Dogs

I've gone from cute girls to dogs...go figure.

I don't know why this dog was sitting on the roof of a local restaurant but I couldn't help but to shoot it. Cute dog as he was, he (maybe she) was really intent on finding his owner, roof top or not. Nice moment.

Chinatown parade

Did some scanning last night and wanted to share some images from a parade in Chinatown on Saturday. I found the parade to be of standard quality but saw the audience as a different character. Interesting to view. Interesting to snap. People oddly look at me as if I am a real photographer as I am not using a typical digital camera. They don't actually know what to expect.

The girl above just struck me. The man standing behind lined up after I looked at the film. Didn't notice him but he ads a dimension to the image.

I shot with my 50mm 1.4 lens and kinda feel its a bit cramped in the viewfinder. Not wide enough. However, the more I keep it on the M6, the more I enjoy seeing a few in a "normal" setting. My version seems to lack super sharp focus but it gives a nice feel to things. I've never shot with other versions but am happy with what I have.

With that said, I did actually crop the image in the shot as I felt there was way too much stuff around. The crop does well in my opinion. I usually like to showcase my film images full frame. Crops do help at times.



I rattled off half the roll of film until the kids faces came around. They were actually staring at a fat Ronald McDonald. Funny, he wasn't the usual slim guy as McD would like us to believe he is. The family was inside a restaurant and the parents were just as excited as the kids.



I didn't notice the girl staring or the older woman in the corner of the frame. I have a tough time learning to focus a rangefinder and I am finding I am loosing so many shots as I am fumbling with a camera I don't use as much as I should. Rangefinder shooting takes a skill. And within that skill, it takes a different eye. Its absolutely everything a digital camera is not. Thinking about composition, focus point, exposure, and feel all come into play. Once again, subconscious took this image. I am not to impressed but find all the elements falling into place.



The dog, which I think was a corgi Jack Russell mix, was shaking away seemingly started by the drums, dancing, and noise. Might he be afraid of his owners toes?

New Years on film

Although not the first digital shot of the year, it surely is the first organic shot of 2009.

Chinese New Year from the balcony

Whats the New Year without a dance?

Sony Alpha flash and conclusion

Ah, the Sony flash, the HVL-F58AM flash...what a nice tool to work with. The above picture was shot at sunset with the Alpha 900 with flash set to normal, 800 ISO and the EXIF reports 1/60th at F 5.6. If I recall, I had the camera set to Auto and let the fun happen. There is noise in the image which, like I stated in my previous post, should not exist in a 08/09 camera model but the flash really did a nice job. There is slight detail in the black, the white cards dangling from the lanyards are not blown out, and the skin tones are just about right. The image could have been a bit brighter but overall, the image is great. This is the image straight out of the camera. And at fine jpg setting at that! I wonder how a raw file would have done? The Alpha 900 metered, in my opinion, perfectly. Canon! Take note of the flash unit and metering Sony seems to have gotten right.

The Sony flash

is awesome with its rotating/pivoting ability. The shadows were always under the chin where they belong.

Everything about the flash and camera combo do speak of a (do I dare say!?!?) a glorified Cybershot. Yes, the 900 with the flash became a big point and shoot that leaves little to think about.

And why not? Why should I have to think about a mindless picture and create something fancy when I am just "doing a job." In my opinon, there really wasn't much to think about when using this camera and flash together. The Canon flash unit leave so much to wish for...after years of trying to understand its matrix metering, ETTL, and whatnot, it is a hit and miss game with the Canon.

I didn't spend anytime having to fuss with my Sony images after the shoot. No levels adjustment, no color correction, or any type of photoshopping. THIS IS WHAT PHOTOGRAPHY SHOULD BE LIKE (at times, mind you) where you don't have to do anything but shoot, download, burn a disc, and handover to a client.

Don't get me wrong, I constantly use the Canon flash for lots of work but compared to the Sony, the Canon can't hold its weight. Most Canon shooters would probably agree. Its never an issue of plug and play. Its lets dial down/up the flash, or the cameras get thrown off by a white dress shirt and black dress combo. It never seems consistent. The Sony flash got it right just about 90% of the time, and thats a wonderful ratio!

I mean with the Canon, I'd have a good exposure but a black background, or a nice background and blurry players cause of the slow shutter. The Sony flash took all the guess out.

The flash alone would make me jump over to Sony if there were more assets within the Sony system.

With this said, I will get to my conclusions on the Alpha system...

I like it. If all my Canon gear fell into the depths of the Pacific, I still wouldn't invest it all in Sony but I like the system. There is so much Sony needs to improve on and before long it probably will be a major player.

