Photocritic photography blog » Become a better photographer

Framing in portraiture

Haje Jan Kamps — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:28:10 +0000

I spend a lot of time giving feedback on photos. One of the comments that pops up again and again is that I’ll feel as if an image is framed awkwardly.

Some times, I’ll find that an image is nigh-on perfect, but it fails to make the mark because it’s difficult to understand the motivation of the photographer: What are they trying to achieve with this photo?

It’s true for all photography, of course, but it’s more complicated with portraiture, as it isn’t necessarily very intuitive. How, after all, can you connect a story to the way a portrait is framed?

This is not a tutorial. Hell, it isn’t even much of a rant. Just some thoughts. Use of it what you will, and ignore (with great prejudice and much glee) everything you deem to be complete and utter bollocks. There will probably be some of both.

In this image (of myself. because I’m too lazy to dig through my backlog of umpteen million photos to find another one), the subject is dead centre in the image. The quality of the photo itself is unimpressive, and the lighting needs work, but that’s beside the point – we’re talking about framing here.

Centre-framing

Framed dead centre. Not very attractive. Nor is the framing.

In this image, the vast blackness on both sides of my ugly mug means that I’m surrounded by… something. But we can’t see it If I had a fear-struck look on my face, instead of looking smug, this composition may have helped to hint at something I was afraid of. perhaps something lurking in the shadows. But I’m looking vaguely content, so that doesn’t make any sense. In fact, the image has very little impact at all.

Looking into the frame

Cropped so I am looking 'into' the frame.

For my next book, I'll probably use something like this as my author photo. Because I've come a long way as a portrait photographer since my 'steeped in blackness' mysterious stranger days. (clicky for bigger)

So instead. it is recropped like this. Suddenly. I’m looking across a vast nothingness. Into… into what? I’m looking at something just outside the frame, lire image doesn’t hint at movement, nor does it show any particular emotion, so whatever is off frame isn’t engaging me.

Perhaps I’m watching television. Or I may just be at ease with myself. Due to the framing, the image has very little tension, and serves only to show off my face – great for the jacket-cover of that book I wrote, perhaps (Lo and behold, this is actually the photo I ended up using in my macro book.

This image is vaguely better than the one above. because it has some purpose. It draws the eyes the left, but simultaneously leaves you wondering what it is I’m looking at – And why it is so far away from me.

Looking “out” of the frame

Well will you look at that, miss moneypenny! This time, I'm on the right of the picture! It's pure unadulterated magic. MAGIC, I TELL YOU!

In this image, suddenly something else happens. I’m closer to the edge. Closer to action. Am I about to move towards the light? Am I dead, moving towards the light? At the very least, I appear more curious. And I’ve left a wasteland of darkness behind me. Or perhaps I’m just the first one to step out of the shadows?

This image has the sense of movement, somehow – a dynamic property, which wasn’t there in the previous image – even though the only difference is a net of black pixels.

So, er, what’s the point of all this, Haje?

Well, the main message, I suppose, is test it out, and keep the rule of thirds in the back of your mind.

Take an image, crop it in different ways. See how it impacts the photo, and see if it becomes more interesting. Think about what message you are trying to convey, and see if the image is actually supporting that message. If it is: Great! flit isn’t, perhaps a re-crop, or even a re-shoot would solve the problem.

Copyright Information

If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator or RSS reader, the site you are looking at is committing copyright infringement. If you spot this, please contact legal@kamps.org so we can take legal action immediately. pcrss31283940 / 20100909

What went wrong?

Haje Jan Kamps — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 07:31:19 +0000

A good friend of me recently posted on a social media site that a recent photo shoot he had done had gone horribly wrong; sure, some of the photos came out all right, but none of them fulfilled the ‘vision’ he was hoping for from his shoot.

It’s heartbreaking when a lot of effort doesn’t pay off – but all you can do is to chalk it up as a writing experience. Analyse what went wrong, and then don’t do that again. It’s a slow way of learning things, of course, but things learned the hard way are generally learned properly – so there is a bit of a silver lining after all.

What can you do when you feel as if you’re properly starting to get the hang of photography, but you still want to learn more? There’s a simple trick you can use… And it really works, trust me.

Even photos that come out very well deserve a second thought. If I was in this situation again, what would I do differently? (click for full size)

Some of you might know that I’ve spent a lot of time working towards my advanced motorcycle licence with the Institute for Advanced Motoring. It’s bloody hard work, but it’s awesome as well: It serves to illustrate that even though I’ve got my full motorcycle licence, I didn’t really have much of an idea about how to keep myself in one piece on two wheels.

The IAM course (which, incidentally, is built on the Police system for Motorcycle Control. Check out Motorcycle Roadcraft or Roadcraft, the car version. It’s a bit of a revelation) teaches you to become psychic on the roads; I find myself slowing down for hazards that don’t even exist yet, I change lanes instinctively before something dangerous happens in my line, and I do overtakes on split-second decisions. And I can control my motorcycle better than I thought ever possible. It feels bloody awesome.

Haje, I didn’t come here to read about your two-wheeled prowess…

Because studio work is generally repeatable, it's a great candidate for constant improvement.

Okay, okay, my apologies. But trust me, there is a link here: All the things that are relevant to learning how to control a motorcycle at speed are relevant to photography as well; the ‘psychic’ element comes in when you’re working with studio work, for example – once you understand your equipment well enough, you can visualise what happens if you just add a smidge of power to your fill light, or add a slight warming filter to your main.

And, like riding a motorcycle, it feels flippin’ brilliant when you know something is going to happen. Then you do it. And then you check what happened. And it worked. It makes you feel great about yourself. Only recently, I was standing next to a photographer who was struggling to get the shot they wanted. Without even looking at their settings, I surmised they were shooting in Program mode, when what they wanted was a particular shutter speed to get a panning shot right. So I told them that a 1/45 second shutter time might be easier. They looked at me, changed their setting, and rammed home the shot. And bought me a pint, which I thought was a nice touch.

Once bitten, twice shy: If you can't learn from other people's mistakes, you've got to learn from your own. No, I agree, this caption doesn't really make sense, but I don't really have anything to say about this photo.

Anyway – I’m not the greatest of photographers, but the trick about getting much better at what you do, is to do everything consciously – even things that are instinctive. What I mean by that is that if you feel you need to change a setting or a lens, go ahead and do it. But the important bit is to go back to it later. Find out why you felt that way. ‘Because it was the right thing to do’ is not a valid reason – there was something that made you ‘feel’ that you could improve your photo in one way or another.

