two by three

Betting the farm

2011-10-13T23:39:00.000-07:00

This month John Borstel, one of our Photoworks faculty, extended the opportunity to participate in a project by his colleague Cassie Meador called The Hand You're Dealt. As part of a larger project, each photographer was sent a random playing card and asked to incorporate it in a photograph. I got the Ace of Clubs.

Coincidentally, a road trip this month took me through some farm towns where I was struck by how hardscrabble life looks for small farmers. And I don't think it's just the recession. For city people like me, the small family farm is a symbol of stability and idyllic country life. But in harsh reality farming is also a gamble, staking hard work against weather, crops, markets, and loan rates. It's a gamble that spans generations and is often lost.

I took a few photos with the playing card on the trip but they weren't very interesting on their own, so I decided to make one of the prints part of a scene entitled Betting the Farm (One More Year). I don't usually do this kind of studio/staged work so it was a fun experiment. Playing cards relate to both gambling and fortune telling, and there are elements of both in the scene, which is obviously a bit unreal. The tension in the hands contrasts with the mundanity of the setting -- the farmer's life includes both, the big gamble and the monotonous labor of getting through another year.

Exhibits | Flash 2011

2011-03-04T19:51:00.000-08:00

This year I participated in FotoQuest, which is a great opportunity provided by FotoWeek DC to present a portfolio to curators drawn from area museums and media organizations. I'm excited that five of my images were selected to hang in the resulting Flash show in Crystal City, March 17-April 17.

The opening reception is March 18, 8-11 pm, and the exhibit is at 2450 Crystal Drive on the 12th and 13th floors. The exhibit is five works from five photographers selected by five curators -- 125 images total, so there should be lots to keep you interested. Hope to see you there!

Photos | A fairy tale, revisited

2011-02-20T21:12:00.000-08:00

Today I came across a set of photos from the Spring of 2009 and decided to re-edit them. The photos are from a rainy day at the little "Maerchenparadies" (fairy tale paradise) for children on the mountain overlooking Heidelberg. Because of the rain the park was pretty much empty, and the rain also made my original edit of the photos contrasty and wet with the punchy colors you get on a rainy day.

Almost two years later my attitude toward these images has changed. I edited them to be more neutral, to stand off more, to be a little faded like photos from a long ago holiday. I went back to the originals, in some cases chose some wider angles, in a couple of cases picked an image I didn't pick originally.

A photographer's view of their own images can maybe never be objective (not that anyone else's is), but it does change over time. Re-editing the images is a little like re-visiting the place and, as a different person, taking slightly different photos. Back before 2009 I have photo sets that I don't think I could edit today at all, because the images are so different from what I would shoot if I were there today.

Photos | Elevations, revisited

2011-02-05T09:58:00.000-08:00

In assembling a portfolio for FOTOQuest this week I took the opportunity to revisit last year's Elevations theme. In looking through my new images from 2010 I could see that this theme had had started to drive a lot of my shooting. Here's the artist statement for the new set:

An elevation is an architectural drawing of the outside of a building, illustrating the proportions of its facade. The drawing is an orthographic projection (onto imaginary ground glass) of a structure that does not yet exist. It is a representation of intent that orders the reality that will be constructed, but its idealized perspective will not be experienced in life.

In the reverse process, the camera flattens four dimensional experience to a two dimensional image that is true, yet unreal. By virtue of their unreality, their inability to get past the surface of things, photographs can demonstrate an order that is present but not apparent in life. In a further sense of the word “elevate”, the photograph can frame an ordinary scene as an illustration of symmetry, pattern, hierarchy, symbols, and other forms of order.

View flickr slideshow

Photos | Elevations

2010-02-13T10:38:00.000-08:00

Photography (I'm finding) is partly a process of making images (fairly intuitively) and then struggling to assign meaning to images and groups of images. It's not that the "meaning" (whatever that means) is "made up" after the fact, it's that articulating it and presenting it coherently is a struggle.

That's been very much the case for these photos I call "elevations", which I've been taking for a couple of years but hadn't really wrapped my head around. So here are some of the images, and an attempt to justify them:

In architecture, an elevation is a drawing of the outside of a building as a flat surface, without perspective lines, as if viewed from an infinite distance. An elevation shows the proportions and measurements of a facade. Like a photograph, it shows an order that will never be directly experienced, but adds to our understanding (and sense of control) of an unfamiliar subject.

Photography is not a process of passively absorbing and recording visual order; as photographers we impose an order, and the order we impose is founded in learned aesthetic norms: symmetry, rhythm, proportion, orthogonality. If a line is level, it's because it should be level; if a line is skewed, it's skewed by reference to a level line.

Photography can be used remarkably effectively to imagine or recall a place or experience. But in these images, the camera is a tool for imposing order; it provides a level of control over an unfamiliar environment (as well as an excuse to be there). Though they leave no trace behind, these photographs are a way for an outsider to impose order and gain control. They are neither experiential nor documentary.

Like an architectural elevation, each of these images is an artificial view; they're personal, but through strong formal elements they amplify the detachment that the camera always interposes, preventing us from ever fully recreating an experience or truly documenting something. This is reinforced by orthogonal perspectives, strong lines, rigid framing, simple or complex symmetries, and figural or symbolic treatment of subjects.

View flickr slideshow

Exhibit | Edward Burtynsky: Oil

2009-10-18T16:20:00.000-07:00

Photo: Edward Burtynsky

This afternoon I saw the new Edward Burtynsky exhibit at the Corcoran Gallery here in Washington DC. This is a very memorable exhibit and I'm reminded once again how lucky we are to have the Corcoran and Paul Roth working to bring large-scale contemporary photography exhibits to DC.

The exhibit consists of about 55 landscapes, most of them very large prints (four feet or more on a side). Many are aerial shots (taken from a helicopter) and these are hung fairly low so the viewer can really "step into" the image and float above the landscapes.

The theme of the exhibit is oil, from its extraction and refinement to its use, its effect on our built environment and culture, and its eventual residue in the form of waste products and derelict infrastructure. The theme is strong enough that even someone with no interest in photography would enjoy the exhibit; it would make a great introduction to one kind of contemporary photography.

Although the theme is potentially political, Burtynsky produces images with no visible sense of irony, condescension, or call to action. This is not to say that the images are purely "documentary"; rather, they convey the photographer's sense of awe at the sheer scale of both grandeur and folly found in these human-made industrial and urban landscapes. I get the sense that Burtynsky would approach an aerial photo of an oil refinery vs. Niagara Falls -- or of a school of fish vs. a trash heap -- with much the same reverence and attention to detail.

