Psychologist Abraham Maslow formalized and popularized the term “Peak Experience” in the 1960s. According to Maslow, peak experiences are especially joyous and exciting moments in life, involving sudden feelings of intense happiness and well-being, wonder and awe, and possibly also involving an awareness of transcendental unity or knowledge of higher truth.

Maslow (1970) describes how the peak experience tends to be uplifting and ego-transcending; it releases creative energies; it affirms the meaning and value of existence; it gives a sense of purpose to the individual; it gives a feeling of integration; it leaves a permanent mark on the individual, evidently changing them for the better. Peak experiences can be therapeutic in that they tend to increase the individual’s free will, self-determination, creativity, and empathy (see wikipedia for more on Maslow and peak experience).

What does peak experience have to do with photography?

I believe there is–and have personally experienced–a synergistic relationship between photography and peak experience. That is, I have found that photography can help to bring on peak experiences; and also, that peak experiences often feed positively into photography to help create especially compelling and transcendent images.

Truth be told, in fact, I think the main reason I have continued to pursue photography is because of its ability to help me have these “peak experiences”. When you recognize something transcendent in a scene you are photographing and are able to capture it, or later on when looking through your photos, you see some bit of beauty or truth you would have never seen without the stop-action capability of still photography, you are beholding the “magic” photography provides for entering peak psychological (and spiritual?) states.

Of course, photography isn’t the only way to truth, beauty, and peak experiences. Other common means are other artistic pursuits, art appreciation, meditation, yoga, intense physical exertion, relationships with others, exposure to nature, and so on. Photography just happens to be a means that suits me and my life situation well at this point, and may (or may not) continue to be a particularly effective and convenient means for the rest of my life.

I have also found that intense physical activity, writing, reading, and exposure to nature have gone a long way toward helping me achieve “higher” states of consciousness. And whenever possible, I try to combine them and/or play them off of one another to help prolong and spread the influence of my transcendent experiences from one sector of my life & pursuits to another.

I recently bought and read the book “Tao of Photography: Seeing Beyond Seeing“, By Philippe L. Gross, S.I. Shapiro. In most respects, I think it’s worth reading. It showcases many inspiring photos from the author Gross and several significant photographers from photography’s history (e.g,. Minor White, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Edward Weston, Wynn Bullock, Ansel Adams, etc).

The book makes the case that the photographer’s state of mind and all that that includes (clarity of perception, stillness/centeredness, patience, relaxed expectations) is the most important factor determining whether a “successful” photograph will be made. It acknowledges that some technical knowledge and expertise are required to make an effective or compelling photograph, but that these requirements are relatively easily acquired and pale in importance compared to the photographer’s state of mind and “being”.

I am in 98% agreement with the book’s message; the photographer’s state of mind is critical in making transcendent photographs. Without the proper mental disposition and awareness, inspired photos are unlikely to happen. When photography students are taught things like “The Rule of Thirds”, such mental constraints can actually get in the way of making inspired photos. Here are some other “barriers to seeing” listed in the book (paraphrased):

• The need to conform, win approval, or be a member of a group; the inability to disagree, be unpopular, or stand alone.
• Over-respect for authority or a great practitioner; becoming a disciple, loyal follower, and unable to affirm oneself.
• The need to be dominant and in control versus non-interfering and receptive.
• The need to rubricize and categorize versus simply experiencing.
• Intolerance of ambiguity.
• The need for radical novelty versus seeing what is special in the familiar.

As I said, I think this book is worth reading and I’m mostly in agreement with it. Ironically, my biggest disappointment in the book is that it presents its case in a somewhat uninspired, almost “academic” way! The photography is inspiring, the ideas are inspiring, but the writing is kinda, well, uninspiring and not as compelling or insightful as I would have expected. Yet, there aren’t a lot of other options out there covering these ideas. (Here are a few others that may at least get close to some of these issues if you’re interested.)

So, getting back to Maslow (who, by the way, is mentioned a few times in The Tao of Photography)…

I have found photography to be an effective vehicle for achieving peak experiences, and for peak experiences to inform and feed my photography in a way that brings it to a higher level. When things are going optimally, a reverberative cycle is created in which the peak experience feeds into the quality of the photo, which then–being inspired and transcendent–flows back to me in the form of an even more elevated state of peak experience. This elevated perceptual state then further influences the photos I’m capturing, leading to photos that are even more original and/or transcendent.

I imagine that if this feedback cycle were to continue indefinitely, the photographer would likely lose himself and go insane or something! The reality is that the cycle is usually somewhat short-lived; and also, that since the photographer is, in fact, focusing his heightened perception on physical reality (that’s what’s in his viewfinder!), it tends to fortuitously tether him to physical reality–i.e., to keep him somewhat “grounded”.

Even though this highly exhilerating feedback loop is fairly short-lived, the effects of it are not; there’s often a residual “aura” of stimulation that goes on to enhance the photographer’s thoughts and perceptions the rest of the day–if not over the course of multiple days–though at a lower, more sustainable level.