That feeling is extremely valuable. That’s your experience talking, and you have to talk back: It’s a skill, but more importantly, it is a skill you can develop with practice. So, if it’s practicable, stop right there and then, and have a think. Why are you making a choice to make a change? What is wrong with the photos you are getting, and what will the effect be of making the change? The answer to those questions will help you develop and become a better photographer. But you have to be conscious about it. Write it down, add it to your Flickr notes, tell other photographers about your choices. It doesn’t matter how you do it, but make sure you vocalise it. The next time you’re in the same situation, the perfect photo will roll out effortlessly.

Oh who are we fooling, I’ve never taken a perfect photo. And nor will you in your lifetime. But that’s the point: You become a better photographer by polishing one aspect of a photograph every time – and hopefully, the photos you take will be closer and closer to perfect for every day of shooting.

Didn’t you mention a simple tip?

God, I don’t half ramble on, don’t I? Do forgive me, I get very excited about photography. And motorcycling, for that matter.

It's worth re-visiting your photos after some time. This one, for example, sat in my archives for five years before I realised it was actually sort of a wicked shot - all it took was some Lightroom magic to make it sparkle.

Anyway: The real reason I started burbling along about motorcycling is that this is a tip I learned as part of my IAM training. Replace ‘ride’ or ‘drive’ with ‘photo shoot’ below, and you get the gist of the tip.

After every photo shoot, spend one minute to think about one thing you would improve about your most recent shoot. Don’t worry if you made lots of mistakes. Don’t worry if everything went wrong. Pick one thing you would improve. And think about how you could improve it.

The great thing about picking just one thing is that it’s bite-sized. You can process one thing, and you can come up with a plan with avoiding it next time. Missed the sunrise? Get up earlier. Didn’t get the photo of the soccer goal? Stand somewhere different. Scene too bright? Bring neutral density filter. Got your camera equipment stolen? Buy a big Rottweiler. Couldn’t get the toddler to smile? Bring that hyper-colourful hawaii shirt your wife hates so much. It’ll make the kids smile, trust me.

Eventually, you become good enough a photographer that most of your development will come from your own experience and the fact that you are challenging yourself. Always remember, though: There is always something you can improve. But only if you’re consciously working on it.

Copyright Information

Low-light action photography

Haje Jan Kamps — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:40:38 +0000

Low-light photography is something that often confuses the metric bejesus out of photographers: It’s very tricky to get right, and even if you do everything 100% correctly, often-time you’ll find that your photos still don’t come out as you dreamed of. Now, multiply that with the trickyness of photographing action, and you’ve got yourself a true cluster-copulation of Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

Everybody will sooner or later end up in a situation where you’re photographing moving things in the dark. To concert, event and dance photographers, it’s part and parcel of their chosen photography work.

I’ll be honest: I don’t consider myself a very good low-light photographer (with the exception, perhaps, of my concert photography portfolio, but in those circumstances you’ve got an entirely different set of challenges.

Today, though, I’ve got a wicked treat for yourselves: One of my colleagues and friends in Australia, David Wyatt, agreed to share some of his observations of low-light action photography with us. He’s a scholar, a gentleman, a legend, and a bloody great photographer… Take it away, David!

Dance and stage photography are two areas of photography that often intertwine with each other. They can be wonderful to watch: They’re full of dramatic moments that can include moving silhouetted outlines of dancers or actors performing while being back-lit by a single strobe light – which is a great effect from the viewpoint of the audience, but which can make life for you, the photographer, incredibly frustrating!

The following notes are simply intended as a guide only to ways of coping with low light photography, particularly for photographers just starting out in or thinking about trying dance or stage photography – practice is the only effective way to develop experience and increase your photography skills, and there are thousands of great sources out there providing methods of increasing your photography knowledge, depending on the area of photography that you enjoy.

Equipment

My camera bag looks a bit like this: I use a Nikon D700 with a 70-200mm and a 17-55mm f2.8 Nikon lenses, and have recently upgraded from a Nikon D300. I also sometimes use an SB-800 flash unit for posed shots, and never use flash during dance or stage performances, unless I’ve previously received permission from the event or performance directors to do so.

I started taking photographs of dance and stage performances eighteen months ago, and love it. There’s nothing like capturing a shot of a dramatic moment on stage, or of a passionate glance between a couple dancing together, and knowing that the same moment captured within your camera will never occur ever again in precisely that same way.

The lighting challenge

Up, up, and and away: The more dynamic the photos, the better they tend to be! © David Wyatt

Dance and stage performances can often have scenes or components which are entirely under-lit or which have fluctuating lighting levels, and sometimes fast movement at the same time, which together can make it very difficult to balance between a shutter speed that will be slow enough to let sufficient light into the camera to illuminate the image, while using a shutter speed that will be fast enough to freeze the movement. On the other hand, slower shutter speeds can also be used to amazing artistic effect with tripods or monopods through blurring the movement of dancers to give an impression of high speed in the photograph. (If you’re confused about exposure, check out How Exposure Works).

One of the main aspects of low-light dance photography in particular is that having faster glass will always makes a large difference in the kinds of shots that can be achieved. With an f3.5-5.6 lens, you can try to compromise in low-lit venues by lowering the shutter speed and opening the aperture as widely as possible using manual control settings on the camera, but chances are that those setting may still not be enough to freeze motion without using flash if the action is fast-moving, particularly if you may be wishing to capture the background as well as nearby action through using a smaller aperture for greater depth of focus (i.e., f5.6 – f11).

It's difficult to get too much energy into a dance shot - but you can try, if you want! © David Wyatt

Increasing the ISO levels can help with taking shots at a fast enough shutter speed to try to freeze the motion, though depending on the kind of camera you use, grain in the images at higher ISO levels can tend to become a problem, especially between ISO 1600 to 3200. While the f2.8 lenses more suited to low-light work are quite expensive, some of the f1.8 prime lenses are much more affordable and fantastic quality lenses for low-light performances, especially for photographers on a budget. The downside with prime lenses is that they require footwork to move around to frame the image properly, and without footwork or mobility, can require extensive post-shoot cropping for composition requirements, which is the compromise that offsets the price of the f2.8 lenses with zoom capabilities.

There will always be a dance or stage performance in low-light where you may not be able to capture the action effectively purely because of the low lighting that may be involved, or because of the distance placed between yourself and the dancers/performers. If that happens, it may simply be a matter of needing to upgrade your equipment if that’s an option, trying to use a slower shutter speed with a tripod or monopod (shooting at 1/40 and 1/60 shutter speeds with a monopod can still capture stationary non-moving images very well, when there may be a pause in the action), or checking if you can use flash at those events, which may sometimes also be an option.

Colour, motion, passion; what more could you want from a photo? © David Wyatt

There is also some excellent free software out there for image editing (including brightness and light levels adjustment) and for noise reduction in images, including GIMP, Picasa, and Neat Image. Neat Image is a nifty piece of software great for reducing noise/grain in images that may have been taken using a high ISO, though using noise reduction can substantially decrease the quality of images it has been applied to. Images with a large amount of noise reduction applied may still be fine for website display at small-medium size, though trying to print those same images may be a different story entirely due to the loss of detail through the noise reduction process. The new Lightroom 3 has some pretty awesome noise reduction algorithms built in, as well – so if you’re using LR, don’t forget to give that a shot, too!