The exhibit shows the power of large format photography to "make real" information that we know as statistics (so many billion barrels of oil, etc.) but can't really grasp. It reminded me a bit of Chris Jordan's use of large photorealistic images to convey large numbers. But the longer I look at Burtynsky's photos, the more the scale and repetitive detail (of both the human artifacts represented and the photos themselves) overwhelms my comprehension and leaves me feeling like I'm looking at a natural force.

In the end, I can no more really comprehend what's going on here than I can comprehend leaves in a forest or grains of sand on a beach. At a certain scale -- at the scale of these landscapes -- the human-made, no matter how repulsive, starts to look organic again. A quarry in the foreground mirrors a mountain in the background, with an encrustation of subarban houses between them.

There's also much to see and admire in terms of technique in Burtynsky's photos. For example, the aerial photos show slightly selective focus that pops out the crisper foreground, lets the every-so-slightly-more-blurred background recede, and adds enormously to the depth of the images. In other shots the focus is perfectly even, as in a landscape of discarded tires that seems to rise up to swamp the viewer (even though it is actually receding) because the most distant tires are as sharp as the closest. In some shots the desert is so beautifully lit and exposed that one can almost ignore that it's infested with oil pumps; in another shot the sea and sky are so similar in tone that an oil platform almost floats in mid-air.

I would call it a must-see. But if you can't make it by December 13, these images are also available in Burtynsky's latest book, not yet release on Amazon but available in the Corcoran bookstore along with several of his other books (including Manufactured Landscapes).

Exhibit details

Tech | Choosing a digital camera (DSLR)

2009-09-21T21:04:00.000-07:00

Recently lots of people seem to be asking me, "what digital camera should I buy?" So here's a summary of my advice on digital SLRs. This assumes that you've already decided to buy a DSLR, and not a compact digital camera, for any of the following reasons:

You'd like to be able to switch lenses and possibly upgrade your lenses later
You want faster focus and operation for moving subjects such as children or sports
DSLRs produce higher quality images for larger prints, especially in low light

There are several companies making DSLRs today (Canon, Fujifilm, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, Sony) and all told they offer about 30-40 models of DSLR. Where to begin?

In this post I'll focus on just the two leading manufacturers, Canon and Nikon. Other companies make some perfectly good DSLRs, but it makes sense to stick with the leaders because they offer the widest range of cameras and compatible lenses, release new cameras frequently, and compete closely with each other on features and price. (You can always take the advice offered here and apply it to other manufacturers' offerings.)

Canon and Nikon both offer a range of DSLRs from entry level to professional. Let's look at four basic categories of camera from each manufacturer:

Entry level: This is the most affordable DSLR in the range. An entry level DSLR is a significant step up from any compact digital camera. If you want a capable camera, but photography is not your main hobby or your job, then an entry level DSLR will give you the most bang for your buck. You can get started with a camera and a lens for about $500.
Enthusiast: Each manufacturer makes a number of progressively more advanced models for people who enjoy photography as a hobby and are interested in specific features. This category contains the most camera models. Prices range from $500 to $1,700 for the camera body (without lens).
Full frame: A "full frame" camera has a sensor the same size as a 35mm film frame. This means that the photographer can take full advantage of the same lenses used on professional cameras, especially wide angle lenses. If you need this capability, you know who you are. Prices are around $2,500 to $3,200.
Professional: These cameras are designed for full time photojournalists and studio photographers. They are more durable, weatherproof, and capable. Prices are around $5,000 to $7,500.

So let's look at the current lineup of Canon and Nikon cameras in these categories in more detail, as of September 2009:

Entry level cameras

The entry level DSLRs from Canon and Nikon are:

Canon 1000D: 10 megapixels, has live view; about $500.
Nikon D3000: 10 megapixels, no live view; about $500.

Both of these cameras are great value for money and a big step up from comparably priced compact cameras.

My advice: if you have no specific interest in photography as a serious hobby or profession, you have no reason to look beyond this category. 10 megapixels are sufficient for prints at least up to 12"x18". And unless you can invest real effort in learning and practice, a better camera won't make you a better photographer.

Enthusiast cameras

The enthusiast DSLRs from Canon are:

Canon 500D: 15 megapixels; adds 14-bit files, 920k pixel display, and depth of field preview; about $700.
Canon 50D: adds a pentaprism and 6.3 fps shooting; about $1,000.
Canon 7D: 18 megapixels, 8fps, and better pentaprism; about $1,700.

The enthusiast DSLRs from Nikon are:

Nikon D5000: 13 megapixels; adds live view; about $600.
Nikon D90: adds a pentaprism, 920k pixel display, and depth of field preview; about $900.
Nikon D300: adds 14-bit files and 6 fps; about $1,700.

Some of the features these cameras have to offer are: moreresolution (15 or 18 megapixels); greater bit depth for more shadow detail (14-bit filesinstead of 12-bit files from an entry level camera); a more detaileddisplay screen (with 920,000 pixels instead of the 230,000 in an entrylevel camera); a bigger brighter viewfinder (pentaprism instead of pentamirror); a button for depth of field preview; and fastershooting for moving subjects such as sports (6.3 or 8 frames per secondinstead of about 3 in an entry level camera). Of course there are other feature differences between these cameras that may be more important to you.

My advice: the capabilities are actually pretty similar despite the significant price differences, so don't get sucked into spending two or three times as much on a camera, just for one or two features. Also, be aware that to get the full benefit of resolution over 15 megapixels, you'll need professional quality lenses in the $1,000 range.

Full frame cameras

The full frame, non-professional DSLRs from Canon and Nikon are:

Canon 5D Mark II: 21 megapixels, 4 fps, up to ISO 25,600; about $3,200.
Nikon D700: 12 megapixels, 5 fps, up to ISO 25,600; about $2,500.

Because of their larger sensors, these cameras perform better in low light. They exhibit less noise at high ISO and can shoot up to ISO 25,600 (although ISO 3,200 is the practical upper limit for most purposes).

My advice: this category is worth the extra cost if (but only if) you know your specific style of photography will benefit from the greater access to lenses that it brings -- specifically, if you need the highest quality wide angle lenses -- or if you make extensive use of selective focus. And if you plan to make money from your photography, this category is a bargain compared to professional cameras with similar capabilities.

