Digital Capture After Dark by Amanda Quintenz-Fiedler

Digital Capture After Dark by Amanda Quintenz-Fiedler
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Digital Capture After Dark focuses on the taking of pictures in low-light conditions. It provides a compilation of techniques covering equipment, the actual taking of the image, and post-production. It does a good job of putting together in one place a wide range of considerations from technical to practical that are involved in various forms of low-light photography and the effects that these have on the final image, but while it does provide some nice examples, I would have appreciated more discussion on why certain effects are worth having or what makes the pictures that were printed worth looking as examples of the art.

One important characteristic of low-light photography is the inability for camera automatic systems to adequately observe and set the camera controls for the image. Because of this, low-light photography requires more understanding of what you are doing than normal, especially for those who are used to either automatic cameras or using the camera auto-exposure settings. Having learned photography using a manual camera, many of the techniques and advice given here were familiar to me from learning how to take photographs efficiently without the computer aids. Quintenz-Fiedler provides these types of tips, along with many practical pieces of advice on working in non-ideal environments (both natural and social) that come with low-light settings such as night, indoors, and oddly lit areas. She covers preparation (getting ready for the shoot), the capture of the image itself (traditional low-light photography as well as some more current techniques such as light painting) and post-processing using image manipulation programs.

The methods are all good, although I feel these are things I've seen in many articles and other books. But the one advantage of a long form such as books is the space to discuss why you want to do something in addition to how to do it, and that is an opportunity missed. There are many photographs scattered throughout, and in several places pages of photographs in succession, but she does not generally take the time to say why particular images were chosen or what to about the image makes it notable. (She gets better at this when discussing light painting and image processing.) In particular the 'Capture' chapters on taking the photograph itself would have benefited from this. It is not just the technical issues that need highlighting, it is the artistic choices that the technical issues enable. If this were there, this would have been a good book on photography in low-light rather than a set of how-tos that happen to focus on a particular theme.

Note: I received a free copy of this ebook as part of the Oreilly Press Blogger program.

View all my reviews

Book Review: The Art of Black and White Photography by Torsten Hoffmann

The Art of Black and White Photography: Techniques for Creating Superb Images in a Digital Workflow by Torsten Andreas Hoffmann
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

The Art of Black and White Photography is written as a series of chapters that are short lessons on individual topics. While it starts out like many photography tutorial books discussing equipment, once past the initial chapters it changes form. It becomes a set of lessons that are built around the creation of photographs, from the initial scene to adjusting composition and tone to achieve a final result. And in that it is much better then the usual set of tips and tricks. Because to teach an art involves leading someone through the mental steps of discovery, not telling someone how to do it.

Art is traditionally taught by master to student, and the context in conservatories, schools, and classes around the world is the studio. Where aspiring artists can gather and present and critique their work under the guidance of a master. Because this exposure to criticism in an environment intended for the growth of the student is how the student's skill at a craft is honed. But in the modern world where people think that mastery can come quick and easy by learning a few secrets and tricks, this is bypassed. And that is my criticism of most photography instructional materials, they attempt to teach a set of rules for each situation. And while this at least provides examples of good photographs, it does not lead the reader through the craft of looking and evaluating scenes, and then of taking a scene and looking for improvements along the way.

Hoffmann does something different. In each chapter he takes you through a series of scenes. And leads you through the way showing how a change in view, composition, focus can lead to an improved picture. One example is a market in a courtyard. First a picture of a few stalls. Then a discussion of how clutter detracts. Then as the composition gets tighter and tighter it becomes essential elements. Then a picture with essential elements is improved by a dynamic element of a person walking through, with the moment captured at exactly the right time so that the movement is apparent in a still picture.

He does this in various forms throughout. Yes, he hits the 'rules' like everyone else (there is a chapter on the Golden ratio that has many pictures with many drawn lines illustrating various applications of the Golden ratio), but what makes this book different are the discussions that lead you through how to view the scene and compose to make a distinctive photograph.

