Street Photography
Downtown Victoria
No, I do not call myself a street photographer. I am usually a fairly contemplative photographer. I study an image for a while before I take the final image. Street photography, and related photojournalism, tend to be a much more reactive process. You may see an image starting to come together, so you anticipate when all the elements work, and take the photo. Sometimes things work out as planned, sometimes they don’t (and sometimes things go in a different direction that is even better than you planned…)
To Photoshop or not to Photoshop…
A friend sent me a link to an interesting article, with the message “To Photoshop, or not to Photoshop.” and I agree with the author of the original article, the premise is totally irrelevant. Back in the analogue film days, one might as well have said.
To Darkroom or not to Darkroom
There is not much we do now with Photoshop that wasn’t done in darkrooms of the past. Photoshop arguably makes it easier, and less expensive than chemical and optical processing. I say arguably because good Photoshopping[1] is hard and time consuming, and when you include the cost of a good computer, monitor, graphics tablet, etc it is far from cheap. Back in the day, you could outfit a small darkroom for less than the price of Photoshop[2]by itself.
For some, the process of photography is still the most important thing. “What camera/lens/software did you use?” “How did you make that photo?” and the prevalent “Did you Photoshop that?” The assumption seems to be that if I had that camera, or if I stood where you stood, I could make the same image. If only I had a many-multi-thousand dollar Mac Pro, my photography would grace the pages of all the big magazines. Now of course some people really do enjoy the process, and I have nothing against that, as long as it is recognized for what it is. Some people are car mechanics and some people prefer driving. One is not better than the other, but they are different pursuits.
For me, and my style of “art” photography, the image is the final product. If the image works, it is irrelevant how you got there. Weak execution at any step of the photographic process can lead to a less than great photograph, regardless of the path used. In other words, the final image has to say something, and say so in a cohesive and decisive way. For me, the process is a means to the end.
I had an interesting conversation with an artist friend a while ago about whether I really cared if people did not realize how much work I put into my photography. I think I was a little jealous, because no one questions the skill and work that goes into a painting.
Maybe that is photography’s Achilles heel. Because it is so easy, getting a good image is even harder…
- I really dislike the term Photoshopping. The correct term would probably be digital manipulation, but that doesn’t have quite the same assumptions that the term Photoshopping does.↵
- As of today (May 5, 2013) Photoshop CS6 is still available for between $600 and $700. The cloud version is just rolling out and will probably end up costing most people more. I remember seeing small enlargers for a couple of hundred, plus a couple of hundred for a lens. various trays and sundries may be another hundred… Of course, like everything photographic you could go up from there to whatever stratospheric heights you like…↵
Print Vs. Screen
Computers have affected photography in many ways. The most obvious is probably digital cameras. Film has been relegated to a small niche item.
We can use programs like Photoshop or Gimp to do things that were difficult, if not impossible in the old darkrooms{{1)). Cameras themselves are computerized marvels that make a lot of the technical aspects of photography almost non-existent. There is one area though that may not be as obvious…
Back in the film days, the only way to see the image was to make a print (or project a slide, but that was a whole process by itself…). Now we can make prints easier, or at least less messily, but the majority of images are only seen on a computer screen. Of course the advantage of viewing photos on a computer screen is convenience. With the wonder of the Internet, it is also very easy to share photos with many people (sometimes MANY, MANY people).
There are some disadvantages to viewing photos on a monitor though. If you are sharing photos with others, you have no control of the type of monitor they are using. The image may look great on your high end, colour calibrated monitor, but it may lack detail, contrast, saturation, and colour fidelity on a cheap monitor.
A well made print will have way more detail, a better contrast range, and, in my opinion, more “presence” than a screen image. A print is also more permanent. A print hanging on a wall invites you to come back and investigate it again and again. An image on a computer screen can be turned off.
In the next article, I will talk about how the different display options affect the entire photography work flow, from taking the image to post processing…
[[1]]Actually there were some very creative people in the darkroom. Some of these could do more in the darkroom than some people can do in Photoshop, but overall, it is much easier to manipulate images on a computer, if only because it is easier to “undo” a mistake…[[1]]
Portraiture
Yesterday I was asked to represent Academy of Learning College[1] for the graduation ceremony for the latest HCA (Health Care Assistant) grads. Since it was known that I am also a photographer, I was “volunteered” to take the official grad photos.
I was not really comfortable with this situation for a number of reasons. First, I was not getting paid. In fact I was doing it on my own time, but I was not really too worried about it because I am not an event or portrait photographer. I have taken portraits in the past, but last summer I gave away all my lighting equipment. The only flash I had was the built in pop-up.
Again, lack of flash would not really be an issue if we could shoot outdoors. I was not able to scout the location before the day of the ceremony, so I asked someone who suggested a large tree in front of the building. This would have been great, except that the tree was in the middle of a garden, and I could just imagine the problems with women wearing high heels.
