Category Archives Updates

NOTE: New photo feature—once you’re at the larger view, if you move your cursor over the photo, a “NEXT” button appears on the top right side, so you can jump to the next image in the set without having to open and close each one individually. If you move your cursor over the left side, a PREVIOUS button appears. My thanks to Fred for adding this! :-)











Howdy folks. I’m a bit under the weather (just a cold), so I’ll keep it short and sweet:

  • John Hubb, one of my readers, sent me this article from the UK’s Gaurdian newspaper called “Are photographers really a threat?” and it’s worth the quick read. (Here’s the link).
  • After I posted the NAPP discount on the Epson 1900, I saw a number of comments about the 1900 itself, and more specifically how it compared to the considerably more expensive Epson 3800. Lots of readers jumped in with some really great info (which is one of the things I love about this blog), but there was one thing I didn’t see anyone mention as a comparison, and that is; the 3800 makes up to 17″x22″ prints, whereas the 1900 only does up to 13″x19″ prints. Anyway, I hope that helps.
  • MD (another reader) sent this link to National Geographic’s online Photo tips. You can check them out right here.
  • Check out the video clip below, from USA Today’s Technology Writers Jefferson Graham, and Ed Baig, who host the technology podcast “USA Today Talking Tech.” They start this episode of their show with Ed asking Jefferson what the are first blogs he goes to each morning, and I’m incredibly honored that he included “The Photoshop Insider” among his first stops each day. Watch the video below to see their other favorite blogs picks (and more).

[kml_flashembed movie="" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

That’s it for this week folks. Lots to share next week! Have a really great weekend, have some fun shooting, keep intimidating those pixels, and we’ll see you back here on Monday. Ciao!


First though, a big thanks to David Ziser for this wonderful post yesterday. I am such of fan of David’s work and his ability to pass on what he’s learned in the way he does, and it was an honor to have him here on the blog. Each special guest blogger has total free rein to write about any topic that’s on their minds, so it’s always a treat for me to see what they come up with.OK, now on to the story: I meant to actually write about this a few weeks back, when I was in New York for the Lou Manna Workshop and my B&H Photo class, but it completely slipped my mind (embarrassing stories have a way of doing that).

Anyway, RC Concepcion and I were to meet our buddy Matt Kloskowski the following evening for a shoot in New York, and we wanted to shoot some panos of the Manhattan skyline. RC heard of this nice view of Manhattan from across the river in Hoboken, New Jersey, where there was this long pier extending out into the river, so we went to check it out. When we got there, it looked empty enough at sunset, and far out enough that I didn’t think we’d have “The tripod police” ascend on us the following night (and thankfully, they didn’t).

So, we did our homework; we scouted the location the night before, and the following day we were ready for the shoot. Well got there 45 minutes early to get set-up and in place for that magic few minutes when the buildings reflect the setting sun, and turn that wonderful gold color you see in many great city skyline photos. RC couldn’t find a decent parking space tonight, so he dropped Matt and I off to go get set-up, which we did, and we were all set-up in place; we had the right lenses, our tripods, cable releases, etc.

Here comes the light!
I could see we were literally just minutes from that great light, and RC was still circling for a parking spot. So, I thought I’d crank off a few shots to kind of dial in the basic exposure and composition before the “magic light” hit because I’d only have a few minutes (and I was hoping RC would even get to see it). I went to push the shutter button and it wouldn’t fire. I looked at my LCD info window on the top of my camera and it said, “E” (no memory card). I had taken it out in my hotel room and forgot to put it back in for this shoot.

Now, this type of thing happens to me in more instances than I’d care to admit, but luckily Matt was five feet from with with a backpack full of gear, so I asked Matt if I could borrow a memory card. Matt had that frozen look on his face, and he said, “Oh no—-I don’t have an empty card. In fact, I only have the card in the camera, and it’s full of shots of my niece’s confirmation from this morning, and I haven’t backed them up yet, so I can’t shoot either.” So, there we were, Matt trying to free up a few empty shots by deleting and editing in the camera, and me looking on without a card altogether.

Matt and I were standing there futzing with all of this as we watched the magic light come and go without even firing a single frame. RC came up a few minutes later, and in true RC fashion—he had two empty cards for Matt and I, and within a few minutes there we were; three guys, shooting one of the world’s most recognizable skylines, with totally average “whatever” light, and we came away with the same average “whatever” shots that the tourists standing beside us probably got.