Disclaimer: I received a free electronic copy of this book for review through the O'Reilly Press Blogger Review program.

More information on this book can be found at the O'Reilly website.



View all my reviews

Three months with the Lumix GF2

My wife and I both have the same start in photography. The manual focus, manual exposure SLR manufactured by Cosina as an OEM. In my case it was the Ricoh KR-5 Super II (Pentax K mount) and her's was the Nikon FM10. And we've made the switch to digital, with my buying a digital SLR when my favorite film was no longer available at the local photography store. In addition, we've stopped using digital compacts when we both switched to using iPhone, since the camera included in that was close enough in quality to make a digital compact superfluous. To this I've added one of the new class of cameras, a mirrorless interchangable lens camera (MILC). Specifically, the Panasonic Lumix GF-2, which is a Micro Four Thirds (M4/3) camera.

The GF-2 is positioned within Panasonic Lumix Micro 4/3 line as the consumer (vice enthusiast) MILC without a built in electronic viewfinder (i.e. composition etc. has to be done through a back panel LCD) (Note: it has been superseded by the even smaller GF-3. When buying consumer electronics, I tend to buy one generation behind the current. It is alot cheaper.) (The enthusiast counterparts are the GF-1/GX-1) What makes this feasible is the fact that the back panel LCD screens have reached a level of quality that makes them competitive with traditional SLR viewfinders for composition, focusing, and judging exposure. However, it is not quite as good. And the fact that the viewfinder is not integrated means that you are composing and shooting with the camera held in front of you rather than in contact with your body, which reduces the potential stability. But not having the reflex mirror based viewfinder means that there is no need to accomodate the mirror, so the camera can be very small (front to back).

The other major compromise is the use of the M4/3 sensor, which has 1/4 the area of a traditional 35mm film (compared to most digital SLRs, which use an APS-C sensor with 1/2 the area of a traditional 35mm film). While this is many times greater than digital compacts, so comparing with digital SLRs makes more sense than comparing it to compacts, the difference is noticeable in low light. The advantage of this is, again, the camera could be made smaller.

There are plenty of places for technical reviews and reviews from the point of view of a range of photography styles. But what follows is where the Micro four-thirds Lumix GF-2 fits into my photography.

1. It is small and still takes reasonable quality pictures. I can tell the difference on sight between my Digital SLR pictures and compact or iPhone pictures. The micro four-thirds not as much. The GF-2 in particular is so small, I can put it in a jacket pocket when I use my Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F/2.5 lens. Doing this, with a second lens in the other pocket used to be the ideal style for going on a photoshoot with rangefinders, but 35mm film based rangefinders required a very big pocket. I've even put the GF-2 in my front pants pocket (but it is rather snug in there).

2. There is a saying, the best camera is the one you take with you. I can take the GF-2 with me when I am carrying a bag that has other things, like my diaper bag when I'm with my son. My digital SLR basically demands its own bag because of its size (and I have a Pentax K-x, one of the smallest digital SLRs on the market). I bring it with me on work trips, because it does not take a lot of room. Similarly, we keep this camera out on a shelf so that it is readily accessible. It also means my wife will use it, since she never considers it worth the effort to bring the digital SLR.

3. Composition, focusing, and shooting can be done from the LCD screen. This picture of the dancers was taken while holding my 1 year old son in my lap. When using M4/3 lenses with auto focus and auto exposure, you can touch the point on the screen that should be where focus and exposure should be evaluated. And this is important if I happen to be holding something else. Like a baby. So putting a camera to my eye is not practical.