So what is the point of this article? I want to say that I was able to improvise and take some ok photos in the library inside. Yes I had to use a higher ISO than I am used to, and yes I had to edit the photos more than I would have liked, but I think the students will be happy with what they get.
Whenever you are out taking photos, don’t get caught up in what you should do, instead look at what you have and make it work.
Next year I will have to buy a flash….
- Yes I know, the name was chosen by the Department of Redundancy Department….↵
… And another photo
from my drive yesterday.
I have done the retouching for this image in Lightroom on my laptop. Of course the screen of the laptop is not the best, so I may have to revisit this…
Book your cruise for May 2014
Mark your calendar for May 15, 2014. Why? We will be cruising through the Mediterranean and taking photos. You can make reservations through Pam at 1 800 668 8122.
So what are you reserving?
- A seven day cruise through the Mediterranean, including two days shooting in Venice
- Return air fair from Victoria
- A small intimate ship
- Some of the best cuisine on the ocean
- Photo instruction by yours truly each evening
- Personal tutoring on your photography during daily shooting outings
- A professional print of your best shot from the week (approximately 13″x19″)
- A showing of all best shots in Victoria
- Much much more
And yes you can bring a non-photographing significant other.
This is a very early booking, so some of the details are still to be worked out, but it will be a blast.
Sidney Ocean Centre
I went back to the Shaw Open Ocean Discovery Centre yesterday to try to get some better photos of the critters there. I think it will take a few trials still…
great potential for photography. I have retouched out a few reflections though…
I did not have a tripod with me, so I had to use a high ISO (1250) and had VR enabled. Even so, parts of the image are soft or blurry. Even with a tripod, the creatures are moving, so stopping them is still a bit of a problem.
Another issue is the moire caused by the Plexiglas, both front and back. If I wanted, I guess I could blur it all out of existence, but I kind of like the impression it gives. It makes the jellyfish even more otherworldly…
Camera Bags
I am on the ferry over to Vancouver and got thinking about carrying my camera gear.
I guess to start at the beginning, an aspiring photographer first needs to decide what kind of camera gear they want to carry around. Obviously carting a large format system is completely different from putting a smart phone in your pocket. Over the years I have settled on a DSLR with a number of lenses. This gives me the versatility I want while keeping the portability reasonable. I will use this type of camera as a baseline to describe my carrying choices…
Years ago I had a standard over the shoulder bag. I still see many people using these, but for me I found them bulky and awkward, especially if I was climbing over rocks or trees. Also the weight of the bag tended to dig into my shoulder.These bags are great for travelling or working on location, but they are not really “portable” for outdoor photography.
I later tried a big backpack. This was comfortable and could hold a lot of gear, but working with it in the field was a little less than convenient. Basically the backpack would be laid on the ground and acted like a cabinet or desk. Again, great for transporting gear, but not quite so good for shooting.
Next came a photo vest[1] which works great, but looks dorky as all heck…
My current solution is a LowePro sling pack. (Slingshot 100AW) I can carry a DSLR with a lens (currently D600 and 24-85) and three extra lenses (usually 20mm, 70-300, and 90mm macro) or a flash. The bag is comfortable and has an extra strap that prevents the bag from swinging if I am doing serious climbing or scrambling. The bag can swing around to become a convenient platform, and all the accessories are easily accessed. When I am shooting I don’t need to take it off. Downsides? The 100 is too small for larger lenses or cameras and I can only carry three extra lenses. However for a quick carry around bag it is very handy, and it forces me to slim down my everyday equipment.
Bottom line? The best camera is one you have with you. Choosing a good convenient bag enables you to carry a good camera with a minimum of fuss.
- To give credit where it is due, my vest was made by my ex-wife who was very good with a sewing machine. The vest is largely customized for my gear and my working style.↵
My old Camera
I gave my older DSLR to my daughter[1] so she can learn more about photography. I thought I could teach her what I know, but when we went out last weekend, it was me who was learning from her creativity.
I won’t say I was in a rut, more like a groove, but going out with someone who still has a fresh eye, and no preconceptions on what will or will not work, was very refreshing. My daughter was trying things I would otherwise have not bothered with. While we were in Goldstream Park, she was experimenting with angles, points of view, and even subject matter that I would not normally give a second thought. Of course many, if not most of the images did not work, but a few stood out and I may have to go back and try to refine her approach.
One of my daughter’s images of car lights
Later that night, we set up a tripod by the highway so she could record car light trails. I haven’t thought of doing that for years, but it gave me the freedom to experiment.
So the take away lesson is twofold. First, let go of your preconceptions and experiment. The second, and possibly more important lesson is that you can (and should) learn something from any and everyone.
