), btw. 

-- Lolo LaSid, June 27, 1997 

In Tokyo I've been unable to find the brands mentioned (JUST, Acculight, Macbeth, etc.). Instead, the 

leading brands are Fuji and Hakuba, with a few models made by Cabin and one by Hama (Germanmade, 

I think). I ended up buying a new model by Hakuba called the 7000 Pro (about 17,500 yen) which 

looks just about as good as the Fuji pro models in terms of the eveness of the light, but are nearly half 

the price. It fits one page of 12 6x7 shots or four 4x5's, and is about 2cm thick. 

The most expensive are the Hama (39,000 yen, but big) and two Fuji pro models, which differ from the 

normal Fuji models in that the light is very evenly distributed from edge to edge; one model is thinner 

and smaller than the other, but both are about 30,000 yen. Cabin makes a relatively thin model for about 

25,000 yen, but I think the Fuji pro is better and not much more money. All the other models I looked at 

(under 10,000 yen) are aluminum box models about 7cm thick and have uneven light distribution; the 

light fades away and the edges, and you can see an outline of the bulbs inside. 

I also have the schneider 6x6 3X loupe to view the slides shot w/ my Zeiss and Schneider lenses. 

Viewing with eyeglasses is no problem (the entire image is sharp without having to "look around" the 



eyepiece), and contrast/sharpness are excellent. I can even discern the subtle differences between shots 

taken with a Zeiss sonnar from shots taken from a Schneider tele-xenar. 

-- Jim Chow, July 22, 1997 

If you're just starting out, you might find yourself unable to throw out a slide that looks decent, but is 

basically "not there." Or you don't have enough experience to figure out which of the three exposures 

you bracketed will be right for you. 

If that's the case, do what I do. Buy two folders, and divide your slides into "cream of the crop", and 

"stuff I'm not sure is all that good but that I'm willing to keep." That'll make editing ruthlessly a lot 

easier, and then later on when you are older and wiser, really throw out the ones that aren't any good. 

-- Piaw Na, September 18, 1997 

Just a follow up on the loupe comparison that I posted above. Recently I've had a chance to use several 

samples of the new Rodenstock 4x aspherical lupe, and they were great performers. They were able to 

hold sharpness at a single focus setting from corner to center. This suggests that the first one I got was a 

lemon, or that they've made some changes. In any event, the Rodenstock is definitely worth a look. It is 

ergonomically sound, well constructed, and the potential is there for excellent sharpness. Check your 

sample. If you've got a good one, keep it. 

-- Glen Johnson, September 23, 1997 

When editing slides, I prefer to project them first using a very good projector and a stack loader. My 

projector of choice is a now discontinued (darn!) Leica RT300, which takes the Kodak Carousel trays 

(and stack loader) and has a wonderful, sharp and neutral optical system as opposed to the standard coke 

bottle green glass. 

-- Ellis Vener, August 8, 1998 

First I used a Peak 8x loupe and I thought it was pretty good. Sure, you had to move around a bit in 

order to see the entire frame, but I liked it. Then I bought a real lightbox (Kaiser 2175) and a real loupe 

(Schneider 4x). What a difference! So yes, Peak's are cheap and they're definitely not very useful. 

-- Patrick Hudepohl, August 31, 1998 

While evaluating my slides I notice that I don't have the faintest idea of how professionals evaluate, 

store, process theirs. What needs do magazines have? (I know they would gladly xerox a polaroid if it 

had Prince Charles in boxers) 

-- Eric --, November 9, 1998 



I've used microfiche (rear-screen projection) viewers for checking slides and negatives, especially for 

sharpness. They're cheap on the 2nd-hand market (everything's computerized now, right?) 

The film is held between glasses and can easily be moved to scan different areas. Some of them are 

available with dual mangification. 

Defend yourself on color balance. Most are just a quartz-iodine lamp, perhaps with a heat filter. 

-- David Mc Lanahan, November 26, 1998 

Update on Loupes 

I think Philip's advice on loupes needs updating. If there was a time when the automatic first choice in 

loupes was Schneider, that time is now past. Philip himself has subsequently written (in a Q&A 

response): "People rave about the Schneider [loupe] because it was the first expensive high-quality loupe 

that was generally available in the USA (for the 35mm frame). That doesn't mean it is better than a 

similarly-priced Rodenstock, just as a Schneider 210mm view camera lens would probably be very hard 

to distinguish from a Rodenstock view camera lens." Today, if you are looking for a top-quality loupe 

for examining your 35mm transparencies, your choices are broader (and are definitely worth the hassle 

of investigating): in order of increasing price, the Rodenstock 4x (B&H $100), the Schneider 4x (B&H 

$109), the Canon 4x (B&H $130), the Canon 8x (B&H $170), the Carl Zeiss/Contax 5x (B&H $180), 

and the Schneider Aspheric 6x (B&H $254). (The 6x and 8x loupes are not full-frame.) If you're looking 

for a top-quality loupe for examining your medium-format transparencies, the current king is probably 

the Rodenstock 6x6 Aspheric (B&H $230), a more recent design than the excellent Schneider 6x6 (B&H 

$224). Rebates are sometimes available. Cheap loupes are generally to be avoided. 

My two cents worth: for 35mm transparencies, I like the Carl Zeiss/Contax 5x, or the Canon 4x and 

Canon 8x used together. (The Canon philosophy is that you need the 4x for full-frame viewing and 

sorting of slides, and the 8x for critical examination of detail, sharpness, and grain. These two Canon 

loupes, by the way, are part of Canon's "L" or "Luxury" line of premium optics and have the red ring of 

Canon's "L" lenses.) These Carl Zeiss/Contax and Canon loupes are of absolutely top optical quality, 

tack sharp from center to edge of frame, beautifully made, with smoothly adjustable focusing rings and 

interchangeable skirts (black for transparency viewing, translucent for print viewing). For mediumformat 

transparencies, I like the Rodenstock 6x6 Aspheric, which has the same virtues but a reversible 

(instead of interchangeable) skirt. 


I have to disagree with Philip on lightboxes. It's odd to me that Philip is pretty critical on most things, 

but not on these. He dismisses the subject pretty cavalierly in a sentence or two: after noting that there 

are expensive lightboxes available (Macbeth Prooflite, JUST, Kaiser), he says that he can't see anything 

wrong with the inexpensive Acculight, which he's been contentedly using for 10 years. Well, taking this 



advice (as well as some other favorable comment I'd received on the Acculight), I figured this was a 

good place to save some money, and I bought one. Unlike Philip, and unfortunately for me, I don't have 

any trouble seeing what's wrong with it Instead of saving money, I'm probably going to wind up 

spending more than if I'd just bought a high-quality lightbox in the first place, because I'm not happy 

with the Acculight and would like to replace it. Yes, it was cheap and no doubt I got my money's worth, 

but here's yet another example that in this world you get what you pay for. 

I already had a small, portable, top-quality Mamiya Cabin lightpanel (CL-5000P, B&H $80), but it was 

too small for slide sorting, so I wanted a larger lightbox. I bought the Acculight Portable Viewer (outside 

dimensions 18x15, viewing surface 17.2x12.4; B&H $90). Setting them up side by side, it was 

immediately apparent, not at all subtle, and would leap out at virtually any viewer, that they didn't 

produce the same color or quality of light at all. The Mamiya Cabin's light was superbly EVEN; the 

Acculight was not at all, and it was easy to see just where the bulbs lay beneath the translucent panel, 

since the light was brighter there, and duller near the edges. Later I read, in a Q&A response by James 

Chow, describing his own lightbox comparisons: "The cheap light tables were inferior in light quality 

compared to the more expensive models. You could actually see the bulbs underneath, as light 

distribution wasn't uniform from edge to edge as in the more expensive boxes." Right on, James, and the 

same thing I was noticing in my Cabin vs. Acculight comparison. (And I see you say pretty much the 

same thing above.) Also, the color/quality of light was different in the two lightboxes. I have no way to 

test which one is "right," but my money would be on the Mamiya Cabin, and I certainly prefer 

examining my slides on it. 

So if you're planning to buy a cheap lightbox, be aware that you're probably going to get what you pay 

for. Maybe I'm being too fussy, too critical, but if you are inclined that way too, you might like to make 

some careful comparisons of brightness, color/quality of light, and evenness of light distribution 

(especially near the edges). Take along a few slides of your own, and take your candidates for purchase 

for a test drive. Caveat emptor. 


Over the holidays I had a chance to try out several of the 35mm loupes mentioned here side-by-side at 

B&H in NY. The loupes that most impressed me there were the Canon 4x and the NPC 5.5x. 

The Canon 4x loupe is of the same basic design as the Schneider, but not as boxy in construction. To my 

eyes it was the clear winner in color transmission and lack of distortion among all the loupes I tried. It 

also allowed for plenty of extra room in viewing a 35mm slide, allowing for a less than perfect 

registration. I find this to be a useful consideration in viewing slides stored in printfile sheets, as the 

bumps and humps of the sheets can slow you down if you need perfect registration. The canon's 

*apparent* field of view seemed wider in this application than any of the other 4x loupes. 

Likewise, I found the NPC to be the best in terms of distortion and color of the medium- magnification 



loupes, preferring it even to the contax. The NPC just covers a 35mm slide mount, so proper registration 

(and a closer eyepoint) is necessary to view slides, but the additional magnification (and thus, 

information) is well worth it. I find the higher magnification loupes to be good for checking sharpness, 

but strongly lacking in viewing area. 

For reference, the other loupes I tried were: 4x: Schneider, Rodenstock, Iston, Peak, Kenko, Fuji 5.5-6x: 

Contax, Kenko 

At $130 for the Canon and $120 for the NPC, I don't think you can go wrong with either. 

-- Keith Donnelly, January 13, 1999 

The Contax/Carl Zeiss 5x loupe is amazing. I can't claim to have tried every loupe on the market, but 

fortunately I won't have to. This baby is cleanly engineered, extremely well constructed, and of 

unsurpassed optical quality. It is truly and elegant instrument and an absolute pleasure to use for work 

with 35mm transparencies. 

I can also highly recommend the Porta-Trace line of light boxes. I have a 60 watt, 18x24" model that 

illuminates slides with a really nice, even light. The plexiglass editing surface and three 5000k lamps are 

encased in a well-machined stainless steel body; it is a very utilitarian piece of equipment. 

-- John Weiland, January 21, 1999 

I too think Phil's Loupe evaluation needs some updating. I was at B&H today, and I wasn't even 

shopping for a loupe. While I was browsing around waiting for my filters to come up, I casually checked 

out the images they had on their demo lightboxes. I tried out all the loupes... Canon, Kenko, Peake... ho 

hum. Then I saw they had a Schneider 4x, and got excited. Well, the excitement died down when I 

looked through it... not that much better than the other ones. Then I grabbed the last one... BAM! This 

one had high contrast, neutral color, razor sharpness corner to corner, without the need to shift my 

eyeball anywhere. The difference was absolutely amazing. I looked at the skirt of this fantastic loupe... 

Rodenstock Aspharische Lupe, 4x, Made in Germany. I turned around and told the guy to put one in my 

order! At this time of writing, it's 99.95, SKU# ROL4X. Get one!! Now, let me head over to rodenstock. 

com to see if they make 8x or 10x loupes.... 

-- Huyen Seow, January 27, 1999 

Just to clarify: I was wearing glasses, and I did try all the loupes, including the NPC and Contax loupes 

(the latter of which was slightly better than most of the others), and I even had the new Leica 5x loupe 

called up (they didn't have one on display). Of all these, only the Leica came close to the Rodenstock. It 

seemed heavier and more solid than the Rodenstock, and it had the same optical characteristics, except 

for a noticeably warmish color cast... but it was twice as expensive (surprise, surprise). 



-- Huyen Seow, January 29, 1999 

I've read in both a John Shaw book and an Ernst Wildi book that you need something like 7x to 10x for 

critical evaluation of 35mm slides. Wildi said the higher magnification lupe can be a fairly inexpensive 

one since you're only evaluating a local area of the slide anyhow(so just accept the middle portion). I 

trust these two photographers' opinions, and wonder what others might think. (Shaw and Wildi aren't 

anti-4X-- I know Shaw recommends the Sneider 4X to see the whole image-- they're talking of "critical" 

evaluation, however this may be defined.) 

-- Dean Goldsworthy, March 1, 1999 

I have found a very inexpensive oversize 7x loupe being advertised on Ebay in the medium format 

section. It goes for $20 and is comparable to loupes priced much higher. I like the large size and dual 

glass elements. Also neat is the added measuring scale that you can attach to the base for measuring 

subjects in the negatives. Great value! It can also be bought directly from the distributor, MPS. Their 

number is (870) 932-4454. I bought four of them. 

-- Kent Watkins, March 4, 1999 

After dropping and stepping on my two year old Schneider Loupe, I went down to B&H Photo one 

afternoon to pick up another one. Well, it turns out Schneider isn't the only game in town, and I came 

home with a Fuji Professional 4x Loupe after peering through the dozen they have on display. I don't 

think I saved any money, because Schneider had a rebate on theirs, but the Fuji is terrific, particularly if 

you wear glasses (I do). 

I also picked up the smallest Cabin Light Panel (it was on sale), and I have to say that the quality of the 

light blows away my Porta Trace Lightbox. Next trip to B&H, I'll certainly be purchasing one of the 

large Cabin Light Panels that can handle a whole page of slides. 

-- Eric Edelman, March 11, 1999 

Just thought I'd post a reminder for an old trick. If you have a "normal" lens for your 35mm camera (50 

to 55mm, f/1.8 or 1.4), it can be used as a loupe. Just pull it off the camera, hold in your hand, and look 

through the film side of the lens. The optical quality will probably be better than than dedicated slide 

viewing loupes. For heavy use a loupe may be more convenient - the normal lens has no skirt or stand, 

and protruding hardware on the back of the lens could damage your eyeglasses, or your eye. 

-- Julian Vrieslander, May 2, 1999 

The E-6 lab I use has Just Normlicht light tables available for their customers, so I decided to get a Just 

Normlicht for consistency and some confidence in knowing I had a table which meets ANSI and ISO 

standard viewing specifications. 



When I was looking around for a table, *every* manufacturer says they use 5000K color corrected 

tubes. After putting the same transparencies on different 5000K tables it was obvious that there were 

sometimes HUGE differences. Even after you get past the 5000K issues, there are two other important 

specifications which rarely get mentioned: Luminance and Color Rendering Index (CRI). I believe the 

proper spec for luminance is about 1400 cd/m2 and the CRI should be greater than 90. 

I purchased a mid-sized Cabin CL5000M in order to have a highly portable light table I could bring 

along when showing my portfolio to prospective clients. A 4x5 transparency I shot with a light blue 

background went significantly magenta when viewed on the Cabin. When this same transparency was 

viewed on a Just Normlicht and several other light tables, it was blue as expected. It was apparent the 

Cabin was *way* off the mark even though they spec color temp and luminance per the ANSI 

specification (they don't spec CRI). I returned the Cabin as I viewed it as unreliable for color evaluation. 

I have a small 4x5 Cabin, and the same color shift happens on that table so I don't believe I ran into a 

bad sample. 

Others may also find interesting an info sheet (#CIS-152) published by Kodak titled, "Recommendations 

for Viewing Transparencies". I received it through the mail by calling Kodak. 

-- Larry Huppert, May 13, 1999 

I went down to ProPhoto to see what full frame 4x loupe was the best after reading all the other 

comments on loupes. I thought that the Rodenstock was to tight but good clarity. canon was bright. But 

the Scheider was the best of all! I looked at most of the other names but they are not worth it. Oh the 

Jobo was good for what you pay and I did not get to see the NPC 5.5x. I now have a Scheider. 

-- Doug McIntosh, June 10, 1999 

I find the best & cheapest loupe to be a leftover 50mm lens, especially the Olympus 1.8 

Now I'd like a clear plastic base that bayonets on! 

-- Tom Trottier, July 17, 1999 

I went to B&H to test out all the loupes and want to add the following opinions and conclusions to the 

above comments: 

1) Quality of loupes has improved. The "made in Germany" and/or higher prices don't guarantee better 

quality or value. 2) There ARE alternatives to Schneider, Rodenstock, Contax, Leica, etc which are just 

as good. Seems like most of the above comments focus on premium (overpriced) loupes. Peak, Kenko, 

Fuji, Pentax, and NPC have some very competitive models at a fraction of the price. 3) I spent an hour 

comparing the Schneider 10x ($244) with the Peak 10x scale lupe ($59) using various slides. The Peak 

MATCHES the Schneider in image sharpness and color. I actually liked the Peak more, bought it, and 



saved $185! The Schneider seems a little more durable (all metal), while the Peak has a plastic focusing 

ring. The Peak optics are great (4 elements, 2 groups, coated). The Peak has a clear skirt; Schneider has 

black skirt. The Peak comes with a nice case and also a handy scale that is visible in the viewfinder. 4) I 

also bought a Pentax 5.5 lupe. It is sharp. It has a nice big image. It is GREAT for eyeglass wearers. My 

only gripe is that when I look too close into the finder, the edges of the 35mm image start to pincushion. 

I tried the Fuji Professional (4x) and the newer Kenko 4x (with the slide-able skirt a-la the 

Rodenstock). In my opinion, they match the Schneider 4x and Rodenstock 4x but at a slightly lower 

price. There is the excellent Canon 4x, but is pricey at $139. 5) In conclusion, do try out various loupes. 

There are some excellent Japanese-made models with optics that match German optics. However, I have 

seen some aweful samples of Peaks and Kenkos that were totally unacceptable (major distortion, 

horrible color transmission). My point is that there are alternatives. Go out there, test the loupes, and 

trust your eyes. A $244 Schneider is not necessarily better than a "cheap" $59 Peak. 

-- Ken Nguyen, July 19, 1999 

I am very thankful for Phil's alway illuminating (my pun)comments since I have only recently begun 

shooting slides again and he has satisfied my initial curiosity regarding loupes and light tables. I guess I 

must be somewhat of a rube, though, since I have been strictly using a 2 x 2 viewer to look at my slides. 

Is the true advantage of quality loupes and light tables both color quality and sharpness? And wouldnt 

the value of the higher power loupe be in checking for sharpness if you wished to produce large prints? I 

won't touch the issue of which brand is better since this seems to be very subjective and there are no 

shortage of strong opinions here. Or maybe the length of this thread is proving that what started as a 

short list of quality products has expanded rapidly in the last couple of years. 

-- Bill Servatius, July 19, 1999 

It is curious to note that there seems to be little said about the bulbs used in the light boxes. I know that 

for viewing my images and general lighing within the house) full-spectrum lighting makes a huge 

difference. Ottbiolight has a 48" bulb with a CRI of 98 (CRI stands for "color rendering index". CRI is a 

measurement of how much of the suns spectrum is replicated by the lightbulb. If the color frequencies 

are not in the light you are viewing with, they cannot be accuratly rendered) The bulb has a color 

temperature of 5000K (that's about the color of the light around noon on a clear summers day. 6000K is 

the color of an overcast day, I like working inside under about 5500K) Unfortunatly it is a 48" bulb. I 

know there are shorter bulbs out there with CRIs of 92 or so, but I would have to look through my 

papers... 

Has anyone done research on the results of using different bulbs in their projectors? 

-- grant groberg, August 22, 1999 

I'd also like to add to the chorus of people who like the Cabin Lightpanels. They come in at least 3 sizes 



with the smallest one being portable and AA powered (it has a plug option as well.) The light from these 

Cabin Lightpanels is so even it's really amazing. 

There's very little information on the web with respect to these units so please make an effort to search 

them out. They are really a cut above the rest. The even-ness of the light is truly amazing. 

Mamiya is importing them into the US for Cabin, which is nice because I had an intermittent problem 

with my portable one (which does get a lot of use and abuse travelling with me) and they replaced it 

without a question. 

-- Gen Kanai, August 26, 1999 

When I first read the title of this section (Evaluating Photos), I thought that it would deal with the 

difficult subject of the quality of photographs; the issue of subjective / objective values; and questions 

like: What makes an image of photographers like Alfred Stieglitz, Ansel Adams or Cartier Bresson 

great? Is it the emotions that they transmit, their social content, their opportunity, the beauty of the 

subjects, their graphic composition, or certain combination of these factors? I hope that this kind of 

questions will be addressed in this section (or perhaps another) of your excellent forum along with the 

reference to light boxes, slide-saver pages, loupes, projectors and contact sheets. Julio Garcia Coll, 

August 29, 1999 

-- Julio Garcia Coll, August 29, 1999 

Just wondering why nobody mentioned the EMO Macromax 4x loupe. It is really sharp (tests in german 

photog magazines gave EMO and Schneider loups the same rating), and has a diopter correction. Price is 

about $100. 

-- Franz Waldhaeusl, October 15, 1999 

I live in Canada just north of Toronto. Finding a good loupe is a pain in the ass. Most good camera store 

have either a cheap plastic loupe or else they have the 8x maginifer by nikon ( not a really loupe) One 

day I was at Broadway camera in Toronto looking for a loupe. They had two Pentax, the 5.5x and the 

zoom. Nice and big, good quility but out of my price range. ($149.95CDN for the5.5x and $299.99CDN 

for the Zoom). I ask the saleman if he had any other loupe, he pulls these new loupe he just got from 

Cabin. It is a 4x loupe made in Japn and the casing was all metal. Now I do not know if the salesman 

was BS me but he said these were Schnieder loupe under different name. Who cares they were Excellent 

optically and only cost $80 CDN. 

-- Patrick Wong, January 2, 2000 

Loupes: I started out with a cheapo Nikon 8x loupe that is, I believe, a re-badged Peak made as a 

promotional giveaway. I covered the clear plastic base with black gaffer's tape. Eye centering is critical, 

but you can see an entire 35mm slide. Distortion is severe near the edges, but at the center its resolution 



is adequate. Keep in mind as you read this that I wear glasses and have a fairly strong prescription. 

I later moved up to a Fuji 4x loupe, also a promotional giveaway, but a much better loupe. It is silver, 

has a sliding skirt, and is marked "Fujifilm" not "Fuji Professional" as some are. After several years of 

use, I can say that it is a very nice loupe, with much less distortion than the Nikon 8x. 

4x, though, isn't enough to evaluate critical sharpness, so I bought a Schneider 8x loupe. I would say that 

8x is a minimum to evaluate sharpness; 10x would be better. It resolves more and seems brighter than 

the cheap Nikon 8x, although it can only cover part of a 35mm transparency. Distortion is high unless 

your eye is perfectly centered, and the zone of sharpness is limited to the circle directly under your eye. 

I tried a Schneider 6x loupe, but it offered neither the magnification of the 8x nor the convenience of the 

4x, so I got rid of it. 

The loupe I use for rough editing is the front end of a Kodak Ektagraphic 178mm f/3.5 FF projector lens. 

It gives very little magnification, perhaps about 2x. Its field of view covers an entire 2x2 mount, so 

centering is no problem, and is the flattest, edge-to-edge, of any loupe I've ever seen. I can float it above 

a bunch of spread-out slides, standing or sitting up straight with both eyes open, flicking rejects off the 

light table. I acquired this lens thinking it was a whole Carousel lens. Thankfully, before tossing it in the 

trash, I considered other uses for it. 

Light Tables: For many years I examined my slides on an inexpensive Tundra portable light box with a 

4x5" viewing area. It takes 4 AA batteries, and eats them voraciously. The box it came in said the light 

was color-corrected, but who knows what you get for $20. It is barely bright enough in the middle for 

critical sharpness evaluations, one slide at a time, and can hold four slides for rough editing. 

I finally got fed up with this, and bought a Just-Normlicht Smart Light 5000 (model SL5/DL2). It has a 

14 x 15" viewing area -- just enough to spread out 36 slides, making little groups as needed. I had 

considered getting a smaller box, thinking "hey, if it can hold a page of slides I'm OK," but I'm very, 

very happy that I went with the larger box. The extra working area makes editing and organizing just fly. 

The SL5/DL2 uses two 15W color-corrected fluorescent tubes. I was concerned that it wouldn't be bright 

enough compared spec-for-spec with the PortaTrace 1618-4C's four 15W tubes, but the Just-Normlicht 

is blazingly bright and even, with no hot spots or dimming anywhere on the viewing surface. My 

primary viewing area is on a credenza by a window -- unfortunate placement, but I can't re-arrange my 

office for a light table -- and the Just is bright enough to overpower the window light. Need I say that it 

is brighter and whiter than the little 4AA Tundra by a factor of 10 or so? Some published specs say the 

Smart Light uses bulbs with a CRI of 91+ or 92+; the literature that came with the box indicates a CRI 

of 98+, so perhaps Just has updated their bulbs. The Just-Normlicht Smart Light 5000 is $229 at Camera 

World of Oregon, with free shipping, but I bought mine during one of their "Buy $200, Get $50 Off" 

promotions, so I paid $179 shipped -- a few dollars more than the slightly larger Porta-Trace 1618-4C. 

-- John Kuraoka, May 3, 2000 

I was recently browsing the local photostore looking for a good 4x loupe (I was using the old 50mm lens 



for looking at my slides, but I still wanted a loupe). I was pretty sure that I will get either Schneider or 

Rodenstock based on what I read on the net. Then I noticed the Mamiya display with their new array of 

loupes. So I asked for a mighty Rodenstock 4x loupe and decided to evaluate it against the Mamiya 4x 

just for kicks. A brief look at the test slide convinced me that I probably drank too much the night 

before. The Mamiya was noticably brighter cleareer and even a tad sharper than the venerable 

Rodenstock. So I decided to ask for an independent opinion and invited the store clerks to test it out. 

Their conclusion was unanimous- the Mamiya was indeed better. It was a bit cheaper than Rodestock 

too and the construction seesm to be really good- all metal, smooth focusing ring etc. I bought the 

Mamiya. Apparently the Mamiya is a full multi-coated asperic lens system which is quite a bit newer 

than the Rodenstock design and that may be why it is superior. (Oh, yes, and it beats viewing through 

the old 50mm lens hands down. The iamge is brighter and sharper and you don't have to hold the lens at 

a certain distance.) The moral is that German glass is no longer the undisputed king of the hill. I'd 

recommend the Mamiya 4x loupe to anyone. 

-- Aleksandr Noy, October 22, 2000 

Not all lightboxes are equal. If you bracket it can be difficult to make a judgement on which slide has the 

best exposure if there is a wide variation of brightness due to the box. When I swiped a Porta-trace with 

a Gossen Luna-star f2 (dome removed), I saw a range of 2.5 fstops. With a Just Normlicht, it's only 1 

fstop. 

-- Quang-Tuan Luong, March 14, 2001 

How about taking an old 50mm. lens, take out the front elemant and put it on top of a skirt (Maybe a 

skirt from an old loupe). The optical quality will be exellent, but can it be done? Can anyone tell me 

what magnification will this give me? 

-- Moti Meiri, June 19, 2001 

I appreciate the opinions expressed here and did look at a number of loupes mentioned - the Pentax, the 

Rodenstock, the Schneider, etc. Then I remembered a piece of information I sent away for some time 

ago on the Mamiya line of loupes. As I remembered, the specifications seemed of a high order so I 

looked around on the net to see who carried them and what the range of prices was. I found them at a 

number of online dealers and decided to order from ADORAMA at a price in the middle of the range I 

discovered. It took a week or so to arrive here in Canada, but I can tell you the wait was worth it. I 

purchased the Mamiya 5x apochromatic loupe - 3 elements in 3 groups. It comes supplied with a 

translucent and an opaque skirt and allows for diopter correction. It is an attractive shade of grey, much 

like titanium. The optics are fully corrected and give no distortion whatsoever, unlike the Pentax unit I 

saw that was tentamount to looking at prints through the bottom of a pop bottle it was so bad. I find it 

hard to imagine there is anything better than this and the price was certainly right. I wouldn't hesitate to 

recommend it to anyone. HTH 

-- Graham Fawcett, July 9, 2001 



I've had a Peak Anastigmat 4x loupe for a couple of years, and been happy with it (it cost ~$150). After 

reading the raves over the Schneider 4x, I decided to get one. I have to say that the Peak performs just as 

well as the Schneider, although it was more expensive. The Schneider comes with two skirts, opaque 

and translucent, while the Peak only has translucent. The Peak came with an eyepiece cap and element 

protector, and cleaning cloth that the Schneider didn't. Last, the Schneider came with a leash, which is 

nice, that the Schneider didn't. Anyway, the Peak is certainly not inferior to the Schneider. Maybe 

everyone here is generalizing on a cheaper Peak. 

-- Scott Hill, August 30, 2001 

Just today I went down to the local photostore looking to get a lightbox. I originally went in to look at 

the Porta_Trace boxes that I've heard so many good things about. Well, they had one and it was ok, 

though priced $30 more then online ($79.99, not that it was to much to spend, just too much extra to 

spend to buy locally) so I thought I would wait. Then, after flipping the switch on the little 4x5 Cabin 

light panel I was really impressed. Excellent, even light that looked perfect and for the same price as 

online, $79.99. Well, after some serious thought I decided a smaller one would actually be better for me 

then the larger unit. I live in a small apartment while going to school so space is scarce, plus a nice 

portable unit will let me take it home on holidays and such. So, ready to buy the Cabin I saw a slightly 

larger, flat white lightpanel setting on the shelf. Turns out its a 5x7 Hakuba model. It offered the same 

quality of light as the cabin (compared side by side) but was just slightly larger, and had an AC adapter 

and protective pouch included for only $10. I ended up walking out the door with the Hakuba panel and 

am really happy with it. I just used my Minolta Spot F meter to check the brightness consistency and the 

variance was only +/- .1 stop.....not bad! I'm shooting both 4x5 and 35mm so I can fit about 6 35mm 

slides or one 4x5 on at once. Better then the little 4x5 Cabin, but still nice and portable. If your in the 

market for a small, portable lightpanel I would deffinetly recomend the Hakuba. Doesn't have the fancy 

name, but delivers the performance just as well. 

-- chris long, June 21, 2002 

Related Links 

Add a comment 

● Equipment Reviews by David Paris- On my reviews page I have a detailed comparison between 

the Contax Carl Zeiss Triotar T* 5X loupe and NPC Pro 5.5X loupe, a review of the Porta-Trace 

11x18 light table, as well as reviews of other photographic equipment. (contributed by David 

Paris) 

● Egydio Zuanazzi - photographer - Brazil- Portfolio, Gallery and details to contact the 

photographer. (contributed by Egydio Zuanazzi) 



Add a link 


permission. 




Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of PDA 


Welcome to arsdigita.com 

arsdigita.com 

July 3rd, 2005 

What you need, when you need it 

Bookmark this page | Make this your homepage 

Sql Database Management Acs Online Education Java Cms Portal 

Popular Links 

Sql 

Database Management 

Acs 

Online Education 

Java 

Cms 

Portal 

E-commerce 

Website Hosting 

Dating 

Popular Categories 

Sql Database management Acs 

Online education Java Cms 

Portal E-commerce Website hosting 

Dating Work from home Music 

Jewish singles Airline tickets Data warehousing 

Ebooks Used wind power generator Free website hosting 

Favorite Categories 

Travel 

Airline Tickets 

Hotels 

Car Rental 

Air Charter 

South Beach Hotels 

http://www.arsdigita.com/books/panda/images7/3/2005 2:19:39 AM 

Services 

Car Insurance 

Mortgage 

Business Opportunities 

Life Insurance 

Work From Home 

Search: 

Money Savers 

Online Banking 

Online Payment 

Debt Consolidation 

Foreclosures 

Free Credit Report 

Leisure 

Music 

Dating 

Christian Singles 

Cell Phones 

Jewish Singles 

Sql | Database Management | Acs | Online Education | Java | Cms | Portal | 

Gambling 

Free Casino Games 

Poker 

Texas Holdem 

Blackjack 

Casino 

Learn More 

Real Estate Training 

College 

Weight Loss 

Alcohol Treatment 

MCSE Certification

photo.net 

photo.net Interview: Elsa Dorfman 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 

photo.net Interview: Elsa 

Dorfman 

by Lisa Surati for photo.net. 

Home : Interviews : One Interview 

Our first featured interview in the photo.net interview series is with Elsa Dorfman, a portrait 

photographer in Cambridge, MA . 

Background 

Elsa's portraits do not illuminate or glamorize her clients; rather, Elsa presents her clients in an 

extraordinary way, as themselves. Elsa embraces her clients' uniqueness and imperfections to present 

them in a way reflective of their daily lives. She encourages clients to wear everyday clothes and to 

bring their pets, toys, musical instruments, skis, and anything else that is an important part of who they 

are and where they are in their lives. 

http://www.photo.net/interviews/elsadorfman/ (1 of 5)7/3/2005 2:19:48 AM


In June of 1965 Elsa was working at what is now called 

Educational Development Corporation (EDC) 

developing teaching materials for elementary school 

science teachers. There, Elsa met George Cope, the 

photographer who took all the photographs for the books 

EDC turned out. George handed the camera to Elsa and 

taught her how to use it, making photography seem 

accessible to her. She's been recording the lives of people 

since. Elsa photographs her clients with the Polaroid 

20x24 (pictured on top left with Elsa), one of only six in 

existence. The camera weighs about 200 pounds, and is 

25.2" wide, 40.94" long, and 59.06" high. The camera is 

essentially a box with a hole in the front for the lens. The 

box has a Polaroid film processor built into the back 

door. Elsa loves her Polariod 20x24 because of its history 

and due to the fact that so many people who worked with 

camera are still devoted to it. She loves the camera's 

quirkiness and unpredictability - it seems to have its own 

soul. Elsa also uses the Polaroid Polacolor ER instant 

color film ASA 80. She usually lets the film develop for 70 seconds before peeling it apart. Elsa also 

uses Broncolor strobes because she finds it very good for non-technical people. 

In addition to taking portraits, Elsa has written a book Elsa's Housebook: A Woman's Photojournal and 

her work can be found in En Famille, a poem by Robert Creeley (the entire book is on the web.) Leslie 

Sills' new book, In Real Life: Six Women Photographers features a chapter on Elsa and her work. 

The Interview 

Photo.net met up with Elsa and asked her a few questions. 

1. What drove you to make the transition from teacher to photographer? 

It wasn't exactly a transition from choice. I was a failure as a teacher. I was a good teacher in the 

opinion of the kids, but the administration was sure I was a failure. I couldn't get the kids to 

salute the flag by 8:05 or read the bible. And I didn't always wear high heels. Sometimes I wore 

knee socks and saddle shoes, let alone sneakers. I wasn't that organized, and I didn't decorate my 

classroom, at least not to the schools standards. I was a teacher by default. I had no idea what TO 

BE. 

In those days, the early sixties, there were no role models - at least I didn't see any around me. I 

had been in New York City and had been a groupie. I was just middle class enough to know that 

that lifestyle (the word didn't exist until around 1974) wasn't really for me. I never liked drugs. I 

liked to know what was happening. I liked to be in control. So I went from teacher to 

experimental teacher at Educational Services Inc. (now called EDC). While at EDC, I was 

photographed by their photographer George Cope. And so there was a lineage, and I guess the 



role model I was searching for. 

2. What about photography captivated your interest? 

Well, it was easier for me, at least, than sitting in 

a room by myself writing a novel. And it was 

clear I couldn't have a straight life in some office. 

I loved the fact photography got me out on the 

street with a reason. It was a project. And I adored 

the spirituality of the darkroom. It just clicked, 

forgive me. I always wore glasses and I always 

stared. I think looking and observing was always a 

big part of me. The way moving is a big part of 

some people, staying put and looking were a big 

part of me. And I was always curious about 

people. Imagining their lives. 

3. Why did you choose portrait photography. 

I am very urban. I never was a hiker or a person 

who got ecstatic because they reached the top of a 

hill, let alone mountain. When I went to summer 

camp and had to hike up a tiny mountain, I never 

could understand what the big deal was getting to 

the top. So what, there it was. Back down again. And I never saw the beauty in schlepping along 

a trail. It just wasn't me. And though I adore gardens and flowers and plants now, at the time, it 

never occurred to me to actually photograph them. But I always was interested in people. And of 

course, I started photographing, by photographing kids for the Educational Services Inc. 

materials. I was always surrounded by pictures of kids in classrooms with science materials. 

There were also the market forces. People wanted pictures of my literary friends, and my literary 

friends needed pictures. It all sort of happened without an intellectual decision. 

Actually, in my life nothing has happened from an intellectual decision. I sort of bumbled into 

this or that, and then when I was halfway down the hole, I'd say, gee, I think I am going 

somewhere, skid down the rest of the way. I never know going forward, I only know looking 

backwards afterwards. 

4. What advice would you give to a person interested in becoming a professional photographer? 

The person has to be really high energy (which I'm not) strong to do schlepping and organized. 

The person has to be able to work with other people (which I'm not good at). I don't consider 

myself a professional photographer because I schlep along and make barely make enough money 

to pay my bills and live a little. I consider the big guys, and women, to be the real photographers. 

But I would say to someone, and I often do, make sure you have enough money to pay your rent 

and your health insurance. 

Also learn a skill so you can earn money, then you can follow your bliss. I guess young people 

have to know their way around digital. They have to be hustlers. Energetic. Know what they 



want. I think they have to be type A people. Singapore tomorrow. Of course, I'll be there. 

Newfoundland next week, well, maybe on Thursday. Even when I was young (now turning 64), I 

wasn't that kind of person. I think a photographer has to be a good business person and a good 

marketer. Forgive me it is really true. It pays to have a head for business and marketing. 

When I was entering the work force in the early sixties, business and marketing were dirty words. 

The only thing we thought about in the sixties, at least in my crowd, was stopping the war in 

Vietnam. It was a different life. I don't think we ever thought we would grow up and have to 

know important stuff and support ourselves and have health insurance. If you had told me then, 

that my advice to a young person contemplating a creative career in 2001 was make sure you get 

health insurance, I would have roared with laughter at the insanity of such an idea. And look, it 

happened. 

I think it is important to remember that making it as a photographer isn't entirely dependent on 

talent. I believe making it as a photographer is more about perseverance than brilliance. I know 

lots of really great photographers who didn't have the stamina to plug along for more than a 

decade. I don't think one has to be brilliant to make it as a photographer, rather one has to stick 

with it. Be competent, reliable, do the job and a bit more. Most people are incompetent no matter 

the field they are in, so the merely competent thrive. I also think one has to be lucky. One has to 

figure out how to be lucky. Don't ask me, maybe it is simply karma. One has to figure out where 

to be to be lucky. One has to recognize when one is lucky. Don't let the luck evaporate. And one 

has to show up. That is, the work must get seen, people have to know what you're doing. Luck 

isn't going to ring at your doorbell or send you an email. You have to find it, make it happen and 

recognize it. I think one has to remember life is long and not be in a hurry. If you stay alive long 

enough and keep working, you will probably make it. Before you know it, you're sixty, all the 

more talented people are bankers or whatever and all the things you insisted were on the right 

track turn out to be prescient. I guess my motto would be who knew. So photo.net is providing a 

big service.... 

lisasurati@photo.net 


I found this interview an interesting and informative insight into a prolific photographer's way of 

thinking and path to success. Elsa Dorfman speaks to probably many of our hearts (certainly mine) when 

she speaks of working a day job 'by default', yet being an artist on the inside. 

I would have enjoyed reading even more about Elsa Dorfman's creative and technical process. 

I would like to see further interviews on photo.net in the future! 

-- T T, April 13, 2001 



Good Advice... It really puts things in perspective :) 

-- Alex English, April 15, 2001 

Ahhhh, how refreshing...at last a photographer without pretense...A photographer who admits to the 

financial struggles the vast majority of us face year after year. Thank you Elsa for being so very honest. 

And thank you for providing an example of integrity and honesty for new and emerging photographers. 

a new fan, Heidi Johnson 

-- Heidi Johnson, November 13, 2002 

you might like to hear an interview w/ me that was on THE NEXT BIG THING, a public radio program: 

http://www.nextbigthing.org/archive/episode.html?05232003 

-- Elsa Dorfman, June 1, 2003 

Some very interesting advice. I liked how the advice (in the last question) wasn't about equipment or 

even about any of the standard tips and tricks you'd find in a photographic book but rather just some 

good, solid advice about life in general, obviously coming from someone who's been there and done 

that. 

It was certainly very reassuring to me and I don't feel bad that my photos are "just good enough". As 

long as I believe that I can be better and that I keep at it, I will eventually be taking photos that are 

"wow". Even if it takes me 20 years ... by then I'll be 40 and only half way through life ... plenty of time 

to fill album after album, book after book of awesome photos. 

Which is obviously what I'm looking forward to doing :-) 

-- Nathanael Boehm, November 2, 2003 

Related Links 

Add a comment 

● http://bermangraphics.com/- Other good interviews with photographers. (contributed by T T) 

Add a link 


permission. 




Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of TV 


photo.net 

photo.net Interview: David Julian 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

photo.net Interview: David 

Julian 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

by Lisa Surati for photo.net. 

● Gallery 

Home : Interviews : One Interview 

Our second featured interview in the photo.net interview series is 

with David Julian, a pictorial photographer in Seattle, WA . 

● Community 

Background 

David Julian works as a professional photographer, illustrator, 

designer and teaches annually at the Santa Fe Workshops. Working 

as an artist in related fields, David creates images for galleries and 

private collectors as well as illustrations for print and multimedia 

companies. 

The Interview 

Photo.net met up with David and asked him a few questions. 

1. Tell us about your experiences getting started as a professional photographer. 

I began as most folks did in photography's pre-automatic days, by using a simple manual camera 

to record where I went and what features I liked there. I was quite shy and therefore avoided 

photographing people. I stuck to shooting macros, as I am a very detail-oriented person and love 

insects and other natural fauna. As I began to take the camera camping and on road trips, I added 

landscapes to my repertoire, keeping the best landscape photographers' work in mind to measure 

myself against. I also drew ideas and made notes of images I wanted to find. I trained myself to 

see more graphically, and learned to use the camera's features to obtain the results I desired. 

http://www.photo.net/interviews/davidjulian/ (1 of 6)7/3/2005 2:19:56 AM 

As I loved rich color and deep saturation, I shot only color 

slide film and louped or projected the results for friends. 

That grew as a source for critical praise and feedback, 

helping me see what worked or what didn't in my images. It 

also gave me lots of personal confidence- something I 

lacked in my younger days. I never got around to taking any 

photography courses, preferring to remain self-taught and 

largely un-influenced by any mentors. I therefore never 

optically printed my own black and white images, as most


learning photographers did. 

I went to Trinidad in 1982 and Venezuela in 1984 for vacation, and fell in love with the tropical 

rainforests there. They excited my spirit and revealed a plethora of endless opportunities, both for 

personal explorations and for documenting a threatened environment. I made several trips back to 

the tropics over the next few years using every bit my staff job's vacation time. I began to market 

my tropical rainforest images locally, and created a traveling slideshow and wall exhibit, which 

donated to the Rainforest Alliance in NYC for use in conservation education and their 

fundraising efforts. That launched an avenue for funding my trips and writing off my expenses at 

tax time. It was a win-win situation for both of us. 

Since then, I've steadily added many thousands of images of nature, landscapes and experimental 

images to my files, choosing to remain semi-professional, in that I do not consider Photography 

to be my main business. It is mostly a personal pursuit and an integral part of my full-time 

profession as an illustrator and designer. This arrangement takes the pressure off of having to 

make 100% of my living at photography and possibly losing that personal freedom to shoot or 

not to shoot when I am motivated to capture what is before me. It also allows me to express 

myself in other ways that photography cannot fulfill. I could have easily gone full-time pro and 

become an environmental photographer or fine-art photographer, but my interest in illustration, 

design and financial stability veered me away from that at the time. I probably also felt that the 

commercial pressure would make my photography less than always enjoyable, which it now 

definitely is. 

2. What advice would you have for other photographers who are considering becoming 

professional? 

My advice to beginning photographers is to first forget 

about the endless miasma of technical details of today's 

devices and train your eye to respond to and compose your 

favorite subjects. Learn to listen to your inner impressions 

and to make the kind of pictures YOU want to make, rather 

than emulate the scenes made by others. Become the filter 

in front of the lens, as a decision-maker and an artist. Where 

ever you go or whatever you shoot, endeavor to find a 

personal way of interpreting what you see. Experience your 

subjects without a camera first, making mental or written notes as to what you find interesting or 

moving. Allow yourself to react emotionally and artistically before reacting technically. Enjoy 

this simplicity as you learn how to make better images. Then, as you thoroughly learn your 

camera's technical features and how it manipulates and captures light, you will instinctively make 

more personally "filtered" images and not as many artless recordings. Take courses in 

composition and "seeing" if you need to. Study paintings, watercolors or other art to cross-train 

you aesthetic mind to see beyond physical reality. I spent a lot of time studying the early 

landscape painters to learn about light and composition. Later, I also studied the images of 

advertising photographers like Pete Turner and Eric Meola; compositional masters David 

http://www.photo.net/interviews/davidjulian/ (2 of 6)7/3/2005 2:19:56 AM


Meunch, Richard Misrach, Walker Evans and Wynn Bullock; and conceptual masters Jerry 

Uelsmann, William Eggelston and Man Ray. 

My advice to advanced amateur photographers about to go professional is to work for a few 

excellent photographers who's work you admire, and to learn how they operate a business. I 

lacked that useful stage of development, and it made it harder on me without it. Don't hesitate to 

call someone nearby that you admire and be straight with them about your idea. Most won't bite - 

they like the admiration and recall how they got help early on. Be prepared to put yourself 

second, and offer the mentor your utmost. THAT will pay off for sure. Read PDN 

(PhotoDistrictNews) and other PRO pubs to keep abreast of legal issues and trends. Learn NOT 

to sell your work without proper compensation and rights control. Join or study ASMP, ASPP, or 

other industry organizations and their literature. Attend meetings and parties and above all, have 

some FUN as you learn. 

3. Do you prefer working with digital or film cameras? Why? 

I prefer film cameras at this time, as I require a lot of dependable image quality and love to edit 

film on a light box with a high-quality loupe. I also feel that film offers a more stable platform for 

professional reproduction at this present time, and at a reasonable cost. I must add however, that 

a well-featured digital camera with manual setting options is a very useful and speedy tool for 

learning composition and experimenting with spontaneity. Digital images can also be 

immediately judged and edited, speeding up the learning process. Although you can see all of 

your shoot on the computer, I still love the sheer joy of first seeing my images days after they 

were created. It's like unwrapping a visual present. Someday, when digital cameras are as fullyfeatured, 

reasonably priced and of the same quality as film cameras, I will go totally digital. But 

even then, I will never discard my 3x5-foot light box and my Schneider loupe! 

4. Can you tell us about your technical process. 

Ooh, that's a tough one. I use many processes, depending on my 

desired results. I use optical printing, digital printing and 

manipulation in roughly equal amounts. I use traditional cameras 

and a few home-made ones as well (my Kaputski is a modified 

1966 Pentax 67 with a Russian projector lens on it) . I always take 

a photograph as if there were no digital tools available, but 

sometime later use the computer to "digitally darkroom" the image 

to its full potential. I am extremely facile in Photoshop, yet I limit 

most of my manipulations to those that also exist in the optical 

darkroom realm. I do this to insure that my photographs stay as 

Photography, and that my illustrations remain as Illustration. 

That's purely a personal issue, and a commercial one at this time. 

That could change as perceptions change. I reject photographers 

that use digital imaging to "create" scenes that they did not actually find in nature. That does not 

apply to enhancement or retouching imperfections out. I just dislike unartistic and obvious fakery 



that tries to depict reality. 

5. Can you tell us about your creative process. 

As I stated above, I employ a very inner-focused approach. I also go into a receptive, almost 

meditative state when I first arrive at a scene. I use all five senses to learn about my subject. The 

smell of a dewy wheat field, the taste of seaside air, the texture of a new leaf and the gurgle of a 

creek all lead me to better interpret my reactions to a particular lace. Even the smell of rubber and 

gasoline has helped my shoot portraits of classic autos! One can only imagine what it was like 

when I used to shoot nudes... but that's another story entirely. 

6. What about photography captivates your interest? 

Photography allows me to re-live my travels, share my artistic vision and enhance my spiritual 

connection to this planet. It may sound cliché, but it's all true. Through photography I notice 

incredible details and the effects of time better than without it. I see what most folks miss, and I 

record them as well. I also pre-visualize some of my images and then set out to hunt it down and 

capture it. That often happens years later! 

7. What do you want to photograph that you've not yet shot? 

I want to learn how to photograph people as a journalist does- developing a connection with them 

as I do with nature. That may also increase my repertoire and add dimension to my life. 

For more information about David Julian visit his website 

lisasurati@photo.net 


I'd like to say that I completely agree with David about not making photography his main, money 

bringing occupation. I feel the same way, not regarding photgraphy, but multimedia: I like a lot 

developing little interactive movies, but I wouldn't make it for money, because I know it very 

well: making something for money robs one's freedom and, if something goes wrong, even the 

pleasure in doing that hobby. I'd be glad, if somebody could prove me that it's not so. 

-- Maria Bostenaru, August 24, 2001 

Agreed with the above. I illustrate for a living and taking photographs as a hobby has restored the 

feeling of self expression that drawing used to give me before I did it professionally. The trouble 

with doing something you love for money is that most of the time the concept and direction 

dictated by a client overwhelms and overides whatever you may want to do or say. Doing 



something purely for yourself is far more satisfying creatively. That doesn't mean to say I would 

change jobs, just that money and self expression rarely go together. 

-- richard harris - www.photographlondon.co.uk, August 25, 2001 

The daily grind can take the pleasure out of any work. 

I'm not doing any commercial work at the moment, but when I was I felt there was a positive 

influence on my personal work. 

The pressure of having to produce a usable picture makes you a better photographer. 

I think it's good to have more than one source of income, so I think part-time photography and 

something else is a viable way to go. 

-- Steve Hovland, September 19, 2001 

I have heard that the eyes are a window to a being's soul. As such, we can let photography be an 

outward projection and capturing of this interaction. It's obvious to me that there is more to life 

then just our physical surroundings. David, you do a wonderful job of illustrating this in your 

photos and I hope that they inspire others to dream and wonder and interact with their world as 

you do... 

-- Michael Woods, October 19, 2001 

Your suggestions in your answer to question 2 is what limits most photographers from creating 

better images. I hope more people understand that and put it into practice. Your response is the 

best way I've seen those thoughts articulated yet. 

I am mostly self taught and have similiar opinions in some areas. I've read this interview a couple 

of times already and just wanted to say that I find it very inspiring. 

-- Tom Menegatos, November 11, 2001 

Related Links 

Add a comment 

❍ Photography and the art of seeing- This book by Freeman Patterson gives some good 

advices on how to see creatively. (contributed by Jérôme RADIX) 

❍ http://bermangraphics.com/- Other good interviews with photographers (contributed by T 

T) 

http://www.photo.net/interviews/davidjulian/ (5 of 6)7/3/2005 2:19:56 AM 

Add a link



permission. 




Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of Laptop/Notebook Computers 


photo.net 

photo.net Equipment Articles 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

Equipment Section 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 

● General Articles 

By Type of Equipment 

● Digital 

● 35mm 

● Medium Format 

● Large Format 

● Color Printers 

● Tripods 

● Bags 

● Film 

● Filters 

● Video 

By Manufacturer 

● Canon 

● Contax 

● Leica 

● Minolta 

● Nikon 

● Olympus 

● Pentax 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/ (1 of 2)7/3/2005 2:20:06 AM


General Articles 

● Where to Buy a Camera 

● What Camera Should I Buy? (By Goal) 

● What Camera Should I Buy? (By Type) 

● Choosing a Camera for a Long Trip 

● Caveat Emptor 

● Old Beaters 

● Protecting Your Camera in Bad Weather 


permission. 




Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of Project Mngt Software 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/ (2 of 2)7/3/2005 2:20:06 AM

photo.net 



Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

Equipment Section 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 

● General Articles 

By Type of Equipment 

● Digital 

● 35mm 

● Medium Format 

● Large Format 

● Color Printers 

● Tripods 

● Bags 

● Film 

● Filters 

● Video 

By Manufacturer 

● Canon 

● Contax 

● Leica 

● Minolta 

● Nikon 

● Olympus 

● Pentax 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ (1 of 3)7/3/2005 2:20:11 AM


http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ (2 of 3)7/3/2005 2:20:11 AM 

Canon 

Digital Cameras • EOS 1D Mark II • EOS 1D • EOS 

20D • EOS 10D • EOS 10D vs EOS 300D (Digital Rebel) 

• EOS 1D (Josh Root) • EOS 300D (Digital Rebel) • EOS 

D60 • EOS D30 • CMOS Sensor Cleaning on the EOS 

10D (and 300D?) • Powershot A80 • Powershot G1 

• Powershot G2 • Powershot G3 • Powershot G5 

• Powershot Pro1 • S100 (Digital ELPH) 

35mm Film Cameras • EOS 1N • EOS 1V • EOS 3 

• EOS 5/A2E • EOS Elan 7 • EOS Elan II • Rebel 2000 

(EOS 300) • Rebel G (EOS 500N) 

Lenses • EF Lens Motors • IS Lenses • How Shift Lenses 

Change Your Life • EF 14mm • EF 15mm/2.8 Fisheye 

• EF 17-35mm/2.8L • Canon's New EF-S Lenses • EF-S 

18-55mm/3.5-5.6 • EF-S 18-55mm/3.5-5.6 vs. EF24- 

70/2.8L Shootout! • EF 20-35mm/2.8 • EF 24-85mm • EF 

24mm/1.4L • TS-E 24mm/3.5L • EF 28-105mm/3.5-4.5 

• EF 28-300mm/3.5-5.6L IS USM • EF 28-70mm/2.8L 

• EF 35-350mm • EF 50mm/1.0 • EF 50mm/1.4 • EF 

50mm/1.8 • EF 50mm/f1.4 vs. f1.8 • MP-E 65mm 1-5X 

Macro • EF 70-200mm (2.8, 4, and image-stabilized) • EF 

70-210mm/3.5-4.5 • EF 70-300mm/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM 

• EF 70-300mm/4.5-5.6DO IS USM Test • EF 75-300 IS 

USM • EF 80-200mm/2.8L • EF 85mm/1.8 USM • EF 

100mm Macro vs Tamron 90mm Macro • EF 100mm/2.0 

• EF 100mm/2.8 Macro • EF 180mm/3.5L USM Macro 

• EF 300mm/2.8L • EF 300mm/4L • EF 600mm/4L • EF 

600mm/4L IS 

Photo Printers • CP-220 Compact Photo Printer • i900D 

Photo Printer 

Scanners • Canoscan FS4000US 

Accessories • BP50 Battery Pack • Off Camera Shoe


Cord 2 • Speedlite 380EX 


permission. 





http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ (3 of 3)7/3/2005 2:20:11 AM

photo.net 



Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 

Sports Photography 

by Rob Miracle for photo.net. 

(punctuated by some photos by Philip 

Greenspun) 

We have all at one time or another been captivated by sports images. It may 

be Kirk Gibson’s World Series Homerun, and the image of him running the 

bases, overcoming the pain he was in or an image of high flying Michael 

Jordan slam dunking a basketball with his tongue out. We have all been 

captured in the moment of human drama. We all like a good action photo 

and, in particular, if your kids play sports, you want to remember them in 

their toils. 

Quality sports shots are somewhat difficult to come by. Most people have limited access to events to 

photograph them. The further away you are from the event, the harder it becomes to capture the event in 

a pleasing manner. Sports are an event where crowd control is important, not only for the crowd's safety, 

but for the players also. There is nothing more frightening than to be on the sidelines of a football game, 

focused on a play in the field, when out of the blue a 250 pound line backer drives a player into your 

legs or a foul ball comes crashing at your $8,000 lens! 

Location, Location, Location! 

http://www.photo.net/learn/sports/overview (1 of 21)7/3/2005 2:20:20 AM


You can only photograph things you can see. The closer you are to someone, 

the better you can see them. Sports are no different. You have to get as close 

to what you are shooting as you can. Typically, for a photographer with a 

press pass, you can get to the sidelines or other similar locations. You 

generally will not be permitted on the playing field. Depending on the sport, 

you most likely will be limited to designated locations. For instance, at most 

Division I football games, the media cannot shoot between the two 35 yard 

markers. For most people, the situation is even worse. You probably don’t 

have press access and are stuck in the stands for your shots. Get as close a 

possible. Even if you make it to the sidelines, you will be jostling for space 

with many other photographers, both still and video who have worked hard to 

get there and have the same job to do that you have. 

You also have to be familiar with the sport to be able to capture the moment. This means knowing where 

to position yourself for the best action. This is critical because of angular momentum that will be 

discussed in the section on freezing action. Not only does it matter with the subject, but the background. 

Look at what is going to be behind your subject. While we will try to minimize the impact that a 

background has, it will still be unavoidable. So you need to position your self where the background is 

the most pleasing. 

The Decisive Moment 

Sports and Action photography is all about timing. Its about reacting. Its about 

being in the right place at the right time and its about execute. These are all 

qualities of the athlete and those of the photographer as well. Each sport has 

predictable and unpredictable moments. Under "Knowing your Sport", you 

will learn about these moments for individual sports. For instance, in 

basketball, you will have opportunities to photograph layups, jump shots, free 

throws, etc. Understanding the timing of these predictable actions allows you 

to capture the peak moment, when the action is most dramatic. 

By knowing these moments you can anticipate the action. This helps in two 

ways, one it helps you with focus which will be discussed in a later segment, 

and secondly it helps you snap the shutter at the right time. The saying goes 

"If you see the action you missed it." This basically means if you wait for the 

soccer player to head the ball then press the shutter release, the ball most likely will be sailing out of the 

frame. You have to push the button before the action so that the mirror has time to flip out of the way 

and the shutter open and close. There is a delay between the image hitting your optical nerve and the 

shutter closing. You have to, through experience, learn what that time is and adjust for it. 

Required Equipment 



Most sports are shot on 35mm cameras because of their portability. While 

some photographers have captured great sports moments with other format 

cameras, we will concentrate our efforts on the 35mm arena which is the most 

commonly used gear. 

"Its not the equipment but the photographer who makes the picture" is 

generally a true statement. However with sports and action photography, 

having the wrong equipment means not getting the shots you want or need. 

This relates back to the section on location. The further away, the longer the 

lens is needed to capture the same image in the frame. Different sports require 

different lens lengths. For instance, basketball is generally shot from the 

baseline or sideline near the baseline. You generally can get good results with 

an 85mm lens in this situation. However, by the time the players are at mid 

court, you need a 135mm to capture them. If they are playing under the far goal, a 200-300mm lens is 

needed to fill the frame well, yet for shooting a soccer game, a 300-400mm lens is needed for just about 

anything useful. 

Generally, for a 35mm camera, each 100mm in lens focal length gets you about 10 yards (9 meters) in 

coverage. This coverage means that on a vertical format photo, a normal human will fill the frame fairly 

well. Thus, if you are shooting American Football from the 30 yard line with a 300mm lens, you will be 

able to get tight shots in an arc from the goal line to mid-field to the other 40 yard marker. As players get 

closer, your lens may be too long. Many photographers will carry two bodies with two different length 

lenses for this reason. 

Lens speed is also a critical factor. The faster the lens, the faster the shutter speed you can use, which as 

the lens grows longer, this becomes even more important. This will be covered in the freezing action 

section in more depth. If you look at the sidelines of any Division 1 college football game or an NFL 

football game, you will see people with really big lenses. These range from 300mm to 600mm or longer 

and even then, they may have a 1.4X converter or 2X converter on. You need fast shutter speeds to 

freeze action with long lenses. Every F Stop you give up requires a faster film or less freezing potential. 

Most consumer grade long lenses and zooms have variable apertures, but most are F5.6 at the long end 

of the lens. F5.6 is good for outdoor day time shots, but becomes very inhibiting for night games and 

indoor action. Most people use lenses that are F2.8 or faster. These lenses are very expensive. A 400mm 

F2.8 sells for over $8000 US. They are also very heavy and bulky. Using a monopod is a life saver with 

these big lenses. 



Besides these long lenses, you need a camera that can drive them. 

Today, most new cameras are auto focus. Auto focus makes this 

easier on us, but the AF systems are not fool proof. Luckily, many 

sports lend them selves well to manual focus, so sometimes you 

can get a bargain on a manual version of a lens to use on a manual 

camera and still get good photos. However AF comes in handy for 

a few sports. Hockey and Soccer involve many subject to camera 

distance changes. Motion is less predictable and these sports are 

some what harder to manual focus. Football, Basketball, and Baseball are quite easy to manual focus. 

You may also need a flash with a high output. I personally do not recommend a flash at any sporting 

event. I find the results unpleasing. However the new modern flash systems produce great results. Some 

sporting events like gymnastics and others are no-flash events. It is best to talk to an event official 

(referee, coach, etc.) before using your flash. Flashes will be covered more in the section on lighting. 