I think I could on and on about the relationship between photography and peak experience, but I think it may be an issue better explored in book format due to the amount of discussion involved to really flesh it out. Maybe I’ll write that book! Or maybe I’ll just return to the subject multiple times here at the blog.

In any case, I think peak experiences are the true reason I do many of the things I do in life, including photography. Photography is just a means to get there, and it is a means I–and hopefully you too–quite enjoy…:-).

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His fine art website is at http://www.michaelgracemartin.com/ and his main commercial/services website is at http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

With recently published photography books full of photos taken with cell phone cameras and plenty of discussions on the web about whether you need expensive/professional camera equipment to take either professional or “art worthy” photographs, I thought I’d chime in on the topic because, in some respects, I’ve been on both sides.

Does your camera equipment matter?

My response (which is probably influenced by my background in social science research) is: it depends.

I totally agree that photographic art can be made by almost any sort of photographic equipment, ranging (cost-wise) from cheap plastic, home-made (e.g., pinhole), and cell phone cameras to $40,000+ medium format digital cameras. The cost or sophistication of the equipment is not what makes it art; it’s the photographer’s vision and use of the equipment that makes it art. I have absolutely no reservations about the truth of this statement.

How about the issue of creating a “professional” image with any sort of equipment?

If you are creating an image for publication, most publishers require a fairly high resolution image–e.g., much higher than created by a 2 megapixel cell phone camera. Even if you were able to do some sophisticated resizing of your 2 megapixel cell phone image with special software to get it up to a higher resolution, the image quality will necessarily degrade to some degree. Then there’s the issue of whether the image needs to actually show high-quality detail. $40,000 medium format digital cameras resolve an amazing amount of detail (think high-resolution images of prepared food); the lenses on cell phones and toy cameras resolve very little fine detail. Another thing publishers are really picky about: images must have very little digital noise. Most cell phone cameras and compact digital cameras start showing significant digital noise at relatively low ISOs; expensive digital SLR cameras really excel at keeping digital noise low in images.

Ultimately, it comes down to whatever the publisher or client wants. I can tell you the stock photo houses definitely think publishers want high quality, low noise, high resolution images produced by “professional” camera equipment; they are usually *very* particular about these requirements.

How about portrait and wedding photography? Does camera equipment matter there?

When I am being paid hundreds or thousands of dollars by a client to photograph their family or wedding, you can bet they’re looking for high-end, “commercial” quality images from me. Also, I specialize in candid photography (both for my portrait sessions and weddings); I need equipment that can focus fast, on moving targets, and can take pictures whether there’s plenty of light or barely any light at all (e.g., in a dark reception hall at night). Without the proper equipment, some of the photography I do–photography that fits my artistic vision in the context of, say, a dark ballroom–would not be possible. When clients pay you to take photos at a wedding, you can’t tell them: “Sorry, my camera was unable to take a photo of the wedding couple during their first dance that actually made their faces, expressions, or body language clearly recognizable. I hope that having only grainy and blurry ‘artistic’ photos of the dance are ok”!!

When I am taking photos of my children when we’re out and about or on vacation, I use all sorts of cameras (film, digital, plastic, old, new, etc). When I’m doing street photography and personal fine art photography, I also play around with different makeshift/unprofessional camera equipment. It’s fun and it helps me break out of uncreative ruts!

But here’s the thing: even when I’m playing around and being creative, the equipment affects what I can do. If I’ve got in mind to take an artsy shot of people indoors in low light without using a flash, then I probably don’t want to use my Holga film camera with its f/13 lens and the 200 ISO medium format film I have in it; I would end up with a photo of nothing because it would be totally underexposed! If you’ve got a certain artistic vision in mind, knowing what equipment will achieve the effect you’re looking for can be the difference between realizing your artistic vision and not.

So, does your camera equipment matter?

In some ways, it *always* matters: the equipment determines to some degree what is possible. However, I agree that with these constraints come opportunities for creative expansion or innovation. Creative persons often need structure or limitations to “react against” to reach something new.

When you’re talkin’ pure creative expression, this sort of expansion beyond preconceived constraints and notions is an important and worthwhile endeavor. However, when you’re talking about commissioned work, this isn’t an easy climb and minds have to be changed!

It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that some creative person will make an art form out of cell phone photography of weddings such that people will actually pay that person thousands of dollars to bring a cell phone to their weddings and do their creative cell phone photographic magic! However, a preference for those types of images over the more professional/commercial-looking photos most wedding clients currently expect is gonna take quite some marketing and perception changing.

And–even though it shouldn’t matter–think of the cognitive dissonance wedding couples will have to overcome in order to be convinced to shell out big bucks to a photographer using camera equipment that is no better than the cameras posessed by 95% of the wedding guests!…:p

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

Though I’ve certainly done a few blog posts regarding wedding photography with mentions of lens choices, I find myself having to re-visit the topic…especially now on the brink of another wedding season.