… and then she really started getting creative…
- Actually I LOANED her my old Fuji S2… Since my new camera came with a 24-85 lens, I also loaned her my 35-70 and 24mm. These are both very good lenses, but they are both older then she is (and she is quickly coming up to her 17th birthday)↵
My New D600′s Images
I went up to Spectacle Lake on Saturday with my new camera. The day started out a bit overcast, but the sun came out later, giving a variety of conditions to try out.
The first set of images I have worked on were all taken of ice at the edge of the lake. (the album is here). One of my favourites is this one…
I was originally attracted to the subtle colours and fractured shapes. I felt it was quite “painterly”. Maybe someone with a better knowledge of art history can tell me who this reminds me of…
The image was quite easy to work on in Photoshop, I emphasized the surface texture and enhanced a few of the sub ice colours. I also evened out the light, as the top left was a bit bright and pulled the eye away from the interesting things happening on the right.
My New D600
This review will be broken into two parts, this one on the camera and and the article following on image quality.
I bought myself a new Nikon D600 last Thursday, and this weekend is the first time I have been able to “play” with it. There is lots to learn with this camera, the owners manual is the size of a small novel (and yes that is only the English). For these reasons, this will be an evolving review as I learn more….
Of course the first thing I did after I bought my camera was to charge the battery. I wish the charger displayed the battery level, but that is not a big deal, as the camera seems to be accurate (no I have not killed a charge yet, but I am not one for taking thousands of images on a shoot). Once I got home from work, I started reading the manual. The manual will take a couple of reads before I learn everything, but a quick browse gave me an idea of some of the things I wanted to customize. Since I am coming from a much older and simpler camera, I probably have more to learn than someone upgrading from a more recent model. I am not one for gadgets on my cameras…
Out taking photos, the camera handles well. Honestly I don’t think it feels as good as my old Fuji S2-Pro, but that might just be a familiarity thing. I know build quality is better on the D600. The viewfinder is nice and bright, and seems to show everything you really need. One feature I did not think about was live view. When shooting at an unusual angle, I did not have to contort to see through the viewfinder to compose. Again, I prefer using the viewfinder, but the live view was a help for a couple of shots.
One thing I did not like was the remote release. The cord can be plugged in backwards. It takes a very little extra effort, and I am afraid it could break some contacts or something. I will have to mark the plug somehow (I am thinking of a dot of bright red nail polish). I will also need to figure out a way to mount the release to the tripod. I tend to leave the camera on the tripod and carry it over my shoulder. If I leave the remote plugged it, it swings. In other words, it is not a well designed remote. There is available a wireless remote, but having used those in the past, I’m not a big fan…
When I got home to download the images I was in for another surprise. My Linux computer recognized the raw files fine, however my windows machine did not. A download from Nikon enabled me to see thumbnails, but that was about it. Lightroom 4 recognized the files, but Photoshop CS5 did not. Contrary to what seems like most photographers, I don’t really like Lightroom, and I don’t see a real need to update to Photoshop CS6. Thank goodness Digikam understands the files. I do miss some of the controls and ease of ACR, but I can work around that. I will have to figure out a workflow…
Back to the camera though, Image quality is amazing. I could get very good images with my old Fuji, but I felt like I was pushing it right up to, and even past, what it could provide. I often had to work pretty hard to get what I wanted. With the D600, I get the feeling I have room to spare. The image files just keep going, amazing detail, tons of dynamic range, and very malleable.
Of course the camera is new, and I have to justify the cost, but I think as I learn the D600, it will prove to be a versatile tool.
Why I like Goldstream Park
(This is the post I started to write when I noticed I had written 99 posts on this blog)
The main part of Goldstream Park (that is, the banks of Goldstream Creek) is not that big, but it always seems to provide good photographic material.
This image really leads my eye into the thick undergrowth in the background:
There is a strong vertical compositional movement with a few visual pit stops on the way. I used a wide angle lens (20mm) to emphasize the depth, and then I spend some time in photoshop emphasizing details to provide more depth[1]. I used two basic techniques here, I make the top third and background cooler (more blue) to help it recede, and I used tone to paint depth. Bright tones tend to look closer, while darker tones fall back. This is where my pen and tablet are useful. I use my “glazing” technique to paint tonality.
In this image, the same wide angle lens was used to create a sense of space:
I used the same glazing technique here, but I also gave some form to the trees. I lightened the edges using a very soft graduated brush. This enhances the roundness of the trees. I increased the contrast of the water drops against the dark background, and darkened select trees in the foggy background.
If you are paying attention, you may notice that I used the same technique for opposite effects in these images. In the top image, I lightened to bring forward and darkened to push back. For the second, I lightened the edges of the main trees to emphasize their roundness. In other words to push the edges of the trees back. I darkened background trees to bring them forward.
So what is the lesson here? Tone can be used to shape, as well as to separate elements in space.
