Do you maintain a photoblog, showcasing your undoubted photographic skills? How about sending us the info (url, your name, background, location and such) to be featured on Digital Photography. It would be nice, too, if you could supply details of your camera equipment.

If enough submissions arrive I'll see if we can do a regular write-up of one readers site. Really thinking of amateurs here that can inspire others with their skills and web-design. This is for regularly updated photoblogs not flickr pages or groups mind.

Please send submissions to us via the tips page.

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]

I'm not even going to bother calling this one a "Monday musing." It's amazing the havoc the first week of a new job can cause in one's posting schedule.... Ah, well.

What's been on my mind lately is the future of digital cameras, particularly the future of DSLRs. Where will cameras head in the next few years? Does the DSLR have a future at all? Hasselblad certainly thinks so, but I have to say I'm not so convinced. Once we get past our nostalgic attachment to the SLR form factor because that's what we think a camera should look like, a new realm of possibilities opens up. Of course, the philosophy of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" might argue for keeping the DSLR just because it works and people understand it. I'd argue, though, that there are several things wrong with it, from a digital point of view.

First, a mirror and spring mechanism adds unnecessary mechanical complexity to a digital device. As the quality and manufacturability of live capture sensors improves, we may fairly quickly reach a point where we no longer need a mechanical shutter. Why keep a mechanical viewfinder? And as LCD and technology improves, we'll see the advantages of analog displays disappear, too. Why bother with mirrors and prisms if we can capture the live image from the primary sensor and display it in real time? We've already seen EVF hit $1000 and APS-sized sensors. As EVFs improve, the EVF should continue it's climb into better cameras.

Weight and cost are also considerations. Mirrors, prisms, ground glasses and viewfinder lenses are heavy and good glass is expensive. Why not lose that weight, and, as EVFs become more cost effective, that expense?

Then, too, there's noise. Most people don't care what their cameras sound like, but digital has been a godsend for wildlife photography: most of the advantage of a speedwinder; none of the noise. Get yourself a remote and a camera that doesn't even have a shutter click and, well, use your powers for good, eh?

Once again, not exactly Monday anymore, but I was thinking about this last night, and apparently again tonight.  I don't want to start any flame wars here, but I've been thinking about brands a lot lately: who's staying, who's going, which underdogs are going to jump into the game. In the last six months or so, we've seen a lot of upheaval in the photographic world. Konica-Minolta selling their camera business to Sony. Mamiya selling their camera business to an IT firm. Pentax and Samsung working on joint projects. We've seen several lines stake their high ends on EVFs, not DSLRs. And even the race for the lead in the professional DSLR market isn't much of a race, Nikon seems to be perpetually a year behind Canon, even though their sales don't entirely reflect it.

But the headlines are one thing. What people are actually carting around with them is another and I think it's time for an informal census. So my question here is two-fold: What are you shooting? And if you've invested in lens system, are you comfortable with your investment

The responses to last week's musing on the potential hidden costs of professional digital photography intrigued me. The digital darkroom and workflow technologies are things photographers feel strongly about, and our discussion here was no exception. Most people seemed to think that even given the steep learning curve and potential extra effort, digital is still a road to increased productivity and quality. In the process, though, we reignited a perennial discussion. It comes in many forms: RAW vs. JPEG; postprocess vs. capture and print; manual settings vs. built-in presets. In the end, though, it boils down to a simple question: what is good digital photography?

On the one hand, we have by far the vast majority of digital photographers, people who see Photoshop as not only a digital tool, but an integral part of their daily workflow. These are the RAW advocates. They see JPEG as a hindrance to productivity and quality because you can't make lossless adjustments.

On the other hand, we have people like Ken Rockwell, and a growing number of professional photographers. The argument is that instant review, the ability to take an almost unlimited number of shots of a subject, and the ability to digitally remaster images are making photographers lazy. JPEG tends to be the favored format here because, as the argument goes, you can't tell the difference in a final printed product between an untouched JPEG and a converted RAW image, and if you get the shot right the first time, you don't need CameraRAW to cover your mistakes later.