4. Use of other system lenses. One of the side effects of being able to make the camera small and the lack of the mirror means that the register (distance from the mount to the sensor) can be very small. And since the sensor is also small, this is even smaller than my old rangefinder lenses (which also had this quality compared to SLRs). So, with an adapter (which increases the distance from the mount) I can use any of my old lenses. In particular, this lets me use my rangefinder lenses that have been sitting in a closet for the past two years. Now, this means that these lenses are effectively manual focus, and only aperture priority exposure (no shutter priority since the camera cannot control the lens), but since I generally like shooting that way anyway, that is fine.

5. Familiar operating system. For my manual aperture lenses, the operation is very familiar. Aperture ring for aperture, a thumbwheel for shutter speed or exposure compensation. And by pushing down on the thumbwheel, you get a zoom in effect to assist in manual focusing if you want it. The major missing piece is the lack of a wheel to change the exposure mode (e.g. program, aperture priority, shutter priority, etc.), instead you have to work through the touchscreen. But since I usually looked at that dial when changing the exposure mode it was not much more of a hassle.

And on the other side, some shortfalls, mostly compared to my digital SLR

1. The lenses I have are in the f/2.5 range, while for my SLR I was using lenses that were f/1.4 or f/1.7. The loss of a stop is noticeable in working. Although if I was truly trying to shoot in a low-light situation, I would bring my SLR since the larger sensor also makes a difference in image quality in this situation.

2. Low light (high ISO) is worse. Probably because of the smaller sensor. But it is much better than with digital compacts or smartphone cameras.

3. Black and white. The monochrome setting is Program exposure. And you cannot even set over- under- exposure (which I do all the time). I've set the custom programs to be black and white with over and under exposure as a workaround, but that is not the same thing. (and I like using black and white)

Really that is it.

The biggest effect this has on my photography is that I can bring it with me when I'm carrying a baby along with all the other attendent supplies. The quality over a smart phone is beyond question, and I would not carry an SLR and a diaper bag at the same time.

If I was starting in photography and not doing gigs, I would recommend the mirrorless interchangable lens cameras such as the micro four thirds lines over a digital SLR. When there is not anything serious riding on preformance, the quality of the pictures from these is close enough to SLR quality, but with a much lower cost in terms of bulk, which makes it much more likely that you would actually have the camera with you when opportunity arises.

For more picture samples, go to my pictures at Flickr taken with the Lumix GF-2

Ten Photo Assignments (Rocky Nook) by Amanda Quintenz-Fiedler

Ten Photo Assignments by Amanda Quintenz-Fiedler

My rating: 3 of 5 stars


Before you attain mastery of a craft, you must first learn the fundamental skills. I know a world class violinist whose teacher spent months having him practice picking up and properly holding his violin. Pianists spending hours on hours starting with scales and octaves. Chefs in their first jobs develop knife skills by cutting food. This book is trying to be the tutor for knife skills for digital photography. It may start out slow, but the goal is to master the tools of the photographer's craft, then you can create what you see in your mind.



For all the sophistication of some modern cameras, there are only a limited number of things that can be adjusted on a camera. Traditionally, it was shutter speed and aperture, and film speed (sensor) to a limited extent. And in digital SLR you also include white balance (instead of using filters). All the fancy features in cameras exist to do this, or help the photographer decide how to make these settings. But for the photographer to make these decisions instead of letting the camera do so, the photographer needs to know the consequences of these decisions. And the way to do that is to experience the difference. And this exercise comprises the majority of the assignments in this book.



The assignments here are very different then most lists of photographic assignments. Usually, when I think of photographic assignments it deals with shooting a specific subject under certain conditions. Here it is the learning of how to use a particular aspect of the camera. So one assignment is a test of how your camera light meter measures exposure, so you can see what your camera considers to be proper exposure, over exposed and underexposed. And when you come across a scene, you can determine what you should set the exposure as (i.e. above or below what the camera reads). The second assignment deals with lenses, so you spend time shooting with each lens you own, so you learn its characteristics at different apertures and have a visceral sense of what each focal length looks like. And so on with the many white balance modes, and different combinations of shutter speed and aperture with equivalent exposures. Not until you get to assignment seven do you start two assignments on composition and two assignments on lighting.