How do you learn this? Study art, especially masters. The Rembrandt and Ansel Adam each understood this, and used various techniques within their medium to achieve this. With digital imaging, various programs such as Photoshop give us the tools to copy the techniques from other art forms.
But by far the most important skill to learn is how to look at your images objectively and critically. And of course this is probably the hardest skill of all to learn…
Oh, and why do I like Goldstream Park? It continues to teach me subtleties…
How to test a lens…
I am a bit different from most photographers (no smirking in the back row….) in that I do not believe there is such a thing as a “bad” lens. You may get a defective lens, or a particular lens may not do what you want it to do, but if you take its quirks into account, you can get great photos from any lens. The corollary is not true though, not every lens is a “good” lens. Some lenses are too specialized, or take too much effort to understand their quirks that they do not easily work for a specific type of photography. I used to have a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 lens. Many people love that focal ranged, and the lens itself was very sharp and high quality, however, for me, it was not a good lens. Using a crop frame camera, the lens was either too long, or too short. For the weight of the lens (it was a bit of a brute) it was just not worth carrying around for the number of photos I could get from it.[1]
Since I was working two jobs last December, I bought myself a Christmas present, a Tamron 90mm macro lens. The owner of Japan Camera gave me a great deal and I could not say no. But since I was working two jobs, I was not able to take any real photos until this weekend.
Tamron has been making a version of this lens since forever[2] and it has always had good reviews. I was impressed by the build quality. It does look quite different than most Nikon or Canon lenses. Maybe it is the smooth barrel and lack of aperture ring (although the latter is more common with many modern lenses). The focus ring on the Tamron is quite slick. Click it forward and the lens is in autofocus, click it back and it is in manual focus. I have a Sigma lens with a similar mechanism, but on the Sigma, the focus ring turns while in autofocus. The Tamron doesn’t. For some reason, the reversible lens hood seems a bit cheap. Nothing I can really explain, it seems to work fine, and it clicks into placed on the lens. We will see after a few years of use…
But of course handling of a lens is very secondary to picture quality. The weekend was overcast with drizzling rain, so the light was quite even, but water drops and wet reflections provided lots of contrast.
- And it was not just the weight. I have a 300 f4 that is about the same weight, and a little bit bigger, but the reach is worth the weight. When I bring the 300 I find shots that I could not get otherwise. The 70-200 did not solve enough photographic problems for me, so I traded it for a 60mm macro.↵
- Wikipedia says 1997↵
retouching
In one of the LinkedIn groups I follow, Davesh asked for help with this image taken with, I am guessing, a cell phone camera with a dirty lens:
with a couple of minutes in Photoshop (or any other retouching program)
I found the original a bit pasty an flat, in addition to the light flare from the dirty lens, so the first step was an overall contrast and saturation adjustment.
Next I tackled the faces covered with flare. I simply made another curves adjustment layer, matched the tone of the “flared” area to the unflared area, then masked off everywhere else.
Last step was to darken the background. Again I used a curves layer with a mask to control what was adjusted.
As a final last step, I was not happy with a couple of the faces, so I touched them up a bit more.
All in all, it took me much longer to write this description than to retouch the photo. Yes I could fix the photo quite a bit more. There is a lot of fine tuning I could do, but sometimes a quick “down and dirty” job is good enough…
PS. One of the responses in the above discussion mentioned that the background light is distracting. I agree, but removing it with the clone tool for example was a bit more work than I was willing to put into the image. Another poster had a better suggestion anyway, just crop off the top… makes a better composition anyway…
Perfect Images
In the days of film, we photographers never really knew what our pictures looked like until we had the film developed[1]. When I was a kid growing up in a small town, I had to wait an eternity to see what my photos looked like. First it took a while to finish a roll of film, then I dropped it off at the local drug store where it took a good week or so to get developed. finally, I had to save up my allowance so I could pay for the magic package. During all this time, I would imagine the images that I had captured. In my mind, I would soon be seeing 24 or 36 masterpieces that would transform photography in the 20th century. Ok, maybe not quite that bad, but the point is, I imagined the best possible scenario.
Business people[2] suffer from the same malady. When doing a business projection, many prospective entrepreneurs over estimate income(everyone will want my service/product. I will grow phenomenally quickly) and under estimate expenses (I can get a better deal on that….). I think it is part of the creative mind. We imagine reality to be better than it may be. This is not a bad thing, and, in fact, it may be what drives artists and entrepreneurs to keep going…
My Mom calls me a survivor. I have gone through some tough times, but I always seem to land on my feet. I think the biggest factor is that I don’t give up. I keep trying. Sometimes things work, sometimes they don’t, but I am always moving forward. It frustrates me that some people give up. They become afraid of “what if”. I think creative people, such as artists or business people, become excited with “what if”. It isn’t a case of glass half full or glass half empty, it is a case of what can be done with the extra room in the glass….
