Breaking down the composition of one of Henri Cartier-Bresson's most famous images. Photo: Magnum Photos, screenshot from video
Henri Cartier-Bresson—the father of modern day street photography and master of the candid shot—was obsessive about the 'geometry' in his photographs. And in this two-part educational series, photographer Tavis Leaf Glover dives into some of Bresson's best-known images to explain the dynamic symmetry at work and help you understand (and implement) it in your own photos.
This is NOT a beginner's guide to composition. To the untrained (and many a trained) eye it can just look like Glover is overlaying so many lines onto each image that SOMEthing is going to line up no matter what. But for all that he coined the term the Decisive Moment, Bresson was extremely deliberate about his compositions.
Both videos dive into that deliberate vision—the way the iconic photographer saw the world around him and fit it into the 35mm frame just so. Check out both parts below, and then let us know what you think in the comments.
Henri Cartier-Bresson isn't using Dynamic Symmetry. Bresson is shooting in a 1.5 rectangle which is not a Dynamic Symmetry rectangle and to properly incorporate the 1.5 rectangle into Dynamic Symmetry you have to overlap root 4s. And of course, this is impossible when it comes to photography. I created a video to address this topic: http://www.the-art-of-composition.com/dynamic-symmetry-for-photographers.html
after a decade of constantly snapping shots the mind of any average photographer will start automatically composing well-balanced shots within the universal laws of aesthetics, without our conscience being aware of the symmetrical and geometric details.. except for a few known perspective theories like the rule of thirds, and the concentration axe and exit point etc. but not as far as the video claims. in painting though, it is different, each element is accounted for and the painter is aware of most of what he is putting on the canvas including the bad things that mediocre painters do, except that since street photography is spontaneous and quickly improvised to a great extent, our slow outward conscience has little room for mistakes and the mind without the external stress and confusion and interruptions, does wonders. All you have to do is analyse the work and see. This works best on assignment rather than just playing because the adrenalin is high and the mind is seriously engaged.
You ask me to comment! I am overwhelmed. Went to a HCB show in NYC at Rubin. Wish I had seen this. Will look at part two and buy some of the books. Everyday I try to learn something new about photography and the art of seeing. This qualified and then some.
In the early days, Photography used to be a study of light ... eventually it became point&shoot easy .... today, as recently as August 19, 2017, photographers have to pass asymmetric geometry maybe in the future it requires photographers to study differential calculus ...
This must be the worst photography tutorial ever. To put a grid on random photos and search for lines to align to features in the picture, really?? Come on, Henri didn't have a grid in his viewfinder and didn't need it to make TRULY GREAT pictures.
These theories and gimmicks are great for students and art historians; but once you're actually busy in the visual arts, it's pretty much all instinct. Your brain develops patterns of responses to visual situations. You reflexively apply your personal experience and knowledge of design and composition to the stimuli you've cultured yourself to. Generally, the more formulas you weave into the process, the worse things get.
Yeah, thanks for the insight into what Cartier Bresson thought. He was a classically trained painter before he took up photography, and his ideas about geometry are well documented. Honestly ewelch, just read a bit more.
If anyone wants to really learn composition, I urge you all to look at Baroque art. This genre used exaggerated methods of composition to such an extent that if you study any painting long enough, you'll start to pick up some things right away as a photographer.
For example: line of sight. In a seemingly chaotic composition of many objects and groups of people, painters would have all the figures looking more or less in the same direction or at the same thing.
Well said. I would like to add that studying composition & balance in other mediums such as design and architecture is necessary. Specifically I would like to add that the book "How To See" by George Nelson is very helpful full of visual examples. It was written in 1977 and still holds up because after all good composition is timeless.
Having looked the author and his website up, it's very obvious that he's an Internet Marketer, as in someone who comes up with a scheme to make money via advertising or sales. In his case, he created a number of eBooks with a number of superficial theories claiming to "teach" people artistic concepts. He then created these videos to promote his books and drive traffic to his site. He's also slathered his videos with Amazon affiliate links to the most expensive camera gear. On top of that, he's making a lot of money on YouTube from its revenue program.
There are a lot of these internet marketers on YouTube now, some people teaching art, some people teaching history and science, some people teaching life skills. None are experts or have any real authority on the subject matter they're trying to teach. All are able to use their talent for articulation and video editing skills to give the illusion of being professionals. But all are Internet Marketers looking to make a fast buck.