Professional cameras

If you need a professional camera, you know who you are and you don't need this guide. But just for comparison, here are three professional cameras from Canon and Nikon:

Nikon D3: 12 megapixels, 9 fps; about $5,000.
Canon 1DS Mark III: 21 megapixels, 5 fps; about $6,100.
Nikon D3X: 24 megapixels, 5 fps; about $7,500.

Sources

DPReview has the most detailed reviews and a camera database for Canon and Nikon
Canon web site
Nikon web site

More guidance from other sites:

Photos | India in motion

2009-09-16T16:36:00.000-07:00

Sometimes it's helpful to set some images aside and come back to them a while later. In January 2008 I was in India and took a lot of photos that I thought of as "just travel photos" at the time.

In reviewing them now I'm struck by how different they are from my other photography. But I can also see that they should be different. For a "Western" visitor, India is a very "different" place in so many ways. Historically, culturally, religiously -- those are obvious. But less expected is the pace.

As a visitor to India you tend to start out in cities. And those cities are far more dense and vibrant than any Western city I can think of. As Joe said, after being in Mumbai, you go to Manhattan and wonder, "where is everyone?" Just stepping out onto the sidewalk in the morning, the sense of activity is nearly overwhelming at first. Learning to cross the street is an adventure.

So it makes sense that I would end up with a lot of images about motion. Quite a few of them were even taken in motion, from car windows. Obviously we visited quiet and contemplative places in India too. But these pictures of India in motion are what really stands out to me from the trip.

View flickr slideshow

Photos | Counter-typologies

2009-09-15T17:58:00.000-07:00

In 2008 I had the great good fortune to see Bernd and Hilla Becher's exhibit "Landscape/Typology" at the Museum of Modern Art in NYC. I was fascinated by the formal beauty, rigor, and dedication that these images showed. As so often happens, this exhibit made me look at things in a new way and I started to see patterns around me that I hadn't paid much attention to, especially in the shape of residential houses.

In some neighborhoods, especially during the housing boom of the 1950s and 60s, nearly all the homes were built at the same time and from just a few floor plans. If you walk around such a neighborhood, you can clearly see the original cookie-cutter designs, but they are gradually overlaid with modifications made by successive owners.

I call these "counter-typologies" because whereas a typology shows commonalities among things that were created independently, these photos show the divergent evolution of things that were exactly the same to start with. Each home bears the imprint of generations of people who have tried in their own (usually terribly mundane) way to make their home comfortable and different.

Duplexes (freestanding houses containing two homes side by side) show this evolution most clearly because they set the differing tastes of two neighbors immediately next to each other, with just an imaginary dividing line between.

View flickr slideshow

Photos | Photographic sketches

2009-09-13T18:32:00.000-07:00

In August I saw Philip Trager's exhibit at the National Building Museum and was especially struck by a handful of his prints that show interior spaces rendered like a pencil sketch. By taking a photo with a range of low contrast tones and pushing it to be "high key", Trager achieves an effect that, from a distance, looks hand drawn.

I was inspired to go back to some images from last year to see if I could get a similar effect. These photos are from inside the Se Cathedral in Goa, India, which is a large whitewashed space filled with diffuse, mellow light. Sketched against the walls are a few shapes -- ladders, ropes, and decorative mouldings.

Granted, these aren't going to "fool" anyone for more than a second (though the effect is a little stronger when they're printed on matte paper). But it's still interesting to think about what makes us recognize an image as a photograph. Today's photographic "look" evolved through the 20th century to become contrasty, smooth, glossy, three-dimensional, and (for color photography) vibrant. When we take away most of these characteristics, we're left with something that, although clearly photorealistic, doesn't "feel" quite like a photo.

View the flickr slideshow

Exhibit | Camilo José Vergara: Storefront Churches

2009-09-13T17:35:00.000-07:00

Photo: Camilo José Vergara.

The theme of this lovely exhibit at the National Building Museum is urban buildings that have been adapted into churches, which the photographer has documented in many cities for over thirty years.

As the photographer points out, these churches are often some of the longest-lasting buildings in their neighborhoods; their congregations remain as surrounding buildings are repurposed or demolished. One particularly striking series in the exhibit shows a small storefront church that stays in place as surrounding buildings rise and fall for over twenty years. The church itself goes through changes as well as it's repainted and remodeled.

Beyond the church buildings themselves, Vergara dives into the rich signage and symbols outside and inside, as well as providing some portraits of church leaders. The churches are signed with long names and often fascinating texts that reflect their position as self-declared bulwarks of peace in often troubled neighborhoods. Some of the more fundamentalist signage has an ominous tone that is reflected in Vergara's dark, saturated, slightly spooky prints. Some of the signage also expresses an obsessive, relentless religious tone that is not completely unlike the photographer's unforgiving pursuit of these sites over several decades.

This is a rich, multi-faceted documentary project and definitely an inspiration for other documentarians.

Vergara has a book on this series as well.

Exhibit details

Exhibit | Richard Ross: Architecture of Authority

2009-09-13T17:17:00.000-07:00

Photo: Richard Ross, “Communication with Others Room,” Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Homeland Security, San Francisco, California.

In August I had the chance to see this terrific exhibit at the National Building Museum. In this series, Richard Ross shows us architectural spaces that express the authority exercised over us by governments and institutions. The spaces depicted range from prisons to schools to government meeting halls.

The first thing I appreciated about this exhibit was the large size of the prints. It's always nice to see photographs displayed at the scale of paintings, two by two feet and up. Some of the prints are square, which is especially effective for a set of related prints hung next to each other.

The content of the prints is spare, both because of the photographer's style and the nature of the spaces depicted, which tend to express their authority through bare, hard surfaces with no comfort for the eye or body. Ross' compositions take in only what is essential to the photo. They are precisely framed and squared off, with no diagonals out of place, as if to reinforce the authority of the spaces with the photographer's authority over the camera.

The spaces of empty of people. Although they are harsh and should evoke fear (and would evoke it in normal use), stripped of occupants and with the photographer's intentionally impersonal point of view, the spaces become strangely peaceful and meditative. There's a strong contrast between the way we're allowed to view these spaces through Ross' lens and the way they actually function.

This exhibit is definitely memorable for me and I hope to see more of Ross' work.

Richard Ross also has a book about this series.

Tech | Standard sizes for images, paper, and matting

2008-03-23T16:15:00.000-07:00

Note: This article was originally posted to a different website in 2008. I still find it useful, so here it is.

