Sunday, June 28, 2015

Topaz Impression Review

A while back Topaz ran a drawing for a free copy of their new Impression software on Facebook. To enter you only had to comment on the post. I did and I won. I didn't get to use it right away because it requires a graphics adapter with Open GL 3.2 or newer. My computer was too old. I had already upgraded the graphics board once (to Open GL 2.1) and wasn't about to put more money into such an out-of-date machine. Then Adobe came out with Lightroom CC and that wouldn't run on my computer either, again because of the old graphics board which was the newest part of my computer. Since LR is the software I use most I was forced to bite the bullet and buy a new computer.

Unlike Topaz's earlier filters, Impression is designed as a stand-alone program rather than a plugin for Photoshop.*** It will open JPG, TIFF, PNG and RAW files but it seems to generate previews in the File>Open window only of JPGs. I also find that the first time I choose File>Open after starting the program I don't get any previews at all, just a blank window. If I close it and retry it works normally and will work normally to open subsequent images until I exit the program and restart it. That brings me to the other oddity, there is no "File>Close" option. You can Open, Save, Save As, or Exit. If you try to open another file (or exit) without first saving the current one you are asked if you want to save it and can choose not to.

The program is designed to make your photos mimic traditional art media and the styles of a limited number of artists. Some are fairly successful like the one above which is one of the Impressionistic presets. Others, not so much, like the image below which is supposed to mimic Van Gogh.

To be fair I don't see how one could write software to render like Vincent Van Gogh, particularly in large areas like the sky. Vincent would have made the sky with a number of colors in large, bold strokes. The software doesn't have the variance of color he would have used as a resource to interpret. It can only work with what is already in the image.

The program works through groups of presets classed under the titles Ancient, Impressionistic, Modern, Painting (styles and media), Pencil, (color/liquid/graphite). Pictorial, Charcoal & Pastel with a variety of presets in each. There are previews of each showing how your image will be changed before clicking on one. You can modify any of the presets by clicking on the arrows symbol displayed on the current active preset or on the tab at the top of the presets with the same arrows symbol and you can revert to the original at any time before saving.

The program will allow you to modify or create your own presets by changing the stroke (brush size, opacity, and other qualities). In the Color section there are color swatches which, when you click on one, shows where that color is present in the image and allow you to modify just that hue. In the Lighting section, you can modify the light brightness, contrast, vignette, and direction. These are set to mimic light falling on the surface of whatever media you are mimicking. Last is the texture control that allows you to choose the surface, paper, canvas, stone, etc. and the characteristics of that surface including color.

The set of images below show an original image and two drawing variations, the first with the unaltered preset and the second with the paper color changed. The choice of color is  a standard color picker. You can choose any color your computer can produce for the background surface.

Although Impression isn't  capable of full layer processing (you can't stack several effects) the preset is applied over the original image which remains unchanged until you save it. This means that you can vary the opacity of the effect to allow the original to show through as in the following pair of images.

The upper image is at 50% opacity so that you are seeing part of the original image through the effect. The lower one is just the effect at 100% with none of the underlying image visible. There are also a limited number of Blend Modes for altering the combination of original and effect. I suppose it would be possible to layer multiple effects by saving after creating each one then adding the next but I haven't tried that and I suspect that subsequent effects would be based on the saved version rather than the original. Additionally because you couldn't create multiple layers that you could switch between, you couldn't modify the lower (already saved) layer(s). You could create multiple versions, import them to Photoshop as layers and play with them there. The image below is an example of one that was layered with the original in Photoshop and the flower portion was partially masked out to reduce the effect on that part of the photo thus revealing more more of the original.

Topaz Impression is an interesting addition to the available digital imaging toolbox and I suspect it will see many improvements in future releases just as the Topaz plugin filters have. I am particularly impressed with the pencil effects. I have done a lot of pencil drawing myself and the effect is pretty convincing. I also like some of the other effects. Below are several examples from an afternoon of playing around. The first has a border that I added in Photoshop based on the background color. The border lacks the texture because it was added after. Had I added a white border to the original before processing it in Impression it would have the texture to match the rest of the image.