- This post was inspired by this blog, specifically the quote, “Any photographer will tell you that exposed film only contains perfect images. It’s only in development that you find out that you did it wrong.”↵
- and others. Why do people buy lottery tickets? To imagine a dream. Until you check your numbers, you can imagine what it would be like to have 50 million dollars…..↵
Printing and DPI vs PPI
I have seen a question asked in a number of forms (and forums). The most common variant seems to be along the lines of, “Why does my super expensive uber-camera only record 72 DPI?”[1]
This can get quite complicated, but I will try to keep it simple. Before we can even start, though, we need some definitions:
DPI or Dots Per Inch is an often misused printing term.[2] For ink jets printers it refers to the number of distinct drops of a specific colour of ink placed on the paper. As a simple example imagine a 3 colour printer that has 300 holes in an inch wide print head, 100 for the cyan ink (C), 100 for the magenta (M), and 100 for the yellow (Y). This printer has 300 dots per inch[3]. But remember that each of these dots can only be one colour (we will ignore black and other colour inks used in higher end printers, this is a cheap make-believe printer just to demonstrate a point). Additional colours can be made by mixing different numbers of dots of these inks, along with the white of the paper, in a very small area (look at a print under a magnifying glass sometime). The way a printer does this is to place a number of dots of each required colour (CMY) within a matrix[4].
cyan pixel |
magenta pixel |
light yellow pixel, some paper white is allowed to show through |
blue pixel, made from cyan and magenta ink drops |
Now, back to our original 300 dpi printer. Imagine that this print head used a 100 dot matrix to make each pixel. It takes 100 dots to make up one colour. It may take 27 cyan dots, 56 magenta dots, and 7 yellow dots while leaving the rest of the matrix white to make up the required colour . Each colour matrix represents ONE pixel. Therefore, this theoretical print head can print three (3) PIXELS per inch (PPI).
This is why some printers say they have 1200 dpi or more. This is NOT the same as 1200 PPI. The number of pixels, and the actual resolution has nothing (ok, very little) to do with the DPI. A higher dpi may mean a higher ppi, it may mean a larger range of printable colours, but it could also mean absolutely nothing!
So now we know what printed dots are, but what about resolution? Resolution is the number of pixels in an image, usually measured along the horizontal and vertical axes. 640 pixels wide by 480 pixels tall as an example[5].
So where does ppi come in? Let’s say we want to print an 8 inch by 10 inch picture. We know from experience that we need about 300 ppi to make a photo realistic image[6]. We multiply 8 inches times 300 ppi for 2400 pixels and 10 times 300 for 3000 pixels. We need an image of 2400 x 3000 pixels[7].
A lot of the confusion comes when printing programs or graphics programs use dpi when they mean ppi. People also get confused when they are re-sizing images. If you don’t change the number of pixels in an image (which is what affects the file size) you can specify any dpi you want. An example I used in a forum was, ” Which has more resolution, a 10 ppi image, or a 1000 ppi image?” The question is unanswerable unless I also tell you either print size, in which case you can calculate pixel dimensions, or pixel dimensions directly.
So keep an eye on pixel dimensions, and make sure your software isn’t changing the pixel count when all you want to do is print your image.
Note: If you have any questions or comments, please contact me so I can incorporate them in future articles.
- The 72 number may vary. This post was inspired by someone asking about 200 DPI vs 320 DPI. Another common question is, “What dpi should I print at?” hence the title of the article↵
- It is also been used to describe the number of each red, green or blue elements on a monitor. In common usage, dpi and ppi (pixels per inch) are often used interchangeably, which leads to much of the confusion.↵
- This printer doesn’t exist of course, and most print heads have fewer holes than their DPI rating. This is accomplished by the head moving across the print surface and “firing” multiple times per inch during that pass.↵
- One of the differences between a good photo printer and a regular colour printer is the way these dots are arranged. Some laser printers put down a very regular and rectangular grid. This can be visibly distracting in a photograph.↵
- For some reason Great Britain (not sure about the rest of Europe) measures images opposite to North America. What we call 8×10 they call 10×8. I guess they think we also drive on the wrong side of the road…↵
- The ppi required (often also called resolution – see where all the confusion comes in?) is partly dependant on the printer you are using, and partly on the viewing distance. For a regular print you are going to be looking closely at, use around 300 ppi. I may write on this topic in more depth at a later date…. or maybe not….↵
- as an aside, note that this is a 7.2 megapixel image. If you are willing to go to 200 ppi, which a lot of people find more than acceptable, you can get away with a 3.2 megapixel camera. Yes you can make decent prints with your cell phone, as long as it has good quality pixels (another topic, and rare in a cell phone) and a good lens (very rare).↵
Sports Photography
Yesterday I ended up taking photos of some motorcycle races. I would not call myself a sports photographer by any means, and my camera is not really up to the job in any serious sense. However, I did learn a few things…
Sports photography is all about timing. Having fast auto-focus and many shots per second helps, but it is still up to the photographer, and an awful lot of luck…
There are basically three ways to capture the action.