Key to appreciating this book is recognizing it for what it is. The first six assignments of the ten are learning the tools of the photographer's craft. It makes you learn what your instrument can do and how it responds to your changes in controlled conditions, and asks questions so that you can reflect on the outcomes so that you develop an intuition on how the camera works, and you can make decisions when you get to the field. I don't think there is a readily available resource outside of a teacher that would lead you on this path. The last four are more pedestrian and generic. For learning composition and lighting there are many sources of exercises and photo assignments that can teach you more with more scenarios and challenges.



At its base level, photography is a craft and skill. And to learn it well you need to practice it deliberately until the fundamentals are sound and intuitive. This book will take you there. But its title is somewhat deceptive (and maybe there is no title that would work in a book like that) because it is not a standard set of assignments (and I dock a star just for that). Perhaps this book is the Études of digital photography, focusing on getting the technical aspects of photography right. But the artistry is something to be developed elsewhere.



View all my reviews

Note: I received a free electronic copy of this book as part of the O'Reilly Media Blogger program. More information on this book can be found at the 10 Photo Assignments web page

Book Review: The Perfect Photo by Rantakrans and Hagberg

The Perfect Photo: 71 Tips from the Top by Elin Rantakrans
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

Obviously, The Perfect Photo is mis-named. At a mere 128 pages, this is a pocket book and it is not attempting to be the modern day counterpart of Ansel Adams series on photography or Photography by London and Upton. But what is it? It purports to be a set of simple tips for any photographer, regardless of equipment. However, while the tips are indeed the classic ones that every photographer needs to learn, this book is harder to use for the beginner than it needed to be. It tries to be all things to all people, but it is not enough for a knowledgable photographer, and it skips information that a novice would need to be able to use the good advice effectively. So it fails to deliver to anyone.

The format of The Perfect Photo is similar to what other photographers who are also columnist have used, a set of short articles each on a single subject organized topically. The problem is that while the book is probably best for novices who have not learned these methods, the articles are aimed at photographers with a particular type of equipment, Full Framed system cameras, which are the high end of photography equipment. For example, many of the chapters discuss the use of features that would not exist on point and shoots or compact cameras such as white balancing or the manual controls for aperature and shutter speed. And it does not discuss the work arounds that those who have gotten good at working with these types of cameras have developed to compensate.

More egregarious are the issues with sensor size. While everything they discuss is in terms of Full Frame sensors (24 x 35 mm), they acknowledge something called a half-frame camera. But there is nothing marketed as 'half-frame camera'. There are the digital cameras with APS-C sensors (ranging from 13.8 x 20.7 mm to 19.1 x 28.8 mm depending on manufacturer), there is the four-thirds system, (17.3 x 13 mm) and a few other proprietary formats that are used by a single manufacturer. But none of those is 17.5 x 24 mm , which is presumably what half-frame would be. And while it does mention a few equivalent focal lengths (e.g. that a 50 mm lens will cover the same area on a 'half-frame sensor' as a 75 mm lens on a full-frame camera), they don't go the obvious next step of saying that you can multiply by a factor of approximately 1.5. Even this discussion is not until Tip 22. So in multiple discussions of lens focal length, the novice would not have noticed that there was an issue and they needed to mentally adjust the discussions of what wide-angle, normal or tele-photo are.

And this is my complaint about this. Each tip is oriented towards the novice photographer who is just getting serious and needs to start somewhere. But the individual essays almost require a base of knowledge of photography and the workings of the equipment to understand it fill in the missing details. And worse, the novice would not have realized there was a problem until she tried to use the tip.

Rocky Nook (publisher) offerings seem to be finding replacements for the teaching of photography technique that are useful for the digital age. And this book seems like it was to meant to be the slim fieldbook for the novice who is just starting the road to being serious. But while each tip is good in itself, it needed an editor's hand to pick its audience and focus on it to properly fill this niche.

