It looks like maybe our parents were on to something with all those vactaion slides. According to a new study from England's Open University, looking through your personal photo album is one of the most effective ways to relax and boost your mood and overall happiness and sens of well being. The press release claims that

The tests demonstrate that looking through personal photo albums produces an improvement across all measurements including a person's sense of relaxation, brightness, calmness and alertness and even their sense of being valued and popular - resulting in a higher happiness score overall.

In contrast, the pick-me-ups people commonly rely on were only successful in helping them relax: Wine by 14%, chocolate by 8%. Photo albums were proven to be a far more effective way of unwinding, with subjects recording an average relaxation score of 22% - substantially higher. So before reaching for the bottle after a hard day consider that apart from relaxation, wine and chocolate offer little additional benefits. In fact, the wine drinkers actually rated themselves as feeling 6% less satisfied after their drink.

I think maybe the wine drinkers were reaching for the wrong vintage, but even so, the results are impressive. And what about digital albums? Is part of the experience the physical piece of photo paper? The answer is no. The study was commissioned by Europen cellular provider Orange, and cameraphone pictures, it seems, are as effective as anything else. Of course, we may want to question the neutraility of the findings, but even taking the report with a generous grain of salt, I offer this advice: if you're feeling blue, think RGB.

[via DSLRBlog]

The New York Times' most recent edition of "Talk to the Newsroom" features Assistant Managing Editor for Photography Michele McNally. It's a must read for anyone interested in photojournalism. The questions are pretty wide-ranging, covering everything from why there aren't more pictures of wounded Americans in Iraq (the answer is diplomatic, but the subtext is pretty clear: the Pentagon doesn't let those shots happen) to why the quality of color news photos often suffers (it's difficult to register a high speed press as large as a house). Personally I would have liked to see a more direct answer to the reader who commented "I would rather see a clear black-and-white photo than one in color that is seriously out of register, which most of them are. Doesn't the technology exist to correct this problem? If not, let's go back to black and white," a sentiment I share--leave the color to USA Today--but she has some very insightful things to say about how images are chosen, the very limited roll of Photoshop in the newsroom, and what it takes to shoot for the NYT. Her advice to young photographers, in particular, bears repeating:

The most important work a young photographer can do is existential. You must figure out what kind of photographer you want to be, what do you want to say and how are you going to do it better than others have done before you.

Recognize that the career of a photojournalist is a difficult one personally, so you must love what you are doing. Be certain of your mission, but be prepared to constantly grow. Work hard, very hard. Be forever curious, persistent and gracious. When people let you into their lives, realize that it is a gift.

Don't let technical issues come between you and a great picture; make it second nature. Recognize the role of aesthetics in storytelling. And shoot, shoot and shoot some more.

[via the online photographer]

Sigma announced a new macro lens today, the 70mm F2.8 EX DG. At first glance, at least, this looks like a winner. 70mm is a nice length, a drop-in replacement for the 105mm many photographers carry as a go-to lens. Thow in 1:1 macro at a minimum 10.5in, and what's not to like? It also features Sigma's "focus limiter switch" to improve autofocus response times, and the EX rating means coated, SLD glass for bright, flare-free shots with low CA. As always, I'll wait until I see it in action--or at least see the MTF chart--before I put down any money, but for $570 MSRP, this looks like a steal.

Bellamax has released a new workflow application, UpShot, and they've decided to give it away free until July 4th. After that, UpShot will still only be $20, so it's worth a look even if you have plans this weekend.  UpShot is a combination gallery, image manipulation, and publication tool that integrates directly with several photo sharing sites and on-line printing sites. Flickr, SnapFish, and Blogger are all supported, among others. Supported formats include RAW. The best way I can think to describe it is Picassa on steroids. The included color correction and retouching tools are intuitive and seem effective in most situations--as you'd expect from a leading supplier of professional lab automation products.