Freeze the shot…
Choose a fast shutter speed[1]. Of course this means that you will have higher ISO (more noise) and/or wider aperture. Since a wide aperture gives you a more limited depth of focus, you have to be more accurate. As I said, auto-focus helps, but for something as fast as motorcycle racing, you may find your focus is slightly outside your intended target. This is where the technique of trap focusing works. Manually focus at the distance where you anticipate the action to happen. When your subject reaches your “focus zone” trip the shutter[2].
Blur the subject…
If you choose a slower shutter speed (opposite of above) and keep the camera still[3]. The appropriate blur can impart a sense of motion.
Panning…
This is a variation of blurring the subject, but instead of keeping the camera still, try to follow the subject while using a slow shutter speed. This technique takes lots of practice and lots of luck, but it can create a fairly arresting image.
When using any of these techniques, remember to tell a story. These are tools and means to an end.
Also remember the story of the event …
This image shows the winner of the pro class crossing the finish line. While not one of the strongest images artistically, it is the story moment.
- Of course the appropriate shutter speed depends on the sport. Motor sports like this needs as fast as you possibly can manage. Something like curling would not be so critical.↵
- Depending on your camera, there may be a lag between when you press the button and when the shutter actually trips. You may have to anticipate your subject moving into your focus zone. This is one area where luck enters. Take lots of photos…↵
- A tripod or monopod is handy, however for this shot I had neither, so I rested my camera on the fence surrounding the course.↵
How to be creative
For a very long time, I have wanted to teach people the creative side of making images. This is a much harder undertaking than teaching the technical side of photography. Many courses, books, workshops, and so on will tell you all about shutter speeds, apertures and so on. The conventional wisdom seems to be to learn the “basics” first, then try to master the creative side of the craft.
This was logical back in the days of film. If you did not set the exposure correctly[1] you would not get an image at all. Now, however, cameras are much MUCH more sophisticated. Auto exposure and auto focus can get you a very good technical image. I believe that now, the more important first steps are to learn the creative aspects of picture making. As you progress in making better images, you will want to learn how to use the tools more effectively.
Imagine this as an analogy. You want to learn woodworking, and you hope to someday make some great furniture. While it could be argued that you should start off with the best tools, in a way, this is a waste[2]. you will not be able to tell the difference between a five dollar hammer from the local hardware store and a $200 hammer ordered from a specialty on line store. As a beginner, you are still working out how to shape the wood, how to make strong and precise joints, etc.
So where does that leave us? Let me give you all the technical advice you will need (until you decide you need more…)
- Use auto-exposure. Let your camera do most of the heavy lifting. There will be times where the camera will not nail the exposure (fewer times than you might think, and getting fewer with each iteration of camera), but look at these shots and try to figure out why the exposure is off. If the image is too bright (over exposed), next time you are in a similar situation, use the cameras exposure compensation (read your manual, most cameras have this feature, although sometimes it is buried in menus) to underexpose slightly. Conversely, if an image is too dark, use the exposure compensation to over expose.
- Building on the point above, if the background of your shot is much lighter or darker than your subject, use a spot meter (if your camera has that feature) or point the camera at something more evenly lit, hold down the shutter button halfway, and recompose to take the photo (be careful with distances though, see below)
- Use auto-focus. for the same reasons as #1. If your camera is having a tough time focusing, point the camera at something at a similar distance, hold the shutter button halfway down, and recompose to take the photo.
- If you are shooting in low light, make sure your shutter speed doesn’t get too slow. [3] Generally try to keep the shutter speed faster (shorter) than 1/60
- Using a higher ISO setting, such as 400, gives you more flexibility. Many modern cameras will automatically set the ISO for you as well. Using a low ISO is generally only important if you are making BIG prints, and even then, only if you want a specific effect.
That is pretty much it. One big advantage of digital cameras is the LCD screen on the back of the camera. You can review an image immediately after you have taken it. If you don’t like it, you can re shoot it right away. Which leads to the biggest point of this lesson:
Don’t be afraid to experiment Try different settings and approaches. I will talk about this much more in upcoming lessons, but remember, if you try something and it doesn’t work, the worst thing that has happened is you learned something. I will say it again:
DON’T BE AFRAID TO EXPERIMENT
this will eventually link to the next lesson in the series
- Of course there is debate on the term correct exposure, and when you should over expose, when you should under expose, and whether you should compensate when developing the film. Thank goodness digital all but eliminated a lot of these concerns.↵
- Starting off with good quality tools is always a good idea, but there is the issue of diminishing returns. That is, again, as a beginner, you will probably not notice a real difference between using a top of the line SLR and a good quality compact camera. And you can use the extra couple of grand you save to buy some good photo books, or take a workshop (or send me a donation…..)↵
- Shutter speeds are generally fractions of a second. 1/500, 1/250, 1/125, etc. Some cameras omit the “1/” and only show 500, 250, 125…↵
Lessons
I have been watching videos at Kahn Academy (khanacademy.org) and I started to wonder if I could put up something similar, but photography or art related. I have researched video software enough that I can start experimenting. Hopefully I can get something up soon..
