The Photography Channel?

Trying to get to sleep last night, I was hit with the thought of 'why isn't there more photography related shows?' Then the next thought was 'I wonder if there could be a Photography Channel' like FoodTV? I still recall hearing when FoodTV started that it was a little odd to have a entire network based around food. But I saw the light... I doubt that a Photography Channel would ever get to the level where it is selling its own gear at Kohls like FoodTV, but I do believe there is a place for it.

I realize there are drawbacks- like current lack of any successful photography related TV shows. Most of the content is rolled in to shows about something else. Like Christmas in Yellowstone by PBS. It showed some of what it took to get amazing photos in those conditions. But that was it.

I think if photography was more popular like cooking, that there would be more shows devoted to them. The push for it does not seem to be there.

However, I think it could be a good niche channel. There are plenty of channels on cable/dish etc that you do not watch, so why not give it a try? There could be all sorts of subjects. Here are some that I came up with off the top of my head:

• Gear reviews- from camera bodies, to lenses, to lighting, to extras.
• History of photography
• Classes/follow-along to try your own hand. 
• Professional uses- wedding, portraits, sports, photo journalism
• Contests
• Best of
• Photography stores
• Computer based photography- editing, posting, hosting
• Copyright laws
• Selling images in various formats
• Film studies
• Travel base photography
• Editing tools like Photoshop, Gimp, Lightroom, Aperture, Picasa

Gosh knows there is always something new to report on. Every year there is new gear introduced, lots of new people using them... I know I would latch on and find a couple shows to work with. May I put in an early vote to give David Hobby his own show!  =)    (I suppose it was only time until he got a Wiki entry devoted to him!)

In any case, has this been tried or attempted yet? Has anyone thought about this? Can I get a large benefactor to help me out here to get this started?

Or is the current state still scattered enough to support the market place? Various support websites do an amazing collection of people. But I think there are plenty of people who don't want to dig in to the sites to learn nor want to spend lots of money for classes. There is a market out there folks- now lets get this started!

One in ten, if I am lucky

Just the other day, someone saw my photos and said, "I really like your camera- it takes such good photos." At first I was miffed because they were bypassing all the work that goes in to a photo. What about complementing me and my hard work? Then I thought back to when I was just using a point and shoot. All my photos were 'ok' enough. As long as they were not blurry, they were pretty darn good. Don't mind the 57 other things that lead up to the photograph and the 52 things that had to happen after the photograph was taken. Point and shoot means, you are happy with what you go because it is automatic and everything is equal.

In this post, I am going to focus on the after part of the image taking- editing.

I equate photography to painting a wall- no one sees all the extra effort it takes to get everything done. They only see the end result- a nicely painted wall. Same with photography- no one sees all the work it took to get that one photo, they only see that one resulting photo.

Speedlite

When I finally decided to get a flash for photography, I broke a barrier I had set for myself. I was very happy with just available light. I didn't have to do much else other than checking to see the image was bright enough. Even that could have been tweaked slightly. I was trying to get away with not doing much with as little as possible. Often that meant cranking up the ISO to a high, and usually unacceptable, level.

The break through was seeing what people were able to do with their lighting. Photos with additional light was entirely different. With and without photos of extra light made me a believer. Even short movie clips of people showing what they could do with extra light finally convinced me. Available light was not enough, and most likely would never be. I had to come to that conclusion.

Leftover links

Here are a listing of interesting photo related links I have found since the last leftover links posting.

• Entire City Rendered In 3D Using Nothing But Flickr Photos- Gizmodo; That is pretty damn impressive. But to have thousands of photos posted of a single place in a single location like Flickr is very impressive as well.
  
  
• Hang Perfectly Level and Centered Artwork- LifeHacker; I know I don't print much of my work for myself... but knowing how to hang prints is important.
  
  
• Stanford's open-source camera could revolutionize photography, you'll still use 'Auto' mode- Engadget; Thats pretty darn impressive. Would keep older working cameras around and on a level playing field with all the rest of the older working cameras. Interesting concept.
  