Now, none of us got the least bit mad—in fact, Matt and I just had to shake our heads and laugh, and we joked at the time, “Well, at least there’s a ‘School of Hard Knocks’ post there, that might help somebody else from making the same mistake.” However, we were able to console ourselves by going to Carmine’s on W. 44th street for an amazing dinner, and lots of laughs (mostly at ourselves).

The Moral of the Story:
So, the moral of the story is; use a pre-shoot checklist—a reminder list of what to bring to the shoot, and keep it in your camera bag, so you can check it before you head out the door. Also, if you’ve got any of your own checklists or ideas that you’d like to share here, please feel free. Oh, by the way; I had another episode this week, but you’ll have to wait for next week for that one.

Have a great Thursday everybody!

……one of the most prolific photography bloggers out there, one of
the finest instructors in our industry, and one of the most celebrated
wedding photographers anywhere–the amazing David Ziser.

If you haven’t already, jump over to David’s “Digital ProTalk” blog
(here’s the link) to learn a little more about his work, then be sure
to come back here tomorrow to catch his post (I read it today and it’s
excellent–and while it is about wedding photography, any working pro
in any photography field will get something out of it).


We just worked out a special deal with Epson, where NAPP members can get $75 off Epson’s Stylus Photo R1900 13″x19″ wide color photo printer (which is pretty sweet, considering a one-year membership to NAPP membership itself is only $99).

The details (and the special discount code), are found on the NAPP member Website, in the Discounts section (the direct links are on the member home page), but beyond that, Matt Kloskowski did three videos for members on how to use the printer, and so you can see if it’s right for you.

The big thing about the R1900 is the quality of its glossy prints (which some claim gives the best quality glossy prints of any printer, thanks to its Ultrachrome High Gloss 2 Ink set), but it prints on virtually any paper, and you can use roll sheets, you can print borderless, and you can even print on CDs.

The R1900 is also the fastest printer in its class, even when using the high-quality settings (in fact, and this is weird; it’s best performance is actually achieved when you use the highest quality settings).

So, is this printer for you? It’s for three types of users: (1) Pros that love glossy prints (2) Small graphic design shops and graphic designers, and (3) Advanced amateur photographers.

One last thing: this limited time offer is available from either B&H Photo (if you have the member Promo Code), or directly from the Epson Online Store (again, you’ll need to use the direct link on the member Web site), which has all the details, and Matt’s videos. Thanks to Epson for making this deal available to our members!

So sorry for the late post today; more on why next week: I had a number of questions from the past week or so (on the Ring Flash review and other stuff as well) that I thought I’d address to get this week rolling. Here we go:

Q. I think the Ring Flash looks kind of harsh. Do you really like this look?
A. Honestly, I’m not a big fan of the Ring Flash look. In fact, my buddy Matt Kloskowski and I were just talking about how we weren’t crazy about the flat look it gives. and that it is kind of hot and harsh. Now, that being said; please don’t judge the effect of Ring Flash by the first time I really gave it a go—it takes practice (and I probably wouldn’t use it as my only light, as I did in the shots you saw last week–I use it as more of a fill). So, why am I buying one? Because despite the fact that I personally don’t like the look, it is the “hot” look in fashion right now, so I figured I’d better get up to speed on it so I can answer questions about it from my readers, and the only way to get good at any of this is to practice, practice, practice. So, hopefully I’ll be able to post some shots I like much better once I get to do just that.

Q. Do you get red eye from using a flash so close to the lens like this?
A. I sure did. Not on every shot mind you, but there were a handful of shots that had red eye.

Q. Isn’t $299 a lot to pay for a plastic adapter?
A. Yup. I thought the same thing when I paid $400+ for a 1-inch by 1-inch memory card made of plastic. It’s not the material it’s made out of that matters; it’s what it does that really matters. If it gives you a ring flash look, in a lightweight, easy-to-use solution; then it works. I think it’s probably ideal for anyone shooting ring-flash here-and-there, but of course, if you think ring-flash is your future, you might want to spend the money and get a higher-end unit.

Q. Do you think it costs too much for what it is?
A. Do I think $299 is the “right” price for the unit? No. I think it’s a bit over-priced, but the market will determine if their price is really “right”. If you see them drop the price, or start to offer rebates, etc. you’ll know the original price was too high. Personally, I think the “right” price would be between $149 and $199, and at that price I think they’d sell three times as many, but that’s easy for me to say—I have no idea what their arrangement with the UK manufacturer is; or how they’re selling, etc. If they’re selling like hotcakes at $299, expect the price to stay the same or go up. Again, the market will decide if the price is right, but if you’re asking me; $199 would be the sweet spot for starters.