Golden Ears Park
I spent last long weekend visiting my parents with my 2 kids. We went for a short hike in nearby Golden Ears Park where I shot this image (among others).
click for a full size image.
I was really intrigued by the colour of the water, it really was green, while the rock by the shore showed up as yellow.
The problem was that we were at the waterfall at midday. The light was very contrasty, with bright highlights in the direct sun, and dark shadows under the trees. I could not get a reasonable image without resorting to HDR.[1]
mouseover to see retouched version
I also did a bit of fine tuning (burning and dodging in old school terms) and some highlight and shadow “glazing”. Vibrance and saturation were tweaked to enhance the colours that originally attracted me to the image. Selective sharpening was used to enhance the highlights in the water.
Since the images were handheld, the final image is a bit of a crop from the original.
On a side note, I tried a print on a different paper than I usually use. I was not really impressed. Maybe it was a lower grade of Ilford Gallerie, but it was a bit thinner than I am used to, and there was significant bronzing in the image. I guess I will stick with my Epson paper for now…
- HDR is a method of taking two or more shots of a scene at different exposures so that you can get a wider range of tones represented. Unfortunately, HDR has a bad reputation, largely because Photoshop, and other image software has made the process deceptively easy. Maybe one day I will write an article on HDR↵
Inside the Ordinary – Lesson 3
Tone and Colour
In a previous lesson I looked at the arrangement of elements and composition of images. We touched on colours and tones. But now, let’s look at colour and tone in more detail.
Colours can have emotional connotations. Red tends to be dynamic, Blue tends to be more calming. A contrast of bright colours can add dynamism, whereas a monotone is more static. Also, some colours tend to come forward, like reds or yellows. Greens and blues tend to receed. We can use this information to control a viewer. We can even exploit this to give three dimensional look to a subject.
Tones refers to the lightness and darkness of specific areas. Black and white photography, of course, emphasizes this tonality, but you can have a light and dark green as well. As we have seen, our eyes tend to be drawn to light areas. Our eyes are also drawn to contrasting colours. A single red poppy in a field of green will draw the eye, regardless of it’s position in the image.
Once we have our image downloaded onto a computer, we can change these tones and even colours to emphasize emotional content of our image. Before we get into changing an image we need to learn about a histogram.
A histogram is a graph showing the number of pixels at any specific density.as you move right on the graph, the tones get lighter.
Normal Histogram
The image above is a screen capture of the GIMP histogram of the “Victoria in Snow” photo from the introduction. You will notice there are two areas with a lot of tone, but none of the tones are pressed up to the edges. Also there is a full spread of tones.
The two images above show the histograms of the same image after manipulating with the GIMP, showing under-exposure and over-exposure. You will notice that some of the pixels are pushed right against the edge. In the over-exposed image, there will be areas of pure white. If the image is printed, these areas will be the colour of the paper. This will produce a harsh, unnatural transition that can be very jarring. Under-exposure will make pure black areas devoid of any detail. Generally the pure black areas are less objectionalble than the pure white, but there can still be a harsh transition.
Most modern image programs have a levels, or even a curves adjustment this lets you change the relative brightness of various parts of the image. Setting an “S” curve will increase the mid tone contrast, giving the image more “punch.” conversely, a reverse “S” shaped curve will make an image calmer and quieter. Again, choose your controls according to what you want your image to say[1].
Colour can be saturated or muted. An image can even be made more green, or blue, or whatever if that adds to the feel. There are a couple of cadveats to all these controls though. You can bring your image far from reality[2]. This may not be a bad thing in itself, but sometimes it can look jarring and “not quite right” if it doesn’t suite the subject. When you push these controls too far, you can also get “clipping”[3].
- Controling contrast is, in my opinion, one of the strongest post processing tools we have. I almost always set curves before I do anything else.↵
- For some definition of “reality” Often these controls can make things look more real than the unmanipulated, and technically truer to life rendition. Sometimes exagertating something way beyond “reality” can show your viewer more consisely what you wanted to say. In other words, do what is right for the photograph.↵
- Clipping means that a group of pixels (or even a single pixel, but a single pixel is probably all but invisible to viewers) is outside the range of displayable colours. You can’t get whiter than white. In print terms, if the image is pure paper white, it can’t get any whiter. This can cause unnatural gradients and jaring transitions.↵
Spring has (finally) sprung
A group of photographers went out to Government House today to take some spring flower pictures. The day was close to perfect. The light was very directional, but not too harsh. There was a sporadic wind, but it behaved itself, for the most part. The only “problem” was that most of the flowers have not come up yet, however there were many other subjects to keep the eye occupied.