What I’ve written here is a snippet of my own experience of low-light photography through dance and stage work, and I’m still continually learning as I go along. I base my abilities to a higher degree on the quality of the photographs that I’m yet to take at future performances, and to a lesser degree on my previous work. A bit like the acting adage that actors are only ever as good as their next performance.

Dance and stage photography in low-light environments are both some of the most difficult kinds of photography to capture effectively, although both forms also have some of the most beautiful and dramatic human moments that can be captured on film, which make the hard work infinitely worth it!

David's website is worth a peek!

About the author

David Wyatt is a dance and stage photographer based in Melbourne, Australia, with a wicked eye for a good photo. Check out his website over on Capturing Images.

He loves a bit of feedback, and is available for assignments – contact details are on his site, so knock yourself out!

Copyright Information

Implied nudity in portraiture

Haje Jan Kamps — Thu, 06 May 2010 12:20:15 +0000

It doesn’t take much of a brain to fathom what a ‘nude’ photo is. If bits that are normally covered up on the beach are on display, then it’s a nude.

Similarly, a ‘non-nude’ photo is pretty straightforward: There are no hoo-hoos, wee-wees or breasticles on display.

So, what is all this ‘implied nudity’ stuff all about? Well, it turns out that there’s an ‘in-between’ stage of nude photography: Implied nudity. Used creatively, it can add an interesting dimension to your portraiture. Here’s how and why.

Not a terrible portrait, but it isn't exactly super exciting ever. But there seems to be a lot of skin on display. Hmm, I wonder if I can make this photo more interesting... (click for bigger)

Put very simply, implied nudity happens in one of two ways: The model is dressed, but the photo is shot in a way where it looks as if she might not be. Or the model might be in some state of undress, but the photo is shot in such a way (through lighting, perhaps, or by the model’s position), where you can’t be sure whether or not they are naked.

So, er, what’s the point?

Humans are funny creatures: our minds constantly play tricks on us. When pieces of information are missing, our minds tend to ‘fill in’ the information. When you read smthng lk ths sntnce, your mind doesn’t really struggle to fill in the missing letters, for example – the same happens in photography. In a photo where a model is covering up her breasts, your mind will automatically ‘fill in’ the missing bits.

With this in mind, you can use that to your advantage as a photographer: By hiding your model’s dangly, bouncy, or naughty bits, you can sometimes create a photo which is even more allusive and erotic that one where it’s all on display.

Now that's more like it. All it took was to de-saturate the image, fiddle with the contrast a little, and do a tighter crop, which in effect hides all her clothes.

There are a few different situations where this works extremely well. In the past, I have been known to do ‘nude’ sessions with models (especially models who aren’t that experienced), and then taken photos only of their face or head-and-shoulders. Some people relax (or tense up) in a completely unique way when they are not wearing clothes – which gets reflected in their face.

I think I’ve taken some of my best portraits this way – simply because the model was concentrating on making their bodies look good, so they forgot to worry about their face. The result? Beautiful, intimate portraits where you would never have known the model wasn’t wearing clothes.

The opposite is also true, of course: You might well find yourself working with a model who would love to do nudes, but is too shy to actually strip off. Using these techniques, you can create the illusion of nudity.

Showing more by hiding more

You can use implied nudity to create tension in a photograph... She's in a graveyard. Surely, she's not naked. Is she? (clicky for bigger)

We all have different tastes and preferences for what we think is attractive. Combine this with the afore-discussed tendency for people to ‘fill in the blanks’, and you can see what might happen: In a photo where something is hidden, it gives the viewer the opportunity to read as much (or as little) into the scene as they want to.

The great thing is that the viewer tends to ‘fill in’ the blanks with whatever their own fantasies or beauty ideals are, which means that by tapping into the fantasy world of your viewers, you can actually make your model more attractive: After all, your viewers are going to be attracted to whatever their fantasies cook up!

You can't see much (is she wearing a bra? Is she not?) - but it's the implication of nudity which makes this photo. (clicky for bigger)

So – a rather long and picture-heavy post to make a rather simple point: If you haven’t experimented with implying nudity in portraiture before, why not give it a shot – you might like what you come up with!

Show off your work in the comments

I’m not just saying that because I want to ogle apparently naked lads and lasses, honest – I’m curious what you all come up with along these lines!

Copyright Information

Visualising studio lighting

Haje Jan Kamps — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:29:23 +0000

Once you feel you’ve started to get the knack of pointing your camera at things and clicking the button, it’s time to start taking control of all the lighting in the scene. But, as it turns out, that’s bloody tricky.

I keep having to explain how to ‘visualise’ different types of lighting to people, and it turns out that it’s rather difficult – not because what I’m doing is particularly advanced, but because sometimes, it’s just tricky to make the connection between what is happening in a photo, lighting-wise, and how the lights are set up.

I’ve put together a collection of examples which I hope will help. For these photos, I’ve used a figurine with a nearly round head – this will be very useful to determine where the light is coming from; but remember that all of this is as valid with more complicated shapes, including people.

This picture of HappyHead is part of a series of photos designed to explain some basics of studio lighting.

If you’re curious, this is the equipment I’m using throughout this post (and when I’m taking photos in general, for that matter).

For most of the photos, the lighting set-up is like this:

Check out the Flickr page for a detailed breakdown of everything you see in this photo.

A couple of basics

Picture 1 – Lit by a single 580EX II flash from top left at 1/32 power output.

Picture 2 – Same as Picture 1, but with an additional flash from the right, slightly behind HappyHead, at 1/64 power, to lift the shadow a little.

Picture 3 – Same as Picture 2, but with an additional flash at full blast on the background. Note the light fall-off to the right, due to the flash being too close to the wall, and not aimed correctly.

Picture 4 – Shows just the flash to the right, slightly behind HappyHead.

Picture 5 – Shows just the flash behind HappyHead, used to blast the background.

Troubleshooting lighting.

The observant among you will have figured out that Picture 1 + Picture 4 + Picture 5 = Picture 3. As a general rule, you can often just switch on one flash at a time to figure out which flash gives what kind of light – but only when they are in manual mode, obviously: In E-TTL mode, the flashes will attempt to compensate for the missing flashes.