Other equipment which can come in handy are remote triggers. These allow you to mount a camera 

where you cannot be during the game and remotely triggering it, recovering it after the event. Basketball 

and Horse Racing are two good examples of sports where great photos come from someone who never 

sees the viewfinder while they are shooting. Pictures of NBA stars slam dunking the basketball taken 

above the rim or the winner of the horse race thundering by are done remotely. 

[Editor's note: Among digital cameras available in April 2001, the most suitable cheap camera is the 

Olympus E-10. A working sports photographer would use a Nikon D1, Canon D30, or one of the Kodak/ 

Nikon or Kodak/Canon professional bodies. Where to buy all of this exotic stuff? Your neighborhood 

camera shop won't have it. Check out the photo.net recommended retailers.] 

Depth of Field -- Isolating the subject. 

Most all dramatic sports photos are shot with the lens wide open or one stop from wide open. This is 

done for two reasons. First you need all the shutter speed you can get, which means shooting wide open, 

but just as important, it has to do with isolating the subject. As the aperture on a lens opens up, less and 

less of the photo is in focus. The longer the lens, the more dramatic the change. The larger the distance 

between the subject and the background the more out of focus the background will come. If you use a 

long lens and a fast aperture, then your subject will stand out and the background elements will have less 

impact on your photo. 

Reducing background noise is an important goal in many photographs, sports action or not. In studio or 

landscape settings, you have time to control the elements that make up the picture. Action photography 

is a "grab it now" type of shooting and you live with the background that is there. If you open up the lens 

to its maximum, you will find your subjects standing out and becoming memorable. 



When you are shooting sports, in particular football and soccer, keep in mind that plays shot on the far 

side of the field are closer to the background than shots on the near side of the field. Thus if you are 

shooting a soccer player moving the ball down field and the player passes in front of the bench when 

you snap the shot, you will have a very distracting background. It may be hard to separate the player and 

ball from the background noise. Fences, signs, poles, bleachers, stands, and people on the far sideline 

can really mess up a good shot. Even though you might be shooting wide open, the background will be 

too prominent in these shots. Should they be avoided? If you have better shots, don’t use it. However, it 

may be your best shot. Shoot it, just be aware that distracting backgrounds are more problematic on 

shots on the far side of the field. 

Focus 

An out of focus shot is pretty useless. There isn’t much you can do with them other than throw them 

away. So achieving crisp focus should be a goal of every one. Today’s AF cameras do a very good job 

of focusing, and focusing quickly. AF has really made a lot of photographers lazy. I used to manual 

focus everything, but now that I have an AF system with AF lenses, I let it do my work for me. 

However, many times, manual focus works better. To understand this, you need to know how auto focus 

works. The camera takes a series of measurements across its AF sensors. It looks for contrasting lines. It 

moves the lens until these lines achieve the maximum sharpness. These sensors are located in the 

viewfinder of the camera. Different camera models have different sensor configurations and different 

capabilities. These sensors either are a simple spot meter in the center of the view finder. A line of three 

sensors that run across the viewfinder. Or a cross which run side to side and top to bottom. Generally, 

these sensors do not cover the full range of the view finder and your view finder will have markings 

showing where the AF sensors are. 

If you are following a football player as he runs down the side lines, or a horse as it heads over a water 

jump, you start by pointing the camera at the subject. If you have a spot AF sensor, you have to be dead 

on the subject or you will find a focused background and a blurry subject. Wide horizontal sensors will 

allow you to lead your subject a little bit or allow you to compose shots that are off center. However, 

when you turn the camera to shoot a vertically framed shot, your sensors now run up and down. There 

are two things to be aware of here. First the AF is now vertical, thus your subject now has to be in the 

middle of the frame again, just like the spot sensor. Depending on the AF sensors in your camera, they 

may not focus on horizontal lines as well as vertical and you may find the AF less than responsive. 

However, you are shooting vertical sports, like volleyball, shooting vertically works pretty well. 

Depending on your composition, many sports photos are shot vertically. Humans are vertical people and 

if you are trying to get a good shot of your favorite baseball player cranking a home run, you want to 

turn the camera to a vertical format. Luckily, baseball lends itself well to a small AF sensor for pitchers 

pitching and batters batting. 

Some of the high end cameras have a cross pattern of AF sensors and they are generally selectable. By 



using a sensor array in this format, you have good vertical and horizontal sensor patterns regardless of 

which way you hold the camera. 

For those times where AF isn’t working well, or if you have a manual focus camera, you need to 

understand how to focus. There are two primary means of focusing a camera: Follow focus and Zone 

Focus. Follow focus is where you keep your camera on your subject, rotating the focus collar attempting 

to keep the subject in focus. This works very well on side to side movement, where the camera to subject 

distance is not changing rapidly. You might use this method for football, auto racing, or other events 

where you turn side to side following the action. This requires practice to get down. A good way to 

practice is to go out to the street and follow focus cars as they drive past. 

The second method is called zone focus. Here you expect the action to take place at a particular place, at 

the goal mouth on a hockey rink, or at the jump point on a long jump event at a track meet. You can 

focus on the area you want to be sharp and when the subject moves into the zone, you then take the 

photo. This is timing related. You need to practice the timing on this as well, Both of these methods 

allowed photographers to capture fantastic photos before the invention of auto focus and will continue to 

into the future. Even if you have an AF system, you should learn to follow focus and zone focus because 

there may be times where your AF isn’t available (low light, low contrast situations for instance) and 

you need to be able to come back with the shot. 

Composition 

Faces 

"Give me faces" or "I want to see faces" is a common cry from the 

photo editor because that is the cry he gets from his bosses. The 

face is the primary source of emotion in a shot and that emotion is 

what makes or breaks a shot. Shots of the subjects backside just 

don’t cut it. Don’t waste the film on a back shot unless you can see 

part of their face. When shooting a sport you need to be aware of 

the players locations. For instance, in basketball, if shooting from a 

side line, you only shoot people taking jump shots from the top of 

the key around the backside away from you. Any one taking a 

jump shot on your side of the court will be a shot of their back side. If you can’t see their face, leave it 

on the cutting room floor. 

Some sports, faces are hard to deal with. Football, Hockey, and Baseball tend to be difficult to catch 

faces depending on the level of play. Youth hockey for instance involves face cages on the helmets. 

Football at all levels of play involve face cages. Baseball caps create harsh shadows across faces. The 

easy solution is to use a fill flash to try to get past these barriers, however, flashes are generally not 

friendly for sports due to limited range and the possible distraction. Still its best to get the cage in the 

shot because the face will show through better than the back of the helmet. 



Vertical/Horizontal 

There are two ways to hold a 35mm camera that effects the composition. This was discussed somewhat 

in the focus section regarding the AF sensors. You can hold the camera in the traditional way where the 

long side of the film is horizontal to the ground. This is a horizontal or landscape format. If you turn the 

camera so that the long side of the film is perpendicular to the ground, you are now shooting vertical or 

portrait format. 

Many modern cameras have an additional release that allows you to hold a camera in a traditional 

manner (left hand under the lens, right hand along the right side of the body) as opposed to the old way 

of shooting vertically (left hand under the lens, right hand on top of the camera since the camera was 

rotated 90 degrees left). These vertical releases have been a wonder for sports photography since it 

allows the camera to be held in a more stable fashion. 

Why would you want to do this? Think about the shape of humans. They are taller than they are wide. 

To fill the frame with a person playing a sport, they fit the frame better while holding the camera 

vertically. Even in a tight head shot, it fits better vertically. A lot of sports shots, in particular if it is of 

an individual is shot vertically. Horizontal shots are used more showing conflict. 

Individual vs. Conflict. 

The vertical vs. horizontal decision needs to be made based on 

your desired goal in capturing the scene. If you are highlighting an 

individual, you should shoot vertical. A majority of photo 

opportunities in basketball and baseball come from individual 

efforts. 

However, there are times where you want to show the conflict in 

the scene, for instance two hockey players fighting for a puck 

along the dasher boards, or a soccer player being pursued by the 

defense. To capture these multiple people, you typically will have to shoot horizontal. You should make 

a conscious decision before you fire the frame as to your goals in capturing the shot. 

Rule of Thirds 

There is a common photograph rule called "The Rule of Thirds", which says that if you divide the frame 

into a thirds vertically and horizontally and place the subject where the lines intersect, the resulting 

photo is more interesting. Camera manufacturers don’t believe in this because their AF sensors are 

centered in the camera. 

For Sports photography, following the Rule of Thirds in principle is a good idea. That is lead your 

subject into the frame. If you are shooting a football player running left to right, leave more room on the 

right side than the left to imply that he is going somewhere. Shooting the player leaving the frame is 

poor composition. If you are shooting a tight "portrait" style shot, have the subjects head on a "Rule of 

Thirds" line. If you fill the frame, you should be in pretty good shape, just leave some space on the 



frame in the direction the player is facing. 

Framing 

Depending on how you get your photo output, you should be aware that many cameras do not show the 

full frame. Because of this many labs "enlarge" standard prints to approximate what you see in your 

viewfinder. If your camera shows the full frame, like many high end cameras do, and you fill the frame 

with a person, the 4X6 coming from the lab will in all probably crop part of the frame in a way you do 

not like. I cannot count the number of times a soccer ball has been cropped out due to this enlarging 

factor. 

If you scan from the negative for your publication, you have more control in capturing the whole frame. 

Get to know your output methods, lab habits, etc. If you find you are loosing parts of your frame, don’t 

fill the frame as tight. 

Know your Sport, Know your Players 

Each sport is different in the techniques used to capture the moment. Each sport has a limited number of 

unique shots. You can only shoot so many basketball games before you start feeling like, "been there, 

done that". Each sport also has opportunities to get "safeties" . A safety is a shot that is easy to get and 

will give you something to publish if you fail to get good action. For instance, I was shooting a baseball 

game. In the visitors at bat in the second inning, the skies opened up and it started raining. I had time to 

shoot the home team in the field and at bat once. Realizing the pending weather, I concentrated on 

getting some simple usable shots instead of waiting on some excitement at a base, like a steal. Safeties 

include things like batters batting, pitchers pitching, basketball players shooting free throws, the 

quarterback under center. Take times when the action is slow to get some good tight shots to use in case 

no good action materializes. Shoot your safeties first, concentrate on action later. You always want to 

come back with something. 

Its also important to spend some time at an event and not rush the assignment. Many photographers are 

under intense deadlines and cannot devote enough time to their sporting events and it shows in their 

work. I expect one usable shot every 20 frames. I like to shoot at least 72 (2 -36’s) per event and I can 

come out with several usable shots and some fantastic ones. If you go to a soccer game and shoot a 12 

exposure roll, don’t expect much. 

Its very important to know the sport you are covering. You have to know the coach and their coaching 

style. You have to understand some basic fundementals of the game or you will become very frustrated. 

For instance, in football, if its 3rd down and 1 yard to go, don't expect a pass, but point the camera at the 

full back. In most likelyhood, he will be getting the ball, unless its late in the game and they have to 

pass. Or don't wait on a steal at 2nd base with 2 outs. Coaches hate making the last out of the inning on 

the base paths. 

You also need to know players and their habits. Some players are full of emotion and tend to display 



their pattened moves. For instance at a local high school girls soccer match, I got a dramatic sequence of 

a player doing a cartwheel throw in. I knew it was coming and I was prepared for her move when she 

got the ball. 

Knowing your sport goes beyond the rules and players. Know your coaches and what tends to make 

them emotional. Get fan shots or cheerleader shots with their emotion. A co-worker once told me "even 

a blind pig gets an acorn once in a while". Any photographer will eventually get the "action" shot, but 

sometimes you need that crying cheerleader after a loss, or fans in costumes going nuts to completely 

tell the story. The game goes beyond the boundries of the field and the rule book. 

Baseball 

Baseball is one of the hardest sports to shoot. The action is unpredictable. You wait and wait and then 

when you are half asleep, something happens. Much of the field is out of range of normal zoom and 

telephoto lenses. Depending on the level of your sport, you will need long lenses. For most regulation 

fields (90 feet between bases, 350+ feet to the wall), you need 400mm or longer if you are shooting from 

the dugouts. It lets you shoot all the infield positions reasonably tight from the dugout/press area. The 

near base can be gotten with a 200-300mm lens. If you are shooting little league, you can get away with 

a 200-300mm lens because of the smaller fields unless you are trying to catch the outfield. Night 

baseball is too poorly lit and you need professional long telephotos to capture good images here. 

Your safeties in baseball consist of the pitcher, throwing the ball, the batters batting, the catcher catching 

or getting a sign from the dugout. After these shots, the game becomes a little less predictable. When a 

batter hits the ball to an infielder, you have to find the play, aim the camera, focus, and fire. Generally its 

too late. What you have to do is kinda keep the camera pointed at the short stop or the second baseman. 

Keep the camera near your face, but you need to watch the play. In particular, if you are standing where 

you can see the batter's stomach, you are in risk of getting hit by a foul ball. If you see the batters back, 

you will rarely see a foul ball. Once you have an idea of where the play is going, you can adjust, focus 

and fire. If you are shooting from the first base dugout, 3rd and Short Stop should be about the same 

distance away, so you can zone focus here. Likewise, from the third base dugout, 2nd and 1st are about 

the same distance. 

Once runners get on base, spend a few batters focused on an open base in front of the runner. Thus if a 

runner is on first and no one is on second or third, there is a good chance for a play at second base. It 

could be a steal or a double play. If no one is on, concentrate on first base. If multiple people are on, 

concentrate on either the fielders or on home plate. You have to wait and be patient. Baseball games are 

long and you will opportunities. Make sure to get your safeties. If you get into a pitching dual, your 

safeties may only be shots of the pitchers. 

Basketball 

Unlike baseball, basketball is the easiest sport to shoot. Action is contained in a 100 foot x 50 foot area. 

There are two objects (the nets) where the action always heads. Basketball is a game of limited shots 

though. You can shoot jump shots, lay ups, free throws, blocks, dribbling, and defense. Zone focus 



works well in basketball. You know lay ups are going to happen close to the net, so focus on the net and 

wait on the action to come to you. Your focusing techniques will vary somewhat if you are on the side 

line or base line. If you are on the baseline, zone focus is the best method. If you are along the side, you 

can follow focus. Your safeties are free throws and players dribbling or looking to pass. At these times 

action is minimal and you can get some good tight shots of players. 

Basketball (and other gym sports) is probably the worst lighting situation you will get into, however, 

you can get away with much slower shutter speeds. When a player drives for a lay up or takes a jump 

shot, they almost pause at the top of their jump. This is the peak of the action and the shot should be 

taken then. Since they have stopped moving for a millisecond, that is the best time to freeze them. Once 

you have these shots under your belt, you can then start working on emotion shots, blocks, and other 

action which may not come along as often. 

Generally you can get away with anywhere between a 50mm and 135mm lens with 85-105 being 

optimal. This lets you cover out to about mid court. If you want to shoot shots under the far basket, you 

will need a longer lens. However a fast lens, like an 85mm F1.4 is an excellent choice for most of your 

basketball action shots. 

Football 

Football is also an easy sport to shoot but may be one of the most equipment intense sports. Most of the 

time, you will be shooting at night and fast glass is required. Motion is predictable and a student of the 

game can almost predict the plays to allow you to get ready. Knowing your sports allows you to know if 

its a passing situation or running situation so you know where to focus your attention. For instance, in a 

football game, if it is 3rd down with 1 yard to go, you can be pretty comfortable that a running play is 

coming. So get your lens pointed at the backfield and get ready. 

Football affords the fewest safeties. You can get the QB getting ready to pass or the coach on the side 

lines. However, the action shots are plenty. You will get opportunities to photograph the quarterback 

throwing the ball and running backs running the ball. Make sure you get these shots. Then you can go 

hunting pass plays to the receivers. 

If you have freedom of movement, you want to set up 5-10 yards down field from the play. That way 

you get the QB and running backs coming at you. If you are stuck in photo zones between the goal line 

and the 35 yard marker, you will be limited to shooting plays that occur in that area. Big glass is 

important to football. If you have freedom of movement, a 300mm F2.8 is the ideal lens. However if you 

are restricted, you either need a 2x on the 300mm or a 600mm to reach plays on the far end of the field. 

If you are patient or shooting youth league, you can get away with an 80-200 zoom. You will have to 

wait on more plays to come your way. You wont get much in the middle or far side of the field. 

Since football movement is up and down the field and most photographers shoot from a side line, 

football is a follow focus sport. It is a pretty easy sport to follow focus because the subject to camera 

distance changes constantly, so once you start focusing, you should be able to time your turning the 



focus ring with their movement. 

Soccer and Hockey 

Auto focus was invented with soccer and hockey in mind. These two sports 

involve rapid changes in direction. The subject to camera distance changes 

so fast, its hard to follow focus because in an instant, the play is heading 

another direction. Zone focusing is a bit more applicable, except there is no 

guarantee the play will enter your focus zone. AF solves this problem 

because it tracks the play better than you. These two sports alone are the 

reason I moved from manual cameras to auto focus. 

Soccer is a game where you need long lenses. Generally, you have good 

access to the side lines. At the major league and college level, there may be 

some limits, but they probably are not as tight as football because the number of players on the sidelines 

is much less. You will typically shoot from the touch (or side) lines, though you can get some real good 

shots from behind the net or along the goal line. The lens of choice for Soccer is a 400mm F2.8 or 

longer. Many pro soccer photographers will have two cameras. One with the long lens mounted and a 

second with an 80-200mm zoom. This gives me some flexibility in composition while giving me the 

length needed to capture this large field game. If play gets close, they can switch bodies and go to the 

shorter lens. 

Soccer is a good game to get some dynamic and exciting photos. Your safeties include players dribbling 

the ball and throw ins. Get these shots and then work on catching headers, traps, corner kicks, and goalie 

saves. Soccer headers require the most accurate guessing on timing. The ball will be out of the frame 

quickly. It takes a lot of practice to capture these. 

Hockey, while similar to soccer in its unpredictable movement, has an advantage of being played in a 

smaller contained area. An 80-200mm lens is good for shooting hockey regardless of where the play is. 

To get shots on the far end of the rink, up to 300mm may be needed. Hockey however has some quirks 

that you need to be aware of. Frequently you are limited to shooting through the glass which limits the 

angles you can shoot or through chain link fence for outdoor roller hockey. Some arenas you are limited 

to one location and have a small hole to shoot though and you most likely will be competing with other 

photographers for this real estate. 

The ice or deck wrecks havoc with your camera’s meter. You will need to overexpose by at least one 

stop in ice rinks to get white ice. This takes away from your available shutter speed. Your safeties 

includes faceoffs, and players skating with the puck/ball. Good shots can be had of the goalies, though 

many of your shots will be of players on the rink. 

Volleyball 

Volleyball is a rarely covered event, with beach volleyball getting more press than the traditional gym 

based variety. Volleyball can yield some rich, colorful and dramatic shots given the need and desire to 



take them. Your access in volleyball venues will vary drastically. For instance, during a high school 

game, you may be permitted to shoot along the sidelines, or not far behind the end lines. As the level of 

competition goes up, you will be moved further and further back. In beach volley ball, you probably will 

not be permitted in the sand pit at all. So pack a long lens and some sun block (for the beach game). 

Volleyball shots are tricky to use auto focus on. If you are shooting from behind the lines towards the 

net, the AF could trigger on the net, the back of the opposing players, the back wall, or just about any 

point in between. It is best to use a vertical sensor for this sport since people are going up and down and 

there is little side to side movement. For manual focus, you want to zone focus. From behind the end 

line, most all action at the net will be at the same distance from you, so focus on an area just a little 

behind the net and leave it there. 

For shots along the side lines, it is best to shoot at an angle to capture the faces. These are the best times 

to capture digs and diving players as you should have a fairly un-obscured view of all the players. 

Traditionally, volleyball follows the "Bump Set Spike" ritual. Learn who the diggers, setter, and hitters 

are. Then take your time working on a shot of the individual skill you want to capture. Your setter will 

be easy to track and get shots of. Digging is a bit tricky since it can come from any were on a given half 

of the court, be a low or high dig, involve a dive or other less than predictable motion. Hitters/blockers 

are fairly easy to capture since that area of play is somewhat limited. 

Your safeties are the player serving and the setters since they are fairly easy to capture. Next work on 

your hitters/blockers followed by digs. 

Golf 

Golf is a fairly easy game to shoot as far as action goes, but it is one of the toughest because of the 

nature of the game. That is you can get good action shots if you can get there at all. Consider the 

following. Golf is a long distance, one direction game. It is played over a course of thousands of yards in 

a some what straight path and it is played from hole to hole. Secondly, it is a quiet game where the 

slightest distraction is not allowed. Finally, for your safety, your access to swing areas is limited. 

The first problem is addressed by one of two methods. First, you can camp at one location, such as a tee 

box or a green on one hole and shoot multiple people as they pass you. Or alternatively, you can with the 

permission of the course, use a cart and follow individual golfers. Cart paths are narrow and heading 

against the grain is difficult. Ideally, you will learn the course and find a spot where you can shoot both 

green play and a tee box with minimal movement. 

Even at 400mm, you may not get close enough for good tight shots. Longer lenses are almost a must for 

capturing competitive golf. If you are shooting recreational golf, say your beer buddies, you can get 

closer and a lens in the 200mm range will suffice. Any focus method will work since the players are 

basically standing still. Golf, in particular at the pro level is very sound sensitive. Turn off the AF (you 

don't need it any way) and go to a slient manual focus. If you have silent AF lenses, such as the Canon 

USM or the Nikon AF-S lenses, then you can AF. Some events may require you to use a sound blimp 



around the camera if your shutter/motor are distracting to the golfers. 

There are a few main golf shots, in most all cases, they are individual shots. The primary action golf 

shots include a shot during the back-swing, a shot near impact of the ball, a shot after the follow-through 

with the golfer looking for the ball or any time during a putt (but be quiet). However, there are a lot of 

opportunities for safeties in golf. Any shot of a golfer studying the course, be it looking at the scorecard, 

messing with the golf bag, talking to the caddie, or lining up a putt are easy shots to get. These are times 

where the firing of the shutter will be more tolerated. Also, shots after the follow-through are considered 

safe shots. The action is paused and you know its going to happen so getting them is somewhat easier. 

Don’t forget that a lot of good golf shots, and other sports for that matter do not involve play at all. One 

of my personal favorite golf shots was of a greens keeper changing the pins. 

Track and Field 

Track and Field meets are a lot of fun to shoot. You get a lot of variety of shots, multiple opportunities 

to shoot most participants and events and there generally is a lot of emotion displayed during a track 

meet. The most difficult things about track meets are logistical. 

Access can be restricted depending on the level of play that is being photographed. At a high school 

meet, there is little in the way of restrictions. Just stay out of the participants way, or out of the way of 

projectiles like shot puts and discus and you are okay. As you climb the ladder, access gets tighter and 

tighter. Even at NCAA Division I level meets, the access is still pretty good. Pro level, Olympic, or 

Major Events will be more tightly controlled due to the size of the event and the amount of media 

present. Access will be restricted to particular shooting areas. 

Logistically, track meets are hard to cover because multiple events are going on at once. If media 

movement is controlled, you may only get to shoot one or two events. But at a more relaxed meet, you 

will have more freedom to scoot from event to event. Because of time, multiple heats/attempts and so 

on, the track will generally be filled with races while the inside of the track contains the field events. 

There are no specific safety shots in a track meet, but the individual events are fairly easy since almost 

all movement is predictable. Track events all move one direction. Shooting the finish, or turns provides 

the most dramatic events. For the hurdles, it is pretty easy to time the players as they peak over the 

hurdles. Relays, with the baton passing is probably the hardest part to capture because the runner taking 

the baton may obscure the runner handing it off. Use follow focus to catch runners and they move past, 

or zone focus if you are working on the finish line. 

Field events, like wise are very predictable. Events like the high jump, long jump, and pole vault involve 

participants running towards an object, and then jumping over it. This is a zone focus heaven. Use a little 

depth of field (F5.6 or so) and focus on the bar for the high jump and pole vault and fire as they start up 

and over. You should catch them at the peak as they hurdle over the event. If you didn’t get that run, 

don’t worry, each player generally takes two or three shots and there are multiple players. 



The Long jump, and its cousin, the triple-jump are pretty easy. They are also zone focus events. If you 

are at the end of the pit, focus just a few feet into the pit and fire when they hit the board and begin their 

jump. After a few jumps, you should have a feel for when they peak at their jump and will nail a few 

really good jumps. If you have to shoot from the side, you still zone focus over the middle of the pit, 

track the runner as they head down the track and fire when they go airborne. 

The throwing and hurling events are likewise easy to shoot. The players have to stay within a confined 

space, so zone focus and you will do well. Try to catch them when their face is towards you and when 

their emotion is at its best or just after the throw. 

If you have good access, you can get some great shots with an 80-200mm lens. If you are restricted you 

may need a 400mm or longer, but in most cases you can get away with smaller lenses. 

Gymnastics and Figure Skating 

Gymnastics, as a rule, is a no flash event. While a flash may be tolerated at a basketball game, or a night 

football or baseball game, its generally a no-no for gymnastics. The participants are easily distracted and 

the slightest hesitation can cause serious injury. The bad thing is most gymnastics happen is poorly lit 

situations. Lighting will be covered later. 

Like Track and Field, gymnastics is a series of events with individuals performing. The events go on 

simultaneous to each other and depending on the level of the meet, your access may be limited to 

minimize distractions. With the exception of the floor program, most of the gymnastics events are kept 

in a small area which makes focusing easy and the movements are predictable. Even with the vault, your 

object is to catch the vault itself or the landing. So you will probably want to zone focus most of the 

events. The floor exercise will require follow focus or auto focus. Your lens choice will vary too much 

by access, but like other indoor sports you want the fastest glass available. 

Events like the balance beam, rings, parallel bars, and the uneven bars provide several opportunities to 

capture the athletes in artistic, athletic, and emotional poses where capturing the moment is somewhat 

easier. The vault and floor exercises require more timing to get good shots. However, for the floor 

exercises, its about emotion anyway, so catching the cute smiles and ballet style poses is critical to 

telling the story more than catching someone in a tumbling pass. 

Figure Skating combines the problems of gymnastics with the problems of hockey. You are limited by 

your access to off ice and you have to compensate for the white surface. Lighting isn't as good as a 

hockey game. Frequently, the lighting is spot lights, so knowing stage lighting is important. The 

programs can be predictable and are generally published before the event so you know when the triple 

jumps are coming. Lens length is determined by proximity to the surface but again, you want the fastest 

glass possible. Autofocus is a good idea for Figure Skating, though some success with follow and zone 

focusing can be achieved. 

Motorsports and Racing Events 



These sports are generally fairly easy to photograph. They generally occur during the daytime and you 

can get away with longer slower lenses. AF isn't quite as important because the action occurs in a very 

precticable fashion. You can follow or zone focus easy enough. Safety shots are the partcipants racing 

past you. The challenge for racing sports is to show motion which will be covered shortly. You don't 

want your Forumla 1 car looking like it is sitting still. Also much more importantly, there is a lot to the 

game other than the cars or horses running around the track. The pits/paddock afford some of the best 

shots. Be ready for an accident. They can happen at any time. 

The biggest problem with racing sports is the distance from the track. You only have the partcipants for 

a brief time on each lap and in the case of the ponies, you only get them for one lap (per race). You will 

need big lenses in almost all circumstances for the race itself. Your shorter lenses work well for crowd 

and off track shots. 

Freezing Action Shots 

So far, we have discussed each event and they types of shots to be taken. Safeties generally are taken at 

times where the action is minimal, and we don’t have to concentrate as much on freezing the action. But 

what sells, and what the viewers want to see are people suspended in mid-air. They want to see the crisp 

ball laying just off the receivers finger tips. To do that, we must freeze the action. 

Freezing the action requires fast shutter speeds. Most modern, high end 35mm SLRs have a top shutter 

speed of 1/8000th of a second. Except for a speeding bullet, this is about fast enough to catch anything 

you or I are likely to shoot, even an Indy car blasting around the track at 230mph. 

But it isn’t that simple. Lets first discuss a standard photographic rule of thumb, which is the minimal 

speed for hand-holding a lens. The minimal shutter speed for hand holding a lens is 1 divided by the 

focal length of the lens. Thus a 50mm lens should not be hand held any slower than 1/50th of a second. 

A 300mm lens should not be hand held at less than 1/300th of a second. If your camera does not have 

shutter speeds between say 1/250 and 1/500, then you round up. So for a 300mm lens, your minimal 

hand hold speed may be 1/500th of a second. The more proficient you get, the more likely you are to be 

able to cheat by one shutter speed. A monopod is the preferred way for action photographers to gain 

additional steadiness. It can generally buy you one to two shutter speeds of hand holding. 

Not only has it become more difficult to hand hold these lenses, it becomes harder to freeze the action as 

well. The lenses get heavier and harder to hold. Your breathing and heart beating and muscle strain are 

enough to cause still objects hard to capture. Longer lenses not only magnify the scene, they magnify the 

apparent movement. If a runner passes through the viewfinder with a 50mm lens attached in one second, 

then at 500mm, the same person moving at the same speed will pass in 1/10th of a second. 

Generally, to freeze action, you need at least two full shutter speeds if not more faster than the hand hold 

speed. So for our 300mm lens, you will need at least 1/1200 to 1/2400 to freeze action with this lens 

(rounding up, that’s 1/2000-1/4000th of a second). Even at these speeds, you may have to follow side to 



side movement, called panning to have the movement crisp when you expose the film Lets say you are 

shooting a car racing event. Even at high shutter speeds, if you hold the camera still and wait on the car, 

you will capture a blur. By matching the movement of the subject with the movement of the lens, you 

minimize the relative motion between the two. 

For subjects coming to you or heading away, their apparent movement isn’t as great. Many people make 

up some of the action freezing by getting things coming toward them. 

Film is critical in freezing action. Each increase in film speed gets you one more shutter speed. So if you 

shoot an event with ISO 100 film and the best you can get is 1/500th of a second, switching to an ISO 

400 film gets you to 1/2000th which may be enough to freeze the action. Going to ISO 1600, will take 

you to 1/8000th of a second. 

Adding high shutter speeds, fast films, monopods, panning, or shooting objects as they come toward 

you, and capturing action at its peak will let you freeze fantastic shots. 

Giving the illusion of movement. 

Many new action photographers worry about freezing action, trying to get the crispest shots possible. 

Even veteran photographers will try for crisp shots, but they are not afraid to allow some blurring. 

Stop and think about it for a minute. A baseball pitcher throws the ball, the batter swings the bat. Your 

eyes don’t freeze the action precisely, so why should your pictures. A blurring bat, or an elongated ball 

leaving a blurry arm imply movement. As long as most of the body and the face is crisp a little motion in 

the hands, feet, and projectiles is acceptable and in many cases desired. This is another little cheat in not 

having that fast of a shutter speed. 

Some times, we slow the shutter speed down intentionally to amplify the movement. We have all seen 

shots of runners where the background is a blur their arms and legs are a blur, but their body and head 

are fairly well focused. Combining panning, slower shutter speeds, and predictable movement and you 

can capture some very dramatic pictures showing all kinds of movement. 

These types of shots require patients, work, and a lot of experimenting. Don’t hesitate, when at an event 

to experiment with different techniques . . . after you get your safeties and your primary shots. 

Lighting and Film 

Lighting conditions are the single worse bane to sports photographers. There simply are no good lighting 

conditions. During the day, under bright sun, there are harsh shadows and it creates shots that have too 

much contrast. Morning and late afternoon shots are somewhat better if you can get the light behind you, 

but you still end up with some rough shadow conditions. Overcast skies drops the light level too low for 

using really long lenses or the shots don’t have popping color. 



As the sun sets, or if you move indoors, the lighting is generally enough to let the players see the ball 

coming at them. No two facilities are lit the same. You will find situations where little league fields are 

better lit that college fields. You will find that different arenas and stadiums have different color balance 

lights. Some facilities will even have bulbs of different color balance which makes some shots 

unprintable. 

Most modern pro arenas have fairly decent lighting and the color balance is pretty good. Professional 

teams need lots of media coverage and after years of complaining, they have created decent lighting for 

the media to use. 

Critical to the sports and action photographer is the choice of film. By now, you should understand the 

relationship of film speed to aperture to shutter speed. As light goes down, shutters slow down, apertures 

open up, and film speed increases. 

Most indoor sports events either require the resources of Sports Illustrated to mount strobes in the 

ceiling, which are not distracting to players as a strobe blasting in their face, or require using high speed 

film. Most indoor sports are shot at ISO 1600 with fast (F2.8 or faster) lenses . 

Under these conditions, you can get away with 200mm or less in lens. That means you need to get a 

shutter speed of around 1/400th to be able reasonably freeze the body while allowing limited motion in 

the extremities. However a lot of time, the available shutter speed will be less than that. You do the best 

you can. You can increase film speed, which will increase grain and contrast to compensate. You can 

buy faster lenses, like a 200mm F2.0 or an 85mm F1.4. You can switch to a shorter lens to lessen the 

impact of motion. Remember, you can freeze action well at 1/250 with an 85mm lens but can barely 

hand hold a 200mm lens at the same speed. 

Color slide film is limited in film speed. Most high speed color slide film has the grain of an ISO 3200 

print film. Depending on your use, grain may not be too bad. Most newspapers use low line count 

screens for their half tones, and a lot of grain will be hidden in the half tones. Most high speed films are 

not very sharp and lack color saturation. 

Lets take a couple of common films that are used by sports photographers: Fuji 800 and Fuji 1600. If 

you shoot Fuji 800 at 1600 and push process it (over develop it to make up for underexposing it). You 

will increase grain and loose some shadow detail. However Fuji 800 under these conditions still 

provides more pleasing shots than Fuji 1600 rated and developed normally. Even pushed to 3200, Fuji 

800 provides good results. 

Not all films are designed for push processing. Most color C-41 based films develop their layers at 

different rates and the normal 3 minute, 15 second development time is the amount of developing where 

all layers come out right. Overdeveloping can cause uncorrectable color shifts. Some films are produced 

with push processing in mind, like the Kodak Extapress line of films. Fuji doesn’t say one way or 



another about Fuji SuperG 800, however many press photographers use this film and push it all the time. 

Pushing film is a common process. Most places that develop slide film (process E-6) or Black and White 

will push film upon request. However color print film (process C-41) is a different story. Most locations 

will have a lab that will do it, but most mini-labs will not. Either the operators are not trained on 

changing the time, the management does not want them to forget and then ruin future films when they 

forget to reset the machine, or the machine just isn’t capable of using different times. You may have to 

search to find a lab to push C-41. 

Of course, you could soup your own. Processing film is a seminar in itself, but if you are scanning the 

negatives for production, you rarely need prints anyway, so the equipment necessary to develop film is 

minimal. 

Emotion 

Shots that lack emotion are ho-hum. They lack energy. They lack story 

telling ability. If there is no emotion, then there is little desire to view it. 

Most tight action shots of players will be emotional. Regardless of level, 

these players, when they are exerting themselves, exhibit emotion. From the 

little tee-ball player messing with her hair and her helmet, to the strain of a 

pole vaulter working to get over the cross bar, there is plenty of emotion to 

be found in sports. You will, from experience be able to edit out the shots 

that lack emotion and do not tell the story. But it requires shooting and 

shooting. 

You should also look for emotion from other sources. As years of ABC’s Wide World of Sports told 

us . . . The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. Make sure to save film to shoot the players after 

their events. Or during their events, don’t always focus on the ball, but on the emotion after the big 360 

degree slam dunk. Don’t forget to look for emotion in the coaches and the fans. A lot of the best shots 

come from the crowd. 

Where to Start 

This seminar contains a lot of hints and it talks about a lot of high level gear and access. It’s important to 

understand that not every photographer will be able to take this information and expect to step onto the 

hard wood at Chicago Stadium, sit in the press gallery and expect to capture Grade A shots of Dennis 

Rodman in his antics. To get to that level, you have to have a proven sports portfolio and work for an 

agency who can get you access. 

Before you get to that level, you have to shoot a lot of minor sporting events. The best place to start is 

your local youth leagues. Early in my career, I got broken in on high school sports, but through my 

experience there, I got to shoot for my college papers and year books. That allowed me access to shoot 



NCAA Division I sports early on. But I would not have had that opportunity without having developed a 

portfolio from my early days of shooting. 

Local youth leagues provide you great access and opportunities to use smaller lenses to capture shots. As 

your portfolio develops, you can approach shooting at higher levels. You can get a lot of practice and 

experience here which is valuable when going to "The Show". 

Today, I am back shooting for a small town paper and the highest level of sports that I have reasonable 

access to is high school. Even though I have been to "The Show", I still enjoy getting pictures of 5 year 

olds when they catch their first ball or score their first goal. 

You may however get opportunities to shoot pro games from a fan’s perspective. Depending on your 

location in the arena, you can get some reasonably good shots. Take your long lens and some high speed 

film and make the most of it. In these situations, freezing action isn’t as important as being able to hand 

hold the lens. The players will be at such a distance that their movement will be like a person closer to 

you with a normal lens on. As long as you have enough shutter speed to get a steady shot you should be 

able to get memorable shots. 

Summary 

One final note. Don’t rush your action assignments. Spend some time, and expect to burn some film. 

Only through practice and looking at the results and going back to it will you get the timing and skills 

needed to one day capture world class shots. 

More 

● 100th Boston Marathon, photographed by Philip Greenspun 

● Head of the Charles 1998 

● MIT soccer photos by Philip Greenspun 

● "Where to buy a camera" -- retailers that actually stock the big long lenses 

● Canon 600/4 IS lens review 

Text Copyright © 1998 Rob Miracle; Photos copyright 1994-1998 Philip Greenspun. 

Sports Photos give us a sense of being there. 

Add/View Comments 



rwm@mpgn.com 


Predeal, Romania, 1985 

Maria 

Sports can be not only for preformance, but also for the family leisure. 


Related Links 

Add a comment 

● Luca Patrone Advertise photography- In the gallery "various" some creative shots made with 

extreme fish eye optics. I like this lenses for sport and action (contributed by luca patrone) 



Add a link 


permission. 




Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of Consumer Electronics 


photo.net 

Color Printers 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 



Last updated: August 25, 2001 

Contents: 

1. Ink Jet (small and cheap) 

2. Dye Sublimation Printers (old) 

3. Fujix 3000 (and now 4000) 

4. Onto Conventional Paper 

5. Ink Jet (big and expensive) 

6. More 

7. Reader's Comments 

Ink Jet (small, cheap, and slow) 

Inexpensive ink jet printers ($300 to $1000) can produce remarkably good quality 

photographs if you choose your paper carefully. These prints can also be archival if 

you choose your ink carefully. Epson and Canon typically make the best ink-jet 

printers for photographers. The Canon S800, for example is a good low-cost 

machine (about $300). The Epson Stylus Photo 2000P, about $750, offers 

Pigmented Archival Ink, good for making prints that can last 100 years, i.e., five 

times as long as a Genuine Kodak Paper print and almost twice as long as a 

standard print on Fuji paper. For the best user interface, look at the Kodak Personal 

Picture Maker 200 (PPM200; about $150). This printer includes an LCD screen 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/printers/primer (1 of 36)7/3/2005 2:20:36 AM


and slots for CompactFlash and SmartMedia cards. You can pop a storage card out 

of your camera and into the printer, scroll through your photos, and make prints of 

selected images all without using a personal computer. 

Whatever printer you get, make sure to follow the manufacturer's recommendations 

for paper. You'll need expensive glossy paper to get photo-quality results. 

Expect to suffer from color calibration problems with any ink jet. Your monitor is 

an RGB device. Your ink jet printer is a CMYK device. Good luck at getting 

anything out of the printer that resembles what you see on the monitor. 

Dye Sublimation Printers 

"Dye-sub" printers were among the first photo-quality color computer printers, 

emerging in the early 1990s. Sadly most of the prints made with these machines 

had faded by the time we entered the New Millennium. The latest dye-sub printers 

allegedly produce more archival prints but this whole technology seems to be 

fading in favor of ink jet. 

Color management is a problem with dye-sub, as with ink jet. These are CMYK 

devices. 

Fujix 3000 (and now 4000) 

Though rather long in the tooth, this is the choice of most imaging professionals. 

The Fujix machines uses three lasers to expose a specially treated "donor paper" 

which is then thermally developed and transfered onto "receiver paper". It is a 

traditional silver halide process but one need not maintain chemistry or clean 

processor rollers. Resolution is 400 dpi on an 8.5x11 sheet (Fujix 3500) or 12x18 

(Fujix 4000). Image quality is the best of any printer available, comparable to an 

Ilfochrome, and archival qualities are reputed to be good. The printer is a standard 

piece of office equipment and the expended donor paper goes back UPS to Fuji for 

recycling and disposal. Consumables cost $2-4 per page and you can make 

transparencies as well as opaque photos. 

Another significant advantage of the Fujix over most color printers is that it is a 

true RGB device and thus one need not deal with the horrors of CMYK conversion. 

Even without going to special lengths with color management, you'll probably get a 

nice print on your first try. 

The Fujix can be obtained from a handful of national retailers, including Adorama. 

The 4000 is about $13,000 and the 3500 is about $5500. 



If you want to try Fujix printing before you buy, visit your local professional digital 

color lab. They'll probably have a machine. 

Onto Conventional Paper 

A variety of companies make high-volume, high-cost machines that use RGB lasers 

to print onto standard photographic paper, either Ilfochrome or RA-4 negative 

printing paper. At their best, these can be as good as the Fujix printers and the perpage 

cost for media is much lower. Print size can be outrageously large. These 

machines usually print on rolls and can therefore make a print 50 meters long (but 

only 127 cm or 50" wide). 

Vendors include Gretag Lab Systems (www.fotoprint.com), Durst Lambda, and 

CSI Lightjet. Whatever you choose, remember that these machines only expose 

paper. Development requires a standard RA-4 or Ilfochrome processor with 

traditional photo chemistry. Traditional photo chemistry implies that someone is 

cleaning and maintaining the processor regularly. Also note that expended photo 

chemistry constitutes a disposal problem: you can't just dump it down the sink. 

For most people it is not practical to own one of these machines. You prepare your 

digital files and send them to a lab. If you aren't happy with your local labs, try 

ColorWorks in Portland, Maine or Precision Color (Michigan and Nevada; (702) 

736-8400 ask for Pat). 

Ink Jet (big and expensive) 

For a painterly look, try an Iris ink-jet print onto watercolor paper. The machines 

themselves cost a lot and the original inks were not archival but it is an unusual 

way to make art that cannot be easily duplicated with other kinds of machines. 

Send a file to ColorWorks to try out Iris (Giclee) printing at its best. 

More 

● Wilhelm Imaging Research conducts test of archival properties of paper and 

inks 


I recently saw some prints that were made from images that had been captured by a 

low end digital camera. The prints were small. One set had been made with an 

inexpensive ink jet printer. The other set had been made with a dye sublimation 

printer. 



The set that were made on the inexpensive ink jet printer looked like the typical 

low resolution, lots of dots stereotypical cheap digital stuff that many people are 

familiar with. 

The dye sublimation prints looked good enough that they could have easily fooled 

a casual viewer into thinking that they were small photographs. 

I don't know whether the difference was printer setup software related or if it was 

completely due to process. In any event, the difference was huge. 

-- Glen Johnson, January 13, 1997 

There's been a rash of new, low-cost and reputedly "photo quality" inkjet printers 

released onto the market. In particular, the Canon BJC-4200 and 4550 (A3/tabloid 

sized), and the Epson 500 are reputed to give near photo quality at around 720dpi. 

Whilst there's plenty of reviews of these by the computer press, I've yet to find any 

reviews by folks with a photographic bent ... 

-- David Gurr, February 18, 1997 

I have an Epson Stylus Colour II printer which I use for colour prints (Photoshop 

produced files from either scanned or digital camera output). The quality is 'near 

photographic' if you use Epson High Quality (720 dpi) paper (standard and glossy 

paper is available). However, the cost of this paper is about $2.50/sheet (8.5" x 

11"). I have compared the output for the same image printed with a Tectronix 

dyesub printer and the dyesub images are superior. No dots are visible- even with a 

magnifying glass- because the printing method 'melts' adjacent pixels together 

during the printing process. Since the 'melted' pixels emmulate the silver grains of 

traditional photographic paper, I think that this approaches (but does not equal) 

'true' photographic quality. 

-- Barry Hargrave, March 7, 1997 

I believe a whole lot of photographers are setting themselves up for a rude shock 

when all of their digital prints start fading away. The fact is that other than the 

Kokak Xtralife ribbon prints, nothing is going to last!! Until photographers demand 

(and are willing to support) printing that lasts, this will continue to be the time 

bomb of the digital renaissance. 

-- Jeff Mandell, March 7, 1997 



Today I visited Sammy's Camera in Hollywood, CA, and saw a nice Fujix printer 

that does not cost 30K anymore. The model is NC-500, it is only 7K, (like I have 

7K laying around... ) and it uses "thermo autochrome" printing process. From the 

brochure I found out that the dies are embeded the paper, and that's it. No messy 

processing, just heat and UV light to stabilize the dyies. Paper, according to the 

salesman, is about $1 a sheet. Output looked very nice, it had that "photographic" 

quality. BTW, there is nothing mentioned in the FUJI's flyer regarding longevity of 

the prints, so I took the sample I was able to obtain, cut it up into "test strips", and 

placed them in following places: one with my photos in the notebook, second under 

the transparent plastic of my notebook, and third - in direct sunlight (for about half 

the day) in my balcony. I will let you know what happens in about a month. As a 

control, I am using Kodak's RC Polycontrast paper print. If anyone has more info 

or questions on the printer I saw, let me know. I'll do my best! 

Cheers, Agnius 

-- Agnius Griskevicius, April 17, 1997 

Today I took down the test strip I had hanging in sunlight and compared to the 

other 2 strips that were not treated so harshly. These are my observations: 1) Sunlit 

strip of Fuji's "auto thermochrome" paper shifted to yellow and got 

"warped" (wavy). Original grays now look green, original whites looks yellowish. 

2) No naked eye observable difference of Kodak Polycontrast RC print hanged in 

sunlight or archived in files. Conclusion: Because Fuji uses ultraviolet part of the 

spectrum in "stabilizing" colors, direct exposure to vast quantities of sunlight 

(which has plenty of UV in it, even filtered by smog here in L.A.), destroys the 

prints. If you want more "permanence", make silver halide prints. For color use 

Cibachrome (now Ilfochrome). I am not versed in color printing, so those 

recomendations are not mine. Happy printing! 

Agnius Griskevicius 

"I love the smell of the fixer in the morning" 

-- Agnius Griskevicius, May 11, 1997 

I have read the page on Colour Printers. The direct comparisons with the quality of 

photographic prints is well justified, especially in the area of longevity, is well 

justified, I think we should be looking upon digital printers rather as a NEW 

medium, and judging the results on their own merit. In the early days of 

photography the prints were compared very unfavourably with paintings, and early 

attempts at photo-mechanical reproductions were poor subtitutes for the originals. 



Each has however survived and flourished. 

I have been a Commercial Photographer for close to 40 years with a colour print 

darkroom where i produce quantity prints as well as enlargements p to 24" wide. I 

have been dabbling in digital photography for 2 or 3 years, but have recently 

become serious about it. I am using a PC with Photoshop 4.0, an Agfa Arcus II 

scanner, and an Epson 600 printer. 

My conclusions are that given an original photograph with some imperfections in it 

(that could not be corrected at the shooting stage)I would rather correct those 

imperfections digitally and accept the resulting print from the printer. With a little 

practice and some imagination the resulting print may not look precisely like the 

original photograph, but will be very accepatble in it it's own right. With all the 

filters, effects and enhancements available the picture can be far more attractive 

overall than the unmanipulated version. 

Yes, if you look closely you can see tiny dots, though mostly just in the light areas 

but then so you can in any glossy magazine photo printed with a 150 line screen. 

I have actually reproduced a final image from a fax that I enhanced and printed. 

Without any knowledge of its origins it was thought to be very Creative, because it 

was judged only on its own merit. 

The technology is in its infancy. Let us accept it as a new medium. The weak areas, 

such as lack of stability will be overcome. In the mid '40s 35mm. film was 

traditionally only 12 or 25 ASA, or it would be too grainy for anything larger than 

2"x3" prints. We've come a long way since then. 

-- Joseph Levy, June 12, 1997 

Concerning the photo quality printer I use an Epson Stylus Photo and I am very 

pleased with it. It prints not only photos but also, by the way, standard B/W 

documents. It takes time to understand "how it works" in order to define the better 

result in term of "output colour accurancy", later on is faster than printing colour 

print in your dark room , with or without Cibachrome, don't to mention photo labs . 

Obviously PhotoShop, a film scanner and an Apple Power Macintosh are a must ! 

Using the "Digital Dark Room" it is now easy and funny to have standard print to 

use as personal post-card or souvenir or , some time, as "poster" in A4 format. 

Recommended ! 

-- Antonio Petrone, August 20, 1997 



I don't agree with Ilfochrome being the best color printing process. In the fine art 

circles dye color transfer prints (not to be confused with "thermal dye color 

transfer", another name for dye sublimation) are considered to be vastly superior. 

-- Quang-Tuan Luong, November 10, 1997 

I realize that there are expensive printers out there, but my experience has been 

limited to those under $700. I've had several generations of Epson (Stylus II to the 

600), as well as a few cannons, but the most fabulous prints I have managed have 

come from the Alps MD2300 Photographic printer. Printing an image taken from 

this site I had trouble convincing "joe/jane on the street" that it wasn't a real 

photograph. The colors are vivid, rich and continuous with a clear overcoat. I've 

had a photo hanging in a sun facing window for 6 mo. that looks the same as it's 

contol photo in an album. It's a great printer wich doubles as a high qaulity B/W 

printer for text (1200dpi). You need special paper and ink carts for photo, but it's 

worth it. This printer will aslo print metallic (yellow, cyan, magenta, silver) onto 

the photos if you desire. It's been called dated and obsolete compared to the new 

inkjets, but as for now I'll take it any day. 

-- Danno --, December 25, 1997 

Does anyone remember what color prints looked like in the 1950's? The vast 

improvement in quality which we are so furtunate to have access to, took many 

years to produce. Modern desktop inkjet printers, such as the Epson Stylus series, 

use a technology only a few years old, and yet they are capable of producing 

outstanding quality. 

I can scan a photo with poor color, work on it in Photoshop, and print out a much 

improved copy using My Epson Stylus Color II, and premium inkjet paper, which 

now only costs about 10 cents per sheet! (glossy is about 70 cents). 

Anyone willing to spend the time learning how to properly use these relatively 

inexpensive desktop printers can produce excellent photos, and easily redo them in 

whichever way suits them. 

We don't need to pit film technology against digital; I love being part of the digital 

revolution in photography, yet I have no plans to abandon my 35mm equipment. 

They both belong, in their own rites. 

-- Gary Robertshaw, December 31, 1997 

i have seen test-prints of all 3/4 alps-printers such as md 2010=md4000 without 24 



bit scanner/md 1000 and md 2300. md 2010 is too grainy for photos. md 1000 is 

much better, has wax- type-printer-like pattern but image behind pattern is sharp. 

output-for layout or visitcards is quick, around 7 min.2010 takes only 3.5min. md 

2300 is really the printer for all photo-freaks. it has no competitors yet. prints have 

no grain, shadow- details are good. the ink- printing-system only produces stripes 

which can only be seen when light is reflecting the surface. alsp told will introduce 

a bigger sized- model for 33x48 cm? size. they are solving a problem concerning 

printing 4-times(4 inks) precisely. paper-path-problems. as a panorama-freak i 

asked alsp and a supplier- company to reflect about banner type-possibility. md 

2300 costs less than 1000 usd. 

-- michael przewrocki switzerland, March 12, 1998 

For large prints (72" by 1200")I have been getting great results from the 200dpi 

Lambda machine. It uses lasers to write onto color photographic paper or 

Ilfochrome paper. The output looked way better than making an LVT chrome and 

printing that with an enlarger. The 200dpi is continuous-tone, not to be confused 

with a halftone like what the Epson Stylus Photo uses. For images up to 20x33, the 

Kodak LED photographic printer (over $100,000) is 250dpi and looks excellent. 

For smaller prints (up to about 18 inches), the Fujix Pictrography 4000 is best. 

-- Robert SIlvers, April 23, 1998 

I print from Kodak Photo CD and other sources using the Epson 600. It print 

720X1440. I use primarily Epson Matte Finish Photo Quality paper(11 cents a 

sheet). I laminate the prints for handling and waterproofness. I have directly 

compared the same Adobe photoshop file (18megs for a 8X10 print)printed on my 

printer vs a Fujix thermoautochrome or even a C41 print and find no perceptable 

difference. I love my cheap little Epson 600. 

-- Charles Clemens, April 27, 1998 

So far there aren't many "personal" (in the $500 range) printers which can produce 

photographic output. Most of the ones that can require special inks and papers 

which drive the per-page cost up. While I'm waiting for a printer in my price/ 

performance range, I'm making display prints from digital images at Kodak Image 

Magic Print Stations. You can get a list (with addresses) at the Kodak website. 

You'll have to call the stores yourself and ask if they have the "Business Builder 

'98" software which allows you to print from floppy. Most places charge between 

$7-10 for an 8.5"x11" sheet. When you print the sheet you can decide on any of 

several layouts which provide anywhere from 1 8"x10" print to 20 wallet size 

prints. If you don't have a nice roll cutter be sure to choose the $10/page place 

which will cut your prints for you. 



And remember, no matter what your output device, the results will look better with 

a nice wide white matte! 

-- Ben Jackson, August 6, 1998 

Ben, 

They do have a printer in your price range that provides excellent quality, 

photographic output. The Epson Photo Stylus. You can get one in the $300 and less 

range. They even have a new one that prints on 11x17 for $499. 

I've seen the in-store displays for this printer which have a picture printed from a 

photo-lab and the same picture printed from the Epson side by side and ask you to 

tell the difference. You'd be amazed. 

Also, this isn't a special printer that requires hard to find inks and materials. The 

Photo Stylus supplies are available everywhere from computers stores to office 

supply stores. 

-- Scott Gant, August 10, 1998 

I picked up a Kodak XLS-8600 PS printer a couple months ago for an incredibly 

good price (think exponential orders less than it's supposed to be). I believe the 

'current' models of this printer are the DS-8650/8670 and they're around $7000. 

The printer uses the afore-mentioned Kodak Xtra-life dye-sublimation media which 

puts its price per page in at around $2.30. 

Quality is exceptional. Much better than the Epson Stylus Color or Color II which I 

used to own. 

Color matching is difficult possibly because I use a PC rather than a Macintosh and 

lack any real color matching software. 

Even so, colors are rich and saturated. No apparent dots. 

The printer has a SCSI port and a parallel port built in with a network card option. 

With the parallel port, prints take about 2 minutes MOST of the time being spent 

transferring and processing the image. 

Dust control can be a problem as the Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow layers are printed 



in sequence so dust may move around the page between layers. 

I'll test out the longevity as soon as I get a chance, but I left some prints in my car's 

rear window by accident. In the week they were there they were apparently 

unaffected. They were also unaffected by some hot coffee I spilled on them.. 

-- George Pang, August 10, 1998 

I looked at the printer market in the $500 and under range about one year ago and 

settled on the HP PhotoSmart, which at that time sold for $500. 

Today that same printer goes for $400. BUT! there is another HP printer, the 

HP720 or HP722 which sells for around $300 and can match the performance of 

the PhotoSmart, when using the Glossy Photo HP paper. 

The cost of a print is $0.80 for the photo paper and $0.80 for the ink, for 8"x10" 

prints on 8.5x11 paper. 

The print quality is excellent, difficult to distinguish from a "real" photo at normal 

viewing distances for a photo that size. HP does not rate the printer for dot pitch, 

since the photo paper reacts with the ink to "meld" the printed pixels as the ink 

spreads into the paper coating, it doesn't make sense to speak of dot pitch. 

Kodak makes a photo paper that costs about half the HP paper. I have not tried it 

yet. 

-- Dave Conrad, August 29, 1998 

I've had an Epson Photo EX for a few months now. I love it! I do some electronic 

art and some more photo retouching. The colors are smooth and it provides good 

contrast and excelent sharpness. I've had some digital images transfered to slides 

then printed and the results were exactly the same except that I was in control of 

the process. I had some initially dissapointing results when I scanned in some black 

and white prints for enlarging. There wasn't enough detail in the shadows. This was 

a probably a result of my reasonably priced 30 bit flatbed scanner. Some tweaking 

in photoshop however rectified the problem. Some of the work I've taken to 

framing shops has gotten good comments. 

-- Tom Menegatos, September 11, 1998 

I have a PowerMacintosh, an Agfa Snapscan 600 scanner and an Epson Stylus 

Photo 700 printer. The results? Good, very good for a relatively cheap system. I 



scan and print photographs taken with an Yashica FX3 Super 2000 and Contax 

50/1.4 lense. Davide (from Italy) 

-- Davide Vignati, September 17, 1998 

I have a PowerMacintosh, an Agfa Snapscan 600 scanner and an Epson Stylus 

Photo 700 printer. The results? Good, very good for a relatively cheap system. I 

scan and print photographs taken with an Yashica FX3 Super 2000 and Contax 

50/1.4 lense. Davide (from Italy) 

-- Davide Vignati, September 17, 1998 

just reading all the color printer news & thought I'd add my $.02. I've had my 

Epson Stylus Color 400 for nearly a year and am still totally pleased. I do scans for 

a magazine and the proofs I give them look better than what shows up in the 

magazine. I print at 720 x 1440 on Epson Photo Quality Ink Jet paper ($15/100 

sheets) and get about 75 prints (~2" x 4" images) from a set of cartridges ($25 for 

black, $30 for color.) I look forward to getting a 6-color unit from Epson soon. 

(CMYK + 50%C & 50%M.) 

-- brian ashe, October 6, 1998 

Not a photographer, but a photographer's daughter, so I'm fairly fussy about 

quality. I recently bought an HP PhotoSmart, and I'm pleased with the quality, and, 

it was $299.00 at Best Buy, and there's a $120.00 rebate till January 1999. So it's a 

very good deal! 

-- Sharon Jones, October 14, 1998 

I'm a new owner of an Epson Photo EX and one of the reasons I enjoy it is that I 

combined it with a Nikon LS-2000 slide/negative scanner and an upgrade to 

Photoshop 5.0. 

The standard scans I have done in the past with my old HP 2C flatbed scanner still 

look horrible, even on my new printer, but the scans on the Nikon print out very 

well. At a normal viewing distance of even a few inches away, the prints are of 

sufficient photo quality to satisfy my needs. My major concern is the longevity of 

the prints. Time will tell, but if they fade, I'll print new ones! Another concern is a 

documented difficulty scanning Kodachrome (only) slides. The blue tint is so deep 

on some scans (but not the slides themselves) it's hard to effectively remove 

without damaging the image. Highly recommended, but only in a working 

combination of input/output devices! And get a fast machine with a BIG harddrive 

and lots of RAM! 



-- Larry Becker, October 21, 1998 

In June I purchased an HP Photosmart Printer (along with the Photosmart Scanner) 

and Adobe Photoshop. I was quite disapointed that my prints fell far short of what I 

considered "photo quality." Dots were visable even to the naked eye, and shadow 

detail was poor. HP support was fantastic, but unable to resolve the problem. Upon 

closer inspection I noticed that HP's sample photos were primarly smooth flesh 

tones with little detail. 

I decided to return the HP printer and purchased the ALPS MD1300. I have been 

quite pleased. While some minor tweeking was required to lighten my prints, the 

detail was fantastic and no grain was visiable, even with a lupe. 

I get fantasic results at 5x7, and very good results at 8x10. When printing at 8x10, 

some imaages show pixalation, but this is a result of my scan, not the printer. 

I haven't seen any specs from ALPS on image fading, so I can only comment that I 

have not noticed any degradation of my prints in the last 5 months. 

I just noticed ALPS is advertising a MD-5000 now, with 2400DPI (on any paper) 

and a USB connection. They also claim "fadeproof" - what ever that is. Any one 

used one? (specs available at www.alps.com) Mark 

-- Mark Scrivener, November 29, 1998 

Short comment on the ALPS MD-1300 printer. I have been using mine now for 

almost a year. The results are nothing short of excellent. A bit pricey for an 8x10 

but worth every penny considering what you can do digitally before making the 

print. Subjective opinions have consistently favored the digital print over the 

original darkroom print. To test the fade resistance of the dye-sub process, I've 

been running a simple environmental exposure test for the past few months. First, 

the print was exposed to direct sunlight for up to 2 hours per day for two months. 

Next, I placed the print 2 inches from a 40w flourescent light fixture for 12 hrs per 

day. So far, no visible deterioration. 