This is definitely a product aimed at the casual photographer, though. If you're getting started with digital photography and don't feel ready to shell out the cash for something like iView Pro, UpShot is well worth a try. It makes things easy, the interface is friendly, it seems reliable, and the photo sharing/printing integration is a nice touch. If you're working with substantial numbers of images or large file sizes, though, performance is an issue. A dump of the a 1GBcard of full-size jpegs from a D70s quickly slowed indexing to a crawl, and opening the images in any of the various tools too upwards of a minute on my test computer, which, while not ideal, is no slouch with a 3.2Ghz P4 with 512MB RAM (the minimum requirement). You probably don't want to run this with less than the recommended 1GB.

Today's DPOD is "leopard" by pixelstate:



EXIF:

Canon 5D
Sigma 70-200 f2.8
 f2.8
1/640
ISO - 800

Editor's Note:
We have already featured some outstanding photography here on the Digital Photograhy Weblog and we are looking for more. Have a great shot? Then submit it for consideration to our Flickr Group.

This came into my inbox today, and I couldn't believe we hadn't posted it. In fact, I initially brushed it off because I was certain we had. But we haven't, so thanks to T for reminding me! If you haven't seen it yet--it's been up for a while--Darren Rowse's Digital Photography School has a great article on shooting, er, photographing, pets. One of the things I really like about Darren is that he breaks it down into ten simple rules of thumb. The most important ones in my opinion are "catch them unawares," "get in close," and "start with your pet's personality." Great pet portraits start with those things. Figure out  how to build a composistion out of them, and you'll be on your way.

One other important thing to think about is lighting. Darren recommends against flash except for dark-furred critters because animals get such ghastly red- (or green-, or yellow-) eye. I'd like to modify that to this: try not to use direct flash as your primary light source. Getting your animal to arrange itself in natural light the way you want may be a futile effort. Be prepared to bounce or fill to get the light you want where you want it.

I'm hesitant to jump into this debate because it's gotten a little out of hand and it's too hot this week for a flame war. Nonetheless, I think it's an interesting question. First a little background. FlickrNation author Thomas Hawk has gotten into a shouting match with photographer Jill Greenberg over her recent "End Times" collection, which features portraits of crying children, supposedly as a protest against George Bush. I don't get it, but that's not really the point. Hawk has called Greenberg's methodology "abusive." Greenberg and her husband have publicly called Hawk insane. Greenberg has called Hawk's boss to try to get him fired. Now it looks like they've got the lawyers warming up in the bullpen.

Personally, I think "abuse" is a term not to be thrown around lightly, and I don't think Greenberg's photographs qualify. But I do see Hawk's point that deliberately making children cry just to take pictures of them is a little...suspect. We should be clear here that Greenberg doesn't physically harm the children; she does things like give them a lollipop or a toy and then suddenly take it away. Still, though, is inflicting emotional distress a valid method for creating art? And I use the term "art" unabashedly here; Greenberg's portraits are undeniably beautiful. "Breathtaking" and "haunting" are the two words that come most readily to mind. Complicating the issue, if it is complicated, is the fact that Greenberg's technique is pretty standard in advertising and cinematography. Toddlers don't cry on cue in the movies without a little provocation; I'm not quite sure what makes this different, but somehow it seems like it is.

So this is my question: do you ever encounter moral issues in your photography? If so, when? How and where do you draw the line: what wouldn't you do for a shot?

With the 4th of July (and Bastille Day, and a whole host of other regional  excuses to set off large explosions in the Midsummer sky) in the offing, John Watson has a short tutorial on shooting fireworks. there are thousands of tutorials on this subject out there, but he boils it down to the essentials: use a reasonably slow ISO setting (100-200); don't forget the tripod; exposure = length of trail; aperture = brightness of trail.

Working out the timing so that the starburst is centered wherever you've aimed the tripod is left as an exercise for the reader.

This one was just too weird to pass up. We've all seen LCD picture frames and picture keychains, but this is a first: and LCD picture belt buckle. The appropriately named EgoKast is a 3" Samsung display designed to mount on a belt or armband. It promises 4-6 hour battery life and displays photo slideshows or MP4 video stored on SD cards. If the travesties I've seen frat boys on pub crawls perpetrate with LED belt buckles are any indication, we should all be afraid. On the other hand, if keeping those pics of your kids in your wallet just doesn't satisfy your need to share any more or that old silver buckle with your name in rhinestones isn't shameless self-promotion enough, this may be $279 well spent.