Gels add a touch of colour

Picture 6 – introduces the use of coloured gels. This is basically Picture 1 plus the same set-up as picture 2. However, the gelled flash has a much higher power output (1/32) to help overcome the light loss from the blue gels

Umbrellas or softboxes make the light softer

Picture 7 – This uses the same flash setup as we’ve had so far, but with an umbrella on the left-hand flash to make the light softer. Notice how much gentler the light fall-off (i.e. how much less harsh the shadow is) is in this photo compared to the ones before int his series

Preventing spill-light

Picture 8 – Same as picture 7, but I have turned the right-side flash to the background, with the blue gels on it. Note how the blue in the background looks quite washed out. This is because the umbrella is great at spreading the light, but it also throws a lot of light onto the background, which causes the blue light to be ‘contaminated’ with white light

Picture 9 – Same as picture 8, but here, I have added a piece of cardboard to the flash on the left, to ensure less of the light hits the left side of the umbrella:

That, in turn, that means that less light is diffused onto the background, so now the blue flash can do its job better. Note that the flash output in Pic 8 and Pic 9 is identical – the only thing that changes is a tiny bit of cardboard. Incredible, eh?

Don’t forget about reflectors

Picture 10 – Okay, back to the original (this is a different picture than pic 1, but uses essentially the same settings, so should look very similar). See how dark the right side of HappyFace’s head is? In Picture 2, I fixed it by adding a flash, but you can be more economical with your flashes

Picture 11 – is exactly the same photo as Picture 10, except I’m holding a reflector (that’s a posh word for ‘a piece of A4 paper’) just out of the frame on the right side of the image. The light from the flash is reflected off the paper and back onto HappyFace, causing it to look much less dramatic.

From night to day with the flick of a switch

Picture 12 – is quite similar to Picture 1, but has been set up to contrast with picture 13… Also note how the light has been moved further towards the camera (i.e. further to the front of HappyFace). This is so you can tell the edge of the head better – instead of getting the effect like in picture 7, where you can barely tell where the side of his head ends and the wall begins, here you get a clearer definition of his head.

Picture 13 – The only difference between picture 12 and 13 is that in Picture 13, I have turned the flash lighting up the background off. Two completely different looks at the flick of a switch. It’s bloody magic, I’m telling you

Time to show off

Picture 14 – is just showing off, really, and combines a whole series of lessons: The background is beautifully lit with a 420EX, the right side of HappyHead’s face is lit with the familar strobe, but with a red gel on it.

Iin retrospect, I wish I had umbrella’ed that strobe, because it’d have gotten rid of that bright red specular highlight just at the edge of HappyHead’s mouth.

Good luck!

This is only a very quick’n'dirty introduction to lighting, but it seems as if most people who e-mail me are actually struggling at this level – I’ll pick up with a more advanced lesson in a couple of months, I think. For now, go on, play with your lights, and feel free to drop me an e-mail!

Copyright Information

Darkening a room by adding light

Haje Jan Kamps — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:32:14 +0000

I was doing a photo shoot a few days ago, where I was photographing a lemon suspended from a piece of thread. I wanted to make it look as if it was hovering in pitch darkness.

Upon seeing the results, someone asked me an interesting question: Isn’t it difficult to focus your camera in the dark? Well, no, because the photo was taken in the daytime, with my lights on. So, how come does it look like it was taken at night?

That, my friends, is the power of contrast in lighting. You have to remember that you don’t need a dark room in order to make a background completely dark – you just need to ensure that your foreground is significantly brighter than the ambient light. Here’s how and why…

It’s all about relative brightness

To take the lemon photograph, I used a pretty simple set-up: A couple of flashguns aimed at the lemon, from a very close distance. Because the flashes were so close to the subject (they are just out of frame, in fact), it adds a lot of light. If you’re curious why that is, check out the inverse-square law on Wikipedia.

Say 'bonjour' to the magical space-lemon. It's citrus powered, awesome, and magical. Oh, and it hovers in space, clearly. That's what makes it awesome. If you want to take a closer look, click on the photo!

The reason why the photo came out as it did, is because of the camera settings: The camera was set to ISO 100, with f/9.0 aperture and 1/200 second shutter time. If you can’t visualise what those settings would do in the circumstances described, I welcome you to try that right now. Don’t worry, we’ll wait. Set your camera to precisely those settings, and take a photo indoors, without using a flash.

If you can’t be bothered to do the experiment: Even in a relatively well-lit room, that will result in a very dark photo indeed.

So, as far as the camera is concerned, it is taking a horribly underexposed photo. Which is perfectly fine, because I want a dark background. It’s the foreground that is important, and that is where my flashes come in.

Let me get this straight, you’re taking photos that look like darkness in a well-lit room?

This portrait was also taken in a relatively well-lit room - but again, because of the high flash output and the fast shutter time (in this case, f/8.0 and 1/500 second at ISO 100), it looks like it's taken in pitch darkness. Groovy. Clicky for bigger.

Short answer: Yup.

Slightly longer answer: Yup. You can do this by settin your camera to manual, and use an exposure which results in a dark room (by choosing a fast shutter time). The next step is to use your flashes to light the subject.

Of course, this doesn’t work if the light from your flashguns spill onto the background (you’re trying to keep that as dark as possible, remember?) so it is a good idea to use a snoot or a honeycomb grid to ensure that the flash light isn’t accidentally re-lighting your background, because then you’re back to square one.

Can this be used for anything else?

Well of course. Always remember that it’s all about the contrast in lighting: If your flashes are more powerful than the light you are photographing in, then you can ‘darken the room’ with your camera settings, and use the flashes to light your scene.

Hell, if you’ve got enough flashes, you can turn even broad daylight into night. Don’t believe me? Check out this article on ganging flashes, and scroll down to “Turning Noon Into Night With High-Speed Sync”. Pretty impressive stuff, but there’s a pretty ridiculous amount of money in flash equipment being used right there.

You don’t have to go to those extremes, though – using flash outdoors on a shady day can give great effects, because when done well, your subjects look as if they are brighter than the surroundings. When done subtly, it can look bloody fantastic – your eyes are automatically and subconsciously drawn to the main subject – always a good sign in a photograph.

Copyright Information

No longer looking for n00bs (thanks!)

Haje Jan Kamps — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:45:06 +0000

Edit: I’ll keep this post here for posterity, but I have all the help I need. Thank you all so much for your feedback and interest!

So, I’m a writer. I write books about photography. And I get a lot of e-mail from people, asking if I can recommend a good book for someone who knows absolutely nothing about photography. Sadly, I can’t say that I’ve found such a book quite yet.

The problem with photography books out there is that they are either too technical too early (I happen to find shutter times deeply fascinating, but it’s too hands-off for many people who want to get out there and take photos), or they are too tutorial-driven. Several of the most popular photography books for beginners are written in the form of ‘hey, see this photo? Isn’t it awesome? to take it, set your camera to X, Y and Z, and press the shutter’, without actually explaining why you need those settings, and what would happen if you changed them slightly.

Only today, a good friend of mine, Sally, asked me if I could recommend a book. that re-awakened the idea I had: Maybe the time has come that I write my own book for complete beginners.