March 23, 2008

When processing images for printing and framing, it's helpful to bear in mind standard sizes. Ready-made matting and frames in standard sizes are cheaper and faster to use than custom mats and frames.
The reference chart below shows the standard paper, matt, and frame sizes you can use with typical image sizes.

Ratio:The aspect ratio of the image. If you know your camera takes 2:3images, for example, then you'll look for the rows labeled 2:3. If youcropped your image to some other ratio, look for those rows.
Size: The actual size in inches of the image you want to print for display. Note that the opening in a standard size matt is usually less than the image size by about 1/2".
Paper: The nearest standard size paper you can print on.
Matt/frame: The standard matt and frame size to fit your print that you are likely to find in an art supply store. This refers to the outer edge of the matt, which aligns with the frame. If this column says ?, I haven't seen a standard matt for this print size, but there may be one.

The rows for 2:3 images are shaded in gray for easier reference.

Ratio	Size	Paper	Matt/frame
2:3	4x6	4x6	11x14
5:7	5x7	5x7	8x10 or 11x14
2:3	6x9	8x10 or 8.5x11	9x12
4:5	8x10	8x10 or 8.5x11	11x14 or 16x20
2:3	8x12	11x14	16x20
3:4	9x12	11x14	12x16
5:7	10x14	11x14	?
2:3	10x15	11x17	?
11:14	11x14	11x14	16x20
4:5	12x15	13x19	?
3:4	12x16	13x19	16x20
2:3	12x18	13x19	?
13:19	13x19	13x19	18x24

Example:If your camera takes 2:3 images then you know you can print a 4x6, 6x9,or 8x12 image without cropping, on standard paper with a standard mattand frame. If you print 6x9, you can use either 8x10 or 8.5x11 paper.You should be able to find a 9x12 matt and frame to hold the image.

As an additional reference, here is an overview of the ratios from least to most square:

	Aspect ratio	Decimal ratio	Standard sizes
Least square	2:3	0.66	4x6, 6x9, 8x12
	13:19	0.68	13x19
	5:7	0.71	5x7
	3:4	0.75	9x12, 12x16
	11:14	0.79	11x14
Most square	4:5	0.80	8x10

About the photographer

2008-02-18T15:11:00.000-08:00

Piet Niederhausen is a fine art photographer based in Arlington, Virginia. He is a student at Glen Echo Photoworks and a graduate of the University of Florida School of Architecture, where he studied design and architectural photography. Piet was born in Germany and draws inspiration from travel to the world’s cities. His current work centers on the ways in which photographs construct order and meaning from our surroundings.

"Two by three" -- what's with the name?

2008-02-18T14:48:00.000-08:00

"To quote out of context is the essence of the photographer's craft." -- John Szarkowski

In his wonderful book The Nature of Photographs, Stephen Shore discusses four formal elements that define photography: vantage point, frame, focus, and time.

In framing an image, a photographer makes complex (if not alwaysconscious) decisions. Whatever is inside the frame is visible in thefinal image; whatever is excluded remains unknown to the viewer. If thephoto is depictive, the choice of frame changes the message of thephoto. If it is subjective, it changes the composition.

Not only the location of the frame (the boundary between what is "putin" and "left out") matters, but also the shape of the frame. Squareimages feel different from rectangular images. The shape of therectangle matters too. A very wide, narrow perspective creates adifferent feeling from a nearly-square frame.

The shape of the frame starts with the camera; the design of the cameraand film determine the proportions of the photos that are recorded withit (unless they are cropped). In the twentieth century, thirty-fivemillimeter film cameras became the de facto standard for photographyaround the world. The proportions used by these cameras were adoptedfor digital SLRs and continue to shape how we see photography. Theybecame what we think of as the "normal" proportions for a photograph.

Those proportions are the ratio 2:3.

Two by three.

Tech | Choosing lenses for your digital camera

2007-07-15T16:17:00.000-07:00

Note: This article was originally posted to a different website in 2007. Information about lenses doesn't change much, so here it is again.

June 15, 2007

This page contains advice on choosing lenses for your digital single-lens reflex camera (DSLR). My experience is with Canon DSLRs with cropped-frame sensors, like the Canon Rebel. But if you have a full-frame or non-Canon camera, some of the general information on this page may still be helpful to you.

What should I look for in a lens?

It's easy to spend lots of time and money on choosing and buyinglenses, so before we start let's think about what we really want.

As others have written about, equipment isn't the most important factorin determining whether you can make great images. Good lenses, likeother good equipment, will make an incremental difference in your workif you know how to get the most out of them. No lens will make you a better photographer!

So before you get a new lens, it's good to have a specific goal for how it will improve your work. Some of the ways in which a different lens could help you are:

Focal length

Each lens has a focal length, measured in millimeters (mm). Lenses of different focal lengths are used to shoot different subjects. The smaller the focal length, the wider the angle of the lens, meaning you can capture more of what you see in one image. The greater the focal length, the closer the lens gets you to your subject, meaning you can capture something farther away.

Lenses with a fixed focal length are called prime lenses, as opposed to zoom lenses, which have adjustable focal length.

Very wide angle lenses, around 10 to 14 mm, are called fisheye lenses because they produce a distorted, nearly circular image. More common are wide angle lenses around 20 to 28 mm. These are helpful for interiors and landscapes. Lenses around 35 to 50 mm capture an image very similar to what you normally see with your own eyes. A 50 mm lens is sometimes called a normallens. Lenses between 50 to 120 mm are commonly used for portraiturebecause the photographer can capture a face without standing too closeto the subject. Lenses over about 100 mm are telephoto lenses.The longest telephoto lenses, 300 mm to 600 mm or even more, are usedwhen the photographer is necessarily far from the subject, as inwildlife photography.
Focal lengths aren't linear. This means that thedifference between a 20 mm lens and a 30 mm lens is far moresignificant than the difference between a 200 mm lens and a 210 mmlens. To really see this you'll have to play with some lenses.

For a cropped-frame DSLR such as a Canon Rebel, thefocal length shown on the lens isn't the effective focal length foryour camera. There is a multiplier of 1.6 (Canon) or 1.5(Nikon). So if you buy a 50 mm lens, it is effectively an 80 mm lens onyour Canon Rebel. As a result, manufacturers like Canon and Nikon havestarted to make lenses that are specially designed for cropped-frameDSLRs. For example, Canon makes a 17-85 mm zoom that "turns into" a27-136 mm zoom on a Canon Rebel.

In general, the widest wide-angle lenses and thelongest telephoto lenses are more expensive than the lenses in betweenof similar quality.