Disclaimer: I received a free electronic copy of The Perfect Photo as part of the O'Reilly Bloggers program.

View all my reviews

Book Review: Capture - Digital Photography Essentials by Glenn Rand et. al.

Capture: Digital Photography Essentials by Glenn Rand

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


Capture

When I started to get serious about photography, I turned to London and Upton’s ‘Photography’ as a place to go to understand the fundamentals of photography on the theory that you can get better at something if you understand how it works. Capture by Glenn Rand fills that same role for digital photography as London and Upton did. It peels back the layers of mystery of how things work.

What is the point of this? I learned photography with a manual camera and film. And I still shoot with fixed lenses and priority exposure, eschewing program modes and retaining creative control. Can we add to this and proper composition and general reading of the scene?

And the answer is yes. Digital was more then just replacing an silver based physical light sensor with a digital sensor. There were effects to having a smaller range compared to the old films. But because of the ability to process the image, this is countered by the ability to work with the image after the fact. Reading this taught me how to use HDR, what can be done with RAW or DNG files, compensating for the narrow dynamic range of digital, and the general physical of digital imaging.

Unlike London and Upton (but perhaps like some of Ansel Adams works in the same vein), Capture does not go into composition at all. The purpose of Capture is for the skilled craftsman who wants to learn the intricacies of his craft, and has learned the creative side elsewhere. And for that, I value it.

I received a free electronic copy of this book as part of the O’Reilly Bloggers Program. This book can be found on the O’Reilly website here.




View all my reviews

Why I am a photographer

I have had a wide range of hobbies, as does most people over the course of their lives. And like most, many have gone by the wayside. I think one aspect of maturity in a hobby or an activity is that you are no longer merely an actor performing techniques, but you either guide others (through teaching or through organizing a community) or you are pushing yourself in the practice of the art. In photography, this observation comes through in the form of commentary on digital cameras, especially digital SLRs. One big criticism is that the advertising around cameras fosters a view that being a good photographer was only a matter of a big (and expensive) camera and big (and expensive) lenses, completely neglecting the elements of skill and practice and understanding of light.





I started photography with a manual SLR. Center-weighted meter, manual focus, manual aperture, manual shutter speed. After that was a point and shoot. An Olympus Epic known for its good 35mm f/2.8 lens and being a hockey puck (indestructible). It was a few years before I even bought my first auto focus/auto exposure camera. Continuing my ways, my favorite camera was a manual focus, manual exposure rangefinder (i.e. what cameras were like before SLR was invented). This was characterized by fast (wide aperture) prime (non-zoom) lenses and frequent use of black & white film. Also known as "this is how Cartier-Breeson and Capa did it"







Part of being good is taking time to learn the fundamentals. Learning the ways of light and shadow. The limits of the sensor (film or digital). How to see relationships in a scene. How to see a relationship unfold so you can be ready at the decisive moment.






My investment in equipment pales in comparison to the investment in study and practice, and I like to think that it shows.

For my involvement in the arts, photography is my only practice of it. So to improve means to find ways of improving your skill. And one of the classical ways of developing creativity is to put in place boundaries that force creativity in other ways. Thus my preference for using prime lenses and black & white. It becomes the frame in which I develop. And the expectation is that when I do use color and zoom lenses, the skills and ability to see that is developed carry over.







Like many things, I have adapted as the technology behind photography has changed. My rangefinder is now rarely used, since the chromonegative film I had always used is no longer available. I now have a digital SLR and a set of zooms. But the manual focus primes are still what I take most of the time and that goes well with one of the smallest APS digital SLRs on the market. Most of my photography is not intended to push my abilities, but to record the events of life.