One more thing - my first MD-1300 started making ugly grinding noises, failed to 

grab the paper, etc. ALPS replaced it within a week - can't beat that for service. 

-- John Bartucci, February 2, 1999 



This is a correction to a regrettable error in my previous comment. The problem I 

was experiencing with printing the color blue was not a fault of the ALPS MD- 

1300 printer! 

The problem was that I did not understand how to use PhotoShop properly. For 

comparison, the simpler program PhotoDeleuxe 2.0 does not cause any color 

mangling problems with the ALPS printer! 

The ALPS MD-1300 and the PhotoDeluxe 2.0 program which comes with it 

perform very well together. This combination reads and prints PhotoCD images 

and produce a better color balance than those produced normally by PhotoShop 4 

from Photo CDs. 

All of the following comments apply to a Wintel PhotoShop 4.01 system. They 

probably apply to a Wintel PhotoShop 5 system. They are probably less relevant 

for MAC users. 

The PhotoShop / Kodak-CMS conversion of the PCD image to either LAB or RGB 

mode within PhotoShop is flawed, in my opinion. The simpler ADOBE 

PhotoDeluxe program produces a notably better RGB image than PhotoShop! Now 

I regularly use PhotoDeluxe 2.0 to convert and save images from PhotoCDs onto 

the fixed drive. 

When there is something which only PhotoShop can do, I edit the PhotoDeluxe file 

with Photoshop, and never perform a mode change. Then I save a PhotoShop file of 

the image on the fixed disk. These procedural precautions happily produce 

"unmangled" image files. 

I can print the above images from either PhotoDeluxe 2.0 or from PhotoShop. 

However, there is an additional complication with PhotoShop. Photoshop doesn't 

come with a "Printing Ink" selection to match dye-sub printers! Read that sentence 

again. Dye-sub printers have a CMY color space, not a CMYK color space. Also, 

the offset press concept of dot gain has little relevance for dye-sub printers. 

So if you want to correctly print from PhotoShop to a dye-sub printer like the ALP 

MD-1300, you have to create a specific "printing ink" profile for it. I am still 

experimenting with this. The ALPS printer driver for the MD-1300 in dye sub 

mode uses a specific Windows color management file which is available for 

download from the ALPS WEB site. If you are doing things correctly, the ALPS 

printer should need relatively "help" from PhotoShop. "No help" is very much 

preferable to the wrong help. 



My only complaint with ALPS is that while they promote their printers for 

photographic quality prints, their technical support seems limited to "Are you sure 

it is plugged in?" type responses. 

The ALPS MD-1300 printer is an excellent 600 dpi printer for home darkroom use, 

but ALL of the books and comments I have seen so far fail to solve either the 

KODAK PhotoCD to PhotoShop color-mangling issue or the PhotoShop to dye-sub 

color-mangling issue. By the way, I did download and install all of the 

recommended KODAK CMS stuff, months ago. 

By the way, PhotoShop is a wonderful program which I truly love. But the 

remendous flexibility and precision of Photoshop requires rational inputs at all 

stages. 

Am I the only one dreaming that somewhere there should exist a PhotoShop 

"printing ink" profile suited for dye sub printers like the ALPS AND OTHERS? 

Does anyone know what PhotoShop profile is used for the KODAK desktop dyesub 

printers or any others? 

-- Charles D. Miller, February 13, 1999 

---Please see my RETRACTION of this below. 

I've been using an ALPS MD-1300 for about six months, and it is very impressive 

except with deeply saturated blues, which it prints as slightly green cobalt blue or 

else purplish. Light blue and most all other colors are pretty. I agree with the 

generally very positive comments on this printer, except that after months of 

tweaking, I can't get a decent rendition of royal blue or a darker blue IN THE 

SAME IMAGE with other natural colors. If there is a fix for this, this is a really 

nice printer for photographers, IMO. If there is not a fix, it is my opinion that 

photographers should not buy an MD-1300 as part of a digital darkroom. 

But, am I missing something here, folks? 

---Please see my RETRACTION of this below. 


I've recently been looking into ALPS vs. Epson options. Several comments. 

1) It does appear that ALPS has solved the fade problem that plagues ink jets like 

Epson. The thermal transfer process behind dye sub printing produces extremely 



stable results -- particularly when used in conjunction with their "overcoat". 

2) The dye sub feature is standard on the MD-1300, which claims 1200 dpi. It is an 

upgrade option on the MD-5000, which claims 2400 dpi. With dye sub, I can't tell 

the difference between the two densities. Given that the 1300 is available for $300+ 

and the 5000 with dye sub for $500+, I don't think the 5000 makes sense for most 

people. 

3) The one exception to the cost benefit of the 1300 is for users who print lots of 

stuff that's primarily monotone. The 1300 has one cartridge for black ink and a 

single one for all other colors. So when one color is done, you have to throw the 

whole cartridge out. Still, the $200 price difference will cover a lot of cartridges. 

4) The ALPS line will print A size paper (8.5x11). Nothing larger in photo quality. 

The Epson will give you B size prints (11x17) for a comparable initial cost, and 

much cheaper operating costs. True, the dye sub process has much less intrinsic 

grain than the Epson dot print, and the Epson inks are water based and will fade in 

time (3-5 years in light, according to Epson). But if you can live with the dot 

quality of the Epson, you may find it more effective to reprint your CD every 3 

years. You won't get dye sub quality, but you will get larger prints. 

The obvious answer is either for Epson to deliver archival inks or for ALPS to give 

us a larger format. Any marketing guys out there who can deliver? 

For those who want more technical info on archival materials and print longevity, 

check out the info at www.wilhelm-research.com 

-- Julian Svedosh, February 17, 1999 

Here is yet another correction to my previous comments about ADOBE PhotoShop 

and the ALPS MD-1300 printer. 

The PhotoShop File > Color Settings > Printing Inks menu allows the selection of 

"Tektronix Phaser II PX/PXi" . 

It turns out that the Tektronix Phaser II is also a dye sub printer, and that this 

setting works very well indeed for the ALPS MD-1300 in the dye-sub mode. 

Too bad, but neither ADOBE nor ALPS came anywhere near helping me with this 

problem. 




I have a HP720 inkjet printer w/ PhotoRETII. It's basically a inkjet that works with 

a color layering system that improves halftones. Using HP Deluxe Photo paper, I 

could fool almost everyone. Its output is comparable to Kodak ImageMagic, and at 

a fraction of the cost. The printer itself is cheap, around $250 in the US, and the 

paper costs around $.80 per letter-sized sheet. Definitely a good solution for the 

average man. Also it's a fairly versatile printer, so you wouldn't commit your bucks 

on a photo-only printer. The only drawback: it's a PPA printer - that means it works 

with specialized HP drivers, that are only available to Windows and Mac OS - 

Linux guys will have to settle for a nonsupported driver that only produces blackand-white 

output. 

-- George Gaspari, April 24, 1999 

Regarding the HP720 inkjet printer w/ PhotoRETII using HP Deluxe Photo paper 

SOLUTION (!). The results have nothing to do with photo quality printing. I really 

can t understand how one can fool anybody with these printers. Same comment for 

HP 890C w/ Kodak Image Enhancements 

-- Dan Georgescu, May 8, 1999 

I've had both the HP 722 and the Epson Stylus Photo EX. The Epson easily handles 

halftones better then the HP. It is most noticable (in my experience) in pictures of 

the sky during sunset. The Epson is as close to Photgraphic quality as I've seen 

from an ink jet. 

Apparently the Fujix 4000 has the best digital output, but I haven't seen the output 

myself ro form an opinion. 

-- David Kim, May 31, 1999 

Let me tell you the Epson 740 color stylus is the best printer I have experience. Dye 

printer sucks to me, they do give out good quality photos but come on who is going 

to spend $3000 bucks for a printer when the print are not archival. I print all my 

prints at 1440 dpi and they come out with photographic quality prints they look as 

close a looking at a picture they have this technology called Micro Piezo which is 

awesome when it comes to printing at 1440 dpi. Believe me I will give a few more 

years for Epson to come up with a ink jet printer that will print as good as a dye or 

even better. 

-- Tony Torres, June 25, 1999 

I have been playing around with an Epson Stylus Photo 700 for the last few days at 



work (we're between projects right now). It has been a royal pain to get something 

printed that matches the image on the monitor. Yes, I did calibrate my gamma, and 

the original image was scanned into Photoshop at 270 dpi. 

There were two problems. First, you have to tweak the outputcolors in the 

``Advanced Settings'' part of the Printer Setup.(See this link for more information.) 

Even after doing this, however, I didn't get anthing close to what I wanted. Too 

much magenta, no yellow. The problem was that I had to reset the printer nozzles 

by pressing a particular button on the printer. This wasn't very intuitive, but after 

doing this and tweaking the color output in the driver settings, I finally got a nice 

looking print. 

You *can* distinguish the output from a conventional printup close. However, at 

normal viewing distances, it really is hard to tell. 

-- Mani Varadarajan, July 26, 1999 

I have recently purchased an EPSON 1200 wide carriage injet printer, results are 

fantastic. Continious tone, great detail & no pixels. Good speed & large size output 

are great features of this unit. I had used the Epson Stylus II before which I was 

pleased with but the 1200 blows it away. I used a test file I shot with a Kodak 265 

among many other printing methods, various inkjets, dyesubs, laser prints & digital 

slide. The best was from the Epson 1200. Once I saw this print I immediately 

orderd the 1200. I use glossy paper which I purchase at $.30/sheet. 

-- Leo Macdonald, September 4, 1999 

Regarding the Hewlett-Packard "Photo Smart" printers, they have now been 

discontinued and are being offered at very low close out prices, usually through 

Office Depot or others at about $100.00. The quality of prints is very high, but 

there are two things to consider: 1) as the unit is obsolete, supplies may soon be 

hard to find, particularly ink cartridges, and 2) its a rather large, heavy unit by 

today's standards so you need a fairly large, strong surface to put it on. But, for top 

quality at lowest dollar, its hard to beat! 

-- Fred Emmert, September 22, 1999 

I just got a new Alps MD-1300. To test it, I printed out one of my wildlife photos at 

8x10 (max. size) in dye sub mode on Alps photographic paper. I followed a 

suggestion from somebody in this discussion group and set the ink calibration in 

Photoshop similar to Textronix II. Printing at 300 dpi took ~25 min. The outcome 

was very good. No pixels visible, no streaks, great colors. Unlike many people in 



this group, I was especially impressed by how close the printed colors were to those 

on the monitor (I only had to fiddle a little bit with the brightness, reducing it in 

Photoshop by 15 points). By the way, I was using a Power Mac G3. I think Macs 

are usually better in color reproduction on the monitor than PC's... 

-- Victor Grubsky, October 6, 1999 

I've been using the HP Photosmart printer for over a year with excellent results, but 

lately I've grown frustrated with its maximum 8 1/2 X 11 inch size. I've avoided 

Epson printers because their inks are not as lightfast as HP's. But I've recently 

learned that several independent vendors are supplying inks, some pigment-based, 

for the $499 Epson Stylus Photo 1200 printer, which prints up to 13 X 19 inches-- 

large enough for my scanned 35mm images. Some relevant websites: 

http://www.mediastreet.com/ 

http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/archival_inks.html#fotonic 

http://www.weink.com/scart/inkjets/epson/endura/specinks.htm 

I'm considering buying the Epson 1200, and I would appreciate comments from 

anyone with experience with these new inks. How do they look? What are the color 

management issues (colors are apparently somewhat different from standard Epson 

inks)? Are there any problems with ink jet clogging? What kinds of paper work 

best? Have any good articles been published? 

These new inks could be a really important breakthrough, and deserve urgent 

attention. 

-- Norman Koren 

-- Norman Koren, October 24, 1999 

I've owned an Epson Stylus Photo 1200 for a little over a month, working with 

negatives and slides scanned with a Minolta QuickScan 35 Plus. The prints I've 

made so far (up to 11x17"; haven't tried 13x19" yet) have been mightily impressive 

- I had planned to use the 1200 principally for portfolio and work prints (no regular 

access to a darkroom - raise your hand if you're in a similar situation), but I 

wouldn't be ashamed to use the printer for a need-to-be-quick-about-it presentation 

or small exhibit. The two minor caveats I would raise to prospective buyers of the 

1200 are: 1) On account of the 1200 being so recently brought to market, archivalquality 

color inks aren't yet available for it. Several companies - including Epson 

itself - are working on such inks (Quadtone inks are already available for the 1200, 

I've been told); 2) Generally speaking, the bigger the file size, the better the print, 



especially if we're talking 13x19". Whether you scan your own or use an outside 

service, those image files add up - even a 6gb drive starts to shrink precipitously 

after an enthusiastic weekend of work. Thinking ahead, I went out and bought a CD 

burner the same day I bought the Epson. A reasonably fast computer also helps, 

since printing out large image files takes a little while, even for a PIII or G4. 

As far as paper goes - there's so much out there, and so much more coming to 

market, that I can't say which is the greatest, which is positively awful, etc. Aside 

from Epson's own Photo paper, I've tried Luminos' Gallery Gloss 11x17 paper with 

excellent results. A colleague, who also owns an Epson 1200, is quite enthusiastic 

about Pictorico's papers and films. 

All in all, a hearty thumbs-up for the Epson 1200. 

-- Barrett Benton, November 9, 1999 

I have been following this page with considerable interest. For the past couple of 

months I have been experimenting with an HP PhotoSmart scanner and the Epson 

1200 and Photo EX. I have also been working with a colleague using a similar 

setup, each of us racing to test out new ideas, papers, techniques. The colleague is 

printing multi-exposure images, with an eye toward getting the most expressive 

colors; I've been after the most photographic (in distinction from "photo-realistic) 

results. 

First, I will echo the comments that many other have made regarding how far inkjet 

printing has come. Moreover, having done a fairly extensive survey of material on 

the Web (the best of it is on or linked through Singapore Digital Darkroom, http:// 

www.magix.com.sg/Users2/kltham/), there seems to be overwhelming testimony 

from both enthusiastic amateurs to seasoned pros on the excellent quality of the 

Epson printer. There can be, however, a very steep learning curve toward getting 

the great results some people claim. Not the least significant aspect is gaining 

facility in PhotoShop, the tool of choice for most digital darkroom applications. 

Another is the vexing array of color management, device synchronization (making 

sure the scanner, monitor, and printer are all, more or less "in tune), driver, and 

software configuration issues. I would say that from my reading and discussion 

thus far, these problems are so ubiquitous as to overshadow most of the others. For 

some folks, the path toward what they claim to be excellent and photographic 

results without a traditional darkroom is straightforward and smooth; others seem 

lost is spirals of endless tweaking and non-linear results. Most working with this 

technology/method acknowledge that most aspects from software to technique are 

evolving. Encouraging is the degree of interest and willingness to collaborate and 

share results (the Internet is an indispensable resource, especially in light of the 



poor-to-mediocre documentation of both the scanner and printer and the lack of 

good material dedicated to producing photographic results using PhotoShop in 

conjunction with an Epson printer and consumer-level scanner). 

Disappointing is the lack well-documented workflow from software and hardware 

vendors as well as comparisons among the users of these products whose 

experiences, using seemingly identical equipment and settings, vary widely. In 

short, the controls to establish a base-line from which one can make reliable 

experiments simply aren't there. One has to read widely and experiment with setup, 

configuration, and workflow. Just as an example, one enthusiast says to use 

(applicable to Window 98) the Color Management setting in the Epson driver; 

another says use ICM (when I use ICM, and follow all of his other suggestions, I 

get a color shift and generally darkening of the image). The HP scanner doesn t 

have an ICM profile. This means that the scanner is not calibrated to the monitor 

and printer. 

My goal has been simple: work with a small number of images (color negative, 

slide, and black and white negative ) and try to produce a print from each that 

approaches or is equal or superior to the silver print (or slide original) of each. I 

have standardized on the Epson Photo Paper media, though I have tried the Epson 

film and some Lumijet paper as well (my colleague has tried a wide variety of 

papers - some quite beautiful). I have configured PhotoShop 5.02 RGB to use 

Adobe 1998 color space, gamma 2.2 (I'm using Windows), and I use the same RGB 

space for the profile. The Epson driver uses Custom Settings, Color Adjustment 

with Automatic selected. I have the paper set to Photo Paper, 1440 dpi. All other 

settings are defaultMy workflow is as follows: 1) scan the image using the Import 

command in PhotoShop (this launches the HP software); 2) using the histogram, I 

adjust the levels to shift out of range pixels into the scanner s tonal range (this takes 

some trial and error to strike a balance between satisfying the histogram and 

keeping the image looking reasonable good); 3) once the scanned image appears in 

PhotoShop, I adjust the levels to bring them within the highlight and shadow 

ranges; 4) I check the histogram in PhotoShop, then go back into levels and fine 

tune; 5) I then make some small adjustments so the image looks "right" on the 

monitor; 6) I retouch the image using the "rubber stamp" tool; 7) I use the "unsharp 

mask" (usually with a threshold of 2-4 with the amount set to about 120%; 8) I 

resize the image and set resolution to a number which is a multiple of 1440 (ex: 

240, 360, etc); I then print the image. 

I have also scanned using a product called VueScan (Hamrick software). This 

produces a considerably different scan from the HP software and offers a wider 

range of pre-scan controls, but no preview of the image, so all tweaking must be 

done post-scan (not the best method for optimizing image quality). This software 

also allows for batch scanning, which may be convenient if you have a lot of 



images to digitize. Some observations: I have yet to produce an image that matches 

in general image quality any of the inexpensive but reasonably good quality color 

prints that I have (mostly minilab 4x6s). Not to say the inkjet is poor - it's not. In 

fact, when I ve gotten the color right it s usually more accurate than the minilab 

print. 

But there are a number of telltale signs that the inkjet images are not photographs. 

The most obvious are in the dynamic range of the print in general: low values tend 

to go dark and blotchy, high key areas tend to go paper white and do so in clusters 

so that they appear broken up. This can be controlled to some degree and, 

admittedly, some of this may be due to the HP PhotoSmart scanner, which, I hear 

(because HP doesn't publish this spec) has a dynamic range of 2.8 or so. 

The most troubling characteristic are the transitions from shadow to mid-range 

tones. Often, there are noticeable printer artifacts in these regions, namely the 

appearance of less closely spaced together dots with concentrations of color that 

differ from either the darker or lighter main areas. For example, on fleshtones that 

are partly in shadow and partly in brighter light, one can see concentrations of dots 

near and at the transitional areas. These dots resemble the grain of film except that 

they are of somewhat different color form the adjacent areas. 

There are also color shifts in the prints. For example, a relatively well balanced 

print with slightly warm fleshtones in the midrange area can also have a slight 

greenish tinge in the shadow areas. I've seen this is a number of prints of my 

different test images and this is very difficult if not impossible to correct. 

Also, darker areas of the print seem to be physically thicker (which they are, since 

more ink has been applied there) and give the impression to these areas of the print 

of greater spatial dimensionality a kind of 3D effect. This is perhaps the most 

telling giveaway of the inkjet technology. I have experimented in a limited way 

with black and white printing, and I have not tried the quadtone inks - mostly 

because I don't want to dedicate a printer to these inks (cleaning the printer head to 

go from one to another, I'm told, is dicey). I've gotten some nice results using the 

black and white produced by the color and black cartridges. For some reason, black 

and white images don't have as obvious digital artifacts as the color. But, the prints 

all have a color cast. For example, those done on some Adorama 11x17 paper have 

a very ugly greenish cast (avocado green comes to mind). 

Yet, some of the black and white prints have a very beautiful quality. They can 

look subtly sepia-toned, and the dimensionality of the dark areas gives them a 

certain richness which is hard to describe but is, I believe, unique to the inkjet 

process. Black and white printing may turn out to be the most practical use of this 



technology for those seeking the closest match to photographic results. 

I have to say that overall, I'm disappointed with my digital printing experience 

though it has been extremely interesting and quite fun at times to be engaged in so 

experimental a process. Unfortunately, my results to date have not persuaded me to 

continue with - at least color - digital printing. Based on what I've heard and read 

from others, my relative lack of success could be due to some aspect of my system 

or software (I have a current PII with 128 MB RAM, PhotoShop 5.5, and the most 

up-to-date Epson and HP scanner drivers), though I strongly doubt this, or the 

limitation of the HP scanner (the images on screen do look very good - and the 

discrepancy between those, in terms of shadow and highlight detail and photorealism 

- and the Epson prints points elsewhere). Or, perhaps my criteria is 

different from those who are very happy with the results. Those with whom I've 

corresponded have made various suggestions, and most, I m afraid, would disagree 

strongly with my conclusions. One is struck by the range of opinion and 

experiences. One recommendation was to use the Kodak PhotoCD as my source for 

digital printing (though I've heard that these scans are not well color balanced); 

another was to try a higher end scanner such as the Nikon CoolScan or Polaroid 

Sprint Scan 4000 - or better yet, take the leap to an Imacon. 

I would like to balance the previous comment with the observation that inkjet 

printing seems to offer up a distinct aesthetic from silver printing that for many 

coexists happily along with a silver-based aesthetic. I have seen some very lovely 

inkjet prints done on older Epson printers, such as the Stylus 600, for example. 

While the prints had very evident dots and weren't close to photographic they 

nevertheless had a very appealing, one might say, pointillistic quality and very nice 

color. 

I would very much like to see the best results that various people have obtained 

with the Epson and a consumer grade film scanner. I also would much like to hear 

from those who have had less than stellar results from the Epson printer as well as 

to learn about the techniques of those who feel pleased with the results, particular 

for portraiture. I know that people have quite wide-ranging criteria about what 

constitutes a "good" print let alone a good picture. For the purposes of trying out 

digital printing my goal to reiterate - has been to try to match, as closely as 

possible, the fidelity of the original, insofar as it is represented by reasonable good, 

but not custom, silver print or - better yet - a slide. I have not come very close, but I 

can say that in some instances the results are fairly pleasing and, if not viewed too 

closely, reasonably photo-realistic - but emphatically not photographic. As stated, 

this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but for me it is shows the limitations of digital 

consumer printing technology at this stage of its evolution, if the goal is to match 

silver-based printing. I want to emphasize that in my experience inkjet printing can 

work stunningly well for non-realistic subject matter - such as abstract or highly 



color-intensive originals with which the photographer is seeking interesting design 

qualities or expressive color rendition, rather than photographic fidelity. I ve seen 

some striking results with this kind of work. It's also very promising for black and 

white - and I'm eager to try the quadtone inks for this reason. 

PS: I have used the new HP PhotoSmart 1100 printer (they're claiming 2400 dpi) 

and the resolution is excellent, but the results are a tad washed out. Unlike Epson, 

HP is trying to obtain photo quality from a 4 color cartridge. Nevertheless, this is a 

nice machine - very quiet, fast, and sturdy seeming. 

Joshua Daniels jdaniels@percon.com 

-- Joshua Daniels, December 2, 1999 

Forget Inkjet printers, NOT waterproof, will not stand the test of time. In a recent 

experiment at my company we printed 4 pages on photo quality paper. One from a 

HP color laser, one from an epson injet, another from an HP inkjet lastly from an 

ALPS MD 5000P. Hands down the ALPS dye sub printer is the quality (under a 

jewelers loop) winner, also the prints are water proof, real photo quality, and after 4 

months in a sunny window, little or no fading. The laser and injets faded, the 

inkjets were almost completly faded, gone after 4 months. 

-- Allyn Phillips, December 9, 1999 

One issue that I don't see discussed regarding inkjet printing is what would seem to 

be the excessive cost of inks, when using any of the under 500 dollar machines like 

the Epson 700 series and the 1200. I'm satisfied the issue of fading isn't what it 

used to be with the availability of acid-free papers and archival inks for the Epsons 

from a number of manufacturers. The favorable comments about the 1200 had me 

on the verge of getting one, but reading the comments about archival MIS inks on 

the tssphoto site gave me cause to wonder. They stated that you could get six full 

resolution 8.5 by 11 prints out of the Epson ink cartridges. With the MIS cartridges 

for the Epson printers going at 42 dollars or so - I don't know what the Epson 

cartridges go for but I would assume 25 to 30 dollars - this would seem to work out 

to the appalling amount of 5-7 dollars in ink per print. The cost of good glossy 

photo paper, just over a dollar, then becomes irrelevant. Is this figure of six prints 

per cartridge grossly under-rating the ink capacity? It seems hard to believe no one 

would have mentioned this if it was really that bad. I'm looking for maximum 

photo quality here, so I realize you could get many more using lesser settings. What 

is the experience of other people with photo prints-to-ink cartridge ratios for the 

Epson printers? 

-- George Hurchalla, December 15, 1999 



We are currently printing images on an Epson Photo EX using the MIS archival 

inks, the previous poster seems to have gotten some bad information. It's not quite 

as expensive as some believe, we are currently printing a run of 11x15 full color 

images (actual image size 9 3/4 x 13 1/2)and getting 25-30 prints from each 

cartidge. We probably average $2 per page in ink cost, most of our images are 

approximately 30 mb scans and we are using 140 lb. Arches hot press for the 

current work. The artists we have worked with have been pleased with the work 

both on Arches and Concorde Rag (note the Concorde costs 3x as much). While not 

scientific I have had one of the images printed in June '99 hanging in my window 

(Houston, TX) and no signs of fading yet. 

-- Jeff Measamer, January 18, 2000 

Just to be contrary, how often do you care about the archival quality of a printed 

color image? 

I'd care a *lot* about the lifetime of the media on which image file is recorded 

(what is the lifetime of a CD, CD-R or CD-RW?). But for the printed image - well I 

can always print out another copy later - possibly on a better printer :). 

Clearly if you are going posting your image on an outside wall in the sun, you have 

an issue. On the other hand some of our local fast-food joints appear to be selling 

blue food... 

-- Preston Bannister, April 17, 2000 

I have read several of the comments here and I find all of the different points of 

view interesting. The one thing I do think is very exciting is the fact that Digital 

Photography is evolving into a very "respectable" format to express your art... or 

use as an alternative in your commercial applications... or just to show off the kids 

to friends and family. I think it is worth reminding folks how far "Photo Quality" 

prints have come in just a few years. Especially in the low end market. 

I realize that most of the people who leave comments here and debate the 

usability and quality of today's printers are Pro or Simi-Pro, and that they are 

comparing the printers to high quality photography film and printing processes. 

There are a few things that I would like to throw out there for your consideration. 

● First - That the quality of the printed image has, in a large part, more to do 

with the quality of the digital image source than does the printer. For 

example, the digital camera used to take the original image can have a 



bigger effect on the final print than... a poor quality lens, bad film choice 

and mediocre processing all combined in film photography. A poor quality 

camera can not be overcome with a good printer any more than in reverse. I 

think that people are often looking for a printer to "perform miracles". 

● Second - Price...!!! I personally have a very good camera (Olympus C- 

2000z) and I have been waiting for my budget to afford me a HP 

PhotoSmart 1100. Recently I bought an "El-Cheep-O" "Photo Quality" 

printer at (of all places) Wal-Mart. I choose a Lexmark Z11 because I read 

good reviews and.. well... it was CHEEP.... $69.95 I was HOPING that it 

would hold me over. BOY WAS I SURPRISED!!! I made several prints, up 

to 8"x10" and EVERYONE that I have shown them to can not believe that it 

came off of a printer... much less one that was so inexpensive. Oh yeah, and 

as for cost of print, as best as I can figure, one 8"x10" sheet of print on the 

high quality setting (1200 DPI) cost aprox. $2.25. Including the Premium 

Glossy Photo Paper from HP. Now, for MOST people that is less than they 

can have an "8"x10" print made at the local Photo-Mart. For an example, 

you get one 8"x10" off of the "photo machine" at wal-mart for $6.95. And 

in addition to the cost, they can have one in a matter of minutes without 

having to leave their house. 

● Third - Archival...? OK, so the print from an Inkjet doesn't last for 20 

years. SO WHAT. The DIGITAL image file on a CD-ROM lasts for over 

100 years. It does not fade, crack, bleed, rip, tear or just disappear from 

sight. Now that is a true archival photograph. 

● Finally - What are the uses people are putting these printers to? In other 

words, why are people using "digital images" today? I think most would 

agree that the "Pro" photographer looks at final quality with a MUCH more 

discriminating eye than the average Joe... I believe that the photos printed 

on today's printers are considered by the average consumer as being just as 

good as anything they get from developing film.... At least that is the 

response I personally have seen. Let's not forget that, thanks to APS (or 

Advantix) film, the standard for what is accepted as high quality has come 

way down from when 35mm set the standard. 

The new age of "Digital Photography" is giving photography a bit of a "rebirth". 

For those of you who are old enough to remember, photography as a hobby used to 

have larger following than it does today. It started to die out about 12-15 years ago 



and now, just try to find someone that know where to buy Developer or Fixer... 

much less know what it's used for (present company excluded I'm sure). Thanks to 

the internet, photography as a hobby is alive and well, and getting bigger all the 

time. And thanks to the new generation of inkjet printers, people are able to share 

their new found joy with friends and family that don't have a computer connected 

to the net. 

-- Bart Baldwin, April 18, 2000 

The Rochester Institute of Technology School of photography has been using a 

combination of a digital printer that is RA4 process its almost like the Fuji 

Pictrography. But this is run on a Kreonite machine its called the Sphera Printer. It 

uses photographic paper RA4 paper and exposes the paper on three color laser then 

the paper exposed is cut off automatically and then the person feeds it into the 

Kreonite machine and walla you have a print that was fix and edited on photoshop 

and then process on real photographic paper RA4 no more this iris crap or whatever 

output there is for digital media now you have an RA4 print that was done digitally 

and now it is back on normal color paper. Tony Torres from the Rochester Institute 

of Technology if you ever want to see this ingenious machine stop by the RIT 

campus and head to building 7B and ask for the ISM lab that is where I work. Hope 

you're eyes start to see that film and normal process paper will not be obsolite in 

photography. 

Image:bull.jpg 

-- Tony Torres, April 24, 2000 

The Epson 1270 and 870 printers seem to be another significant level up in the 

quality available to home, or inexpensive commerical, digial printing. Many people 

seem to feel that these printers are better than some of the lower end dye-sub 

printers out there. 

I've seen the output, and it seems awfully impressive to me. I'd love to see 

comments about them, though, from people who really have extensive experience 

with digital printing at higher price ponts, and with more than the occassional 

traditional chemical/optical custom enlargement, away from the mini-labs. 

With these new models, and their fade resistance (10-23 years depending upon 

paper choice), Epson seems to be getting there. The pull of being able to return to 

"darkroom work", but with color rather than black and white, and in a much more 

space and time efficient manner, is strong. 



I'd also love it if Phil could revisit this area. He seems to have been otherwise 

occupied for some time -- you know, those pesky bits about advancing your career 

and all that, I imagine. But a whole lot seems to have evolved since he last 

contributed very much of his very valuable insight and perspective to digital 

photography. Especially on the home/low end commercial output side, things seem 

to be getting WAY better. 

-- Doug Johnson, May 28, 2000 

I just received a call from Hardwarebuyline. My Epson Stylus Photo 2000P has an 

ETA of July 23, 2000. ($755.00) I am currently using a HP Photo Smart 1100P. 

($464.00) I was about to purchase the Epson 1270 when I luckily found out about 

the Epson 2000P. Although I was quite satisfied with the HP's quality, like most 

people, I was looking for something better. My only concern now,is should I have 

waited for yet another better photo printer to come out. ;>) I will test the Epson and 

Hp side by side and post the results. 

-- Tom DeMita, July 14, 2000 

Like many things Phil seems to be getting a bit out of touch, or perhaps, as with 

some things, he never was quite in touch. In the case of ink-jets anyway they have 

certainly moved on a lot, even since the original Stylus Photo. I currently have an 

Epson 750 and I would have to say that 9 times out of ten I can get a better print/ 

photograph out of a scanned negative/transparency that I could ever have done 

using traditional photographic methods. 

Inkjets these days, especially Epson ones may be in both the 'small and cheap' 

category and 'big and expensive'. But in either case the certainly do provide a big 

bang for your buck. 

With printers now such as the Epson 870/1270 producing photographic quality 

prints with a 10-25 year lifespan, and the new 2000P with a possible 200 year, or at 

least 100+ independently tested lifespan, I think the question of what equipment 

you use to produce photographic output is now becoming something of a mute 

point. 

-- Brent Whiteman, August 5, 2000 

Hello all, I'm not a photography expert, but I am interested in the 

field and and came across this page. My first exposure to this was two years ago, 

when I got to use a Kodak DC210+ digital camera (~$500 in 1998) with an Epson 

Stylus Color 740 photo printer (~$200 in 1998). I have since been fascinated by the 



ability to print photos, and to edit photos. Two important points to 

consider about color photo printers are: 1. Since you've either used a 

digital camera or scanner to get the pictures into your computer, you'll always have 

them. So even if the printing technology isn't quite as good as you'd like right now, 

it's getting better all the time, and you can make prints later down the road. 

2. Since you can buy a 20 gigabyte hard drive for $125 or less as of 

today (October 2000), and a recordable CDrom drive for around $150, the storage 

for your photos on a computer is not even a consideration anymore. The space is 

there, and it's cheap. -Anthony NoDivisions.com 

-- Anthony D, October 30, 2000 

I have the Alps MD-5000 with Dye-Sublimation upgrade, and the Epson 1270. DO 

NOT BUY THE ALPS! It is a waste of money. I am much happier with the 1270. 

Suffice it to say that the Alp's superior specs (on the face) don't matter when you 

look at other problems (color matching, banding, reliability, media and ink 

availability, etc.) Email for details. 

-- Mike Morgan, November 28, 2000 

I was given an Alps MD-2100 several months ago, and have been printing using a 

Powerbook 180c, a 520c, and a Lombard. Source images from an Agfa SmartScan 

(300 dpi, a closeout), and from various picture-on-floppy and picture-on-CD-and- 

Net scans obtained with slide and print developing. 

My comparisons are a QMS color laser at work and various Epson inkjets among 

friends and neighbors. So I am a novice at this -- the Alps came because I'd done 

some repairs for nonprofits via a friend and somewhere someone got a lot of new 

gear and this one floated my way. 

I really like it. The colors can be saturated (there's a Photo setting) or not; it does 

plain black or grayscale so I can save ink. It's still expensive to run; I keep an 

original Deskjet for text and middle-aged DeskJet inkjet for transient color work. 

Main thing about the Alps is, the ink really does seem to stay on the page and keeps 

its color, particularly on the dedicated paper which isn't too pricey. 

It's a SCSI printer, which is handy in a variety of ways. And of course by now it's a 

dinosaur, replaced by newer models, but they seem to keep the supplies available at 

Alps online. The 'ink' is something like the old Selectric film 'ribbons' for this 



model, 3 colors plus black, separately replaceable. 

It's better than "home computer print" quality, and for friends and family purposes 

or any business use I'd come up with, I can use the output without worrying about it 

lasting or looking bad in a year or two. I'd call it well worth watching for. Looking 

at the history of the past few years, I'm amazed the Alps line was unheard of in my 

experience -- they had this model out while the Epson and HP printers were still 

making blotchy short lived color prints! Maybe they didn't send them to reviewers. 

-- hank roberts, December 20, 2000 

Re: Joshua Daniels, December 2, 1999 posting: 

I found your detailed post of 12/2/99 interesting, and thought my experiences might 

shed some light on (some of?) your issues with Epson inkjets. 

I've been shooting for about 20 years now, and have been scanning negatives for 

only about 4 years. Only got my first digital camera 5 months ago... I use a 

Microtek 35T film scanner (1828dpi optical), Photoshop 5.5, and currently print 

using (only!) a 1st generation Epson Stylus Photo printer (740dpi, 6-ink), and use 

Epson Matte Heavyweight Photo paper. System is Mac OS9. 

I am now very, very happy with the results I'm getting, after quite a bit (read: 

years...) of Photoshop self-learning, via many good books out there. Initially, my 

results were essentially as you described: color shifts, lack of fidelity to the 

original, etc. In the last year or so I've finally been getting the results I wanted; that 

is, prints that can easily go on a wall under glass, and look just as good as a 'wet' 

print. Using (only!) a 3-4 year old 1st generation photo printer, I must add that this 

is true only as long as you don't view the print from closer than about 4-5 inches 

(which, typically, you wouldn't). Luckily, an Epson 1270 is in my future, and that 

will all but get rid of this lingering resolution and tonality issue. 

Firstly, using my PowerMac 8500, an AppleVision 1710 monitor, (horrible) 

Microtek scanning drivers/software, Adobe Photoshop 5.5, the Epson Stylus Photo 

printer, and, more importantly, the ColorSync software that is integrated into all 

modern Mac operating systems, I've had virtually identical output from screen to 

printer, with very little fussing about. There is a reason, I believe, that professional 

graphics users rely on the Mac for their work. Apple has gone to great lengths to 

ensure the color-matching integrity of input/output devices, and I think it works. 

Yes, I have indeed used both platforms extensively, although I don't know too 

much about the PC's built-in color management software (although I have heard 

from pros that it's more difficult to easily get consistently accurate output). 



Secondly, monitor quality can be *very* important to this process. In addition to 

simply using Photoshop's gamma control to 'calibrate' the monitor, ideally you 

should be able to calibrate the monitor for different ambient light settings 

(adjusting for different 'white point' settings, essentially). If you've ever had the 

opportunity to do this on a monitor that supports it (read: a more expensive 

monitor), you know how important this aspect is. Depending on the monitor type, a 

little silverish card (or other implement) is held up to the monitor to match colors 

on the card to the screen. When you do this for sunny daylight vs. cloudy daylight 

vs. night incandescent or fluorescent desk lighting, you see just how much the 

apparent color shift of the monitor is with different ambient light sources. Change 

to the 'wrong' setting, and you'll see what I mean. 

In any event, a couple of things came to mind that were absent in your discussion 

of relevant info to your process. First of all, if you have obvious color casts, 

something is *very* wrong with the scan (I'm sure you know this). I've found that 

the most difficult part of the entire process is getting a good scan; as you noted, 

scanner software and documentation is lacking, to say the least. Try, try again, the 

result you want is out there (assuming your scanner has the density range to capture 

your image properly; this is an important, and expensive, aspect). 

Now, assuming that you have a good scan, one aspect of Photoshop that wasn't 

mentioned was hue/saturation control. Obviously a good scan shouldn't need too 

much fussing with hue (color casts aside...), however I've found the saturation 

control to be invaluable to matching color to originals (referring to transparencies 

here, as 'color matching to originals' doesn't strictly apply to color negatives, only 

to color prints from negatives, which are subject to their own initial interpretation). 

You obviously have a pretty good grasp of Photoshop and how to correct an image; 

my recent 'discovery' of the power of the saturation control compels me to include 

it, since you didn't mention it. 

A couple of quickie notations to your post: 

*Don't* use a Kodak PhotoCD; PhotoCD and color fidelity are mutually exclusive 

(there are several websites that discuss this in detail)!!! 

If you have the money for a Polaroid Sprint Scan 4000, Microtek Artixscan 4000, 

or one of the just-announced high-res Nikon film scanners, buy one! 

Lastly, Shutterbug magazine's 'Digital Help: Q&A for Digital Photography' section 

by David Brooks has been an *excellent* source of cutting edge digital 

photography and printing information, especially for those interested in producing 

'fine art' quality prints. 



I agree with you that the technology still has somewhere to go to get to true 

photographic quality, but most people don't view their prints through a lupe 

(although it may be fun to do so). It is all moving very fast, and the Epson 1270 

printer in the hands of a knowledgeable user can print wonders... 

-- Jeff Warner, January 27, 2001 

I just bought a refurbished EPSON Stylus 1270 direct from Epson for $252. And 

while it was in transit my FUJI DS-300 broke ! Now I'm looking for a new digital 

camera. 

-- Doug Dolde, May 16, 2001 

The long and the short of it: Yeah, the ALPS MD-5000 has great resolution, and 

the dye-sub is very impressive, but the colors are usually off. 

Click here for my amateur review of the ALPS MD-5000 with the dye sublimation 

upgrade. 

-- Mike Morgan, August 22, 2001 

I've had an HP photosmart 1100 for the past two years for printing photos 

(Olympus 500 and 620 and now Canon D30). Using PIE Studio ( http://www. 

picmeta.com ) to control printing and printing on HP matte photopaper (~85cents/ 

page) I've had great luck with color consistency, image brightness, "photographic" 

quality on 8x10 prints. One must manually select the type of paper (HP matte 

photographic or whatever) in the printer setup before printing and the print speed is 

not quick but the quality is very good. And it has CF and SmartMedia slots. 

-- Jeff Mallory, January 31, 2002 

I have recently purchased an Epson Stylus photo 1290 having viewed competition 

from Canon and HP. My purchase decision was based on the need to produce good 

quality A3 sized landscape and macro prints for framing and sale. My choice of the 

Epson over the other two considered was purely on price, there being little 

difference between them to percieve on printouts of the same couple of photos from 

my perspective, and with unaided eyesight. 

I am pleased with the output, am happy to report that installation was a doddle 

using Windows XP, and output very fast using the USB connection (I needed to 

retain my old Lexmark printer for general letter and proof printing) 



The Epson is a large unit, and takes up a lot of desk space. Cartridges are only 2/3 

the price of the Lexmark, but I do not suspect that they will last overly long. The 

bundled 'quality images' are a waste of space, and if you like Adobe photoshop 

elements, you can have my copy! For a serious printer, I would have thought it 

would have had something a little more heavyweight, but that is just my opinion. 

If you expect to install it straight out of the box you will be very disappointed....No 

USB, or other cable supplied with mine, and none stated as supplied in the 

instructions...worse still, absence of same not mentioned on the box so far as I can 

see. 

Well, there it is, for what it is worth.....It prints off some very nice images, 

exceedingly well, and quickly in A3 size at max resolution...I didnt time them, but 

it was quicker than my Lexmark doing the same print in the smaller A4 size..... 

Check out the competition, as these A3 printers are becoming more readily 

available at a reasonably affordable price....I paid £349 UK in March 2002, from 

PC World, but know I could have bought it cheaper over the web. I just like the 

ease of solving any problems, for which I'm prepared to pay that little extra. Happy 

hunting and Printing... Graeme Pettit 

-- Graeme Pettit, April 29, 2002 

I recently went to a demonstration of the Epson Stylus Pro 7600 (24") and the 9600 

(44"). You can now get fine art, large print quality on a reasonably priced machine. 

The quality of a 16x20 from a 35mm scan was unbeleivable! The only 

improvements to be made in the coming years will be speed. These machines 

output 16sqft / hour for photographic quality - that's approx 10 min for a 16x20. 

The prints are also archival to 100 yrs.. I print fine art prints up to 40x50" from 4x5 

transparencies and would never have considered printing digitally till now. I could 

write for days on the subject but you can get more precise info @ Epson's site. 

Tangentially to this forum: Also, check out the Imacon Flextight Precision II & III 

scanners - still around $10K but scanning the quality of some drum scanners that 

cost 3 times as much! 

-- John Hanses, August 25, 2002 

The new Giclee printers are phenominal. If you have an opportunity to print 

selected digitized images using the Giclee process, it is well worth it. 

-- Fab Mastronardi, September 22, 2002 



Hi I have bought an Epson 950 and I'm very pleased with it. I use a Minolta 

Dimage Dual II scanner and allways scan with highest resulotion, I have make 

parts of 35 mm film on the 210.. roll paper in panoramic size with a size of 650mm 

loong, with a very good result. I am often little sad that I did not by the 2100 to 

have the A3 size. The only problem I have had is the printer sw Epson Photo 

Quicker that in the beginnig was very good, but now often stop after non to two 

prints and say it can not fint the file to print from, even when ith files stillis within 

the programe and is still possible to open within it. i have reinstaled the printer SW 

and the Photo Quicker, but still is the problem there. Regards Hans Andersson 

-- Hans Andersson, October 24, 2002 

Before buying an ink jet printer make sure that camera and printer are compatible. 

Inparticular check out HP printer site as there is a list of compatibilities and non 

such. 

-- Rodney Williams, December 25, 2002 

The latest in inkjet printers, the Epson 2200, has finally made available a high 

quality printer to the masses. No longer do I have to send out for large prints. With 

quality papers and the archiaval dyes the 2200 meets or exceeds most 

photographers' requirements in a photo printer. It can go up to 13x44 inches. I 

highly recommend this printer,--currently priced at about US$700. 

-- Dan Lindsay, January 11, 2003 

I just purchased an Epson 2100 (Asian version of the 2200) and have been 

documenting my experiences with it. http://karavshin.org/blogs/black-coffee/ 

archive/cat_epson_2100.html 

-- Michael Slater, March 15, 2003 

I just successfully printed an 8" x 60" panoramic image on my Epson 785EPX 

printer. Because the process required some shenanigans, I thought I'd document it 

for posterity. Many of the Epson photo printers support roll paper. (Mine 

supposedly only supports 4" wide paper, but the holder for the paper had places to 

hold an 8.3 inch roll, and it worked!) According to the Epson web site, under 

Windows 2000 or XP, the print driver supports printing a document up to 129" 

long. On the same web page it also says the driver supports user defined paper sizes 

up to 44" long. The two statements, while seemingly contradictory, are compatible: 

You can, if your image is less than 44" wide, setup the paper length in the print 

driver to match the width of your print. You can then print the image in one step. 



If the image is wider than 44", you need to break it up into smaller pieces and print 

all the pieces as a single job. I did it by putting vertical guides in my image at 11" 

intervals and saving the chunks as separate files. Using Adobe Acrobat, I then 

created a 6 page document in landscape format. I then sent the whole doument to 

the printer, which had been setup with an 11" paper length, no margins, banner 

mode, and save paper. The pages were output with no intervening whitespace. 

Cost: I figure about $7.00 for the paper (Epson Premium Luster) and $3.00 for the 

(dye) ink. I priced the job at Boston Photo & Imaging, and it would have cost about 

$350 (but I could have gotten 5 prints, so the cost per print would only have been 

$70.00.) 

I'm very pleased with the results. The printer cost $119.00. 

--Skip 

Image:Indian Lake.jpg 

-- Skip Gaede, May 2, 2003 

Dye-Subs ARE back ! 

There are a new , low cost dye -subs from Sony and Canon. 

I just got Canon CP-200 for 180$. It produce phot lab qualty 6X4 and even put 

protective layer. cartrige of 36 cost $20-25 depending on store. Well, it is small and 

only 300dpi, but ,yes looks like real photo . No dithering of ink-jets, no worry 

about finger prints. cool. 

I wish cost for printing be cheaper then ~60 cents as well as boosting resolution to 

600 dpi and size to Letter can probbaly make it absolute winer. 

So far 4X6 is what I normaly print and I use ink jet for bigger images, that is fine : 

when image is big it is framed and looked from distance ( no aparent ditehirng ), 

while 4X6 normaly observed closly. 

-- V S, October 31, 2003 

Well.. this article has been around a while but I thought I'd add a VERY worthy 

inkjet printer to the listing here. Teh Canon i9900 (up to 13 x 19 full bleed) is one 

fantastic printer. 

I originally purchased it as a backup for emergency prints and planned on 



continuing to send my shots out to the lab. However, the print quality was so great 

that I do all my printings now myself. 

-- Joe Orsak, June 2, 2005 

Related Links 

Add a comment 

● ALPS Electric- alps printers (contributed by julienne hastings) 

● digital darkroom @ singapore- Lots of info about Printing with Epson 

printers and Adobe photoshop. (contributed by james galletto) 

● Epson Website- Epson Website (contributed by Randy Weber) 

● Cone Editions- Interesting stuff for Epson users:archival papers, inks, etc. 

(contributed by John Holcomb) 

● Linux Printing HOWTO- The ultimate source for Linux printing info. 

Believe it or not, you can get excellent results printing in Linux. Some 

printers actually perform better under Linux than Mac or Windows, because 

better drivers have been written. Others are not as good, or don't work at all. 

This site helps you find out which is which. (contributed by Matt O'Toole) 

● Webwinds Photoshop Links- Several hundred links to Adobe Photoshop 

related sites and resources (contributed by Tracy Marks) 

● International Color Consortium- Standards organisation for the ICC "Profile 

Connection Space" technique for color standardisation used by many 

equipment vendors. Includes interesting technical background articles 

(contributed by Hugh de Lacy) 

● Extreme Sport Photos on Epson 2000P- Gravity Art is a site dedicated to 

promoting extreme sport phtographers from around the world. We print all 

of our images on the Epson 2000P and I'd be happy to talk to or show 

anyone the terrific results. - Genevieve (contributed by Genevieve Watson) 

● Digital Imaging- Photoshop tips, reviews (contributed by Seamus Gallagher) 



● Epson 2100- Running commentary on my experiences with the Epson 2100 

(the Asian version of the 2200) and Photoshop (contributed by Michael 

Slater) 

Add a link 


permission. 






photo.net 

Tripods and Tripod Heads 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 



You can judge how good a bunch of 

photographers are by what they are talking 

about. 

Really bad photographers debate the merits of 

the Nikon F4 and the Canon EOS-1. 

Somewhat better photographers debate the 

merits of the Yashica T4 and the Contax T2. 

The best photographers, though, talk tripods, tripod heads, and quick releases. 

A tripod is at once a photographer's best friend and worst encumbrance. It 

somehow seems that one is forever lugging tripods around and adjusting them and 

yet never has the right one when needed. Most serious photographers own several 

tripods and heads. 

Articles 

● Legset, ballhead, Q/R overviewby Philip Greenspun. 

● Keeping a 600/4 steady by Tom Davis 

● Perhaps you have two too many legs 

● Cheap and Compact by Ross Alford 

When to use Camera Support 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/tripods/ (1 of 5)7/3/2005 2:20:55 AM


Rule 1: when it is getting dark. 

Rule 2 (the standard): you need to use a tripod when your 

shutter speed is slower than 1/focal-length of the lens. 

Thus with a standard 50mm lens, you should not attempt 

to handhold shutter speeds slower than 1/60th and with a 

500mm telephoto lens, you will have to keep the shutter 

speed at 1/500th or faster. Rationale? Longer lenses 

magnify the subject but they also magnify any vibration 

of the camera. 

Rule 3 (for big enlargements): you need to use a tripod 

all the time. The standard rule is designed for 35mm cameras and presupposes a 

certain degree of enlargement and viewing distance from the final print. If you're 

going to make big enlargements and let people get close to the prints, then you 

need to be more careful about lots of stuff including camera shake. 

Rule 4 (for big cameras): you might be able to handhold a slower shutter speed 

because the final image won't be enlarged as much (since the negative is larger). 

On the other hand, medium- and large-format cameras are so big and heavy that 

most photographers prefer to use them on a tripod if only to avoid muscle fatigue. 

Sports photographers often use a monopod so that they don't have to support the 

weight of a 300/2.8 or 600/4 lens through an entire football game. 

Where to Buy 

You can find a selection of tripods and heads stocked by Adorama. Adorama is a 

retailer that pays photo.net a referral fee for each customer, which helps keep this 

site in operation. For additional retailer information, see our recommended retailers 

page and the user recommendations section 

Gratuitous Examples 

Why? Because my friend Kathy at Advanced Digital Imaging scanned them for me. 

These come out the back of a Rollei 6008 and hence can only be scanned on a 

ProPhotoCD machine. 







Top photo copyright 1992 Philip Greenspun, and is a six hour exposure thoroughly 

explained in my star streak tutorial. 

"Tripod Statue" photo from my collaborative guide to Italy. 


permission. 




Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of cell phones 


photo.net 

Tripods 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 

Tripod Overview 


The Legset 

This is the least important decision you have to make. 

Don't let anyone tell you that you are a girlie-man if you 

buy Bogen instead of Gitzo. The fact of the matter is that 

if you were really serious, you'd be using a Ries wooden 

tripod. "Wood absorbs vibration and metal transmits/ 

reflects it," is how the view camera perfectionists put it. 

However, the user interface and flexibility of wood 

tripods is so poor that only a few diehards are able to 

resist the charms of metal legsets. 

Make sure that whatever you get, it is tall enough that 

you can use it comfortably without extending the center 

column. Think about it: if you raise the center column, 

your camera is flapping around in the breeze supported by only one tube. If you 

push it down, you get your camera supported by three legs as advertised. 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/tripods/philg (1 of 53)7/3/2005 2:21:12 AM

Tripods 

Two companies make the vast majority of legsets used by 

professionals, Gitzo and Bogen (Manfrotto outside the U. 

S.). Gitzo is made in France and reflects Continental 

Rationalism. If you don't carefully adhere to the correct 

method of loosening and tightening the leg locks, it will 

take you an annoying minute or two to sort everything 

back out. Bogen is made in Italy by Manfrotto and 

reflects Mediterranean chaos. The leg locks are 

marvelous little spring-loaded flick levers (or wing-type 

screws on some of the smallest ones) and you can lock or 

unlock them in any order. Both brands offer adjustable 

leg angle, which is nice for uneven ground, slopes, and 

resting a leg on an overlook barrier. Both also offer 

reversible center columns, for hanging the camera inches from the ground. 

Gitzo is more expensive but has the 

advantage that there are no little parts to lose 

or wear out. The legs are made of 

heavyweight aluminum or carbon fiber. I fell 

in love with Gitzo's wonderfully light (weighs 

3 lbs, supports 15) carbon fiber Mountaineer 

tripod ($500) during five weeks in Italy. It is 

dead, dead, dead. Dead. I'm six feet tall and 

expected that the lack of height (52 inches or 

61 with the center column up) would be annoying, but somehow I hardly noticed 

bending down a bit. [An Inter-Pro Studex version is coming out in September 1996 

that will be about 30% lighter than the aluminum alloy counterpart, but will rise to 

the same height (61 inches or 76 inches with center column; should weigh about 

4.2 lbs and sell for about $750).] 


Tripods 

The standard Bogen legset is the 

3021 ($85), which comes with 

the spring-loaded flip locks. It 

weighs about 6 lbs, rises up to a 

comfortable working height for 

tall people (with no center 

column extension), and will 

support everything from heavy 

35mm through lightweight 4x5. 

If you go into the wilderness, 

plan to carry the supplied plastic 

wrench for adjusting the leg 

locks should they loosen up. 

Kirk Enterprises (107 Lange 

Lane, Angola, IN 46703, (800) 

626-5074) will modify the 3021 

somehow so that one can get 

even closer to the ground, but I haven't tried this. A lot of folks prefer using a 

Bogen Superclamp attached to a tripod leg, with a small ballhead at the end of the 

clamp. 

[If you get a Bogen, make sure you get the nifty strap that screws into the top and 

wraps around the legs. You might also consider paying the extra $13 to get the 

black anodized finish; the bright silver legs can turn into annoying reflections if 

you are doing close-ups of shiny objects.] 

I've always liked the idea of the floppy Benbo tripods but have never been able to 

lock them down enough to get rigidity at a low camera angle. I think the Gitzos and 

Bogens have enough flexibility that Benbo need not be investigated. If you really 

want to do something weird, you might be better off with a Bogen Magic Arm. 

The Head 

If you are doing architecture, you want a 

three-way panhead in which each axis is 

separately controlled. Otherwise, you'll 

probably find a ballhead vastly more 

convenient. 

With a really good ballhead, you can 

smoothly follow an animal with a 300/2.8 

lens and take your hands off the lens without having it flop towards the ground. 


Tripods 

Of the ballheads that I've personally used, my favorite for feel and function is the 

ARCA Swiss B1. This is the head that almost every serious photographer seems to 

end up with and my only source of sorrow is that I blew about $330 on a FOBA 

Superball before I found out about it. The ARCA is half the weight of the FOBA, 

able to support more weight, and has a very interesting patented feature: 

progressive resistance. That means when you've adjusted the tension for a 300/2.8 

that is approximately level, the ARCA automatically increases the tensions as the 

lens is pointed down a bit (so that the lens doesn't flop down catastrophically). 

Whatever you get, if you spend $400 for a head, make sure you protect it from 

knocks. I wasn't super careful with my FOBA and it became useless. Sinar Bron 

does not stand behind the product and I would have been out of luck except that 

Jeff Hirsch at Fotocare in NY (see where to buy) bailed me out. 

If you really want to save money 

and yet not get something that is 

complete junk, try the Bogen 

3038 ($150 at B&H) which 

comes with an integral hex plate 

Q/R. In fact, the quick release 

has a really nice locking feature 

that I've not seen on other Bogen 

products. If you intend to leave 

your camera on the tripod and 

carry the assemblage around for 

awhile, this would tend to inspire 

confidence. In any case, the 3038 

is about the same size and weight 

as the FOBA and is strong 

enough to take a 4x5 or 

supertele. It is hard to describe 

why the overall experience with the 3038 isn't as good as with the FOBA but it 

clearly isn't. I think it comes down to smoothness and the use of a lubricant on the 

3038, which I've played with but never used extensively. 

An interesting design that I haven't tried is the NPC pseudo-ballhead. This has an 

innovative design that locks the center of the ball rather than standard method of 

pushing the ball into the socket (this changes your composition slightly, somewhat 

irritating with a big lens especially). The head is reasonably priced ($225) and 

apparently well made, but allegedly is a pan/tilt head that is not really a suitable 

substitute for a traditional ballhead design (this is a paraphrase of some vitriolic 

comments by ex-users). 


Tripods 

If you aren't planning to use a medium format camera, a super-tele, or a 4x5, you 

might want to investigate smaller ballheads. Even if you can afford the 

aforementioned heads, you won't enjoy carrying the weight. The FOBA mini super 

ball ($200) looks great, but I've never owned one and Sinar Bron's attitude is 

discouraging. I've tried the really cheap Bogen 3262QR ($40) and it works OK but 

the lack of tension means that you risk "dumping" the camera/lens combination. 

Plus, the unit seems to depend on grease for smoothness and your hands get kind of 

filthy if you aren't careful about where you touch your gear. I wasn't sorry when it 

was stolen. 

Quick Release 

All I know is that I have to have a quick release. I have to 

be able to mate and unmate my camera quickly or the 

whole tripod is too much of a hassle to use and carry. 

The gold standard in quick release is the "ARCA Swissstyle". 

Bryan Geyer, the owner of Really Right Stuff 

(http://www.reallyrightstuff.com; P.O. Box 6531, Los 

Osos, CA 93412, (805) 528-6321), makes the biggest 

selection of plates (137 in June 1995) in this style so I 

asked him to articulate his devotion to it. "The problem 

with the Sachtler, Bogen, and Linhof releases is that they 

have a fixed cavity size. You should be able to use a big 

plate for a big item like a 600/4 lens and a small plate for a small item like a body. 

Our plates range in size from 1.4 inches to 7.3 inches long. 

from twisting. 

Another thing that is wrong with the Sachtler, 

Bogen, and Linhof approach is that their 

plates are all flat-topped and therefore free to 

twist or pivot on whatever equipment they are 

attached to. Even if your lens lets you rotate 

the body without tilting the tripod head, you 

still might want to shoulder the tripod and not 

have the plate twist. Each of our plates has a 

flange of channel that keeps the lens or body 

"A final consideration is that it is really ugly to have a big plate poking out from 

under your camera. ARCA Swiss-style plates conform to the size and shape of the 

equipment." 


Tripods 

I used to be a Bogen hex plate user but Bryan Geyer persuaded me with his 

reasoning and his superbly machined products. I leave his plates on my cameras all 

the time and they never get in the way. I miss the positive "snap-in" that I got with 

the Bogen system, but not as much as I thought I would. If you want to get into the 

ARCA Swiss-style system you have to either buy a ballhead that comes with it or 

get a whole setup from Bryan. 

If you want something cheap that works, Bogen sells a range of Q/R systems, the 

biggest of which is their old hex plate system. It is big enough to carry a 4x5 view 

camera with ease ($30 plus $12 for extra plates). There are a bunch of more 

expensive ($70-130) systems out there that look potentially better than the Bogen, 

but I'm not yet convinced that any are. The Linhof one looks nice. When I was 

looking for something lightweight, I've tried cheap systems such as the Cullman, 

but they are inadequately rigid. 

References 

The Really Right Stuff catalog (available from P.O. Box 6531, Los Osos, CA 

93412, (805) 528-6321) contains a fairly comprehensive comparative test of 

ballheads. The short story is that the ARCA Swiss B1 crushes the competition. 


I wrote to you once before to tell you that the head, camera and tripod should be 

tested as a complete unit before a purchasing decision is made. It has been my 

experience that this is the only way to prove the utility of the tripod and head with 

the actual camera being used. I think you would be surprised that some systems 

that you think are "solid" with one camera system, are wobbly with another. It is 

only my experience talking, but I've tested many combinations over the last 8 years 

with no real bulletproof way to predict the optimum results in advance. 

-- mel dorin, December 17, 1996 

Regarding the quick release plates - if you go with an Arca Swiss style quick 

release and you are shooting with a Canon set up, don't waste your money on the 

Arca Swiss quick release plates. Buy your quick release plates from Really Right 

Stuff. The RRS plates are far superior to the Arca Swiss plates in terms of their 

ease of use and lack of wiggle when properly installed. 

