ManhartPhotography

Wired has an article out today about a new technology that promises a four-times increase in the image quality in your cell phone camera.

That may be true, but we’ve heard these promises before.  Even though I’m a professional photographer, I use my camera phone as much as anyone else, and I’d love to see better image quality.  I’ve seen images from the Samsung SCH-V770 7MPcamera phone, and although the images are a bit larger, the quality leaves much to be desired.

Some professional photographers get a little defensive when they see a headline like the one above.  I guess that’s understandable, but it shows a lack of confidence.  If you’re a wedding photographer and that headline has you worried, you may want to spend some time honing your skills.  Time and talent sets good photography apart much more than equipment.

Even if (and that’s a huge even if) camera phones were to some how come close to the quality of our professional equipment, it takes a lot of skill to take great pictures.

One of the great things about photography is that anyone can take a good picture.  The hard part is taking good pictures exactly at the moment you have to, in exactly the way you planned.  You don’t get a second shot at a wedding, it has to be perfect the first time around.

Now, lets talk more about image quality.  We’ve all benefited hugely from the advances in technology.  Our camera’s keep getting better and cheaper (hallelujah!).  However, even the best camera phone quality got ten times better, it still wouldn’t rival the quality of Canon’s first consumer SLR the EOS-D30, which came out 10 years ago.

Whenever I’m asked which camera to buy, I bring up the subject of lenses.  If you have no intention of buying a good lens for that new camera body, you’re better off buying a top of the line point-and-shoot, which usually come with a pretty good all around lens.  Generally speaking, to get a lens that will match the image quality an SLR body is capable of taking, you’ll need to spend $700+.  I don’t say that lightly, and any good photographer can show you the difference.

Until camera phones start coming with professional lighting equipment, a great coach, and thousands of hours of training, I’m not going to lose much sleeping worrying about them.

1.  You can’t drink beer on the internet.

2. You can’t determine digital camera quality.

One of my favorite photography related websites is www.luminous-landscape.com.  I found this article on the “Whats New” section this morning.

Even though the first two statements are meant to be funny, and obvious, they carry some truth.

I’m often asked which camera to buy, but the answer is far from simple.  Even a limited budget leaves many options.

There are sites we can turn to…www.dpreview.com andwww.dcresource.com are two of my favorites.   These sites will review each camera down to the nitty gritty, and offer up image samples to prove their point.

The problem is, the reviews always carry some level of bias, and there simply isn’t much you can learn from the image quality you see online.

Without getting too “camera geek” let me explain briefly..   There is more than one way a camera can take pictures (i.e. Jpeg, Raw, Tiff, etc..) and there are various quality settings within those options.  As soon as you take those images off the memory card and onto your Mac or PC, the software you’re using to view your pictures makes its own interpretation of the file.  Changes are made to the color, the sharpness, the resolution and many other things.  Even a Photoshop expert doesn’t have ultimate control over the input and output of images.  The image you’re seeing online has been altered and changed and might have very little resemblance to what you might see while taking pictures with the very same camera.

This is why its essential to try out a camera before you buy.  If you’re anywhere near Sacramento go to Pardees, or Action Camera in Roseville.  I’ve spent an enormous amount of time in both stores, and the staff knows their stuff.  I know… the internet has awesome prices and its easy to just pull the trigger on a quick purchase, but a few hours of hands on research will save you a lot more time in the end.

“If 90% of the homes in your market are not selling, then your home needs to outshine the top 10%.  I’ve written articles before about taking great pictures that will help sell your home, and its entirely possible for a non-professional to get a good shot.

But its much more likely that an experienced professional will know which shots will help your home to get noticed.

Elizabeth Weintraub, a Realtor with more than 30 years of experience selling in the Sacramento area lists badly shot photographs first in reasons why your home might not be selling.

“Homes in MLS that have one photo are passed by. Homes with dozens of photographs get noticed. Take quality photos or hire a professional photographer. Shoot wide angles with plenty of light showcasing your home’s best features. For goodness sake, keep the toilet lid closed.”

There’s a common misconception that hiring a photographer might only make sense if you’re selling a $1,000,000+ home.  Hiring a photographer will cost somewhere between $75-250 unless you have special requests.  If that helps sell your home in an even slightly shorter amount of time, or helps bring in more offers, or makes it possible to sell at all, its worth it for a home at any price.   Almost any other kind of marketing effort will cost more.

Linsey Planeta, Orange County Realtor, and a big help for consumers in selling their homes has this to say about hiring a professional photographer, “There is no listing that should ever be without them. I am a Realtor – I am not a photographer.”  She provides a great example on her website of the difference between shots she took and the shots her photographer took.

A few years ago, when the housing market was booming, professional pictures might have made much less of a difference.  In todays market, it might be your only hope.

I’m always on the lookout for great places to take pictures close to home.  I’ve written about good places to take family pictures in Sacramento, but we finally have a website dedicated to finding great places to take pictures in California.