*** Jun 29 2015 Correction: Although Impression does not appear in my Photoshop CC 2015 filters I discover that is a problem with the latest version of PS, not Topaz Impression. When trying to use my other Topaz filters I noted that they are all missing from the PS CC 2015 program. I thought perhaps they had simply failed to migrate when Adobe auto updated PS CC 2014. I checked the CC 2014 Plugins folder and they were there so I copied the folder to the PS CC 2015 Plugins folder. When I restarted PS CC 2015 I got a message that not all my plugins might work and sure enough, they didn't. I reverted to PS 6 (the update apparently overwrote my previous PS CC versions, they're gone) and opened a file to edit it I found that Impressions was listed in the filters and indeed it does function as a plugin, in PS 6 at least. This leads me to believe that if yo are using another editor that uses PS style plugins, Impressions will likely work as a plugin in your software.

Disclaimer: Although I did get the program for free it was an open competition that was available to anyone who follows Topaz on Facebook and there was no requirement to write this review nor did I discuss writing it with Topaz. I do like and use a number of their filters and recommend them. All the images are clickable to see them larger if you want a closer look.

All images are copyrighted. Please respect my copyright. Do not repost anywhere without permission. It's called stealing, like in the Ten Commandments. It's not nice to steal. Thank you for being nice.

Sunday, June 21, 2015

I'm still alive. I just haven't been posting.

I am at a crossroad in terms of where my photography is going from here. For years I have tried selling prints but that market is virtually dead, not that it was ever a booming business for me. I don't derive any income from this blog and while I am a photographer primarily because I love it, it is a costly pastime and I feel I either have to reduce the expense or find a better way to sell prints. And what am I going to do with the hundreds of prints that I have made for shows/exhibits that did not sell.

It is a common problem and I have read all the stuff I could find on the web, not to mention buying and reading books on marketing, yet I still have the problem of too many prints and too few buyers. Yes, I know about Barney Davey's site (and others). I'm not sure where I going from here photographically. The blog will most likely be less frequent and when I do post it will more photos and less writing Although I plan to follow this post with a review of Topaz new Impression software

In the meantime enjoy these photos of a unique church that my mother was pastor of back in the early to mid-'70s.  Although I haven't attended church since my youth (a long time ago) I am fascinated by the often unusual structures that religion has inspired and I enjoy photographing the more unique ones.

Saturday, February 14, 2015

"What is truth? " Pontius Pilate

A while ago on the Online Photographer blog Mike Johnston posted about truth in landscape photos. As an example he posted a photo of a barn in Steamboat Springs and posed the question of whether the photo was truthful. It was a posed promotional photo of a classic barn with two riders on horseback coming down the slope through deep snow in front and mountain slopes behind. Mike's point was that there was only one spot from which that photo could be made without including a lot of other less classic structures and other things.

There was a fair amount of discussion and it was clear that a number of commenters favored a journalistic standard of truth in photographs as did Mike. I have to say that as a landscape photographer that kind of stuck in my craw leading to my revisiting the idea here.

My first and broadest objection to photographs as truth is that the medium takes a 3D world where the photographer is standing in a 360° reality (both horizontally and vertically) which includes sound, smell and touch (temperature, rain/snow falling on you, wind blowing your hair, etc.) and from that selects out one small section of the visual part to show the viewer in 2D. The rest is at best implied, snow tells you it is cold, etc.. So no, a photograph is never "truth", it is never reality. It can convey one small slice of the experience of being there but that's all.

My other objection is that all artists and photographers select from the available subject what part(s) they wish to show their viewer. The artist simply leaves distractions out. The photographer chooses where to stand. Ansel Adams once said that a big part of being a photographer was "knowing where to stand". The tree in the photo above is near one corner of my barn, down the slope behind it is my garden shed and some other evergreens. I didn't want to show you them so I found an angle that moved the barn out of the frame to the right and hid the other trees, one behind this tree and the angle of the slope hides the smaller one. The chosen angle also left out the garden shed. Because I deliberately left those things out of the image I suppose one could look at this and assume that this tree was standing alone somewhere in a field with nothing around it. But that would be their interpretation. It certainly wasn't my intent to give that impression. My intent was simply to show you this tree. The things I left out were simply irrelevant and would have been a distraction. I'm not lying by leaving those things out. I'm directing your attention to what I want to show you.