I recently got rid of one of my stalwart zoom lenses which I used since my very first wedding: the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L USM. Recently I concluded that all zoom lenses are compromises and “crutches”, and that I happily accept and use them anyway. However–to me–the 24-70 became the ultimate in non-committal compromise. It can’t really reach into those breathtaking or highly useful (in tight quarters) wide angle shots I can get with a fisheye or 16-35 zoom lens, and neither can it zoom in very well for those intimately tight close-ups that I get with my 135 f/2 or my 70-200 zoom lens. If I want to go with a “play it safe” middle range, I’d rather put on a standard normal lens (50mm) with a larger maximum aperture (f/1.4 or f/1.2) so I can take photos in almost any lighting condition.

As I’ve mentioned before, if Canon (or anyone else) made a super zoom lens with a constant large maximum aperture, decent optical quality, and it didn’t weigh 10 pounds, that’s the lens I would use; I’m not particularly fond of constantly changing lenses *especially* when it leads to missed shots and dust and dirt getting into my camera body. But this is not the way things are, and camera equipment manufacturers aren’t highly motivated to make and sell you a single product that takes care of all your photographic needs when they can sell you a dizzying array of products, each one of which only partially takes care of your needs.

Some may say it’s physically impossible to create the one-lens-does-it-all lens I allude to. I’m not saying it would be easy, but I think technology can accomplish an amazing number of things when the needed accompanying motivation exists.

But enough talk of this “super lens”, let’s get back to current reality because that’s what I have available to me for my upcoming “real” weddings in 2010…(!)

I will have three cameras available to me this wedding season: one with a full-frame sensor (Canon 5D series), one with a 1.3 crop sensor (Canon 1D series), and one with a 1.6 crop sensor. For weddings, I nearly always have two cameras readily available (i.e., hanging on me in some way) with lenses attached.

One thing I like about having cameras with different size sensors is that it effectively turns each of my lenses into the equivalent of *three* lenses. For example, on my full-frame sensor camera, a 50mm lens has the FOV (field of view) of a 50mm lens (of course). On my 1.3 crop sensor camera, the 50mm lens has the FOV of a 65mm lens. And on the 1.6 crop sensor camera, that same 50mm lens has a FOV of a 80mm lens. Since you’re going to need a backup camera for wedding photography anyway, choosing cameras with different size sensors gives you more versatility with your existing lenses. (Note: make sure you buy lenses that can work on all three camera bodies or this advantage won’t be there.)

When it comes down to the choice of prime lenses versus zoom lenses for wedding photography, I’ve developed a few guidelines for myself:

1. The highest priced professional quality zoom lenses yield images that are absolutely good enough for wedding clients. To buy multiple primes instead of these high quality zoom lenses for better image quality will make no difference to 98% of your wedding clients. They are *much* more likely to notice how you framed your shots (e.g., how you were able to zoom in or zoom out for a shot) than to notice that a prime lens yielded marginally better detail or BOKEH than a zoom lens.
2. With the high ISO capabilities of current digital SLRs, there are many fewer instances when you need a lens with a larger maximum aperture than the f/2.8 available with most top quality professional zoom lenses for existing light shots. And for those instances when f/2.8 isn’t large enough for an existing light shot (e.g., due to your subject moving in a low light situation), you can:
   • use a bounced or diffused flash to raise the ambient light,
   • keep one large aperture, “general purpose” prime lens in your camera bag to take out and use during these moments, or
   • trigger some off-camera lighting.
3. Most wedding clients like *both* intimate close-up shots (e.g., facial expressions during key moments during the wedding day) and scene-setting, wide angle shots (e.g., the wedding couple standing at the front of a high-ceiling church, or all the bridesmaids crammed into a tight dressing at various stages of getting ready).
4. My lens strategy for an outdoor wedding ceremony and/or reception versus an indoor one is quite different and usually requires no prime lenses. In general, outdoor ceremonies and receptions are significantly easier to photograph because there’s usually much more light to work with. With more light, I can use one of my smaller maximum aperture zoom lenses that covers a much larger focal range (e.g., I have a 24-105 f/4L and a 35-350 f/3.5-5.6L). I bring a flash, but mostly just for some fill light.

So, what about my *indoor* wedding lens strategy for 2010?

• Wide-angle zoom: 16-35 f/2.8–this gives me a true 16-35mm on the full-frame camera and 20.8-45.5mm on the 1.3 crop sensor 1D. So, this lens in conjunction with these two cameras give me 16-45.5mm f/2.8 (i.e., super wide up to almost normal) coverage.
• Middle range prime: 50 f/1.4–this gives me “normal” coverage on the full-frame and 65mm (somewhat telephoto compared to normal) on the 1.3 crop sensor 1D. F/1.4 is a very useful large aperture to have available and the Canon 50 f/1.4 is the least expensive, high-quality f/1.4 lens Canon makes.
• Telephoto zoom: 70-200 f/2.8–a true 70-200mm on the full-frame and a somewhat more telephoto (91-260mm) on the 1.3 crop sensor 1D. For even closer crops, I can put it on the 1.6 crop sensor camera for an effective 112-320mm reach.
• Dark/Late night prime: 135 f/2–I often swap the 70-200 f/2.8 for a 135 f/2 later in the reception when/if it becomes too dark to use the 70-200 without auxiliary lighting.