The website is called California Photo Scout.  One of the first things you’ll notice is the Category side of the page where you select from regions or cities or major geographic features.

Andre Gunther, a travel photographer and writer with years of photography, travel, and guiding experience, authors this unique blog.

“A comprehensive guide to California locations, interesting to all levels of photographers from enthusiast to professionals.” says Andre.” The site not only covers all the popular but also lesser-known places. It will teach you how to be creative, how to make your trip unforgettable and bring back exciting photographs.”

The blog goes beyond what other travel guides offer on the internet. California Photo Scout also arms readers with practical advice unique to each location.

Email the author at travis@manhartphotography.com or visit www.ManhartPhotography.com.

A district judge in New Mexico has affirmed a state Civil Rights Commission order that a small photography company pay $6,600 for refusing to violate the owners’ Christian beliefs by photographing a lesbian “ceremony,” even though same-sex marriage isn’t legal in the state.

Word of the decision by District Judge Alan M. Malott comes from the Alliance Defense Fund, which promised an immediate appeal of the decision against the Christian photographer and her husband.

Interestingly, both sides seem to disagree with the ruling. From Queerty.com, ” I wouldn’t want to see a court rule against a gay photographer who, on moral grounds, refused to take the business of a religious fundamentalist and homophobic couple. Because religion is a protected class, just like sexual orientation.”

From WorldNetDaily, “”Should the government force a videographer who is an animal rights activist to create a video promoting hunting and taxidermy? American small business owners do not surrender their constitutional rights at the marketplace gate, nor can the government make people choose between their faith and their livelihood.”

During the recent battle over proposition 8 in California, it was claimed that proposition 8 would have no effect on photographers. Opponents of proposition 8 cited this case as proof that it might.

The case developed in 2006 when Willock asked Elaine Huguenin, co-owner with her husband, Jon Huguenin, of Elane Photography in Albuquerque, to photograph a “ceremony” that Willock and another woman wanted to hold in Taos. Neither marriage nor civil unions are legal between members of the same sex in New Mexico.

There are implications here which photographers should be aware of.

Do you agree/disagree? Let us know in the comments.

Email the author at travis@manhartphotography.com or visit www.ManhartPhotography.com.

If you liked this article you can read more at Sacramento Photography Examiner.

For at least a decade most of the images we see on magazine covers, and in most advertising, have been manipulated. This probably doesn’t come as news to most of you, but I imagine we’d all be a bit shocked at how much and how often Photoshop is used.

For years we’ve seen studies and heard ample anecdotal evidence about how all these images distort our image of reality. 

Now there is one politician who wants to do something about it. Valarie Boyer, a member of the French parliament, has drafted a law that would require that all digitally altered photographs of people used in advertising be labeled as retouched. 

Click here for more information in the New York Times.

“Some think such a law would destroy photographic art; some think it might help reduce anorexia; some say the idea is aimed at the wrong target, given that nearly every advertising photograph is retouched. Others believe such a label might sensitize people to the fakery involved in most of the advertising images with which they’re bludgeoned.”

There are unanswerable ethical questions at stake here and manipulated images might be fairly low on our list of worries. (For example, it would be great to know if your financial advisor had your best interests at heart.)

However, it is undeniable the when we make decisions based on reality, we are better off. There is no reason adequate enough to cause potential body and image issues to our children. 

Those of us in the business of using photoshop have nothing to hide. We make changes at the clients request.  In fact, I want my own portrait manipulated. If I can look better, great! 

There are limits to this of course. Changes that aren’t subtle are easily recognizable to the people that know us.

Do you agree/disagree? Let us know in the comments.

Email the author at travis@manhartphotography.com or visit www.ManhartPhotography.com.

If you liked this article you can read more at Sacramento Photography Examiner.

As a photographer and Photoshop professional, I take great delight when I see Photoshop used to pull the wool over our eyes. Actually, what amuses me is when its used badly.

I frequent a blog full of Photoshop disasters, and was pleased to find this example.

See if you can spot the trick used on this listing. (Click Here to bring up a larger image).

The trick used here is called “cloning.” Cloning is used to copy a good part of an image and place it over a bad part of an image. For example, if you can find clear skin you can copy and paste that good skin over any blemish, including acne, and its subtle enough to not be noticed.

Cloning was used in this famous picture which got an AP Photographer fired, and its probably the most often badly used “trick”.

Have you spotted the trick yet? Look close at the grass. One spot of good grass was copied, and pasted over and over again to cover bad grass or bare lawn. Look for circles of repeating grass.

Do you agree/disagree? Let us know in the comments.

Email the author at travis@manhartphotography.com or visit www.ManhartPhotography.com.