Artists have always left out distracting elements but because photography was considered a literal view of the world photographs have often been assumed to be a "truthful" representation. One of the main objections to "Photoshopping" an image is that is considered by many to be untruthful. The f.64 group was all about the literal image. I know some photographers who insist on "getting it right in the camera" all the while ignoring that the camera does not "see" like a human does (a whole other discussion) and that the things they do "in camera" are arguably manipulations as well.

Today I went snowshoeing in back of my house. The trip started by the tree above. It also passed the barn and the garden shed but this tree was the only thing on that first section of the jaunt that struck me as something I wanted to share. It's not what my whole back yard looks like but it is an accurate representation of the tree as it impressed me to photograph it. It and the photos below are as truthful as a photo can be even though I did leave some things out of each of them and you can't feel the wind blowing snow in your face while you look at them. All were made with a Canon G11. It was a good outing. I needed to get out. Winter here feels like it is never going to end.

If you'd like to buy a print of any photo that appears on this blog please email me. Please respect my copyright and do not repost without permission.

Thursday, January 01, 2015

Language, Use & Abuse

Our daughter brought to my attention an article about Lake Superior University's banned words list for 2014. I am in total agreement with their inclusion of "curated". In 2014 it became popular for some photographers to say they curated a specific body of their work rather than saying "I edited the shoot from my trip to (fill in the blank). At first I took it as a random oddity when I saw such references by photographers but then it started popping up all over the place.

Curators do more then simply select works to form a collection. According to "curator collects, cares for, researches, and interprets a collection, and organizes displays and exhibitions."

Note the parts about caring for, researching and interpreting. On the other hand what I and other photographers do is "edit". From the Bureau of Labor Statistics "Photo editors often work for a website, newspaper, magazine or book publisher. They're typically responsible for selecting, editing, positioning and publishing photos to accompany the text of a publication. Photo editors also might supervise staff photographers, give photo assignments and make sure that others complete their work on time."

When we review a shoot and select which photos to keep and which to toss, which to digitally edit in Photoshop and print or post to our blog we are editors, not curators. I get why photographers latched onto curate. Who wouldn't prefer the image of a sophisticated expert working in a museum environment to the stereotypical image of a newspaper editor (insert image of an older partially bald chubby guy wearing a rumpled shirt with the sleeves rolled up and his tie loosened). I really do get it, but let's be honest with ourselves. We're editors of our own work, not curators. Curating our work is the job of those who find and preserve it after we are gone.

While editing my photos from my last trip to the Paul Smiths VIC I selected these, at top and below, to publish in this post. Both were shot on the way home in twilight along Rt 458.

All content is copyrighted. Please do not repost without permission.

Sunday, December 21, 2014

Holiday Greetings

It's that time of year again. I'm listening to Christmas music while editing a group of photos I made yesterday on my first snowshoe outing of the season. I went down to the Adirondacks (it's south from where I live) to use the trails at the Paul Smiths VIC where I will be showing work in late January and early February. I was going to show old work but I may show some of what I shot yesterday.

On the way down there was snow stuck to all the trees from shortly past St Regis Falls to around McCollums. Unfortunately it had fallen off most of the trees at the lower elevation of the VIC and the light was harsh but I got several photos that I was able to digitally embellish to recreate the 'feel'.

I went first on the Boreal Life Trail which is my favorite in the spring and summer. The photo above is of the boardwalk/bog bridge where it leaves to woods to enter the bog. I turned and looked back toward the woods to catch the sun gleaming through the trees.

This one is a bridge across Barnum Brook on the Barnum Brook Trail. There are several of these bridges over the brook as the trail follows and crosses the brook twice and a third on the Heron Marsh Trail. Again the sun peeking through the trees appealed to me along withe patterns of the branches and the bend in the bridge.