Why do you need newbies?

Prime lens optional (but highly recommended)

There’s a problem with wanting to write a book for newbies: Sure, I am a photographer at heart, but I’m entirely self-taught. I’ve red hundreds of books about photography, I’ve experimented for a few decades, and I’ve been blogging my way through my first fledgling steps to my current state, as a halfway competent photographer.

Through my work career, I’ve learned some interesting tricks. Specifically, I used to work as a producer for a big TV station, and one of the things we did was focus on user-centred design, test-driven development, and the mantra of ‘test early, test often’, with the idea that it is much easier to adjust a process early on, then to try and fix something six months down the line.

So, my idea is to write a photography book “the wrong way around”: I want to know what my readers want to learn (this would be equal to the ‘tests’ in test-driven development), and then I want to find ways of teaching them. Then, after I’ve taught them about a topic of photography, I want feedback. What was easy to understand? What was tricky? Did the examples and analogies work? And – perhaps as important as anything else – is it still fun? Did you enjoy learning this piece of photography knowledge, and do you feel you know it well enough to build upon it to learn the next lesson?

I want to participate, what do you need from me?

Bunny knows sweet fuck-all about photography, but his feed-back style is too aggressive for my liking, so I sat him down and explained that no, I wouldn't need his help with this particular project. I think he will grow to accept this. Maybe. Eventually.

Well, you need a SLR camera. I would strongly prefer if you had a prime lens, but a simple kit-lens should be sufficient.

You need to be a keen beginner. Perhaps you’ve had your camera for a few months, but you don’t really know what to do with it. Maybe you have a vision for what you want to accomplish, but you haven’t really got the skills to pull it off.

The important thing is that a) you have no formal photographpy training and b) that you know as little as possible about photography. I’ll probably admit a few slightly more advanced learners to the group, but the difficult part – from my perspective – will be to get through to the rank beginners: the ones who want to learn, but who don’t have anything to build on.

I’ve got plenty of other book projects at the moment, so I think this is going to be a very gradual project.

I expect you to be able to commit a bit of photography time, and to comment on each of the lessons (roughly every second week or so, I imagine). I also expect you to keep any discussions that happen in the virtual lessons to yourself – after all, if this end up being a book, I don’t want the world to know everything until I’m ready to unleash it! :)

Finally, I’ll do a lot of the feedback in ‘public’ to the group. If you’re worried about that: don’t be; I imagine that many people will be making the same mistakes, and it merely saves me from having to type up the same feedback again and again. If you’re particularly sensitive to criticism, however, this probably won’t be the project for you.

How do I apply?

Sorry, you’re too late! – Within 24 hours, I received a lot more applications than I had dared hope for. I was expecting about twenty people interested or so, but instead I received well over a hundred e-mails! I’m going to kick the project off and see where it goes, but I think I’m okay for people for now.

Stay tuned to see where this is going, and how we’re going with the book. I’m sure there’ll be a post once I’m sure what’s actually going to happen. Here’s to having my fingers crossed to find a publisher who might be interested!

So, what’s the plan?

I’ve created a private group on Flickr, and I plan to post the lessons as articles / discussion topics. To get access to the group, I need to invite you, so when you send me the e-mail, I’ll take a look at your Flickr profile, and then invite you if I think you’re good for this project.

I’m hoping to kick off with the first lesson in the beginning of March, and then try and gauge for how frequently we need additional lessons to keep you busy. I’ll also do individual photo critiques of your photos after each lesson, and use these critiques as part of my feedback to the whole group.

Oh and you know what? We’re going to have a hell of a lot of fun. It may even be the first time ever that a book has been written using XP methodologies. I know that makes me a geek, but damn if that ain’t pretty exciting!

Copyright Information

In photography, rules aren’t laws.

Haje Jan Kamps — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:04:21 +0000

The internet is absolutely full of guides about things you should and shouldn’t do to take ‘good photos’. Don’t over-expose. Remember the rule of thirds. Don’t cut people’s heads off. Watch your background. Use a shallow DOF in portraits to throw the backgrounds out of focus. 3-point lighting for portraiture, etc.

A lot of us just take all these rules for given, as if they are hard-and-fast rules that you have to stick to, because if you don’t, you’ll fail as a photographer. Break these rules, and you won’t take a good photo in your life. Your cat will die, your children will hate you, and your significant other will divorce you.

Truth, as you might expect, is slightly different. Don’t get me wrong, most of the time the ‘rules’ (which in any case should be seen as mere guidelines) make a lot of sense. Of course it looks silly if you cut people’s heads off. Of course your photos won’t look conventional if they are harshly over- or under-exposed.

Rules aren’t laws. You can break them unpunished

Grossly over-exposing a photo doesn't have to mean it won't look good. (click for bigger on Flickr)

Read the sentence above. That’s all I really wanted to say with this article. So if you’re in a rush, or you think I use too many words to say something simple, then read that sentence a few times, and go check out XKCD for a while.

What I’m trying to say is that while the guidelines are there to help you, there’s no point in following any rules or guidelines unless you fully understand (or grok, if you’re geeky and/or well-read enough to be familiar with that concept) why.

The best reason to understand why a rule is there, is to break it. Some times, you might find that your photos actually come out more interesting – better, even, perhaps – when you break the rules. Other times, you’ll try to take the same photo twice; once whilst following the rule, and once whilst breaking it, and you’ll realise why it’s a good idea.

Just remember: Never follow a rule just because you’ve read somewhere that it’s the ‘right’ thing to do. Follow it because you understand it, and because you know what happens when you don’t.

Break these rules

Contrary to popular belief, your foreground doesn't have to be in focus (clicky for bigger)

DPS’s 11 tips for beginner photographers.
DP Tutorial’s Photography tips for beginners.
The tips in my own How to win a photography competition
Buzzle’s basic digital photography tips.
Photography Tips and Tricks’ Tips for Beginners
Digital Photography Tips’ guides on The rule of thirds, Making a good crop, Change shooting angles for better photos and Focus on the details for better photos.
Every single one of Rick Sammon’s (@RickSammon) Top Ten Digital Photography Tips (YouTube Video)
These 100 tips from Cameras.co.uk (ignore the first 30 or so, they’re about 600 years old, and are related to taking photos by carving them into mountains)

A couple of examples

DO cut their heads off at the top if it makes for more interesting and intimate photos (click for bigger on Flickr)

The Carlsberg Express: Of course your horizon doesn't have to be straight, if a non-straight horizon gives you better results! (click for bigger on Flickr)

Sometimes, getting in closer makes a photo more intimate. Don't be afraid to crop into people's faces.

The horizontals aren't horizontal. The verticals aren't vertical. The background is a mess. How could this photo ever be any good? But it is... (click for bigger on Flickr)

White balance? Hah? I spit on your white balance. (click for bigger)

Some times, the background adds to a photo - don't throw it out of focus on principle just because you have a nice, fast lens.

