Telephoto For Portraits

I used my telephoto lens to go to the zoo last weekend and you have seen some of the results. It makes sense to use a telephoto lens for the wild animals that are at some distance from the public but it doesn't make much sense if you want to take pictures of fish in an aquarium or small reptiles. The subjects are too close to you and a normal lens will do. Some photographers change the lens frequently. I don't like changing lenses because it gives dirt the chance to get into the camera. I prefer to take two cameras with me and I did take two on Sunday. I may show you some photos from the other camera in the near future.

What I wanted to say today is that portraits are better with a longer lens. You have to be stood further away to get the whole subject in the frame, so a bigger studio is better than a smaller one. Why should this be the case? Well I am not adding an image this time so I am not going to insult anybody, but let's say someone has a big nose. If you take a photo close to the nose then you exagerate its size. Think of converging verticals and the nose is much closer to the lens than the rest of the face. It is only a slight change of perspective but a subtle change may improve your portrait.

Happy snapping

And A Butterfly

The photographers who like photos taken in the wild would not know if a butterfly were in a butterfly house or in the wild if you take the picture with a natural background. You are also required to name the type of butterfly. I am afraid that I don't know the name of this butterfly but I like to call it Fred. The only thing that I know is that it is a green and black one and it is quite big.

I grew up near the centre of Manchester and the wildlife that we came across comprised of pigeons and the occasional mouse. I have heard that nobody is more than a few feet away from a rat but I don't come across them very often. In fact I have never had my camera handy when I have seen a rat and I don't think they would make a great subject for a photo anyway. I don't think that a tee-shirt is a natural habitat but it does show the interaction that is possible with butterflies, and if you want a photo of a butterfly it does save a lot of time to go to Chester Zoo rather than waiting near a buddleia.

One final note. I am still using the telephoto, hence the tight cropping. Also notice that there is a much smaller depth of field with a telephoto lens. I have cropped it out but even the neck was well out of focus. The depth of field does concentrate attention but you have to make sure that you are focused on the subject.

Happy snapping.

And An Elephant

There is a school of thought that says animals should be photographed in the wild because they should be in their natural habitat. I suppose that the people who wrote these photography rules would not like zoos. My opinion is that zoos serve a useful purpose. They care for animals and they protect some species that have become extinct in the wild. As far as I can see, the main difference between people visiting the animals on safari and visiting them in a zoo is the zoo can protect the animals.

There is an alternative view. The animals are confined. Some have to be or they would fly off. They look well and there would be complaints if they didn't. They are informative and entertaining, and those who visit zoos will be more aware of the care that is needed and shown for the animals.

One additional benefit is that you don't need to spend thousands of pounds and travel to Africa, then go on safari to get a photo like this. It's a lot quicker, cheaper and more exotic to drive to Chester. Well maybe not the exotic bit.

Happy snapping

A Dwarf Forest Buffalo

Yesterday I went on a family trip to Chester Zoo. At the last minute I took my camera with a telephoto lens. It is a while since I went to the zoo but I knew that I would be some distance from many animals like leopards tigers and lions and the dwarf forest buffalo (right) can also do some damage if it is in the wild.

If I had gone just to take photos then I would have taken a tripod and a standard lens as well. It takes time to change the lens and it takes time to set up the tripod, but the main need for time would be getting the animals to pose - that is really difficult, and secondly getting the lighting just right. It was supposed to be sunny but there was quite a bit of cloud. Pictures look so much better if the subject is well lit. It's just a pity I didn't have a few more hours but it was a family trip. I'd better be happy with the photos that I got.

Happy snapping

Robert Capa

I was talking about copyright last time because it would be really nice to show you a photo when I am writing about famous photographers. However if you have found this blog then you should easily find photos of famous photographers. I have written about George Rodger, Rocco Morabito, and Henri Cartier-Bresson and I have also written about Robert Doisneau on my French blog, frenchfornovices. Today I want to mention Robert Capa.

Like George Rodger, he took photos during World War II. He also photographed the Spanish Civil War and perhaps his most famous photograph is the photo of a loyalist at the moment of his death. If you only look at one of Robert Capa's photos then this is the one to look at. Whether this person died or not it is certainly a photo full of emotion. Try to spend more time with his photos in particular I was moved by his D-Day images.

In 1947, he founded an internation photo agency, Magnum Photos with Henri Cartier-Bresson, George Rodger and two other photographers, William Vandivert and David Seymour. Inspiration is everywhere so do spend time looking at the work of all these great photographers.

Happy snapping

Copyright law for photos

The problem with writing about famous photographers is the copyright on their work. It is much easier to ask you to search their work than it is to check copyright. It is a complicated business and depends on the law at the time the photo was taken.

For photos prior to 1945 there is copyright for 50 years. However in German the law is that the photo is protected for 70 years after the death of the photographer. Can I be sure that a World War II photo was not protected by German law? Who was the photographer, and when did they die? Did the photographer use German law? It is much easier to avoid publishing the photographs of others.Nowadays the common rule for copyright is that it lasts 70 years plus the life of the photographer. If the photographer is unknown it is still 70 years from when it was taken.

I am all for freedom of information and freedom to publish photographs, but there is another side to the coin. We are talking about the work of photographers and why should others just take their work and do what they want e.g. publish it on a blog? For the moment I'll let you check on the photos of others by searching the internet. Do this anyway for inspiration.

Happy snapping

One More Manipulation

In the last few blogs I have been defending photo manipulation. I will defend it one more time. I am usually behind the camera taking the photographs. My assistant takes the candid photos that generally get more praise than mine, but rarely do I manage to get in his photos. It was deliberate in yesterday's blog. Today's was accidental. It is interesting to consider 'truth' again with this photo because the eye is more than likely to be focused on the bride and groom. This means that the blur manipulation is more likely to be true than a photo that is all in focus. Do you disagree? Let me know.

It is a very nice picture of the bride and groom. I ask them whether they mind having their picture on my website and invariably they say they don't mind. You can see more photos of this couple and many others on my website at www.gradwellphotography.co.uk

I don't tend to ask guests and so I don't put them on the website, but this photo uses a blur manipulation which means that the only people you can recognise are the bride and groom. I am afraid I am there too in the foreground but at least I have been blurred. Good old photo manipulation.

Happy snapping