This last photo was made on the Boreal Life Trail. It is a "Charlie Brown" sort of tree that stuck up through the snow about 16-18 inches. I didn't apply any digital effects to it, just a 'straight' shot of a young tree struggling for survival. I wished it well just as I wish all my followers well. May you have a great holiday and may next year be your best ever.

All photos made with a Canon 7D. The RAW files were processed in Lightroom 5 and  Photoshop.

All photos are copyrighted. Please honor my copyright and do not repost without permission. If you want to share them, share the URL to this page. If you click on the title of the post it will take you to a page with a URL to just this post. Copy that and send it to your friends.

Sunday, December 07, 2014

Like January Without the Snow

I went for a walk this afternoon. The temperature has hovered around 20°F all day. We had some snow a few days ago but it's gone. The highs have been fluctuating between 20° and 40°. It has snowed twice but neither lasted.

I need to go walking more often. It puts me in a better mood even if the air is frosty. My walk today took me down to the river at the bottom of the hill and part way upriver on the Stone Valley Trail that is on my side of the river. At one of the stream crossings I spotted some interesting patterns of ice with leaves. I particularly like this one. It has a sort of cosmic look about it.

Canon G11. A nice little pocket camera.

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

What the #$!! are "T" stops?

WARNING: Part rant and all technical. If you simply enjoy taking photos without being a techno gearhead feel free to ignore this post. I promise to return to more readable posts after getting this out of my system.

On Facebook the other day one of my non-person friends (BorrowLenses) posted a link to a video about T stops vs f stops. Huh? I've been photographing for 57 years and never heard of T stops. I watched it and did a bit of further research. It seems some folks with lots of time on their hands (time that would have been better spent taking pictures IMO) compared the actual amount of light coming through a variety of lenses and learned that (allegedly) your lenses are lying to you. According to them f/2.8, for example, may actually be f/2.9 or even f/3.something depending on the lens. They are (accurately) surmising that some light is lost inside the lens, absorbed by the lens elements, reflection for lens surfaces, etc., which isn't being accounted for with the result that they believe the f/stops are mislabeled.

The only "mis" going on is a misunderstanding of what the f/# means. To arrive at the f/# the diameter of the diaphragm opening is divided into the distance between the lens when focused at infinity AKA the Focal Length (more on that later). The resulting number is the f/#, period, end of calculation. Thus a lens rated at f/2 has a diaphragm opening the is one half the focal length of the lens, an f/4 stop is one quarter the focal length. It's a simple ratio. The diameter of the opening:focal length with the focal length always being "1". It is not and never was a direct measure of the transitivity of the glass although it is a useful approximation for calculating exposure.

So why don't lens manufacturers measure the light each lens transmits? I'm not a lens engineer but I've been a practicing photographer for a looong time so here's my educated hard knocks school answer. They don't because light loss in the lens is only one factor in how much light will actually hit the film/sensor at any given f/stop. The nominal focal length of all lenses is the distance between the lens and the film/sensor plane when focused at infinity. That is the closest the lens can be to the film plane and have anything in focus. As you focus on anything closer than infinity you are moving the lens further from the film plane. You reach a 1:1 subject size to image size when your lens is smack in the middle between the subject and the film.

Yes, I know you can bend the light rays using a +diopter effect (basically a magnifying glass) and the distances won't exactly equal at 1:1 but that's not the point. The point is that as you move the lens further from the film plane the light on the film/sensor decreases because of the law of inverse squares. On an SLR (digital or otherwise) the diaphragm opening can be linked with the focusing helical to approximate the same amount of light to a point. The barrel of the lens however limits how far  the diaphragm can open. That's why the maximum aperture on most zoom lenses is marked as variable. When you zoom out, the lens barrel isn't big enough to accommodate the larger opening of the diaphragm at the longer focal length. It's the same size as at the shorter focal length but because it is a ratio of the two measurements, iris diameter:focal length, that same diameter is a smaller portion of the focal length. And yes, it does mean you get less light at any given spot on the focal plane, again because of the law of inverse squares (spread a given intensity of light over a large area and the light on any given part of the surface is less in inverse proportion to the increased distance). Although the effect is minor at subject distances closer to infinity, the light fall off increases as you focus on closer subjects and the progression of fall off is geometric.