The only reason to buy the Arca plates is "instant gratification." If you absolutely 

have to have a plate on the same day as the ball head arrives, and if you don't mind 

wasting $60, go ahead and get the Arca plate. 


Tripods 

You have to wait to get your plates from RRS because they won't take an order 

over the phone, and they won't take credit cards. Aside from this aggravation, their 

plates really do function better than the manufacturer's official plates. One other 

thing about RRS plates. You have to have a 5/32" allen wrench to install and 

remove them. You can order a special tool from RRS, or you can just buy the 

standard 5/32" allen wrench from the hardware store for around $.40. 

The Arca Swiss B1 is definitely a wonderful piece of gear, and the RRS mounting 

plates allow it to reach its full potential. 


Subject: WIMBERLEY TRIPOD HEAD for long lenses. I appreciate your 

comments and recommendations on tripods and heads. I was happy with my gitzo 

320 while using it with my studioball and a nikon 200~400, but found the setup 

inadequate for a 600 f4. I purchased a gitzo 410 which helped tremendously,but 

after using a new head designed especially for long lenses, I will never use a ball 

head again for my telephoto work. This new head is called the Wimberley Tripod 

Head, and because of its radical design, true balance can be achieved. It will never 

flop over on you and you can leave all of the adjustments loose so panning along 

with your subject is effortless. The price of the head and shipping seems a bit steep 

at $402 but after using it with my 600 F4, I could never do without it. Wimberley 

Design can be contacted at 974 Baker Lane, Winchester, Va. 22603. Tel. (540) 665- 

2744. They are a small family operated business and I know they will do well. 

-- Brian P. Bower, February 16, 1997 

I recently discovered that you can make an excellent tripod head for 35mm and 

medium format photography by attaching the Bogen #3229 QR Swivel Head (http:// 

www.manfrotto.com/en/products/monopods.html), which was designed for 

monopods, to the #3160 XL Fluid Head (http://www.manfrotto.com/en/products/ 

videoheads.html), which was designed for video, by means of a #3157A QR plate. 

The resulting combination has the pan-and-tilt smoothness of a video head but also 

allows the photographer to turn the camera 90 degrees for portrait or landscape 

(actually -90 to +45 degrees). This combination head stands 15 cm (= 6 in) high, 

weighs 0.9 kg (= 2 lbs), and costs about $90.- (B&H or CWO). I find it to be a real 

pleasure to use: very stable and much easier to adjust than three-axis heads which 

are specifically designed for still photography (e.g Bogen 3025, 3028, 3029, 3030, 

3047), especially when it comes to the fine pan-and-tilt operations that most 

photographers (or at least I) constantly need to do to frame an image. I also prefer it 

to any ball head I have ever used. No more fooling around with levers or knobs 

which clamp the ball in place while changing the position of the frame from what 


Tripods 

you intended. In any event, "good" ball heads seem to come in three flavors: 

expensive, ridiculously expensive and obscenely expensive (e.g. Arca). 

The #3229 is rated to support 2.5 kg (= 5.6 lb) and comes with a relatively long 

(6.3 cm=2.5") QR plate which works fine for me. If you have a heavy zoom or 

fixed focal-length lens with a rotating collar you can remove the whole #3229 in a 

matter of seconds and attach your lens directly to the #3160 video head with a QR 

plate for the total zen tripod experience. You'll find yourself gratuitously panning 

and tilting just for the pleasure of being able to position that heavy lens to exactly 

the right microdegree. The #3160 is rated to support 4.5 kg (= 10 lb). 

Conclusion: for the price of one and a half QR plates for an Arca, you can put 

together a fine -- I would say superior -- tripod head for still and video 

photography. 

-- Tom Holton, March 4, 1997 

I use a very heavy ballhead from linhof (profi ballhead 3)! rock solid! Just as good 

as arca (maybe better?!)!But it hasn't a quick release so a searched for a good 

professional quick release system! I found the novoflex miniconnect!It's small, fast 

(much faster than arca(need to screw it) ! and rock,rock,rock solid! It works with a 

round metal plate that you can CLICK in the groundplate.that's it!super fast!And it 

can support all major big lenses!easely 600mm!It is quit new! and i don't know if it 

is available in america! But if so, it is worth testing and to try it out! I use all heavy 

stuff and it is just excellent!!!i don't understand the fuss about that arca stuff!It is 

very slow in comparison with the mini conect! You can easely use it with mid 

format or larger camara's! You can operate it with one!!!!hand and has a big release 

handle!It is just super!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! People who work with novoflex equipment 

are aware of the very good quility! 

-- Harry Stadman, March 14, 1997 

Just tried out the Bogen 3055 ball-head and was not terribly impressed. There are 

two variants of this head -- one has a black, plasticky looking ball and the other has 

a silver metal one. The plastic one bound up often when panning, and the lens 

would jerk from one position to the next. The metal one was much smoother. 

There are two locking mechanisms on these heads -- one to tension the ball and the 

other to lock the horizontal panning pivot. The horizontal pivot lock works fine, but 

the ball tension adjustment was useless. When I rotated the front of the lens to my 

left, the tensioning handle would loosen and the head would dump the lens as soon 

as I let go of it. 


Tripods 

I also tried the 3047 tilt-pan head. Despite the fact it isn't a ball-head, I found it 

much easier to use for tracking than the 3055 (take this in context because I've 

never used a "good" ball-head like the Arca). If you must have an inexpensive (less 

than $100), yet solid head, I'd recommend looking at the 3047 and avoiding the 

3055. 

-- Don Atzberger, March 29, 1997 

My legs are Bogen 3021 with a circular spirit level (< $5) glued over the center 

column axis. When I plan on panning, I take a few seconds to adjust the lens to 

keep the pan plane parallel to the horizon. With this platform, my Bogen 3047 (I 

don't use the left/right tilt or the built-in spirit levels) and a Bogen 3063 fluid video 

head always give me tracking ability and stay horizontal. I no longer own a 3055 

ball-head as I found it too prone to vibration and not ergonomically freindly. 

I have inproved my Bogen hex-plates in two ways: 

* I have sawed off and smoothed the each of the 6 corners 

* I have added a second screw to secure my lens' tripod collar to a flat (#3041) hexplate. 

-- Dave Herzstein, July 10, 1997 

The "religion" around Arca ballheads is really not appropriate to the many of us 

that don't use very large cameras or long lenses. I rarely shoot, even in medium 

format, with anything over two pounds, so my issue isn't absolute stability of heavy 

equipment but rigidity during long exposures and the ability to very carefully 

compose. I have found that the Linhof Model 1, just as an example, is an excellent 

ballhead for my purposes and costs just slightly over $100. There are probably 

other ballheads in this price range that would meet the needs of a lot of us that are 

not into huge lenses or large format. 

Also, regarding Benbo - there are some issues with how well the "bent bolt" works, 

but I have found times when it is indispensable. I recently went on a tour of a ghost 

town (photos will be at www.hyperreal.org/~jeffs/) by next week in which I wanted 

to work against a steep railroad embankment with mud down below. It was very 

easy to use the embankment for one leg with the other two just above the mud line. 

I happened to notice that other photographers had to work on the railroad tracks, 

getting a very different perspective. 

One tip on buying a Bogen/Manfrotto: Mr. Greenspun suggested buying with the 


Tripods 

black anodized legs for $13, but I just used black cloth tape which cost around $2. 

-- Jeff (www.spirer.com), July 29, 1997 

When I bought my Bogen 3221, I also bought a Bogen 3262QR ball head. This was 

my first ball head, and I was delighted with it - plus the whole deal cost me only 

about $140. After a while I began to realize that the lack of smoothness in the 3262 

head was annoying me more and more as I set up pictures. However, I really wasn't 

prepared to spend $400-600 for an Arca ball head and matching QR. A couple of 

places on the 'net (I really don't remember where), I found people recommending 

the Canon Professional Ball Head, a head one hardly ever hears about. Since it was 

only $60 (at Adorama), I bit, and for another $30 bought the Bogen hexagonal QR 

plate to go with it. Since I've never used an Arca head, I can't compare the Canon 

head with that, but I've found the Canon head to be just super for everything I've 

done with it. I have to assume that Arca heads are even better, but with the Canon 

head I feel that maybe I've reached the point of diminishing returns, with respect to 

quality versus cost. And, since I'm a Nikon camera user, this is high praise indeed 

for the Canon head! 

-- Jack Kennealy, August 6, 1997 

Over the years I have tried a variety of tripods and heads, from cheapo to pricey 

kind. I traded cash for" experience," having sold most at a discount to other 

photographers. My recollections: - Bogen 3047- OK, but large and awkward to use, 

still a good value for the buck if you enjoy pan/ tilt style versus ball head. - Bogen 

3055 ball head- not smooth enough in action or machining. Good price though and 

is usable. - Slik Ball heads ( from professional with triangular lever to small) OK, 

but no adjustment for tensioning. Good value. - Foba Superball, w/ quick release: 

Good ball head and fully adjustable, but large, heavy, and expensive. Still have it 

and use it. Bought for 175.00 at auction. Not my first choice or recommendation 

now that I have an Arca B-1 head. - Arca Swiss. Worth the money because of the 

precision. A unique product,- a lifetime investment. - Bogen Swivel Tilt Head- 

great for monopods, a bargain at under 20.00, for certain uses. - Bogen mini fluid 

head. Also a great bargain for video and maybe binocular astronomy - Really Right 

Stuff Plates. A value for their quality and individuality. - Really right stuff arca 

clamp adapters. An excellent compromise to retrofit other heads. 

-- Gerry Siegel (Honolulu), September 9, 1997 

I use the Gitzo 1228 mountaineer for the legset and a Lindhof profil 2 ballhead w/ 

Rollei quick release (my 6x6 is the only thing I use on this tripod). The Lindhof 

head is very solid and smooth, a perfect match for the series-2 gitzo. For the series 

4, I'd go w/ the larger profil 3. The profil 2 is only about $215 in Tokyo. Just try not 


Tripods 

to think about the fact that the legset, head, and quickrelease cost nearly $1000. I 

also have a bogen 3021S (compact). I only use it for low-level macro shots since 

the legs open more than those of the gitzo. It's too heavy for me (4.75 lbs for the 

legs, whereas my gitzo carbon w/ Lindhof head is about 4.25 lbs complete and 

extends higher AND carries a heavier load). 

-- Jim Chow, October 16, 1997 

Regarding tripods I've switched from Bogen & avoided Gitzo after trying many 

friends pods and helping those in workshops and had SLIK PRO tripods 

recommended to me by a friend and found them to be my best solution. Best 

features are: good price, superb craftmanship, solid, big leg collars, LEGS CANT 

ROTATE WHEN OPENING OR CLOSING, no binding or loosening in legs or 

collars. The Slik Pro 'Grand Master Sport Black' is direct competition in size and 

weight but better features than the small Gitzo Mountaineer and about 1/4 to 1/3 

the price. Best of all the legs don't turn when opening or closing them in any order. 

This tripod is not sold in the USA but is availible in Canada. Call Jim at Camtech 

403-244-0333 and he'll send it mail order. Before you buy another tripod or 

monopod, check out the SLIK PRO line, their amateur line is not great. 

-- Alec Pytlowany, November 17, 1997 

While I trust my Gitzo 300 and my huge Davis & Sanford above all else, I recently 

picked up a set of Culliman Titan legs, and I've been impressed with the 

combination of speed, lightness and stiffness; the legs seem to be as solid as a 

Bogen 3050, but the speed of setting leg length makes these really conveneient. I've 

been using these legs with a Bogen ball head for some nighttime train photography, 

and it's a very handy package. For $100 in mint condition it's worked out very well 

for me. 

-- Michael Edelman, December 11, 1997 

After moving up thru Bogen's 3025,3055,3047,3038 & then the StudioBall (Arca 

QR), I found the Arca B1 and loved it 'til winter, & found my huge gloved hands 

could not grasp the knobs & I was fumbling a lot. Then I bought the Foba & 

remembered why I first liked the Bogen 3038 (not smooth at all): The big bidirectional 

handle!! It is so quick! 

One problem I experienced: Sometimes in very cold weather it does not clamp 

firmly & feels "mushy". Any others have this problem? A solution would be 

appreciated. 

-- Max Grogan, January 16, 1998 


Tripods 

I'm using the Bogen/Manfrotto 3221 tripod with the Bogen 3265 grip-action ball 

head. It is hefty, well made, and I like it. My only caution is that the grip action 

head is fairly tall, and the camera sits about six (6) inches above the ball. When you 

tilt your camera to the side for a vertical frame, the center of gravity moves 6 

inches off center. This decreases the stability of the whole thing, forcing you to 

extend the legs on one side... depending on the weight of your camera and lens. 

-- Albert E. Anderson, January 25, 1998 

Despite the comments of some quoted above, I picked up an NPC "pseudo 

ballhead" when it was offered to me by a local shop for $75- with the Arca style 

quick release and two plates! 

Yes, it doesn't use a ball, but it has the same degrees of freedom and the axis all 

share a common center, so functionally it acts just like a ballhead. It has a nice 

indexed rotating base, too. I just finished using it for a setup that took a couple of 

evenings to complete and it was a pleasure to use. 

-- Michael Edelman, January 29, 1998 

Maybe Gitzo, Manfrotto and Benbo are the most many-sided tripods but they are 

heavy e.g. at mountain walks. I have found out the LPL splits tripod is a very good 

all-round choice. The weight is 1850 grams and can carry a 35 mm- or a roll film 

camera. (I have used it for cameras up to 2000 grams.) The quality is high and this 

tripod is used by the Swedish army to carry IR-sights. The best with this tripod is 

its ability to do the splits, the low weight and the good carry handle. One can buy it 

at the Swedish Photax (http://www.photax.se) or other LPL sellers. 

-- Harald Gaunitz, February 12, 1998 

As an alternative type of head for architecture, some people might want to consider 

the Manfrotto 410 three-axis geared head. As its name suggests, the main feature of 

this head is that it provides geared adjustments in the three axes. I find this 

particularly invaluable for applying fine "tweaks" in one axis without upsetting 

other axes (as can happen with a ball head), and also removes the possibility of 

movement while locking off on a pan-and-tilt head (although this shouldn't much 

happen unless you're using a particularly cheap head). 

By rotating a lock ring around each knob, the gearing mechanism is disengaged 

providing for rapid alignment. Just be careful not to disengage the clutch around 

the wrong axis, or your entire ensemble could suddenly flop over! 


Tripods 

The head comes with a spirit level and an integral quick-release plate operated by a 

large lever. The lever has a secondary safety catch to prevent inadvertant release. 

As for supported weight, although Manfrotto suggest its use is mainly for 35mm or 

medium format kit, I've used this head sucessfully with a Horseman LX-C 

monorail 5x4" studio camera (over 7kg sans lens), and use it for outdoor 

photography with a Cambo SCN-II (over 4kg sans lens). 

A few random disadvantages: - While the geared adjustments are very good, it is 

possible to back-drive them by applying too large a torque to the camera. This 

doesn't cause me problems when using my 35mm kit unless I'm particularly hamfisted, 

but can cause unintentional movement if I don't handle my 5x4" kit carefully 

when inserting film holders (which I should do carefully anyway, but there you go), 

possibly due to the longer moment arm. 

- adjustment in the pitch axis is -90/+30 degrees, which may not be enough if you 

want to point the camera upwards. 

- the mechanism is lubricated with grease, which when the head is new can give 

some unpleasant surprises if you're not careful of where you touch it. These 

problems lessen with use as the grease is gradually worn off. 

-it can take a while to get used to which knob controls which axis, particularly 

when composing looking through the camera and feeling for the controls. 

-- Mark A. Brown, March 8, 1998 

Hi folks, 

I use a Pentax 6 x 7. It is notorious for camera vibration at shutter speeds of 1/30 to 

1/2 sec. I also have arthritis of the hands and back. And so I have been on a quest 

for a tripod/head that is lighter, stronger, and less vibration prone. 

Solution: 1- Swiss Arca Monoball B-1. Nothing works as well. Period. 

2- Velbon Carmagne 640 Carbon Fiber tripod. The tripod weighs in at 2.9 lbs. It is 

made of magnesium and carbon fiber and it is loaded with features. Best of all, it is 

rock solid - yes, even at 2.9 pounds. If it gets windy, the tripod comes with a "stone 

bag" which clips onto the three legs. Turn your 2 pound tripod into a 20 pounder 

right in the field! It works too. And it will fit into most back packs or airline bags. 

It is small and doesn't seem like it would work. My testing showed it to have less 

vibration than my Bogen 3021! Surprise! And it is almost 4 pounds lighter. 


Tripods 

B&H sells the tripod for $440 and the head for $380. You will need a quick release. 

See above comments from others. 

Steve 

-- Steve Bingham (www.dustylens.com), March 30, 1998 

i think that the days of the arca "crushing" it's competition are over. i have been 

using the kirk ballhead for about a year and it is a great head. one comment about 

really right stuff- i called to place an order and the person i spoke to was so rude 

and unhelpful i ended up buying somewhere else. i hope my experience was 

untypical. what a jerk! 

-- Greg Rothschild, April 4, 1998 

Regarding RRS, when I ask a supplier or manufacturer a product related technical 

question, I appreciate a straight, no BS, technical answer. When I ask the RRS 

people a technical question, this is exactly what I get, and I appreciate it. 

Regarding the Kirk Model BH-1 ball head. The price is certainly lower than that of 

the Arca-Swiss B-1. The question is, does it work properly under field conditions 

and is it reliable? Regarding the current version of the Kirk product, in my opinion 

the jury is still out. 

Tom 

-- Charles T. (Tom) Hoskinson --, April 7, 1998 

I'm a pan/tilt kind of guy right now, shooting mostly landscapes and macro work. I 

appreciate the fine degree of adjustment the Bogen 3275 (410) geared head gives 

me. My only regret is that us pan/tilt users are left out in the cold when it comes to 

quick-release plates. 

Conversations with Bryan Geyer at RRS left me with nothing but frustration, until I 

accepted the fact that he is serving a highly specialized market niche, and that niche 

is NOT pan tilt heads. It's too bad that those of us who do not use Arca-style 

clamps cannot take advantage of RRS products, for all their advantages would 

work for us too. The non-twist feature of the RRS plates is highly desirable but 

unattainable for anyone but Arca-style devotees. 

Arca and other ballheads are great. RRS is great. But there are other types of heads 


Tripods 

out there and this religion about heads is like any other- tolerance is required for the 

diverse group of users out there. No one size fits all, though I freely admit that 

there are some sizes that fit most. 

Maybe someone more handy than myself will read this and figure out a way to 

machine a decent QR system for Bogen clamp heads to adapt the Arca-style clamp 

to these heads. 

-- Joe Hewes, May 4, 1998 

No way I would use anything but Gitzo products, they are really nice, and above 

all, sturdy, user friendly, and reliable. I have a 1376 ball head, which is a beauty, 

and the QR works a charm and provides confidence, so that I never fear my gear 

might get unreleased all of a sudden and fall to the ground. 

It is expensive, but a tripod and its head are an investment that will last you 

(almost) for life. 

-- Paulo Bizarro, May 8, 1998 

I will just make a comment on the 3038 since Phillip Greenspun recomended it as a 

way to 'save money and not get complete junk'. 

I just got one. It is very heavy, seems to leek grease out of every orifice, but worse 

still the ball is quite stiff which makes it difficult to make fine adjustments. This is 

in contast to its separate pan freedom which a very smooth. It seems to have more 

industrial strength than high quality. 

Apart from these issues it is ok. Maybe it you want to save money you should get a 

pan and tilt head. 

-- Brendan Johnston, May 17, 1998 

Hi there, This is really a terrific site, took me all the way through a rainy weekend. 

I am left with a question about tripods though. At what shutter speed should I 

consider using one. 

-- Ronald --, July 12, 1998 

A good, cheap tripod? I've been using a Slik 300DX for several months now & am 


Tripods 

very satisfied. I compared it to similarly sized Gitzo (?) & Bogen (3001) tripods, 

and it was the hands-down winner regarding ease of set-up (an important 

consideration for a follower of Zipf's principle of least effort). Gitzos, though wellmachined, 

are mystifying, while Bogens seem a little stiff and (as someone 

mentioned above) to ooze grease. The release lever allowing the legs to open at a 

wider angle is much easier to operate on the Slik than on the either Gitzo or the 

Bogen. & the supplied pan-&-tilt head (which I prefer over ballheads, esp. for 

macro work) & quick release plates I find to be excellent, & much more compact 

than a Bogen 3047. Grain of salt: I use nothing longer than a 135mm lens (though I 

regularly use a bellows, & have stuck a Pentax 67 on it with good results). Overall, 

it's pretty close in size/weight to a Bogen 3001 w/ 3047, but much cheaper (esp. 

considering it's black finish) at $100. 

-- Steve Smith, July 19, 1998 

There are many comments about the Bogan & Gitzo leg sets, but none about the 

Ries tripod. So here are my counter experiences. 

There are 2 things which will render a Gitzo or Bogan leg set inoperative. They are 

sand and salt water. Needless to say, my vacations always seem to wind up with 

them. 

Of course where there's sand, there is wind. The fine grit just seems to find its way 

into the locking mechanisms and after a day or two, the locks stop securing the 

sections tightly. It's not just me, every workshop I taken, I've seen this happen over 

& over. 

In contrast, the Ries has "no moving parts". Just bang the legs if you get hung up 

and off you go. 

The wood is much nicer to handle in the summer heat and the winter cold, 

something I didn't appreciate until I had the tripod for a bit. 

The Ries has 2 sections rather than 3 so it is not as compact when folded. 

With respect to weight, heavier is better. I've seen and had happen to me, lighter 

tripods blown over in gusts. It's mandatory to hang your bag at the crown to 

provide more stability. 

If I am going to clean anything in the field, it's going to be my 4x5 film holders, not 

my tripod. 


Tripods 

-- David Gabbé, July 30, 1998 

Just got back from a trip to the Rocky Mountain National Park. After a week of 

lugging a Bogen 3221 w/Arca B1 on my shoulder, I am thoroughly convinced that 

a Gitzo Carbon Fiber Mountaineer is a must. 

The Bogen was stable, I had it in streams, mud, steep slopes and deep grass. It 

handled my AF-S 300 2.8 with ease. No mechanical issues, but problem was the 6 

mile 2,000 vert. ft. hikes at 6am with that bugger on my shoulder. 

I will be ordering the Gitzo very shortly. 

-- Michael J. Kravit, August 13, 1998 

To: Tom Shapiro (above). 

You asked at what shutter speed do you begin to use a tripod? The textbook answer 

is at about 1/focal length. So, for example, if you have a 50mm lens, you should 

use a tripod at shutter speeds of 1/50th and slower. However, that's just a guide. 

I think everyone here will agree, you should use that tripod whenever you can, even 

at higher speeds. Not only will it prevent camera shake, but it will help slow you 

down to contemplate the setting and exposure. 

Every time you release that shutter on your camera, it costs you 25 cents (a dollar if 

you use medium format film). I've paid for my Bogen by slowing down and taking 

fewer shots! 

-- Albert E. Anderson, September 7, 1998 

I have recently started working with an Arca Swiss B2 head, after using different 

"rational" or pan/tilt heads for the past 14 years. About half of what I shoot is 

architecture on 4x5 and 6x17 cameras and this is the best tripod head I have come 

across. It is not a freely rotating ball head the way the smaller B1 (which I also 

have used for a number of years) is, but is two enclosed joints, one inside the 

other.) from the outside the head appears to be a very large ball head. The outer 

joint controls pitch (forward and back angle) this joint has the Friction control that 

Phil mentions. The inner joint controls leveling from side to side and is controlled 

by a seperate knob. Panning is controlled at the base of the head. 


Tripods 

In operation the head is very smooth, and tightens up with none of the dread "tripod 

head creep" I have experienced with virtually every other pan/tilt head I have used. 

The only drawback for field use is the size and weight of the thing. When my 

sometimes assistant looked at it for the first time he asked me where I got the 

bucket. I am of the impression if you are using 600mm f/4 or longer heavier lenses 

you will have no problems.; It certainly supports a 8x10 Sinar P2 nicely. Is any 

tripod head worth US$650.00? I cannot honestly answer that because I waited till I 

found a used one through the photo.net classifieds. Eventually I probably would 

have sprung for a new one. It is definitely the the ultimate tripod head as far as I am 

concerned. 

-- Ellis Vener, November 14, 1998 

The Bogen 3205, the black anodised verson of the 3001 was everything I wanted in 

a traveling tripod on a recent trip to Italy. It weighs just over 3 1/2 lbs. and sets up 

quickly. I had the Arca B-1 head attached, and often carried my F5 on the tripod 

just over my shoulder so that when I saw something that caught my eye, all I had to 

do was let the legs down and spread them out. It was fast, convenient and 

absolutely solid and steady. My dusk to night photos were all tack sharp, as well as, 

of course, the daytime photos. The set up was so convenient that I don't think I took 

a handheld photo in over two weeks. I could not have carried my heavier Bogen, 

and after investing in the Arca B1, I could not see mounting it on my old traveling 

pod, a Slik U-112, nor spending $500+ on a carbon fiber. Light, rock solid (even 

with the 80-200 2.8), and only $75.00 is a hard combination to beat. 

-- Dennis Caspe, November 14, 1998 

I am aware that many people have "religion" about the Arca-Swiss quick release 

system. I like it too. But, my ballhead is not equiped with a standard Acra-Swiss 

clamp, so I recently went shopping for an add-on adapter plate. A funny thing 

happened on the way to the store: I found a very different solution that it turns out I 

like very much: the Hasselblad tripod quick coupling system. (Really.) 

Why? Well, for one thing I own Hasselblads, and it turns out that recent Hasselblad 

camera bodies have a quick coupling plate built into the camera bottom. This plate 

is designed for the Hasselblad clamp, of course. But additional mounting plates are 

available for other equipment. 

Since I use both Hasselblad and 35mm gear, I thought I should at least check this 

out. I found I really liked the design. The mounting plates are slim and streamlined, 

and very unobstrusive when mounted on my 35mm bodies and lenses. The QR 

clamp itself has dual lever mechanism: one that must be held down to permit the 

plate to slide onto the bed; when "at rest" it holds the plate loosely in place. A 


Tripods 

second lever locks the equipment down rigidly in place. This twin mechanism 

means that even when the clamp is opened accidentally in a vertical orientation the 

equipment cannot "fall through." Plus, the clamp has a built-in spirit level, a nice 

touch. All pieces seem to be fairly ruggedly designed and are very well machined. 

Will it hold a 600mm lens? I dunno, but I don't have gear that heavy. So far, I 

really like it. Not sure if it's as attractive a solution if you don't own Hasselblad. 

But, if you're in the market for a QR system you might want to check it out. It sure 

beats the pants off of some of the others I've looked at. 

-- Gary Voth, November 25, 1998 

The ballhead with quick release plates are innovative and very helpful. Before I 

read this Ad about ballheads and QR plates, I wanted one. So I contacted Kirk 

Enterpirses (1-800-626-5074) and order a catalog. A couple days later, while 

drooling over the catalog, I ended up calling them and ordering over the phone 

using my Visa card. I order the black anodized aluminum milled plates that fit 

perfect under each camera body with a recessed set screw (each plate comes with 

an allen wrench). The ballhead I ordered is an exact duplicate to the B1, but less 

cost. I ordered the Kaiser (Made in Germany) Studio ball and is it stout! Any size 

body you want to use... it'll hold them all. The price of the ballhead was $295 and 

the QR plates are $65 each. Once the plates are attached, you leave them on. 

They're so sleek, you don't think about them anymore until you mount them up on 

the ballhead. The ballhead operates smoothly and precisely, and locks down easily 

with a large tightening knob. Oh, one more word on the plates. Each one has a 

taped out screw hole if you want to use an accessory where the tripod usually 

mounts. I leave my QR plates on all camera bodies all the time. When I need to use 

a monopod, I just screw it in the accessory hole provided in the bottom of the plate 

(next to where in mounts into the bottom of the camera). 

-- JJ --, January 8, 1999 

One very nice thing about Gitzo tripods that is seldom mentioned is that they 

readily disassemble, without tools, for cleaning. If you end up with dirt/sand in the 

locks (and who doesn't), just fully unscrew the locks, wipe 'em clean, regrease them 

(Vaseline seems to work, but probably not the best), and reassemble. 

-- Colin Povey, January 21, 1999 

Carbon Gitzo? YE$! OK-- here's a good reason to splurge for a carbon fiber tripod. 

I weigh in at just 145 lbs and do not lift weights. After years of travelling with my 

trusty-rusty Bogen 3021 and a Linhof Ball head, I got sick of the fatique it gave 

me, and its sticky, vulnerable leg lever mechanisms. I stopped taking it on long 


Tripods 

treks whenever I could. I tried using the smaller 3001, but it really didn't come up 

to a comfortable height, and the leg knobs really take time, and hurt frozen fingers. 

I wanted to make more great shots futher and further away. I needed a revelation, 

not a porter. 

What am I getting at? Well, after purchasing the Gitzo Carbon tripod, I started 

taking sharper images, was FAR less fatiqued after long climbs, and could justify 

carrying that fast glass that I normally left home. That's really it. It makes serious 

outdoor photography more FUN, and less of a pain in the shoulders. The only 

downside of the Carbon model, is that now that I am far less fatiqued, I have to lie 

to get those great backrubs back at camp... 

-- David Julian, February 11, 1999 

I was considering using the grip style ball heads by bogen and Silk. After looking 

into it the Silk seems to have the advantage because the Ball is larger and feels 

smoother, and the design keeps the camera closer to the center of gravity than the 

Bogen. Cost is about the same. 

-- David Fancher, March 28, 1999 

While I am not an expert in photography, I recently acquired a Celestron C-90 

scope and have looked around and experimented with various heads. I tried a 

Wimberley gimbal-type head (www.tripodhead.com) and was amazed at its 

incredibly smooth function. The scope acts exactly like it's in a weightless 

environment. Rather than be distracted by an annoying head, the Wimberly design 

is a joy to use. It's a small family run business. They even will send you one to use 

in the field for several weeks. The $465 price might put you off a bit at first, but not 

after you try it. You won't be disappointed. 

Tom Peachey 

-- Thomas Peachey, April 14, 1999 

I have used the Gitzo 1228 carbon tripod for about 6 months and have been to 

Antarctica and back and everywhere in between. It is a good tripod, even though 

the leg locks are a minor nuisance. However, one of the leg locks came off 

(unglued or something, maybe it was river silt, dune sand, or just frozen penguin 

guano expanding) and with horror and tripedation, I sent it to Bogen for repair. I 

sent it in on a Wednesday afternoon 2nd day air, it arrived in New Jersey on Friday 

and they sent me a new one (the improved version with a grooved center column) 

which ARRIVED Tuesday via second day air! Now this is service! I don't know 

what the support is on other brands, but I appreciate the service and attention 


Tripods 

Bogen showed me with a one day turnaround. If this is standard service for Bogen, 

I'm a customer for life. 

-- David Chang, May 5, 1999 

Most of the time I agree totally with what Phil has to say on photo.net, but this 

page's section on ballheads leaves me shaking my head. Phil says that unless you're 

planning on doing architecture, you'll find a ballhead more convienient. Fair 

enough. But then he goes on to say nothing kind, really, about any ballheads other 

than the Arca Swiss B1 or FOBA Superball. Certainly, no head under $200 gets a 

favorable review. What I take from that is that ballheads are the kind of technology 

that only work well at the very top of the range, and are very poor otherwise. From 

the cheaper ballheads I've played with in stores, this would seem to be the case. A 

very nice panhead, on the other hand, can be had for a lot less than the B1 ballhead. 

If you've got a lot of money, then, sure, get the Arca Swiss or FOBA ballhead. If 

you don't, you'd probably like to spend some of that $400 on/towards a nice lens. 

Get a panhead. If you get one that is smooth and has an long handle, you can follow 

animals or what have you quite smoothly. 

There's my nickel's worth. 

-- Alex Hemsath, May 25, 1999 

Someone a while back mentioned his frustration at not having a QR system to use 

with a pan-tilt head. I just finished photographing 200+ quilts at NYQuilts with a 

RRS clamp mounted to my Gitzo 3-way head and it works like a charm. I replaced 

the 1/4" thumb screw with the 3/8" version and replaced the knurled wheel with a 

9/16" nut, so I could tighten it with a wrench. It's very solid, and as much as I like 

the Arca-Swiss B1, for some applications, the 3-way head just makes life easier. 

-- Ron Goodman, May 30, 1999 

If you want to shoot from low angles with a Bogen 3021 (or most other Bogens, I 

guess), just remove the cap/stopper from the end of the center post, pull out the 

center post and put it back in upside down, so the head is down underneath/between 

the legs. You can then get the top of the camera all the way down to ground level. 

For TLR's, you can get the taking lens even lower by swinging the head around so 

the camera is sideways. 

-- Paul Rubin, June 1, 1999 

A thought for those who are looking for recommendations for a reasonably priced 

tripod legset. The Manfrotto/Bogen 055Nat/3221G is a good deal, particularly if 


Tripods 

you are into nature photography. For less than the price of the individual pieces, 

you get a legset with hand warmer grips, spikes with retractable rubber feet to 

cover them and a shoulder strap which is very useful when carrying it into the field. 

The size and weight is a practical compromise between ultimate stability and still 

being able to get it there without a pack mule. 

-- James Horne, June 7, 1999 

Regarding ball heads and in particular the NPC product. First of all, the 

manufacturer says it's not a ball head, as if there's something inherently wrong with 

the concept of ball heads. If you study the product, it appears to begin life as a ball 

and the material (delrin?) is sliced up and then reassembled. Unlike ballheads, 

which tend to add or subtract pressure at one point ( via a locking knob or handle ), 

the NPC "ballhead" offers a more even distribution of clamping or locking force. If 

the NPC mechanism were better designed, their system would work better, but 

there is no mechanism in their handle to govern the "loosening" process. Thus, if 

you have a long lens or heavy camera and you're not careful, the whole thing can 

nosedive forward or sideways with very little warning. Looks are deceiving with 

this product. At arm's length, it's pretty, in a retro sort of way. The "engineering" of 

it reminds me of many items produced in the old Soviet Union, in a word- 

PRIMATIVE ! Just look at the other things this company makes and you'll see 

what I mean. I owned one of their Probacks for 35mm cameras. At $700, it's one of 

the most overpriced and poorly made photo items I've ever owned. The fibreoptic 

lens is mounted in place by a mechanism that looks like it was designed by Rube 

Goldberg. 'Nuf said on that topic. A final word on tripods and ball heads. It amazes 

me that people are willing to spend in the neighborhood of $1000 for a tripod and a 

head, for their little 35mm & medium format cameras and lenses. For that kind of 

money you could buy something really useful: a used gyro ! Once you work with 

one, you'll never go back to using three sticks with a bag of bolts mounted on top. 

-- Sal Trutta, June 21, 1999 

I was interested in a moderately priced tripod/ballhead set up with quick release 

and after much research went with the Stroboframe FL-2 ($69 at B&H) with its 

QRC Quick Release set-up ($56) and anti-twist plate ($11). I believe this offers a 

much cheaper alternative for the 35mm photographer who doesn't require the 

weight capacity of the Arca Swiss category of ball-heads. The FL-2 is lightweight, 

has a friction knob, and its quick release is very well made. For legs, I bought the 

Bogen 3021 ..its height vs. weight ratio worked best for me (I'm 6'1"). 


Tripods 

-- Peter Balentine, June 22, 1999 

I have tried several ballheads: Gitzo, Linhof, Giotto, Arca Swiss B1. I settled on the 

Arca Swiss because all the others loosen up from the center screw whenever I pan 

counter clockwise. Somehow, the pan head mechanism of the other ballheads are 

too tight to move freely. 

-- Carlos Esguerra, June 22, 1999 

We have been using the StudioBall QR ball head on a Bogen 3021 tripod. It is an 

Arca-Swiss style head with arca style quick release and lock. It is the greatest thing 

since slice bread. Before purchasing this, we evaluated all of the ball heads, 

including FOBA, Arca Swiss, Kirk, Bogen, stroboframe. Why did we choose this 

head? It was the most accurate, free and easy gliding, one touch locking, and had a 

nice rotating axis that glides smoothly, with out releasing alot of friction on the ball 

(this makes locking quicker). It does not jitter or stick, it does not require any lube 

(unlike the bogen where when sand or dust gets kicked up, it begins to build and 

the head sticks). When using a heavy lens (300 f/2.8 and above)it is a sweet. when 

you have the lens center weighted, and pan horizontaly, it is right on the money. 

The ownly 2 downfalls to this lens is that it is a bit heavy (about 3.5 pounds) and it 

cost about $345.00. Put compare that price to a Foba, I have no where to complain. 

All of the other heads that we tested, performed well (with the exception of the 

Bogen ball heads). However, the did not have the ergonomics that fit our style, and 

their ball sensativity was not as nice as the Studioball. Regarding the Bogen heads, 

I think that the 3047 Pan head is an excellent head, however, bogen has a long way 

from building a rugged and accurate ball head. Never the less, my recomendation to 

all is to try out various heads, you'll find that the functionality are all about 80% 

similar, you want to make sure you are comfortable with it and that your camera, 

lens and your head feel like one. One note: When shooting in extreme cold 

temperature with this head or any other steel ballhead, make sure you were gloves 

when you handle it, other wise your hands will freeze up and joints will not 

funciton well. Ouch!!! 

Jeff 

-- jeff guzman, June 26, 1999 

I'd like to second Jack Kennealy's comments about the Canon Professional 

ballhead. For the money ($55), it can't be beat. Combined with the Bogen 3401b, 

it's one heck of a ballhead/tripod combination. 

-- James Hicks, June 26, 1999 


Tripods 

I recently bought a Gitzo G80 Limited Edition tripod. It's now out of production 

but you can still find this model in some shops, including B+H (I believe) for about 

$390 including the G1275M ballhead, which is terrific value. The G80 is 

practically identical to the G1228 mountaineer specifications - same folded size, 

same maximum height without center column extension, etc. The main difference 

is in the weight and price. The G80 weighs 1 lb more, but is less than half the price 

of the G1228 i.e. it cost approx $260 if you discount the price of the G1275M 

ballhead.So if you like a G1228 but can't afford the $500+ price tag, look no further 

than the G80. But you had better hurry as it will disappear from all stores before 

too long, since this is a limited edition production to commemorate Gitzo's 80th 

anniversary.I sold off the G1275M head as soon as I bought the G80 as I am using 

this legset with a FOBA Mini Superball with quick release, and I think this is a 

GREAT combination for outdoor photography. The FOBA Mini Superball does not 

come with a panning base, but I don't need it with the G80 as the tripod center 

column wing lock sits just below the platform, so the tripod platform serves as a 

panning base! 

-- Bobby Tan, July 5, 1999 

The more I use a tripod and hang around this forum, the more I understand Phil's 

introductory remarks about real photographers. I settled on the ubiquitous Bogen 

3021 legs and have found that raising the center column even halfway defeats the 

purpose if there's any wind at all, just like he said. 

I wonder if preferences for and against ball or pan/tilt heads don't depend more on 

the way our individual minds work than anything else. I personally like being able 

to adjust only one aspect of a composition while having the others nailed down. 

When I typically compose a landscape (on relatively level ground), for example, I 

start by panning to get the horizontal framing I want. Then I adjust vertically to get 

the right amount of foreground vs. sky. Finally, with those two locked, I adjust the 

horizon line if necessary. 

I work best using that very disciplined, structured approach. To me, adjusting 

everything at once with a ball head seems rather helter-skelter by comparison 

(although I will freely admit to never having spent $400 for a good ball head). And 

I can also see how my approach might seem awfully rigid and confining to 

someone who wants to get everything adjusted and get on their way. 

Anyway, for those reasons I went with the Bogen 3030 head, the one with a small 

rectangular release plate and shorter handles than the 3047 (to get caught on fewer 

things). It's rated the same load capacity as the 3021 and holds my 'Blad with a 250 

or my Nikon with 400 mm lens rock steady. At around $40 from B&H, I think it's 


Tripods 

an incredible buy; it operates smoothly and locks down tightly. Plus it's currently 

available as part of the Wilderness kit with 3021, spiked feet, leg protectors, and 

carrying strap at a bargain price. My only regret is buying before Bogen started 

offering that kit! 

To each his own, at any rate. Thanks to everyone for your comments. 

-- Brian Hinther, July 6, 1999 

I rented a Bogen 3021 leg set with a Bogen 3047 pan/tilt head this weekend to 

make an attempt at photographing fireworks. I was surprised by how heavy the 

tripod was, and I was glad that I was only carrying it 6 blocks to the park. It was 

long overall, from foot to the top of the pan head. I previously had tried a 3011 leg 

set with a 3030 pan/tilt head, and I think that I will end up with a 3001 leg set with 

a long center column, and the 3030 head to try to get a lighter tripod set (if there 

was a plain 3D head with a quick-release I would be interested in that too). I cannot 

consider the carbon-fiber tripods, or expensive ball-heads. 

If you are thinking of doing some hiking or walking with your tripod, you need to 

take this into account, especially since you will also have your camera bag, your 

lunch, etc., with you, too. If you are going to drive everywhere and setup next to 

your car or the bus stop, never mind my comments. 

-- John Fracisco, July 6, 1999 

Gitzo, Manfrotto, Slik...all very nice but some of us live at the lower end of the 

market. Only the most basic Manfrotto was available to me at that price range (the 

190B with either a 141RC pan & tilt or a basic ballhead - I forget its model 

number). The 190B did not impress too much. Nice that there are 3 leg spread 

angles and a reversible centre column but the overall build felt "cheap", the 

wingnut leg locks didn't look durable. Of course Gitzo don't offer anything at all for 

my meagre budget, and Slik pretty much followed the manfrotto pattern. I checked 

out a Benbo Trekker and it seemed a bit too slimline, then I came across Uni-Loc. I 

don't know if Uni-Loc are Benbo copyists but their pods follow the same idea, 

except that for the price of a flimsy Benbo Trekker, UniLoc do something more 

akin to the Benbo MkI (which is double my budget). Not much comment on these 

pages about the Benbo concept, other than Phil's "lacks rigidity at low camera 

angles". I think the Benbo/UniLoc idea is wonderful. My tripod is going to travel, I 

will often be in odd locations that will require that level of flexibility, and to me, 

the weight seems ideal - light enough to carry, heavy enough to feel stable. Legs 

have only two sections, locks are easy to operate and well sealed (designed so 

lower legs can be submerged) and the price is right...(90 pounds sterling, plus 40 

for a manfrotto ball head or 50 for the 141RC - i think I'll go for the ballhead) 


Tripods 

However, I've not bought one yet, as I was hoping that MAYBE someone here can 

point out a downside to these things. The "lack of rigitiy at low camera angles"... 

well, I didn't quite understand the meaning of that - anyone care to elaborate? 

Currently my equipment is fairly lightweight - Heaviest combo would be a Minolta 

X700 with autowinder and Sigma 70-210 f4.5 (yep, i am living at the lower end of 

the market) and it seemed to be solid enough (better than the Manfrotto 190B) 

when I had a play in the shop. SO - anyone wanna point me in the direction of a 

comparably priced superior? 

Thanks Kenny 

PS don't take my "you're all richer than me" comments as being sourgrapes - i think 

this site is great and it's interesting to follow all your comments - i just really can't 

afford a Gitzo mountaineer! 

PPS my college photographic society has a rock solid big Manfrotto in the studio, 

so I do have access to a heavy whopper when needed. 

-- kenny watson, August 5, 1999 

Old Broomstick handles. That's all I have to say. I am the hand me down owner of 

several relatively well functioning older tripods, each with a unique problem or 

two. My favorite appliance is a "monopod" made of an old broomstick that was cut 

and drilled to hold screw type mount. Extremely low tech, but affordable. 

-- Pook LaRoux, August 9, 1999 

I just purchased Bogen's3401 tripod with the 3030 head, my first "real" tripod. Up 

to this point I had been using a phony lightweight video tripod that I purchased at a 

local department store. It was great for surveillance of my driveway while I was 

asleep at night, and a whole lot better than trying to hand hold closeup shots. But, I 

was missing so many shots because I just couldn't get the right position that I felt it 

was time to get a real tripod. 

I read in this forum that the ball head is preferable to the pan tilt and then read that 

John Shaw likes a pan tilt for his closeup macro stuff. With what I am doing I think 

I like the pan tilt better. The 3041's biggest drawbacks IMO are 1)It is a litle heavy 

at almost 6 lbs, but then I have been using a Solidex tin foil tripod up till now. and 

2) With the legs at their steepest angle and the centerpost in the horizantal position 

and extended 2/3 to full, it can get tippy enough to actually cause the camera to tip 

over lens first. This is easily solved by rotating a leg directly underneath the post. 


Tripods 

Bear in mind as of this writing I have only had one opportunity to use it, but for 

what I am doing it seems like it was built specifically with me in mind. There is a 

nearby botanical garden that I like to go to to shoot and I am often confronted with 

the options of either skipping a picture or tearing up the landscape to get my shot. 

Of course when confronted with these options I choose to skip it. With this tripod, I 

am able to get many of those shots I would have otherwise missed. And the fact 

that the center post comes out and can be placed in a horizantal position greatly 

improves the versatility. It comes with two center posts, one of which is a short, 

probably 6" post and a standard longer one. One nice advantage of the horizantal 

position of the center post is that it can be used similarly to a macro rail of sorts. 

While I am sure a macro rail would be far easier to use than this, the camera lens 

can be set within a certain range, say minimum focus distance and the post slid into 

position for near perfect focus. I would still do any of the fine focus with the lens 

though. 

The only problem I see with the 3030 head is that it seems to be not REAL smooth 

when trying to fine tune and compose the picture. It kind of sticks and then breaks 

loose, so that you may go back and forth a couple of times before you get what you 

want. But like John Shaw said in one of his books, "you can move a few degrees in 

one direction without affecting the rest". I imagine that in time it will get broken in 

and that jumpiness won't be a problem. 

In spite of some minor little annoyances, I love this tripod! This is making life 

much easier for me. 

-- Doug Tankersley, August 15, 1999 

After looking at tripods both on paper and in various shops for about a year, I 

finally settled on one that met both my need and price range. It is the Slik Pro 

700DX. 

I had four criteria that any tripod had to meet. 

1. The total price of the tripod, head, and quick-release had to be under $200. 2. 

The tripod had to be about 68" tall WITHOUT extending the center column. 3. The 

tripod had to be stable with a 35mm camera/heavy 300mm lens attached. 4. The 

quick release had to be easy to operate and additional plates reasonable priced. 

The Slik met all of these conditions. I was even able to get two additional QR 

plates and stay in my budget. The tripod does come with a pan/tilt head but since I 

prefer this to a ballhead I don't consider this a liability. 


Tripods 

Anyone on a budget might take a serious look at this tripod. I think you will be 

pleasantly surprised. 

-- Jeff Wiseman, September 21, 1999 

I also would like to recommend the Canon professional ball head. It is smoother 

than any of the bogens I've tried and it only cost 56 bucks from Adorama. I don't 

make any money taking pictures so I can't justify spending $400 on a ball head. 

Especially when there are Canon L lenses and a poloroid sprintscan 4000 film 

scanner to be had. Oh yeah, that new HP 1100 photo printer looks pretty good 

(gotta get one). Yes, I'm a gear head, but even gear heads have to have their 

priorities. I'm sure the $400 heads are worth every penny you spend on them. I just 

can't justify it with the wife. 

Until I'm rich and my wife let's me spend crazy money on anything I want, I have 

to make do and just enjoy taking pictures. 

-- Tom Vu, October 20, 1999 

Kenny asked about the UniLoc tripods. I have one and think it's great; it's a Major 

System, extends to around 2m, can get into all sorts of weird angles, but can be a 

bugger to set up and adjust - for this reason, I've also bought a Manfrotto 055NAT 

(like the standard 055 but in a kind of khaki with 'warm' grips and a matching strap. 

I'm planning to keep the UniLoc as there will be occasions where the inflexibility 

of a regular tripod will discount the 055NAT. The UniLoc is a stable and versatile 

beast, but you should also consider that it doesn't pack down as neatly as a 

conventional tripod and so I'll do most of my travelling with the 055NAT. I think 

that, if you do go for the UniLoc as your main tripod, you should also consider 

getting a regular one for those occasions where you might wish to set up quickly 

and/or pack down quickly and neatly. 

I haven't received my 055NAT yet (probably Monday) but I have tried a friends' 

regular 055 and I like it. Will post again once I've got both to do side-by-side 

comparisons. John 

-- John Clark, October 22, 1999 

Oh, and Kenny, the UniLoc tripods are a real pain with regular pan & tilt heads - 

make sure you get a decent ballhead - UniLoc do a few if you want to keep the 

costs down - from #30 to #60 or so, IIRC. 

-- John Clark, October 22, 1999 


Tripods 

I'd just like to throw in my two cents and say that no matter what you might hear or 

read, it isn't necessary to spend a small fortune to get a decent, serviceable tripod. 

When I was finally allowed to make the investment (you married guys know what I 

mean) I went out and bought the Bogen/Manfrotto 3001 leg set and the 3030 pantilt 

head. Since I'm not very tall, it fits me quite well, although I do have to extend 

the center column more often than I'd like. The 3030 head isn't the ultimate in 

smoothness, but it isn't bad at all, and given it's low price, some minor flaws can be 

forgiven. In short, it's a good, solid support that didn't cost a ton of money. 

John Baker 

-- John Baker, October 29, 1999 

After reading the advice on this page (like a lot of the rest of you) I finally got a 

decent, low-ish cost tripod setup: Bogen 3021S and 3030 pan head. I've got a 

couple of comments to add to the others here. First off, the 3021S was a bit of a 

mistake on my part. When I placed the order with B&H I was looking for a 

compact-ish tripod and so I requested the 3021S. While this is a fine tripod, 

especially for it's rather small size, don't get it confused with the actual 3021, which 

is almost twice as tall. I find that I don't always get the shots I want because the 

thing is too damn short. Overall though, it's been easy to lug around on the T here 

in Boston for taking some decent night shots as well as landscapes in low light. I 

find that for portraits it's not very good though (due to the height, again). My next 

purchase from B&H will be for the 3021. 

As for the 3030, I have to concur with the comments made above that it isn't very 

smooth. It does tend to bind - even after owning and using it for a couple of months 

now the grease hasn't smoothed things out. However, it is a very good low-cost 

head (~US$50) and I do actually like it. Right now I'm not into trying to get 

fleeting shots with a tripod that a ball head might afford (i.e., sports photography 

and nature shots). However, I may start looking into good ball heads for the 

flexibility. But I refuse to pay the US$380 for an Arca-Swiss B1 - that's just 

highway robbery as far as I'm concerned. The Super Ball Head (3038) might be 

more my speed. I guess we'll have to see. 

Overall, I'm very happy with my setup right now and I'm glad I made the choices 

that I did (despite one of them being a bit erroneous). 

-- Nicholas Barry, October 31, 1999 

After reading all of the comments on this page, I made that leap and bought a used 

Arca Swiss B1, Bogen 3221 legs and a handful of RRS and other goodies. Even 


Tripods 

used, everything that has been said about Arca Swiss quality is an understatement! 

The extra $$$ will be soon forgotten, but the smooth and precise operation will be a 

pleasure for years to come. The combo is rock solid and will be fine for any of my 

35 mm needs. 

-- Tony Zipple, November 11, 1999 

with a good Quick release ball head and a long and large telephoto lens, , consider 

the Wemberly side kick. You just leave the pan control slightly loose, insert the 

SIDEKICK into the QR head, adjust so it is vertical and you have a lightweight 

version of the large Wemberly and at a $200 more or less discount. The sidekick is 

small and unobtrusive when just using the ball head. It is worth evaluating. I found 

out just how good it is on a recent trip to Kenya. It surprised me pleasantly. 

-- Dr. Steven Bein, November 13, 1999 

Hum. Yes. Well..... Just back from another trip to the W Himalaya. 

Over the past two years I've tried two different duopods with the same small ball 

head to support a Canon a2 with the 70-200 2.8. 

Well, it worked, sort of. But not to my satisfaction. 

When I'm shooting at my favourite Tibetan monastery the principal situation where 

I use the zoom is to shoot the sacred dances, using K25 or E200 as the spirit moves 

me. With the duopod it worked but felt clumsy. Not the easiest thing to use since 

I'm also making sound recordings of the proceedings. Had to find a chair to lay the 

assembled camera and duopod onto while I attended to the recorder etc. 

For the past quarter century I've kept a heavy old Bogen tripod (3020 with pan/tilt 

head 3028)in India, stored with friends until needed for mountain trips. Its weight 

isn't a problem, since I don't carry it myself. Stowed in a canvas bag with 

lightweight light stands (which I use for microphone supports) its bulk and 

relatively heavy weight aren't problems, since everything travels with me either in a 

taxi, or a plane as excess baggage (not too costly in India). At the monastery I've 

used it basically for static shots, either of thangkas (religious paintings) or of 

temple interiors. 

This Autumn I used it to shoot the sacred dances, and found it by far the easiest 

combination to date. Since I had been considering the purchase of a lightweight 

Gitzo, ball head and quick release system, it was a relief to realize that a much 

simpler rig worked perfectly for my kind of shooting. No need to lay out $500- 


Tripods 

$600 for a new set of legs and an equal sum for ball head & quick release. 

The rotatable collar on the Canon zoom made it possible to get accurate horizontal 

and vertical alignment quickly, and I didn't have the bother of trying to support a 

duopod. I could leave the tripod and camera combination unattended whenever I 

needed to attend to the recording gear. 

For next Spring's trip, most probably W Himalayas again, then Kathmandu & 

(maybe) Lhasa, I'll probably try the Velbon carbon fiber tripod. The ancient Bogen 

rig is way too heavy for this kind of travel. The light weight of the Velbon tripod is 

attractive, and the comments of a user given above make it sound appealing. Again, 

a lightweight pan & tilt head should meet my needs, so the Velbon magnesium 

assembly sounds right. 

-- David Lewiston, December 4, 1999 

Bogen makes those clever straps that screw into its tripods (I have a 3021) but also 

some nylon bags that are not that much more expensive. 

The bag looks to me like it doesn't add much weight, does a better job protecting 

the tripod and keeping it from snagging on things as you carry it, and maybe can 

hold some accessories (I have the 3059 side arm). So at least from looking at the 

CWO website picture, the bag looks like a better choice. 

Has anyone used both? Is there a reason to get the strap instead? Does the bag have 

a shoulder strap of its own? If you use the 3021 bag, is there enough space inside 

for an accessory like the sidearm (think of it as a spare centerpost with a bulge in 

the middle)? Thanks. 

-- Paul Rubin, December 23, 1999 

The bags Bogen makes for thier model 3021 (and 3221) comes with a shoulder 

strap and a zippered pocket on the exterior. Inside the bag along with the tripod you 

can easily fit a sidearm and other items. 

The bag protects well from scratches and such, but is not padded like my Gitzo 

padded bag so I don't expect much protection in a drop onto a hard surface. I use 

the Bogen bag to protect the tripod during travel by car trunk, etc., but use only the 

screw-in strap once I'm at a location and need the tripod ready-for-action. 

If your walking through the woods though, the bag would definitely help to keep 

the legs from snagging on bush. 


Tripods 

-- Michael Rivera, December 23, 1999 

I purchased a Velbon CX-687 which comes with the "Vel-flo 9" PH-368, pan head. 

The pan head has a built in "quick release level" making mounting and dismounting 

of the camera a breeze. It was very inexpensive, works with still and video 

cameras, stable even in the wind, easy to use and adjust, comes with a leveling 

bubble built into the framework, and has served me well for nearly three years now. 

With the soft carrying case it weighs 4 lbs. 

It comes with a three-way pan head which holds position regardless of angle. The 

Pan head is viscous damped and does not seem to be effected by heat or cold. There 

are angle markings on the pan head so one can get a "general idea" of what they are 

doing. It must be a fairly rugged unit, as I've throw it into the back seat of my old 

Chevy numerous times with no sign of damage. It has two, quick lock/unlock 

levers on all three legs, making adjustments a snap. The feet have spikes built-in 

which can be extended or retracted by simply turning the feet. 

Negative comment? Don't grab this unit on a freezing Christmas morning with your 

bare hands. It won't let go of you. (Aluminum legs) 

Other than that, it's inexpensive, a good work horse, and durable so it's a good unit 

for photographers like me (financially poor). It works well, and has lasted thus far. 

I can't complain about it. 

-- Marika Buchberger, January 2, 2000 

After reading comments on this page, I decided to purchase my first 'real' tripod. I 

went with a Bogen 3221, w/ 3030 head (Sorry, i'm not into ball heads). 

1) Ubiquitous? Who cares? Build your own if you want to be 'unique'. 

2) Heavy? Not really. I got tack sharp, long exposure shots first time out, standing 

in the middle of a hilly, muddy wheat field with HEAVY wind gusts; I was happy 

to have the weight. Furthermore, I actually love carrying this thing around, but I'm 

not carrying it for more than a few miles at a time (check back in a few years to see 

if i still like the weight). 

3) Well made? A quick (true) story: I fold the tripod up, and lean it against a wall in 

my basement. Oops, poor judgement. The tripod starts to slide and I'm too late. 

BANG. The Bogen hits the hard cement floor, with quite an impact. Wow, a 

gigantic chip comes out of it, and it's ALL scratched up. Oh, I'm talking about the 


Tripods 

cement FLOOR -- the tripod was unscathed: no bangs, chips, nothing. No loss, 

although now I have to patch and repaint the floor. 

4) Costly (for those on a limited budget)? Shop around! I got a great after- 

Christmas deal at cameraworld.com (Cameraworld of Oregon) -- 15% off, no 

shipping charges and no tax. Deals can be had if you're patient. 

In sum: I do not hesitate to recommend this tripod, and thank previous posters for 

their helpful advice. --tom 

-- Thomas Munch, January 7, 2000 

For those agonizing over spending money on a tripod and head, this is for you. 

There is little glamor associated with camera support, but it is a major factor in the 

quality of your final image. I've been through a lot of lousy tripods because I was 

too concerned with getting that sexy new lens which will gaurantee great results... 

well, the best lens in the world will produce soft images unless it is FIRMLY 

attatched to a SOLID tripod. The hard fact is your tripod is an essential component 

of your gear and I highly advise you cough up the money for a good one! Don't get 

sucked into thinking a $75 wobbly pan and tilt head will suffice, if you are a 

serious photographer then grit your teeth and buy the Arca Swiss B1, put it on a 

substantial tripod, lock down the camera, lock up the mirror, and shoot only under 

these conditions! Sure the Arca is expensive, but it is a lifetime investment, a joy to 

work with, and far superior to any pan head. I know this because I have tried to 

scrimp and ended up paying the price in terms of image quality and performance. 

PS get a plate from Really Right Stuff-essential. I welcome comments. Check out 

my site Perspectivesphoto.com 

-- alan hoelzle, January 16, 2000 

I've been using the Kirk Ballhead on a Manfrotto 3221 for a couple of years now. I 

also have a big Foba Ballo on a Gitzo 320. I ordered the Kirk with a separate quick 

release clamp. (I prefer the flexibility.) It has worked flawlessly in all sorts of 

conditions. It is strong enough for my Canon system including a 100-400 with a 2x 

extender. I've also used it with a Pentax 645 up to the 300mm + 1.4x. This lens has 

no collar and exerts considerable force on the tripod & head. I don't own the really 

big prime telephoto lenses. It's not as strong as the Foba, but it weighs about half as 

much. It is more than adequate for these combinations and perhaps even a bit 

heavier. It's a pleasure to use, smooth even tension, locks down and releases easily. 

As with the other Kirk products I have used, it seems nearly perfect. I enjoy dealing 

with Kirk & company. They are pleasant and responsive and seem to genuinely 


Tripods 

want to meet my needs. 

-- Andy Watts, February 11, 2000 

Hello there !! I've been using Gitzo 345,226 and Velbon 640 with Arca Swiss B1 

and medium (screw in type)Kaiser ball heads..Although the Arca is an excellent 

ball head(and you expext that),I personaly preffer The Kaiser medium ball head 

which is excellent for the 35mm equipment as well as for the 21/4 medium format 

with shorter lenses.....Precision, smooth operation and reliability are the main 

characteristics that anybody can expect from the Kaiser ball heads... Sincerely,Jan 

-- Jan Senko, February 13, 2000 

JTL Studio Systems has a line of tripods that are built to exact specifications as 

Bogen. I recently bought one and am quite happy. They cost about 25% less than 

Bogen and come with a head(ball or pan/tilt),strap,tool to tighten the leg locks, and 

carrying bag. The alumunum seems to be a little stronger and the leg locks are 

much better than those of the Bogens.JTL can be reached at jtlcorp.com. 