There is a really simple way to get better at composing photographs - Go out and take more photographs, get them back and analyse what worked and didn't. Maybe force yourself to only photograph on the street you live on, with a fixed lens, and keep shooting until you have elevated your street into something special. Then just look at photographs, paintings, films, anything visual you connect with and recreate it in your own way.
Or watch YouTube vids and read books. I see a lot of people who have easily taken thousands of pics and still have zero idea about composition. There are some basic rules that can be learned quickly by just watching a 3 minute video that will keep you from wasting your shutter count.
Why would you watch a "YouTube video" for instruction, though? Maybe 5 years ago or so, videos were being made by professionals but today it's all amateurs trying to cash in on YouTube's Partner program. There's no reason why anyone should be looking to YouTube for anything, especially now that it's so easy to just slap up a professional looking video and pass yourself off as a guru or expert. You don't have to show credentials to present yourself as an "expert" on YouTube. You just cobble together some stuff you picked up from Wikipedia or some other sites, brush up on your video editing skills (or hire a professional), narrate it and voila--you're an expert on anything from electrical engineering and microbiology to art theory and psychology.
You're being a bit dramatic. I thought myself the adobe suite, website building, SEO management, and even helped my wife deliver our baby watching YouTube videos. Unlike text based info on the web, vids are Much easier to learn from and I don't think it's too difficult to spot the crap fro The legit posters.
"I thought myself the adobe suite, website building, SEO management, and even helped my wife deliver our baby watching YouTube videos."
Yes. And if you were to look at the time stamps on those videos, you would see that most of them were made years ago--back when there were more working professionals, tech companies, studios and real instructors on the site producing videos. That's not true today. Today, there's been an explosion of amateurs on the site. That's why I said "5 years ago or so, videos were being made by professionals."
Here is an "expert" video made just a few months ago by someone "explaining" the famous Dorothea Lange migrant mother photo, mispronunciations and all. This is typical of what passes for instructional videos today on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9hm8fTEzmk&t=1s
Just as in a previous article/tutorial. This guy uses the terminology wrong or doesn't understand the concepts he is talking about. Specifically, he mis-applies Gestalt psychology concepts, like the law of similarity, closure, proximity. Example: Photo of man jumping over water: "He is also creating tension from the law of proximity". The law of proximity is about our mental tendency to group things that are in visual proximity. There is no need to apply that law here because the reflection on the water is the mirror image of the man jumping, i.e. that is why we connect them. The narrator always applies the concepts incorrectly.
I enjoyed the videos despite, rather than because of, all the red lines and graphs and arrows etc.
I was struck by how soft, out of focus and grainy most of the images were. Something to bear in mind when pixel-peeping test photos from modern cameras at ISO 25,600.
Someone wiser than I pointed out to me that if you look closely at what are considered the greatest photos ever most of them (except view camera landscapes) are slightly out of focus.
Well, let’s see a show of hands – how many of the commenters here have read a book about composition? A book about photography? A book about Henri Cartier-Bresson? Anything about the history of photography? Any theory of art?
We are seemingly in the age of the conspiracy theory. “BS” “Voodoo” “gimmick” “mumbo jumbo” “over analysed academic guff!” Well done us!! No need to learn, it’s all b*llocks anyway.
Sorry, the world isn’t flat; the latest tech won’t make you an artist, and there is a whole world of art out there – just enjoy it.
My old dad had a wonderfully evocative description of the fools he worked with: “Thick as two short planks”.
I've read and still own several books on composition and photography. But that's neither here nor there.
I looked up the author, checked out his body of work and saw nothing impressive. His stuff has "Instagram" written all over it, right down to the cheesy retro/cross processing filters. His photos are also badly composed.
Why have you accepted the word of someone like this as gospel, to the point of now calling out those who see the nonsense for what it is as not having had any exposure to composition? He has no credentials or artistic ability to speak of that would give him the authority to "instruct" people on how to compose their images. Yet you've ascribed to him a level of authority and expertise he doesn't have.
Why? Especially when it's obvious that he's an Internet Marketer using these videos to sell his eBooks and make money off YouTube's revenue program and Amazon? (His videos are crammed to the gills with affiliate links to expensive camera gear).
Minababe, I haven’t accepted anyone’s word ‘as gospel’, but try to listen with an open mind rather than trash ideas with a one-phrase jibe, as many have done here.