There are other things that reduce the light at any given f/stop, notably filters. Before Photoshop allowed you to alter the relationship between values it was necessary to add a filter to the front of your lens. Obviously any filter you place in the light path will reduce the light reaching the film/sensor but that does not alter the ratio of the iris opening to the focal length of the lens. It is something the knowledgeable photographer has to compensate for to get accurate exposure. Or I should say had to compensate for.

All we are concerned about is correct exposure which is a mix of intensity of light and time. Modern cameras all have built in light meters coupled to computer chips to read the light actually falling on the sensor. The meter measures the light directly through the lens and doesn't give rat's patootie what the labeled f/stop is. If your camera has a histogram it tells you whether the light falls within the dynamic range that the sensor can interpret into a JPG based on the chosen exposure program (if you are shooting RAW the sensor will record a somewhat broader range that you can play with later). Even if the f/stop was intended to be a measure of actual light striking the sensor, which it isn't, there is no way the manufacturer could label the diaphragm ring on your lens with T numbers that accurately reflected the intensity since it is variable due to all sorts of  adjustments to focus, filtration, etc. that change with each and every image you shoot. A simple ratio of diaphragm diameter to nominal focal length, that is something they can label and that is all it is. So f/4 is f/4 no matter what other circumstances are reducing the light coming through the lens and no, the manufacturers aren't cheating to make you think the lens is faster than it actually is. Today's photographers have marvelously technological cameras that virtually eliminate the complex calculations needed to get accurate exposure 50 years ago. Be grateful, stop wasting time on silliness and go take pictures. Jeesh!

Update: I've since been told that "T" stops are important to videographers because they don't have in camera metering and they can't always trust an incident meter to read the correct f/stop because f/stops vary from lens to lens, thus the need for "T" stops. I'm not into video but the few times I've done it I never had exposure problems but hey, I suppose those who do it more are more likely to encounter such things. The point of my rant was that for still photographers (that's who I'm talking to here) it isn't something to get wrapped up in. Even when I was in the army and we had no light meters at all we never concerned ourselves over comparing the relative transivity (I don't think that is even a word) of  one lens vs another yet we somehow managed to get good exposure anyway. As the old saying goes "your mileage may vary".

Friday, November 07, 2014

Looking Out VS Looking In

Over a month and no posts. I've been wrestling with my thoughts on the state of photography, in particular, my photography. Looking at what's on the web I feel kind of 'out of step' but at the same time I have no desire to be 'in step'.

I just finished reading Disappearing Witness: Change in Twentieth-Century American Photography by Gretchen Garner. It is an art history book which is not my usual reading matter. I read enough art history in college to last me for a lifetime. Art history is mostly dry boring stuff and there is a certain amount of that in this volume, recitation of lists of photographers and how they fit into this or that genre. But this volume attracted my attention because its premise is something I had noticed myself.

One aspect of aging, of having been around for a long time, is that you gain a perspective that younger people don't have. In a sense it's like you learned to drive at night, able to see only what your headlights could illuminate and gradually the sun comes up and then you can see all this stuff that was hidden in the darkness. The stuff immediately around you, which was all you could see in the dark, takes on a whole new context once the sun comes up. I learned and began my practice of photography in the latter end of what Ms. Garner refers to as the "witness" mode of photography, the practice of looking out at the world, connecting with it on a psychic and emotional level, and making images that attempt to convey that connection to the viewer. That largely remains my mode of expression to this day.

Somewhere in the sixties or seventies the focus of art photographers took a major turn inward. It manifested in photographs that were less about the subject in front of the camera and more about the inner life of the photographer. Images became staged performances that were recorded on film and later digitally to illustrate an idea the photographer had. Such photographs had existed for some time previously of course but most were commercial illustrations for advertising or magazines, images made by photographers under the direction of art directors or editors. In the latter '70s and onward however it became the major trend of fine art photography.