My buddy Hugh just purchased the Canon 5D Mark II with 1080 HD video capabilities. He finally told me all about the video capacity and he said it good for certain things but will never replace a real video camera. He also mentioned some of the bad things about it and what the 5D can and cannot do. With photography, there is not just one tool that will work for everything.

Sony does have the capability to create a "bi-user" system with great video and still capability. A Red system without the headaches. I could be wrong because Canon also has a video equipment company as well and they are on their way to creating a future video/still system. Until then, Sony will have to keep making their system stronger and better.

Improvements should include faster handling, easier user accessibility, a much more durable body and many other things I cannot really elaborate on. I can go on and on and complain about Canon, Sony or Nikon as nothing is perfect. If I could take all the systems and make a frankenstein type body with the Nikon glass look, the Canon handling, and the Sony flash...we'd have the perfect tool. Add near perfect web/tv video capabilities, and jacks for sound, and voila! Time will only tell.

If you haven't tried a Sony, please do. They are very very nice systems and make great images. Like I said, I don't know if its ready to roll around the beach waiting for a celeb to pop out, a journalist sitting in the back of a humvee, or jumping from the pool van to quickly catch a President eating shaved ice. A photojournalist needs a camera that can take it all, not a camera that is only good (rather, great) at a few things. If you keep it in a studio, you can't go wrong.

It's price point at $3000 for 24.6 megapixels, and market value lenses make it a contender for people who are starting out in the business. For me, I might wait to see what the 3rd and 4th versions will create.

But do we really need a camera that can shoot 21 frames a sec at 98 megapixels?


Sony 700, 24-70mm F2.8, Hawaiian sunset light.

The New York Times

GOT THE COVER OF THE NEW YORK TIMES SPORTS SECTION!!!

Actually, I wasn't sure what they were going to put on whether it was the front page or just sports. The bw shot was from the series. They chose the color digital image.

Always good to have a good subject to shoot.

Sony Alpha Review Part II

Sony Alpha 900 with 24-70 F2.8 at 200 ISO

SO after a week of using a Sony Alpha 900 and 700 bodies, a 24-70mm F 2.8 lens, a 70-200mm F2.8, and a 300mm F 2.8. Two HVL-F58AM flashes, batteries, etc., I think I can formulate a good yet limited opinion of the camera system.

Mind you, this review is not based any science, charts, direct comparisons, etc but based on straight use. Use based on real world experience shooting a mix of sports, events, and reportage. A use based on various lighting environments, lens use, and flash output.

If most of you reading this haven't figured this out, I am a professional photographer shooting just about everything you can imagine. See my website at http://marcpix.com to understand where I come from. I shoot pro Canon bodies but used to be a straight Nikon shooter so I am very familiar with all types of SLRs, medium format, and large format equipment.

What I can say right away about the Alpha system is this:

IT IS NOT A CANON AND IT IS NOT A NIKON.

And for many, that's the problem. I can pick up a Nikon digital body and within minutes figure out most of the setting without reading the manual. It was the same for Canon as I understood Nikon. Its not like the Sony bodies were that different but things like controlling the flash output is based inside the camera body software as opposed to the Canon flash having its own individual controls separate from the body.

I talked to the other photographers who were issued the Sony systems and this seemed to be their problems as well. No similar physical work flow continuation. You more or less have to read a manual to understand what the Sony camera is capable of...and in many ways, it is capable of lots!

The camera system is impressive. The big 24.6 megapixel camera pushes aside the current Canon 1Ds Mark II at 21 megapixel. The Alpha system seems well suited to work well for the studio/commerical photographer or non-news gathering guys. The files are bright, clean, and nice to work with. At 100-200 ISO, you get very nice current standard files from the camera. From the point of view of a shooter and not a fine art printer or reviewer with too much time on their hands, the files are fine. There are no complaints about the images.

At higher ISO, you get noticeable pixelation and noise which is not acceptable for a 2008-2009 year camera. At 800 ISO the images were fine and completely usable. But an examination of the red and blue channels seemed to show similar noise patterns to a Canon Mark II at 1600 ISO. Of course the Sony file is better but to convince photographers who are invested into their systems to switch is a hard sell. With Nikon making nearly flawless and noiseless pictures at 1600 ISO and beyond, Sony has no excuse. I considering jumping over to Nikon for their wonderful high ISO handling but just can't afford to start over.