Copyright Information

When RAW is not enough

Haje Jan Kamps — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:28:34 +0000

One of the first pieces advice I give to people who wonder where to start getting their photos to become better, is to shoot in RAW. There’s many obvious reasons for why this is a good idea.

With RAW, the final result can be sharper, you have better control over white balance, you get wider dynamic range, you can do HDR photography, and, well, it’s what all the cool kids done. Recently, however, I have moved away from shooting in RAW for several reasons. Or, to be precise, I have started shooting in RAW+JPG.

Here are some compelling arguments for why you should do the same…

Becoming a better photographer

Holding a bunny to your face while wearing full Motorcycle protective gear is a great way to become a better photographer. Aw, c'mon, give me a break, what would YOU use to illustrate this article? (clicky for bigger)

RAW is great because it is lenient – you can over-expose a photo quite significantly, and still rescue the highlights, because you have significantly higher bit-depth (and more information) than you would do with JPGs.

This is a life-saver for press, event, and action photographers: The fact that you aren’t completely buggered even if you’ve screwed up the exposure a fraction is a godsent!

The problem is that I’ve recently talked to a lot of photographer of the ‘new garde’. People who have rarely – or never – shot on film, and are unaware of how often RAW is helping them out of a hole. There’s two ways of looking at this: Either, use the extra flexibility RAW gives you on a regular basis, and accept that we’re now in the digital age. Or shoot as if you’re still shooting on film, and use the extra flexibility as a safety buffer.

Bunny is sad because his compact camera doesn't take photos in RAW. (clicky for bigger)

I’m a strong believer in the latter: Ultimately, when you present your photos, you have to save them as 8-bit colour anyway, so you’re in fact re-compressing the image back into a lower bit depth. This isn’t a bad thing: the human eye can’t really cope with more than 8 bits anyway.

The problem is that it’s difficult to estimate how much of the photo is over-exposed when you’re relying on RAW to save you – and there will come a day where you are relying on it, and you’re off. There’s only so much recovery you can do of a photograph, and if you miscalculate, you don’t have a safety buffer anymore.

Personally, I’ve become a huge fan of trying to take perfect exposures out of the camera: Shoot as if the JPEG is your film. Get the white balance right. Get the exposure right. Sharpen the JPG in-camera. Set the saturation and contrast you like. In short; Make your JPEGs be as perfect straight out of the camera as possible. In addition to making you a much better and more conscious photographer, this has several benefits. To wit:

Better previews

Getting the white balance right on shots like this is challenging, but hellasatisfying. It's good to know you can fall back on RAW if you did make a hash of it after all (clicky for bigger)

RAW photos are unsharpened out of the camera. This is a blessing, because as we discussed in the article on how you can sharpen your photos, you should never sharpen your photos twice. Your JPGs are sharpened in-camera, which means that if you sharpen them on your computer, you’re not getting as high quality as you could. Not a good thing.

In situations where you're taking lots of photos (like when snapping gigs), it's a relief to have JPG preview - it saves you from opening hundreds (or even thousands) of RAW files to find out which ones turned out well.

The flopside of this, however, is that RAW photos can look flat and lack energy. The photos that really zing are the ones that are tack-sharp – and if you’re only looking at RAW photos, you may actually miss the photo that is sharpest, because it hasn’t been sharpened to its full potential.

When you shoot RAW+JPG and your JPEGs are perfectly exposed and whitebalanced, they are the ultimate previewing tool: Full resolution previews, beautifully sharp, which your computer can deal with very quickly. Even better, if you need to e-mail or upload previews of a shoot anywhere, it’s an order of magnitude faster to resize and compress JPGs than RAW files.

So, Shoot with JPG, keep them, and use them for previewing purposes. If you decide to edit any of ‘em, use the RAW files, but at least you’ll have a much better picture (har har) of the potential of your photos

Submitting photos to magazines

Enough with the useful captions already. Here's a picture of a guy in Vietnam with 10 (yes! Ten!) cases of beer on his motorbike. (clicky for bigger)

So you occasionally shoot paperazzi stuff? You do events? You shoot news? Honestly, you don’t want to piss off the picture editors: if you send them a photo they’ll have to do a lot of work on, you’ll need to have a damn fine explanation… And find yourself some other customers, because they won’t use you again.

They’re on extremely tight deadlines, and they prefer photos they can just drop into their page layouts without fiddling with them too much. Shoot perfect JPGs, and that’s usually good enough for magazine use.

Let them know that you have a RAW file if they need it, of course, but 99 times out of a hundred and twenty two, they won’t want it – they don’t need the hassle.

Workflow speed

My university professor stole a wise saying from someone else once: Work smarter, not harder. This saying really is eminently applicable here.

I don’t care how fast your computer is – RAW will slow you down in one way or another. If you organise your photos so you can preview the JPGs, you’re making your life a lot easier.

If the JPG looks out of focus, the RAW will be too – that’ll save you a few seconds opening the RAW file to check. Multiply that by 300 photos, and you’ve saved yourself 10 minutes. Presto!

There’s no reason not to

This model wants you to shoot RAW+JPG. Just look at how stern she looks. Would you dare not to? Thought so. Grab your camera right now and change your settings. (clicky for bigger)

Set your camera to RAW+JPG, and bring plenty of memory cards. They cost next to nothing these days, and if you do a shoot where you know you don’t need to keep the JPGs, you can always trash them after you’ve downloaded them – sort ‘em by size (the RAW files tend to be 3-4 times bigger than the JPGs) and delete half the smallest files. Or sort ‘em by type and delete all the JPGs. Whatever you prefer.

If you have enough memory cards (and you should. Really. If you don’t, head over to Amazon and be Amazed (groan) at how cheap they are), there really is no reason not to shoot in RAW+JPG.

Go on. Give it a shot. And let me know how much time you’re saving :-)

Copyright Information

Learning by example

Haje Jan Kamps — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:00:23 +0000

Some people learn best when they start at the basics: This is a camera. Press this button to make it go ‘click’, and it takes a picture. Change the aperture to… etc. Me, I like to work the other way around – I learned a long time ago that photography – like computers, cars, etc – is interesting mostly for its results, rather than for its technology. Who cares if your camera can do 1/4,000 second or 1/12,000 second shutter times… Unless, of course, you need the faster shutter time to achieve something.

Learning by example, then, is the act of starting at the other end of the learning process: Find a photograph you like, or come up with a crazy idea, and then start stepping backwards: What do I need to do to create the photograph I have seen / imagined / come up with.

What’s the point?