-- Dan Westland, March 6, 2000 

I hike quite a bit, and am a tall man. For what it's worth, the Manfrotto 190QC 

(mini-pro) tripod is quite adequate for my needs. I have it with the 352RC (midi) 

ballhead, which is inferior to the Slik 800 ballhead (which I tried out, but didn't 

buy, recently) but quite adequate. 

This combination is also quite reasonably priced: 150$CDN (or about 100$US), 

plus $20 extra for the Manfrotto shoulder strap. I would consider this combination 

a strong one for hikers and other photographers for whom weight (and price) is a 

consideration, or those choosing a first tripod. Or both, for that matter. 

-- Marco Anglesio, March 13, 2000 

I personally opted for a Velbon 630 with the medium Giotto head from Kirk 

Enterprises for my light weight setup. It is a true delight to use. This combination is 

extremely light (just over 4 pounds), but will easily support my Pentax 645 solidly. 

The legs are strong enough to support my Wisner 4x5, but the head is a bit light. 

I have a Arca B-1 on order to hold the 4x5 camera and my 8x10 on my Zone VI (a 

beast of a tripod). I am seriously considering a Gitzo to replace the Zone VI, which 

is kind of on the heavy side. 

-- Peter Wright, March 21, 2000 


Tripods 

A followup to my earlier post about the Velbon carbon fibre / mag tripod etc: I 

picked up a 630 from B&H with the magnesium pan/tilt head, and QRA 635 

lightweight magnesium quick release assemblies --two tripod interfaces and three 

camera / lens interfaces. When one of these is attached to the rotating collar of the 

Canon 70-200 zoom, it isn't perfectly mated since the collar's tripod mount is only 

1 1/2" approx in diameter. But it gives enough stability for my kind of shooting. I'm 

really impressed with the part of the quick release assembly which attaches to 

either lens or camera body: It has a hard rubber plate with a raised edge which 

keeps the camera body from rotating. This hard rubber plate can also be reversed so 

that the raised edge is out of the way. I paid under $40 for a complete assembly, 

and another $24 or so for an extra camera plate. Light weight & compactness 

*really* matter to me, so this rig looks about right for the next Himalayan trip, 

beginning in a couple of weeks. 

-- David Lewiston, March 23, 2000 

I've found what I think is the BEST tripod, and I've been looking for several years. 

I say, forget Gitzo, they are overpriced and slow to use. (Try simply raising the 

center column...). Forget Manfrotto (Bogen), the "quick release" is slow and 

awkward on any of their tripod. 

I bought a SLIK 500 DX. (If you want a taller tripod, try the Slik 700 DX.) I got 

mine on sale for $109 at Wolf Camera. I think the only other place you can get it is 

B&H for $129. It has everything I could want in a tripod: 1) it is tall enough so you 

don't have to crouch down to look through it without raising the center column 

(tried not to extend the center column on any tripod if possible: it essentially turns 

your tripod into a monopod), 2) it is professional quality and the tripod can be 

serviced with hex wrenches, 3) the legs adjust individually so it can be used on 

uneven surfaces, or low to the ground for macro work, (order an extra center 

column and cut it down. It's cheaper than buying the short center column) 4) the 

legs are foam covered, so if you want foam covered legs, you don't have to buy 

additional leg pads, and these fit better because they are built in, not added on. 

Foam is more comfortable for shooting in cold weather, or just carrying and setting 

up. 5) it has quick release legs which work really well and FAST! 

It comes with a decent pan-tilt head with a quick release, but I replaced it with a 

Bogen 3413QR ballhead which is better than the 3262QR. These heads are a 

compromise. There doesn't seem to be much inbetween ballheads that are good at 

holding 4 lbs and 20 lbs. The Arca-Swiss types are nice, but too heavy for most 

35mm work. 

-- Reid Thaler, March 25, 2000 


Tripods 

On average, how high are people's cameras off the ground when using a tripod? In 

most cases probably at eye level, sometimes minus a foot or two, rarely higher. The 

camera is perched atop of the apex formed by the tripod legs. As I started doing 

more close-up work in the field, I found that I had need to go lower, often to within 

inches of the ground. 

The basic paradigm of the tripod makes it difficult to go low. I've tried using 

tripods with inverting center columns (e.g., the 3021), but found it was a hassle 

turning things over, especially with a camera attached. I tried using a Super Clamp 

with a ballhead attached to a tripod leg (an idea I got out of a George Lepp book). 

The problem with that arrangement is that there is always a little play in the Super 

Clamp because of the rubber pads lining the jaws. Also, making fine adjustments in 

position is a hassle since up/down travel follows the angle of the tripod leg, and 

lateral motion means swinging the Super Clamp assembly in a circle or moving the 

entire tripod/Clamp assembly sideways. 

The solution I have been using to get those low down macro shots is a Benbo 2 

with a ballhead. It allows me to quickly get down to snake-belly levels. Using the 

Benbo is a bit different than a standard tripod. When you loosen the legs, 

everything goes floppy. This is a bit disconcerting initially if you think in the tripod 

paradigm. (The first time you loosen a Benbo you'll quickly learn you need to hang 

onto the tripod head, particularly if you've got a camera attached.) This floppiness 

is actually an advantage when you need to position a camera quickly. Loosen the 

ballhead (friction on for some control). Loosen the legs, then ignore them (best you 

can) as you position the camera for the best composition. Tighten the bent bolt and 

ballhead; your camera is exactly where you need it. (In contrast, with a standard 

tripod I have sometimes found myself picking compositions based on how 

convenient the tripod setup is. Laziness.) 

There are some downsides to the Benbo. With the ballhead it weighs about 9 

pounds. It's a bit too long to strap to a backpack. On hard surfaces there are two 

problems: 1) the rubber feet are a bit too bouncy; 2) the Benbo is actually fairly 

stiff, so vibrations need to have time to damp out. The solution to both is to simply 

hang your camera bag on the bent bolt handle. The "center column" is about three 

feet long. Extending the column at normal heights creates two problems: 1) it's very 

easy to move the center of gravity to a precarious spot; 2) hanging three pounds of 

camera on the end of a three foot stick makes for an unstable setup. I do find the 

long column useful in low down situations where I can use my camera bag like a 

bean bag to support the column. 

Quirky as this beast is, I have found the Benbo to be liberating. 


Tripods 

-- Donald Tsusaki, March 30, 2000 

The basic paradigm of the tripod makes it difficult to go low... 

There is one manufacturer that solved this problem. Linhof tripods have a thread at 

the bottom of one of the legs on which the platform can be mounted. This does 

exactly what the clamp would do, without any looseness. It makes it very easy to 

shoot from a low angle, very easy to vary how low (by raising the leg), and it 

doesn't require carrying anything extra. 

In addition to that, one gets an incredibly sturdy tripod (I replaced Gitzos with 

Linhof tripods in part for that reason), flip locks instead of twist locks (the other 

reason), and the easiest leg cleaning on any metal tripod. The only downside is the 

wildly high price and the on-off availability. 

-- Jeff (www.spirer.com), May 6, 2000 

With due respect to the "vitriolic ex-users" of NPC, I recently had the occasion to 

purchase the NPC Prohead ($50.00) to which I have added a Bogen Quick Release 

system. (Can't get enough of that rock solid locked in feelin.) I find the head to be 

solid and smooth. I have experienced absolutely no slippage when loaded with my 

F100/300mm. I have also used it with a focusing rail, extension tubes + a 200mm 

with fantastic results. The panning is smooth and easy and though the function is 

not identical to a tradtional ball it is definitely not pan/tilt. When you lock it 

down......its rock solid! The handles are big and easy to use. This is a quality unit 

and a great alternative to the outrageous prices charged by some of its competitors. 

Its cool looking too! 

-- Dan Michael, May 11, 2000 

I decided to spend about $150 or so on a decent tripod and head combination. After 

looking at a few Bogens and other manufacturers, I settled on the SLIK 700DX 

Pro. I have not been disappointed with it since. The tripod comes with its own panhead 

which is very robustly built. It has a neat circular quick-release plate. Can get 

extras from most camera stores by placing a special order. You can also special 

order a shorter version of the removable center column for getting really low to the 

ground. Ofcourse, you can remove the center column and invert it. I have never 

really done this but once for doing some copy work as the inverting the center 

column feature that most decent tripods offer is too much hassle. The legs are very 

sturdy with a twist proof D grooved leg. It is quite a heavy duty tripod and you 

have to be prepared to lug it around 7~8lb but is well worth it. I have since replaced 

the head with a bogen 309 Pro ball head which suits me better. And it is tall enough 


Tripods 

for me (6'3"). You can remove all the components for maintenance, very easily 

with a suitable allen key. Strongly recommend one of these professional SLIK 

versions rather than their cheaper, flimsier models. It would be worth checking out 

one of these before buying a Bogen or a Gitzo. 

-- Arjun Selvakumar, May 15, 2000 

Does anyone know what the current problem is with Arca Swiss? I order one of 

their B1 QR head from Broadway Camera in Toronto on March 20,2000, and was 

told the head was back order. It is now May 18,2000, and I still have not recieve 

the head. My saleman at Broadway can not get any answer from Amplis Foto the 

Canadain Distrubtor when the head going to be in or how much longer. The sales 

said if I can get the head some where else to get it and he will cancel my order. 

Since that time I have call B&H twice with no luck, they don't even have the head 

in stock. The second time I call the saleman explain that Arca Swiss was moving 

their factory and he would have no idea when the head will come in. If anyone 

know what the hell is going on with Acrca Swiss please let me know. I would love 

to have the B1 QR now that spring is here, Manfrotto head just sucks. If they know 

a honest mail order Store in Canada or USA that has one in stock please let me 

know? 

-- Patrick Wong, May 17, 2000 

I confess: I tried to save money and did not take Philip Greenspun's advice some 

time ago when I purchased a tripod/ballhead combo -- THE FIRST TIME. Big 

mistake. I purchased a cheaper ballhead and lugged around a heavier tripod. In the 

final analysis I saved nothing and am now the proud (though poor) owner of an 

Arca B1 and Gitzo carbon fiber tripod. I would add one detail: protect that 

expensive ballhead with a "ball cap" from http://www.vestedinterest.com/. 

Inexpensive insurance for a piece of precision machinery. 

As for the pricey Really Right Stuff accessories, I submit that you can learn enough 

about taking sharp photos from Bryan and Kathy Geyer's informative catalog and 

supplemental inserts to justify their high price. And if you have a question about 

tripod use that is not covered just ask Bruce and he will write a thorough answer. 

They, like Philip Greenspun, are some of the stellar citizens of the photographic 

community. 

-- Scott Mann, May 30, 2000 

I have the Uniloc system 1700 with the Uniloc ballhead and quick release. The 

problem with the system is that is does not stand up to much abuse. This is due to 

the knobs that lock the legs. Somehow the connection of the plastic knobs to the 


Tripods 

metal screws are weak and if you twist the knobs a bit hard, it will slip. Same thing 

goes for the ball head locking levers also. (They should have used an all metal knob 

or designed a better plastic to screw connection.) Because of this I'm hesitant to 

tighten reallly hard since I dont want to damage the knobs. Unfortunately this has 

cost me dearly. One fine day as I was mounting my Nikon with 70-200 2.8 AF 

zoom, the center column twisted since it was not fully tightened, and whack, my 

lens came crashing down to the floor. Booo hooo hooo sniff sob... (how come those 

guys who trash their 300mm,600mm on their big balls dont cry?) 

I am not a pro and I dont take the tripod to far off places, so for those of you who 

do, maybe you want to consider other brands. But still, I will say that the Uniloc 

System 1700 is an interesting piece of equipment since it can be set up like no 

ordinary tripod. 

About the Arca-Swiss B1 ball head, I will plonk down the money by taking a 

second morgage on the house and buy it through mail order from B&H. I will have 

my head examined after that. (Why of why dont RRS have email and more pics on 

their web page.) 

-- Mat Nikon, June 3, 2000 

Recently I just replaced my 3265 ballhead with the Bogen 3435QR. After couple 

months of usage, I must say this is the ballhead that I should have bought long ago. 

Don't get me wrong, I loved the 3265 for its quickness and easy to operate. But as 

my equipment got heavier, the limitation of 3265 started to show. The 3265 can 

only handle up to 5lbs. When I position my camera in the vertical position, the 

3265 would twist and turn. On the other hand, the 3435QR is a whole different 

ballhead. The Teflon coating makes it so smooth and easy to operate and rotate. 

The head is rock solid whether my camera (EOS A2 w/ 28-70L or 8-200L lens) is 

in vertical or horizontal position. It weighs about the same as the 3265 but can 

handle up to a massive 22lbs. The head can be operated with just a twist of the 

knob. It also has a tensioner adjustment ring so you can adjust the friction of the 

ballhead IAW your equipment. I used this ballhead in combination with the 3205 

tripod on a recent hiking trip at Yellowstone. It was a joy because the combo is so 

lite and compact. For $195 at B&H, 1/2 the cost of other "professional" ballheads, I 

think this is the head to beat. Highly recommended for anyone looking for a 

professional, rock solid ballhead but without the $$$!!!! 

-- toan Nguyen, July 13, 2000 

I have the Manfrotto 055. I Bought it so I that I would have a tripod that would be 

at eye level without the centre column extended. it wobbles!! It shakes ; Most 

dissapointing. With a 500 mm mirror lens I have difficulty obtaining good results 


Tripods 

because of shake in the legs even with mirror lock up. It would seem that if I hang a 

weight to the bottom of the centre column it will help reduce vibration but who 

wants to carry around a 055 plus 20lb of balast? I also have the Benbo ball head, 

the larger one ,not sure of the number. I like it a lot except for the QR plate. I plan 

to modify it to a regular screw mount ,if possible, I feel QR plates are more gimick 

than functional. Hope this helps... Melvin 

-- melvin bramley, July 17, 2000 

Well, I am another happy user of Canon professional ballhead #1. I followed 

advises posted here and recently purchased it. It's well engineered and very sturdily 

built piece of equipment. Someone here said it was best $60 spent in his life and I 

join this opinion. Playing a lot with different ballheads I found Canon's baby 

smoother and sturdier than any ballhead for this much of money (no, don't tell me 

about Arca-Swiss, I can afford it but I don't need it). The minor thing - there is no 

built-in quick release, but Bogen QR adapters fit this head very well. So if you 

need it, it's only $25-30. Summarizing, I strongly recommend Canon's pro ballhead 

to everyone. Place to buy? Adorama and B&H. 

-- Yuriy Vilin, July 18, 2000 

Well After almost exactly four month of waiting my B1 head has finally arrive. 

That the good news, the bads news is I still can not use the dam thing because I 

have no plates for it. I should have been smarter and order all the proper plates for 

all my cameras and lens ahead of time either from Kirk or Really Right Stuff. That 

my own fault, but I had reasons to put of the purchase of the plates. The first reason 

of course is that the B-1 head was no where in sight, why tie up my money on the 

plates when I could spend it on other things. Another reason is having to order the 

plates from the United States which seem like such a big pain in the ass, especially 

since they don't take credit cards(Really Right Stuff which are the plates I want) so 

I keep putting it off. I put it off for so long that I have lost their Catalog. My final 

reason was that my saleman was told by the Acrca Swiss distributor that a plate 

was include with the head. I had to pick the B-1 Head in Toronto and though I 

could pick a plate at one of many camera stores. No such luck, none of the stores 

had a plate of any kind for a Arca Swiss quick release in stock. All the store claim 

it was a special item they had to order in. To make a long story short, at the end of 

the day I just decide to order a Acrca Swiss Plate right from B&H which had it in 

stock and pay extra($36 US) to have it shipped Fed Ex Priorty to Canada. By the 

time the Camera store in Toronoto get the plate from the distributor, which could 

take any where from days to months, then have the camera store ship to me, it 

could basically take forever. I am too busy to make multi trips to Toronto to pick 

up stuff and gas is not cheap. I will eventually get all the proper plates from Really 

Right Stuff, but why would Arca Swiss sell a Head with no plate at all? I know the 


Tripods 

arguement that different people use different cameras and lens on the Head, but it 

should come with a general purpose plate. My bigger question is how come all 

these Camera stores in Toronto and some of then are big maybe not New York big 

like B&H, have no plates in stock. I know there has not been an Acra Swiss Head 

in Canada for months, but I know one store has Forba Head that use the Arca Swiss 

quick release you system, you figure they would have some kind of plate to go with 

it. Maybe the saleperson at that store is to stupid to know that it is a similar system. 

-- Patrick Wong, July 18, 2000 

I have the following correction to the quote from Really Right Stuff that Philip 

included in his review. The Bogen hex plate system is not limited to flat plates. 

Bogen makes the 90-degree plates that have a lip to prevent camera rotation. For 

many applications, these work quite well, although they are a little bulky and 

heavier than the arca-swiss style plates. I think for supporting big loads, like a 

600/4, the RRS plates will work better, but for normal loads, the hex plates are 

serviceable. 

I prefer the Kirk Enterprises plates as their plates and clamps are lighter weight, but 

the small clamps from Kirk may not hold a plate for a 600/4. 

-- Joseph Albert, August 28, 2000 

Maybe I have just used a lot of shoddy equipment in the past, but I bit the bullet 

and bought a Gitzo 1329 and 1228 recently, both are the carbon-fiber models. 

Oh my gosh, I've never liked using a tripod so much. The 1229 holds up a Nikon 

F100 with 80-200 AF-S and the 1329 easily holds up a Nikon F5 with TC-20e 

teleconvert, 80-200 AF-S. I have the 1276M and 1376M (?) magnesium ball heads. 

I don't doubt that there might be better ball-heads out there, but surely not much 

better. The quick-release system seems very solid and secure. 

I've found that once you pick up a good, light tripod (whatever make you decide 

upon) that you can easily bring with you everywhere you almost welcome the 

opportunity to use it. 

The Gitzos were freakin' expensive for sure but after a few weekends of usage I 

would buy them again in a second. 

For all the hype and gripes about the leg locks, I find that I really like them. It 

doesn't really add too much more time to setting up, they seem quite secure and 

don't require much torque to hold them tight. I've heard of damage that occurs from 


Tripods 

people really over-tightening them but they don't seem to require much at all to 

hold secure. 

--Doug 

-- Doug Mason, August 31, 2000 

I've used the Bogen 3021 with Bogen's 3 way pan tilt and QR system, for many 

years. Its worked just fine for my Olympus OM system, but the OM cameras and 

lenses are smaller and lighter than most. The only problem I've had has been with 

the QR plates themselves. There is a cork surface which makes contact with the 

camera bottom and after a few years it somehow becomes smooth and begins to 

slip. This becomes an issue when shooting verticals with a long lens, which will 

twist against the plate and aim towards the ground. When this occurs, tightening 

does not help. Still, the plates are relatively inexpensive and are readily available, 

so this is a minor complaint. 

I've recently upgraded (or at least changed, I'm not sure yet) to a different system, 

the Canon 1v. While I hope and trust that I'll find the glass to be better than what I 

have now, its certainly a quantum leap in weight and size. My initial reaction is that 

the 3021 is still adequate, but the pan-tilt head will never do. My longest lens is a 

5.6 400mm, but lens flop is a major issue. I think I'll have to take a look at a 

ballhead, even though I'm really partial towards the pan-tilt head system. 

As of a short while ago, the B&H online catalog still shows the B-1 as back 

ordered. 

One last thought on carbon body tripods. In checking the Gitzo catalog I see that 

the carbon models are certainly lighter than the equivalent aluminum models, often 

by 30%. But, when the head is added the percentage weight savings drops 

dramatically. I might pay twice the price to save 30% of the weight, but I'm less 

likely to do so to save 15% of the weight. 

Mark 

-- Mark Friedman, September 23, 2000 

I own the Slik 700DX tripod and I love it. Prior, I had one of Ritz’s “top-of-theline” 

Quandaray tripods (which is essentially one of Slik's larger consumer tripods 

but rebranded), and had to return it after a week - it couldn't hold straight my 

ElanIIe with booster and 28-70/2.8. 


Tripods 

The Slik 700DX is a different beast altogether. Yes, the 700DX is large, and yes, 

it's heavy, but it's definitely rock solid, and that's why you buy this tripod. If you're 

carrying around pro glass or longer teles, that's where the "strength" of this tripod 

really shines. A comparable tripod that possesses the same capabilities and features 

from Bogen/Manfrotto would probably cost twice as much if not more. Within the 

same price bracket, I looked at the Bogen 3021 with appropriate quick-release pantilt-head 

and thought it was flimsy in comparison. 

The 700DX has a professional finish with titanium colored legs and black anodized 

metal hardware. The legs are tubular with a slot on the underside to prevent 

twisting. Also, the leg locks are flip-type, which won’t snag on clothing or cables 

when in the locked position – unlike the butterfly twist levers found on other 

brands. It has two built-in bubble levels – nice touch. I’ve found the head so solid 

and stable that I’ve taken short hikes with the tripod slung on my shoulder like a 

heavy rifle, with the legs extended and an ElanIIe and 70-200/2.8 mounted on the 

head! I was able to walk around a small lake, and every 50’ to 100' or so, I'd put the 

setup down, unfold the legs, take a few shots, then simply pick it up and hike some 

more. Pretty convenient. (However, I’m not blindly recommending this method to 

anybody.) 

Nonetheless, I do share some folk’s sentiments. It’s heavy – about 7 pounds. Just 

buy a lighter tripod for extended hiking purposes, and you'll have the 700DX 

available for location use or when you need its strength for your big glass or other 

applications. The quick release plate, however, can become unwieldly. In my 

opinion, it's large and a tad too heavy to carry mounted to your camera body or 

lenses at all times. At one point, I thought of getting extra quick release plates for 

multiple bodies and lenses, but I can’t imagine carrying all that additional weight 

on hiking trips. Luckily, the QR plate’s design and size is very easy to remove and 

install securely w/o any tools, so you can easily get by with just one. 

I would recommend this tripod to action shooters as well - its horizontal and 

vertical panning capabilities are top shelf. I also think that medium format folks 

would heartily welcome its larger head and base platform. In addition, the center 

column can be reversed, so your camera/lens combo can be as close to the ground 

as you'd like - a must for macro aficionados or even copy work. My only wish is 

that Slik had included a shoulder strap and mounting points, but this can be 

overcome with an aftermarket tripod strap. 

I haven't yet found a better value on the market! If you only got the titanium legs 

alone for the asking price, that itself would be worthwhile. 

Cheers, Cian Perez 


Tripods 

"A good photo may make the landscape look beautiful, but a good laugh makes the 

world look beautiful." 

-- Cian Perez, September 29, 2000 

Velbon 530 and its ball head PH-263 is almost the perfect lightweight tripod + head 

combo. The combo is extremely light, even lighter than the Gitzo 1227 alone 

without head. And the combo is also surprisingly sturdy! The PH-263 is also 

feather light and more than sufficient to support my EOS 3 with 70-200L! Breaking 

up the center column, you can go right down to the ground. And when raised, it is 

well above 6 feet! Without raising the center column its height is just nice for my 

1.8m build. I've been pondering over the Gitzo and Manfrotto carbon fiber tripod 

for years. Though considered light by many, their weight still put me off. The Slik 

is light but not sturdy. The Velbon is really a beauty, especially if you combine 

with the ballhead. This combo is sturdy enough and the extra sturdiness of the 

Velbon 630 or Gitzo or Manfrotto is not going to give me extra benefit. But the 

saving in weight will greatly relieve my burden of carrying a tripod around. I 

understand that it is not currently available in US. But if u come across it, grab it! 

See here for more info. 

-- Wee Keng_Hor, November 9, 2000 

I found some of the comments regarding Benbo tripods in the original text to be 

slightly negative. Sure, if you have an extremely heavy camera, or an extremely 

heavy lens, then you are already placing demands on your tripod that neccessitate 

specialist support. From my perspective, Benbos are great when using "normal" 

gear, (I 35mm and 6x4.5) in unusual situations. They're great for going from the 

general landscape view down to the floor without removing, reversing or changing 

anything. If the mood takes you, just unlock everything, and let the camera find it's 

natural position, then tighten the locks. It also allows medium format users to look 

down into the focussing screen, rather than lie on their backs to look up into an 

inverted column mounted Hasselblad or whatever. No macro rail? Just set the 

column horizontal, and slide it in or out to focus. Drawbacks? Well, I've got a multiangle 

head by Benbo, and that's like having a four axis pan/tilt head without the 

levers, just little locking tabs for each axis. It's OK, but I think I might get a ball 

head soon for general use (the Benbo standard model with pan is fine), as the multi 

angle head takes a little too long to set up, although it's good for macro work. Nigel 

Whitaker. 

-- Nigel Whitaker, November 23, 2000 

I just purchased a Bogen 3221 (black version of 3021) legset and a Bogen 3410 3- 


Tripods 

way compact pro headset. I was looking for a combination that would accomodate 

still photography w/ a 35 mm and video from a 3-CCD mini-DV camcorder (Canon 

GL-1). I am quite pleased with the performance in these applications. As far as 

quickness of the headset in being able to lock on and follow action, this head excels 

in the area. I really don't know why ballheads are a MUST in this respect- simply 

loosening the handles on the headset to the correct degree allows one to swing the 

camera in whichever direction one needs in a spherical manner. And the panning 

from this combo is probably better than from a ballhead also, something important 

when videotaping. The headset pans, tilts and levels in full ranges. All of this high 

level pro equipment for 235 bucks, beat that!!! 

-- James ., December 4, 2000 

Bogen/Manfrotto hex QR systems can be vastly improved by the addition of a Kirk 

hex plate. The regular Bogen plates with rubber or cork facings will allow the 

camera to twist with a long lens in use. Bogen does make an anti-twist plate, but 

the lip is tall enough to block the back of a Nikon MF camera from opening. Also, 

the Bogen plates come with a thumbscrew attaching bolt that prevents you from 

setting the camera down flat. The Kirk hex plate solves all these problems. I have 

used it on an RB67 and Nikon FM/FE cameras with equal success. For $50 or so, a 

Kirk plate makes the hex release much more pleasant to use. 

-- Steve Singleton, January 16, 2001 

I'd like to put in a good word for tripods made by JTL. Their construction is at least 

as solid as the low- to mid-end Bogens, both in the legs and in the pan-tilt heads. 

Moreover, a TH-11 legset and a TH-33 pan-tilt can be had from Adorama for $100, 

including carrying case. Unlike other cheap tripods, I don't think that you're losing 

quality with JTL. The quick-release plate is certainly not the best, but it's no worse 

than the basic one that comes with the Bogens. If you can't afford an Arca Swiss, 

consider JTL as a significantly cheaper, high-quality alternative to Bogen. 

www.jtlcorp.com 

-- Nathaniel Stankard, March 2, 2001 

My Photo friends, Here is the bottom line on tripods. If you care about quality and 

want to make big prints, there is only one choice:buy the best, most solid tripod 

you can afford. Then add an arca-swiss or Kirk ballhead. Attatch it solidly by a 

dedicated plate. Stop quibbling about the money. How much did you spend on that 

gee-whiz lens? After a lot of time selling art prints, I can tell you this--your tripod 

is THE most important link. I don't know how many times I've come upon people 

out in the field who know all about the latest gizmo's and then cheap out on their 


Tripods 

tripods. It is a crime! I'm telling you all one last time: Shut up and get the best 

support system you can possibly afford. The results will pay off in the long term. 

-- alan hoelzle, March 29, 2001 

Hopefully Arca-Swiss don't mind I post here a two-page .pdf manual on their B1 

and B2 ballheads. Of course, the manual is also shipped with every new ballhead. 

The manual was attached to their email reply sent me to facilitate repair of my 

ballhead after it fell down the rock - thanks, their guidance was helpful: 

I eventually unlocked and fixed it. 

Attachment: monoball-manual-e.pdf 

-- Vadim Makarov, April 23, 2001 

I'm merely a dedicated amateur/hobbyist photographer, offering the following 

thoughts... 

After many years of making-do with the shortcomings of the Bogen 3221 tripod, 

Bogen 3047 pan/tilt head, and Bogen's hexagonal QR plates, I recently purchased 

the Gitzo G1325 CF tripod (no center column; I plan to add a Gitzo leveling base in 

the near future); Arca-Swiss B1 ball head with QR mount; and numerous RRS 

mounting plates, as well as RRS's "LOC Knob" (a "clutch" type knob for the QR 

jaws) and their 3-piece tool set. 

I had long deferred purchasing such ultra-expensive support gear because I 

reasoned that my limited discretionary funds would be better spent on more critical 

items, such as much needed lenses, camera bodies, etc. In the meantime, I relied on 

my humble Bogen gear to support my cameras and lenses. It's been said that 

necessity is the mother of invention, and similarly, I would opine that an absolute 

necessity should often be the prime reason for deciding to invest in the luxury of 

ultra-expensive camera/lens support gear. For myself, I finally decided to bite-thebullet 

and invest in more sophisticated camera/lens support gear, because: 1) As the 

inventory of the gear in my LowePro Trekker has steadily increased, the weight of 

my Bogen support gear was becoming ever-more burdensome and oppressive; 2) 

The well-known tendency of Bogen's hexagonal QR (quick release) plates to twist 

out of alignment (when loaded with sufficient weight) had driven me crazy for too 

many years; 3) No matter how strongly I tightened-down the three screw handles 

on my Bogen 3047 head (in order to precisely lock the lens position and 

composition), this head would still allow the load to droop out of correct alignment 

and composition once tightened down, most especially when this head's position 

was tilted up or down, or when it was "flopped" over to the vertical format; 4) 


Tripods 

Bogen's hexagonal QR plates are not only heavy and prone to twisting, they are 

also bulky as a consequence of the large, sprawling dimensions of their hexagonal 

shape, as well as the ridiculously protuberant bulk of their large, knurled mounting 

screw, etc. 

Simply put, I'm extremely happy with my decision to finally invest in the Gitzo 

G1325 CF tripod, Arca-Swiss B1 ball head, and RRS accessories, but damn, the 

price of admission to this realm is truly staggering. And, despite the high cost of 

the Gitzo 1325 CF legs, their twist-type leg locks can be a real pain-in-the-ass, but 

I'm getting used to this rather minor quirck. 

For those who are just starting out in the world of photography, I would not 

recommend immediately buying an expensive carbon fiber tripod, nor would I 

recommend buying the most expensive head. The Bogen 3221 (aluminum) tripod is 

a good starting point, and if you want to spend some major initial cash on camera/ 

lens support gear, you would do well to spend a minimum on the Bogen tripod, but 

spend more on a nice ball head and custom mounting plates. Unless you plan to 

hike long distances with your camera/lens support gear, you may never need a highpriced 

carbon fiber tripod, but a good-quality ball head and well-designed QR 

mounting plates may be a very wise early investment, IF you get seriously into 

photography. 

-- kurt heintzelman, August 31, 2001 

There is a new ball head? made by Arcatech, Inc. that I recently purchased. I like 

it's open design and the fact that it can't get locked and is easy to clean. Cost is 

about $270.00. Other features are: uses Arca Swiss QR plates, knobs can't fall off, 

one knob tightens the head. A review may be found in www.luminous-landscape. 

com 

Tom Shapiro 

-- Tom Shapiro, October 12, 2001 

Having read many helpful reviews, I decided it was time to contribute my own 

thoughts. Here are a few thoughts on the Bogen 3021PRO and 3444/440 tripod 

legs. 

I have used the 3021PRO for some time and it is a tank. Too heavy and too long for 

most purposes, which is why I am upgrading to carbon fiber shortly, probably the 

3444. 


Tripods 

That said, both the 3021PRO and 3444 have great features that are worth 

mentioning and that are not found on most other tripods. First, the clamp lock 

mechanism is the best. It is SO much easier, quicker, and more reliable than the 

twist locks on most non-Bogen tripods. Second, both models have a small level on 

the tripod head. I have found it extremely helpful almost every time I set up the 

tripod, and it definitely saves time. Third, the special top clamp enables you to take 

the center post out and reinsert it horizontally. While not the most stable position, it 

is EXTREMELY helpful for taking shots looking straight down on the ground (into 

a flower, for example). Finally, the Bogen system is conducive to carrying the 

tripods with a strap which is actually pretty comfortable. 

Certainly height, weight, stability, and price are key considerations but I personally 

have valued these few features on the 3021PRO (and probably will also on the 

3444). 

-- Jonathan Sacks, December 28, 2001 

Anyone tried the Burzynski head? Bjorn Rorslett's review makes it sound really 

great. 

-- Paul Rubin, December 31, 2001 

I have made good experiences with the following combination: 1) Manfrotto 441 

carbon tripod (Bogen 3443 in the U.S.) with 3 faceted legs, overall length 62 cm 

when folded, weight 1.6 kg, max. load 6 kg. Removable center column, can be 

fixed horizontally; comes with carrying strap and levelling aid. 2) Ballhead 

Centerball 32 CB 32 F, weight 260 g, separated release screw and friction screw, 

made of aluminum. 3) Novoflex MiniConnect quick release system, weight around 

200 g. Very good and quick handling, mounting plate relatively small. Highly 

recommendable provided lens plus camera is not too heavy (max. 2 kg in my 

opinion). Contrary to Manfrotto's tripods, their ballheads and Q/R systems are, 

IMO, not very satisfactory. 

-- Hermann Graf, February 21, 2002 

Many good points have been brought up herein regarding the difficult choice of 

picking a tripod and head combination that will suit your needs. I certainly endorse 

the notion that a tripod can be a once in a lifetime investment for the serious 

amateur photographer and thus you have to keep that factor in mind when debating 

(1) cost and (2) capability. You clearly want something that can grow with you as 

your photographic skills change, and you must understand that the investment in a 

quality tripod will rarely be a mistake,--unless you opt for something cheap. I 

maintain that the tripod left at home is worthless, so if you are truly interested in 


Tripods 

the best possible photography, a tripod should be utilized to the maximum extent 

possible. If you are a world traveler, you need to factor in portability into the 

equation,--buying a tripod that will fit within your usual carryon or checked 

luggage. I selected a carbon-fiber model for portability and to encourage me to 

always take it along. I also went with a 4-section model because it closes up 

smaller than most 3-section models. Is it any less stable? I really haven't found it to 

be. Feel free to do some checks yourself at your nearby tripod shop. I leave you 

with two thoughts to consider,--TRY to take your tripod with you as much as 

possible and ensure that it's something that you won't feel burdened carrying 

around. Sometimes that costs a little more, but when you amortize that cost out 

over 20-30 years, it's a wash. 

-- Dan Lindsay, December 13, 2002 

Phillip, You write some great things and have helped my photography immensely. 

However, I must add one thing. Your only comment about Cullmann was their tiny 

tripods, which are not good. You didn't mention about their excellent full-size 

tripods. I have a Titan 200 which (with column extended) is taller than I am and 

immensely sturdy. It can hold a reputed 154 pounds! The leg locks are excellent 

and the legs are very good for field use (being well sealed). Also, I must say, that 

when locked, the center column is so sturdy that I would use it, even at the full 

extension. 

-- Jason Antman, February 23, 2003 

Shooting all 3 formats (35/120/4x5), I have come to love the Gitzo 1228CF with 

the Acratech head because it is easy to travel with when space and weight are a 

consideration. It is extremely light and quick to work with and can fit in a standard 

carry-on with the head off. If you do not extend the legs all the way and hang a bag 

from the hook on the center column stability can be dramatically increased; I've 

used it this way for LF (flimsy but tolerable, the Acratech is very stiff despite its 

light weight). The Arca B1 is fantastic and for MF/4x5 or long lenses in 35mm 

cannot be beat; I use it with a Gitzo 1341 which is a very stable platform for those 

near the car moments, probably because the mass is so large, an advantage lost with 

the carbon tripods. Used Linhof twin shank tripods can sometimes be found 

cheaply; having tried one of these and also a G410 I feel there are declining 

marginal returns on the "bigger and heavier is better" theory of tripods unless 

perhaps you have an assistant. 

The Bogen tripods are fantastic value and utility, especially the 3001 and 3221. 

Bogen has fixed the leg locks on the latter so that they are more reliable. (BTW I 

have never had any trouble with the Gitzo leg locks, I just open them from bottom 

to top and close from top to bottom; this way the different diameters of the locking 


Tripods 

sleeves make the top one the tightest if you use about the same force on all 3 locks 

and it works beautifully.) 

Note that RRS is under new ownership and also has significantly upgraded its 

products, as well as being (so far) a bit more user friendly. Acratech is also now 

making plates, although not as wide a selection as the RRS range. 

-- Charles Mackay, May 15, 2003 

There are professional ball heads made by a company called Markins... There is 

supposed to be one model, the M10 that has comparable stats to the Arca-Swiss B1, 

but for lower cost. Has anyone had any experience with these ball heads? 

http://www.markins.com/2.0/eng/products/ballheads/m10.html 

thanks, 

Yong 

-- Yong Pong, January 8, 2004 

Studio stands ain't that expensive. I bought a three meter high Plaubel ST10/6 

studio stand from (I think) the seventies for 151€. Where? On ebay! Okay, it's not 

in a fancy and modern black, but at 60+ kilos and locking mechanisms for all 

available movements, it's a wonderful piece of equipment, easily surpassing 

anything else in stability and ease of use. If studio photography is your thing, that 

is. Forget about new, at 2k€ new they're beyond the scope of the very dedicated 

amateuer. But then, which amateur wouldn't rather spend that kind of money on a 

fancy lens? Why are they so cheap, used? Because of their weight and size. So If 

you have the ability to pick it up with your own car, you can get a wonderful 

"little" helper in obtaining better images. I can't count the times I had a hassle with 

my old Linhof tripod, getting a decent shot from somewhere above the subject, not 

talking about rapid changes in height or camera positioning. 

One more thing, any tripod without a spreader is completely useless, especially 

those which allow you to put the legs at different angles. This tiny piece of 

equipment will increase the structural stability immensely, I can't understand why 

someone buys a tripod without one and then dares to complain. I personally like the 

spreaders which attach to the middle, some people prefer the variant, which is fixed 

to the feet of the tripod. Check out this link, maybe a picture makes it clearer: 

http://www.manfrotto.com/product/templates/templates.php3? 


Tripods 

sectionid=93&itemid=759 

Best regards, 

Matthias 

P.S.: Tripods don't develop fungus, they really aren't intricate devices with their 

own quirks or have nicks on their surface that might limit their use, they're usually 

built to last and any problems there might be are usually obvious, so all this makes 

them the better buy than a lens - if you choose to limit the strain on your wallet by 

buing used. 

-- M. S., May 3, 2004 

Related Links 

Add a comment 

● Really Right Stuff mounts- This is the website Phil was talking about. 

(contributed by Sam Snow) 

● Bogen/Manfrotto web site- "Professional camera and lighting supports." 

Lists both Manfrotto codes and US (Bogen) codes. (contributed by Dave 

Ciskowski) 

● Kirk Enterprises- Ballheads and quick release plates. (contributed by james 

galletto) 

● Gitzo Home Page- Good info about Gitzo products. Choice of metric units 

or imperial for luddites. Quite a few bugs though, at least with my browser. 

(contributed by Robert Bryett) 

● Home Page for Velbon Tripods- not much more to say. (contributed by 

Marika Buchberger) 

● Ries Tripods- As Phil says "if you were really serious, you'd be using a Ries 

wooden tripod." (contributed by Donald Brewster) 

● Equipment Reviews by David Paris- On my review page I have a detailed 


Tripods 

review of the Arca-Swiss B1 head, the Gitzo G1329 Carbon Fiber tripod, as 

well as other photographic equipment. (contributed by David Paris) 

● Tripod heads for Large Format Photography- A survey of pan-tilt heads, ball 

heads, and quick release (QR) systems, with a discussion of the merits of 

each system, and a few specific recommendations based on user's 

experience. (contributed by Quang-Tuan Luong) 

● Berlebach Tripods- Wooden Tripods. Company has a long history in not 

only making photographic tripods, but also making tripods for geodetic 

equipment (contributed by Christoph-Erdmann Pfeiler) 

● Stabil wooden tripods- These come in all sizes from small (macro, min. 

elevation 5cm) to large (max 169cm), and are extremely stable. To test 

mine, I mounted my Linhof Technika 5x7", 300mm/f5.6 Xenar, focused on 

~0.8x enlargement - on a macro tripod with angled legs. Rock steady. 

(contributed by Ole Tjugen) 

● Wimberley gimbal heads and adapters- If you use a big telephoto lens you 

must have one of these. Their "Sidekick" adapter teamed up with an Arca 

ballhead makes a really versatile combo. (contributed by Tim Edwards) 

● Digital photography guide for nature and wildlife.- Maximize the use of the 

prosumer, point-and-shoot digital camera and monopod for wildlife and 

outdoor digital photography. Learn how to photograph nature by traveling 

light and traveling simply. Send free outdoor adventure photo ecards. Free 

subscription to a photography and nature newsletter. (contributed by Philip 

Tulin) 

● Vibrations in Tripod/Head- Update of my previous articles on camera 

support vibration. See the attached pdf file for full story about various 

experiments on tripod and head related vibration. (contributed by charlie 

kim) 

Add a link 


permission. 





Tripods 

Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of printer ink and supplies 


photo.net 

Tripods -- Cheap and Compact 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 

In Praise of Cheap Compact Tripods 

by Ross Alford 

I have several tripods, from a 12-pound monster, through a Manfrotto (Bogen in 

USA) 190, to three lightweight Sliks. The monster never moves from the lab, the 

Manfrotto goes on short hikes, but the Sliks really travel well. I recently carried a 

Slik 38T4 around for 2 weeks in Papua New Guinea, taking photos in rainforests. 

The legs are 4 sections, with those damned annoying (but quite firm when locked) 

twist collars to lock them open or closed or at any intermediate position. With legs 

fully extended but no centre column extension, the camera platform is 31 inches 

above the substrate, and the tripod really is *very* solid, at least with a camera of 

moderate weight on it-- heavy enough to act as an anchor, but not so heavy that the 

head has trouble coping. With the centre column extended, the camera platform is 

38 and 3/4" above the substrate, but less steady. 

Its head isn't nearly equal to a Manfrotto or Linhof, but it was cheap, and it's easy 

to carry around. It collapses to 13-3/4" long and about 3" across when folded as 

compactly as possible. It weighs about 19 ounces. It fits nicely into a daypack-type 

backpack or photo backpack. 

It held the camera steady for lots of 1/8 to 1 or more second exposures, including 

being set up in the middle of streams. The camera was a Nikon FE2, BTW, with a 

17mm F/3.5 Vivitar lens dated about 1980. 

I have also used the Sliks with a 6 X 9 Crown Graphic, which is pretty lightweight 

for a medium format camera, and they'll do in a pinch. 

The 38T4 cost me $A45, and I have seen it advertised by New York camera places 

for about $US 25. One thing worth noting--the head rotates and tilts back and forth, 

but does not tilt from side to side; it is really set up more like a movie panhead. I 

haven't found that this is a big problem; I just either loosen the tripod screw and 

rotate the camera a bit for fine adjustments, or mount it 90 degrees from the normal 

direction and tilt if I want to take a vertical shot. Slik does make similar tripods 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/tripods/cheap (1 of 15)7/3/2005 2:21:27 AM


with heads that allow sideways tilts, using a mechanism that I have always thought 

looks a bit weak, but I don't know what the model numbers are. 

If the 38T4 is too large for you, I have seen even smaller ones by Slik of very 

similar design and construction, but they are even shorter when fully extended. I 

find the more-or-less waist height of the 38T4 to be perfectly usable for most 

things, but I don't think I'd want one that was much shorter. 

I also have a model 800G FL, which is larger, has flip-locks on its three-section 

legs, has centre braces between the legs and the centre column, weighs about 29 

ounces, has the camera platform 45 inches above the ground with no centre column 

extension, and 57" with full centre column, which gets the camera eyepiece to just 

about my eye level. It is about 22" long by 3" wide when folded, and has the same 

sort of head as the 38T4. It is certainly a lot lighter to carry around than my 

Manfrotto (which weighs about 6 pounds), but is only a bit smaller, and I find that 

if I am going to carry something that large I usually go for the Manfrotto, which is 

built like a tank. 

If some of your photography, like mine, is done in the field when your primary 

reason for travelling is not taking pictures, you often simply cannot manage to lug 

along something like a Manfrotto. When that happens, a lightweight Slik in the 

backpack is infinitely better than a rock-solid Manfrotto left at home. 

Update: January 1998 

It looks to me as though the current Slik tripod that is closest to the 38T4 is a new 

(1/98) model called the Compact. From the description on the web (http://www. 

tocad.com/nct) it appears nearly identical to the 38T4. The second closest model is 

the 450G. It is perhaps a little bit smaller than the 38T4, but not much. It would 

serve the same purposes nearly as well. 

The next best currently available model is the 500G-FL. This is larger (about 18" 

long when folded) but almost as light weight and extends to a somewhat greater 

height (about 45 inches). I own one of these, too, and like it pretty well, though it 

does not fit inside a small backpack as the 38T4 or 450G models will, so I don't use 

it as often--if I am going to carry a tripod outside my day pack, I usually take my 

Manfrotto 190 (Bogen 3001), which is about 5-1/2 pounds including ball head, 26" 

folded including the head, extends to 4'10" tall, and is rock-solid with anything up 

to a light 4 X 5 field camera on it. 



Text and pictures (c) Copyright 1996, Dr. Ross.Alford 


I recognize the dilemma between big & heavy vs. small and light support. I used to 

try all sorts of things to not lug heavy tripods around; I tried the five feet of light 

chain with a 1/4" 20 threaded eyebolt attached (screw the eyebolt into the tripod 

socket, drop the chain, step on it and lift), I tried monopods, beanbags (including 

ziplock bags filled with handfulls of the local dirt--that's travelling light), and I had 

a Slik with square, not tubular, legs. It flexed, the leg latches slipped, the head 

would droop (particularly with a long lens) and I finally realized that a tripod is a 

tripod, and if you must lug one around then lug around one that will do the job. 

Most of my shooting was outdoors in the western US, where it wasn't crowded or 

close quarters, so I can only speak for myself when I say that if you're going to 

make a production out of taking pictures, drag that heavy old three-legged beast 

along. 

-- Donald Gentz, May 13, 1997 

I've used a SLIK U8000, and gotten really good pictures out of it. At 3.75 pounds, 

it's light and easy to carry around, and comes with a pan-tilt head that works. You 

do have to wait for things to settle down if you vibrate the tripod, but what else is 

new? 

I paid less than $60 for mine, and have used and abused it in many situations. A 

good buy for a beginner. 

-- Piaw Na, September 18, 1997 

After reviewing the helpful comments here about tripods, conferring with Bryan 

Geyer of RRS, and reading Galen Rowell's books on field photography, I just 

decided to supplement my solid but heavy mid-weight Bogen 3030a ( the faucet 

lever leg lock model) with a Gitzo/"Le Splurge-o" model# 224, which has three leg 

sections. Definitely enough leg sections! This is a rather small tripod in Geetzo's 

formidable lineup, just old aluminum alloy. Without the center post extended,it is 

shortish for me, but I don't find that to be really limiting( except for binocular 

astronomy use-which is another story). I think it is safe to elevate the robust, non 

geared center post--carefully please- another 4". I agree with our site host Phil that 

the leg locks are not for the clutzy at heart. They have the beauty of backpacking 

well and not tearing fabric and jabbing body parts as the Bogen Manfrottos can. 

I am much impressed and grudgingly credit the French with the fine machining of 

the Gitzo. When one releases the legs, there is a partial vacuum 'whoosh". 



Definitely worth the 240.00 I paid at B and H. I dont see many Gitzos at auction. 

They are heavily used, not traded. Still, I will never part with my Bogen, or even 

the baby Leica tabletop legs I bought 20 years ago,( which I use with a small Slik 

ball head.) 

All three fill a definite photographic need. Save your coins and you will grow into 

multitripodomania too. I commend readers for interest in tripods. Get a good one 

and you will fall in love again. Aloha nui loa, Gerry 

-- Gerry Siegel (Honolulu), October 3, 1997 

The first tripod I had was bought 8 years ago, together with an EOS 1000 (Rebel in 

the USA?) and 35-80 zoom. It was a Cullman, light but stable enough for my gear 

at the time. In December last I had to buy another one, because the Cullman went 

down a cliff into the heavy seas. In case you are wondering, my camera was not 

attached at the moment, but it was a revealing experience nonetheless. The tripod 

was literally caught up by the wind on this rocky spur and flew over the side of the 

cliff. 

So I was forced to go out and look for another one. Fortunately, during those 8 

years, I have learned a lot more about photography, even without the benfits of the 

net :-), so I went and look for a sturdy one. The moment I saw the Gitzo range, I 

knew it was it. Besides looking good, it does the job better than anything else. I 

ended up buying the 80 year special limited (only 5000 were made) edition, aka 

226 leg set and 1275 ball head. I really much prefer the releasing knobs (no better 

word for it, pardon my english) of Gitzo than the butterfly wing type from 

Manfrotto, looks strange and flimsy. Besides, when I now need a table support I 

just use the ball head! 

So, my advice to anyone out there on the lookout for a tripod is: get the best right 

from the begining, you wont regret it. 

-- Paulo Bizarro, March 27, 1998 

In my beginner naiveity, I started with a Slik U6000, and snapped the head 2 days 

later. I soon bought a Slik U9000, and again had head problems within a week. 

For those asking why I even bothered with such light tripods: I didn't know better, 

and I needed a tripod for backpacking and hiking (where I do most of my 

shooting). 

Lo and behold, I learned my lesson and eventually settled on a Bogen 3205S and 



Bogen 3262QR ball head. OK, yes, you have to extend the center column to get it 

near eye level (I'm 5'9"), and for some this is a stability issue. Possibly, but I have 

never had a problem. If the winds blowing, or I'm on bulb setting, I just lower it. 

But compared to 27" of length for a 3021, and an additional 2 pounds to boot, the 

3205S is a cinch to lash to a pack. 

For those who want to know, the leg locks are screw ins (less prone to damage by 

sand or dirt). I have submerged it in water, mud, dropped it, packed with it, used it 

in 0-105 degree temps and NEVER had a complaint. 

Like lenses, however, one tripod cannot do everything, and what you get is 

dependent on your lenses. The 3262QR supports (I believe) up to 8 pounds, and the 

tripod 11. For a portable tripod, it is a wonderful compromise, and if you need 

more, then get the 3021 or 3221, which can use the same head. Tripods are cheap. 

Whatever you do, I RECOMMEND staying away from any tripod / head that 

incorporates plastic in the casing or supports, and stay away from any tripod that 

doesn't have independent, spreadable legs for macro / ground work. 

-- Bryan Kochis, April 5, 1998 

I'm currently in Japan on work assignment, having left my EOS in my home 

country, I decided to purchase a small P&S. At the same time, I also wanted to 

purchase a small capable tripod. Something that I can take everywhere with me 

(basically leave it in my knapsack). I finally decided on the Slik compact because it 

was cheap (2000yen), small (fits in my knapsack), and light. I was looking at the 

Bogen 3001s, but while it is a very small solid tripod, it doesn't fit into my 

knapsack and it was fairly expensive here (9000yen). All I have to say is this: look 

very carefully at the model you intend to buy in the store first. I made several trips 

to several large camera stores playing around with various tripods, and while the 

Slik 500G-III or 450G was fairly useable, I found the "compact" to be a big pain. I 

understood most of the tradeoffs in going to a smaller cheaper tripod, and I was 

willing to accept it, but there is one very annoying aspect of the "compact": the legs 

are tubular, not squar-ish like the Slik 500G-III or 450G. Thus, when I am screwing 

the legs tight, the legs themselves rotate. With the squar-ish legs, I can grab all 

three screws with one hand when the tripod is fully retracted, and loose all of them, 

then with one hand on the tripod, the other hand can tighten each screw after each 

leg is extended. With the compact, because the legs rotate, you have no choice 

except to grab each leg, and extend each section of each leg seperately. A very time 

consuming process, not to mention that to prevent the legs from rotating, one must 

tighten the screw very tightly (very difficult to loosen, not to mention painful on 

the palm with the plasticky screw). In retrospect, I would have been better of 

purchasing the Slik 500G-III, or even better, the bogen 3001s. In 3 months time, 

when I return to Canada, I will probably buy a bogen 3001s with a 3055 ball head. 



-- Wayne --, June 14, 1998 

My first rule of thumb regarding tripods is: any tripod is better than no tripod at all. 

Having tried to jam a camera in the nook of a tree branch, or done contortions 

reading the viewfinder from a tabletop perch, I can safely state the above with all 

assurance. Even the worst piece of junk is better than nothing at all. 

I started with the proverbial SLIK U8000, and still have it, although the pan head 

broke on me. I still like it, because it is so lightweight and simple to use. No, its not 

the most adaptable or rugged, but 95% of my pictures don't make great demands of 

my tripod. Just set it up and shoot. My standard gear, (EOS Elan IIE w/ 28-105), is 

just not so heavy to need more mass. Surely, if my body and lenses needed it, a 

more substantial 'pod would be the answer. 

A Bogen 3221 entered my life a couple of years ago as the answer to just such 

question. I've used it sparingly, because I'm just not so into photography as a great 

pursuit like some. (I'm a grab shooter. So sue me.) If I know I'm going after fragile 

subject matter, (dusk or night shots, windy telephoto days, wedding portraiture) its 

with me. Mostly, it enjoys its space in the closet with two other Bogen monopods, 

which, though really cool, don't get much use either. 

Confessedly, the SLIK compact tripod, (don't have the model) which the former 

poster dissed, is my favorite, most used unit. Why? Simple: its light, small, and 

doesn't hassle me like a big 'pod can and will. I like the fact that it doesn't intrude 

on my traveling, as I hook its pan arm to any bag or pocket opening when 

tightened. 

When first purchased, I imagined it primarily as a backpacking 'pod, (which I don't 

really do that much of.) Instead, its become an established member of my "ready 

gear" - the shoulder bag packed with the Elan and short zoomer, 75-300 telephoto 

OR 380EX flash, my circ-pol filter in hard case, film box and microfibre cleaning 

cloth. I've got 90% of all my essential gear quickly stashed and ready to go. The 

SLIK compact is so handy, and doesn't even have to use a ball head; the screw 

mount is fast enough to use on the fly. 

Most places will offer a perch or table upon which it stands. I can get almost 4 feet 

out of it fully extended, but even I admit that's pushing it. (I've got some great night 

shots of L.A. from the Mullholland drive observation point using this unit. The 

rock wall was so handy.) Another great feature is when I use it as a defacto chest 

pod. No, its not the most comfortable, but for steadying a telephoto, or using slow 

film in low light, it has saved several erstwhile loser situations for me. 



Bottom line, you should always have some kind of tripod with you, even if its only 

a tabletop model. Its too indespensible. I can forgo 75% of my gear most times and 

resign myself to its loss, but this compact tripod is so light and handy, I'm always 

bummed if I forget it... even if I don't actually need it. 

Actually, this tripod is much better than better than nothing. 

-- J.R. Neumiller, October 23, 1998 

Lightweight Sliks are great for lightweight cameras, but if you're planning on 

having any significant weight on top, the vibrations from even a slight breeze 

defeat the purpose. 

For a recent trek to Nepal, I loaded up with a Nikon 80-200 ED lens (portraits can 

be of mountains as well as of people), plus a 1.6x magnifier, in order to be able to 

take some moderate distance shots. When I set this up on my Slik, it rattled like 

straw in the wind. I wasn't about to consider lugging my Manfretto (which I love) 

into the Himalayas -- my lenses were going to cause enough pain. So I bit my lip, 

went shopping, and came home with a Gitzo mountaineer (G1228). 

The mountaineer fits only half the criteria for this bulletin board -- is is definitely 

not cheap (about US$450 for a new one). But it is wonderfully light (about 2 lbs) 

and offers the sturdiest support of any tripod in its weight class. 

Using a tiny, and cheap, used Gitzo #00 ball head, I have a replacement for my old 

Sliks which is just as light and wonderfully friendly. 

With a sturdier head (such as the companion G1275), I have enough muscle to 

handle any combination of 35mm or 6x9 format lenses and cameras, and I can even 

get away with a 4x5 in a pinch. 

The magnesium alloy technology which Gitzo uses is super strong, feather light, 

and folds very compactly. If you're going to splurge on a field tripod, you can't do 

better than this. 

-- Julian Svedosh, November 28, 1998 

After reading everything on this page, I went tripod shopping. Came home with a 

slik compact XL and a Manfrotto Junior. The slik is incredibly stable for its weight 

and is sort of my "any tripod is better than none" tripod. It's already gone hiking 



with me once. Every one's praise for and condemnation of this tripod is correct. But 

its a good compromise and my partner sort of insisted I get it, because she 

suspected (correctly) that the Manfrotto would be to heavy for a casual day hike. 

The Manfrotto Junior is a beauty -- rock solid, four segment legs. Twist collars that 

lock and unlock easily, and it brings the camera up to eye-level while remaining 

rock steady. It cost 100USD at National Camera and can almost certainly be had 

for less elsewhere. 

I think that as a pair these two tripods will serve me well for a long time coming. 

Although the head on the slik doesn't flip up for vertical, ingenious use of the 

mounting screw and tilt does provide a workaround. I think the one piece head 

design is essential to this tripod's solidness. 

-- Rich Furman, February 15, 1999 

I found out the difference between the slik compact and the slik compact XL 

(newer). The XL is designed with a dual extension center column to provide an 

extra 5" of height. So instead of the previous height of 39", it will now extend to 

44". Same price, around $30. 

-- Michael Kaye, June 15, 1999 

I have just bought a Velbon CX 470 tripod. It was cheep and light and seemed 

sturdy (I only use the EOS 630 with a 75-300 commercial zoom). I was just 

wondering if anybody has had any experience (good or bad) with this product. 

Please post or e-mail me at HoleSchuh@aol.com. Thanks 

-- Adam Holzschuh, June 18, 1999 

I wanted a tripod that could travel with me all the time when I didn't have room or 

was too lazy to haul my Gitzo. Since the Slik compact was mentioned, I got one. 

The pan head on the thing drove me crazy when I had to use the tripod on unlevel 

surfaces, so I took off the panhead and center column and bolted a small ballhead 

onto what was left. This leaves a very short tripod, but also one that will fit in a 

regular briefcase or small backpack. This is pretty much a cheap version of what 

Galen Rowell did with a Gitzo 01, and after a while, I will probably upgrade. In the 

meantime, used with care, it seems tolerably stable. It will do things my tiny Bogen/ 

Manfrotto tabletop tripod will not do, but as the tablebletop tripod is really pretty 

solid, I may end up carrying both. 



Paul Harris 

-- Paul Harris, July 4, 1999 

I'v owned a few Manfroto's and Slick's over the years and they are good then I got a 

Benbo Trekker and was hooked on their ability to get down to the subject. I use this 

with a Benmbo ballhead for hiking photo op's and am constantly asked about the 

tripod when taking wildflower pictures because of it's abilty to assume the position 

necessary to get the image. I have since purcahsed a Benbo standard (heavier 

model) which I use with a Linhof Prof II ball head. The Prof II has a friction 

adjustment which can be set to the weight of the lens body combination and makes 

taking photographs a pleasure as the ball stays in the position you swing the camera 

to...great for taking pictures of wading birds. So the two Benbo's are all I need 

tripod wise. 

Mike Eckstein, Spring Hill, Florida 

-- Michael Eckstein, October 9, 1999 

Commenting on the posting of Julian Svedosh, November 28, 1998, above, Gitzo 

Mountaineer's technology is carbon fiber, not magnesium. (Carbon fiber is lighter 

and stronger (and more expensive)). 

I have been using a Gitzo Mountaineer 1228, with a Bogen 3262QR (I got plates 

for several cameras), and I am pretty satisfied. 

It takes a while to expand and contract the Gitzo, though. 

Moshe Aelion 

-- Moshe Aelion, October 16, 1999 

A bit more news on the Benbo, I had a problem with the attachment of one of the 

legs to its centre cluster (fellow users will understand my "terminology"), after 

backpacking for a couple of months the constant battering left a considerable 

"wobble" and as the legs are press fitted and riveted repair was nigh on 

impossible ... but Benbo were more than happy to replace the unit despite it's 

beaten appearance ... reasureing in todays sell and forget market !!! 

-- ton arm, December 12, 1999 

Just thought I'd contribute since this sight has been very helpful to me. I was 



looking for a tripod but was not looking to spend a fortune. Since there are no 

upscale camera shops in my area I was forced to do all my research on the net. 

