What can one detail tell us about a scene? If you’re Lynne Ramsay: absolutely everything. Today I consider the poetic possibilities of cinema and one of our finest contemporary filmmakers.
For educational purposes only. You can donate to support the channel at
Nick Drake - Cello Song
The Beach Boys - In My Room (Instrumental)
Aphex Twin - Goon Gumpas
The Mamas & the Papas - Dedicated to the One I Love
Gasman (1997 short film): bit.ly
These are photos of a dogwood tree I mentioned having taken on Saturday, which I’ve just now gotten around to selecting & uploading.
All were taken with my 40mm prime lens and shot in AV mode.
If any of you photo enthusiasts/pros want to critique the photos, please have at it—I’m a graphic designer, so I’m familiar with the process and won’t be easily offended. I’ll go ahead and add my own narrative regarding my choices.
I took a total of 48 photos, 10 of which immediately got deleted. I was able to narrow the remaining 38 down to 10 that I felt were the best of the lot, then finally winnowed it to the four you see below. I’m not 100% happy with any of them, for various reasons that I’ll explain below. Oh, and the other 28 that I’m not showing you? They’re not horrible. but neither are they very good—I’m keeping them primarily to try to figure out how/where I went wrong in shooting them.
- IMO, there are two problems with this one. The first is that the blossom on the left is almost cut off, which makes it look like sloppy composition (which it was). The second is the distracting white in the upper left. It's also a bit soft.
My best bet probably would have been to move slightly to my left to give the blossom on the left some breathing room and get rid of the white in the background. Alternatively I could've moved a bit to my left and moved in a step closer. The only change made in Lightroom was to apply the lens correction profile to get rid of vignetting.
- This is the same group of blossoms as above, from a bit closer and at a slightly different angle. IOW, I basically made the corrections mentioned above, though not consciously. Overall I'm pretty happy with the composition, however also it's a bit soft--even more so than the one above, especially at the center of the blossom, which is the focal point of the photo. By pixel peeping I was able to see that I had focused on the tip of the left petal instead of the center. Again, sloppiness. *SIGH*
Changes made in Lightroom consisted of applying the lens correction profile to get rid of vignetting and increasing the exposure by 1/3 stop.
- Same set of flowers again, zero changes made in Lightroom. The composition on this one was almost (but not quite) acceptable. I had moved back a step or two, but yet again I wasn't paying enough attention to what was in my frame so it looks sort of... unbalanced.
The other thing that bothered me was the red of the brick wall being more visible in this shot. I felt like it was fighting with the pink of the flowers--clashing with them, distracting from them. Yuck. So I decided to try for B&W to see if that would help...
- Converting this to B&W definitely solved the problem of the red brick wall. I made several adjustments in Lightroom--in addition to applying the lens correction profile I adjusted the white balance, exposure and contrast. I rarely do conversions to B&W, so I'm unsure of how it looks to a better trained eye. Should I have made the flowers brighter still? Anyone?
- I'm only including this one because it came out sharp enough to please me, or at least the center of the flower did. The composition is just okay--nothing to write home about--but apart form that I'm not sure how I could have made it technically better. Higher f-stop for increased depth of field? But then I'd lose my bokeh... Maybe use a tripod and focus on different parts then merge them (I know there's a name for that, but I can't think of it at the moment). Ugh, I hate dragging the tripod around, even though I have a good one now and would have only have had to carry it across the street. Any suggestions?
As with #2, changes made in Lightroom consisted of applying the lens correction profile to get rid of vignetting & increasing the exposure by 1/3 stop.
- Same photo as above at 100% magnification. Cropped in Photoshop, used the spot healing brush to get rid of some distracting bits that looked ginormous at this size, and adjusted the levels to improve the color (it looked kind of grayish when viewed up close like this).
So that’s it. Hope I didn’t bore you to death. ;-)
I think my perspective on black and white was completely shaped by that film. Tell ya what else I miss, The old push pull zoom. I always thought that to be a better configuration, others insist the weight shift is an issue. Meh. Twisting the zoom just puts forces at right angles between me and my subject. Those of you who are too young to have shot film but aspire to the best looks you can get out of the tonal grays and added grain tools in B&W should study many Tri-X prints. Better yet get some negatives, scan and flip them in Photoshop or Lightroom. that will be time very well spent. Certain particular paper stocks that we would print on also had quite an impact on the results. Again take a look, well worth it.
WHEN EASTMAN KODAK introduced 35mm Tri-X back in 1954, it quickly became the go-to black-and-white film among photojournalists. With its wide latitude—it could be shot at ISOs ranging from 50 all the way up to 3200—Tri-X could handle nearly any situation, from war zones to the urban jungle. Don McCullin’s iconic image of a shell-shocked US soldier in Vietnam? Tri-X. Sebastião Salgado’s hellish vision of Brazilian gold mines? Tri-X. The film represents photography’s raw underbelly, and it stamps its unmistakably gritty authority on everything it records. The visceral physicality of its translation of light into silver is something that can be mimicked, but not matched, with digital technology.
This also caught my eye today, I pre ordered already. manual focus rings that fit on all the DSLR lenses! I love a device that makes controlling the camera easier and faster.
Okay, yes this is very much a first world problem as they say. With that admitted, lets consider a moment. It’s easy to prove it if I am on a paid shoot. I have correspondence, a signed shot list, maybe even proof of payment. I take that to FILMLA or whatever relevant authority, get my permit(s) & permissions, figure those costs and and it’s all good. Okay but how could I possibly prove the opposite? How does one prove a negative again? Yeah….