I have observed this trend even among photography enthusiasts who don't aspire to "fine art" status but are moving in this direction as well. I don't know if it is the influence of Photoshop with its infinite control or a response the art world but I see ever more constructed as opposed to observed images as time goes on, images that are less about the subject matter and more about the photographer.

Perhaps I'm just being "stuck" in my past but I'm not sure that this trend is a good thing. Yes, we need to look inward, Eastern religions with their emphasis on meditation have been doing this for millennia but always as a ground for relating outward to the rest of creation or seeing ourselves in what we see. It is my belief that is what "witness" photographers were trying to do.  Whatever the trend my photography will continue to look outward, to engage the larger world.

The photo is of a tree on the corner of Rt 56 and Garfield Rd outside Potsdam, NY. It caught my eye as I was driving into town one day and I stopped to photograph it with my cell phone which was the "best" camera (the one I had with me). It has been modified in Photoshop to accentuate the mood.

Sunday, September 28, 2014

In a Remote Location

As long time readers know I adopt an Adirondack lean-to at Scott Clearing. The reason it is a clearing is that back in 1880s there was a lumbering camp in this area, some evidence of which remains to this day. The photo above is from the site of the pond onto which the logs were piled for release downstream in the spring. The bright area below the center red tree is the opening in the old dam (seen close up below). The dam was originally about 12 feet high.
In the midst of exploring the area which I do on every trip because periodic flooding changes the stream every time, I spotted the toad below. When I tried to get a photo of him he hopped into the stream and almost got washed away entirely but he managed to grab a log on the remains of the dam as he was about to be washed over it.
We (two friends and I) had a an excellent day, mild temperatures, and great fall color. We took a side trip on our way out to Rocky Falls lean-to and the falls just downstream.

I always stop by Heart Lake on the way out to see what photo opportunities it offers and this time it it did not disappoint, good near peak autumn color and reflections on the glassy smooth water.
To top off a near perfect day we were treated to a colorful sunset on our drive home. This is the park and Lake Colby opposite the Saranac Lake hospital.

I hope you enjoy the photos as much as I enjoyed the day. If you wish to share them with others respect my copyright and send them the URL to this page. Don not repost elsewhere without permission.

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Being Painterly

My favorite filters are the Topaz set. I started buying them when Fo2Pix folded and the BUZZ 3 filters were no longer available. Topaz picked up the gauntlet and created a similar filter in their Simplifier filter. They went on to create a number of other useful filters which I use frequently but the Simplifier filter remains my favorite of the bunch.

What it does is average the tone and hue of groups of pixels so that you get patches of color and tone. How big the patches are, what range of  tone/hue is averaged, is adjustable with a slider control. With the original BUZZ 3 filter that control went so far that you could end up with a rectangle of one solid color. Topaz Simplifier doesn't have that range of control but who really wants to reduce their images to a single tone & hue anyway. Simplifier goes farther than I'm likely to ever want it to.

Today's photos all use (moderately) Topaz Simplifier in honor of two things. First, two of my images are in the 2015 Fine Arts Up North calendar. Both images made use of the Simplifier filter (along with other digital modifications). You can buy a copy of the calendar by contacting the Arts Council at this link. I don't get anything from sales but it supports our arts community.

The second reason for today's all Simplifier collection is that this was the last day of the Plein Air Festival in Potsdam. I'm not a painter (in recent years at least) but I went out in search of subject matter in the local community rather than running off to the mountains as I usually do and most of the subjects I found seemed best suited to this treatment which many people tell me makes the images look like paintings. Indeed massing tone and hue is exactly what painters do.

I went to three parks in Potsdam, Lehman Park, Ives Park and the small one on Fall Island. Afterward I drove to Canton to visit Heritage Park which I hadn't visited before. The photo above is from the parking area at Heritage Park and is my favorite of the day.  The one below is from Lehman Park.

The next was made in Ives Park. The wind gusts were quite strong and I wanted to capture the blowing leaves of a large willow on the bank of the Racquette River.