“he’s an internet marketer”. True and I think he’s up-front about that. He runs a business to earn money – why is that a problem? I ran a photography business for many years; I took money from clients in exchange for photographic services. Does that subtract from the value of my photographs?
@quietrich: Why do I need to have an "open mind?" I've learned the art of composition. I learned it backwards and forwards from professors in art school and from the myriad of books I have on my shelf written by professional, world class photographers. It's not a mystery to me, something that I'm struggling to understand and grapple with. I get it.
It seems as if you in some way are still struggling with it (because if you weren't, you wouldn't be so hard pressed to defend this video as being so insightful). If that's the case and you feel that this video is going to help you, so be it. But just so you know, you're being led down a blind path.
@quietrich: The principles surrounding dynamic symmetry have not been around forever. Not only did the Wiki link you posted cite Hambidge as its creator, it even discredits his theory in the same article:
"In 1921, articles critical of Hambidge's theories were published by Edwin M. Blake in Art Bulletin, and by Rhys Carpenter in American Journal of Archaeology. Art historian Michael Quick says Blake and Carpenter "used different methods to expose the basic fallacy of Hambidge's use of his system on Greek art—that in its more complicated constructions, the system could describe any shape at all." In 1979 Lee Malone said Hambidge's theories were discredited, but that they had appealed to many American artists in the early 20th century because "he was teaching precisely the things that certain artists wanted to hear, especially those who had blazed so brief a trail in observing the American scene and now found themselves displaced by the force of contemporary European trends."
@minababe. “Why do I need to have an "open mind?” Well, there we have it, you have learned everything there is to know; well done!
“defend this video as being so insightful”. When did I say that the videos were insightful? I said they were enjoyable and interesting. Given the extent of your engagement with them, I’d guess that you find them interesting as well. I enjoy discussions about art – a hangover from the days of group crits maybe.
“it even discredits his theory in the same article”. Yes, and why not? This isn’t an ideological struggle, but a conversation about compositional theory. I have no problem with informed discussion, which is something to be encouraged because it can only contribute to artistic practise. Provided of course, that we keep an open mind.
minababe "Why do I need to have an "open mind?” haha... hahaha... hahahahaha! So at least you admit to being narrow minded. If you can't work out that having an open mind would make you more knowledgeable, more appreciative and more interesting as a person, I'm afraid you have some problems. Are you perhaps a Trump supporter?
He had a good eye for sure and took the time to seek out creative vantage points.
His work also benefited from his film choice and processing, but I think most of his success was because he followed a prime rule for well received journalistic photography:
I got about two minutes in to the first video, when he started improving the composition of Cartier-Bresson's originals to suit his taste. I'm outta here.
These videos represent the silliness of after the fact rationalizing and empty motions of measurebation for the sake of useless metrics. Who will ever go out with a camera and think about these videos before shooting? Likely no one.
Roland. You make a good point. P. T. Barnum said it best, "There's a sucker born every minute." Part of me hopes a million dolts buy the ridiculous grids and make the promoters of this legal but stupid scheme filthy rich.
Did you even try to learn about Cartier-Bresson's career, how he came to photography, what was his learning path? Have you tried to read about his many masterful pieces and educate your eye the way he educated his own?
HCB was a good photographer. A failed musician, failed artistic painter, a man who cuckolded someone to suicide. A game Hunter and a surrealist. All in all just a regular silver spooner from Normandy filled with early 20th century angst. But a good photographer.
@Roland Karlsson, dynamic symmetries were not 'invented'. They just are, like any other compositional tool. We can use them or not, but they are there.
"You must live and look. All these photography schools are a gimmick. What are they teaching? Could you teach me how to walk?" HCB ...yet, one can train his eye just like others train their muscles or brain. But if course is up you only, not others. Never was more simpler as it is today.
PS. seeing some comments seems that there are many foxes that can not reach the grapes :-))
So ... I was wondering about the name "dynamic symmetry" as I have never heard about it before. So - I found that this seems to be something special for IPOX Studios, something they use in their teaching (that you pay for). It does not seem to be anything generally used. A guy, named Jay Hambridge, invented some strangeness he also called dynamic symmetries maybe 100 years ago. Something based on a kind of Fibonacci series, starting with 118 and 191, instead of 1 and 2. Seems to be even more BS than this one.
So, after some thinking, I think I agree with the majority in this thread. This is not serious.