So, at this moment in time (1:00pm on a Monday, 2/1/2010…;-), this is my lens strategy for the 2010 indoor wedding season. Whew! It’s a bit of a relief to me (I’m constantly mulling this stuff over and trying it out at weddings) and I hope you can gain something from my “suffering” as well…;-).

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

I’ve participated in photo sharing websites for the past 5-6 years and found them helpful in some ways but frustrating in others. I’ve tried to use them as places to put up my images to discover which are “objectively good” (if such a thing is even possible) and which aren’t. I mean, maybe I really like a particular photo I’ve taken, but let’s see what the rest of the photo sharing audience thinks!

Interestingly–and I’ve heard this from other photographers as well–many of my favorites (of photos that *I* have produced) are *not* the favorites of my photo sharing audience. Sometimes they go nuts over an image I post that I wasn’t even sure I wanted to post because I thought it was marginal. Other times, I’ll post an image that I think is one of the best photos I’ve ever taken, and it meets with dead “silence” from my photo sharing audience…heck, sometimes I can barely get them to even click the thumbnail and view the image larger!

So, what’s going on here?

First, I don’t think *subtlety* plays well at photo sharing websites. Probably the main reason for this is that image viewers are making a decision whether to click on and view your image larger based on a relatively small thumbnail image. If the compelling aspect/s of your image are relatively small within the image and/or not visually “loud”, when it’s thumbnail sized, it may not appear interesting at all! Related to this: your image may be one of those that needs to be seen large (800 pixels or more in the maximum dimension) to be appreciated. But many photo sharing websites display the enlarged image at a mere 400-500 pixels in the maximum dimension. These common constraints at photo sharing websites have therefore–unintentionally, I think–made certain types of photos more prevalent and popular (e.g., close-ups, bright colors, high contrast, and the appearance of nudity) because that’s what gets *noticed* when images are presented small, and this small presentation used as a basis for the viewer’s decision to investigate and evaluate the image further.

It seems that the one exception to the non-subtlety bias is when a photographer has such a dedicated following that his/her “fans” will click on anything the photographer posts and closely look for anything that makes it compelling.

Second, if you tend to jump back and forth between various subjects (children, weddings, fine art nudes, etc) and/or styles of photography (B&W vs. Color, film vs digital, sharp focus vs blurry focus, etc), you tend to lose your audience’s viewing “loyalty” because–good or bad–most people want to see photography regarding a certain subject matter or style and want to see it again and again. I think they want to see creativity (at least I’m pretty sure they want to), but they want to see it *within* a particular subject matter or style that they enjoy.

So, if you want to make it hard on yourself getting a dedicated following, just keep jumping all over the map in terms of subject matter and style and you’ll find out how easy it is to drive viewers away. (A recommendation: if you really need to pursue different subjects or styles, consider creating multiple accounts and dedicate each one to a single style or subject matter.)

A third factor: activity at photo sharing sites can sometimes degrade into pure popularity contests. I don’t want to infer that this is always the case, because it’s not. But some photographers at these sites get so many views and comments because they have a large network of photo sharing friends–much like having lots of friends at a social networking site like Facebook–that are good about viewing and commenting on each others’ photos. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with this, but it can make it difficult for someone to evaluate how “successful” their images are if they’re comparing their number of comments and/or views to the images of someone else when that someone else has a much more extensive photo sharing friend network!

A fourth factor: most photo sharing websites are set up to show one enlarged image at a time and are geared toward “one hit” photos that stand on their own. Sure, you can group a bunch of related photos into one folder; but visually, it’s the thumbnails you see together, not a series of enlarged images next to each other, like in a book. Also, the order of the images is usually chronological rather than being chosen by the photographer to appear in a particular, meaningful sequence.

I’ve noticed that when fine art photographers put together a portfolio, the sequencing and the juxtaposition of photos on facing pages is crucial to the success of the photos’ presentation. Often, I find that any one of these photos from a series isn’t all that interesting by itself. Together, though, the photos tell a story and/or present a consistent perspective that can be very compelling. Photo sharing websites are geared more toward singular “hits” that shine individually and don’t require a consistent supporting artistic vision.

Conclusion

Sometimes, I think the best thing about photo sharing websites is seeing the work of other photographers! For your own work, I think you have to be careful what you take away from the feedback you get from them. I would caution you against using them to decide which of your photos is the absolute best (e.g., for contests) or for putting together a portfolio of your best work. I have found that photo sharing websites are not very helpful for determining how to group or sequence photos for a book or portfolio because they’re geared more toward the presentation and evaluation of one image at a time. Also, you have to keep in mind that photos do well at photo sharing websites for various reasons, and some of those reasons may have little to do with the critical or artistic quality of a photo.

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

When I think of it, I often bring my camera when I take the kids out to a park, swimming, hiking, a birthday party, picking strawberries, etc. Commonly in these instances, I am both a participant in the activities and an observer of them; taking photos necessarily puts me in the role of an observer while I’m photographing. While I’m “observing”, I tend not to be much of a participant. Is there a way to balance the two roles?