Then come two wildflower photos from the Fall Island park, a Thistle and a Black Eyed Susan.

Finally a photo of some Plantation Lilies by the foundation of the church on Fall Island. This is a repeat subject from many, many years ago. I originally photographed it on the 1st roll of film I shot in a used Fuji GX 645 folding camera. That was a great little camera that produced amazing negatives.

If you click directly on an image you will get a larger view. I took more photos but this mix represents all the sites I visited. I hope you enjoy seeing them and please remember that they are copyrighted. As always, if you want to share them with others, give your friends the URL to this page, Do not repost them elsewhere without my express permission.

Saturday, August 02, 2014


This past winter I bought a Petzval lens reproduction from Lomography through a crowdsource project they ran. There were some delays and when the lens came it came minus several of the bonuses Lomography promised. Two of the missing bonuses were of no consequence to me (a camera strap and a canvas bag) but I also did not receive the special shape Waterhouse Stop set that was promised and that I did care about. Despite writing to Lomography, both through the crowdsource site and directly however have produced no result. I still do not have the promised special shaped stops. I would think twice before dealing with Lomography again.

The lens is well made with a nice brass finish, modified from the original design to fit directly on modern Canon or Nikon cameras (mine is the Canon version) and produces images with pleasant depth of field as well as fall off of sharpness toward the corners which gives a vintage look to the images. It is quite sharp in the center and overall sharpness increases with smaller stops since you are only using the center of the lens. Operation is strictly manual. The Waterhouse Stops simply drop into a slot in the lens barrel. Since the opening is perfectly round, unlike a variable diaphragm which works on movable leaves, the out of focus areas are pleasantly blurred. The camera controls the shutter speed and focusing is achieved via a rack and pinion on the bottom of the lens. The lens was promoted as a portrait lens and it is undoubtedly good for that but I bought it primarily to use for flower photos. Photographing individual or small groups or flowers shares a lot in common with portraiture as this group of images demonstrates

I wish the Waterhouse Stops fit a touch more snuggly or had some mechanism to hold them in place other than just gravity. Working in the field I'm concerned about dropping and losing one of them. I've tried using a hair band to hold the stop in the slot when I turn the camera on its side but I'm not entirely happy with that solution. Also the suede case Lomography  provided for the lens and set of stops is virtually useless. It is awkward to get the lens into the case which is a poor fit. The case is a flat rectangle that opens via an overlap down the middle of one side and the stops are simply put into a pocket on the inside of the case. I can see that I will have to make my own case for the stops, something with slots for each stop rather than dumping them together in one too large pocket. I'd prefer that they be sorted by f/stop for ease of selection. I'll probably end up buying a Neoprene pouch, a round one, like the lens, to store the lens in.

This group was shot in the field behind my house, Spotted Knapweed above and below are two images of Yellow Daisies, a cluster of Butter and Eggs, a Rough Fruited Cinquefoil and a Plantation Lily that is in one of our flower beds. I converted the last to B&W because I thought that suited it best.

As always, please respect  my copyrights. Share by referring to the URL of this page, not by reposting elsewhere without my permission.

Saturday, July 05, 2014


I went to Saranac Lake last night to watch/photograph the 4th of July freworks. I've only tried shooting fireworks once before about a decade ago so for this effort I was still in the learning/experimental mode. I shot them at around f/8 on manual mode. The shutter speed varied from 1 sec. to 2½ sec. I had the camera on my tripod and was shooting mostly at the wide end of my 18-135mm zoom because I wasn't sure where the bursts would occur relative to the frame. I didn't look through the viewfinder. I just watched the sky, listened to the sound of the rockets and pressed the shutter release at the point I thought they were about to burst. They all have post exposure adjustments in Lightroom 5; cropping, some curves, highlight control, clarity and saturation. It was kind of fun. I might try it again sometime. More photos below, the most I've ever posted at once. Please respect my copyright and share by referring others to this page. Do not repost elsewhere without my express permission.

The one below reminds me of some old rock album covers.

An interesting abstract.

A new galaxy?

The finale