Here is a good article with more detail on using different focal lengths to get different aesthetic results from landscapes.

Maximum aperture

Every lens has a maximum and minimum aperture, for example from f/4 to f/22. The maximum aperture (the smallernumber) is generally more important because it determines the mostlight the lens can gather (for shorter exposures in low light) and theshallowest depth of field the lens can achieve (for blurringbackgrounds).

Lenses with a large maximum aperture are called fast; lenses with a smaller maximum aperture are called slow. In general the fastest lenses are prime lenses. A very fast prime might have a maximum aperture of f/1.2, and many primes are around f/2.8. A very fast zoom lens could have a maximum aperture of f/2.8, but most are around f/4.

This helps determine what a lens can be used for. For example, sportsphotographers need fast telephoto lenses (events are often indoors inlow light and the action is often far away). To achieve this, the lensneeds to be relatively large.

Many zoom lenses have a variable maximum aperture, for example, from f/4 at 17 mm to f/5.6 at 85 mm. This can mean that if you set an aperture and then zoom in, the aperture you set could change. For this reason many photographers prefer zoom lenses with a fixed maximum aperture.

For lenses of different focal lengths, the same aperture producesdifferent depths of field. The widest angle lenses have very deep depthof field, meaning that even at f/4, the lens may be focused from one ortwo meters to infinity. Telephoto lenses have much less depth of field,so f/4 would create a blurred background.
In general, faster lenses are more expensive than slower lenses.

Convenience

A big benefit of your DSLR (or SLR) is that you can switch lenses.However, extra lenses add more bulk and weight to your camera bag, andswitching lenses takes time and can introduce annoying dust into yourcamera body.

Zoom lenses are attractive because they reduce the number of lenses you need to carry around. You may be able to find one zoom lenses that seems to cover all the focal lengths you normally use. This could make you more likely to take your camera more places, and get more shots.

The tradeoff is that in certain other ways, prime lenses are superiorto zoom lenses, and zoom lenses with a shorter span of focal lengthsare superior to those with longer spans. Prime lenses are generallyfaster and sharper than a zoom lens can be. Of course, some veryexpensive zoom lenses are just as good as some inexpensive primelenses.

Lenses with a larger maximum aperture tend to bebigger and heavier. For example, Canon makes a 70-200 mm f/4 lens and70-200 mm f/2.8 lens that are very similar except for the one stopdifference in maximum aperture. But the f/4 lens weighs 700 g while thef/2.8 lens is thicker and weighs 1,300 g.

Lens manufacturers are starting to take advantage ofthe fact that cropped-frame cameras don't need full-size lenses. Forexample, Canon makes a line of EF-S lenses that are smaller and lighterthan the equivalent full-size lenses. The tradeoff is that they onlywork on the cropped-frame DSLRs, whereas most other Canon lenses willwork on nearly any Canon camera you might own in the future.

In general, lenses that are higher quality and moreexpensive are bigger and heavier (and usually more durable) thancheaper lenses that cover the same focal range.

Image quality

Most photographers prefer to use lenses that produce images with sharpdetails, good contrast, accurate color, and little distortion. Overall"image quality" can be highly subjective, but most lenses excel in someareas and not others.

Sharpness is a measure of how sharp the lens can make the in-focus parts of an image. It is related to resolution, which is the smallest amount of detail the lens can capture. Apparent sharpness can be increased in Photoshop, but resolution can't. Many lenses are sharper toward the center and less sharp toward the edges. A new lens should be tested to make sure the falloff in sharpness is acceptable and consistent.

Contrast is a measure of how much adjacent areas of an image differ in brightness. Contrasty images tend to be more pleasing. In the past, photographers looked for contrasty lenses because it was tedious to add contrast in the darkroom. Today, it's easy to work with contrast in Photoshop, and digital cameras are more sensitive to blown highlightsthan film. (A blown highlight is when the camera overexposes the brightareas of a high contrast scene so they no longer contain any detail.)As a result some photographers actually set their cameras to reduce contrast when taking a picture, then adjust it later.

Color accuracy is a measure of how faithfully the lens reproduces real-life colors. Other factors such as the camera sensor and white balance have a big potential effect on color accuracy. But some lenses do produce more accurate, vivid, pleasing colors than others.

Chromatic aberrationis when a lens (or the lens together with the sensor) adds unwantedcolor artefacts to the image. This is most commonly seen as purple orred "blooming" in light or dark areas that are next to much darker orlighter areas (not necessarily just white next to black). It is morecommon along the edges of the frame than toward the center. Somechromatic aberration can be removed in digital post-processing.

Bokeh is the way a lens blursareas of the image that are out of focus. In general, the most pleasingbokeh is smooth, without distracting shapes. It's more often found inprime lenses, and it's not easy to produce in Photoshop. Many lenseshave distracting bokeh (lots of circular or angular shapes) and aretherefore less suitable for portraiture or macro work.

As you would expect by now, in general, lenses withgood sharpness, contrast, color accuracy, low chromatic aberration, andgood bokeh are larger, heavier, and more expensive :)

Stabilization

More and more new lenses are being made with stabilization technology to reduce the effect of hand shake. Canon calls it image stabilization (IS); Nikon calls it vibration reduction (VR).Sensors in the lens detect movement and move the lens elements tocompensate. Similarly, some camera bodies detect movement and move thesensor to compensate. Stabilization is useful for all kinds of shootingwhere a tripod isn't practical, but it's most useful for telephotolenses, which magnify the effect of hand shake.

In low light, stabilization adds two or three stopsto longest exposure you can hand-hold with the same aperture. If youwould normally use a shutter speed of no more than 1/50 s with a 50 mmlens (the general rule of thumb), now you could shoot at 1/15 s. Ofcourse, moving subjects will be blurred, and depth of field and yourability to blur the background are still determined by the lens maximumaperture (which hasn't changed). A non-stabilized lens with a largertrue maximum aperture would get better results, but it would typicallybe much bigger.

Sometimes seen as a consumer feature, stabilizationis starting to make its way into professional lenses because it makesany lens more flexible, as long as the limitations are understood.

In general, lenses with stabilization cost more thannon-stabilized lenses, but significantly less than a non-stabilizedlens with the same low-light capability (assuming one exists).

Special purpose lenses

Some lenses are designed specially for certain types of photography. They usually don't make good general-purpose lenses, so they represent an investment in a particular goal.

Macro lenses are designed to let you get closer to a small subject. Most lenses can't focus within a meter or more of a subject. A good macro lens can get close enough to show the subject 1:1 or magnified.