After trying to play both roles simultaneously for so many years (my son just turned 9 and I’ve been photographing him since he was a baby), I think I’ve finally got it down.

I think the key is to be a participant *first*. If you’re being an observer/photographer *first*, the people around you will sense that and either get frustrated with you (e.g., your spouse gets angry that you’re not helping with the children) or not interact with you because you’re being aloof.

Now, while being a participant, you should be watching for photo opportunities with your camera readily available (e.g., around your neck, at your side, in your hand) and turned on. It can be tricky to have this split attention while interacting with others, because they (especially adults) may sense you’re not giving them your full attention. You have to gauge the situation and may have to give up on watching for photo opps during certain stretches of conversation when you can’t realistically be paying attention to both things at once.

I generally find there’s an ebb and flow to these events and situations such that you can easily be more of an observer at certain times because there’s a lull in the action; but then need to jump back in as a participant when warranted.

One key to making this work is learning to recognize optimal “photographic moments” and quickly snapping them and putting the camera back down. The less time you spend with the camera in front of your face (or looking down at the LCD if you’re using the LCD instead of an optical viewfinder), the less you’ll give others the impression you’re not really participating.

I think that being an active participant can sometimes actually lead to more interesting photos; it gives you a different and somewhat “dynamic” viewpoint of the situation. Watching and interacting at the same time can create its own sort of synergy that can get into the photos and make them uniquely compelling.

I’m not sure what comes first–the elevated state of perception or trying to play the combined observer/participant role–but I’ve found that when it’s going well, I do have this creative and energetic state of mind that not only leads to better photos but also to being more present and having more fun at the event or situation itself!…:-).

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

I’ve bought and tried out a number of compact digital “point-and-shoot” cameras for taking photos of my children. Many of these photos take place indoors (especially during the winter) and many of them require fast auto-focusing in order to take the photo *before* my kids move or alternatively *while* they are moving; they seldom stay in one place for long!

I recently acquired the Canon S90, which has made vast improvements in low light performance. I had the Canon S60 whose images were unusably noisy at 400 ISO. With the S90, even the 3200 ISO images (if properly exposed) can be used to make small prints or reasonable web images! Another improvement: the S90 is much more pocketable than the S60; you really can get the S90 into a shirt or pant pocket, whereas the S60 needs a coat or jacket pocket. One last improvement: the largest maximum aperture of the S90 at the wide end (28mm) of the zoom range is f/2; the S60 only opened up to f/2.8 at 28mm.

However, that’s where the improvements end, at least in terms of what’s important to me. The lens quality and auto-focusing speed of the S90 seem no better than the S60.

I miss a *lot* of shots with these cameras that I routinely get with any of my digital SLR cameras because the former don’t focus fast enough and can’t focus on a moving target. Also, the lens quality and sensor size yield images that I would see if I were using the cheapest, crappiest third party lenses on my digital SLRs–really uninspiring.

I owned the Panasonic Lumix LX3 for a few months this past summer. Compared to the S90, the autofocus speed and lens quality on the LX3 were better, but the low light images on the S90 are much cleaner (i.e., less digital noise). One of the reasons I sold the LX3 was that it wasn’t very compact…significantly less so than the S90.

Again, however, the auto-focus speed and image quality on the LX3 were nowhere near those of my digital SLRs…even my old 20D.

In a word, I’m disappointed in the S90’s performance as I was in the LX3’s. I’m inclined, instead, to either carry my old Canon 20D around more, even though it’s obviously not as compact. Or get a cell phone with a better camera.

I currently have a Blackberry, and the camera on it is terrible…much worse than even the S60, for sure! I’ve heard all the buzz about the great camera on the iPhone (even though it’s only 3 megapixels) and, I’ll just say, I’m tempted! But I just bought the Blackberry and feel like I can’t switch to a new cell phone just yet.

In any case, it’s quite clear to me that I’m a SLR guy. To me, much of the magic in photography comes from capturing moments that exist for a split second in dynamic, changing situations.

The only exception to the “SLR rule” for me is using compact 35mm film cameras with high-quality fixed focal length lenses. They’re not great for dark indoor shots (unless you don’t mind flash photos) and not as flexible as digital (e.g., digital allows changing the ISO setting from shot to shot), but I find the results I get from using film and a high-quality lens makes it a worthwhile endeavor; many of my favorite shots of my family last summer were taken with film cameras! And a much higher percentage of my film shots were “keepers” compared to my digital captures. At the very least, the different look and feel of film photos compared to digital photos makes it worthwhile addition to my collection of family photos each year just because of the aesthetic variety it provides.

What’s the purpose of this post? Mostly, I think, it’s to tell photographers (including myself) who are endlessly searching for a pocketable, digital, point-and-shoot camera that can rival the performance and image quality of a digital SLR that it’s a time-wasting “holy grail” that you’d/I’d be better off side-stepping in favor of either: 1) making peace with carrying around a digital SLR more often and making it as convenient as possible, or 2) going back to some 35mm film photography because the payoff can be so gratifying.