And just so you know. 1. There is nothing dynamic with this grid, rather the opposite, static. 2. I saw no symmetries in his examples. So - whatever IPOX Studios got this name from, it is probably marketing BS.
Lessons can technically improve a shooter but you either have a good eye or you don't. The greats like Bresson, Ansel Adams, Edward Weston and Pete Souza had it.
This comes natural to an artist. People say things like "has an eye for photography" or "an ear for music". For the rest there are charts and graphs. You either got it or you ain't.
Brian Homer below is absolutely right. This is nonsense. It’s a good experiment to try a random selection of photos with the grid in Video 1, and and maybe even generating random lines-on-a-frame grids to test them against iconic photos. I’m confident both will give positive results.
I wouldn’t believe these theories even if Cartier-Bresson had the grids etched in his viewfinder—and he didn’t.
I'm sorry but this is very deceptive, no photographer would dissect a scene in this manner and doing so, it could confuse many people new to photography, I strongly feel that composition is largely instinctive and honed through practice. Bresson simply wouldn't have time to make such a mathematical interrogation of the scene, the composition would have been automatic, drawn together by his superbeye.
I know he planned a lot and sometimes he would leave a location without a click, even after waiting there for hours, but Im also pretty sure these lines are more post-estetic fortunes than planing, specially when you get movement - Sometimes is tedious to see these lines and all mega-calculations, is like the conspiracy theories, after things happen you just need to connect the dots... Not that I don´t care about lines, and thirds and etc etc, but we should stop drawing so many lines, just acknowledge the basics os aesthetics and than let our intuition eyes and imagination flow
Yes but too many amateur photographers get really strung up on these rule of thirds etc. treating them like a magic bullet for perfect pictures and can often be seen dismissing many great and famous images, simply because they don't conform to these dogmatic rules.
I've tried pasting this grid on some of my pictures - clearly I am no Bresson - but hey presto many things line up. Yes because this whole thing is BS - if you put that many lines on an image most times significant things will line up. Filling your head with grids like this will not improve your photography - you'll probably miss the decisive moment while working out the angles.
Yes I once saw an expose of this notion, where a sceptical journalist was able to draw up a perfect pentagram, simply by joining up New York police stations.
Occasionally....the even the greats would see potential in certain views, and visit them at a later date with a plan in mind, to get the right "moment" A case in point is "Meudon 1928" by Andre Kartesz, who photographed the vertical scene of the rail bridge, without the train..... and later on went back when he knew the schedual of the train which would cross at an approximate time. The guy in the foreground with the poster, most likely set up. IMO nothing wrong with this approach as the "artist" still created the final scene!
Enjoyable videos; we can always learn from good photographers, I think.
Lines create structure, most photographers know that. Experience leads to seeing the structure before bringing the camera to the eye:
“We must place ourselves and our camera in the right relationship with the subject, and it is in fitting the latter into the frame of the viewfinder that the problems of composition begin. This recognition, in real life, of a rhythm of surfaces, lines, and values is for me the essence of photography; composition should be a constant preoccupation, being a simultaneous coalition – an organic coordination of visual elements. Composition does not just happen; there must be a need for expression, and substance cannot be divorced from form.” – From ‘The World of Henri Cartier-Bresson’ by Henri Cartier-Bresson. ISBN: 0670786640
Very unlikely that Cartier Bresson took thousands of shots. Remember this guy was shooting film not digital. At a very wild guess, I'd estimate that maybe one shot per cassette was a keeper, and maybe one shot in 100 became famous. When I first came across his work, it took me a while to "see" the genius in his photos, but there is no doubt in my mind that he was a master of composition and timing.
On a slightly different subject, isn't it strange that not a single comment here has criticised HCB's photos for being soft or mis-focussed? Nowadays we place a huge amount of emphasis on the technical quality of photographs. HCB was not concerned with such things, yet produced photographs that will outlast anything produced in the digital age.
Compositionally no doubt a nice photo...but what is the point of talking about this when even for Bresson what made up this whole shot like adequate light, the cyclist passing by at the right moment, & Bresson's luck at the time of not having to go to the toilet due to diarea and continue searching for beauty through his view finder all played an accidental part in the creation of this partly accidental lucky photo... have to show people how to feel & continue on photographing with passion instead of wasting time like this rationally breaking down a photo in a rational way....
Well, if analysing is important for you. Good for you. For other people... what you "feel" 'personally' from your own 'heart' in a spontaneous 'individual' manner is what matters most. That is what determines a Bresson or not a Bresson. Good luck with your "rational" analysing over your own & another person's work in a non spontaneous state(Hope you will know the implication of this...). You'll understand one day...when you are ready...