OK here it is. I finally decided on the following combo. 3001 legs with 3047 pan 

head w/quick release. These legs are a bit smaller than the 3021 legs most 

recommend. I like them and at 5' 11" I only have to bend over a little to use these 

legs without the center section extended. I'm glad I chose these legs over the 3021's 

because these legs are small enough to clip onto a backpack or fit in some camera 

bags. Now to the head. The 3047 is basically a nicer version of the popular 3030. It 

has two bubble levels which help to fine tune things a bit. BTW this is a $120 

combintaion (head and legs). If you can spend more money get the 3275 head. This 

is a geared version of the 3 way pan head. And it is SWEET!. But you will spend 

your $120 just for it. The head (3047) is a little meaty for the 3001 legs but I still 

think it's a great combo. I have found it a little bulky (the head) to fit in my back 

pack. I guess if I remove the handels I could do it. Solution -- spend $28 bucks for 

the medium ball head. This head fits just fine in any camera bag or backpack and I 

use it on longer walks. Hey, a ball head is no pan head but if you're not gonna be 

able to fit the head when you're out on a photo excursion what's the point. So, there 

you have it -- 3001 legs with 3047 or 3262 head depending on the situation. 

-- Kurt Maurer, January 17, 2000 

Just got a Cullman 1001 touring set. It includes a small, reasonably sturdy tripod, a 

suction cup to hold a camera to glass, a ground spike, a woodscrew, a c-clamp, 

coupla ball heads. It's really great ... lightweight. Am planning on putting it through 

its paces on the Napali Coast in Kauai in a coupla weeks. I'll comment on how it 

did when I return. FYI, got it at B&H for about $125 for the whole kit. Tripod 

alone is about $50. Anybody used this setup? Comments? Thanks ... 

-- Ken Newman, February 27, 2000 

One word of warning about 'tilting' the pan-tilt head to get a vertical composition. I 

did it often enough with a small Slik (don't remember the model) that I used to 

own, and finally damaged the tripod screw on a Rebel (plastic mount) when trying 

to point the camera up and down. As soon as I upgraded my camera body I gave 

my tripod to a friend that will use it for his handycam and got a couple (3221 & 

3001) of manfrottos with 'real' photo heads. BTW, I use the 3001 (190) with a 

small 115 (3029?) head and it fits inside any bag that I travel with, just remove the 

head for travel and install it later, that makes it even more convenient for travel 

than my old slik, and certainly a better platform! 

-- Ignacio Feito, April 18, 2000 



Just got a Vivitar VPT-10. It shrinks down to 14.5 inches (small enough to fit in my 

knap-sack), 4 sections, and extends up to 47 inches (just under 4 feet) with the 

centre column fully extended (11 inches). I already have a Manfrotto 190QCB, it's 

just too big and heavy to take with me when I travel. Comparing Vivitar's VPT-10 

with Slik Compact, I found the VPT-10 to be a better tripod. Both are about the 

same size and weight but the VPT-10 has quick release leg locks and tubular leg 

sections with small grooves running down opposite sides to prevent the sections 

from twisting. The things that I don't like is that it doesn't come with a quick 

release head and the leg locks are plastic (some of the joints looked rather flimsy) 

but what do you expect for $18 US. 

-- John William, April 20, 2000 

I purchased a Slik Compact-XL tripod in mid-2000 as a result of this article. On 

inspection, I found that the pan head can be removed from my tripod. Furthermore, 

I discovered that the aluminum top piece that the pan head clamps to is hollow; it 

has a central bore for most of its length; the central bore has a diameter of 0.20 

inches, just right for tapping with 0.25"-20 threads. I clamped the aluminum top 

piece to a vise with soft jaws, center punched the top of the aluminum piece, and 

used a drill with a #7 bit (about 13/64") to drill a short distance (about 1/16") to 

expose the central bore. I tapped the bore with 1/4"-20 threads and screwed in a 1" 

long headless bolt, with top slotted for screwdriver blade, about 3/4" into the 

aluminum top piece (bolt purchased at a hardware store). A Bogen 3009 ball head 

(with a 3/8"-16 to 1/4"-20 thread adaptor purchased at a well-equiped photography 

equipment store) fits on top of the tripod nicely now. What's more, the pan head 

can still be installed, when needed, in leu of the ball head. 

-- Karl Amo, September 3, 2000 

I have one thing to say: Slik U-212 Deluxe. 

Okay, maybe a bit more. Next to a Benbo or maybe a Cullman it's the funkiest 

lightweight tripod design around. But it flat works. 

It uses lots of plastic in the head and leg locking levers and in five years of use not 

a thing has broken. It feels like nylon or similarly tough stuff. 

The legs offer almost infinitely variable adjustments - you're not limited to preset 

clickstops as with the Bogen/Manfrottos. The flip-out levers are easy to operate 

with gloves or frozen hands. And they're secure. 



Leg angle is controlled by anodized aluminum bars with friction clamps. Very 

slick. Too slick. The friction clamping mechanism can slip a bit - not enough to 

spill a normal camera/lens load (35mm or most MF gear), but enough to mess up 

your careful alignment on that Monarch butterfly you're trying to photograph. The 

trick is to set those metal spikes (outdoors) or grippy rubber feet firmly after you've 

got the leg angles set the way you want. No worse than fiddling with a Benbo and, 

IMHO, less hassle than the Benbo. I'm considering roughing up the anodizing on 

those friction bars to minimize the slipping. 

The head can be attached to one of the legs, thoughtfully provided with the 

appropriate bolt; or to the bottom of the geared elevator post. The other two legs 

have accessory shoes for mounting doodads like Slik's Long Lens Support, flash 

accessories, etc. These aren't standard flash shoes so you'll need to buy Slik's 

adapter. 

The tilt/pan head - a combination affair for the still photographer and casual 

videographer - is very smooth for still work and only relatively smooth for video 

work. It won't satisfy a videographer who wants a buttery, well damped fluid head, 

but it only costs half the price of a minimally satisfactory Bogen/Manfrotto video 

rig. I don't care for the twist-lock pan handle - sometimes it jabs me in the neck. I 

keep saying I'm gonna take a hacksaw to it and trim about half the over-long handle 

away. All the other knobs and such are just fine. 

The quick release would amuse Kirk and Arca-Swiss afficianados. It consists of a 

sort of metal button post that attaches to the camera and fits into a round (dime 

diameter) hole in the tripod head. A flip-out plastic lever cams the post into 

position. This rig is vice and virtue. You don't want to carry your precious gear 

around mounted on this tripod - snag that flip-out lever on a branch and find out 

just how rugged that F5 and 80-200/2.8 zoom really are. OTOH, if you discipline 

yourself to take the camera off the 'pod before moving it, the QR is the quickest, 

slickest thing around. When I last shot a wedding I mounted the QR posts on both 

camera bodies and switched between handheld and tripod shots with ease. These 

aren't just quick release posts - they're quick mounting posts too, quicker than 

anything else out there. 

Best sub-$100 tripod going, IMHO. 

Image:SlikU212DX.JPG 

-- Lex (perpendicularity consultant) Jenkins, March 12, 2002 

Here's the tripod that Herbert Keppler calls the perfect travel tripod: 



The Perfect Travel Tripod Making sure the surface wound would be well out of 

cosmetic sight, Popular Photography’s senior lab technician, David Phung, made a 

short but incisive scalpel cut into the black leg, slicing through its skin, baring it to 

shiny, base metal. He applied voltmeter probes to each end of the cut and the digital 

voltmeter reading jumped upward. 

"It’s metal, alright," Phung reported, confirming what I hoped was true about the 

Velbon Maxi 343E tripod. In these days when plastics seem to be substituting for 

all materials, I found it a relief that one of my specifications for the tripod I had not 

stressed was indeed as I wanted it—metal construction. 

The Perfect Travel Tripod To jog your memory, my association with the Maxi (for 

short) tripod began many years ago when I cried in the three-legged wilderness for 

an ideal travel tripod no more than 20 inches when folded, weighing 32 ounces or 

less, which could swiftly extend in 45 seconds to SLR eye level. Legs should be 

independently extendable so the tripod could be leveled on uneven ground. The tips 

should be threaded rubber spikes to steady the tripod on all terrain. And, yes, it had 

to be sturdy. Such a tripod, I thought, should prove desirable for every amateur 

photographer who balked at toting his regular tripod on trips. Even tripod haters 

might have second thoughts about a tuckaway tripod that could guarantee sharp 

photos. Many tripods came close to my ideal but usually fell short in some vital 

aspect. Sometimes they were the very devil to set up and take down. Most were too 

short. The photographer would have to bend his knees to see through the finder. 

Maneuvering the camera to an upward or downward angle proved very 

inconvenient. Some years ago, Velbon president Koichiro Nakatani said he was 

determined to make a tripod to my specifications. At photokina last year, he 

presented me with the first sample of the Maxi—32 ounces, a little under 18 inches 

folded and 62 inches fully extended. The 62-inch extension had been the major 

stumbling block, but Velbon engineers had found a new nesting tube system that 

provided extra extension of each telescoped leg. The tripod was well made and 

beautifully finished. April delivery was promised. April and most of May rolled by 

before a shipment arrived in the U.S. Naturally I was anxious to compare my 

preproduction sample (which appeared to be Japanese-made) with actual Chinese 

production. Could Velbon USA send one? "Sorry," said a Velbon spokesman, 

"they’re all sold out. We expect another shipment in a few weeks."But I did get one 

that very day, thanks to one of Pop’s editors who handles new product write ups 

and had the foresight to ask in advance for a sample. Pulling rank (after all I was 

the one who got the tripod ball rolling), I glommed onto the editor’s sample. I went 

over it piece by piece and inch by inch. Every knob, lever, flip lock, rubber tip and 

the entire ball head, down to the attractive cork composition platform insert, were 

identical to those on the preproduction sample. The tripod operated with the same 

smoothness. Price? Reliable stores have started advertising the Maxi for $90, street 

price. There was one difference between pre- and actual production models—the 



cosmetics. Nakatani had warned me previously that the unique black crackle 

preproduction model finish of the outer legs couldn’t be duplicated in China. So I 

wasn’t surprised to find the outer legs, tripod platform and ball head in satin 

chrome. However, a number of Popular Photography staffers said they liked the 

chrome better. Mislabeled Tripod?! I had overlooked one other area on the 

preproduction Maxi. Printed thereon were the words "for digital camera." And I 

found a large label on the production tripod’s box that read "For Digital." Now I 

know that the magical word today in imaging is "digital," but when you come down 

to the nitty-gritty of tripod buying in the U.S., I don’t think owners of digital 

cameras account for many sales. The vast majority of digital cameras sold in the U. 

S. are of the point-and-shoot variety. Point-and-shoot users aren’t usually known as 

tripod enthusiasts. It’s 35mm SLR and medium-format owners who predominently 

use tripods. Will "For Digital" cause them to pass the Maxi by? Possibly. Perhaps a 

more universal label reading "For film, video and digital cameras" might be 

appropriate. Well, it’s my fault. I had my chance to squawk about the digital 

emphasis at photokina and I didn’t. Although I have my doubts that the digital 

appellation will aid Maxi sales, how many non-digital products might have 

increased sales if the makers did stress their digital applications? Let’s say Fuji or 

Kodak labeled their films "Digital Ready," meaning the images could be scanned 

into computers. Would it help film sales? Probably some unknowing stock analyst 

would get all excited, write glowingly about digital-ready film and thus send that 

company’s stock upward. PHOTOS: Black and Silver: 

-- Stephen Smyth, April 10, 2002 

As a rank beginner, I wanted a tripod that was, primarily, inexpensive, and 

secondarily, light. 

I bought a Promaster 6050 from a local store (Penn Camera in Vienna, Virginia). It 

fit my criteria perfectly. It comes with a pan/tilt head with quick release and also a 

lateral tilt. None of the adjustments are fine, but the tripod does have a bubble level 

built in. The legs are in three sections. The clamps are quick and easy to work, but 

they make a loud SNAP unless you try real hard to keep do it quietly. The center 

column is geared, with a crank. At maximum extension, the platform is at eye level 

for me (about 5'7"). The whole thing seems pretty light to me, about 3 pounds. It 

does have a slightly rickety feel, but overall I'm happy, especially considering the 

price tag. 

If you want to check it out at the Promaster website, you can. 



-- John Douglas Porter, June 12, 2003 

It has been a long time since I wrote the original article above. Tripod technology 

has progressed a great deal. I now am using a Velbon Ultra Maxi as my compact 

tripod. It's a marvel as compared to the old Slik--about the same size, a bit heavier, 

but has a very quick "trunnion-shaft" (whatever that is--means you twist the bottom 

of the leg and all sections either loosen or tighten) system for leg length control, 

and has a great pan head with quick release that is solid and does not change angle 

as you tighten it in position. It feels solid as a rock, and is, as long as you don't 

extend the center column. The only other thing that comes close in the present 

market is the Manfrotto/Bogen digital series, the one with flip-lock legs and a builtin 

ballhead. I still think that any tripod in the hand is a lot solider than the one you 

left at home because it was too big nd heavy to bring with you. 

-- Ross Alford, August 17, 2004 



permission. 




Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of computers 


photo.net 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

Filters - UV or not UV? 


Search 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 

Filters UV or not UV? 

by Bob Atkins 

[See also Philip Greenspun's article on filters] 

UV filters are supposed to block UV light. So, for the newcomers to photography let's first look at what UV light is 

and why you would want to block it. 

The "traditional" visible spectrum runs from red to violet. Red light has the longest wavelength and violet the 

shortest. Light which has a longer wavelength than red is called infrared, and light which has a shorter wavelength 

than violet is called ultra violet or UV. The wavelength of light is measure in units of nanometers (abbreviated as 

nm), and 1nm is a billionth of a meter (that's a US billion or 1000 million, not a UK billion which is a million 

million!). Light shorter in wavelength than about 400nm is called ultra violet, light longer in wavelength than 

700nm is called infrared. 

So now we know what UV light is, why would be want to block it? Well the answer lies in the way that color film 

works. There are basically three color sensitive layers, one sensitive to red light, one to green light and one to blue 

light. The blue layer not only responds to blue light, but also to UV light, so if there is a lot of UV around the blue 

sensitive layer gets extra exposure and the final image takes on a blue color. Since film isn't normally sensitive to 

infrared, you don't need an infrared blocking filter. Interestingly though, digital sensors are infrared sensitive and 

most digital cameras have an infrared blocking filter built in. 

Now there isn't usually a huge amount of UV around at sea level. There is some (that's what gives you a suntan or a 

sunburn) but most of it is scattered by the atmosphere. However as you gain altitude, for example by going up a 

mountain, the amount of UV increases. Under these conditions a UV filter can prevent a blue cast in photographs. 

Since UV filters look clear and neutral to the naked eye, some people also use them as a protective filter which they 

leave on their lens at all times. Some people think this is a good idea, other question the wisdom placing a $20 filter 

in front of a $1000 lens and potentially affecting image quality. Both schools of thought have some valid points. It's 

your choice. 

So if you buy a UV filter, you'd expect it to block UV right? Well, sometimes you'd be wrong as the results of this 

test show. I've looked at the range between 350nm and 400nm for UV blocking since the glass used in almost all 

lenses will itself block any light with a wavelength shorter than 350nm, so you don't need help from a filter there. 

The Tests 

The filters were measured using a calibrated UV/visible spectrophotometer which I had access to at the time of the 

tests. 

The plot below shows the transmission characteristics of a number of "UV filters". There are 3 "generic" type 

filters, a Millennium (marked "made in Japan"), a second Millennium (this one marked "made in China") and a 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/filters/ (1 of 12)7/3/2005 2:21:53 AM


Promaster, plus 3 "name brand" filters, a Tiffen UV protector, A Hoya UV filter and a B+W UV filter. As you can 

see from the plot, the 3 "generics" along with the Tiffen UV protector really did not cut any appreciable UV down 

to 350nm. The Hoya and B+W filters showed definite UV absorption, the Hoya being more effective at UV 

blocking. 

Looking more closely at the plots for the four filters which did not show much UV absorption you can see that they 

are all quite similar. In fact the Millennium UV (Japan) and Promaster UV filters appear to be identical. They may 

well have been made by the same factory and branded with two different names. The Tiffen looks close enough that 

it too might even come from the same factory, or at least use the same type of glass. 



In addition to the UV filters I also looked at a three filters often used in place of a UV filter (i.e. filters which some 

photographers keep on the lens at all times as protection). These are the Hoya 81B, the Tiffen 812 and the B+W 

KR1.5. All three are warming filters in that they shift the color balance towards the red (warm) end of the tonal 

range. I also included a Hoya circular polarizer, just because I had one around. 

As you can see all three of the warming filters were effective UV absorbers, as well as slight absorbers in the blue 

and green regions of the spectrum (which is what makes them warming filters). The polarizer absorbed slightly 

more in the UV than the visible, though I wouldn't call it an effective UV absorber. 



Perhaps a more informative way of plotting the data is as a bar graph comparing transmission in the visible range 

(400nm to 650nm) to transmission in the UV range (350nm-400nm). This is shown below. Added to the group is 

data for a Tiffen Haze-1 filter, which you can see is VERY effective at blocking UV and a Hoya 1B, a slight 

warming filter. The four filters on the left clearly don't really absorb UV any more than they absorb visible light. 

They may be fine as lens protectors but don't make good UV blockers. 



Another interesting way to look at UV blocking is to calculate the effective number of stops that the filter attenuates 

for the wavelengths between 350nm and 400nm compared to transmission in the visible. The data are plotted below 

on that basis. For example the Tiffen Haze-1 filter looks like a 5 stop filter to UV wavelengths in that range, while 

the low cost generics and the Tiffen UV protector show less than 0.1 stop attenuation of UV. 



This last plot makes the order of UV absorbing effectiveness quite clear 

● The Tiffen Haze-1 is best. It's a neutral filter so color balance is unaffected. 

● Next is the Tiffen 812. Good UV blocking if you also want a warming filter 

● The Hoya 81B is very similar to the Tiffen 812. 

● The Hoya UV filter comes next, neutral, but with 2 stops of UV blocking. 

● The B+W KR1.5 gives about 1.5 stops of UV blocking with slight warming. 

● The Tiffen polarizer gives less than a stop of UV blocking, but that's not why you use a polarizer! 

● The B+W and Hoya 1B aren't very good UV blockers. The 1B is slightly warming 

● The three "generics" and the Tiffen UV protector are pretty useless for blocking UV, though they may make 

fine, neutral, lens protectors. 

My Pick 

What I actually use when I need a UV filter or a protective filter is a Tiffen 812. Usually, for the type of work I do, 

a warmer image isn't a problem, indeed it's often desirable. I also like to minimize the number of filters I carry so 

my 812 serves three functions. It blocks UV, it protects the lens and it's a warming filter. Some people use an 81B 

for this, but I slightly prefer the color shift of the 812. Not everyone wants a warming filter, so the clear winner for a 

neutral filter that really bocks UV is the Tiffen Haze-1, though the Hoya UV should also be pretty effective. 

Where to buy 

These stores support photo.net when you make a web purchase via these links, so obviously we'd like you to use 



them if they can supply what you need! 

©Copyright 2003 Bob Atkins All Rights Reserved 


Personally, the only graph I really find useful is the first one - the frequency response graph. I find the other ones a little too simplistic, probably 

because they bundle all wavelengths into two bands, hence loosing information that I find important. This probably comes from my EE 

background and remembering some of the details about filter design - there is No such thing as a perfect filter. Also, I would have loved seeing 

the freq response curves for the Tiffen haze filter to confirm your recommendation. 

As far as the filters that have freq response profiles in there, it would seem to me that it’s almost a toss when choosing between the B+W UV and 

the Hoya UV. The tiffen lets in some UV, but it allows all desired blues to come in. The Hoya does a better job at cutting of the UV, but then 

again also kills some desired blues, effectively warming the image just a tiny bit. Of course, this may be a desirable effect so it probably still is a 

better option. 

Anyway, thanks for another great and insightful article. 

LuisB 

-- Luis Bascones, October 16, 2003 

Thank you Bob for this very informative article. Maybe some additionnal info: I checked the spectral sensitivity curve for my usual film, and 

found that the blue layer is not so sensitive below 400nm. So, before choosing a UV filter, you may want to check how your own favorite film 

does react to UV, in order to get an idea of the whole thing. I also thought that most modern Multi-Coated lenses had good UV filtering in it, so 

this could also affect your choice. Olivier 

-- Olivier GALLEN, October 16, 2003 

Hi, 

Thanks Bob, for an informative article. 

Since this discussion is with reference to the Blue layer in film I was wondering whether it applies to the imaging sensors in DSLRs as well. 

Put in another way, does UV light affect the imaging sensor of the DSLR enough to cause color shifting ? I have noticed a blue cast on some my 

images on my 10D and maybe the reason is that I did not have a UV filter on. 

The attached image is stitched panorama where all the individual images seem to have the blue cast. 

Regards, Hemen 

Image:PhotoNet_Aruna-Parth-Neptun.jpg 

-- Hemendra Chonkar, October 16, 2003 

Great document, uncle Bob! Would it is sensible to assume that there is a difference in UV absorbance between film and digital? 

-- Yaron Kidron, October 16, 2003 

Outstanding article!! But after reading it, I find myself no closer to answering the simple question that I'm sure all of us have: should I use a UV 

filter, and if so, when? Thanks to this article, we know that some filters do actually remove some UV. But does this make a visible difference in 

any real-world situation? Can anyone post examples, with and without a UV filter, where there is a perceptable difference? If such examples 

exist, can anyone categorize the situations where a UV filter will make a visible difference? And of course, how do various films differ in 

sensitivity? 

-- John Ampe, October 16, 2003 

An article like this should be published in one of the major photography magazines, but probably won't be because it makes clear the fact that 



many of the filters being sold are really pretty useless. It won't be published because those publications serve their advertisers, and not their 

readers. (JMHO) 

I think this article is a bit dated already. I say this because filter technology is making technological leaps forward in recent years, and the most 

recent designs are not taken into account here. A case in point is the relatively new "Pro 1 UV" filters introduced by Hoya. The transmission 

curve for this filter in their most recent catalog shows an almost ideal steep straight falloff in transmission to zero at 400nm. (The published 

graph for their standard UV filters is essentially identical to the one published in this article.) There's also a Pro 1 "Skylight" filter offered by 

Hoya, though they don't give a transmission curve for it in their catalog. Admittedly, these new filters are expensive, about $45.00 in the 49mm 

size that I use (B&H), compared with about $10.00 for a Tiffen Haze-1, but they have the advantage of being made from dyed optical glass with 

state of the art multicoatings, compared with Tiffen's laminated construction and no anti-reflection coatings. If the intention is to eliminate UV 

while not changing the color balance of the visible light, and to retain the highest possible optical characteristics, these state of the art designs 

render most of the other filters mentioned in this article obsolete. 

Still, I don't want to dismiss the value of Bob's effort here. This is the clearest presentation of the issues regarding management of UV that I've 

seen. Now we can better understand this factor in our photography, and we're able to make informed decisions about how to deal with it. Thanks 

Bob! 

-- Mark Bouquet, October 16, 2003 

A very good read for a newbie photographer like myself. I have been asking the questions that this article answers ever since I started this hobby. 

The Tiffen Haze-1 filter seems to be the best, but it also is very expensive ($146 at B&H) for a person like me, I think I will stick with Hoya 

($20-$50). 

-Assad EDITED: Sorry, I was mistaken, the Tiffen Haze-1 filter costs about $13. *Phew*, thats a relief. 

-- Assad Khan, October 16, 2003 

Thanks for the accurate test, but still it leave me some doubts. As also Olivier Gallen pointed out, how about the UV blocking of the lens itself? 

Are regular lens already effective in cutting the UV portion of the spectrum or not? I would be curious about a test of the system lens+filter 

respect to the lens alone. 

-- Luigi Moccia, October 17, 2003 

Interesting article, but I'm missing one thing: Are digital sensors sensitive to UV light, just like film? Is there a difference between different kinds 

of sensors (CCD, CMOS, etc.)? 

-- Jesper de Jong, October 18, 2003 

Luigi makes a good point - what about the UV-blocking properties of lenses? Some manufacturers claim to have UV-blocking cements and 

coatings. 

-- Douglas Herr, October 18, 2003 

If you read the article carefully you'll see... 

...I've looked at the range between 350nm and 400nm for UV blocking since the glass used in almost all lenses will itself block any light with a 

wavelength shorter than 350nm, so you don't need help from a filter there... 

Yes, lenses do block short wavelength UV, but do not normally block much light between 350nm and 400nm - and that's exactly where UV 

blocking filters do their work (or don't, as the case may be!). 

The question of whether you need UV blocking filters with digital cameras is a good one, but there's probably no general answer. Certainly 

CCDs and CMOS sensors, which both use silicon photodetectors, are intrinsically UV sensitive. Whether any manufacturers us a UV blocking 

filter I don't know. Most (all?) use IR blocking filters. I suspect they don't use particularly strong UV cut filters since most of the time they aren't 

needed. 

Whether UV filters are needed at all is another good question. Probably most of the time the answer is no. Maybe high on a mountain where UV 



is stronger than at sea level they are useful if you are shooting slide film. My guess is that if you're shooting print film or digital, any blue cast 

caused by UV can be removed by small correction in printing filtration or by color balancing digital files. 

On the other hand, if you're one of those people who really want a lens "protector", you migh as well get one that also blocks UV, since blocking 

UV does no harm and may do some good under some circumstances. 

-- Bob Atkins (www.bobatkins.com), October 19, 2003 

It would be useful to find similar information about different brands of 81B-, 81C- and 81E-type warming filters, particularly for those who live 

or photograph at high altitides where the blue cast in chromes is substantial. 

-- Conrad Smith, October 19, 2003 

Bob - as usual, a very well written and informative article. Thank you. 

I first learned how essential UV filters are when trekking in the Himalayas. Especially when photographing in the shadows, my images clearly 

took on a blue tinge. At altitude, a good UV filter is essential. Also, one thing that is easy to forget is that polarizer filters do not filter UV very 

well. And since most people unscrew their UV filters before attaching the Polarizer, I recommend one of the new Pola + UV filters, especially if 

you are photographing in the mountains. 

-- Fabian Gonzales, October 19, 2003 

Shadows going blue isn't always a sign of excessive UV. Shadows are normally illuminated only by the blue sky - which is of course blue - and 

so shadow regions tend to be blue. Often you may be better off with a warming filter like an 812, which will block some UV as well as warming 

the shadows. Of course it also warms the sunlight regions. 

Excessive UV usually shows up as an overall blue cast in both sunlight and shadow regions - or so I'm lead to believe. I've not personally been 

high enough in the mountains to notice the effect very much. 

-- Bob Atkins (www.bobatkins.com), October 20, 2003 

In reference to whether UV affects digital cameras' sensors or not, I've read that UV contributes to the purple fringing we see on high-contrast 

photos. I have a G3 and 812 filter. Perhaps some experiments are in order. :) 

-- Michael Clark, October 23, 2003 

Odd that no one has hinted at what I understand a UV/Haze filter to be good for: filtering haze. My understanding is that atmospheric haze 

effects can show up in a photograph that weren't obvious in the original scene, due to UV light scattering from atmospheric haze. Since the film 

can respond to wavelengths invisible to the eye, we see it in the picture as haze that we didn't see when we took the picture. 

Am I remembering this correctly? 

-- Bryce JFG, October 24, 2003 

Agreed Bryce. As mentioned above, color variations (blue cast from no or a lousy UV filter) can be adjusted in digital post production. Haze, on 

the other hand, is more difficult, if not impossible to remove. I would like to see some "real world" before and after samples, esp. using the 

Tiffen UV Haze-1 or the Hoya equal. I have noticed a big increase in haze in landscape photos with the Canon D60 compared to using film 

(despite the use of L-series lenses). 

-- Richard Stum / Kinesis, October 24, 2003 

Maybe you have explained why these high altitude images are so blue. 

-- J. Harrington USA (Massachusetts), October 26, 2003 

Would you please refer to using Sky Light filter insted of UV. 

Eli 



-- Emil Solomon, October 29, 2003 

Bob, 

Thanks for the effort. I'm a gear head (engineer), so I liked the inclusion of the charts. 

I don't generally use protective filters, but have them for hazardous duty places: Mountain with blowing snow; the beach; and volcanos (Pacaya 

in Guatemala for example). I moved on to using caps because 1. I've never scratched a filter, so the likelyhood of scratching the lens is small, and 

2. I've seen a filter break and scratch a lens. 

Steve 

-- Stephen W., November 5, 2003 

As for digital, my understanding is that it barely (note I did *not* say not) UV reactive, but radically IR reactive. Thus, all Digital cameras have 

very strong IR filters built-in. They are so sensitive that Kodak has made several IR version of its DCS series (quite rare, but we have two 

versions in our studio), where Kodak just removed the IR filter, and the IR signal overwhelms the standard light signal. Digital IR photography is 

quite impressive. Silicon is inherently IR sensitive (CMOS & CCD), and Silver is UV biased (and not IR sensitive). 

Nick Kiest 

-- Nick Kiest, November 28, 2003 

High altitude is major reason for high UV radiation, but not necessarily for blue casts (I mean real overall cast and not apparent shadow blue). I 

have done quite a lot of photos at appx. 3000-4500 m. with no UV filter and without blue casts. Short distance photos are far less affected than 

panoramic ones (In deep moutain fog, I have even "succeeded" to have yellow-brownish cast). All this leads me to the conclusion that UV 

bluecasts occur only when altitude is combined with specific vapour conditions: the presence of condensed water droplets but not blocking fog. 

To put it simply: UV radiation has to scatter on something. What really counts is the volume of air between your camera and your subject. 

I have recently learned how important is the second condition. I took the most UV-affected photos ever while crossing Cook Straight, New 

Zealand. Contributing factors were: water haze and salt scattered in the air, but definitely no altitude because it was 0 m. 

-- Wojciech Pomianowski, December 13, 2003 

Firstly I would like to say that I have always enjoyed the technical articles here, and appreciate that this is a resource for other photog's to draw 

upon. 

Like the earlier EE that posted a reply, I too would like to see a spectral attenuation graph of the Tiffen HAZE-1 filter. 

My choice is B+W as my UV filter for my expensive NIKON glass. This was a recommendation of the Photo sales guy who stated simply that 

the B+W glass was about the only filter glass that matched the quality of the NIKON glass, meaning overall sharper photo's. 

The article addresses very well the UV attenuation, but gives no consideration for the sharpness of the filter. For those that follow lens sharpness 

tests, I am concerned about how the filter not only affects the light spectrum that is permitted to pass through the glass, but also how the filter 

affects the overall Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) of the lens. 

For instance, I could rub vasiline on a piece of glass and then like Bob measure the decrease, if any, in the amount of UV spectrum through that 

filter. It would be a soft filter for sure and for example purposes it is somewhat ridiculous, but nevertheless brings up an important point. I would 

like to see UV attenuation vs. sharpness. I think in this category the B+W and more expensive filters will show themselves to be a better choice 

IF that is something that is important to you as a photographer. 

-- Huey Stevens, December 15, 2003 

Thanks for all the information provided.. but it would be better if someone could provide the information like at what number of mm on lense 

would require what kind of UV filter.. eg. if i have Nikon 28-105mm lense then what filter should be best.. and if i have telephotic lense like 



Sigma 70-300mm.. than what would be the best.. because what happens is as we increase the mm on lense i have found the haze also starts 

increasing... i mean the picture comes out white in shade...i use +ve rolls... thanks!!! rest the information is really viatal for all..!!! 

-- Arun Dangwal, December 28, 2003 

As a note to Wojciech, the reason you may have noted the effect of UV more during your trips to NZ may have something to do with the nearby 

hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. Its just an assumption, but the increased UV levels that we're warned about (skin cancer, etc), may also 

be more obvious on film. 

Guess I'll be keeping that UV filter on my lenses then! 

Adrian 

-- Adrian MacGregor, January 22, 2004 

I would love to have seen Nikon L37c and L39 filters and Canon and Pentax equivalents. Not that I would like a Nikon v. Canon v. Pentax war 

but that I would consider buy filters from any of these companies if they performed in a way that I wish. The Nikon L39 filter is a non-multicoated 

filter with greater UV filtering properties than the L37c. I greatly prefer multi-coated filters. I currently use Nikon L37c filters on most all 

of my lenses. 

I live in a semi-arid region and consider going without a filter for protection foolishness as dust is a constant problem. I do not like to clean a lens 

frequently but a filter is more expendable. I surmise that those who do not use a filters for protection must live in regions with higher humidity 

and that that humidity helps control dust. 

Dust on the front element or filter can add considerably to flare and ghost. Removing a filter in extreme conditions should reveal a spotless front 

element. 

I also find that shading a lens when possible with a hand, hat or black card has far more effect in reducing flare and ghost than removing a filter. 

For longer focal length lenses a bellows type or compendium lens shade is the silver bullet to slay flare and ghost. 

-- David H. Hartman, January 25, 2004 

Hey folks, interesting to know but there is still the matter of the quality of the glass - the coating. Anyone knows the quality of the tiffen haze-1 

or the hoya - i know the hoya g-series is coated only on one site - this is suffiecient quality - i don't know if you really nedd hmc? 

-- Nico Kamm, March 2, 2004 

A simple way to test whether a "UV" filter is doing something or not in the part of the near UV which most concerns most photographers is to 

put it between a blacklight and something fluorescent under same. A blacklight puts out most of its UV energy at around 365nm, so if the filter 

doesn't have much absorption until down around 350nm then one won't see much change when the filter is between the blacklight and the 

fluorescent "sensor". If the filter kicks in at 370nm or above, the material will appear much darkened - even almost black if the filter is close to 

the material. 

At sea level the difference between different filters may not be significant, but for those of us at altitude (up to 14,000+ ft here in Colorado) it 

makes a big difference with all B&W films and many color films. 

BTW - early in 2004 B+W was coming out with a new strong UV filter designated 415, which may appear to the eye as a faint yellow filter (like 

a Wrattern #2B) since it absorbs below 415nm; the standard B+W 010 UV filter fails the blacklight test and thus doesn't have much absorption 

until down below 360 nm. I've corresponded with the tech people at B+W on this matter and can forward on the curves and such data they sent 

me for anyone really interested. 

-- Chris Wetherill, March 3, 2004 

I think the important issue is UV attenuation. An expensive, optically neutral, high-quality, B+W UV filter is a pretty lousy UV filter if it doesn't 

filter UV. If you need a UV filter you *can't* buy the B+W because it *doesn't work!* 

Strong language sure, but everything else is irrelevant if it doesn't work. 



On the subject of filters, have you (anyone who questions the quality degredation of using filters) actually put your camera on a tripod in perfect 

conditions and taken one picture with a filter and another without? I've can't, nor have many others, even when shooting with pro-quality lenses. 

Of course a salesman will sell you the most expensive filter, especially if you proved you've got the money to buy an expensive lens, if he thinks 

he can. Sales people aren't the most impartial source of information on high-margin products they carry. 

-- Clayten Hamacher, June 4, 2004 

Thanks for the interesting paper to read! 

I would very much like to see here any objective data on how non-coated (UV) filters may worsen image quality (e.g. make it quasi-blurred) 

because of multiple reflections between the two filter surfaces (more on this one could find at http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User- 

Guide/filter/filter-coated.html). 

Personally, I can readily observe such image softening, simply looking through viewfinder of my Pentax 67II camera / Pentax M*300ED lens, 

with and without a Rodenstock UV/IR filter (which supposed to be the top quality filter). 

-- Dmitry Kuznetsov, June 13, 2004 

A few years ago I went up to a mountaintop to take photos of the Hale-Bopp comet and was disappointed to find that none of my shots showed 

both comet tails, the bluish tail was missing in every shot. Other photos I've seen of the comet usually had the faint blue tail. Afterwards I 

realized I had left the UV filter on the lens and suspect that's why I didn't see the bluish tail. This might be one case where you should remove the 

UV filter in order to capture the UV part of the scene! 

-- Gary Morris, June 22, 2004 







photo.net 

Lens 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 

Lens 

by Philip 

Greenspun 

Home : Learn : Making Photographs : One Article 

Once you've settled on the subject and the light, you 

have to decide on the relative prominence of objects 

in the scene. By moving the camera position back and 

forth, you can adjust the relative size of objects in the 

scene. After you're happy with the position, you pick 

a lens whose angle of view encompasses all the 

objects that you want to include in the photo. 

Objects? Relative prominence? I only want to take a 

picture of my friend Cyrano! There is only one object 

in the scene and it is Cyrano's head. 

Au contraire! The objects in this scene are Cyrano's 

nose, Cyrano's ears, and Cyrano's eyes. Suppose that 

you position your camera 10" from Cyrano's eyes. If 

his nose sticks out 5" in front of his eyes, then it will 

be only half the distance from the camera as the eyes 

and therefore relatively more prominent. Stretch out your arm right now and compare the size of your 

index finger to the lines of text on the monitor. Only about as big as a paragraph, right? Now close your 

left eye and bring that same finger in until it is just in front of your nose. Note that your finger appears 

taller than the entire monitor. 

Aesthetic tip from MIT: when your nose sticks out 5" in front of your eyes, you don't want it to appear 

relatively more prominent. 

Suppose that you actually want this photo as the "before" illustration in a plastic surgeon's 

advertisement. Well, then haul out the 24mm wide angle lens and you can have a complete portrait taken 

from 10" away. 

http://www.photo.net/making-photographs/lens (1 of 9)7/3/2005 2:22:04 AM

Lens 

Suppose that you wish to flatter Cyrano. You'll want to back up until you are separated by the length of 

a football field. Now his nose is still 5" closer to the camera but that is 5" out of 100 yards (note for 

European readers: 100 yards is just short of half a standard furlong.) So instead of being 50% of the 

distance to the camera as Cyrano's eyes, the nose is 99.86% of the distance away. It will not be 

significantly more prominent. 

What about the 24mm lens from this camera position? It will give you a nice photo of the entire stadium 

and the city behind it. Cyrano's face will appear as a portion of a grain of silver on the film. You're now 

100 yards away from Cyrano so you will need the Mother of All Telephoto Lenses. In fact, according to 

the formulas in my Kodak Professional Photoguide, if Cyrano's face is 12" high, you will need a 

7500mm lens to fill the frame with it. Cyrano will be flattered but considering that a Canon 600mm lens 

costs almost $10,000, the effect on your wallet will not be a happy one. 

Exactly how long a lens do you need? 

How far away is your subject? (in feet) 

How high is the object you want to fill the frame? (in 

feet) 

Apologies to people from countries that have adopted sensible units. 

If film and lenses were perfect... you would need only one lens! 

In a perfect world, I'd walk about with only my Canon 14 super-wide lens. I'd worry only about my 

camera position, secure in the knowledge that the 14mm lens was wide enough to capture my entire 

subject under 99% of conditions. Then if I wanted a picture for my Web site of just my friend in the 

middle of the frame, I'd crop down to just the center and use that. The result would be the same as if I'd 

used a 100mm portrait lens. 


Lens 

The reason this doesn't work is that lenses and film aren't perfect. If you throw away 98% of the area of 

a negative (and/or make a huge enlargement), you can expect to have some pretty crummy looking 

pixels. So if I'm sure at exposure time that I will want more magnification, it is best for me to carry some 

higher magnification lenses. 

If you want to really nerd out on this subject, have a look at my publishing FlashPix article where I 

discover the limitations of 35mm lenses and get pushed into using my cumbersome 4x5 view camera. 

Sadly, we don't live in a perfect world so I guess we have to think about what kinds of lenses we might 

want to lug around. 

Wide angle lenses 

With 35mm film, a wide angle lens is generally considered anything with a focal length of 35mm or 

less. 

Here are a couple of snapshots taken with my Canon 20-35/2.8L zoom lens. Note that the image on the 

left, at 20, appears to be significantly distorted if you view it from far away. But try clicking on it so that 

you get a monitor-filling JPEG. Then move your face in close to the monitor so that you are viewing it 

from a few inches away. The distortion disappears, right? A wide angle lens does not distort perspective 

but, if the viewer of the ultimate image does not adjust his viewing position, it appears to do so. 

at 20 

(camera closer to car) 

at 35 

(camera farther from car) 

As a practical matter, most people these days aren't impressed by a wide-angle effect until you get down 

to 24mm. Wide angle lenses start to get expensive at 20mm ($500) and wider. So good compromises 

these days are are probably a fixed 24 ($250) or a high-quality 20-35 zoom ($1500). 

Normal Lenses 


Lens 

A "normal" or "standard" lens is one that produces prints with no 

apparent wide angle or telephoto distortion. In other words, when 

viewed at a standard distance, a print taken with a normal lens will 

appear to have no unusual perspective. For a camera taking 35mm 

film, a 50mm lens is considered normal. 

Normal lenses are easy and cheap to fabricate. A 50/1.8 costs 

under $100 and will optically outperform most of the lenses in any 

manufacturer's line. Furthermore, normal lenses allow photography 

in rather low light with no flash or tripod. A yuppie with a mid-range zoom lens has a maximum 

aperture of f/4. A photographer with a 50/1.8 not only saves $200 but is gathering 4 times as much light 

(2 f-stops). With a standard single-lens reflex (SLR; viewing through the lens), this makes viewing and 

composition easier because the viewfinder is 4 times brighter. 

If you don't feel like saving $200, you can get a 50/1.4 which will gather another factor of 2 in light. If 

you are a real wastrel, you can splurge $2500 on a lens like my Canon 50/1.0. This gathers 16 times as 

much light as a yuppie mid-range zoom. 

Another common option is the 50mm macro lens. I refer you to my article on macro photography and 

my review of the Nikon 60/2.8 AF lens. 


Lens 

Telephoto Lenses 

Telephoto lenses are high-magnification devices. These are for when you are 

photographing something from far away either because you want to flatten 

perspective or because you are unable to approach your subject. 

It is difficult and expensive to produce a high-quality telephoto lens. In fact, 

only in the last couple of decades have manufacturers been able to design 

really high quality 300mm and longer lenses. 

Telephoto lenses can be useful for portraits, most often in the 85-180mm 

range. Photography of large animals is facilitated by 300-600mm lenses. 

Photography of birds starts with a 600mm lens and goes up from there. 

Telephoto lenses that serious photographers buy include the following: 

● 100mm macro lenses, capable of focusing down to 1:1 

● 85-105mm super-fast portrait lenses, e.g., the old Nikon 

105/1.8 

● 180/2.8 reasonably light portrait lens 

● 300/4 + 1.4X teleconverter lightweight wildlife kit ($1,500) 

● 300/2.8 + 1.4X teleconverter heavyweight wildlife kit 

($5,000) 

● 600/4 + 1.4X teleconverter bird photography kit ($10,000) 

Teleconverters 


Lens 

A teleconverter is a small lightweight intermediate optic that will increase the magnification of a lens, 

while reducing its effective aperture. So a 2X teleconverter turns a 300/2.8 into a 600/5.6. A lot of times 

new photographers ask me if they can save money by buying a teleconverter and sticking it onto their 28- 

70 zoom to get a 140mm lens. Sadly, good teleconverters cost $400 or $500 and they only work 

optically on expensive lenses. With a typical zoom lens, you'll get vignetting (darkening of the corners) 

when using a teleconverter. 

Teleconverters are for professionals who own expensive lenses and want to save weight by not carrying 

two lenses. They are also useful sometimes with specialized tilt-shift lenses so that you don't have to buy 

these in lots of different focal lengths. 

Zoom lenses 

Why carry around a whole bag of fixed focal length ("prime") lenses when you could just buy a Tamron 

28-200 zoom lens for $300? With a twist of a ring, the Tamron will give you any focal length from 

28mm to 200mm. The only problem with this idea is that, sadly, the laws of physics and common sense 

have not been repealed. 

Photographic lenses in general are not very good. They only appear to be good because people very 

seldom enlarge or closely inspect images. Lenses are subject to many kinds of distortion, all of which 

are more difficult to engineer around in a zoom lens. Furthermore, zoom lenses tend to be slower (admit 

less light) than prime lenses. This forces the photographer into using flash and/or a tripod. 

Does that mean you shouldn't buy a zoom lens? Absolutely not. I own three beautiful zoom lenses for 

my Canon EOS system: 20-35/2.8L, 28-70/2.8L, and 70-200/2.8L. These are a great convenience for the 

lazy and/or pressed-for-time photographer. However, none of these are as good as prime lenses in their 

focal length range. Each of these zooms costs about $1500 so they won't help you out if you don't like 

the prices of the prime lenses. 

Personally I'd rather have my 28-70/2.8L than a 50/1.8. But I'd rather have the 50/1.8 than Canon's 

cheaper mid-range zooms. And I'd rather have a Yashica T4 point-and-shoot than a bottom-priced 

Tokina mid-range zoom. 

Weird Lens #1: The Fisheye 

See my review of the Canon 15mm fisheye lens. 

Weird Lens #2: The Beyond 1:1 Macro lens 

As far as I know, Canon is the only company in the world that makes a lens intended for convenient 

photography of objects smaller than a 35mm frame. See the photo.net review of the Canon MP-E 65mm 


Lens 

1X-5X macro lens. 

Be Careful (and rich) 

Modern film is extremely good. Modern camera bodies work very well. The limiting factor in the 

quality of your image will almost always be the lens. If you want to achieve a good result, you must 

have the correct lens for the job and it must be a high quality example of that kind of lens. 

Lots of companies make high-quality lenses. Sadly, none of them have figured out how to break 

physical laws and do so cheaply. So if your creative goals require a long telephoto or very wide angle 

lens, prepare to cough up the big bucks. If you are using a larger format than 35mm, prepare to cough up 

the big bucks for any lens! 

Rent 

If you own a Canon or Nikon 35mm SLR, a Hasselblad medium format camera, or any large format 

camera, you can rent a wide variety of lenses in most major cities. It will definitely expand your creative 

horizons without breaking you financially. Remember when using a large or medium format camera that 

a given lens focal length will result in a different perspective than on a 35mm camera. Use this table to 

convert. 

(If you're determined to ignore our advice and buy a lens instead, you can help defray the cost of running 

photo.net by buying from Adorama or Photoalley.) 

More 

● lens FAQ 

● photo.net lens tutorial 

● equivalent focal lengths for the same perspective with different sizes of film 

● archived Q&A threads on lenses 

Next: Film. 

philg@mit.edu 



Lens 

Phil has given a very nice summary of options, with one exception. No doubt humility motivated him to 

omit the best resource for obtaining that perfect lens: used equipment listed in Photo.net classifieds. 

Unlike ebay or other general auction sites, we users of photo.net feel comfortable that most sellers of 

equipment are other serious, or at least honest, photographers. Consider how much faith is required to 

hand over thousands of dollars to a total stranger, based on his or her assertion that the equipment is both 

on its way, and in working order. 

Over the years, I have purchased many cameras and lenses from photo.net, and have been very pleased 

with the process. For the non-rich among us, it's a great way to eat AND take pictures. 

-- David Merfeld, December 13, 2001 

Phil, you say "As far as I know, Canon is the only company in the world that makes a lens intended for 

convenient photography of objects smaller than a 35mm frame. See the photo.net review of the Canon 

MP-E 65mm 1X-5X macro lens." Well, you're wrong. Olympus makes several 20mm and 38mm macro 

lenses. You can put them on bellows and a focusing stage for control and cover from 1.8x to 12.4x. But 

for convenience, you can also put them on the telescopic auto tube (65-116mm). Then the 38mm covers 

1:2.5-4x and the 20mm covers 1:5.8x to 8.3x. Handholdable? Well, I'd use an electronic flash to keep 

things still and blast enough light to get thru such an extension (even if one of the 20's is f/2). 

And the auto tube can be used to extend the close-up focusing of any Olympus or 3rd party lens, from 

16mm to 1000mm. For example, the 50/2 (or 50/3.5) macro would focus down to about 1:4x But the 

shorter macro lenses are better corrected for their macro ratios. 

Tom 

-- tOM Trottier, May 29, 2002 

A crop of the center of a frame taken with a 14 mm lens may have the same field of view as a 100 mm 

portrait lens, but will have a very different (larger) depth of field and presumably a different rendering of 

out of focus area. Thus a 100 mm portrait lens would be useful even in a world of perfect lenses and 

film. 

-- Peter Langfelder, June 7, 2002 

Another common option is the 50mm macro lens. 

Two things to be aware of are (a) macro lenses aren't as fast as non-macro normal lenses, and (b) 

because so much of the focus ring is taken up to focus at macro distances, there's not much rotation left 

to focus at non-macro distances. As an example, my Sigma 50:2.8 EX macro lens has a whopping half a 

centimeter between its 5 foot setting and its infinity setting. That makes accurate manual focusing a very 


Lens 

touchy matter at those distances. 

I've recently bought a good cheap used 50:1.7 normal lens for the above two reasons. 

-- David Barts, February 4, 2003 

Minolta had a 1x-3x macro zoom for their AF mount for over a decade before Canon made their macro 

zoom. 

-- Michael Hohner, July 19, 2003 

Related Links 

Add a comment 

● Photodo lens tests- The best resource of lens test data on the Web (click on products), with 

excellent articles on lenses. 458 lenses MTF tested as of June, 2000. (contributed by Norman 

Koren) 

● Prime Lens vs. Zoom Lens- I wrote a fairly non-technical article about why I prefer the prime 

lens to the zoom lens. It boils down to image quality and cost. Just another perspective. 

(contributed by Christopher Muscarella) 

● Imatest-- Software for testing lenses and digital camera image quality- Imatest is a suite of 

programs for testing the sharpness and image quality of lenses, digital cameras, and digitized film 

images, using inexpensive, widely available targets. For the first time, photographers can test 

their lenses with accuracy and convenience. (contributed by Norman Koren) 

Add a link 


permission. 




Sponsor: Digital Camera HQ - Excellent reviews of digital cameras 


photo.net 

Exposure 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 

Exposure 

by Philip 

Greenspun 


F/8 and Be There 

If you ask a professional for some exposure advice, the typical 

answer is "f/8 and be there." This is a bit of an in joke. The 

"f/8" part of it sounds vaguely technical and useful, since f/8 is 

an actual aperture that you can set on most lenses. But it 

doesn't mean anything without an accompanying shutter speed 

or film ISO. The "be there" reminds you that ultimately 

exposure is pretty easy. The most important thing to have is 

patience and dedication so that you're around when a great 

photograph is happening. 

There is no correct exposure 

As I noted in the chapter on film, the real world generally 

contains a wider range of tones than you can represent on film. 

You have to make an artistic decision about where you place 

those tones. Some detail will inevitably be lost as tones that 

are distinguishable in the real world are mapped to the same 

density on film. 

This chapter will teach you how to control and predict which details are lost. 

The Controls 

Modern 35mm cameras have an intimidating array of buttons. It will please you to know that there are only three 

controls that affect the image on film: focus, aperture, and shutter speed. The two controls that affect exposure 

http://www.photo.net/making-photographs/exposure (1 of 13)7/3/2005 2:22:14 AM

Exposure 

are aperture and shutter speed. 

Aperture 

If neither the subject nor the camera are moving, the shutter speed is not very important. Aperture, however, 

affects the depth of field and therefore which portions of the image will be in focus. 

What is aperture and why is it useful to change it? Aperture is the degree to which the iris or diaphragm inside 

the lens is opened. Lenses are designed for maximum light-gathering capability. The diaphragm is just like the 

iris in your eye; it can be closed or stopped down to block off a portion of the light coming through the lens. A lot 

of expense and weight went into making your lens fast or good at gathering light. Why would you want to throw 

away some of that capability away? 

The first reason to stop down a lens is that the world might simply be too bright. If you're using high-speed 

(sensitive) film and have a slow shutter that must expose the film for at least 1/500th of a second, using a smaller 

aperture is the only way to prevent too much light from striking the film and overexposing it. 

A more interesting reason is for aesthetic control of sharpness. Suppose the lens has a maximum aperture of f/2. 

The f-number is the lens length divided by the diameter of the aperture opening. So for a 100mm lens, this would 

be a 50mm opening. The depth of field will be shallow. Only the object on which you focussed will be sharp. 

Things closer or farther from the camera will be out of focus. The range of distances for which objects are 

acceptably sharp is called the "depth of field". Notice the word "acceptably" in the definition. What is acceptable 

in an 8x10 print viewed from across the room may not be acceptable in the same print viewed at arm's length. 

What is acceptable in an 8x10 print viewed at arm's length may not be acceptable in a 30x40 print viewed at 

arm's length. 

If you want more objects in the scene to be acceptably focussed, you have to stop down the lens to a smaller 

aperture, e.g., f/16 or f/22. This nomenclature is a bit confusing at first for beginners because a smaller aperture 

means that the lens length divided by the aperture diameter gets larger, yielding a larger f-number. Even more 

confusing is the fact that lenses are calibrated with a strange succession of apertures: 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0, 

11, 16, 22, 32, 45, 64. Each step represents a halving of the amount of light that comes through the lens. Why? 

The area of the aperture is proportional to half the diameter squared. So multiplying the f-number by the square 

root of 2 halves the amount of light coming through the lens. 

Let's look at some example images. 

With a long lens and a wide aperture, the depth of field is very narrow. Only those objects exactly at the focussed 

distance will be sharp. For example, here are a couple of images taken with a 600mm lens at f/4 or f/5.6: 


Exposure 

Notice that only the birds are sharp and the backgrounds are soft. The effect may seem rather extreme given that 

f/4 and f/5.6 are not ordinarily considered super wide apertures. Depth of field is related to the absolute size of 

the aperture not the f-number (lens length divided by aperture diameter). A 600mm lens is a big honker and an fnumber 

of 4 implies an aperture 150mm across. I.e., the depth of field at f/4 on a 600mm lens will be shallower 

than at f/1.0 on a 50mm lens. 

One way to achieve overall image sharpness is to choose a composition where everything is roughly the same 

distance from the lens (50mm): 

Another approach is to stop the lens down to a small aperture. Note here the leaves in the upper right corner of 

the frame and the trees at infinity. Both are sharp thanks to the f/16 aperture used on this 50mm lens: 


Exposure 

The best way to learn about depth of field is to put your camera on a tripod and expose the same image at 

different apertures. In these examples, note how much clearer the background is at f/22 than wide open at f/2.8. 

f/2.8 

f/2.8 

If you're using a single-lens reflex camera, where what you see through the viewfinder is what the film will see 

http://www.photo.net/making-photographs/exposure (4 of 13)7/3/2005 2:22:14 AM 

f/22 

f/22

Exposure 

after the mirror flips up, you might be confused at this point. You turn the aperture ring on the lens and the image 

remains just as bright in the viewfinder. Moreover, out of focus objects don't get any sharper as you stop down. 

You're using a lens with an automatic diaphragm, introduced in the 1960s. The lens will be stopped down by the 

camera an instant before exposure, just as the mirror is flipping up. If you're just viewing and composing 

pictures, the lens is kept wide open for maximum brightness. To see what the film will see, you press the depth of 

field preview button. This lets you visualize in the viewfinder the focus effects of stopping down the aperture but 

it takes some practice to adjust to the extreme dimming that occurs by f/11 or f/16. 

Shutter Speed 

For a given amount of exposure on the film, the shutter speed can be determined by the 

aperture that you set for aesthetic purposes. If you are taking a portrait and want to 

throw the background out of focus, choose a wide-open f/2.8 aperture. Suppose that 

implies a shutter speed of 1/125th of a second. If you change your mind and want to 

ensure that the background is sharp, stop down to f/22, 6 f-stops less light. The film 

will need to be exposed for 2^6 times as long. Two raised to the 6th power is 64 so 

you'll need a shutter speed of 1/2 second to achieve the same density of exposure on 

film. 

A camera with built-in meter can do this calculation for you. Professional 

photographers most typically use an exposure mode called "aperture-priority 

autoexposure". The photographer picks the aperture and the camera picks the shutter 

speed. Does it matter what shutter speed the camera picks? Not as long as neither the 

camera nor subject is moving. If they are standing up, most subjects won't be able to hold acceptably still for the 

1/2 second exposure mentioned above. The photographer will be advised to open the aperture until the shutter 

speed is 1/15th second or faster. If the photographer is handholding the camera, i.e., not using a tripod, the 1/15th 

of a second exposure will very likely result in an unacceptable amount of camera shake being recorded on film. 

When using a normal lens, the general rule is to use shutter speeds of 1/60th or faster. Longer lenses magnify the 

subject but they also magnify camera shake. The traditional rule for handheld photography is to use shutter 

speeds of at least 1/focal-length. So if you've got a 250mm lens you'd use shutter speeds of 1/250th or faster. 

You'll be well advised to use faster speeds if you intend to make big enlargements from your originals. You can 

get away with slower shutter speeds if you either (1) brace yourself against a solid object, (2) rest the camera/lens 

on a solid object, or (3) use a lens with electronic image stabilization, as explained in the photo.net review of the 

Canon 600/4 IS lens. 

There are sometimes aesthetic reasons to use different shutter speeds. If you are taking a picture of something 

moving and want to show the motion, you'll need a slowish shutter speed. If you're taking a picture of something 

moving and want to freeze the motion, you'll need a fastish shutter speed, the exact speed depending on the 

velocity with which your subject is moving and whether the direction of moving is towards the camera or 

sideways across the frame (note: the best way to freeze motion is with an electronic flash, which is actually a 

kind of strobe light; a cheap on-camera flash may have a duration as short as 1/30,000th of a second). 


Exposure 


Hummingbird frozen in flight with a Canon oncamera 

flash (from Monteverde, Costa Rica). 

You need a high shutter speed to capture the 

fast-moving savagery of two Samoyeds in 

mortal combat (the obscured face belongs to 

Alex). Probably around 1/250th. 

Another good example of photography's ability 

to freeze motion. This was ISO 100 film on a 

bright sunny day so it was probably 1/250th or 

1/500th at 50mm. 

ISO 400 film on a cloudy day at Venice Beach. 

The shutter speed here (Berlin) isn't fast enough 

to freeze the camera shake induced by the 

photographer panning to follow the bike rider. 

Note the blurred arm. The image remains 

successful because the blurring suggests 

motion.

Exposure 


This image was taken from a moving car at 

1/15th or 1/30th of a second, slow enough to 

blur the background but fast enough to keep the 

Acura NSX reasonably sharp (since the 

photographer's car and the subject car were 

moving at approximately the same speed). 

On a bright sunny day with a handheld camera 

and therefore a fast shutter speed (1/125th?), the 

water looks more or less as you might see it 

with your eyes. 

Some softening of the waves breaking over the 

rocks due to perhaps a 1/4 second exposure 

(from Hawaii).

Exposure 

Help in Setting Aperture and Shutter Speed 

A few seconds at the amusement park. 

A 6-hour exposure in the Sierra. 

Given the information and examples above you ought to have some idea of the aesthetic results you're trying to 

achieve. If you're interested in the blurring or stopping of motion on film, set the shutter speed first. If you're 

interested in what will be in focus, set the aperture first. If you can't get a combination that suits you, look for a 

different speed of film or put a neutral density filter over the lens to reduce the amount of light coming through 

without changing what is in focus. 

How do you know that you're send the right number of photons through to the film so that your result won't be 

completely black (underexposed slide) or completely white (overexposed slide)? Old-timers using negative film 

would simply estimate the exposure from their experience, then fix up any minor errors in the darkroom. A 

somewhat more accurate technique is to RTFM. Here are the instructions included with Kodak Tri-X, a name 

shared by two confusingly different films (Tri-X Pan is ISO 400 and has good midtone separation; Tri-X Pan 

Professional is ISO 320 and has more highlight separation): 

"Use the exposures in the table below for frontlighted subjects from 2 hours after sunrise to 2 hours 

before sunset." 


Exposure 

Lighting Conditions 

Bright or Hazy Sun on Light Sand or Snow 

Sand or Snow 

Bright or Hazy Sun 

(Distinct Shadows) 

Weak, Hazy Sun 

(Soft Shadows) 

Cloudy Bright 

(No Shadows) 

Heavy Overcast or 

Open Shade§ 

* Use f/5.6 at 1/500 for backlighted close-up subjects. 

Use f /8 at 1/500 for backlighted close-up subjects. 

§ Subject shaded from the sun but lighted by a large area of clear sky. 

Shutter Speed (Second) 

and Lens Opening 

Tri-X Pan 

Professional 

TXP, TXT 

1/500 

f /16 

1/500 

f /11* 

1/500 

f /8 

1/500 

f /5.6 

1/500 

f /4 

Tri-X Pan 

TX 

1/500 

f /22 

1/500 

f /16 

1/500 

f /11 

1/500 

f /8 

1/500 

f /5.6 

More elaborate recommendations for a wider variety of light conditions can be found in the Kodak Professional 

Photo Guide. 

How well does it work to simply read Kodak's instructions and follow them as best you can? Quite well with 

negative film; not well enough with slide film; not at all when using electronic flash. 

Fundamentally, an exposure meter can be built in two ways. The first is to measure the light falling on the subject 

that you intend to photograph: incident metering. The second is to measure the light coming off the subject in the 

direction of the camera lens: reflected metering. The typical handheld accessory lightmeter gives the 

photographer a choice between these two methods. The typical in-camera meter can only measure reflected light. 