This is a major issue for me using this camera as many times, I have to shoot in low light conditions. The Canon Mark II do wonders at 1600 for my purposes. A bit of what I would call grain never hurts. When its too perfect, like current Nikons, it might be a bit strange, kinda like seeing a false reality. Mind you, I wouldn't mind having that ability but film never made perfection hence its hold and realism in photography and history. Sony just can't compete with this fact now and the next versions of the camera should truly adjust to current market standards. Like I said, it is perfect for a studio/commercial environment where lighting is easier to control and situations don't usually change much. However, jumping from a a sunny golf course to a sunset dinner, to a night time concert was tough.

Day time shots proved to be flawless though with the camera. A neat setting was the Auto ISO choice where the camera would adjust automatically to the lighting. I left it as such and noticed most of what I shot remained at roughly 200 ISO. Nice but always best to be in charge of this aspect to ensure total control.

In order to convince photographers to leave their old brands behind for the Alpha system, Sony has to really improve their system or add something so unique, the market will have to jump over because of this uniqueness. From the week of shooting with the Alpha, its a hard bet for me.

With that said, I can only guess how the digital market will continue to evolve but with the intro of the Canon 5D MII and the current Nikon body with similar video capabilities, Sony is going to have to add this feature to their next pro body. Sony holds a large portion of the video industry so once they add this feature to their next generation of pro cameras, to me, it is more than obvious they will strongly compete with Nikon and Canon...and quiet possibly surpass.

The build of the camera itself is quiet nice. Nothing different although it seemed to lack the build of a heavy duty Nikon or Canon. According to different websites, the camera is weatherproof. Nothing more to say. Its a camera with buttons and dials.

As far as the lenses:

Nothing really to say as they are exceptional. This element of the Sony lenses remains similar to other lenses in the market. The lenses mirror the same zoom and distances of other brand lenses and if you didn't look closely, you'd be fooled into thinking the 300mm F2.8 is an exact copy of the Canon.

The Carl Zeiss glass is superb. Again, nothing more to say other than great, great optics. Truly the gem of the system along with their great flash units.


Alpha 900, 300mm 2.8m, 200 ISO

The above image is tact sharp. The camera did its job and the lens acted wonderfully.

Onto the bodies which I will not distinguish as I mostly used the 900 and found both the 700 and the 900 to be indistinguishable other than the file size.

The above golf picture was done on the 900 and if you notice the image is dead center. Years ago, Patrick Sison told me autofocus destroyed rule of thirds as the first few generations of autofocus pinpointed the focusing dead center, something classical composure strictly rules against. The focusing system for the Alpha seems to hark back to the days of old fashion autofocus systems. Don't get me wrong, it focuses quick and accurate but seems to lack any ability to shift focusing points manually to compose an image away from dead center.

I asked the other photogs who were using the Alpha system and they also couldn't figure out how to manual adjust the focusing points to get the system to focus outside of the dead center. Mind you, none of us read the manuals that came along with the cameras but this is what I mentioned earlier. The ignition for a car is always right of the steering column. If a car manufacturer were to shift it below the radio or inside the glove box, you'd be stumped for days.

Depending on what you'd point the camera at, the focus would shift and catch something to the left or right of center, above or below the center as well. I had this one situation where I had to shoot a guy at a podium and the camera default focus would pinpoint the podium and not the guy speaking. This proved to be a major drawback as I had to push the lens into manual and catch the subject that way. This is something Nikon and Canon would not have any problems with.

Another odd thing about the focus of the camera is that the autofocus would completely stop all together. I mean just absolutely stop, flash or no flash. Just completely stop. I'd have to turn off the camera and restart. Sometimes, more than once. I can't explain why it would do this. It just did.

More to come about the flash output and final thoughts.

Subconscious

I will constantly blab about pictures and this and that about subconscious picture taking and the likes but I really do feel there is something about not really seeing something in the visual world but seeing outside of the lens.

Take for example this shot of a golfer at the Sony Open in Honolulu. He knocked the ball off the fairway into a greenside bunker on the 3rd green. I lined up across from the pin to catch the shot he was going to make. I lowered the monopod holding my 400mm 2.8 but found the angle too busy as the course homes were in the background making lots of distractions. I walked a bit up the hill mingling with the gallery a bit and found a cleaner view with the lakes and water spout.

The odd thing of it all is the fact I lined up the view to have the jutting angles of the lake's grass mimicking the actual position of the golfer. The flag flapping in the foreground is just an added bonus. HOW I did this is beyond me. Is it a complete coincidence or was it something my mind's eye saw before hand. Do we really plan these shots or do they just happen? I did see the background but didn't expect things to line up like they did...or did I? Get what I mean, we see things beyond our actual vision.