Realtors call it “virtual staging.” This blog post from the National Associate of Realtors (NAR) explains… 

“Virtual staging is where you take an empty room and then digitally enhance it with furniture to make the space more inviting. For example, a stager may digitally add some artwork, chairs, tables and other items to liven up a vacant space, allowing buyers to see the potential of the home. The enhanced photos may then be used on the sales practitioner’s flyers, Web site, MLS and in advertisements for the listing.”

The whole point of this is to stage a home digitally at much less expense than actually bringing in new furniture and other items that don’t belong in the home.

NAR is aware that virtual staging needs to be handled with sensitivity. They’ve pointed out “virtual staging may be a violation of Article 12 of the Code of Ethics which requires that REALTORS® present a “true picture” in their advertising.”

I cant say I agree. Virtual staging is no different than staged pictures of a property that never actually existed in that state – using furniture or fixtures that aren’t present in the home and have never been there – is it really a “true picture” of the property?

There are a lot of ways to manipulate a photo, and some are much worse than others. If the end result of the manipulated picture is something you cant get to with a little paint a new couch, you’re probably taking it too far.

It may be much more troubling to remove something that doesn’t look good. A fine line has to be walked here, but it shouldnt be too hard to walk successfully.

Do you agree/disagree? Let us know in the comments.

Email the author at travis@manhartphotography.com or visit www.ManhartPhotography.com.

If you liked this article you can read more at Sacramento Photography Examiner.

The answer is… maybe not. 

Here’s a very short explanation. There are different level of HD. True high definition is currently 1080p, which means 1920 pixels (wide), by 1080 pixels (tall), and at least 30 frames per second (fps).

Most of the camera’s you buy at a retailer today will not actually take HD video at the 30 frames per second you need so that video doesn’t look choppy.

Here’s and example… Flip video offers an “HD” camera (which is a very fun little camera), but its not really HD. It offers a 1280×720 capture, which falls far short of HD. The Flip HD does capture 30 frames per second, (better than most at that size), but the 30 fps is still a little choppy.

The Flip is a good example because even though its HD video is better than most, it’s still not HD. The reason there’s so much confusion on the subject is that High Definition is a moving target. TV’s get better, and the standard changes.

Now for the good news. Even though it’s not true HD, it still looks very good. Sometimes the best camera is the camera that is convenient enough to carry with you all the time. If that means it has to be small enough to be in your purse or pocket, so be it.

With that being said, there are certain laws of physics that cant be overcome. If you can carry a bigger camera, generally, its a better camera. The more light a lens can gather, the better the end image. That means big lenses are better (all things considered). A tiny pocket camera simply cant compete with that big black unit you see the professional walking around with.

Buy the camera that will allow you to use it as much as possible… as big or as small as it needs to be.

Be wary of the claims on the box. Make sure they are giving you very specific numbers. Usually if their hype matches the specifications, they’ll be very open and up front with the numbers. 

Last but not least… no matter what the salesman/genius/expert at the electronics store says, do the research yourself. There are a number of great websites where you can find good, reliable information.

Try DPReview, or DCResource.

If you have a question about a specific camera, feel free to email me at travis@manhartphotography.com or visit www.ManhartPhotography.com.

If you liked this article you can read more at Sacramento Photography Examiner.

Maybe.

Before you pull the trigger and buy a new computer with Windows 7 for christmas, you might want to make sure that new camera will work when you connect it.  Sadly, we’ve come along way from the time when hardware and software manufacturers felt the need to make sure their product was ready as soon as the newest Microsoft offering came out.

The reasons whey they don’t feel that need to update are complex, and chief among them may be the failure of Vista to catch on. However, Windows 7 is a much better product and worth the upgrade.

There are hundreds of Digital cameras out there, and I cant write about all of them, but I’ll cover the six major manufacturers here.

Canon – If you buy any Canon Camera this season, it will have Windows 7 support, any camera more than a year old will need testing. Most cameras less than two years old will work.

Nikon – General support for Windows 7 not available till January 2010. New camera’s may or may not work until general support is offered.

Olympus – With probably the best Windows 7 support among these manufacturers, Olympus stands out. Unless you’re using Camedia Master 4, or Studio 1 and older your Olympus camera should work with Windows 7.

Panasonic - Almost all Panasonic camera’s have been supported since October 27th, 2009, but there are no plans to support the 64 bit versions of Windows 7.

Sony – Because Sony only provides support on a per-camera basis, I cant provide a list here. In general, newer camera’s are supported. You can find more specific information here.

Pentax – General support provided as of November 11th, 2009. New camera’s all supported, older units will need testing.

At this point I feel obligated to warn you that the only way to find out if your camera/software will actually work on Windows 7 may be to try your camera, and your software on Windows 7.

Even if the manufacturer says it will, there are so many combinations of hardware and software that they can’t all be tested. A third party connection can always cause a problem.

If you have a question about a specific camera, feel free to email me at travis@manhartphotography.com or visit www.ManhartPhotography.com.

If you liked this article you can read more at Sacramento Photography Examiner.