Three Primes: Latodami Nature Center, North Park, PA 1/1/2010

[Photos at bottom]

I recently made the jump to a digital SLR after many happy years of using 35mm film SLRs and rangefinders. What really did it: when the local Ritz camera started paring down its film offerings, in particular I no longer have a ready supply of the Kodak 400CN (chromo-negative, meaning it comes out as black and white). Ok, my auto-focus SLR was also getting long in the tooth with the pop-up flash not working, and I've long since given up on using the meters built into my manual SLR and rangefinder (so I'm one of the few photographers my age who use an analog lightmeter.)

I got a Pentax K-x. Main features: it is compact (one of the smallest SLRs with the APS sized sensor) and my Pentax lens collection still works. Like most consumer digital SLRs, it comes with a 18-55mm zoom lens. But like most kit lenses, you get what you pay for. Ok for tourist shots in nice, well lit places where you want simple snapshots, but to get low-light or depth of field effects, you need something else. Options are to spend $1000+ on good zoom lenses, or use primes. (non-zoom lenses). Primes are smaller. They are cheaper. And I already own a few good ones.

It has been a while since I've gone for a decent shoot, so today I decide to take it through its paces. Like any proper project, I need a goal. Today's goal: Three primes. The task, go on a shoot with three prime lenses. In 35mm, you choose the primes so that they are separated by a set ratio, either 1:2 or 1:1.5. So I used to use 24mm:50mm:100mm or 35mm:50mm:75mm. I'm not sure how this works in digital, but I suffer because of the 1:1.5 magnification factor caused by using the APS sensor found in most digital SLRs as opposed to 35mm film. So I go out with the following lenses:
SMC Pentax 2.8 24mm (36mm equivalent)
SMC Pentax-A 2.8 28mm (42mm equivalent)
SMC Pentax-F 1.7 50mm (75mm equivalent)

Some other complications. The 50mm is the only one of these lenses with Auto-Focus. The 24mm does not even have autoexposure. So three lenses, each of them require different operating practices. The 50mm is the easy one. Everything works. The 28mm is not terribly hard either. All exposure and TTL functions work with the -A series lenses as long as the Aperature ring is set to the 'A' position. So I have a functioning non-AF 'Normal' lens. But not with 24mm lens. No 'A' position, so the camera cannot talk to the lens. In my film AF camera, this could not be used, because the built in exposure meter would not work. In the Pentax K-x, it is possible to program one of the buttons (the 'green' button) so that even though the exposure meter did not display, the camera can set the shutter speed for what it thought was correct exposure given the aperture set on the ring when the camera is in manual exposure mode. Then it is your job to set any compensation. The other issue is when putting one of the non-AF lenses on the camera. Because the camera cannot communicate with the lens, you have to tell the camera what the focal length is via the control wheel and a button.

There are a few tasks to undertake today. First is to get used to operating the camera. In particular, a camera that has buttons while wearing gloves because of the snow. The second task is to get used to the effects of magnification on focal length. For digital SLRs, the conversion of focal length for the APS sized sensor is ~ 1:1.5 (only a few upper end DSLRs have full-frame 35mm sensors). Part of being a good photographer is to know the effects of focal length, and compare it to the effects of changing your own position in composition (how it compresses the scene, depth of field, relative sizes and locations of objects in frame, etc.) And the only way to get this is practice. Which digital cameras are supposed to be good for.

Some notes:
- The 24mm is manageable, which is better then I feared. Again what makes it work is the ability of the camera to quickly set a baseline metered position, then you use your old manual exposure skills to make tradeoffs between stops of over or under exposure, as well as the tradeoff between shutter speed and aperture for DoF effects.
- The 28mm pretty much works just like any other lens. I prefer to use manual focusing anyway since I'm as fast as the camera for anything reasonably close.
- The K-x has rubber grip for the right hand which makes the whole hold on when wearing gloves thing not too bad.
- There are only a few buttons on the back. The hardest one is the four-way button set with center button that a lot of cameras have. And the Pentax has the usual 1/2 chiclet sized buttons here. But at least it does not get any smaller, because I think this is as small as I can get while wearing winter gloves, and it is a hassle.