Once I own the gear, or just want to ramp up with rental gear to hone my skills and get accustomed to using the gear… In a nutshell I have to practice. I can’t do that on a customer’s time or dime. So D_L and I pack up the gear some of which is way above your usual casual shooter and go. Light stands, big lens, nice tripod, well you guys have seen some of the results.
So if I want to go practice at a park, or out in public how is at all fair or appropriate to make me leave, based on the assumption that fancy looking gear=professional/commercial shoot? Once approached by some Park Ranger or police I can’t risk jail (or worse!) pleading my case.
My feeling on permits is that by and large they serve to shut out the little guy. $500 for a still shoot?! I suspect the city authorities have an exaggerated idea from seeing big hollywood cinematic shoots with semi trucks and catering and hearing big names associated with expensive super models.
Think Annie Liebovitz who commands a big day rate and enjoys tremendous celebrity access. That is worlds above my pay grade. One way IMO they argue for big money is “liability”. Seriously? They ignore the liability issue of ordinary people that are out there trampling over barriers, swinging selfi sticks around and generally getting in the way at venues like the Griffith Park Observatory.
I’d like to see a process for non pro photogs. They can have my ID, a sense of when and where I want to do a bigger amateur shoot, I don’t mind. I’d happily address concerns they might have. Heck the LAPD Helicopter guys know my work, a couple times I took images of that big loud “ghetto bird” and even made likely eye contact when I swung my long lens right at the chopper and track with it for images. It was sunset, got a couple gorgeous shots of them in flight. So I sent them a high res image or two-Open licence/gifted and to relieve any worries I may have inadvertently caused the pilot. I think we pretty well understand how law officers view cameras. With great suspicion. And a suspicious cop becomes an annoyed cop or angry cop too easily. Well you get the picture, no?
Photographer Jason Lanier is on a mission to end “discrimination against photographers.” He just posted the video above showing two encounters he recently had with law enforcement while doing a photo shoot in San Francisco. In both cases, the officials noticed his “nice” camera and high-end equipment and questioned him to see if he was shooting commercially without a proper permit (which can cost hundreds of dollars).
The Venus de Milo is a paradox: the embodiment of beauty, yet disfigured. And she is a puzzle, gazing serenely at something we cannot see, something once held, we assume, by her missing arms. “La Vénus de Milo est un mystère,” declared the French archaeologist Salomon Reinach in a 1890 essay, emphasizing the point with italics.
In Reinach’s day, speculation about the statue’s original pose was a minor industry. She was imagined standing beside a warrior—Mars or Theseus—with her left hand grazing his shoulder. She was pictured holding a mirror, an apple, or laurel wreaths, sometimes with a pedestal to support her left arm. She was even depicted as a mother holding a baby. One popular turn-of-the-century theory understood her not as Venus but as Victory, supporting a shield on her left thigh and recording the names of heroes on it with her right hand. Other versions imagined her using the shield as a mirror, the goddess of beauty admiring her reflection.
The majority of ice went out on the Tanana April 26, 2015.
Reflections from Uyuni is a Time-lapse short film that shows the intrinsic beauty of the sea salt of Uyuni and the province of Potos’ in Bolivia.
The reflections produced by the water flooding in the rainy season, are the main protagonist Enrique Pacheco’s camera, who invites us to dream with impossible images from another world, where the sky meets the earth forming an infinite mirage.
The sea salt of Uyuni with over 10,000km2 is the largest in the world. It is located in the province of Potosi, Bolivia, near the Andes, at an altitude of 3.656m.
The Salar of Uyuni serves as a transport route through the Altiplano of Bolivia, but tourism has an increasingly more important role in the area.
The film and its footage is available for license in HD and 4K UHD.
Only for professional enquires, please contact: firstname.lastname@example.org
Shot with Sony A7 and A7s cameras + Zeiss FE 16-35 f4 and A 70-200 f2.8
Motorized slider by Kietacam
Free Wallpapers here: enriquepacheco.com
All of the following images were shot in a small area of Angeles National Forest at Upper Big Tujunga canyon. The Station fire some years ago was extremely fierce in this area. A string of high tension high voltage towers and lines come through here. They were threatened by the fire as well. We still see the scars pretty starkly. But despite the drought this years rains brought back some green. Wildflowers. And just from casual observation the gray squirrels are having a banner year.
I was struck by the contrasts. Green growth and blackened bark. Hardwood exposed by fire and wind right next to steel that shows scars of fire. A flower emerges from wood that was burned to a skeleton years ago. I hope these images well convey the eerie feeling present in this little acre of forest.
And yet new growth abounds
Please allow me to introduce myself: I’m Pat Pope and I’m addicted to reading negative comments and abuse hurled at me on the Internet. For the sake of my own sanity, this is me going cold turkey.
Last week I made the mistake of writing one of those open letters you hear about. I wrote it in response to a request from Garbage’s management company that they’d like my permission to use a photo that I took and I own in a book they intend to publish and sell for money. But they’d like to not pay me.
Since it went out on the Internet, it’s caused a huge debate, and within that debate I’ve been called a “whiney weener”, a “sh*tty douchebag”, and an “egomaniac”, and I’ve been encouraged to “watch your back” because “we will find you”.
I found it quite hard to read those comments, not least because I’m English and I’m not sure what two of them actually mean. For the sake of balance, I’ve also been described as an “Internet warrior” and someone who is “standing up for the little guy”, so it wasn’t all terrifying, some of it was just a bit mad.