Sure, I’m aware of the in-between offerings of interchangeable lens, four-thirds sensor, digital cameras from Olympus and Panasonic; but they’re just a compromise; their sensors are bigger than the digital point-and-shoot compacts, but smaller than even the APS-C size digital SLR sensors; and though their “form factor” is smaller than a digital SLR, they’re still not as pocketable as a point-and-shoot compact. And none of them–including the upcoming Leica X1 (which actually has a APS-C size sensor)–can autofocus as fast as a digital SLR, period.

So, stop searching and get out there with your SLRs and 35mm film cameras and take some pictures!…:-)

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

So, I fell *way* behind in my 2009 wedding blog postings! I photographed many great weddings in 2009, so I thought I should finally put up some of my favorites from the 2009 wedding season…:-).

Before I do that, however, I wanted to mention that I’m really looking forward to the 2010 wedding season. Why? Well, I sold off a bunch of my camera equipment in order to purchase two new pieces of equipment for 2010:

1. The new $5000 Canon 1D Mark IV digital SLR camera, which promises to be the best low-light professional digital camera Canon has *ever* made
2. A Canon 35mm f/1.4L lens…one of the best quality, low light lenses Canon has ever made

You may be noticing a theme here: Michael is really interested in camera equipment that takes great photos in low lighting. Yes!

I’ve gotten *much* better at using flash photography than when I started photographing weddings 4 years ago. I’ve also gotten quite good at using remote flashes in dark reception halls. This is all well and good and as it should be for a professional wedding photographer. The thing is, I still prefer making photos in existing light when possible.

“Existing light” is the lighting the wedding participants are actually experiencing at the ceremony and reception. When I go and trigger a flash–either one attached to the camera or a remote flash not attached to the camera–I am altering the lighting and changing the ambience or “atmosphere”, or whatever you want to call it. Also, those bright lights going off in people’s faces is quite likely altering their behavior.

Here, I think, we encounter a philosophical question: Is the goal of wedding photography to capture things as “authentically” as possible? Or is the goal to make things as easily seen as possible? I should note that the goal of making the event and the people involved look as good as possible isn’t exclusive to either of these. This latter goal may, in fact, require a mixed bag of lighting techniques, including simply using existing light.

To be totally honest, I’m usually trying for either authenticity or beauty, and am quite happy when I accomplish both simultaneously. With the exception of a short portrait session I sometimes do with the wedding couple on their wedding day, I very seldom go that extra step toward beauty (or “eye candy”) over authenticity and stage a bunch of shots where I’m dictating poses, actions, and lighting. This is not the way of wedding photojournalism and I am, in fact, primarily photojournalistic in my approach.

A camera like the Canon 1D Mark IV combined with a lens like the Canon 35mm f/1.4L gives the photographer the ability to capture images regardless of lighting conditions or movement in the image. This is Canon’s fastest focusing camera (the 1D series has always been a top-choice of sports photographers) with the highest light sensitivity of any camera made. Sure, I will still have a flash attached to it; but *using* that flash will become much more of an option than with any previous camera.

The light at the church or reception hall–or the lack thereof–will cease to be the overriding determinant of the lighting techniques I must use to capture photos. This camera plus the large aperture of the 35mm f/1.4L lens will keep lighting options open and let my sense of authenticity and/or artistry lead the way instead…:-).

Now for those 2009 Wedding Photos…

Okay, so I ended up with a *bunch* of choices from the first wedding I looked at from early in the year! I’ll have to follow-up this post with a few more in order to cover more of my 2009 weddings…:p. By the way, thanks Rachel and Stephen…:-).

During the Summer of 2009, I went through a 35mm film camera buying frenzy. After testing/using them, I’m keeping the “winners” and selling the “less than winners” (I don’t want to call them “losers”, because they were quite nice too!).

So, which ones did I pick as the “winners”? And, what made them the winners? First, let me list the 35mm film cameras I bought:

• Canon Canonet QL17 (lens: 40mm f/1.7)
• Konica Hexar (lens: 35mm f/2)
• Leica Mini II (lens: 35mm f/3.5)
• Leica Mini III (lens: 32 mm f/3.2)
• Ricoh GR1 (lens: 28mm f/2.8)
• Ricoh GR1s (lens: 28mm f/2.8)
• Yashica T4 with the 35mm f/3.5 lens

You may notice that all of these have fixed focal length (versus zoom) lenses. The best way to get a high quality lens in a “point-and-shoot” 35mm film camera is to get one with a fixed focal length lens.

Let me rank/order these cameras on a few different scales….

Physical Size (in order from largest to smallest)

1. Konica Hexar (largest)
2. Canonet QL17
3. Leica Mini II and Leica Mini III
4. Yashica T4
5. Ricoh GR1 & GR1s (smallest & most pocketable)

My Cost (most to least expensive)

1. Ricoh GR1s (most expensive: around $450)
2. Ricoh GR1
3. Konica Hexar
4. Yashica T4
5. Canonet QL17
6. Leica Mini II
7. Leica Mini III (least expensive: around $50)

Autofocus Performance (from fastest to slowest: *very* approximate!)