Both kinds of meters recommend a combination of aperture and shutter speed to the photographer who will then 

use that recommendation as a starting point when actually exposing film. 

When using an incident light meter, the most important source of error of which the photographer must be aware 

occurs when the light is highly directional. The incident dome may not catch the light exactly the way the 

combination of the subject and camera lens. 


Exposure 

When using a reflected light meter, the most important source of error is 

that the subject's reflectance may not match the meter's assumption about 

the subject's reflectance. Suppose that you're taking individual portraits of 

Alex and Mia (at right). You measure the light being reflected off Alex's 

white fur and set the camera to whatever the meter recommends. Repeating 

the image with Mia as the subject you find that much less light is reflected 

by her black and brown fur. So the reflected light meter recommends a 

wider aperture or a slower shutter speed than it did for Alex. 

Does this make sense? With negative film, perhaps. Mia is darker and if you want to get her tones into the linear 

portion of the film's curve you'll need a longer exposure. But consider that if you'd used an incident light meter it 

would have recommended the same exposure for both dogs. After all, the same amount of light was falling on 

them. If you'd used color slide film and the incident meter's recommendation you'd get one slide with a white dog 

in it and one slide with a black dog in it. What if you'd used the reflected meter's recommendation with the slide 

film? You'd get two slides exposed with an identical amount of light and therefore both would be the same shade. 

Exactly what shade do you get when you follow a reflective meter's recommendation? 18% gray. This is a tone 

midway between 0% gray (white) and 100% gray (black). Reflected meters are calibrated to assume that the 

average scene is 18% gray. The reflected meter couldn't know that Alex is a white dog and that Mia is a black 

dog. When you pointed it at Alex it assumed that the day had gotten brighter. When you pointed it at Mia it 

assumed that the sky had become cloudier. 

Is this 18% gray assumption reasonable? If you take portraits of Caucasian people and meter off their facial skin 

you'll probably find that your slides come out a bit too dark. Typical Caucasian skin is about 1/2 f-stop lighter 

than 18% gray. So the reflected meter thinks that the subject is lit somewhat brighter than in reality. 

Here are some examples: 


A dream scene! All roughly the same tone. All 

roughly 18% gray. (from Italy)

Exposure 


A nightmare. The snow is white but the meter 

might also pick up on some of the dark trees. 

And would we really want to add exposure until 

the white was super white on film? We're trying 

to suggest evening here. This is a good occasion 

for bracketing! 

Slightly challenging. The key here is to make 

sure to meter only the central (illuminated) 

portion of the frame so that the black sky does 

not get averaged into the exposure calculation. 

Then open up 1/2 to 1 f-stop over the meter's 

recommendation so that the builder is rendered 

white rather than gray. 

Same challenge. Use the in-camera spot meter 

of the Rollei 6008 to measure only the brightly 

illuminated cliff face, then open up 1/2 stop over 

the meter's recommendation to render it bright 

on film. Then try another exposure at 1 stop 

over because it is tough to get back to the 

bottom of the Grand Canyon. 

Point, meter, open 1 stop to move the shells 

from gray to white, click. From Cape Cod.

Exposure 

Painful Details 

Point, meter, close 1 stop to move the lava from 

gray to black, click. From Hawaii. 

There are some details that can make life painful when setting exposure. As you focus closer to a subject you are 

moving the lens farther from the film. The lens is throwing the same amount of light in a larger and larger circle 

of which the film intercepts a smaller and smaller fraction. For small format (35mm) cameras this effect is not 

significant until you get a macro lens and start taking pictures of things comparable in size to the 24x36mm 

frame itself. However, if you are taking macro photographs and following the recommendations of a handheld 

light meter you will find that your pictures are underexposed by 1 or 2 f-stops. 

The handheld meter, whether reflected or incident, can't know what impediments there are to light reaching the 

film. The meter manufacturers assume an ideal lens. Your lens may be covered with a fine coating of dust. Your 

lens's internal elements will not be perfectly transmissive; some light will be lost each time it goes through a 

piece of glass within your lens. You may have stuck a filter in front of the lens. 

A good way of sweeping away all of these details is the through-the-lens meter. Necessarily a reflected light 

meter, the metering cells are placed behind the lens and in front of the film, oftentimes built into the viewing 

system. These cells see what the film will see and therefore if light is getting blocked for any reason the meter 

simply sets the exposure as if there were less overall scene illumination. 

More 

● archived Q&A threads on exposure 

Next chapter: Camera. 


Exposure 

philg@mit.edu 

Related Links 

● "Ultimate Exposure Computer"- A really useful guide for choosing good exposures from a professional 

photographer. Worth reading. (contributed by R.J. Fox) 

● simcam- I came upon to this site when striving to learn more about exposure....i think its a great site. 

Check it out but be advise...its great for beginners only. (contributed by Carlo Torres) 




Privacy 




photo.net 

Camera 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 

Camera 

by Philip 

Greenspun 


We've arrived at the last and, to my mind, least important chapter in the text. As noted on the cover 

page, this is where most photography textbooks start. Generally your choice of camera will not have 

much effect on the final image. Certainly the brand of camera that you choose will have virtually no 

effect. However, if you're a nerd like me, there is a certain satisfaction in knowing what tools are 

available to the photographer and how they work. 

Here are the factors that go into the choice of a camera for a project: 

1. What is the required final image quality? 

2. At what magnification will the image be viewed? 

3. How much weight can you carry to the subject? 

4. How much time do you have to take the picture? 

Suppose that your project demands high image quality and high magnification. For example, you are 

going to make a 20 x 24 inch enlargement and display it in a corridor where people can walk right up to 

it to check out fine detail. This requirement pushes you toward using a large piece of film for the 

original exposure. The large piece of film will require a large relatively heavy camera surrounding it, 

which gets us into Factor 3: "How much weight can you carry to the subject?" 

Annie Liebowitz goes to a portrait session with several assistants carrying her heavy Mamiya camera 

that exposes a 6 x 7 cm negative (4.5 times the area of a 35mm negative). Ansel Adams would pack his 

8 x 10 inch camera into the Sierra with a mule. If you're the mule and your subject isn't in your home or 

photo studio, think about whether you'll have the energy to take any pictures after carrying around a 

particular camera and its accessories. 

Different cameras work at different speeds. With the latest Canon or Nikon autofocus systems, you 

might be able to capture an unanticipated event on a soccer field. Ansel Adams could not have done this 

http://www.photo.net/making-photographs/camera (1 of 9)7/3/2005 2:22:21 AM

Camera 

with an 8 x 10 view camera, which requires many minutes for setting up the tripod, focusing, stopping 

the lens down to taking aperture, closing the shutter, cocking the shutter, film loading, dark slide 

removal, and exposure. If your subject is a big mountain, you can probably afford to take your time 

making the image. 

Now that we have the factors in mind, let's dive into the types of cameras available: 

● view cameras (sheet film + perspective control) 

● single-lens reflex cameras (roll film, heavy in larger formats, very limited perspective control) 

● twin-lens reflex cameras (roll film, light and cheap, no perspective control) 

● rangefinder cameras (roll film, lightweight, no perspective control) 

● panoramic cameras (view camera lens + rangefinder body or rotating lens) 

Film Sizes 

A camera won't do you much good unless you can buy film in the right size for it. Companies like Fuji 

and Kodak will generally make the same emulsion (film formulation) in a variety of sizes. 

Almost every emulsion will be available in 35mm cartridges. The standard frame size for a 35mm 

camera is 24 x 36 mm. 

Most emulsions are available in "120 size" roll film. There are many standard widths for 120 camera 

frames: 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 6x12, and 6x17. These numbers are ostensibly in centimeters although 

in practice a 6x6 camera such as a Hasselblad will expose a 56 x 56 mm frame. Comparatively few 

emulsions are available in 220, which is the same as 120 except that you get twice as many exposures/ 

roll (24 rather than 12 for 6x6; 8 rather than 4 for 6x17 panoramics). 

If you need a larger negative than roll film, you must use sheet film. Standard American sizes are 4x5, 

5x7, 8x10, and 11x14. The dimensions are in inches. The largest sizes are wonderful for those who do 

darkroom work because they can be contact-printed into final framable results, avoiding the degradation 

of an enlarger lens. However, there is very little emulsion choice in 11x14 and not too much in 8x10 or 

5x7 either. Given the high quality of modern optics and film, for most applications these days, a 4 x 5 

inch sheet of film is large enough. Therefore that's where most of the demand is and where you get the 

best choice of emulsions. 

I'm not going to let my article on APS film and cameras serve as my repository for what I know about 

this format (somewhat smaller than 35mm). Despite the intriguing nature of spy cameras such as the 

Minox (Austin Powers used one to copy documents), film formats significantly smaller than 35mm are 

generally not useful for serious photographers. 

View Cameras 


Camera 

View cameras are the most flexible cameras, usually made from a 

basic design that has not changed for over 100 years. You know the 

guy in the old time photo studio who photographs with his head 

under a cloth? He's using a view camera. Edward Weston? He took 

most of his best photos with an 8x10" view camera. All those 

luscious ads for food in magazines? Taken with view cameras. 

A view camera is fundamentally a light-tight box with a slot at one 

end for a lens and a slot at the other for the film. You compose and 

focus your image on a groundglass, then displace the glass with a sheet of film in a film holder. 

The lens and film aren't fixed parallel to each other. This 

opens up a huge range of creative opportunities that are 

unavailable to most photographers. For example, if you 

want to take a photo of a building, the obvious thing to 

do is point the camera up towards the center of the 

structure. However, this results in projecting the vertical 

exterior of the building onto the angled film surface. 

The lines of the building will converge towards the top 

of the frame. A view camera allows you to keep the 

camera level with the ground and either shift the lens up 

or the film down. The film is now "looking up" at the 

building through the lens, but the film is still parallel to 

the building exterior so lines don't converge. 

If you're taking a picture of rocks in a stream with a 

view camera, you can achieve sharper focus by tilting 

the lens forward a bit. This will get the Scheimpflug 

Rule working for you: the planes of the subject, the lens, 

and the film should all intersect in a line. You can 

achieve the same result by leaving the lens fixed and 

tilting the film standard back a bit. This will improve the 

focus and also increase the relative prominence of nearby rocks since they will be stretched out onto the 

film. 

If you want to understand view cameras, you can start by reading B&H Photo's introduction to large 

format and the standard textbook on the topic: View Camera Technique. I provide some view camera 

sample images in my FlashPix References Images collection. 

Above: the very first image that I made with a view camera, back in 1981. I was a 17-year-old 

undergraduate at MIT taking an intro photography course (the only one I've ever taken). We had old 

cheap metal view cameras, loaded Tri-X, and developed the film and prints ourselves. 


Camera 

Single lens reflex (SLR) 

A single lens reflex (SLR) is a camera in which the same lens is used for 

viewing and taking pictures. A mirror in the body directs the light from the 

lens up into a prism for viewing, then flips up out of the way just before an 

exposure is made. Note that this is not an exotic technology; the standard 

Nikon or Canon camera body (photo at right) is an SLR. 

Suppose that the photographer has chosen an exposure of f/8 and 1/125th of a 

second. Here is how most SLRs work during exposure: 

● lens is kept open to maximum aperture (e.g., f/2.8) for ease of viewing and metering 

● when the user presses the shutter release, the lens aperture is stopped down to the taking aperture 

of f/8. On old-style camera/lens interfaces (e.g., Nikon, Hasselblad), this is accomplished by 

moving a lever. With camera/lens interfaces designed in the 1980s (e.g., Canon, Rollei), this is 

accomplished by sending an electrical signal to a solenoid in the lens. 

● the mirror is flipped up out of the way of the light (and parked flat up against the prism) 

● now that the lens is stopped down and the mirror is up, the shutter opens and light begins to strike 

the film 

● as soon as the shutter is fully open, the camera signals an electronic flash, if attached to fire 

● when 1/125th of a second has elapsed, the shutter is closed 

● the mirror is pushed back down to viewing position 

● the lens aperture is reopened to its widest setting 

SLR manufacturers generally provide a range of interchangeable lenses. This works out nicely because 

changing the lens simultaneously changes the scene magnification on film and in the viewfinder. Unlike 

view cameras, it is tough to mix and match brands. Camera bodies and lenses are coupled mechanically 

and perhaps electronically in non-standard ways (partly to accomplish the exposure sequence detailed 

above). So a lens for a Hasselblad SLR won't fit a Rollei and a Canon EOS lens won't fit a Nikon body. 

The best thing about an SLR is that what-you-see-is-what-you-get. If you've left the lens cap on, fitted a 

really long telephoto, attached a strange filter, you can see the effect in the viewfinder. This is also true 

for a view camera, but with an SLR the image is right-side up and available until a few milliseconds 

before the exposure. 

One obvious problem with an SLR is weight. The prism on top of the body that lets you see a properlyoriented 

image is heavy. For medium-format SLRs, the prism is very heavy and is usually optional. If 

you don't mind looking down into the camera and seeing an image that is reversed left-to-right, you can 

use a lightweight metal viewing hood rather than a prism. 

Another problem with the SLR is noise. The mirror is light but it has to be flipped up as fast as possible. 


Camera 

This is noisy. With a medium-format SLR, the mirror is four times the size of a Nikon's and very noisy. 

A final problem with an SLR is exposure latency. If you wait for the decisive moment and press the 

shutter, the camera doesn't take a picture until it has stopped down the lens and flipped up the mirror. 

This takes between 50 and 100 milliseconds for the average 35mm SLR. 

Note that a few 35mm SLRs have been built with fixed semi-transparent mirrors called "pellicle 

mirrors". The Canon EOS line includes a cheap discontinued EOS RT model and an expensive current 

EOS-1 RS model. The RS's mirror sends one-third of the light to the viewfinder and two-thirds to the 

film. Thus the viewfinder is more than 1 f-stop dimmer than a standard camera and the film gets 2/3 fstop 

less light than with a standard camera. Advantages are that the picture gets taken 6 ms after you 

press the shutter release, you retain your view of the subject at the exact moment of exposure, the motor 

drive can operate at a blistering 10 frames per second, and there is less vibration. 

Twin lens reflex (TLR) 

A twin-lens reflex has two lenses (the twin lens) and a 

mirror to bounce the light from one of them onto a 

ground-glass focusing screen (the reflex). Lacking a 

prism, a TLR tends to be lightweight. Since the mirror 

remains fixed at all times, a TLR tends to be quiet and 

exposure lag is minimal. TLRs are mechanically very 

simple. Consider that in an SLR the lens must have an 

automatic diaphragm that remains open until the instant 

before exposure, then stops down quickly to taking 

aperture. With a TLR, there are separate taking and 

viewing lenses and therefore the aperture knob can 

directly open and close the diaphragm blades. 

TLRs suffer from potential misalignment, e.g., when the image is focussed on the ground glass by the 

viewing lens, it might not be focussed on the film plane by the taking lens. 

TLRs suffer from parallax. The viewing lens is higher than the taking lens and captures a different 

image. If the image is a mountain 20 miles away, the three inches of separation won't be significant. 

However, you can forget about doing macro work and you might get interesting framing errors if you're 

close to the subject. 

The classic collectible TLR is the Rolleiflex, which takes 120 and 220 roll film. Though there is no 

technical reason why TLRs couldn't be built for other film sizes, virtually all make 6x6 cm images on 

120 film. The TLR that poor photography students use is the Yashica 124 (see photo at right; I took it 

during my junior year at MIT). The TLR that wedding photographers use is the Mamiya because you 

can change the lenses. The only TLRs currently in production are the Rolleiflex, which is priced from 


Camera 

$3000 and sold to collectors, and various Chinese-made inexpensive toys (e.g., the Seagull for about 

$130). Used Mamiyas, Rolleiflexes, and Yashicas are common, however, and quite inexpensive. They 

are great for people taking darkroom classes who don't have much money but want a larger easier-tohandle 

negative. 

Rangefinder and lens-shutter cameras 

The simplest lens-shutter cameras are like my Fuji 617. Fuji took a view camera lens, with its shutter, 

and glued it to a rigid body that holds roll film. You lose the perspective control of a view camera but 

the result is a much simpler and more compact camera. Focusing on the simplest lens-shutter cameras is 

done by "guestimation"; the focusing ring on the lens is marked in feet and meters. You try to figure out 

how far away your subject is and then turn the ring accordingly. 

Most SLRs have focal-plane shutters. After all, if you're going to buy 10 lenses and one body, it makes 

more sense to put an expensive shutter only in the body. But if you've got a camera with a permanently 

affixed lens, it makes just as much sense to put the shutter in the lens. In fact, if a lens is very small, as 

with a consumer's point and shoot camera, a between-the-lens shutter can often be very small and 

therefore cheaper and faster than a focal-plane shutter that must cover the entire exposed film area. 

With a lens-shutter or rangefinder camera, you can't look through the lens. You view the image through 

a separate optical viewfinder. As with the TLR, the image on film will be a bit different than what you 

viewed due to parallax: the viewfinder isn't exactly aligned with the lens. 

It turns out that people aren't very good at estimating distance precisely. So companies began putting 

military rangefinders into lens-shutter cameras, coupled to the lens and the viewfinder. The 

photographer turns a ring on the lens until two superimposed images are aligned in the viewfinder. 

Modern lens-shutter cameras tend to have some sort of autofocus mechanism. 

Without the mirror and prism, lens-shutter cameras can be much lighter and more compact than an SLR 

using the same film format. Mamiya and Fuji roll-film rangefinders are actually lighter than the big 

Nikon and Canon 35mm SLRs, despite the fact that roll-film cameras produce a negative that is four 

times the size. 

With no mirror to slap, lens-shutter cameras are also much quieter than SLRs. The United Nations, for 

example, requires that photographers use Leica 35mm rangefinder cameras to record events. 

Panoramic Cameras 

Any camera can be a panoramic camera. You need only take a negative to a professional laboratory and 

say "make me a long skinny print from this portion of the negative". Or take a negative to any lab and 


Camera 

say "make me a big print from this negative". Once you get home, use a pair of scissors to trim the big 

print until it is long and skinny and contains the subject matter of interest. This may sound absurd but it 

is in fact how most 35mm "panoramic mode" cameras operate. They use the same lens as in normal 

mode and mask off the top and bottom of the frame. Then the laboratory knows that you wanted a long 

skinny print and it is obvious which portion of the neg to print (i.e., the non-blank portion). APS 

cameras do the same thing except that they record the panorama mode magnetically on the back of the 

film. The entire frame is exposed and you could later change your mind and ask the lab to print the 

whole frame. 

You won't get very high image quality if you print from only a tiny portion of a tiny negative. But that 

doesn't mean you need a true panoramic camera. You could just use a big view camera and bring the 

resulting 4x5, 5x7, or 8x10 sheet of film into a pro lab and tell them to print only the central portion. 

If that seems like a waste of film and effort, then the Fuji 617 that I own is for you. Fuji takes one of 

their 5x7 view camera lenses and attaches it to a body that handles 120 and 220 roll film. So the 

photographer is freed from the bulk of the 5x7 view camera, from the drudgery of loading sheet film into 

film holders, and from having to spend $6 per exposure on film and processing (instead it is perhaps $3 

per exposure). 

Panoramic cameras don't have the perspective correction flexibility of the view camera from which they 

were cut down. This is very annoying if you're trying to capture architecture in a city. Panoramic 

cameras don't have the close-focus capability of view cameras. This is annoying if you want to include a 

person's face prominently in your image. Panoramic cameras can be unbelievably expensive compared 

to the view cameras from which they are derived. For example, Linhof makes a 617 camera similar to 

my Fuji. A Schneider 72mm lens for the camera is $4000. The same lens ready for use on any view 

camera was $1500 (prices from B&H Photo in December 1998). 

There are panoramic cameras that do things you could never do with a view camera and cropping. These 

have rotating lenses that capture up to 360 degrees onto long strips of film, e.g., the $650 Spinshot 

camera makes 7 frames on a 36-exposure roll of 35mm film. The Noblex is the standard rotating-lens 


Camera 

120 roll-film camera. It captures 150 degrees on a 6x12 frame. 

I'm not really an expert on panoramic photography but I think that the main advantage of the fixed lens 

camera is simplicity. A camera with a rotating lens can produce very strange results if the lens does not 

rotate smoothly. The big advantage for the rotating lens cameras, in addition to wide field of view, is 

that they are free of the edge distortion and light falloff that you get with wide angle lenses. 

One thing to keep in mind is that if your panoramic camera produces an image that does not fit into a 

4x5 enlarger, you won't be able to print images yourself in a darkroom and will be forced to used a 

professional laboratory where they have an 8x10 enlarger. Note that 6x12 fits in a 4x5 enlarger but 6x17 

does not. 

More 

This chapter is meant to provide background, not purchasing advice. I try to keep some current practical 

advice in the following articles: 

● What Camera Should I Buy? 

● Building a 35mm SLR System 

● Where to buy a Camera 

If you are intent on getting a new camera, you can help defray the cost of running photo.net by buying 

from Adorama, Photoalley, or ritzcamera.com. 

philg@mit.edu 

Related Links 

● Imatest-- software for testing digital camera sharpness and image quality- Imatest is a suite of 

programs for testing the sharpness and image quality of lenses, digital cameras, and digitized film 

images, using inexpensive, widely available targets. For the first time, photographers can test the 

performance of their equipment with accuracy and convenience. (contributed by Norman Koren) 



permission. 





Camera 

Sponsor: Digital Camera HQ - Excellent reviews of Sony digital cameras 


photo.net 

Light 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 

Light 

by Philip 

Greenspun 


My personal definition of photography is "the recording of light rays." It is therefore difficult to take a 

decent picture if you have not chosen the lighting carefully. 

Sunlight 

"He spoke with the wisdom that can only come from 

experience, like a guy who went blind because he looked at 

a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in 

it and now goes around the country speaking at high schools 

about the dangers of looking at a solar eclipse without one 

of those boxes with a pinhole in it." 

-- Joseph Romm 

You can get plenty of light out of the sun, that's for sure. However, 

you might have to wait a bit if you want the light to have the quality that you need for your picture. 

At high noon on a clear day, the sun is extremely strong. It generates a hard light with deep crisp 

shadows. It also is coming from directly overhead. 

Portraits in Sunlight 

http://www.photo.net/making-photographs/light (1 of 22)7/3/2005 2:22:38 AM

Light 

The hardness of the light will generate dark shadows. The direction 

of the light will place those shadows in unattractive positions 

underneath the subject's eyes and nose. One solution is to move the 

subject into the shade where he will be lit by skylight rather than 

sunlight. Skylight comes from a large source and is therefore 

diffuse. Diffuse light does not cast strong shadows. Skylight is also 

rather blue and, if you are using color slide film, you might have to 

place a warming filter (e.g., 81D) over the lens to get natural skin 

tone. 

If your goal is to record a subject in front of a sunlit object then you can't move him into the shade. 

There is too great a difference in illumination between shaded and sunlit objects. Photographic film and 

paper cannot handle the same range of contrast as your eyes. A picture that is correctly exposed for the 

sunlight object will render the shaded portrait subject as solid black. A picture that is correctly exposed 

for the shaded portrait subject will render the sunlit background object as solid white. 

The best solution is to wait for the light to be coming from a different direction and/or for different 

weather. Near sunrise or sunset, you might be able to get flattering light on both the portrait subject and 

the background object. On an overcast day, light from the sun will be sufficiently diffused that the 

shadows become faint. 

If they couldn't wait, professionals would most often deal with this situation by dragging out diffusers 

and reflectors. In the diffuser case, an assistant holds a huge plastic-framed white cloth between the sun 

and the subject. In the reflector case, an assistant holds a silver, gold, or white reflector underneath the 

subject to push sunlight back up into the subject's face, filling the shadows. 

Finally, there is artificial light. If you stick a powerful flash on the camera, pointed at the subject, then 

the light from the flash will augment the light from the sun. Because the flash light is filling in the 

shadows, this is known as fill flash. Electronic flash is the same color as the sun around noontime. If you 

use electronic flash closer to sunset or sunrise, when sunlight is redder, objects illuminated by the flash 

will look unnaturally cold. Professionals deal with this by carting around assistants who cart around 

colored filters to paste over the flash tube. 


Light 

Landscape in Sunlight 

my cousin Douglas holding our 2nd cousin Julia 

This picture illustrates the virtue of waiting for sunset. Note the warm tones 

and even illumination. 

Nikon 8008, 80-200/2.8 AF zoom lens, Fuji Reala 

These two interesting women (from Travels with Samantha, 

Chapter V) would have been rendered as silhouettes if I hadn't 

used a touch of fill flash from my Nikon SB-24 (mounted on an 

8008 body which was mounted on a tripod. Lens: 80-200/2.8; film 

Velvia.) 

It is difficult to see the shape of the landscape when the sun is directly overhead. Our eyes rely on 

shadows to recognize shapes. Nonetheless it is occasionally possible to get a good landscape photo at 

midday if the subject is reasonably compelling, especially if you are aiming at the kind of descriptive 

photos found in travel brochures. 

Left: Great Sand Dune 

National Monument, rather 

boring in the flat light of 11 

am. 

Right: The same sand dunes 

but much more interesting 

earlier in the morning. 


Light 

Bachalpsee 

Vernal Falls, Yosemite National Park 

Taken around 3 pm, the light in this image is pretty bad and casts harsh 

shadows. The cloudless and therefore uninteresting blue sky might make a 

Chamber of Commerce calendar but doesn't make art. Of course, the rainbow 

makes it all worthwhile and it might not have been there at sunset. Or the 

light might not have been falling on the waterfall. 

Nikon 8008, 28mm AF lens, Fujichrome Velvia 

Because of the saturated colors rendered by the then-new Fuji 

Velvia slide film, I'm not sorry that I had my Nikon out in the midafternoon 

in the Bernese Oberland (Switzerland). 

Nikon 8008, 20/2.8 AF lens, Fujichrome Velvia 

Red Rock Canyon, west of Las Vegas 

The interest in this photo comes from the different 

colors of the landscape. 

Rollei 6008 (6x6 format), 180mm lens, Fuji Astia 

http://www.photo.net/making-photographs/light (4 of 22)7/3/2005 2:22:38 AM 

Joshua Tree Shadow, Joshua Tree National Park 

One of the good things to do when the light is overhead and harsh 

is look for interesting shadows. 

Canon EOS-5, 17-35L lens, Fujichrome Velvia

Light 

Overcast Skylight 

A high overcast is perfect for a lot of photography. A studio photographer would think of this as "the 

mother of all softboxes". If you want to capture architectural details, an overcast day lets you do it 

without shadows obscuring anything. Overcast and/or rainy days are also the times to go into the forest 

and take pictures of trees. The one bad thing that you can say about an overcast day is that a big white 

sky makes a very bad photographic subject. Try to make sure that your photos have hardly any sky in 

them. 

Overcast skies are slightly more blue (7000 degrees Kelvin) than the color temperature for which 

daylight film is designed (5500 K; a mixture of direct sun and skylight). Officially, the Kodak 

Professional Photoguide will tell you to use an 81C warming filter. I wouldn't bother unless you are 

photographing clothing for a catalog. [For comparison, open shade from a clear blue sky is 11,000 or 

12,000 degrees Kelvin and requires an 85C filter.] 


Light 

Twilight 

If you wait long enough in New York City ... someone will probably steal 

your camera. So maybe it is best to just shoot in whatever light you can find. 

Here I used the fill flash on my point & shoot camera. 

Below the town of Bomarzo, Italy (1.5 hours north of 

Rome). This was the park of the 16th century Villa Orsini 

and is filled with grotesque sculptures. Rollei 6008, Fuji 

Velvia, Zeiss 50mm lens, tripod. Probably f/22 and 1 

second. Note that part of the foreground is unsharp. There 

wasn't quite enough depth of field. Note that the 

composition completely excludes the uninteresting overcast 

sky. 

Left: Vermont, where a little 

white sky pokes through. 

Right: California where the 

weather is often too sunny 

for good forest photography. 


Light 

There is no reason to put the camera away after the sun goes down. 

In fact, you can usually get your best pictures then. You'll often 

need exposures of 30 seconds or longer, however. Here are some 

photos from Chapter XV of Travels with Samantha as examples... 

Strictly after dark... 

Fog/Mist 

Canyonlands (Utah). At left, 

note the unpleasant contrast 

shortly before sunset. I could 

have driven 200 miles to get 

to a better spot relative to the 

sun. But instead I just waited 

until the sun had set and got 

the image at right. 

Arches National Park (Utah). 

At left, before dark. At right, 

after dark. 

There isn't much to say here except make sure you have your tripod with you. 


Light 

Street Lights 

Street lights are not blackbody radiators so you can't even talk 

about their color temperature. They discharge in various narrow 

spectral bands and the color that this produces on film isn't very 

predictable or controllable. Usually you get an eerie green light, 

which I personally find kind of interesting. 

The Kodak Professional Photoguide has a page devoted to 

filtration suggestions for street lights, but you have to know the 

brand of bulb in use! 

Indoors -- Fluorescent Lights 

Long-tube fluorescent fixtures are designed to offer diffuse 

unobtrusive light. As such, they make for reasonably good black 

and white photography. I find that in a typical office, I must use 

f/1.4 and 1/60th of a second with ISO 400 film. 

For color photography, fluorescent lights have some of the same 

properties as street lights, i.e., they discharge in narrow spectral 

bands. You will get a rather green unappealing light if you don't 

filter with a "fluorescent -> daylight" filter (Tiffen calls this an "FL- 


Light 

D"). If you are using color negative film, photo labs can compensate to a large extent for this color cast 

in the printing, but I prefer to do it at exposure time with an FL-D filter. 

Indoors -- Incandescent Lights 

Standard light bulbs are much warmer than daylight, only about 

2900 K for a 100-watt light bulb. If you are using daylightbalanced 

film, you'll get a very pronounced yellow cast unless you 

stick a blue filter over your lens (Kodak says 80A + 82B). An 

alternative is to use tungsten-balanced film. Tungsten film is really 

designed for 3200 K photo lamps but it is better than daylight. 

Electronic Flash 

Although I'm sort of proud that the strobe was an MIT invention 

(Doc Edgerton), there is no doubt in my mind that the electronic 

flash has done more to ruin the average photograph than any other 

new technology. 

In the good old days, even amateur photographers were reasonably 

careful about light. You took your subject out on a high overcast 

day. You placed your subject next to a large window. You stuck 

your camera on a tripod. 

What do we do now? Point and shoot without thinking. The camera will automatically blast the subject 

with light from the built-in strobe if there isn't enough ambient light. Thus, 90% of our subjects come 

out with that "deer in the headlights" look. 


Light 

Remember what I said above: "Our eyes rely on shadows to recognize 

shapes." There are no useful shadow cues if all the light comes from the same 

angle as the lens. You can't establish a mood with on-camera flash. You can't 

emphasize a feature with on-camera flash. You can't narrow a fat face. You 

can't really do anything except capture a scene that never really existed (unless 

you are a coal miner and walk around with a headlamp all day). 

Does that mean that you should throw out your electronic flash? No. A built-in 

flash that fires straight ahead is useful for filling harsh shadows in bright 

sunlight. An accessory flash (e.g., Vivitar 283, Nikon SB-24, Canon 540 EZ) 

designed to slide on top of the camera can be a great tool when used properly. 

Accessory Flash Strategy 1: Get the flash off the camera. Minolta 35mm SLRs 

let you control an off-camera flash wirelessly. Their benighted competitors 

force you to buy a cord (if you have a fancy modern camera, you'll want a 

fancy cord that "preserves dedication" (control of the flash from the camera 

body)). Separating the light from the lens by just an arm's length makes a huge 

difference. If you can't afford to devote one hand to holding the flash and don't 

have an assistant, then you can get a flash bracket (Stroboframe makes a 

comprehensive line). These are what wedding photographers use. 

Accessory Flash Strategy 2: Bounce the light off the ceiling. We 

expect light to come from above, either because that's where the 

sun is or because a lot of buildings and houses have overhead 

lights. If you are in a room with a reasonably low, reasonably 

white ceiling, then you need only tilt the flash head up and direct 

the light towards the ceiling. The problem with this approach is 

that it sometimes mimics noon sunlight too well. You get harsh 

shadows under the eyes and pronounced shadows. I believe that 

Metz makes a couple of handheld flashes that have two tubes, one 

that always fires straight ahead and one that can tilt up. This is probably the right technology, but most 

people are stuck with a one-tube flash. See Strategy 3 below. 

Accessory Flash Strategy 3: Attach a Diffuser. There are a variety of diffusers that will send some of the 

light up to the ceiling and some straight out toward the subject. My personal favorite is the Sto-Fen 

Omni-Bounce (800-538-0730). This is a translucent plastic cube that snaps on to the front of the flash in 

about 2 seconds. It costs less than $20 and is made in different sizes to fit many brands of flashes. 

Usually, I stick it over my Canon 540EZ flash and tilt the flash head up 45 degrees. This seems to send 


Light 

about one-quarter of the light forward, one-half up to the ceiling, and one-quarter off in various other 

directions. LumiQuest makes a bunch of similar products but I think they are a bit too cumbersome. 

Finally, you can get small softboxes (see the studio flash section) to cover your flash. The disadvantage 

of any diffuser is that it wastes a lot of light, thus reducing your flash range and increasing recycle time. 

Accessory Flash Strategy 4: Get Another Flash. If you are willing to invest in a second flash and a rat's 

nest of custom cables (Canon and Nikon) or some air (Minolta with its brilliant wireless system), then 

you can light the background and the subject separately, fill shadows, and otherwise play most of the 

tricks available to studio photographers. The custom cables will ensure that your camera body shuts off 

the flashes when there is sufficient exposure, but it would probably be better to use manual flashes and a 

flashmeter if you are very concerned about lighting ratios. The cabling doesn't solve the problem of 

supporting the second or third flash. You might need light stands in which case it would have been 

almost as easy to drag along a couple of studio monolights. 

For color photography, the electronic flash has one nice feature: it is designed to have roughly the same 

color temperature as daylight. So you don't need any filters to work with standard daylight-balanced 

film. 

Electronic Flash Examples 

http://www.photo.net/making-photographs/light (11 of 22)7/3/2005 2:22:38 AM 

Canon EOS-5, 20-35/2.8L, 540EZ flash tilted up 45 degrees, +2/3 

stop flash exposure compensation, Stofen Omni-bounce, Kodak 

E100 slide film 

We wanted a boring flat illustrative light and we got it. This photo 

would have been ruined by standard on-camera flash. Standard 

bounce flash off the white ceiling would have been better, but 

probably it would have left unpleasant shadows under eyes and 

chin. The Omni-bounce worked beautifully here, casting light all 

around the room. Canon's auto flash exposure worked great too, 

though because of all the white in the image, it was a good thing 

that we dialed in +2/3 stop compensation. 

(see my Narcissism page for details)

Light 

Studio Flash 

On-camera flash at its most horrifying: as the primary light. But if 

you've got a Yashica T4 in your pocket and you are in a dark 

theater, this might be the best you can do. Note how the 

background has become 100% black. Note also the ruddy flesh 

tones, courtesy of Fuji Velvia. (from Travels with Samantha, 

Chapter III) 

Another success for the Sto-Fen diffuser. Note that this was done 

in a bathroom with white tile and white walls. 

Canon EOS-5, 70-200/2.8L lens, 540EZ flash 

For now, I think I'm just going to refer you to my studio photography primer. 

Studio Hot Lights 

For now, I think I'm just going to refer you to my studio photography primer. 

Final thought 

"Contrast" by Emily Dickinson: 

More 

A door just opened on a street-- 

I, lost, was passing by-- 

And instant's width of warmth disclosed, 

And wealth, and company. 

The door as sudden shut, and I, 

I, lost, was passing by,-- 

Lost doubly, but by contrast most, 

Enlightening misery. 


Light 

● archived Q&A threads on lighting 

Next: Lens. 

philg@mit.edu 


You can have wireless TTL flash with Canon and Nikon too. Ikelite has a product (sold by B&H and 

others) that will "watch" the main flash (hard wired to the camera), and both fire AND quench TTL 

compatible remote flashes. The cost is high, but if you want to avoid the rat's nest, and you already have 

Canon or Nikon, it is cheaper than buying a complete Minolta system. 

-- Glen Johnson, May 1, 1997 

The Ikelite works well enough, and while the unit itself is specific for Canon or Nikon, it doesn't much 

seem to care what you set it off with. So you can have a Nikon SB-24 on the Ikelite and it will be 

controlled by your Minolta, Rollei, etc, or by any other strobe in the room. In some cases, of course, 

such as at a wedding, that's the bad news. The Metz 40-MZ2 and MZ3 and the 50-MZ5 have an 

accessory available that takes this one step further. Both strobes must be one of the above -- non-Metz 

strobes will not work and other Metz strobes will not work. If, for example, you have two Metz 40-series 

strobes, one of which was on-camera, you simply put the other (with the TTL slave accessory) on a 

stand or table top, positioned to aim at your subject. Then fire the on-camera strobe once. This "ID's" the 

on camera strobe and registers the oncamera strobe as the only one which will set the slave off from then 

on, until you turn off the slave. That way, you can set up your slave wherever you like and only your 

oncamera Metz will set it off. Otherwise, this system quenches the slave at exactly the same time as the 

on-camera flash. 

-- David Spellman, June 25, 1997 

The Metz 40-series strobes and several of their other handle-mount and on-camera strobes either have or 

can be ordered with a small secondary strobe reflector. The 40-MZ2, for example, has a large reflector 

that swivels and tilts and a tiny secondary reflector for filling in shadows under bounce conditions. It 

also includes a pair of neutral density filters for the small reflector to adjust the light output. The Nikon 

SB-16 also has a small secondary reflector, but there are no filters included to cut its light output. I 

prefer to use a small, vertical "bounce card" behind the large reflector. This is NOT angled forward, by 

the way, but still manages to catch just enough light to fill in eyesocket, under-nose and under-chin 

shadows in bounce situations under about 10 feet. I'll also frequently aim the strobe at a wall to the right 

or left of the subject and keep the fill card behind the strobe beam. This gives the subject soft, directional 

lighting and fills in some of the darker shadows on the sides away from the wall. Please note that 


Light 

sticking a small diffuser over the light, even one of those tiny softboxes, doesn't really do much to soften 

the light. Your shadows will usually be very sharp. What it MAY do is waste enough light bouncing 

around the room that some of those hard-edged shadows are filled, slightly, and that will usually be a bit 

more pleasing. My favorite wedding strobe remains the bulky Norman 200C, with its big old 5" 

reflector. It's certainly not as efficient as the smaller polished reflectors on most manufacturer strobes, 

but in spreading so much light around the room, it gives a lot more pleasing on-camera (or on-bracket) 

look, thanks to the spill coming back off the walls and ceiling of the room. 

-- David Spellman, June 25, 1997 

Nikon now sells a wireless TTL slave unit (similar to the Ike-Lite product). It's called the SU-4 and sells 

for about $70US. 

-- Mike West, February 5, 1999 

"Photography is the recording of light rays"...hmmm..what about artistic merit huh?? Things like 

composition, finding the moment, perspective, what about all that?....how about changing the definition 

to be: the capturing of images for an artistic or informative purpose...(screw the "light rays" part it 

sounds too pseudo technical)...? :-) my 2 cents worth....akhilesh bajaj 

-- Akh Baj, June 7, 1999 

Regarding flash photography...I generally hate it and try to avoid it whenever possible. However, my 

amateur photojournalistic tendencies sometimes preclude me from using a slow shutter speed to capture 

ambient light. So, to reduce harsh shadows, I take one of two approaches. 

The Diffuser: I have a LumiQuest Pocket Bouncer which appreciate immeasurably. It is the most 

compact way to achieve a pleasant softness of light. If you've never seen one of these, it is a trapezoidal 

hood that attaches to the flash with Velcro. The flash head is pointed straight up and light is bounced off 

the hood. It is, in effect, a portable of the perfect color and reflective property. I find it immensely useful 

outdoors and in rooms with very high ceilings. The only drawback is light loss, which limits the distance 

you can stand from your subject. 

The Bracket: I've used two, a Sunpack and a Stroboframe. I think that the Stroboframe is probably a bit 

better, as it gives two positions, directly above the prism housing, a approximately ten inches from the 

lens, or to the side of the camera, upside down. Limitations include the the rather large nature of the 

accessory, which makes it a bit difficult to toss into a Domke F2. The Sunpack is a handle grip with a 

hot shoe on top. It is marginally more comfortable to hold that the Stroboframe in addition to being 

smaller and lighter. (Weight is an important consideration; a Nikon FE2 with motor drive, 180/2.8, flash 

bracket and Vivitar 283 is not only heavy but awkwardly shaped.) Both of the brackets run about $70. 

They are certainly nice, but the diffuser is what stays in the camera bag. 

-- Timothy Breihan, June 12, 1999 


Light 

Abound using electronic flash units. 

I am a caver, and member of a cavephoto group. Caves are realy dark! We can't use P&S techniques 

much, you realy have to think ahead when making a picture. 

The equipment we use are Firefly II slave units attached to flash units. They are waterproof, infared and 

extremly sensetive. The cost about $100 and you can order them from Engeland at http://www.dragonspeleo.co.uk, 

a big cave equipment store. 

What we use to light the flash is a normal (small) flash unit at the camera. If we don't want direct 

flashlight at all, we tape a piece of old slide/film in front of the flash. Only the infrared light will pass the 

flash now, thas enough for the Firefly slave. 

A bible for cave photography is Images Below from Chris Howes, It has many, many tips and trics on 

lighting the subject well. Also for non-cavers a must. You can order it at http://www.albany.net/~oldbat/ 

and probably amazon.com 

Greetings Edwyn 

-- Edwyn Schuchhard, August 5, 1999 

If you're like me, you take the vast majority of your pictures of people in social settings, indoors, with 

color-negative film, and WITH a flash. And also if you're like me, many (most) of the results are just 

plain bad. So, when Phil writes: 

"We wanted a boring flat illustrative light and we got it." 

it makes it sounds as though the effect in this picture is boring or even somewhat passi. True, there may 

be more interesting flash techniques in terms of artistic potential, but there are few that are as effective! 

Like many, I was annoyed at the harsh, straight-on shadow effects of a single, bare flash. I had tried 

many different pocket gadgets, (the Lumiquest, an index card, a mini-softbox, etc.) but none does the 

trick like the Omnibounce. 

Look at the picture again: note the even, well illuminated quality, with no hotspots or dark areas. (This is 

using slide film as well.) Try to get that with a single flash; whether on camera or not. In most cases, 

either the subject (Phil) will be correctly lit and the room will look dark, or the room will look fine with 

Phil ready to ignite! There is no light falloff at the edges either (another typical flash bug-a-boo,) and 

there are no real harsh shadows. The effect, (though "boring") is excellent; done so well that it escapes 

attention - the TRUE mark of impeccable technique. 


Light 

I'm just sorry Phil makes it sound common and plain. Anyone who uses a flashhead knows how difficult 

it is to get a good effect with it. The Omnibounce works great better than 90% of the time, and is a great 

assist for anyone wanting some help with an on-camera flash. 

-- J.R. Neumiller, October 24, 1999 

About your comments on flashlight: I do agree with you, up to a certain level, please see Martin Parr's 

wonderful photography! His use of a (medical ring)flash doesn't create shadows, but does create very 

hefty moods! I'm not sure if his artwork is available on the internet, but he's a member of Magnum 

Photos, so you might find something on him. He's based in Bristol, UK. 

-- Rolf Rosing, November 7, 1999 

An old Hollywood device for shooting street scenes at night is to wet the pavement, very liberally. It 

fills up vast dark areas with streaks of colored light. Just carry a wrench and open up the nearest fire 

hydrant... 

-- John Simmons, December 22, 1999 

great to see many eyes around the world through the looking glass. 

I shoot for a living. Actually, all I do is orchestrate my staff to do the "dirty work" for me, and all I need 

to do is to press the shutter. Flash work woes? Ever tried bouncing? 

Nearest wall 50 feet away? try faster film, or a more powerful flash. maybe even slower shutter speeds? 

or how about multiple exposures with different light sources? I had to shoot a commercial building once 

mind you, it was a huge shopping mall. We linked 6 guys with walkie talkie sets. each one had access to 

a different light switch located on different parts of the building. ie. roof lights, internal lights, foyer 

lights etc. 8 exposures to create the blooming image. The image was used in the annual report of my 

client. 

remember guys, you are in control. and if you are NOT in control, then you will find it very difficult to 

acheive the EXACT image you set out to shoot. In commercial shooting, you DO NOT have the luxury 

of saying this line,"I'm sorry, I cannot shoot it like your scam" transalated to the client, it simply 

means... "Sorry, I'm stupid, please find someone else.BYE" 

more to ask? e-mail me @ second_jedi@yahoo.com 

I'm outta here. 

Michael Chick 


Light 

-- Michael Chick, January 13, 2000 

Regarding using flash with P&S cameras, here's a little trick I do. I take a light-activated slave trigger, 

one with 180 degree coverage, and attach it the the shoe of an inexpensive tilt-head flash. Then, when I 

take a flash picture, I hold the flash and trigger at about arms length overhead and slightly forward of the 

camera and tilt the head to either fire down onto the subject or fire up at the ceiling. In an advanced 

P&S, the light sensor doubles as the flash sensor and adjusts exposure. Thus automatically compensating 

for the additional light. 

I and a friend of mine have used this trick with our Elph Jr's. Works out very nicely. However, if you're 

in an area where a lot of other people are using flashes, don't turn the bounce flash on until needed. Also, 

a trigger with a narrower field of view would also help here. 

BTW, I also use and love Lumiquest's Pocket Bouncer. While it is a little ungainly, it completely avoids 

problems with color casts from bouncing off a non-white ceiling and can give the same room filling 

effect as the Sto-Fen OmniBounce. With the Sto-Fen, color casts from the ceiling can still be a problem. 

Conrad Weiser 

-- Conrad Weiser, April 27, 2000 

Much as I like David Hartman's idea of pointing the flash up with an index card to send some fill light 

forward, I don't have to do it - being the proud owner of a Nikon SB16 which has a small secondary 

light that fires directly forward whether I want it to or not. 

Great. That means I can use my whole packet of index cards, plus some Blu-tack and a handy pocket 

stepladder, to ensure a reliable supply of white ceilings! 

-- Alan Little, May 16, 2000 

I myself hate using the flash unless I really need it. I think studio photographs are too artificial unless 

there is a creative aspect to them. 

I want to capture images as they appear in real life. People have shadows under their eyes in real life. I 

don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. 

But thanks for the tips on diffusers... I'm going to try it. 

-- N. David Guarneri, July 12, 2000 

A Flash Accessory No Photographer Should Ever Be Without! 


Light 

(1) One 3x5" Card (white). (2) Two Large Rubber Bands (From Asparagus Bunches). 

This is a bounce technique and requires a suitable white ceiling, Home, Office, etc. 

Take your typical "Cobra Style" speedlight, 283, SB-24, SB-28, 550EX, etc. Turn the head upwards at a 

90 degree angle. Attach a 3x5" (or 4x6") card to your flash with a pair of large rubber bands so that the 

card is on the back side, away from your subject. About 3/5ths of the card should extend above your 

speedlight. Fire at will. 

The cost is almost nothing. In a pinch you can use the address side of a magazine subscription card 

(normally printed black on white) but you will still need two rubber bands. This system folds flat when 

not in use so you can store it anywhere. 

You forgot yours? Drop by any grocery store and grab a pack of 3x5" cards and a bunch of asparagus. 

Don't like raw asparagus? Not to worry, your dog loves asparagus! 

The 90 degree bounce flash will provide soft, even, top lighting. The card will fill the soft but sometimes 

deep shadows from the "main light" like eye sockets and under the nose & chin and provide catch lights 

in the eyes. 

Cheap for you, flattering to your subject, delightful for your dog! 

-- David Hartman. 

-- David H. Hartman, July 30, 2000 

Would putting transparent tape(MAGIC TAPE) or a handkerchief over the flash cut down or minimize 

"the deer in the headlights" effect for on camera flash? Several years ago I read an artical saying that 1 

thickness of the above cut the flash output by one f stop. Any feedback? Thanks. 

-- Morgan Whaley, August 19, 2000 

Thanks to all for the recommendations on the different types of diffusers. I think I'm going to try the Sto- 

Fen Omni Bounce. I also like the quick idea of the 3X5 card. Great for in a pinch. 

I recently tried my new Minolta Maxxum 7 with 5600HD flash. Pictures were shot in a small church 

with all white/cream walls. I didn't compensate and the photos came out awful. Long shadows cast on 

the back walls (despite their distance of more than 10-15' away and the people were underexposed! Next 

time I'll compensate +2/3 and try the new diffuser pointed about 45 degrees up. Hopefully, I'll lose the 

long black shadows in the background and the photos won't be underexposed. 

Anybody have any other recommendations it would be most appreciated. 


Light 

-- John Travassos, January 24, 2001 

I just want you to know that I did follow up on the problem of flash shots indoors at a small church with 

mostly white walls and ceiling. I did use and OmniBounce diffuser directed up at 45 degrees. I also used 

a flash compensation of +1. It worked beautifully. 

-- John Travassos, February 24, 2001 

John, just out of curiosity, what type of film were you using in that church? 

-- Patrick Lavin, December 4, 2001 

I also use a plastified white cardboard with 2 rubberbands to bounce my flash like David said 

previously; I strap the carboard at the back of the flash with a slight (variable) angle. It is cheap and easy 

to do, it also can be replaced on short notice in almost any part of the word if you loose it... If the 

cardboard you use is stiff enough, you will be able to get almost any bouncing setup (1/3 front - 2/3 

ceilling per example) with a pivoting flash head. I tested it extensively and I prefer the cardboard result 

to the omnibounce clear plastic cap, that is by the way a real rip off (it cost about 0.05$ to manufacture 

labor and packaging included and they sell it for more than 20$!!!). Experiment with different sizes and 

shapes you can even use colored cardboard for some nice effects (like the expensive pro bouncers). 

-- Ans Beaulieu, December 26, 2001 

Ref.Glen Johnbson comments. i have Metz flashes 40 MZ2 and 32 MZ3 with Nikon/Pentax AF 

modules. Will Ikelite perform similarily as working with Nikon SU4/Pentax AF flashes with TTL cords 

for remote control TTL if 40 MZ2 is fired with SCA 3402 from F4 and second gun 32 MZ3 with the 

same SCA (module) with ikelite fitted slave gun, will it control TTL light and same set up for PZ1 for 

TTL light?.Experience/comments will be appreciated. 

-- Myra Gill, January 11, 2003 

I'm not sure if anyone already covered this, but for off flash photography I both use and recomend 

investing the money to buy radio slaves. They work far better than light sensitive slave units and their 

range is much further! Go with either Quantum 4's, 4i's, or Pocket wizards. 

-- James Holk, September 15, 2003 

For soft lighting, I have used a large (12 - 15 inch) circular clamp (forget what they are called but they 

are used to help sew patterns onto stretched cloth) with a soft, white, fabric material placed in front of a 

flash unit (8 inches). This gave very nice fill and diffused background ligthing at the same time. Used it 

for weddings and portraits. As I recall I lost about 1-1/2 to 2 stops. 


Light 

-- Neil Blatnick, October 16, 2003 

Getting the flash off the camera is a great way of getting diffused lighting. For Canon EOS mounts, the 

Speedlite range of flashes allows you to get a ST-E2 IR transmitter coupled with a 420EX flash for a 

budget lighting system. Mount the 420EX on a light tripod (with a large white cardboard as a bounce) 

and you have a cheap high quality lighting source. 

Visit some photos at my gallery. 

-- Adrian Kok, May 10, 2004 

Just a little observation - please don't be upset by this. 

The article author talked at length about light, shadow, exposure, the most important ingredient in your 

photographs and in my feeble snapshots. Most (not all) of the comments seem to have forgotten it all 

immediately and talked about mere gadgetry - the flash! 

-- Andrew Kaiser, June 4, 2004 


Light 

My daughter and a donkey in sunlight (1987) 


Light 

Most of the times yes, but not always, does sunlight add unadvantageous shadows on a portrait. Halflighted 

potraits are an example for this. 


Related Links 

Add a comment 

● Reflector, Scrim, Gobo, Light- CALIFORNIA SUNBOUNCE the most sturdy collapsible 

reflector/ Scrim system is still very lightweight (contributed by Geller Wolfgang Peter) 

● STO-FEN- STO-FEN Products Web Page (contributed by Reyes Ponce) 

● LumiQuest Web Page- LumiQuest Web Page (contributed by Reyes Ponce) 

● Metz Mecablitz flashguns- These are great flahsguns. The Metz dual tube approach is definately 

the right technology for indoor flash. (contributed by Andrew Booth) 

● Arte digital- Digital art, surrealist, photo-imagination (contributed by Eugenio Oller) 

● Photography Basics- A good link for basics of photography. (contributed by Swapnali Raut) 

Add a link 


permission. 




Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of printer ink and supplies 


photo.net 

Making Photographs 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 


● Light 

● Lens 

● Film 

● Exposure 

● Camera 


a tutorial by Philip Greenspun 

Most photography books start out talking about the various kinds of cameras 

that are available. Then they talk about lenses, film, and exposure. Only at the 

very end do they talk about light. Yet even though I'm a photography nerd and 

own about 20 cameras, I never think about making a photograph in this order. 

Pulling together light and subjects and composition occupy my mind first and 

foremost. Only when I've figured out all of that do I start rummaging through my equipment cabinet. So 

I decided to try to write a photography textbook that reflects the way that I think about taking pictures. 

Is this the best textbook for beginning photographers? Certainly not. There are many excellent ones on 

paper, a few of which are reviewed in the dead trees section of photo.net. However, if you like this way 

of thinking about photographs and you don't have a paper book in front of you, this online book might 

be useful. 

philg@mit.edu 

http://www.photo.net/photo/tutorial/ (1 of 2)7/3/2005 2:22:43 AM



permission. 




Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of Video Games 

http://www.photo.net/photo/tutorial/ (2 of 2)7/3/2005 2:22:43 AM

photo.net 

Dead Trees 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 

● Learn 

● Equipment 

● Forums 

● Gallery 

● Community 


Books about Photographers 

alive 

Dead Trees 

and what they can teach you about 

photography. 


● To be inspired by how much 

photojournalism can change your mind, 

start with a trio by Peter Menzel and Faith 

D'Aluisio: Material World : A Global 

Family Portrait, Women in the Material 

World, Man Eating Bugs : The Art and 

There is no frigate like a book 

To take us lands away, 

Nor any coursers like a page 

Of prancing poetry. 

This traverse may the poorest take 

Without oppress of toll; 

How frugal is the chariot 

That bears a human soul! 

-- "A Book" by Emily Dickinson 

Science of Eating Insects (it probably won't change your mind but the duo's Robo sapiens: 

Evolution of a New Species is also fun) 

● Mary Ellen Mark : American Odyssey, 1963-1999 contains a poem by Maya Angelou ending in 

"we are more alike, my friends, than we are unalike". If you're an insurance salesman or a 

computer programmer, the photographs will contradict Ms. Angelou's point rather dramatically. 

● Henri Cartier-Bresson and the Artless Art is a reasonable place to start exploring Cartier- 

Bresson's work, though any of his books are worth having, e.g., Europeans 

http://www.photo.net/books/ (1 of 20)7/3/2005 2:23:26 AM

Dead Trees 

● Elliott Erwitt will inspire you to carry your camera around more often with Dog Dogs and 

Personal Exposures 

● William Wegman will inspire you to stay in the studio with your dog and imagination. All of his 

work is creative but Fashion Photographs is over the top. If you're building a library you'll want 

the one that started it all: Man's Best Friend. 

● All of the work by the husband and wife team of Bernd and Hilla Becher: my favorites are Water 

Towers and Industrial Facades 

● Cindy Sherman : Retrospective 

● To decorate a self-consciously hip lobby, Helmut Newton's SUMO, with its included stand, 

makes a bold statement. 

dead 

● Ansel Adams: Forget the cheaper, smaller format books--they don't work for this kind of 

photography. In August 2001 we were blessed with Ansel Adams at 100, which contains an 

introduction and personal selection of images by John Szarkowski, one of the strongest writers on 

photography. The American Wilderness is also a great book. 

● Atget, by John Szarkowski. Beautifully reproduced photos, each accompanied by prose that 

could only have been written by Szarkowski, the former curator of photography at MOMA: 

"Except occasionally, ... the French have managed very well to sublimate the periodic human 

tendency to behave violently toward one's fellow men, and have directed these impulses toward 

their trees." (opposite a photo of a garden gate made from trained trees) 

● Mathew Brady and the Image of History 

● Brandt : The Photography of Bill Brandt 

● Brassai : The Monograph 

● Walker Evans: The Getty Museum Collection 

● Andre Kertesz : His Life and Work 

● Muybridge's Complete Human and Animal Locomotion 

● Man Ray : 1890-1976 

● Steichen's Legacy : Photographs, 1895-1973 

● Alfred Stieglitz : Photographs & Writings 

● Edward Weston : Forms of Passion 

● Winogrand, Figments from the Real World. The art and technique of Garry Winogrand, the 

definitive street photographer of the 1960s. 


Dead Trees 

collections 

● if you're only going to have one... The Photo Book will give you one page on each of 500 

important photographers 

● The Family of Man, collected by Edward Steichen, is the catalog from the show that boosted 

photography as a respectable museum art form 

● A Thousand Hounds: The Presence of the Dog in the History of Photography 1839 to Today is 

the perfect gift for the dog-owning photographer. This is 600 well-printed pages of photo history, 

interesting quotes ("I have discovered photography. Now I can kill myself. I have nothing else to 

learn." -- Pablo Picasso), and the full text in English, French, and German. 

● Passage to Vietnam, a ground-breaking CD-ROM with a lot of good background on the 

photographers (also a nice coffee-table book) 

Elsa Dorfman has several thought-provoking book reviews on her page. 

Books about Photography 

● The book that turns novices into serious photographers at RIT: 

probably the best place to start any inquiry into photographic 

technique. 

● Photography by Barbara London and John Upton, is a good all-around 

introduction. 

● An informal and personal introductory textbook by Bernhard Suess, 

limited to black and white photography 

● View Camera Technique by Leslie Stroebel 

● Kodak Professional Photo Guide. Carry it with you at all times. 

● The Preservation and Care of Color Photographs, very important if 

reading the preceding two books results in any images you hope to 

enjoy a few years from now. 

● Nudes & Glamour by John Hedgecoe 

● Infrared Photography Handbook by Laurie White 

● Copying and Duplicating by Eastman Kodak 

● On Photography by Susan Sontag 

Magazines 


Dead Trees 

● Lens Work is a beautifully printed black and white 

monument to the craft of fine art photography. 

● Aperture Quarterly is probably the premiere U.S. journal 

for art photography. 

● Popular Photography, holder of the U.S. monopoly on the 

mass-market photo magazine business. If manufacturers 

want you to know something, they tell the editors of Pop. 

Photo. The magazine is therefore useful for equipment news 

and advertisements (though you may be very sorry indeed if you order equipment from an 

advertiser who is not recommended on the photo.net where to buy page. Their camera tests are 

marred by their sycophantic attitude toward the manufacturers. They like new for the sake of new 

and in a 10-page camera review they somehow manage to miss the kinds of annoyances and 

deficiencies that almost any photographer would find merely by going out and using a camera for 

a project or two. Probably worth $10/year anyway. 

● Shutterbug. This is where to find ads for used equipment. The quality 

of the articles is variable, however, and don't expect to be inspired by 

the images (in any case the magazine is not printed on glossy paper). 

● American Photo. Very glossy. Good coverage of fashion photography 

personalities and great photo editing. You probably won't learn 

anything that you can take to the bank, though. 

● Petersen's Photographic. Please. 

● Photo District News. If you want to find out what happens in the 

advertising and studio photography worlds, this is the place. 

Unfortunately, much of the news seems to be about photographers 

suing their clients and vice versa. It can be disheartening and 

disillusioning. Great photo editing, large format, always impressive. 

● Outdoor Photographer. Beautiful pictures but somehow empty of 

feeling. You aren't going to learn much from this magazine except that if you buy a really huge 

camera and/or lens and have the patience to sit in front of a mountain or animal for two weeks 

that you can probably get a decent picture. I let my subscription lapse. 

Newsletters 


Dead Trees 

● Photograph America, by Robert Hitchman. If you want to 

find the top spots in North America for landscape and 

nature photography, and get practical guidance for 

capturing the best those spots have to offer, this is your 

newsletter. Subscribe or just order back issues by calling +1 

(415) 898-3736 or writing to Photograph America, 1333 

Monte Maria Avenue, Novato, CA 94947 USA. Back issues 

are $8.50 each; subscriptions are $30 for 6 issues. I 

subscribe and every month that I get an issue when I'm sitting on my sofa it reminds me that life 

is short. 

