Saturday, January 30, 2010


My photography teacher, Chris Rolinson, talks about using juxtaposition as a composition tool. I think the photographer of this picture did an excellent job utilizing the technique.

As the bather of pets in my family, I recognized the looks on these poor animals' faces, and thought it worth sharing when I saw this photo on http://icanhascheezburger.com/


What I can't figure out is how they had time to grab the camera...

Friday, January 29, 2010

Ice- Pittsburgh Pics

Pittsburgh is a beautiful city. Each little neighborhood is unique in style and culture. The architecture of downtown is interesting because all the building are in a different style. Photographs of Pittsburgh are usually just as interesting. Here are some of my city images-


This is a photo I took recently of the construction of the extended T line under Liberty Ave downtown.

I think all four of these pictures show downtown Pittsburgh in a different way. Which shows the city best?














Thursday, January 28, 2010

silver vs numbers- what I learned

The argument over film viruses digital continues, and probably will as long as there are both darkrooms and iMacs. After reading fellow bloggers' opinions on the subject, it seems to me that the debate has come to a truce, with both sides agreeing that the two are good for different things, and are different media ( see some opinions http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/index.php/film_vs_digital_photography , http://www.dlcphotography.net/Digital%20vs%20Film.htm, http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm, etc).

This semester I am taking a history of photography class. The instructor, Nancy Zielinski of Pittsburgh Filmmakers, mentioned a very interesting point which I had not thought about before; digital images are made on a light sensitive chip, which computerizes and converts the photo to a series of numbers. It is simple a numeric record of a scene. When a photograph is taken on film, the light reflecting off the subject chemically alters the silver on the film strip leaving a tangible imprint.

So when I take a portrait
on my digital camera my camera records the pattern of light, as I said before as numbers. But when I use film and my 35mm camera to take a portrait the light reflecting off the person's skin directly changes the film. In a sense, a part of that person remains in the silver salts, a captured part of him/her.

(These are two photos of my sister. The color is a digital photograph, and the black and white is a scanned 35mm negative.)

So, taking that into consideration, which is better?

introducing me

Hi, and welcome to my blog!
I am a photojournalism student at Point Park University, in downtown Pittsburgh. I love photography in all ways. I love taking and editing images (especially portraits), looking at and critiquing photos, finding funny pictures, and recently I have found that I really like learning the history of photography.
Through my confessions of a shutterbug I hope to share my love of photography and hopefully some knowledge and tips. Please participate in my blog! I love discussion, and to learn from other people.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

welcome

Welcome to my blog!