1. Konica Hexar
2. Leica Mini II
3. Leica Mini III
4. Yashica T4
5. Ricoh GR1 and GR1s (note: there’s a prefocused “snap focus” mode that is faster than any autofocus)
6. Canonet QL17 (slowest: doesn’t have autofocus)

General Observations

Even though I’m used to using zoom lenses on digital SLR cameras, I found I was able to become accustomed to having a fixed focal length quite quickly and could get awesome photos. Also, I found (more like “reminded myself”) I really like the look of film.

I tended to like my results using B&W film better than using color film. However, I was quite pleased with the grain structure of some of the color negative photos. Color slide film was clearly best for capturing bright colors, but the cost of processing slide film versus negative film is significantly more.

Comparative Observations

The photos I got from the Ricoh GR1s, the Leica Mini II, and the Canonet QL17 stood out the most in my “experiments”. They simply had some extra special “quality” that endeared me to the results. I should caution that this wasn’t a well-controlled comparison (I was shooting with various types of film I had available in different settings); regardless, these three stood out for me.

I was disappointed in the Yashica T4 (I actually had two different copies of it), primarily because I missed a lot of shots with it. It turns out that pressing the shutter button halfway doesn’t actually physically focus the lens; exposure readings are made and locked in, and maybe even the focus distance is locked in, but the lens doesn’t actually move into focused position. When you finally press the shutter button the rest of the way down, it physically focuses the lens and takes the picture. It’s amazing how easily you can miss shots of children and people due to their moving during this short delay! And even though the optical quality of the T4’s 35 f/3.5 lens is quite nice (you’ll hear many photographers touting it in Internet forums), I found it no better than the Leica Mini II–which also has a 35 f/3.5 lens–and the Mini II doesn’t have the T4’s pre-focus lag (i.e., it actually moves the lens into focused position when you press the shutter button down halfway).

I shot one roll with the GR1s, was blown away by the results, but then sold it because I had spent $450 on a used point-and-shoot film camera that I wasn’t going to be using for photography income! Also, I found the autofocus somewhat slow and unpredictable. I’ve since discovered I could have make the autofocus a little more predictable by changing one of the camera’s settings; but I think I would have still sold it because of the cost.

I ended up finding a cheaper GR1 which is *very* similar to the GR1s. Both are the most pocketable of all the film cameras I bought; so I’m holding onto the GR1 for now. I need to experiment with the snap focus mode to get past the reservations I have about its slow autofocusing.

Because I liked the Leica Mini II, I had high hopes for the Leica Mini III, which had a slightly wider and faster fixed lens…and which I also picked up for a *great* price. However, it focusses a little more slowly than the Mini II (it’s not a *huge* difference, but there’s definitely a difference), and the subjective quality of the photos isn’t quite as nice as those I got with the Mini II. There’s nothing wrong with the photos I got with the Mini III, they just weren’t quite as rich or deep or…something like that!

Even though the Konica Hexar is kind of large for a point-and-shoot, it’s solid and focuses faster than any of the rest of these cameras! I only ran one roll of film through it and got mixed results (the film didn’t work well in the high constrast lighting conditions) . However, some of the photos were quite awesome, so I’m sticking with it for another few rolls…:-).

The last of the group I’m keeping is the manual focus Canonet QL17. It’s not particularly small or light–and it doesn’t autofocus–but:

• it feels good/solid in your hands
• having to manually focus it really keeps you “in the moment”
• it’s got the fastest lens of all of these cameras (f/1.7)
• the images I shot on the one roll of B&W film I ran through it definitely had a special “quality” to them

So–for now–I’m keeping the Ricoh GR1, Leica Mini II, Canonet QL17, and the Konica Hexar. The rest have either been sold or are currently being sold by me at eBay.

If you’ve had experiences with any of these “point-and-shoot” 35mm film cameras–or some I haven’t mentioned–please feel free to share your experiences in the comment section below…:-).

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

Photography, especially photojournalistic wedding photography, requires a significant amount of physical stamina and prowess.

This past wedding season, I was somewhat plagued with back problems. It was fairly evident that carrying 2-3 cameras–as I had been the previous season–was taking its toll on my back.

Why hadn’t I had these back problems the previous wedding season? Of course, I was one year older and I could have blamed it on age. One more year added to my 40+ year old body, though, shouldn’t have made *that* huge a difference!

I think the more likely cause was that early in 2009, my home workout equipment broke down and I didn’t replace it. I still exercised *some*, but definitely at a reduced level.

The physical strength and stamina that had easily carried me through 8-10+ hour long wedding days was waning toward the end of weddings. I was experiencing physical and emotional/mental lows during receptions. And halfway through the wedding season, my lower back went out and made weddings even more physically grueling.

Instead of going right out and replacing my exercise equipment at that point (partially because I didn’t attribute my physical problems to reduced physical stamina and strength), I tried taking one of the cameras off my shoulders and sticking it into a “holster” on my belt (I have this padded belt to which I can fasten pouches and cases to hold lenses).