All in all, not a bad shoot. I need more practice working with exposure, and learning how to compensate with the snow (the fact that it was overcast probably saved me today). And I see drooling over camera catalogs in my future)

Shooting black & white

Last week was my sister's wedding reception in Asia. Hence my trip to Thailand, to go for the reception. And since I don't like trips where I spend very large portions of time transiting from place to place, I skipped on the Taiwan segments and went straight to Thailand.

It has been a long time since I went on a pure photoshoot, where the goal was to take good pictures. A lot of what I've taken recently has been record shots (I was ... with ...) pictures, only little artistic value. One principle in artistic development is forced constraints, place restrictions on the technical aspects and use creativity and skill to compensate. The last time I went to Thailand I took a manual SLR, three lenses and a single-focal length P&S (because I need some record pictures, this is a vacation). On this trip, I took along a compact digital zoom (again, I need some normal pictures), but for fun, I took the rangefinder, used one lens, and two rolls of B&W film.

Now, there is this massive list of things to do. So not really much time for simple shooting. But there were a few times where I could practice (I suppose I could have done the PJ thing as well when going around town, but I only brought two rolls of film, so I saved them for the wedding.)

I had a big break in the schedule one morning when my sister and fiancee were getting studio pictures done. So, I took his parents and brother to Lumphini Park. Which is so different then my usual view of Bangkok (lots of loud traffic, shopping malls of various flavors, Buddhist temples).

This picture is of a bridge in Lumphini park by where we had lunch. I should have taken a couple of shots of the food cart where we got our lunch as well. This shot is probably not framed all that well. I should have moved it either left (to get more of the bridge) or right) to put the focus on the pond) where it is (with the right edge of the bridge in the midpoint of the frame) makes this almost one picture trying to be two.



This is of Silom Center, taken from across a pond. It would have been better if I underexposed a stop, and made the buildings darker. I would have lost detail in the leaves, but the vegetation is only for framing anyway. Also, I should have taken this from a few feet to the left, as I could have avoided having a branch come down in the middle (if I really cared, this is easily removable in digital form).



For the wedding pictures, like all weddings nowadays, there are many people running around with digital cameras taking hundreds of pictures. Including two of my cousins and my brother-in-laws brother (who all had instructions to take lots of pictures.) So my ~50 shots are not too important as far as quantity is concerned. I think I'm the only one to get this, and having a rushed bride and a slightly worried mother (probably thinking of all the things that have to be done) I think works.



The odd thing is, this is not completely posed (not from want of trying by the couple and the other photographer). When they got the couple-on-the-bridge picture, B mentioned something about looking at a tree, so they could get a nice classic picture of the hopeful couple looking off into the future while standing at something. And I asked "which tree?" So he pointed out the tree.



This almost worked. There were several photographers taking pictures of them and this little building at the Wat. And I had found this little break in the shrubs to the side. My sister is stepping down from posing, and B just noticed I was there.


I liked this one. My grandmother (grandmother of the bride) is placing on the dots for a blessing on the groom. But my sister's eyes make the shot. It's nice using tools that get the picture exactly when you want it.



I thought that the people preparing the food should be photographed with their work. Just professional courtesy.


Standard repertoire for PJ style wedding photography. Couple taking a break talking to each other.


And they actually had time to eat (after distributing party favors. There, they take a basket around to the guests instead of having the party favors sitting at each seat)


My grandmother was so happy that week. Yes, she sees her great-grandson about weekly, but I think she is this happy every time.


Another of the standard repertoire, child at end of wedding completely exhausted.


This is not at the wedding, but I thought the jackfruit had a nice texture that the black and white would bring out. And the film is not quite as completely washed out in the bright sunlight as the digital version.


All pictures here taken with Voigtlander Bessa R with 35mm/2.5 compact lens and Kodak T400 CN Max film.