Boats on Ha Long Bay in Vietnam. Taken with a Canon Digital IXUS at ISO 200, f/8 and 1/30 second exposure, at widest possible zoom

The interesting thing of learning by example is that there’s a pretty good chance you miss whole fields of photography. If ISO or lens length isn’t relevant to the shots you’re taking, you’ll never have to learn them… It’s kind of like mathematics: I could never wrap my head around calculus. Not because I don’t have the brain capacity (or, at least, I would like to think), but because I never saw the point. Just like I never saw the point of geometry, until someone managed to bring it to life by explaining how I could apply it to my life – suddenly, I had a need for a bit of knowledge, so I went out to acquire the necessary information and understanding, and was able to do the calculations I needed.

I’m a strong believer in doing the same thing with photography: If you don’t think you need something, well, you probably don’t. You’ll eventually find out that the techniques you’re using at the moment are limiting you – or making the things you’re trying to achieve more difficult – but that’ll be new motivation to learn something new again.

So, how do you do it?

My sister in Vietnam. Taken at ISO 100 with a 50mm f/1.4 prime lens stopped wide open, aperture mode. Shutter time was whatever the camera suggested. Slightly desaturated the RAW file to get a more timeless 'feel'

Well, it’s easy: Find a source of inspiration. Personally, I use all sorts of sources: Magazines are a great starting point (especially amateur photography magazines like Digital Camera Magazine or similar – also check out PhotoRadar). Flickr, of course, is a marvellous source as well. The problem with on-line, however, is the nature of computer screens. Call me old-fashioned, but I really prefer the high-resolution way of looking at photography: Prints, books, magazines, etc.

The other problem is that, even on Flickr, not that many photographers take you through their way of thinking, or their technique for getting the shot (I love the idea of the How I Took It group, but so far, only 22 photos have been posted, which seems like a huge shame). Luckily, you can often ask questions, and many are good enough to help you along, but that’s still not an ideal way of getting tucked in. (Of course, I’m also guilty of this, but if you find any photos in my photo stream which you’d like explained and deconstructed, I’d be more than happy to – leave a comment and I’ll dig out the info!)

Using books for inspiration

Photos that Inspire is one of the few books I'm aware of that goes into detail about the individual photos, with how, why, where and when they were taken - perfect to start learning

There are a lot of fantastic photography books out there, but many of them are by a single photographer – the problem with that is that they have only a limited number of styles, and most of them say nothing about how the photos were taken – you’re expected to enjoy them as art, rather than as part of a learning experience. As you get better, this is a sensible approach, but when you’re starting out, it can be mighty frustrating.

The best one I’ve found that does things a little differently is Photos that Inspire (Amazon US / Amazon UK) is in the same series as my macro book – the Photo Workshop series published by Wiley – and it’s a peach.

For one thing, it has a couple of my photos in there (which obviously makes it a much better book already) but the important bit is that it contains tons of photographs taken by professional photographers – who explain why and how the shots were taken. It’s like a small art gallery with a personal guide by each of the individual photographers – and a fantastic place to start learning, of course.

How do you learn?

So, that’s my take on it – How do you prefer to learn about photography? Where do you get your inspiration? There’s a comment box down there somewhere…

Copyright Information

How to hand-colour your photos

Haje Jan Kamps — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:42:55 +0000

I recently had a conversation with Bob Keefer – a talented photographer who has decided to hang on to some traditional techniques in a world which is accelerating at full speed toward better, faster, stronger… His party trick is impressive: Take a black-and-white photograph, and colour them. By hand.

Creating gorgeous, real-yet-unreal photo-based art which redefines how you’ll think about photography and digital retouching? Obviously, I had to catch up with Bob to see what, how – and perhaps, most importantly – why…

Why bother with hand-colouring?

'Brown Creeper' - 11x14 hand-painted photo. This was shot of a Brown Creeper near its nest in the forest outside my home in Oregon.

From the beginning of the 20th century, right up through the 1950s or so, commercial hand colouring was relatively common. Today, there are a few photographers who keep the spirit alive.

“I’m old enough to have grown up with some old hand coloured photos around the house when I was a kid in Alabama.”, says Bob. “There was a beautiful hand coloured portrait of my grandfather, a genuine Southern rogue, in our family album. One of my early baby pictures was hand coloured as well.”

Equipment

'Superstitions' - 16x20 hand-painted photo. Taken in the Superstition Mountains of Arizona. (click for bigger)

The easiest way to get started in hand colouring photos is to use coloured pencils and an oily solvent, which can be anything from mineral spirits to cooking oil. Materials aren’t everything, of course: “Use the pencils to colour in areas on the print and then dab a little of the solvent onto a clean cotton ball to blend the pencil work. It’s amazingly easy to get good results with coloured pencil”, explains Bob. The only catch is that whatever you use for colouring, you really need to work on a photo printed on old-fashioned fibre-based paper.

Traditional-looking hand coloured photographs were done with special oil paints that are similar to artist oil paints but have a much higher pigment load. The company that made them is still around so you can still buy Marshall’s photo oils. If you use these paints, you end up with a palette that looks very much like old-fashioned hand colour photography. Why? Simple – it’s the palette the photographers of times gone by used.

'Fern in Rain' - 11x14 hand-painted photo. In the forest of western Oregon. (click for bigger)

Continuing the tradition wasn’t good enough for Bob, however – he decided to evolve the techniques to create his own creative look: “I soon started using regular artist oil paints for my work, giving me a broader colour palette to choose from.”

“In the last few years I’ve switched almost entirely to artist’s acrylics”, Bob admits. “They’re much less toxic than oil paints and they dry quicker. I also believe they are less likely to degrade photo paper, in the long haul, than oil paints, though those early 20th century hand-coloured photos have stood up pretty well”. Of course, using acrylics brings in a brand new challenge, too: “Acrylics are harder to use well”, Bob says, “in part because of that quick drying time.”

Refining the process

'Heceta' - 11x14 hand-painted photo. Oregon coast. (click for bigger)

Of course, there are a lot of books out there which might help you to get started. They can only get you so far, however: “After reading my way through most of the currently published books on hand coloured photography, all of which seem to deal mostly with dreamy boudoir photographs on one hand, and bright, over-saturated pictures of cars on the other”, Bob recalls, “I spent some time serving a self-imposed apprenticeship in hand-colouring that taught me more than any book ever will”.

As with so many other things, the quickest way to masterdom is practice, practice, practice. Oh and did I mention practice? “I pulled out a stack of one hundred of my own photographs, rejects one and all, and sat down to hand colour them all as quickly as possible”, Bob smiles, “The only rule was not to be self-critical of anything, no matter what. I coloured that first hundred, and then coloured a hundred more.”

'Fern' - 11x14 hand-painted photo. In Oregon. (click for bigger)

“I still have them all”, he says, and gestures vaguely towards a set of drawers in the corner of the room. “They’re mostly awful. Truly, unabashedly awful”, he laughs, “But some of them were a little bit good, and the steady practice of painting day after day after day taught me a huge amount about what I wanted to do.”