I have a great deal of sympathy for both camps. If your goal is to make the best picture possible, it's silly not to take advantage of all the tools at your disposal, and that includes both the camera and the digital workflow. How you divide your time between the two will vary depending on where your technical expertise lies and what approach will do your subject matter the most justice.

At the same time, though, I wonder how realistic the Rockwell position is in the long term. Is it really fair to see the digital part of 'digital photography' as unconnected from the photography part, a CCD or CMOS as simply a drop-in film replacement? I often wonder why we cling to old paradigms when it comes to digital cameras. Does it really make sense to talk about digital ISO? There's no reason I can think of to limit sensors to film sensitivity ratings, other than habit. The same goes for shutter speeds. Why set the interrupt timer on a digital device that can cycle in nanoseconds to be an approximation of a fraction of a second? Auto exposure modes will happily set shutter speeds like 5/23 or .21739. Why limit our thinking to 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1/4000, etc.? Likewise, the servos in most lenses allow for continuous aperture adjustments as well. Why continue to think in f-stops? Isn't most of what goes into photography really just an artifact of the technology available and the limitations of film as a medium, not to mention the limitations of the human brain? Sure, it's convenient to think of everything connected to photography on a scale where every modification doubles or halves the amount of light that trikes the film, but do we need that simplicity when we have tools to do the calculations for us, and faster than we can?

When we get to the point of seeing digital imaging as a continuous process from lens to screen or print, we'll be in a better position to answer that question "what is good digital photography?", and in a better position to evaluate what's been lost and gained in the process.

So it's not quite Monday any more, but "Monday Musings" just sounds better, and it's what I was thinking about yesterday on the drive back up the Turnpike from holiday festivities in central New Jersey. I was recapping some of the latest news, and one thing that really stuck out is the constant stream of software updates: Capture One and Aperture this week, Bibble the week before, to name a few, all dedicated to making professional and pro-am photographers' workflows cleaner, neater, easier, and faster. And that got me thinking: Is all of this going to pay for itself?

Let me explain that a little bit. Digital equipment is expensive, but equipment costs are fixed costs, and the price is coming down all the time. The same is true of software, but here's the catch: you have to use the software. One of the basic rules of any personal business--once you get established, anyway--is to not forget to bill for your own time. Time you spend doing one thing is time you can't spend doing something else, possibly making more money. The two hours you spend going over your portfolio with a prospective client may be a good investment, but it's still time you're not out on a shoot or finishing up the last job so you can get it in the mail and get paid for it.

The same is true of the hours or tens of hours you spend in front of the computer. Doubly so, because it's new time. We talk a lot about the "digital darkroom" as if it's a natural evolution, but the truth is, of the professional photographers I've known, only two ever did their own darkroom work on regular basis. One is a studio artist who wants complete control; the other is a photojournalist who, before he picked up an S3, occasionally went into the basement to develop negatives if he needed to meet a deadline if there was no convenient, open 1-hour photo (I know, I know, but it's tough to ruin a roll of XP2 so badly it won't print on newsprint).

Beyond that, the professional photographers I know all use professional labs. None of the pros I know shooting digital, though, send out their shots for post-processing, except maybe final printing. They all sit down and start tinkering with Camera RAW, Aperture, and Photoshop, moving their pics through the workflow themselves. It's exciting: you get complete control, which is something many pros who rely on labs have never really had before. Certainly there's value in that alone. But I can't help but wonder: if professional photographers sat down and figured the real cost of digital photography, including the labor and opportunity costs of digital darkroom work, would digital photography pay for itself? Does it, ultimately, increase your output enough to be worth it, or would everyone be ahead to spend more time shooting, and let the lab worry about the rest? Other than perceived efficiency and ease of use, what are the concrete benefits of digital photography for the professional photographer? Can you turn around jobs quickly enough that you can actually handle more work than before? Does your profit margin increase enough when the lab is cut out of the equation that the time in front of the computer pays for itself?

The answers of course are different for everyone, but it's an interesting question.