Tilt-shift lenses allow you to shift the centerline and focal plane of an image. This means you can straighten converging lines to make them parallel and bring near and far subjects into the same focus. This is done by physically moving the lens elements within a frame. It's useful for architectural and landscape photography, but it takes another skill set to do properly. There are only a few tilt-shift lenses, and they are prime and manual focus.

Soft blur lensesintentionally add a particular blurring effect that may be desirablefor some kinds of especially tacky portraiture (ok, just my opinion).

Pinhole lenses are literally just a tiny hole in a flat surface. They have a fixed aperture that is very small. The result is that while all of the image will appear out of focus, everything is equally out of focus, no matter how near or far from the lens. Typically a relatively long exposure is needed. The earliest cameras were pinhole cameras, since the simplest camera is literally just a box with a tiny whole in it. Some photographers enjoy the special effect created by pinhole lenses.

Focusing

Most modern autofocus lenses have very similar, fast autofocus mechanisms. But it's still the case that some lenses focus faster than others. If you have a special need for very fast focus, you know who you are.

The actual autofocusing process is carried out by your camera, not thelens, but the faster the focus motor, the faster the camera can do itsthing. In general, cameras need some light to be able to autofocus, solenses with a larger maximum aperture will be easier to focus in lowlight.

A side effect is that some slow, low quality focus motors are also much noisier than better focus motors. This might matter to you if you're taking candid pictures of people, who might be distracted by the noise.

Brand

When shopping for a lens, in many cases you can choose between a lensmade by your camera manufacturer and one made by a company that makeslenses for different brands of cameras, such as Tamron, Tokina, andSigma. Often these look very similar on paper, and they are certainlycompatible with your camera (as long as you pick the right lens mount).

Most reviewers would agree that in general,"off-brand" lenses are intended to provide consumers with a lower-costalternative to the lenses from your camera manufacturer. Some of theselenses may be just as good, others may be significantly worse. Nomatter who makes the lens you're considering, you should read specs andreviews and determine what's best for your needs and budget.

That's a lot of information. Can we summarize it?

Depending on the kind of photography you do, You probably want some or all of the following:

A variety of focal lengths, suitable to your work.
A large maximum aperture (f/2.8 or better), for shallow depth of field.
Good overall image quality, within the limits of what you can afford.
A lens with especially strong image quality in a certain area that you care about, like great sharpness or bokeh.
A lens with image stabilization, if you use telephotos or shoot in low light.

Because of the laws of physics and the limited number of lenses on the market, there are certain tradeoffs you will face:

No single lens can do everything. In general, the more varied your photography, the more different lenses you'll use.
Most prime lenses have larger maximum apertures and better image quality than most zoom lenses. But one zoom lens could replace three or more prime lenses, reducing bulk, weight, and cost.
Money can buy you lenses with better image quality, including zooms that are almost as good as the best primes. But to achieve that, the "best" lenses are usually bigger and heavier.

Ok, but what lens(es) should I actually get?

Obviously there isn't a single best answer to that question. But here are some steps to help you decide.

Define the range of what you need

It helps to know what you want before looking at the available lenses. For example

What's the widest angle lens you'll use regularly? For many photographers it's around 24 to 28 mm.
What's the longest telephoto you'll use regularly? For many photographers it's around 135 to 200 mm.
Do you need a lens with a wide maximum aperture? Having one lens that goes to f/2.8 or f/1.8 adds flexibility in low light and for shallow depth of field.
Are there any special purpose features you need? These will generally lead you to an additional, particular lens.

Obviously the suggestions above are just based on my limited experience. If you have particular needs, you should know what they are.

Here is a good article that takes the step-by-step approach into more detail. Here is another article with more scenarios on lenses for different uses.

Look at what's available

Only a few new lenses come on the market each year, so your choices are actually fairly constrained. Looking at what lenses are available will force some choices and tradeoffs.

I can't maintain a good list of lenses here, but other sites do that very well. Here are some popular lens review sites:

The-Digital-Picture.com for reviews of Canon lenses and gear.
FredMiranda.com user reviews for Canon, Nikon, and More.
BobAtkins.com for reviews of Canon lenses.

On sites like this, lenses are usually identified in shorthand. For example, suppose a lens is called a "Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens." What the heck is that?

"Canon" means it's manufactured by Canon (though some parts may be made by someone else).
"EF-S" is the Canon code for a lens designed for Canon cropped-frame cameras such as the Rebel or 30D.
"17-85mm"describes a zoom lens. As you zoom, the focal length will change from17mm to 85mm. On a Rebel, the effective focal length will be 27-136 mm(multiply by 1.6).
"f/4-5.6" is the maximum aperture. Asthe focal length changes from the wide to the telephoto end of thisparticular lens, the maximum aperture will change from f/4 to f/5.6.
"IS" is the Canon code for a lens with stabilization.
"USM" is the Canon code for a lens with a fast, quiet ("ultra-sonic") focusing motor.

Some other codes you might see are:

"L" is the Canon code for a professional-quality lens, i.e. it probably has better image quality and is more expensive.
"VR" is the Nikon code for stabilization.
"T/S" refers to a tilt/shift lens.

Think in terms of an upgrade path

You don't always have to buy the best possible lens today. For many focal lengths, you can move on to "better" lenses over time, bearing in mind that your development as a photographer is more important than your lenses anyway. If you aren't making money from your photography, you probably have little excuse to spend thousands of dollars on lenses. But in the future, when the expense is justified, you might take the next step up.

It helps that compared to consumer electronics, lenses hold their value surprisingly well. If you take good care of your lenses, you can recover half of what you spent even after a few years.

Finally, before investing a lot of money in a particular lens, see if you can rent it from a good camera store such as Penn Camera (DC metro area). You might find out it's not worth it to you, or you might find out a rental was all you really needed.

Tech | Fast and easy framed prints

2006-03-10T15:53:00.000-08:00

Note: This article was originally posted to a different web site on March 10, 2006. I reproduce it here because it could still be useful to someone.

March 10, 2006

It's easy to get 4x6 prints from your digital camera. But your digital images probably contain enough resolution for significantly larger prints. And there's nothing quite like the sense of satisfaction you'll get from seeing your large prints framed on your wall.