  
• I Coulda Been a Contendah…..- Joe McNally; I feel like I have no clue and a bit nervous all the time when I shoot. And if Joe is admitting he feels the same, I feel like at least we all need to keep learning and figuring out new things. It is a never ending field.
  
  
• Use a Vacuum to Clean Dust Particles Caught Inside a Camera Lens- LifeHacker; I have no clue if this would work... but I see a lot of people cringing at the thought of violating their $1,000 plus camera body to their shopvac. And yes, this is a LAST resort... personally, I would just send my camera body off to the shop for a professional cleaning. (and have)
  
  
• Canon EOS 7D 24p footage tries to make indie filmmakers / chain smokers out of us all- Engadget; I still don't know if I would do much video on my DSLR... I know thats all the rage, but I would rather have photos than video. Video is still a major pain to get right and edit in my book. Oh, and why smoking Canon?
  

Preparing for U2 in Chicago

As I prepare to travel to Chicago for the US leg of U2’s world tour- I need to get my camera gear together. What all am I going to take? Here is a brief checklist of gear and explanation if needed.

The Killers at Merriweather Post

I had done some research before the show, and from most reports I would have 'issues' with taking my Canon 30D in to Merriweather Post Pavilion. I was warned that the security didn't mind going in to the pit for something. I didn't think I would if I stick out with my 50mm lens and nothing else. Got it all in no problem, however the problem became quiet evident when I got to the top of the seating bowl and looked down. The pit area was pretty darn full.
I had gotten to Merriweather Post a little late- 8:40pm or so. I had missed the opening act without too much issue. The problem occurred when everyone was pretty set in their location and I am not a pushy person to get closer. I get a bit self conscience being as tall as I am and blocking other fans views because I shoved my way in to a spot. If I had gotten there earlier and laid claim- I would not have a problem.
Once the music started up, I broke out my camera rig. No problems. With the short 50mm lens, it was easily hidden among everyone. The biggest problem, besides the distance, was the number of fans. This would include heads, arms, and me bumping in to the people in front of me as I raised and lowered the camera.
Initially I had the ISO at 800 because I didn't know how easy or tough the lighting would be. However when I spotted the three lighting rig guys above us, I was fairly confident the lighting would be better than the last time I saw them- which also meant it would change a lot quicker.
As the lighting changed, and the band moved around a bit- I found myself sticking with the settings of ISO 640, shutter of 1/100, and dialing up and down the F/ range from 1.8 to 8. Yes, upwards of f/8 because of some of the really bright conditions. I also had the camera set to hi-speed mode because of the chance at catching something in a burst that a single shot would most likely miss. (that was a big goal of mine, shoot 2-3 burst shots at every opportunity)
As it turned out, my location and short lens really did not provide me with much opportunity to get some of the better expressions of the band. I turned to the chance to capture the lighting and other broader visuals that had going. I think I did a decent job nailing down a few key visuals to express the mood of the concert. At the end I attempted to just hold the camera up above the crowd and shoot blind. I got zero usable shots from that experiment.
When I got home, I got a count over slightly over 550 shots from the entire night. I quickly discounted many, and after a first pass I had about 70 shots I thought were ok. After editing and pre-processing those 70, I narrowed it down further to about 50 shots that were better. I sent those results shots through the processing in Lightroom. Most of the editing involved cropping. The white balance on most were pretty dead on. Once detached from all the shots, I whacked more and came out with 38 that were usable and shareable. While I might have shot a crap load, it was very easy to remove most of them for being blurry, out of focus, hands/heads in the way, etc.
Concert photography is something I enjoy doing but I don't think I could make a profession out of it. The Killers have a full time photographer on staff, and I spied him on the side of the stage- for the entire show. I hope he had an assignment for that night to get a certain shot, otherwise I would be a little disappointed with his lack of movement. Even if he was trying for one shot, he didn't even try to get down low for a different angle. At least I never saw him move.

Here is the resulting 38 photos I uploaded to Flickr to share.