Getting this weight off of my shoulders helped significantly. It worked great for the two weddings I did right after my back went out. At the very next wedding, however, I had problems with the camera falling out of the holster; it happened 3 times…once on the concrete right in front of the hotel where the bride was getting ready! Luckily, the camera and lenses survived the three falls.

Well, that was near the end of the wedding season and I never did find a good solution to having the second camera on my belt. (I’ve since heard of fellow wedding photographer in my area coming up with a novel solution to this problem which I hope to learn more about and perhaps report on in a future blog post.)

Even if I do find a good solution, having too much equipment hanging at your waist–even while much easier on the back–makes you “wider” and less able to get around crowded reception rooms without banging your camera or lenses into the wedding guests seated and standing around the reception room!

So, why don’t I just eschew the 2-3 cameras and carry only one?! For the very reason I worked up to carrying 2-3 around in the first place!–to cover wide, normal, and telephoto ranges simultaneously with high-quality constant f/2.8 zoom lenses and prime lenses.

Ever notice that no high-quality constant f/2.8 zoom lens–or even a constant f/4 zoom lens–covers the whole gamut?? Sure, there are consumer grade zoom lenses with variable, smaller than f/2.8 maximum apertures that can cover the equivalent of 28 or 24mm to 200 or 300mm (35mm full-frame equivalent). But the combination of their lower quality optics, slower autofocusing, and smaller maximum apertures makes them inadequate for non-flash indoor wedding photography in those all-too-common dark churches and reception halls…and I *like* to photograph as much as I can without flash, or at least without direct flash.

Even the Canon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS, although professional “L” grade, doesn’t engage full operation of Canon’s higher end DSLR autofocusing systems…*that* is reserved for lenses with f/2.8 maximum apertures and larger. So, this lens may be okay for outdoor weddings; but you need all the help you can get for lowly lit indoor affairs!

Ultimately, then, you’ve got three choices as a professional wedding photographer:

1. Photograph with more than one camera and put different lenses on them so you can simultaneously capture people and events happening from both a wide and close-up perspective as needed.
2. Photograph with one camera and multiple available lenses and try to *anticipate* which lens you’ll need to capture the key moments. And whenever you’ve got the wrong lens for the moment, shake it off and try to anticipate the best lens for the next key moment.
3. Photograph with one camera and one lens–either per stage of the wedding or for the whole day–and totally commit to that one perspective and make the most of it.

I should note that, of course, it’s easier to commit to a one camera and one lens strategy–or even a one camera + multiple lenses perspective–if you’re working with a second photographer who is covering a different perspective with a different lens!

Regardless, let’s look at the strengths and weaknesses of each of these strategies.

In the past, I have tended to go with the first strategy: photograph with multiple cameras and lenses simultaneously. This strategy is the “safest”, but certainly comes with some potential problems:

1. the weight can take a physical toll that may affect the quality of the photography and the photographer’s emotional and physical well-being
2. decreases photographer’s mobility in a crowded space, which can lead to missed shots
3. can lead to missed shots while changing between cameras that occasionally get tangled or whose settings get bumped and altered while not in use

The second strategy (photographing with one camera + multiple lenses) helps to ameliorate some of the negative aspects of the first strategy: especially in terms of physical toll, mobility, and missed shots due to tangled or altered settings on the camera not currently being used. However, you’re still carrying around extra equipment (multiple lenses), which is still having some impact on physical energy, mobility, and missed shots while changing between those lenses.

To me, the third strategy (one camera, one lens) is the “holy grail” of a seasoned wedding photographer. I’ve heard some wedding photographers discuss how they photographed a whole wedding with a 24-70 f/2.8 zoom lens. That’s not bad. However, a more impressive move would be to photograph a whole wedding with a single prime lens and do an awesome job of it!

At a more realistic level, one could “cheat” a little on the third strategy to take away some of the riskiness of it. First, instead of committing to one lens for the entire wedding day, you could commit to one lens per stage of the event (e.g,. one for getting ready, one for the ceremony, one for group formals, and one for the reception). I’m often in my car between stages where I could swap out my lens for the next stage. Second, carrying one other lens in a small camera bag on your back can help to hedge your bets and/or give you an appropriate lens for the next stage if you can’t get back to your car,,,without limiting your mobility significantly or adding a significant amount of additional weight.

I’m still working my way from Strategy One (multiple cameras, multiple lenses) to Strategy Three (one camera, one lens), but I’ve still decided to finally replace my home workout equipment anyway…

…because, well, it’s always good to hedge your bets, right?…;-).

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

Just a quick post showing the size of the Canon S90 compared to my previous smallest (most pocketable) camera, the 35mm film Ricoh GR1:

Now, how about a quick comparison with the 5 megapixel Canon Powershot S60, which I also own:

The S90 is clearly thinner and more pocketable than its predecessor, the S60.

The S90 turns out to be *very* similar in thickness/depth to the Ricoh GR1 (35mm film camera…which fits nicely into a front jean pocket, for example); but it’s quite a bit smaller in the width and (especially) length dimension versus the GR1.

All in all, I’d say the S90 is clearly the most pocketable. Now, how “usable” is such a small digital camera? More on that later…

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.