Q. Is there any problem mounting the Ray Flash to a Canon flash?
A. None whatsoever. In fact, David (the Ray Flash Demo Guy), used a Canon 580 EX II for his demo, and it didn’t even need the little wedge thingy, like the Nikon’s do.

Now–on to other “Non-Ring Flash” Topics:

Q. What software do you use for your Blog?
A. I use WordPress, which seems to work just great, but I’m no WordPress expert. I am very thankful to have an excellent Web team behind me, in particular the wonderful Fred Maya, who customized the original template for me, and adds the plug-ins I need. I don’t know much “under the hood” stuff about WordPress, so I’m not going to be much more help than that, but you can learn more at the WordPress site (click here).
Q. What do you use for your picture header. Is that some sort of Plugin for WP?

A. It’s a plug-in Fred found for me. I really like it, but I run into people all the time and didn’t realize you can click on the little arrow in the lower right corner to expand the image downward. That kind of drives me nuts, but other that that—I think it’s pretty cool.

Q. I subscribe to many of the Photoshop World instructor blogs and I noticed that everyone “mattes” their photos differently. By “digital matting” I mean adding the extra space around the photo itself and usually includes adding a stroke to the photo to separate it from that space. I have experimented with many different kinds of digital mattes most of which I learned from your or Matt’s classes at Photoshop World in Orlando but not sure how to determine if a specific matte is appropriate for a specific photo. Is there a rhyme or reason behind the different formats of the matte and colors or is it all personal preference?
A. For me; it’s personal preference, and I usually go with a white matte, but then again, it always depends on the photo. If I add the matte in white, and it doesn’t look right, then I switch to black, and that’ll usually do the trick.

Q. If you add a digital signature to your “digital matte” does that make it a “signed print”?
A. If I sell a print, I always sign it by hand, and I think you should, but that’s just me—there are probably arguments on both sides. If I output the print myself, then I add an “A/P” on the bottom, on the opposite side of my signature, indicating that it’s an “Artist Print.”

Q. Scott, now that Lightroom 2.0 Beta has been out for a bit. How about an assessment against your wish list. As a participant in the forum, it would be nice to see your assessment of what they got right.
A. I’ve been kind of holding out for the final shipping version to be released. If Lightroom 1.0 was any indication; remember how they added additional features in the full release that weren’t there in the final public beta? I’m waiting until they ship the final version to see if that happens again, then I’ll give a blow-by-blow of how the features stack up with my very long wish list.

Q. Scott. If it won’t get you into too much trouble with sponsors, what do you think is the best digital camera under $2,500, body only? I want to take up photography for the first time. So far, from what I’ve seen, the D300 looks best.
A. My opinion is, of course, going to be biased because I’m a Nikon shooter, and I bought the D300 (no, Nikon didn’t give me one), so I think that pretty much tells you where I’m at. I think the D300 smokes, especially for the money, and (Nikon will hate me for saying this), I think it’s FAR superior to the Nikon D2Xs which was selling for around $5,000, body only, at the time the D300 came out (in fact, I sold my Nikon D2Xs after having my D300 for about two weeks). So, D300—that’s what I’d recommend to a friend (and have in many instances, and have gotten nothing but love in return).

Q. As long as I’m making long shot requests, the best indoor people lens that’s still fairly versatile for under $1,000.
A. If you want to shoot people indoors; I’m assuming you mean in natural light, in which case you’ll want a “fast” lens (meaning one that can shoot in lower light situations, like an f/2.8 lens), this is tougher, because there’s so many ways to go. I like the compression of a longer lens, so I shoot a lot of people with my 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, but if I want a wider portrait (like more of an editorial look), I use my 17-55mm f/2.8 VR lens. I also have the new 24-70mm f/2.8 lens that came out when the D3 came out, but I haven’t had a chance to try it with the D300, because one of my friends dropped it (accidentally of course) and it killed the lens; four days after I got it (the friend shall remain nameless, because you would know who it is, and I will spare him the shame—-oh the shame—-etc., blah, blah, blah). So, I guess it’s up to what kind of portraits you like to take, but I can tell you for the most part; if I was walking out the door and could only take one lens, it would probably be the 70-200mm f/2.8 (it’s not cheap, and it’s not lightweight, and it’s not small either. In fact, everything about it is bad; expect for the wonderfully crisp images it delivers). Hope that helps.

Well, that’s it for now. Sorry for the late posting. I’ve been struggling with Internet issues (more on this next week), but for now, have a great day (or what’s left of it anyway).