Being a photographer is tough. You spend 99% of your time looking thru a little rectangle box via a round tube. Everything is either compressed into a small vision of the world or a distorted wide blur of life. Nothing is real reality. it is all what is defined by a glass maker, computer, or that brief 1/2000 sec of time. Meyerowitz said we can learn to see things in those quick snaps of a shutter. Either a slow 1/15 of a sec or a dazzling 1/8000 sec. Life via a camera is just a swish-click-clack-snap-pop of a shutter.

There is a Getty photog who really makes magic with his images. He shot last years Sony Open and made one of the most amazing shots of Tadd Fujikawa that only he could take. I realized he was talented but it was something more than just having a "skill." See the image here as i don't have permission to show it. There are three To me it takes a skill beyond the average person to capture moments as such. Funny thing is Fujikawa is known for his diminutive stature so the heights of the palms trees repeat who Tadd is.

Amamzing.

I didn't mention the golfers name as he isn't important to my story and the image isn't life making. I do feel it helps make me a better visionary. Whether is intentional, accidental or just a quick glimpse of life is beyond me. I'd like to view it as a capture of art in real life or possibly nothing more than a gimmicky shot taken in that 1/2000 second realm. That subconscious taking over and making life a bit more exciting.

The Conga!

I mean what more can I say?

Come on shake your body make it do the conga!

Sony Alpha cameras review

I've never done a camera review nor do I plan to start or compete with those websites that do. I do, however, am gaining experience with the Sony DSLR's given to me by the good people at Sony.

Lots of the reviews I've read on different camera lenses, systems, etc...are never made by professional photojournalist or pros who put their gear through the wringer. I mean there have been times when I've dropped any and all parts of my cameras, gotten them soaked in rain storms, covered in red dirt dust, ocean mist, sand, and general dirt. I've had so much soot on my sensors that I had to bite my teeth and shoot just to get a shot and hope photoshop will take care of the final product. I'm not shooting nature, my kids, dogs, friends, wife, or the house across the street. I am shooting assignments for AP, Conde Nast, Sony, and a multitude of clients. I know how to treat my gear and what I can expect from it and what I expect from myself when I use it.

I am currently shooting a tournament for Sony and they require that the photographers hired use only Sony made equipment. Imagine the faces when the Japanese president of Sony and the son of the founder when photogs arrive with Canon and Nikon flashes popping in their faces. How bad is that for their egos?!?!

This year when I was hired again to shoot for Sony, I received a grand package from Tokyo full of bodies, lenses, flashes, and the likes. I got a Alpha 900 and 700 bodies, a 24-70mm F 2.8 lens, a 70-200mm F2.8, and a 300mm F 2.8. Two HVL-F58AM flashes, batteries, etc... Enough gear and stuff to make a job go well.

FIRST IMPRESSIONS

The cameras are made well. The glass is Carl Zeiss so its heavy and sharp. The bodies seem to mirror all the other camera systems out there with their button/knob placement, card and battery compartments. Nothing really too different. The 900 and 700 do have a type of imagine stabilization built-in the actual camera and after using the camera it does seem to do its magic. Nice feature.

The odd thing is the camera has its own special setting made for Sony. The problem that I find immediately is you actually have to read the camera instructions to understand how to make the camera work well. For me this is my problem but I don't think I am unique. Most people out there don't want to read instructions and camera companies should understand this. Cameras are so common place that it should be something understood universally. P means program, A (AV) means aperture priority, etc... More on this later.

As far as first impressions, the flash is the best flash I have ever EVER seen before.



The flash has tilts up and down like standard flash head but also left and right. ABSOLUTE BRILLIANT. NO NEED FOR BRACKETS TO SHOOT VERTICAL. What an absolute brilliant idea. You can keep the flash head above the lens no matter where you shoot vertical or horizontal. I real piece of work.

This has to be the best surprise of the day to see this feature.

I have much more to write about as this will be a multi post listing.

More to come

Ode Magazine Cover

Got to shoot Jack Johnson and friends for the cover of Ode Magazine. According to the editor, seems to be a popular issue. People are asking where to get the shirt Jack is wearing.

Four years have past since the South Asian tsunami in December 2004.

I wanted to show a pix from my book, Hope for Renewal. A guy I photographed in Banda Aceh found me via facebook. I just so happen to stumble upon his wedding. It was very National Geograhic. Great image. Beautiful bride. The groom lost his mother in the tsunami. Life goes on.

View from the Lanai