[via Popgadget]

Wow. It seems like it's been a long time since i stepped in to help Andrew out here. Oh, wait. It has. I haven't been ignoring the digital photography world entirely, though, and i thought I'd share some some places to while away the weekend if it's as unpleasant and rainy where you are as it is where I am.

First up, the Digital Photography Show. ok, it's not technically reading, but Scott and Michael have been putting together really great shows--although they took their own hiatus while Scott was house shopping and recovering from catastrophic hard drive failure. If you have time or an iPod to load up, grab them all. If you only have a couple of hours, grab Episode 8, and interview with Photoshop expert Scott Kelby. The interview starts with an interesting and wide-ranging discussion of all things digital, and then gets down to a lengthy explanation and discussion of that most misunderstood of Photoshop techniques: using channels. also check out this week's show, Episode 11, which features some useful user-submitted tips and and talk with the Equipment Lady, Laurie Excell, on selling used equipment.

Next, Arun of Digital Photography World has a nice little post up on Photoshop's Selective Color
function and how to use it.

Let'sGoDigital ran a story earlier in the week on  "camera neutralizing technology." Scary, but won't find DSLRs. Of course, a DSLR is pretty conspicuous to begin with.

Microsoft PhotoBlog has some tips up on using Quick Search in the Photo Gallery.

David of Strobist has put together what he's calling the SSO-CLK, a collection of must-haves that you can cobble together to get started with off-camera lighting for about $150. Some of the equipment, like a folding light stand, will require some capital outlay if you don't have it already. Other items, though, are true DIY, like the homemade cereal box snoot.

The guys at Engadget have found some pics of the new as-yet-unnamed (or at least unnumbered)  Pentax *ist D 10MP camera due out this fall. No details yet on the specs and features--Pentax apparently isn't letting the press, or anyone else, even touch it--but the prototype is behind glass at the Seoul International Photo and Imaging Industry Show this week. Here's hoping that it gets better reviews than the DS2; it's high time for Pentax to become a real player in the DSLR market.

Today's DPOD is "She Prefers This" by Orange_Bread:



Lots of things to like in this one. I love the tone and contrast; nice job on the B&W conversion. I also really admire people who can pan like this on the fly. My hands are never stready enough to really keep the subject this crisp while I'm moving the camera. heck, I'm lucky if I can hold a camera steady for 1/60s without paning most days. Maybe I should cut back on the caffiene. The vignetting is also very nice, evocative, but not over done.

EXIF:
Camera: Nikon D70s
Exposure: 0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture: f/9
Focal Length: 56 mm
Exposure Bias: 0/6 EV

Editor's Note:
We have already featured some outstanding photography here on the Digital Photograhy Weblog and we are looking for more. Have a great shot? Then submit it for consideration to our Flickr Group.

PopPhoto.com has an interesting article up from photographer Joel Meyerowitz on why he's shifting toward inkjet prints for many of his shots--even when he's printing from film, often choosing it over both conventional C-prints (that's normal color prints from film negatives) and dye transfer prints. Why? Because, in a twist we don't see very often in discussions of digital techniques, he likes the dynamic range. With the right inkset--he's a fan of HP Viveria ink on HP Premium Plus Satin paper--inkjets can deliver high contrast nearly continuous tone to produce subtle gradations that suit his deliberately undersaturated--by current digital standards anyway--style.

Today's DPOD is "The Pink Shined Down on Manhattan" by midweekpost:




EXIF:
Camera: Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT
Exposure: 0.8 sec (4/5)
Focal Length: 17 mm
ISO Speed: 100
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Flash: Flash did not fire

Editor's Note:
We have already featured some outstanding photography here on the Digital Photograhy Weblog and we are looking for more. Have a great shot? Then submit it for consideration to our Flickr Group.