When I started thinking about hanging some of my photos, I quicklyrealized that I wasn't interested in the traditional, expensive processof printing and framing. Instead, my goals were:

Display a substantial number of photos (at lesat10) at a reasonable cost (under $20 each). I want to spend the money onrotating lots of prints, not on framing them.
Easily swap new photos into the frames inexpensively without a lot of work (such as cutting new mattes).
Gorgeous museum-quality framing isn't a requirement; it's just my apartment.
Accomodate basically rectangular images; relatively narrow images like panoramas will need to be framed separately.

If that sounds like a good plan to you, read on. If it doesn't, pleasedon't send me hate mail about how much better traditional framing is --just keep doing what you were doing.

The images

Imagesfrom modern digital cameras contain enough resolution for at least 8x10prints, even if you crop them significantly. I suggest that you try tokeep your image at no less than 150 dpi (dots per inch). That means ifyour goal is to make the image 8 inches by 10 inches, the size of thedigital image should be no less than 8x150 by 10x150, i.e., 1200x1500pixels.
Because you're printing the image closer to its nativeresolution, it's important to work on it a little more so it looksstrong and sharp. In Photoshop, I suggest that you at least use theAuto Levels option (and possibly add extra contrast yourself) and theUnsharp Mask option (set to anywhere from 50 to 200 depending on thetype of image). This is also a good time to consider black and white --you might be surprised how good your color image looks in black andwhite at a large size.

The "matte"

I like to crop my digital images, which means they're all different sizes. This in turn means that to frame them with a traditional matte I'd have to cut a new matte for every print. But one of my goals is to swap out prints often without extra work!

With an 11x14 print, I can place an 8x10 (or slightly larger) imagewithin a broad white margin that takes the place of a matte. Then I canjust load the print into an 11x14 frame and get most of the visualbenefit of matting without the extra work.

This is easy to set up in Photoshop. Once your image is ready in every other way, do the following:

Use the Canvas Size option to resize the canvas so that it is 8 pixelslonger in each direction, centered with a black background. This adds athin black border to your image that will help set it off from thethick white margin.
Use the Canvas Size option again to resize thecanvas so that it is substantially longer in each direction, centeredwith a white background. At this point, set the dimensions so that theyare proportionate to 11x14 (they don't have to be 11 inches by 14inches, just in the same ratio). This is easier to do if you change thesettings to use inches instead of pixels.

To simplify the last step, after switchingto inches, just pick a measure one or two steps above the current sizeof your canvas from this list: 2.75x3.5; 5.5x7; 8.25x10.5; 11x14;12.375x15.75; 13.75x17.5; 16.5x21; 19.25x24.5; 22x28; 27.5x35; 33x42;38.5x49; 41.25x52.5; 44x56.

Take the time to look at the result and see if it feelsright to you. If the white border is much thinner in one dimension andmuch thicker in another, you may want to try again -- or crop theimage. Images that are relatively narrow may just not work well withthe 11x14 ratio. Also, if you're hanging images next to each other,make sure their white margins have a similar thickness.

The prints

There are plenty of places on the web to get large prints inexpensively. My choice so far has been printroom.com,which offers 11x14 prints for $4.95 with a choice of surfaces (glossy,matte, semi-gloss), good quality, and inexpensive surface shipping. Forno more than $75, you should be able to get 10 nice prints shipped toyour door.

In the frames I prefer to use (below), the printusually touches the glass (this wouldn't be the case if we were doingprofessional framing with a thick matte). As a result, I stronglyrecommend getting matte prints. A glossy print tends to show darkpatches where it touches the glass (the glossy surface and the glasscombine to distort light in a noticeable way).

The frames

As mentioned above, my goal is to quickly get my 11x14 prints into adecent looking frame without matting or cutting anything. Because we'veprinted our images at 11x14 with a white border, we can simply put themin a frame designed for 11x14 prints without a matte.

Everyone has their own taste in frames. My preference is for a simple, thin to medium thickness black frame. And in the interest of speed, I want a frame that's easy to load and unload.

My choice so far has been the Format 11x14 front loading wall frame,made by MCS Industries. It has a simple front loading design in whichthe glass snaps in and out of the plastic frame without fastenings ortools. The black frame is very thin when viewed from the front andabout 1/2" thick to set it off from the wall when viewed at an angle.

This frame is currently available on the web here and here -- look around for a sale price to get it even cheaper. It's also common in art supply stores such as Michael's. It should cost no more than $6 per frame including shipping.

I'm sure there are much nicer 11x14 frames out there for more money. If you see one you like, don't let me stop you. My goal in writing this is to demonstrate a low budget approach.

Framing

If you chose a simple frame, loading your prints into the frames should be easy. In the case of the frames mentioned above, you just pop out the glass, slide in the print, and snap the glass back in.
Inexpensive prints are often made on relatively thin photo paper. As aresult an 11x14 print can start to sag or bubble if it's left hangingloose. To avoid this problem, make sure that each print is firmlysandwiched between the glass and some backing. If the cardboard backingthat came with the frame isn't thick enough to accomplish this, you maywant to add more carboard or paper.

Hanging

The best thing about those inexpensive frames? They're so light thatyou can hang them on a plasterboard wall with no more than a strongthumb tack. If you don't get the tack located quite right the firsttime, you can move it and leave only a tiny hole in your wall, not thekind of mess that a nail makes.

One print is nice, but three or five prints hanging together look even better. Lay them next to each other on the floor until you get an arrangement where the adjacent prints relate well to each other. For example, prints that have similar scale (level of detail), forms, or colors might go well together. Maybe you even have three prints that tell a story.

Don't hesitate to put vertical and horizontal images next to each other. And think about arrangements other than just a straight line -- maybe several images can form curve or wrap around a corner.
Above all, do what looks good to you and have fun!

Tech | Going digital

2005-08-10T15:58:00.000-07:00

Note: This article was originally posted to a different website in 2005. I reproduce it here because it could still beuseful to someone.

August 10, 2005

This page contains advice for people who are interested in startingto use a digital camera and are at least moderately serious aboutphotography. If you're just interested in taking snapshots, or ifyou're a professional photographer, this page probably won't help youmuch. But if your interests are similar to mine, here's what I'velearned so far.

Will I need a lot of stuff?

Yes.

If you're not particularly serious about photography, digitalphotography is as easy as, or easier than, film photography. You get apoint and shoot camera and it saves your images onto a memory card. Youbring your memory card to your drugstore to have the images printed, oryou connect your camera to a small photo printer. If you want to investa little more time, you connect your camera to a computer, where youcan store your images and use the web to order prints and share imageswith others.