“You'll understand one day...when you are ready...”
LOL, one of the most condescending comments I’ve read here. Still, good to know that there’s hope for me yet ;)
Seriously though, ‘understanding’ without employing rational or analytical thought is a road you’ll be travelling without me, I’m afraid. That way lays madness, but good luck with it anyway.
Good luck again with your "rational" analyzing over your own & other person's work in a 'non-spontaneous' state(regarding which it is obvious by now that you have absolutely no idea what I am talking about & have no idea what implications this state carries...). You'll understand one day... when you are ready.
Rule of thirds is an excellent starting point when you are learning about composition, but very often it's the photographs that break the rules that are the most interesting..... and then some pseudo-intellectual plonker like "Tavis Leaf" (where did he get THAT name from?) decides that the rule-breaking image is nice, and "discovers" a rule that describes that as being part of "dynamic symmetry". By his definition, ANY photograph that he likes, has to fit in with a set of rules that HE defines.
Googling the subject I found out that HCB actually was very keen on geometry and exactitude in his compositions: "The greatest joy for me is geometry; that means a structure. You can’t go shooting for structure, for shapes, for patterns and all this, but it is a sensuous pleasure, an intellectual pleasure, at the same time to have everything in the right place. It’s a recognition of an order which is in front of you". The rest of the story is here https://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/cartier-bresson-there-are-no-maybes/
How the human brain senses beauty is a mystery, thought under intesive research. Geometry certainly plays a part of it, whether in the way depicted in the videos or in some other manner. I welcome stuff I haven't thought about myself, like these (a bit tiresome) videos. He could have done a better editing job.
Yes, it is a good name. And ... you can get far with a good name. But actually, I like his pictures. I mean, there is nothing similar. Not even close. So, it is as when people say about paintings - I could have done that! That is easy, nothing special. Still, the artist's paintings are easily recognizable. How come? Maybe there is something special there after all?
If one visualize the symmetry, pattern, bokeh, zebra, lion and tigers ... before hitting that shutter ... one lost the "DECISIVE MOMENT" ... unless Nikon D5 has selection for "DECISIVE MOMENT" ... that would give Canon a run for their money.
Yes, I've missed many shots through being mesmerised by a beautiful subject. I spend far too long analysing my photos before I press the shutter. I enjoy looking at snapshots for their spontaneity. Cartier-Bresson, I think would consider his photographs to be snapshots. "Creative" photographers have a completely different approach, producing images that are graphically striking, but often look very contrived.
Maybe it's me, but I couldn't watch more than the first five minutes. I shouldn't think for one minute that any of that mumbo jumbo was going through H C-B's mind. And the guy in the video seemed to me either working too hard to make the examples fit, or simply stating the obvious (figure-ground-relationship ... ha!). The signal-to-noise ration on DPR seems to be getting worse.
I actually once interviewed a famous (news) photographer about the composition of an award winning shot. The answer was something like this: I don't have any time for that (rule of thirds etc.). The motive looks good and I shoot as many as I can. Afterwards you may find some pattern. But that's chance.
We can of course only guess what Henri would answer.
Well, to be fair, the argument tends to be that we subconsciously prefer photos that confirm to some ratio (golden rule or whatever) - regardless of whether or not it was composed to conform to it on purpose.
In that case, the hypothesis would be that you could shoot random pictures and people would by and large prefer the ones that 'accidentally' used rule of thirds and what have you.
Taking it a step further, you could argue that a good photographer has an intuïtive feel for such compositions (since he/she would also have a subconscious preference for images that conform to these supposed 'sacred proporions').
I'm not claiming this is unquestionably true - just that the theory doesn't necessarilyrequire the photographer to consciously and strategically compose images using such rules (the way some painters did).
@maiaibing: that could very well be the case. That's why I said that I wasn't claiming it to be unequivocally true. Just that - within the logic of the theory - it's not required for photographers to be consciously aware of any 'golden rules' on the moment of producing the image. I'd be interested in reading about such studies. Could you perhaps point me in the right direction?
The Decisive Moment is the English title of the book originally called "Images à la Sauvette", where 'à la Sauvette' is more like 'on the run' or 'on the sly'.