Note: if you have a favorite book, magazine, or newsletter that I haven't mentioned, please either email a 

review (if you "Save As" one of my existing reviews for HTML style, that makes life easier), or write 

something about it in the comment section (below). 

philg@mit.edu 


There are also a number of interesting magazines that are published outside the US. Practical 

Photography, published in the UK is one that I have enjoyed. I think that there are at least two 

magazines with the title Photo Technique. Magazines like Aperture put the emphasis on the photo, rather 

than on the mechanics. Natures Best offers images of the natural world that rival the very best published 

anywhere. 

The best source for many of these magazines is a book store or news stand with a good magazine 

section. Borders is a national chain that started in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and their outlets often offer a 

greater selection of titles than some of the better known Mall Book Stores. If you can't find what you 

want at your local store, perhaps they can order it for you. With foreign magazines it is often cheaper to 

get them on the newstand than it is to subscribe because when you subscribe, you pay for the mail 

charges for delivery of each single issue to your door. When you buy at the newstand, the shipping 

charges for a whole bundle of magazines is spread out over all the magazines in the bundle. 


"Lens Work" is a quarterly magazine that I just found out about. It is about "essays and articles on 

photography and the creative process". The Fall 1996 issue I have has excellent photos that are 

reproduced very well, along the "Aperture" lines. Call 1-800-659-2130 for further info. About $9.00 per 

issue. 

-- Barry Pehlman, January 30, 1997 


Dead Trees 

EF Lens Work II is a $23 book on the Canon EOS EF lens system that is published by Canon. It is 

actually quite informative and well done. It is approximately half an inch thick. I received my copy 

yesterday, and I would recommend it to anyone who is seriously interested in the EOS lens system. You 

can get a copy by calling Canon at 1-800-828-4040. B&H used to sell the previous edition (EF Lens 

Work), so they may carry EF Lens Work II also. The books were just shipped from the printer to Canon 

last week, so it may be a while before there are stocks at B&H. 

-- Glen Johnson, April 8, 1997 

There are two books and a magazine which may be valuable to those who love photography. 1. 40 Years 

of Photography by Jeanloup Sieff - All BW photos. Look the way he uses his 21mm Leica M lens. 2. 

Looking Back by Todd Wedd - All BW photos. I like his writing style, clear and straightforward. 3. W - 

A lillte bit more than a fashion magazine. I like their non studio photos. Thank you for your attention. 

-- KENNY CHIU, August 8, 1997 

I recently read Capturing the Landscape With Your Camera, by Patricia Caulfield. Being a seroius 

amatuer photographer, this book really helped me with composition, technical aspects, lenses and 

cameras, light basics and exposures, and general field work. It provided me with easy to read, helpful 

information about my most favorite hobby. The author gives you the technical information first, and 

then sums it up right away with examples. Also, almost every picture tells you what settings were used 

and about the area where it was taken. This would be a great book for serious amatuers to read. 

Capturing the Landscape With Your Camera, by Patricia Caulfield. (c) 1987, AMPHOTO, New York, 

an imprint of Watson-Guptill Publications ISBN - 0-8174-3658-8 

-- Mike Snyder, January 15, 1998 

Photo Techniques (formerly darkroom something or other) is one helluva nice rather technically based 

magazine. It also has a few very good writers. unfortunately they don't have a web site so if you want to 

check them out good luck. ;-) 

-- Jammy Straub, February 19, 1998 

How Do You Photograph People, by Leigh Wiener (published 1982). 

Here is a book I enjoyed thoroughly, and I'd just like to pass on my recommendation. No idea whether 

it's still in print -- I took it out of the library. 

It is not a how-to book like most others. 

Wiener's format consists of short responses to photography questions posed by famous people he has 


Dead Trees 

photographed -- a novel approach that can engage readers with little technical knowledge as well as 

masters of the art. 

The pleasure here comes mainly from meeting this highly skilled photographer and hearing his 

anecdotes, which take the reader to one session after another for Fortune, Time, Life, the Los Angeles 

Times, New York Times, etc. 

Read what Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby, Ed Asner, Eleanor Roosevelt, Andre Previn, Upton Sinclair, 

Mickey Rooney, J. Paul Getty and John F. Kennedy -- among many others -- have asked Wiener. 

Find out why Groucho Marx accused Wiener of shooting pornography. 

See some fabulous black and white photos. 

Find out how eating oysters makes it possible for Wiener to handhold a camera at one-half second. 

All in all, an entertaining read for the backyard hammock or under a beach umbrella. 

-- Michael Fuhrmann, June 29, 1998 

Just grabbed a copy of The Complete Idiot's Guide To Photography by Roger Woodson. I would call it 

easily the best introductory book targeted at the hobbyist I have found. It runs the gamut from point and 

shoot to building and using an SLR system to doing one's own darkroom work. He covers the theories of 

exposure and lighting and does a reasonably good job of it. I do however have a number of ethical 

problems with this book: 

1) He actually suggests that one spend time at a local camera shop trying out cameras and asking 

questions and then buy from one of the NY mail order houses. This is a real good way of losing the local 

camera shop and is also rude to a salesman who has spent time with you. For crying out loud, spend the 

extra $50.00 the local store is charging and consider it the price of the time the clerk spent teaching you 

how to operate the equipment. (The advice the author gave was directed at the rank beginner who would 

need to have all an SLR's functions explained). If you don't by a camera there, by a lens, but making a 

major purchase at a local shop develops a relationship. 

2)The Author actually suggests baiting wildlife to one's back yard. All well and good if one is talking 

bird feeders, but he suggests salt licks for deer and sardines for racoons. If you are wondering just what 

is wrong with this, check out the Baiting Animals thread in Nature Q&A. 

-- Rich Furman, December 7, 1998 

This outstanding site is incomplete without a mention of John Shaw's work. For serious beginners and 

intermediates, I especially recommend two of his works, "Closeups In Nature" and "Landscape 


Dead Trees 

Photography". These widely-available books (and Shaw's others as well) are superlative introductions to 

35mm photography in the field. 

In both, Shaw gives extensive and specific coverage to types of equipment to use under various 

conditions (cameras, lenses, filters, films, flashes, etc.) as well as invaluable help with setting up and 

shooting every imaginable situation in the field. 

He never insults the reader's intelligence, yet manages to include basic information as well as readable, 

"meaty" introductions to some of photography's more arcane but essential concerns. 

As an added bonus, he is an outstanding photographer himself, and his books are loaded with tons of 

beautiful illustrations, several for every technique he discusses. 

I can't recommend his books highly enough for the earnest amateur. 

- Dan Dresner (an earnest amateur...) 

-- Dan Dresner, April 22, 1999 

Just wanted to bring attention to "shots" magazine. It isn't high tech at all (printed on newsprint, b&w 

only) and doesn't really have anything in the way of instruction or ads. But it is a place to look at photos 

from photographers from every walk of life and geographic location. "professional" photographers may 

stub their noses at it for being "amatureish", but that's fine with me. I've found that you can learn 

something from almost ANY photographer or photo anywhere. Every issue has some sort of theme to 

the submissions. i.e. cars, toy cameras, portfolios, first timers, old timers, etc. Shots can be found at most 

any independant news-stand around my area (Washington state). And the AfterImage Gallery has a page 

(http://www.afterimagegallery.com/shots.htm) on their website about Shots with subscription and 

contact information. 

-- Josh Root, April 27, 1999 

For the financially challanged among us, and for those who delight in affordable copies of out of print 

books and remainders, may I humbly suggest the world's greatest used book store, Powell's in Portland, 

Oregon. They will never be any kind of threat to the Student Union Bookstores at M.I.T. or R.I.T., but 

they offer a magnificant range of titles (in dozens of areas additional to photography)and do so at an 

affordable cost.They are at the commonplace site of www.powels.com or at 1-800-878-7323. 

Respectfuly submitted, Mr. A. LeRoy Oakville, Ct. 

-- Arlen LeRoy, June 29, 1999 

I would like to add the following selection of references, that I have found very useful, to your 

recommended "Books about Photography": 


Dead Trees 

- Lisl Dennis, 1989, "The Essential Image", AMPHOTO, ISBN 0-8174-3933- 

1 // 

- Andreas Feininger, 1973, "Principles of Composition in 

Photography", Thames and Hudson, London, ISBN 0-500-27033-3 // 

- Tom Grill & Mark Scanlon, 1983, "Photographic Composition. 

Guidelines for Total Image Control Trough Effective Design", AMPHOTO, 

ISBN 0-8174-5419-5 // 

- Freeman Patterson, 1979, "Photography & the Art of Seeing", Van 

Nostrand Reinhold, ISBN 0-442-29779-3 // 

- Albert Moldway, 1981, "National Geographic Photographer's Field 

Guide" ISBN 0-87044-395-X // 

- Bryan Petersen, 1989, "Learning to See Creatively", AMPHOTO, ISBN 0- 

8174-4177-8 // 

- John Szarkowski, 1973, "Looking at Photographs. 100 Pictures from 

the Museum of Modern Art", MOMA, ISBN 0-87070-515-6 

Julio Garcia Coll, August 29, 1999 

-- Julio Garcia Coll, August 29, 1999 

Jammy Straub wrote, 

>>>Photo Techniques (formerly darkroom something or other) is one helluva nice rather technically 

based magazine. It also has a few very good writers. unfortunately they don't have a web site so if you 

want to check them out good luck. ;-)

Dead Trees 

An excellent magazine that I came across on the newstand a few months ago is "Black & White" (the 

masthead reads "B&W"). The editors classify it as a magazine for collectors of photography (*every* 

photograph in the magazine is for sale), though they do recognize the value of their magazine to 

photographers. Each issue (thus far) contains a nice mix of old and new talents working in every format 

(so along as the results are in black & white). Each photographers' works are accompanied by some brief 

biographical information or a short interview that provides a nice bit of context. 

Not a place to get information about equipment or other technical matters, but if you enjoy learning by 

looking, get a copy of this magazine. 

-- Ronald Buchanan, November 9, 1999 

I subscribe to 2 other magazines primarily to learn photographic techniques. DoubleTake is a quarterly 

magazine with numerous photographic essays. It has both color and b&w photgraphy. Not related to 

photography, Double also provides plenty of good fiction. 

I was quite surprised to see that Life magazine was not listed. Dazzling photographs in every issue. A 

qualitative way of learning about photography, seeing what appeals to you. 

-- Gary Marshall, November 21, 1999 

No-one's mentioned Amateur Photographer, which claims to be the oldest photo journal in the world - 

certainly they've been in continuous publication for well over a century. It's a UK magazine which is 

perhaps why it's not mentioned here. It's weeekly, so there is a feeling that some weeks it can be a bit 

thin - not much news that week, the selected photos aren't terribly good, uninteresting reviews - but on 

other occasions it can be excellent. For example their Millenium issue was very good - a review of the 

photographic century, with lots of old photos (often from their own archives - one advantage of having 

over 100 years of history to draw on). And there was a fascinating comparative review of cameras (all 

from Kodak) from the beginning, middle and end of the century - a Box Brownie, a RTetina (I think) 

and a digital. Interestingly they praised the Retina, were complimentary about the Brownie, but were 

critical of the digital (and I can't remember which one it was). 

Also I think they're pretty frank about equipment reviews. 

-- Tom Burke, January 13, 2000 

The Photography Book by the Editors of Phaidon Press, 1997 Phaidon Press Limited. ISBN 0-7148- 

3634-6. 512 pages. You can order this book from amazon.com . 

If you wanted to show off the history of photography, covering 150 years, how would you do it? If you 

were Philip Greenspun, you'd put together a Web site. Fortunately for the non-web world, Phaidon press 


Dead Trees 

decided to make a book, called "The Photography Book." 

Their choice, to exhibit the gamut of photography, was to showcase the work of 500 different 

photographers, some famous, others not. Each photographer is represented by a single photo and very 

brief biographical information. To heighten interest, the editors have chosen to interpret each photo, 

perhaps in a new way. I found myself thinking as much about the interpretation as I did the photo itself. 

Many of the photos are famous; we've seen them in the news or on the coffee table before. Others will 

be new to most readers, yet are equally worthy of collection here. Interestingly, some of the 

photographers are not known for that avocation; for example, Neil Armstrong ("Buzz Aldrin on the 

Moon") is better known as an American astronaut. Although American photographers are wellrepresented, 

they do not dominate. This is truly a world book. 

One of the most helpful features of the book is an extensive cross-reference between the pages. (If you 

like Ansel Adams, you'll surely enjoy Willard Van Dyke.) Also helpful are a glossary of techniques and 

terms; a glossary of movements, groups, and genres; and a directory of museums and galleries. 

I've really enjoyed this book. I can flip it open to any page and spend a few minutes absorbing a 

handsome photo, then reading some more about it. I don't always agree with the commentary (as I never 

agreed with my english literature teachers), but I find it thought-provoking nevertheless. 

There are few faults. The book is even heavier than a wooden tripod, or seems that way. Color 

photography takes a back seat to black-and-white. And computer- manipulated photography is underrepresented 

(though present.) 

-- John L. Shelton, July 25, 2000 

Amateur Photo (UK): if you live in the US you can probably get it from a Barnes+Noble store. It's 

expensive (something like $7.50). It's weekly. I don't like their reviews - they look to me more like "how 

to use this new toy" guides. Lens tests? Not very scientific, IMHO. 

Petersen's Photographic (US): PATHETIC! I recently got one for their Minolta Maxxum 7 "review". I 

strongly doubt they actually got their hands on this camera. First of all the article is signed "by the 

Editors" and then the pictures of the camera are the ones you can find in the press kit. No serious testing, 

only opinions such as "we liked Maxxum 7 a lot". Bottom line: forget it. 

Popular Photography (US): pretty extensive equipment tests. No negative comments though. All the 

products are brilliant, some of them even perfect. No comparison, no pros and cons, everything is good 

and the sky is blue. Only the lens tests are better IMHO and they should give you an idea about the real 

optical performances. My advice is to use them as a guidance only. BTW, if you want to get a second 

opinion on lenses go to www.photodo.com 


Dead Trees 

Chasseur d'Images (France): I finally got my hands on one issue. Wow! It's so much better than any 

other photo magazine I've seen so far! More editorial content than their American equivalents. The lens 

tests are HONEST and they point out the pluses and the minuses. Example: the Tokina 19-35 lens was 

tested by both PopPhoto and Chasseur d'Images. According to PopPhoto this is an almost incredibile 

bargain, with good performances and no flaws. The french article speaks about things like an edge being 

sharper than the other one and so on. None of these minuses shows up in PopPhoto's test. 

Color Foto (Germany): Can someone please comment on this one? 

-- Petru Lauric, September 19, 2000 

I cannot find much useful info in many U.S. magazines but at least they are cheap! I do like UK's 

Practical Photography, very nice and loaded with a lot of good information. It is rather pricey to get here 

in the states at $7.50 an issue but I think it is well worth it. The mag seems a little biased toward Canon 

but it is not very noticable and not nearly as bad as any U.S. mag. My local book chains regularly gets it 

in every month and I always get one around the 20th of the month. A great source and fresh break from 

Pop Photo and Photographic! I highly recommend John Shaws book on Macro photography for anyone 

interested. 

-- Lee Lemmon, September 26, 2000 

French "PHOTO" ( http://www.photo.fr ) is a great magazine for fashion and glamour photography. 

They feature also great portofolios of well-known photographers. Good coverage of photographic events 

in major cities. 

German "fotoMagazin" ( http://www.fotomagazin.de ) is another good magazine, loads of very technical 

tests and reviews. Good portofolios and the latest equipment news. I personally do not like the German 

"Color Foto". 

"National Geographic Photography Field Guide" ( ISBN: 0792274989 ) is a brilliant reference books, 

featuring latest equipment, films, techniques and insider stories and tips from the prestigious 

photographers of the magazine. (The inside cover is a grey card ! :)) 

-- Eduard Fabian, November 24, 2000 

I have John Shaw's "Landscape photography", which I like very much. Practical tips, beautiful 

photographs and, overall, a down-to-earth way of writing. ISBN 0-8174-3710-X 

I also like Charlie Waite's "The making of landscape photographs". Perhaps not as good as Shaw's book, 

but still very much enjoyable. Charlie shows some excellent images and includes notes with each image 


Dead Trees 

(technical notes, hints on how to improve the picture etc.) ISBN 1-85585-149-0 for the paperback 

edition. 

Thirdly, I can highly recommend "National Geographic, the photographs", edited by Leah Bendavid- 

Val. Featuring Steve McCurry's famous Afghan refugee image on the cover, this books contains some 

very exciting material. When I browsed it in a book store, I opened it on page 80, with a very striking 

image of a whale hunt; a few more pages and I decided to buy the book. ISBN 0-87044-986-9 or 0- 

87044-987-7 for the deluxe edition. 

-- Patrick Hudepohl, December 6, 2000 

A UK magazine that no one has mentioned is "digital photo art" (sic). It has lots of articles about tricks 

and techniques with Photoshop and equipment reviews, though much of the stuff isn't readily available 

in the US. They publish lots of neat images, and describes how some were done. Their web page is 

http://www.amphot.co.uk/content/creatmono/cm2.htm 

-- Joe Hearst, January 29, 2001 

Photographic. Yup, the magazine bites... BUT! Once a year (I think) they have a special issue, called 

"The BIG BOOK of photograpy" (the capitalization is theirs). It is a fairly well written introduction to 

photography. The magazine is divided into chapters that teach basic photography skills. I picked up a 

copy for about 5 bucks last year and I am damned if I can't answer at least 80% of all questions asked in 

the unmoderated forum straight from the pages of this magazine (priced and printed) book. Petersen's 

does somethings right. 

-- Jeroen Schouten, April 15, 2001 

Seeing the comments above regarding the high price of UK magazines in the US, I would suggest 

checking the subscription prices. From a UK perspective, I often find it cheaper to subscribe to US 

magazines and have them arrive airmail to my door than to buy them in the (few) outlets that stock 

them. 

I have a copy of "Outdoor Photography" in front of me, and the subscription price is US$70.95 for 12 

issues - this should compare well with store prices, and no worries about availability. 

Incidentally, Outdoor Photography (not to be confused with Outdoor Photographer) is an excellent 

magazine for landscapers, but the locations are, as you might expect, heavily UK biased. 

-- Sean Buckley, June 12, 2001 

Janet Malcolm's "Diana & Nikon" (Aperture, 1997) is an excellent collection of essays on photography. 


Dead Trees 

Susan Sontag's "On Phtography" is pretty good too. 

-- Don Rivington, June 12, 2001 

I've been buying occasional copies of "Photo Life", a Canadian publication, for about a year or so. It's a 

well laid out magazine with generally excellent reproduction of photos. They have started recently to 

include a digital section of a "magazine within the magazine". It's not very heavy into technical issues 

but does do some equipment reviews. It's the only source, other than John Shaw's column in the online 

Photo Safaris magazine, that I have read which mentions the new Nikon 80-400 VR's problems with 

slow autofocusing. Reports seem to be very well done. 

An online publication I have recently discovered and have been following is the monthly Digital 

Journalist (www.digitaljournalist.org). As a former news photographer, I can fully appreciate the issues 

involved. I would expect the archive of photojournalism would appeal to a large segment of a population 

who grew up with the great news magazines of the past. 

-- Lee Shively, November 23, 2001 

Read this page and you will get the mistaken impression that most great photographers are American, 

and at the most a couple of Western Europeans can hold a camera, with the rest of the world being 

photographically illiterate. Outside of Western classical music (which had a totally valid reason) 

photography has to be the most provincial of the arts. 

In no particular order, check out books in the bookstore by 

1. Koudelka 2. Graciela Iturbide 3. Sebastiao Salgado 4. Abbas 5. Raghu Rai and/or Raghubir Singh. 

etc. etc. 

A considerable body of work by African Photographers also exists, though mostly on the web. There is a 

standard (and rather tedious now) view in American circles that photography arose and was mostly 

advanced by certain U.S. (and a few European) photographers, such as Steiglitz, Steichen, Ansel Adams, 

Cartier-Bresson and the like. 

IMHO, the truth is far more complex. Photography is an unusually accessible technology and art form, 

and its practitioners have ranged across the globe over the last 150 years (look at the work of Raja Deen 

Dayal, in 1870s India) and the commonplace historical narrative of artistic development (Steiglitz et. al) 

is actually quite arbitrary and seeks merely to create easily understandable (and self-centered) coherence 

out of a huge global swirl of artistic activity. 

Walk into a store and pick those books out of the shelf at random. There are and have been many equally 

great and equally important photographers in this world. 


Dead Trees 

-- Mani Sitaraman, November 29, 2001 

Mani Sitaraman's comment is very valid. One of Sebastiao Salgado's pictures haunted me after seeing it 

in the November 2001 issue of Popular Photography. The image showed three lines of people waiting to 

receive clean water. Each night I picked up the magazine and would study the expression on each 

person's face. The people weren't smiling, smirking, or even casual toward Salgado's lens. Instead, each 

of them seemingly revealed themselves without guile, showing varied expressions of weariness, 

concern, and even laughter. This can only happen when the photographer has earned the trust of the 

people he photographs. Despite what some people think, Salgado is not just caputuring horrific human 

conditions. For me, Salgado shatters the barriers that stop us from actually seeing one another. Instead, 

of poor, backwards, miserable people we are left seeing human beings, like you and me, often living in 

unbearable conditions. I recently bought Salgado's Migrations and Workers books. The books are 

excellent from the stunning photography to the excellent print making and reproduction used in its 

making. I have enjoyed these books enormously and in sharing them with friends. 

-- Gary Przyborski, December 18, 2001 

Manual of Photography, Photographic and digital imaging, 9 th edition 

Ralph E Jacobson, Sidney F Ray, Geoffrey G Attridge, Norman R Axford 

ISBN: 0240515749, Publisher, Amazon. 

This book is simply wonderful. It is a detailed book on the physical, optical, chemical and otherwise 

scientific theory behind photography (the authors all have a bevy of these wonderfully quaint British 

learned society titles, in addition to a hefty list of PhDs and graduate degrees). Also distinctive is that the 

first edition was published in 1890! I've been looking for a long time for such a book, that explains the 

theory without patronizing a scientifically literate reader. If you are afraid of equations, this is not the 

book for you. 

-- Fazal Majid, March 26, 2002 

Thanks Eduard, I'ze wondering if anyone was gonne mention that, but I can second that the National 

Geographics Photography Field Guide is an excellent all rounder book with some really nice 

inspirational photos and tips. 

Natural Light Photography is also a really good inspirational book. Not everyones cup of tea as almost 

all text is written in caption style to photos but I certainly found Jim Zuckerman's tips quite useful. 


Dead Trees 

And yes I'de luv to subscribe to Practical Photography but at over $150 AUD a year I can't really justify 

it right now :-) 

-- Nathanael Boehm, April 11, 2002 

I wanted to add my recommendation for Jack Dykinga's book, "Large Format Nature Photography". 

-- Doug Dolde, May 10, 2002 

I'd like to differ regarding Philip's comments regarding Popular Photography magazine. He states that its 

'probably worth' $10/year. On principle, I refuse to spend 1 penny on a magazine that contains ads from 

many unscrupulous vendors, most of them endorsed by the magazine's 'consumer protection' program. 

Instead, when I happen to be at my local public library, I spend a few minutes reviewing back issues 


Dead Trees 

there. When we keep subsidizing the magazine, there is no reason for them to change. 

-- Reuven K, June 1, 2002 

I previously recommended the UK title Camera & Darkroom (formerly Darkroom User)magazine on 

this page. This is sadly no longer published. 

Another title, that concentrates more on photographs and less on equipment is Black and White 

Photography. It is available outside the UK by subscription and through Barnes & Noble. It also features 

Michael Johnston among its columnists. Read what he has to say about it in his column from November 

2002, titled On Photography magazines. 

-- Simon Evans, March 11, 2003 

I'd like to say that while magazines are a nice weekly boost to enthusiasm, they contain, generally 

speaking, a lot of calendar art pictorialism and not a lot of genuinely good photography. Books may be 

more expensive in the short term, but a few good volumes on technique will teach you all you need to 

know about the mechanics of photography without recourse to the simplistic (and often repeated) advice 

in magazines. Similarly, studying the works of the masters will enlighten and inform your photography 

more than a sub-editor's critique of readers' submissions. Also, if you can build up a collection of good 

books then you will be taking in a wider, and likely unique, field of influences as opposed to being one 

of 200,000+ readers of a popular magazine which, by definition, has to appeal to a narrower, more 

general taste. As others have pointed out here, many of the magazines are little more than catalogues for 

the photography equipment industry anyway. 

-- Gregor MacEwan, March 28, 2003 

For phototography books, there are none more essential than the latest edition of the Ansel Adams series 

(1980s). Book 1 on cameras and Book II, The Negative (which might instead be entitled Exposure) are 

basic to the understanding of photography, film or digital. As to The Negative, when using color film, 

think of controlling scene brightness range by placing your shadow to highlight readings in Zones III to 

VII, and development being a constant. Manipulation of the brightness range through over or 

underdevelopment as discussed in The Negative, doesn't apply. Thus, understanding the Zone System is 

all the easier for color photographers. Learn how to read overall scene brightness range and see what 

portion of that scene will fit into the ability of the film to capture the III to VII range. 

-- CPeter Jørgensen, January 13, 2005 

For fans of analog or older processes, or even a history of these, I highly recommend William 

Crawford's The Keepers of Light: A History and Working Guide to Early Photographic Processes. Also, 

for identifying older print processes, there's James M. Reilly's Care and Identification of 19th-Century 

Photographic Prints. I think these may both be out of print; I know the Reilly is, but worth looking for. 


Dead Trees 

Very helpful, well-illustrated. 

-- Dana Gee, June 8, 2005 

Related Links 

Add a comment 

● 101 PROFESSIONAL TIPS TO MAKE YOUR PHOTOS SING- Old pro photographer and 

short-course teacher writes book of best photo tips he found in 35 years as a magazine and stock 

photographer. The book is available from amazon.com or direct from the publisher and costs less 

than shooting two rolls of film. Complete details about book and author, plus a gallery of photos, 

await your visit to www.robuckpress.com (contributed by Billy E. Barnes) 

● The photographic lens- About 300 pages; each pair of facing pages addresses, with a fair amount 

of mathematical detail, one specific subject. Some examples: 

Test Charts: Use 

Zoom Lens Design 

Lens Flare -- The 

Solutions 

Lots of diagrams. This book would probably answer the majority of questions about lenses that 

appear on photo.net. 

The photographic lens 

Sidney F. Ray. 

Oxford [England] ; Boston : Focal Press, 1992. 

355 p. : ill. (some col.) ; 22 cm. 

Includes bibliographical references (p. 336-338) and index. 

Note that I'm basing this review on an older (1979) edition, and I'm assuming that the current 

edition, which I haven't seen, is substantially the same. (contributed by Eric Hanchrow) 

● Magnum - An article- A hugely entertaining account of the legendary agency. (contributed by 

Mani Sitaraman) 

● http://www.explorephotography.com- Explore Photography - A Resource for Aspiring 

Photographers. This website is primarily intended for casual or amateur photographers that would 

like to improve their skills to the point where they are capable of taking exceptional photographs. 

It does an effective job of describing the most important technical photography skills needed and 


Dead Trees 

what to consider when purchasing a camera or lens. It's also organized in an easy to read format. 

It may not be of great benefit to a professional photographer, but for anyone who is still learning 

this is a great place to get started. (contributed by Marji Olson) 

● Photography Blue Book web site- We now have FULL Konica SLR manuals (and maybe others 

by now) up and on-line for FREE. The Photography Blue Book contains detailed Prices (MSRP, 

New, Used and Auction prices), Descriptions, Photos and Ratings for both 35mm Cameras and 

Lenses from Today's Latest Greatest to Yesterdays Classics. Officially licened by many of the 

Top manufacturers. Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Phoenix, Vivitar, 

Contax, Olympus, Phoenix, Konica, Soligor, Yashica, Promaster, Samsung lenses, bodies, 

cameras and more. (contributed by Michael Lepard) 

● 1000 on 42nd Street- 1000 quickly-taken portraits of people on 42nd Street, NY, on two days in 

1998. Inspirational. (contributed by Eric Hanchrow) 

● f o t o b i b l i o g r a f i c a- a resource for collectors of fine photography monographs 

(contributed by Claudio Vanin) 

● Weather Report- This is a gem of book. 27 high quality duotone prints which are, predominantly, 

landscapes taken in Scotland , Ireland , Wales and England. The photographer is Denis 

Balibouse, a Reuters photographer based in Switzerland. The book is limited to only one run of 

500 copies (From Aug. 2001) and can only be ordered from the website shown here. (You can 

use credit cards online via PayPal or Kagi.) I have purchased a signed copy (for only $22.50 plus 

p&p). The style is very evocative and similar in feel to Bill Brandt, Fay Godwin and Michael 

Kenna. The (little) text is in French but should be of no concern as the pictures are sublime. 

(contributed by Trevor Hare) 

● she walks in beauty- A site dedicated entirely to the beauty of women and nature. Hundreds of 

nudes by a photographer whose work has been exhibited all over the world as well as purchasing 

info for the prints and a new book. (contributed by Dejan Dizdar) 

● Photographic Lighting and Posing - PORTFOLIO- A fantastic book with over 100 images from 

the personal PORTFOLIO of Art Ketchum. Tips on improving your photography. Shutterbug 

gave a fantastic review and states the images are magnificent with all the details on how each was 

executed. (contributed by Art Ketchum) 

● Zone2Tone- Lots of info about the zone system and how to use it in practical and easy to 

understand language. Galleries of images by the author. Soon to undergo major re-design and 

new galleries. (contributed by Les Meehan) 


Dead Trees 

● Photography in Paris- Searching for good books about photography. One of the best sites in Paris 

is the "Bibliotheque Public d'information". At the Georges Pompidu Center. Many many nice 

books about the beginning of photography. Also techniques and professional material. It is there 

where I'm actually learning photo. (contributed by Victor Rosales) 

Add a link 


permission. 




Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of Clocks 


How Shift Lenses Change your Life 


by Frank Sheeran 

How to Take Bad Pictures 

Simple formula for poor pictures: put a building in the shot, then don't aim level. You end up with what 

is called "converging lines." The left and right side of the building seem to meet somewhere above the 

picture. If that's what you wanted, fine. If not, get it under control. 

The Band-Aid 

Level off. You need to have the lens (and film plane) parallel to the edges that you don't want 

converging. (You don't actually have to be parallel to a side of the building, just an edge.) For most 

buildings this means vertical. You probably have zero height compared to a building, so for practical 

purposes this means aiming at the base of the building. But, when you do this, you are probably cutting 

off the top. So, you will back up quite a ways to get it to fit in. This makes it small. 

http://www.photo.net/photo/canon/tilt-shift (1 of 9)7/3/2005 2:24:04 AM


You'll notice now that the building is only using the top half of the film. My example image shows 

beautiful green meadow, but you've got parking lots and hot dog stands. At the very least, you will have 

to crop half the shot away, and enlarge your grain twice as much as needed. Is there a better way? 

Film Geometry 

Before looking at the real answer to this stumper, look at the numbers in image 2. "35mm" film has 

images 36mm wide by 24mm tall. The "centerline" of each shot is exactly half that: 12mm down for 

horizontal compositions and 18mm down for vertical compositions. 

Shift Lenses 

Shift lenses do a few tricks but perhaps the main professional gimmick is letting you control that 

centerline. Within limits, you can put it where you want it, without changing the angle of your camera 

(and screwing up the perspective). 



Shift lens documentation should tell you how much they shift. Let's look at the Canon TS-E 24mm/3.5L. 

Like the other TS-E lenses, it shifts up to 11mm. This is the distance the lens elements move up, but that 

also means the image moves exactly that much on the film. Since film images are upside-down, moving 

the lens up moves the image down. This means... fewer parking lots and hot dog stands. And you can go 

back to your original vantage point and get a bigger image. 

How Close? 

How far from your target do you need to be to get the desired shot without twisting the perspective? 

Believe it or not, no trigonometry is needed. It depends on the height of the target above your eye level, 

the height of the film above the centerline (red, above), and the lens' focal length. 

Distance / TargetHeight = FocalLength / HeightAboveCenterline 

Using that, solve for anything if you know the other three. In practice, you know the focal length and 

height-above-centerline numbers exactly, or can dial in the height-above-centerline you need with a shift 

lens. Distance may be harder to estimate, and height can be tricky. With buildings, you can usually guess 

5 meters or 15 feet per story for commercial structures. 

For now, this can help you picture what shots a given shift lens lets you take. For instance, since the 

height-above-centerline is 12mm for a normal lens and twice that (well, 23mm) for the TS-E lenses with 

maximum shift... we can get twice as close to our target. Or, shoot a target twice as tall. Or use twice the 

focal length (say, the TS-E 45mm instead of a normal EF 24mm). 

Later, on a shoot, this can avoid a certain amount of trial-and-error. For instance, say you have a 24mm 

lens with 11mm of shift, and a four story building on a city street. You can back up to 65 feet away from 

your 60 foot target. The formula says 65/60 = 24/X. X is about 22mm. You know that's right at the limit 

of your shifting and the corners may darken somewhat. On the other hand, you not to even bother 

getting your 1.4x TC out unless a vertical composition would work (vertically, 65/60 = 36/X, X would 

be 33.3mm, and a you could get a maximum height-above-centerline of 18mm + 11mm x 1.4, or 

33.4mm). 

Drawbacks 

When maximum shift is employed, shift lenses (with their unnaturally wide field of view) can show 

some light falloff in the corners, due to basic optical properties. In addition, even the widest filters may 

be visible in the corners of the shot. Smaller apertures typically fix the first problem but accentuate the 

second. Hopefully you have the option of backing away from your target and reducing shift slightly. If 

not, consider using an auxiliary filter holder instead of screw-on filters. 

There are not yet any auto-focus shift lenses, even the Canon TS-E lenses with the auto-focus mount. 

Some shift lenses are a bit more primitive, making you stop down manually before shooting. This will 



be true for any "old" mount with manual aperture control, because it would take Rube Goldberg 

hardware to translate the mechanical movement at the mount to movement at the aperture, when half the 

lens moves up and down. 

You will be paying quite a bit extra, both for the optics that make a larger, shift-able image, and the 

hardware on the lens that let you move the glass up and down. Even then, the lens will probably have a 

smaller maximum aperture than you'd expect. For instance, a Canon 24mm/2.8 is about $500 while the 

shifting 24mm/3.5 is more like $1200 on the street. If its any consolation, the makers are probably losing 

money on every one they make due to the low volume of production. You'll see all three Canon TS-E 

lenses for the same price, even with their vastly different optics, because Canon is offering them to 

complete its lineup, and not attempting to price them to recoup their cost. 

Tele-Converters 

A tele-converter (TC) is a lens group that attaches between your objective lens and camera body. They 

typically magnify the image size by a factor of 1.4x, 1.5x, 2x, or 3x. TC's also (sadly) increase your fstop 

by the same factor. Generally any older TC or 2x TC with less than seven elements will be crap. 

On shift lenses, a TC will also (for practical purposes) increase the amount of your shift. The Canon TS- 

E lenses go from 11mm shift to 15.4mm (1.4x) or 22mm shift (2x). Looking at image #3, guess where 

you can now place your ground level. The horizontal format can suddenly lose the bottom third of your 

building, when the centerline moves to 10mm below the bottom of the frame with a 2x. The vertical 

format can move the centerline to 4mm below too. (Just as lens specs are not exact, teleconverter specs 

can be pretty loose. A nominally 2x converter may be 1.8x or 1.9x. Never seem to be better than 

advertised, even for Leitz and Zeiss.) 

Now, compare the Canon TS-E 45mm/2.8 vs. the TS-E 90mm/2.8. With a 2x TC, the 45mm/2.8 turns 

into a 90mm/5.6... but with 22mm shift possible instead of 11mm. Which sounds like more fun? 

Since TC's in effect take their picture from the center of the objective lens' image, they avoid problems 

that tend to arise in the corners of the objective. 

But Wait! That's not All! 

Any Shot with Lines! 

The example buildings can be replaced with trees. Show those forest canopies while avoiding the "acid 

trip trees" look. Or any other shot where there are two parallel lines... and if that sounds like "most 

shots" you get the picture. Back before rolls of film were invented, there was a time when all camera 

lenses shifted, and truing perspective was considered as important as focus and selecting shutter speed 

and aperture. (Back then, they also used a variety of terms for shift: rise was shift up, etc. Archaic people 

still do so today 8-) 

With the first professional-use "box" cameras (as opposed to bellows cameras), a generation of 



photographers - and photograph viewers - grew up not having this advantage. 

As time went on, all the serious 35mm camera marques issued "perspective correction" lenses. Or 

perhaps I should say, lens, usually with a focal length of 35mm. Zeiss does a 35mm for Contax, Leitz 

does a 35mm for Leica. Olympus and Pentax have one too. Minolta made a 35mm for the old manual 

lens mount, but doesn't have one for the auto-focus cameras. Nikon made (and makes) the 28mm and 

35mm. Canon had the TS 24mm and 35mm for the manual mount, and the TS-E 24mm, 45mm, and 

90mm for the current electronic mount. 

Distortion! 

Besides fixing perspective, you can use the same feature to screw up normal perspective. I took a band's 

CD cover picture, where the guitars are the size of battleships and the guitarists' heads are the size of 

gnats. Art is Truth. 

Panoramas! 

Look at the example vertical image #3. Assuming your shift lens shifts left and right (Canon TS-E's do), 

you can take the left half and right half of a panorama on separate frames, and combine the images in the 

darkroom or a photo touch-up program. There will be some overlap to help you assemble the halves into 

the final image. This overlap can be nominal if you use a TC. 

You can end up with a scene that uses about 70mm width and 24mm height. This will give you strictly 

higher image quality that you'd get with a 6x6 medium format camera and cropping to get a panoramic 

slice - merely 55mm x 20mm. If anyone cares, that’s 1.5x larger negative... advantage 35mm. 

The Canon TS-E lenses will shift in any direction, and have clicks every 30 degrees. You can thus also 

get a shift somewhat up or down at the same time you shift hard left to get one half, and reproduce the 

exact shift amount and angle to take the second half. 

Unsightly Blemishes! 

Normally you can change your viewing angle to select the foreground and background that surround 

your actual subject. You may have artistic conflict, however, if there is a strong rectangular element in 

the subject that you want to render squarely. Examples are mirrors, railings, and windows. 

If you face a mirror head on, you will be in the shot. If you move to the side, it turns into a 

parallelogram. With a shift lens mounted, move the camera to the side, turn the film and lens parallel to 

the mirror, then use shift to get the original composition back (more or less). 

Sometimes you have limited access to a fixed display, especially in tight interiors. There might be a 

ceiling support exactly where you'd like to stand. Set up to one side and shift horizontally to reframe. 

Depth of Field! 

Besides shifting in any direction, the Canon TS-E lenses also tilt. Actually, this has nothing to do with 



the above shift stuff, except that the only lenses that tilt are the Canon TS-E's. What does tilt do for you? 

Normally, everything in a plane a set distance from, and perpendicular to your lens will be in focus. 

When you use lens tilt, you forego the "perpendicular" constraint. You can tilt that plane quite severely 

if desired. The plane of the back element of the lens, the film plane, and the focus plane will all intersect. 

The classic example is for landscapes. You have wildflowers at your feet and Alps at infinity. f/22 won't 

give you the depth of field you need (well, it would at 24mm but at the sacrifice of sharpness). As its just 

after sunset there's not much light, and there is also a wind moving the flowers so a long exposure won't 

work. Fast shutter dictates big aperture, which means lousy depth-of-field... normally. 

As you tilt the lens, you make the focus plane tilt. However, a small tilt of the lens creates a huge tilt in 

the focus plane. Just 10 degrees of lens tilt can rotate the focus plane to the point that wild flowers a 

meter away, at the bottom of the frame, are perfectly focused as are distant alps. 

There are very mathematical explanations to calculate all the exact effect, but I don't know how you 

could use them accurately in the field. It would be nice if there was a focusing screen with a half-prism 

focusing aid at both the top and bottom of the frame. But there's not. The camera could also calculate 

this information for you and display it. 

The other tilt trick is just the opposite. Say you want everything out of focus except for the subject. Say 

there is a row of columns ahead of you, running left to right. Tilt like mad, focus one column, and the 

equally distant neighbors to the left and right will be fuzzy. 

Why You Can't Get a Good Exposure 

Wide angle lenses get darker the further from center you get. This is called "cos^4 vignetting" and is due 

to the light hitting the film at an angle. This is a problem when the lens->film distance is small compared 

to the image width. 

On SLR's, wide angle cameras use a "reverse telephoto" group at the back, so the rear of the lens is far 

enough away to leave room for the mirror. This extra glass hurts quality, but means that even a 

EF14mm/2.8L is about 40mm from the film, which is 36mm wide... which means "cos^4" is NOT 

visible on SLR wide-angles. Rangefinders like Leica M and Contax G and Mamiya 7 have no telephoto 

group, so their images are sharper - but the back of the lens is VERY close to the film, and the corners 

are much darker. 

So what does this have to do with your shift lens? Everything! Shift lenses make a picture much wider 

than a normal lens, but the distance from lens to film is still about 40mm. Your lens shifts 11mm, so the 

image is 36mm (film) + 11mm * 2 = 58mm or so. Unshifted, only the center 24mmx36mm of the image 

hits the film, and has no more cos^4 vignetting than a normal 35mm. However, as you shift, the darker 

part of the total image hits the film. 



If you externally meter, then a meter reading good for a centered shot will be too short an exposure for a 

shifted shot. How much too short? Who knows, bracket! 8-) On the other hand, the camera meter 

depends on taking readings of light off of partial reflections, and depend on the angle the light hits the 

sensors. When you shift, the light comes from a different direction and the sensors may see none of it (or 

too much), so they will suggest a bad exposure. 

How to Get a Good Exposure 

If you don't want to bracket, you need to build up some base-line cos^4 data for your lens. Perhaps the 

following might be agreeable: 

1. Build comparison series: on slide film, photograph a grey card metered with 0 shift and no 

exposure compensation, then -1/3, -2/3, -1, -1 1/3 stop. (either internal meter or external is fine) 

2. Find worst-case dropoff: shift maximum (horizontally if you can shift sideways), and use the 

same shutter and aperture as the first shot of your comparison series. 

3. Develop these shots. 

4. Using the center of the series shots, determine whether the maximum shift is -2/3 darker or 

whatever. That maximum shift is 36mm(width)/2+11mm(shift)= 29mm from image center. If 

you want, measure the falloff at other distances. 

Then: after metering a scene with a handheld meter or unshifted lens, set the exposure manually but with 

the test-result compensation. This should be perfectly accurate with one caveat: Because the darkening is 

progressive, the maximally-shifted side will always be somewhat darker. For arrchitecture, this is perfect 

- it saves you from using an actual graduated filter to bring the sky and ground brightness closer. 

Since you may not be able to see this difference in the viewfinder, your probably still want to bracket, 

but bracket from the external/unshifted exposure to your test-result maximum compensation. Some 

picture in that range should be ok. 

Wish List 

The only return I get on writing an article like this is the right to voice my own opinions - and hopefully 

Canon's listening! 

New Lens 

More than anything in the world, I want a 35mm tilt-shift lens. The gap between the 24mm and 45mm is 

just too great. And, the 24mm is not sharp enough to have its images cropped 50% without pain. This 

lens physically works with the Extender EF 1.4x teleconverter (TC), but resolution seems to suffer 

somewhat. In effect, the TC creates a very expensive, 35mm f/4.9 lens with less than ideal sharpness. 



Instead, a one-piece TS-E 35mm F/2.8 or 3.5 lens should have much better optical quality (no TC), as 

well as being cheaper (no TC), lighter (no TC), and brighter (no TC). 

It would be nice if the TS-E lenses became TS-EF - autofocus. I firmly believe that everyone's 24mm 

(and 35mm...) lens should have tilt and shift, for when they are needed, but autofocus when they aren't. 

Canon, with their great all-electronic mount, could easily allow this. 

New Focusing Screens 

We need a new focusing screen for shifted composition. Canon makes a screen with a grid, for verifying 

perspective. This is great, except the TS-E lenses are all manual focus, and the grid screen doesn't have a 

focus aid. There is a perfectly good screen with the usual split-circle, but no grid lines of any sort. So, 

we are left estimating ranges and looking at the distance scale on the focus ring. 

For tilted composition, the situation is even worse - the distance scale only tells us what is happening at 

the image center. The scale might say 3 meters when the lens is actually focused at infinity on one edge 

and 50cm at the other. Calculating lens tilt mathematically is practically a black art. I only know a 

couple people that even know how, and they don't do it in their head on the scene. They guess a tilt, then 

squint at the viewfinder trying to guess if it is sharp enough. This is hard at f/3.5 (the Canon 24mm lens) 

or f/4.9 (same with 1.4x TC). I'd like a focusing screen with the normal split-circle focus aid, but instead 

of merely the image center, have a circle (or major portion thereof) at each corner or perhaps centered on 

each of four sides. 

More Advanced Camera Electronics 

An second alternative would be a camera that tells us what focus we're at, at the extreme edges of the 

camera. This would involve the camera asking the lens 1) focus distance, 2) tilt, 3) rotation of tilt, and 4) 

a constant or two related to focal length. The camera then calculates the focus distance extremes and 

displays them on the LCD. A photographer who could estimate ranges accurately could adjust the lens 

until the readout matches his estimates. 

A third alternative would have two focusing rings for near and far focus. It would use Canon "E-M". 

(This means that the focusing ring is just an electronic input sensed by the computer, that drives a motor 

to change focus.) We would get a focus motor, and a second motor that tilts the lens appropriately. The 

focus rings would be right next to each other, so normal operation would involve grabbing both 

simultaneously. 



If this two-ring lens had autofocus (in untilted mode), Canon wouldn't mark distances on the focus rings, 

making the split focus screen mandatory. If the lens was manual focus only, the rings would have full 

markings, and ranges would be estimated by the photographer. I don't even postulate a camera with AF 

sensors at the frame's extreme corners, that attempted to tilt, rotate, and focus, simultaneously 8-) 

Adding electric control of the current tilt probably would be awful. Hopefully, just as many lenses are 

now internal or rear focus, the tilt effect could be accomplished simply by tilting one internal group. 

Conclusion 

I hope at this point, you are sadder but wiser. Ideally, you should be discontent with every non-shift (and 

non-tilt) lens you have. This consumer revolt will get back to Canon et al, who will finally start making 

the lenses the world really needs. 

[Editor's note: You might have trouble finding a tilt-shift lens at your neighborhood or shopping mall 

camera store. Try one of the photo.net recommended retailers.] 

This article is copyright 1997 Frank Sheeran. If you want to reuse it in whole or portion, contact the author. 


photo.net 

Recommended Labs 


Search 


● Shop 

● Travel 


● Learn 


● Equipment 

● Forums 


● Gallery 

(Illustrated mostly with pictures from my Sierra collection or my nudes gallery) 

● Community 

Contents: 

1. Top 

2. Ilfochromes (Cibachromes) 

3. Fuji Type R 

4. C prints 

5. Digital prints 

6. Black and White prints 

7. Processing and Proof printing 

8. PhotoCD Scanning 

9. PhotoCD Labs that I don't like 

10. Labs to Avoid 

11. In the Boston area 

12. The rest of the world 


Before I put up my Q&A forum, I would get about three messages/day asking me for a recommendation 

of a "good and cheap" photo lab. What I look for in a lab is that they first do no harm. A lab must have 

superb dust control, careful neg/slide handling, and good systems for keeping track of originals. If a lab 

has all of those things and makes me a print that I don't like, at least the neg or slide will be in good 

enough shape that someone can try again. 

Can a lab be really cheap and not trash your originals? Not in my experience. It costs money to hire 

someone to clean air filters. It costs money to watch the chemical concentrations in the developing 

machines. It costs money to associate a photographer's name with each item in the plant. It costs money 

http://www.photo.net/photo/labs (1 of 10)7/3/2005 2:24:23 AM


to check and double check orders when they are delivered. 

Of course, just because a lab is expensive doesn't mean that they will be good. But at least they have a 

chance of being good. Sometimes labs that are highly automated can be good and relatively cheap for 

certain things like E6 process and mount or C41 process and proof. Finally, you can get lucky. If you 

have an easy-to-print negative, you might get a machine print at a cheap lab for $2.50 that looks the 

same as a pro lab's $25.00 print. But if you liked the image well enough to enlarge and present, then I'll 

venture to say that you'll be fairly sorry when the cheap lab loses or scratches the negative. And it is only 

a matter of time. 

Note: remember to help the Internet community by recording your own experiences with labs in the 

photo.net Neighbor to Neighbor service. 

Ilfochromes (Cibachromes) 

Prints from slides that won't fade for 500 years or 

more if stored in the dark, thus outlasting the original 

slide. The traditional Cibachrome material is plastic 

which makes for an incredibly glossy surface. 

● Portland Color, (800) 734-3230, FAX (207) 

772-6378, 51 York St Portland, ME 04101 

Portland Color made its reputation printing for 

art museums so when they say "exhibition 

quality" they aren't kidding. They use high 

contrast paper for vibrant color and B&W 

contrast masks for contrast control, unlike 

cheap printers who like to use the low contrast 

Ilfochrome material which allows for more 

sloppiness in printing. Their printers are real 

artists. The cost is about $12.50 for the mask 

(one time) and then about $30 for the first 8x10 Ciba. 

All of the above is still true. It is what I used to say about Portland Color. However, now 

they have started making prints for people who make charitable donations to Angell 

Memorial Animal Hospital (see the gift shop section of Travels with Samantha). That 

makes them Good Internet Citizens in my opinion and thus even more deserving of 

business. 

Cheap Cibas (i.e., < $20 for an 8x10) are terrible quality in my experience. I have tried several cheap 

mail-order Ciba labs and they all produced results worse than a $5 Fuji Type R print (see below). 



The LightRoom offers some good factual information about Cibachromes but I've never tried their 

services. 

Fuji Type R 

Prints from slides. Nearly as long-lasting as 

Ilfochrome if displayed in the light. Slightly lower 

quality but possibly acceptable especially if the image 

is not too contrasty. 

● Slideprinter, P.O. Box 9506, Denver, CO 

80209, (303) 698-2962; www.slideprinter.com. 

Inexpensive. 

● A&I (see below). 

C prints 

Prints from color negatives. 

● Portland Color, (800) 734 3230. Their standard 

service is comparable to "exhibition grade" at 

other pro labs. They are Good Internet Citizens 

because they donate prints so that dogs can get 

better health care. They aren't any more 

expensive than a regular pro lab. 

● FinePrint, 1306 Blue Spruce Drive, Unit E, 

Fort Collins, CO 80524. (800) 777-1141, 

email@fineprint.org. Tell them that Philip 

Greenspun sent you; they know me. 

FinePrint will make you five beautiful prints 

for about the same price as a Boston lab 

charges for one or two. And they will do a better job. What's the catch? The minimum order is 

five for 16x20 and larger, ten for smaller prints. 



FinePrint also will make internegatives from your slides and produce C prints that can be better 

than Cibachromes and Fuji Type R prints in some respects (e.g., shadow detail). 

If you intend to sell (or give away) your work, FinePrint is your best ally. 

My experience with Type C printers has been generally fairly bad. 

Pro labs charge a fortune because their costs are high. 

Unfortunately, they often don't do any better work than a machine. 

Large consumer labs are very careless with negatives and it is very 

difficult to control results. I think there are only two ways to get 

something for nothing in the Type C printing world. One is to take 

standard wedding pictures on standard wedding film and bring 

them to a standard wedding lab. They have established procedures 

for producing reasonably high quality prints at reasonably low 

cost. The other way is to find a serious photographer who has chucked the rat race and set up a 1-hour 

lab in a small town. I've gotten great prints made from 120 film on Martha's Vineyard in November 

(November!) and 50 copies of my fighting bears (at right) to send to friends as postcards from Homer, 

Alaska. 

My most memorable experience of this kind was walking into a one-hour lab in Missoula, Montana. The 

grizzled owner had an E6 machine and claimed to be able to do 120. I was reluctant to entrust my film to 

a lab that didn't dip-and-dunk and that wasn't part of the Kodak Q-lab network. He said "Well, Galen 

Rowell thinks my service is good enough for him." I was delighted with the results, but the proprietor 

wasn't impressed by my photographs (below): "I'd be just as happy if I never saw a picture of 

Yellowstone or Glacier." 



Digital prints 

If you have an image that only exists digitally and you want a photograph-like physical copy, you can 

get a Light Jet print (up to 50x120 inches) from Portland Color. Alternatively, the Kodak Pegasus 

system at Boston Photo prints on conventional C-type paper up to 20x30" in size. 

If you have an image that you think might look interesting as a watercolor-y painting, then try an Iris ink- 



jet print on watercolor paper from Portland Color. I did this with the double flower photo that decorates 

the list of people who use my images. The results were beautiful, as you can see for yourself if you 

donate a few dollars to a no-kill animal shelter. 

Black and White prints 

When you look for a color printer, you are mostly looking for a good 

technician. If your image includes a fire engine and it isn't bright red 

in the final print, then you need a technician to fix the problem. 

Suppose that you have the same fire engine in a B&W negative. 

What shade of gray should it be in the final print? 

When you are looking for someone to print your B&W negatives, 

you are looking for a good partner. This person must respect your 

work enough to slave over it and must have a good enough rapport 

with you to understand what you want. Richard Avedon has several 

full-time printers. They make perhaps a dozen work prints from each 

negative. Avedon sits down with them and says "The face should 

have the contrast and density from work print #3, the arms the 

contrast and density from work print #7, the dress looks good in print 

#2, ..." Then the printers have to go back and figure out what 

combination of paper grade and dodging and burning will produce 

the combined result desired. This is the ideal working relationship. Because such a relationship is 

virtually impossible to achieve with a commercial lab, most serious B&W photographers print 

everything themselves. 

Personally, I don't like to spend my days alone in the dark. So I let Portland Color print my B&W and 

try to communicate my needs as clearly as possible. Because I so seldom do my own printing, my 

darkroom skills are rusty and therefore the printers at Portland Color do a better job than I ever would. 

Try to find a local lab where you can sit down and talk to the printer or at least drop by every day and 

look at work prints, circling problem areas with a grease pencil. A good B&W printer should be able to 

make archival prints on fiber-base paper with selenium toning. The selenium toning deepens the blacks 

and thus increases the image contrast. 



Processing and Proof printing 

"Process and proof" turns exposed film into something that can be evaluated by a human being. In the 

case of slide film, "Process and mount" is what you want. For 35mm film, these services are available as 

close as your nearest drugstore or 1-hour lab. Why consider a pro lab for basic processing? Pro labs are 

useful in the following cases: when you need 3 hour service, when you have 120 or sheet film, when you 

want your film pushed or pulled in 1/3 stop increments, when you want plastic slide mounts. 

Mass market and 1-hour labs use roller transport processors. If a bit of grit gets into a roller, these 

processors can scratch every frame on a roll of film. Any pro lab worth its salt will have a dip-and-dunk 

processor. Film is pulled out of its cartridge or off its spool, clipped at both ends, and then hung on a 

rack that can dip the whole roll at once into a vat of chemistry tall enough to accomodate the length of 

the film. There is no part of a dip-and-dunk machine in which frames can be scratched en masse. Most 

good pro labs subscribe to a remote chemistry monitoring program in which data are periodically 

uploaded to Kodak or Fuji. Look for a "Kodak Q-Lab" or "Fuji Labnet" logo. 

One worthwhile pro lab luxury is the ability to get enlarged proof sheets. The lab develops negatives or 

slides normally and then arranges them to fit into an 8x10 enlarger. Using this monstrous contraption, 

the entire roll is projected at once onto a 16x20 or 20x24" sheet of paper. Thus you have the advantages 

of a contact sheet, e.g., only one piece of paper to go with each roll and frame numbers clearly marked 

next to each proof, coupled with the advantages of proof prints, i.e., the image is large enough to 

evaluate without a magnifying loupe. This whole process can cost $30-40/roll but sometimes the results 

are so good that you can frame the end-result and hang it on your wall as an example of the "small 

multiples" espoused in Edward Tufte's Envisioning Information. 



If you can't find a good local lab, consider using mailers. Adorama Pro Lab offers dip-and-dunk 

processing for both E6 and C41. A mailer for 36-exposure slide film is $6 (order), for 4x6 proof prints 

from 36-exposure negative film, the cost is $12 (order). A&I is one of the nation's best big labs and they 

offer mailers: www.aandi.com. If you're in the Los Angeles area, however, try to go in person. The main 

Highland Avenue location in Hollywood is an especially fun place to hang out because they have a huge 

slide sorting area where working photographers lay out their freshly processed work to pick the good 

shots before rushing over to the art director. 

If you're on a tight budget, consider mailers for Kodak processing. These are about $4 for 36-exposure 

slides and around $9 for color or B&W prints. The black and white service is very nice indeed. Instead 

of squinting at a contact sheet you get a 3x5" proof print from each frame. For a mass-market operation, 

Kodak is remarkably reliable. However, when film is lost or scratched there is literally nobody to whom 

to complain. The main lab is at 16-31 Route 208, Fairlawn, NJ 07410, (201) 797-0600 [centralized 

customer service for Kodak labs is (800) 531-3029 or (800) 345-6973]. Note that Kodak is happy to 

process Fuji film. 

PhotoCD Scanning 

Desktop scanners such as the high-end Nikons produce very high quality results. However, you may find 

that using Kodak PhotoCD simplifies the management of large image libraries. A scanner in a lab is less 

likely to attract dust. A pro lab will have expensive machines capable of scanning unusually sized 

negatives and transparencies. 

Most of the images on photo.net were scanned either by Advanced Digital Imaging (135 West Oak 

Street, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524; 1-800-888-3686) or Boston Photo (contact Dave Semperger at 617- 

450-4372 or dsemp@bostonphoto.com). 

If you really don't want to pay a lot for this PhotoCD scan, consider WalMart. They are allegedly wicked 

cheap. Personally I am nervous any time one of my originals is out of my possession and the thought 

that an operator will be slamming it through a Kodak PIW attempting to do 100 images/hour does not 

make me sleep well. I haven't tried them. After you get your PhotoCD back, be sure to read my 

conversion tips. 

If you have an original larger than 4x5" or very dark, you might want to get a drum scan made. has a 

drum scanner. I've had bad luck with Graphics Express (Boston). 

Portland Color and Boston Photo both have SciTex Eversmart Pro flat-bed CCD scanners. These are 

easier for labs to operate than drum scanners but for my purposes (extremely high-res zoomable 

FlashPix images), I prefer the pixels from a drum scanner. 

Labs to Avoid 



Seattle FilmWorks has a bad history, from which they have been trying to escape with a name change to 

"PhotoWorks". Their original sin was pushing respooled movie film onto consumers. Movie film is 

lower quality than photographic film and it is also non-archival. Family memories on movie film fade 

very quickly unless processed negatives are stored in the kinds of freezers used by movie studios. With 

the advent of the consumer Internet age, Seattle PhotoWorks went in for spamming. 

Duggal is a big lab in Manhattan with a reasonably clean E6 line. However, they ruined some of my best 

C41 with their dirty neg developing and enlarged contact production areas. At $40/roll, one would 

expect better. I had a bunch of PhotoCD scans done there and they were also remarkably dusty. Double 

the price of Boston Photo and then you get to spend a few weeks in PhotoShop repairing the dust and 

neg damage. 

For my notes on Boston's Colortek, see below. 

In the Boston area 

Boston Photo Imaging on Newbury Street is good choice for a full service lab, with comprehensive 

traditional and digital facilities. 

ZONA, 561 Windsor Street, Somerville, MA 02143, (617) 628-2545 is our best-known local Ilfochrome 

printer. They also have a dip-and-dunk black and white line. 

Colortek is known to many local pros as "Colorwreck". I once gave them ten rolls of 120 film. They lost 

one. They returned two rolls of B&W so underdeveloped that even the frame numbers were barely 

visible. When I complained, they said "it is obviously an exposure problem". I pointed out that my E6 of 

the same subject was perfectly exposed. They were unconvinced. I asked them how likely they thought 

it was that Ilford (with the frame numbers) and I both had exposure problems on the same rolls. They 

were unconvinced. 

The rest of the world 

Use the full text search engine or browse by categories in the photo.net Neighbor to Neighbor service, 

which contains recommendations from all over the Internet of various labs. 

[ top ] 


Took some family photos at Christmas and went with WalMart's special on prints and Photo CD. The 

digital images were scanned at approximately 1800x1200--less than a 3MP camera--and cost $8.80 for 

24 exposure roll. I didn't find this a particularly useful service. 



-- Mike Siesel, February 3, 2005 



permission.

Reader's Comments - Index of - Free

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?