I'm going to assume, however, that you're moreinterested in your photography than that -- you're not a professional,but you want to work on your images and preserve them. In that case,things quickly get just as complicated as they were with film. Digitalphotography gives you the ability to exercise the same kind of controlover your work that a photo lab can, but the price of that is somecomplexity.

If it seems intimidating, look on the bright side. Allof the components are there to give you more control over your work andhelp you achieve your artistic goals. They're worth taking the time tolearn, the same way that you had to learn about apertures, shutterspeeds, and depth of field.

What kind of camera should I get?

I don't know.

In today's market, if someone tells you that a particular camera is theperfect camera, you should stop listening to that person and asksomeone else. Digital cameras are still evolving in a number of ways:hardware and software continue to improve; photographers continue todiscover what they most want in digital cameras; and manufacturerscontinue to look for the right feature sets and price points for theirproduct lines.

From my point of view, broadly, here is how the market currently breaks down:

Consumer compact cameras	Prosumer compact cameras	Prosumer SLRs	Professional SLRs
Meant for casual personal use	Meant for serious amateurs	Meant for serious amateurs	Meant for full time professional photographers
Mediocre to decent quality sensor	Decent to good quality sensor	Good quality sensor with minimal chromatic aberration	Excellent sensor with best tonal range, most accurate color
Mediocre to decent lenses	Decent to good lenses	You choose your lenses	You choose your lenses
Images are always compressed	Uncompressed images may be an option	Uncompressed images are an option	Uncompressed images are preferred
Few manual controls	Most manual controls	Full manual controls	Full manual controls
$200-600	$400-900	$800-2,000	$3,500-8,000

Today there are good options to choose from in each of these segments.And in each segment you might find a camera that has a feature that isparticularly important to you and that you can't find in anothersegment.

If you're somewhat serious about photography, though,the basic choice that confronts you is the same as it was with film: doyou want an SLR or not? The choice isn't much easier than it was withfilm; in the $800-$1,500 price range, there are fixed-lens and SLRcameras with comparable image quality and feature sets. As anillustrative example of the issues you might consider, see this page, part of a longer review of a particular fixed-lens camera.

The upshot is, you're going to want to do some research. I suggest you go to Digital Photography Review, which provides (for free) very extensive, complete, and well organized reviews of the latest cameras from the major brands.

Reading about the latest digital cameras is fun and can become an unhealthy obsession. Just try to remember that your most important photographic tool is you -- your experience, imagination, and perseverence. So limit your research, make a decision, and get out there taking pictures.

No, really, what kind of camera should I get?

Here's one observation that might help: unlike in the film world, there are not yet any fixed-lens compactcameras (significantly smaller than an SLR) that match the imagequality of the most affordable SLRs. Many of us are eagerly waiting fordigital cameras to catch up to that point; it's still to come. For now,there's a tradeoff between camera size and image quality (combinationof optics, sensor, and software), no matter how much money you have. Ifyou know that you'll want both an SLR and a compact camera, it makesmore sense to start with the SLR now and buy the compact later.

If you do choose an SLR, your decisionmaking issomewhat simplified since there are not as many affordable SLRs asthere are high-end compact cameras. When it comes to SLRs, Canon andNikon are the dominant brands, with the longest digital SLR experienceand the widest range of lenses and accessories. Each company usuallyhas one latest, entry-level model in the $900 range. Beyond that thereare just a few alternatives from Pentax and Olympus to consider.

I need a computer, right?

Yes.

Most obviously, if you don't have a computer to copy your images to,you'll run out of memory and be forced to delete images you'd ratherkeep. But more importantly, if you don't have a computer to edit yourimages, you'll miss out on a lot of what digital photography offersyou. It would be like shooting film and always just taking it to thedrugstore to get prints.

Most new computers sold today, and many sold in thelast four years, are perfectly capable of running the software you needto work on images. It doesn't take a special computer to store a fewthousand digital photos and edit a few images at a time. Good photosoftware is available for both the Apple and Microsoft operatingsystems.

Just like the other information you keep on yourcomputer, your images need to be backed up safely in case your computerfails. The most convenient ways to do this are with a portable harddrive or an online backup service. Alternatively, burn CDs or DVDs ofyour images and add additional discs as your collection grows, and keepthem in a safe place.

Can I get by with just the software that the camera manufacturer provides?

No.

The software provided with your camera will probably be just enough tocopy images from your camera to your computer, store them in folders,and make crude image adjustments such as contrast and brightness. Thereare two main areas in which you'll want to consider getting additionalsoftware.

First, you'll want to organize your image collection.Because your digital camera lets you take as many pictures as you wantwithout burning through film, you'll quickly accumulate thousands ofimages. In the long run, filing images by any single characteristic --such as by date or location -- isn't going to be sufficient. You'llwant to associate images with multiple characteristics (in batches ofcourse) and that you can search on later. You'll also want to keeptrack of the versions of an image that you create as you edit it. Thereare many options Adobe Album, Picasa, and ACDSee. Most offer some way to try out the software and see if you like it.

Second, you'll want to edit images, "processing" them to turn what cameout of your camera into the final product you want to share. Adobe Photoshop is widely regarded as the leading photo editing software and there are surprisingly few competitors. Adobe recently acquired Macromedia and so we can expect Macromedia's products to be absorbed into the Adobe product line. That leaves just a handful of alternatives such as Corel Paint Shop Pro.

Photoshop is too extensive and expensive for many photo enthusiasts at the outset. For that reason, Adobe provides a less extensive version of Photoshop called Elements to get started. If you're lucky, your camera may come bundled with Photoshop Elements. If not, Adobe offers a trial download.

Finally, at some point you'll likely want to share your images with others electronically. Online photo services such as flickrlet you share images with your friends and, if you're interested,larger communities of people who might comment on your images.

What about printing?

Just as with film, you have three main options for printing: do ityourself; take it to a local photo shop; or get prints by mail.

Doing it yourself means buying a photo printer. Thecost of printing your own pictures includes the cost of the printer,special paper, and toner or ink. Beyond that, there is the non-trivialtime investment of calibrating a printer and learning to edit yourimage files to get the printed output you want. Getting prints as goodas your local photo printing chain is easy. Getting professional,museum quality prints is hard.

If most of your work ends up on the web, and you don'treally need a printer, it's reasonably convenient to order prints froma web-based service such as Printroom.

I want more detail

Ok.

Here are some web sites with more information:

An Introduction to Digital Photography by Ken Rockwell
Introduction to Digital Photography by Frank Phillips