And this, as others have said, is post hoc rationalising. I very much doubt is any of us could hold quite so many diagonals in our head at any time; a rule of thirds, or the golden ratio at most.
I thought the cyclist picture had the curve of the steps and banister mirroring the curve of the street, with the cyclist on a junction of thirds.
And the behind the gare, with the chap trying to jump the puddle and just about to not make it; I thought the point was the elegance of the ballerina behind him.
HCB studied geometry under Andre Lohte for a year between 1927-28. He also wrote quite a bit about his use of geometry for 'The Decisive Moment' although it wasnt included by the publisher (although exerts can be found in the Steidl edition.)
The Canon EOS R8 is the company's latest mid-level full-frame mirrorless camera. It brings the sensor and autofocus from the EOS R6 II and combines them in a smaller, more affordable body.
The Canon EOS R50 is an entry-level, company APS-C mirrorless camera. A 24MP RF-mount camera aiming to attract smartphone users and, perhaps, vloggers.
Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.
There are a lot of photo/video cameras that have found a role as B-cameras on professional film productions or even A-cameras for amateur and independent productions. We've combed through the options and selected our two favorite cameras in this class.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both the speed and focus to capture fast action and offer professional-level image quality. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing around $2000 and recommended the best.
Family moments are precious and sometimes you want to capture that time spent with loved ones or friends in better quality than your phone can manage. We've selected a group of cameras that are easy to keep with you, and that can adapt to take photos wherever and whenever something memorable happens.
What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.
The Canon EOS R8 is the company's latest mid-level full-frame mirrorless camera. It brings the sensor and autofocus from the EOS R6 II and combines them in a smaller, more affordable body.
The Canon EOS R50 is an entry-level, company APS-C mirrorless camera. A 24MP RF-mount camera aiming to attract smartphone users and, perhaps, vloggers.
The 50mm F1.4 DG DN Art is a fast 50mm lens for full-frame Sony E-mount and L-mount Alliance cameras, and makes use of linear focus motors for the first time in the Art series.
Tall buildings, expansive views, and tight spaces all call for an ultra-wide lens. Here we round-up four Micro Four Thirds-mount fixed-focal-length examples from Laowa, Panasonic, Meike and Samyang.
Chris and Jordan are enjoying some well deserved time off this week, so we're taking a trip in the wayback machine to revisit the launch of Canon's original full-frame mirrorless camera, the EOS R. Give it a watch to see how far Canon's mirrorless line has come.
While peak Milky Way season is on hiatus, there are other night sky wonders to focus on. We look at the Orion constellation and Northern Lights, which are prevalent during the winter months.
We've gone hands-on with Nikon's new 17-28mm F2.8 lens for its line of Z-mount cameras. Check out the sample gallery to see what kind of image quality it has to offer on a Nikon Z7 II.
The winning and finalist images from the annual Travel Photographer of the Year awards have been announced, showcasing incredible scenes from around the world. Check out the gallery to see which photographs took the top spots.
The a7R V is the fifth iteration of Sony's high-end, high-res full-frame mirrorless camera. The new 60MP Mark IV, gains advanced AF, focus stacking and a new rear screen arrangement. We think it excels at stills.
Using affordable Sony NP-F batteries and the Power Junkie V2 accessory, you can conveniently power your camera and accessories, whether they're made by Sony or not.
According to Japanese financial publication Nikkei, Sony has moved nearly all of its camera production out of China and into Thailand, citing geopolitical tensions and supply chain diversification.
A pro chimes in with his long-term impressions of DJI's Mavic 3. While there were ups and downs, filmmaker José Fransisco Salgado found that in his use of the drone, firmware updates have made it better with every passing month.
Landscape photography has a very different set of requirements from other types of photography. We pick the best options at three different price ranges.
AI is here to stay, so we must prepare ourselves for its many consequences. We can use AI to make our lives easier, but it's also possible to use AI technology for more nefarious purposes, such as making stealing photos a simple one-click endeavor.
This DIY project uses an Adafruit board and $40 worth of other components to create a light meter and metadata capture device for any film photography camera.
Scientists at the Green Bank Observatory in West Virginia have used a transmitter with 'less power than a microwave' to produce the highest resolution images of the moon ever captured from Earth.
The tiny cameras, which weigh just 1.4g, fit inside the padding of a driver's helmet, offering viewers at home an eye-level perspective as F1 cars race through the corners of the world's most exciting race tracks. In 2023, all drivers will be required to wear the cameras.
Comments