Since the meeting was closer to mid-day, I concentrated on contrasting light. I think backlight can be very rewarding, especially if you can keep a dark background. The image above also proves the point that sometimes less is more. I chose an angle lens and camera position that just showed what was needed, and excluded any distractions.
I also worked carefully on this image to avoid distractions, but the unwanted bits were quite a bit more subtle. There is a lot going on in the image but there were reflections and highlights that pulled the eye away from the center where I wanted to focus. In fact I had to break off some grasses that formed out of focus highlights where I did not want them.
Both of these images did not just happen. I made some very conscious decisions even after I saw the subject matter I wanted to shoot. Both of these images required a very specific camera angle and zoom to exclude superfluous influences from the surroundings. Both these images were much easier to take with a tripod, not to freeze camera motion, but to allow more precise studying of the frame. I would move the camera a little bit, scan the image through the viewfinder, looking for unnecessary elements like branches or highlights, then I would move the camera a little bit more and look again. In the case of the grasses on the bottom photo, I even removed a few pieces of closer grass that, while completely out of focus, created some distracting lines.
These two images look completely different, but they both required a strong pre-visualized image to complete them.
Retouching
I just got my main computer back after my motherboard died. Kudos to Rob at London Drugs who covered the repair, even though it was a couple of months outside warranty[1]. So I finally got to work on a few new techniques I have been dying to try out…
This first image is fall in Goldstream Park (one of my favourite places)
Of course it is difficult to have an “unretouched” image, because even when I open the image in a RAW processor I do some basic manipulation.
This is the original image. mouseover to see final retouched. Click to see larger.
The bright fall leaves caught my eye. I also liked the leading lines created by the steep valley. Unfortunately, the camera could not make the leaves stand out the way I wanted them to, so I lightened them (slightly). I also did some selective darkening. Painting like this is made easier with a tablet and stylus. As a final touch I added a darker border (a vignette) around the outside to help contain the eye. move your mouse over the image above and you will see the final image. Notice the shading accentuates the leaves and adds depth to the image. Unfortunately, the difference is very hard to see and appreciate on the web, so lets try another…
mouseover to see final BW image. Click to see larger final version
Here the “painting” may be more obvious. Notice how, by selective shading and lightening (burning and dodging) the image becomes much more 3 dimensional. This is a trick I learned from a soon-to-be-famous painter friend[2].
When you do the mouseover thing above, the differences can jump out, however, in the print, the shading is quite subtle. In fact I try to keep these manipulations from standing out, However the prints are much more alive and inviting.
Maybe I am no longer a “Photogrpaher”, but am more of an artist. I will argue though, that any image, whether created by pencil, brush, or camera, results in an interpretation of the scene by the creator. Hopefully, my interpretations appeal to others….
- I was having problems since I bought the computer, but I did get it for a good price. I was in a bit of a panic when I bought it because my laptop had just been stolen. I will say the salesman did not really listen to what I wanted the computer for, but after sale service has been, for the most part, pretty good.↵
- One of Janise’s skills is glazing (something I have no idea about). She is able to bring her paintings to a much more interactive level compared to many other painters. I have tried to modify what she does and transfer the skill set to Photography. A good tutorial is here (I have extrapolated this technique to colour).↵
Negative Space
I held my first workshop in a long while on Friday. Overall it went very well. Of course there are always a few things I will do differently next time, such as spend more time defining concepts.
One of the downsides with knowing something well, is that I forget that others may not know “basics” that are second nature to me.
For example, I started talking about negative space in an image. I was getting blank stares until a friend of mine, who was sitting in on the course, asked me to define negative space….
Negative space is the room around your subject. The area in the picture that is not taken up by subject matter. More specifically, it is the shape of this area.
The famous example is a vase where the negative space looks like two people facing each other.
The example I used in the course was from a music video I was involved with.
Playing with negative space
In most images, the people would be the subject. In this image, I have underexposed the people so they become the negative space, except this negative space becomes the subject[1].
My point is that as a photographer, you must be aware of what is going on in your viewfinder. One reason I like using a tripod is that it slows me down, and lets me examine what the camera sees. You can also “chimp”, that is, look at the image on your camera’s display immediately after you take the shot, analyze what you took, and then compare that to what you thought you took. If circumstances allow, retake the photo with the changes you noticed and start over.
With digital, it is (almost too) simple to take lots of shots. Don’t be afraid to experiment
Sounds complicated, but
- Of course, this being me, I like to take the “rules” of art and play with them….↵