Most art photographers have made transition from taking photos to making photos – Bob has simply taken that adage another step forward. “What fascinates me about hand colouring”, Bob reflects, “is the subtle interplay between the cool, modern, machine-age precision of photography and the softer, more expressive and deeply primal art of painting.”

Top tips

'Oregon Forest' - 11x14 hand-painted photo. In the Oregon forest one foggy morning.

Less is more. Some of my best hand coloured photographs look at first glance like they might be pure black and white, but they’re a kind of black-and-white you’ve never seen.

Don’t be literal. This is not a time to colour within the lines. It’s also good to add in a few impossible colours here and there to keep the eye interested.

Break the mould. The usual stuffy criteria applied by camera club photographers don’t apply. Sharp focus is unnecessary. Zone system exposure isn’t needed. Perfect darkroom technique is also an extravagance. An interesting print that’s deeply flawed in technical terms may be much more interesting as a hand coloured photo than a technically perfect print of the same image would be. I never throw out my darkroom mistakes.

Go back to basics. The best way for photographers to improve their photography is to stop spending money on the latest camera gear and, instead, get solid training in the basics of art: Take a community college class in drawing, and then another one in colour theory, and finally one in basic design. Your pictures will become immeasurably better as a result.

How to hand colour your photographs

Now that you know the what and why, Bob kindly agreed to show you, step by step, how he does a hand-coloured photograph, from start to finished. Prepare to be astonished… Take it away, Bob!

This 8×10-inch black and white photo of summer leaves was shot on Tri-X and developed in Rodinal, a good combination for hand coloring, and printed on Luminos Charcoal paper, which, sadly, is no longer available. Here it’s taped to a work table to be colored.

I use regular artist acrylic paints and brushes for my work.

After quickly sealing the surface of the photo with clear matte acrylic medium and letting it dry, I begin by painting areas of transparent yellow acrylic on the leaves….

..Then I start mixing darker olive green into some of the other leaves.

At this point the image looks a little ragged.

I pick up a wash of ultramarine blue and clear medium on a brush; the color is an excellent one for darkening and deepening shadow areas.

At this point I’m just incrementally adding color, drying the paint, stepping back, taking a look, and adding some more.

Here I’ve just painted in some burnt sienna, a good warm reddish color, in some of the leafs. This really adds some subtle sparkle.

I sign my work on the front, in paint.

The final product.

About Bob Keefer

Bob has a degree in the study of religion from Harvard University. He’s been a newspaper writer for 30 years and now writes about art for The Register-Guard in Eugene, Oregon. In 2006 he was a fellow at National Endowment for the Arts workshop on theater and musical theatre. He crafts fine hand-colored photographs the old-fashioned way, using film. He uses a chemical darkroom, fiber-based paper and artist’s paints, without using Photoshop or any such new-fangled technology. No PhotoShop involved. Each resulting print is a unique work of art.

Check out Bob’s website for more examples of his work – and it’s well worth adding his blog to your RSS reader, as well.

Copyright Information

The quest for perfect droplets

Haje Jan Kamps — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:53:12 +0000

One of the strengths of photography has always been its ability to freeze time. Before the advent of photography, it was impossible to see how a hummingbird moves its wings, how a tennis ball deforms as it is served, or what it looks like when a bullet hits an apple at the speed of sound.

In the microcosmos explored by macro photographers, there are hundreds of similar quick-moving phenomena that lay unexplored. I have a fascination with falling water and the way matches flare up as you strike them, so I decided to take a closer look.

Falling droplets

Edgerton nearly drove himself to despair trying to capture this one photograph

There are photographers out there who have driven themselves to the brink of insanity trying to capture the perfect droplet photo. Harold Edgerton, for example, worked several years of his life in the mid-1950s the hope of one day capturing the perfect corona—the splash impact of a droplet in a layer of liquid transforming into a perfect crown of droplets thrown back from the liquid. Eventually, through years of trial and error, he managed to capture his droplet.

Today, photographers have the advantage of being able to share experience online. Because most photographers work with digital cameras, the experimentation time also decreases drastically. Imagine the poor people who had to wait for an hour for their film to develop properly, just so they could see if they had finally captured the perfect corona!

This photo, by Mattheu Collomp, shows an alternative way of photographing droplets - click the image for a bigger version!

Despite the fact that the technical side of capturing droplets is a lot easier, it is still a labor- and time-intensive mission on which to embark. There is something unique about seeing liquids and their motion frozen in time, however, and as a macro photography project, it is excellent.

I have tried capturing droplets on impact on many occasions throughout my photography lifetime, and every time, I did it a little differently. On the first few attempts, I tried it with an old flash unit connected to a Kodak DC4800 with a PC lead (the same type of connection that connects cameras to studio flashes). The results were not terrible, but the limitations of a digital compact camera turned out to be prohibitive of capturing the photos I wanted. The second time I gave it a shot, I had graduated from digital compacts and was using my first dSLR—one of the first Canon EOS D60s, bought on the very day it was released. The result wasn’t too bad — but it wasn’t great either.

My first attempts at photographing droplets weren't, exactly, what you'd call successful (click on image for larger version on Flickr)

With my shiny new dSLR, I was trapped indoors in a typical miserable rainy day. What could I do other than try to capture some more droplets? This time, I decided to give continuous lighting a try, and I lined up a pair of 600w work lights. Although the light was blindingly bright, in retrospect, there still wasn’t enough light: Even the best of my shots that day had a slight tinge of motion blur on them. Although I did get some spectacular photographs, the blur meant that they weren’t as perfect as I would have liked.

Throughout my experimentation, however, I did discover one thing: The translucency of water makes it difficult to capture the true dynamic of the fluid. If only there was a purely coloured, perfectly opaque liquid I could use—and paint would have created such a mess. My esteemed photography assistant Katherine came up with the idea of using milk, which turned out to be a terrible idea. The hot lamps made the milk turn sour within half an hour, and the smell in my make-shift photo studio stayed for weeks. I’ve since discovered the perfect liquid: long-life coffee creamer! This liquid is slightly thicker than water, doesn’t go bad as easily as milk, and makes a wonderful splash, too!

It took hundreds and hundreds of attempts before I started getting images I started to be happy with. This wasn't one of 'em.

When I started writing my macro book (from which this article is a small extract), I decided it was time to revisit the droplet experiment. Armed with a few containers of coffee creamer and using a 28-135mm macro lens with a 25mm extension tube and the Canon Twin Lite macro flash, I started experimenting again.

There are many ways to capture droplets, all depending on your taste. It’s possible to create tranquil photos, like the one Matthieu Collump shot above, but personally, I prefer the drama of liquid hitting liquid.

For my droplet shots, I used a large, flat surface with a very thin layer of coffee creamer in the bottom. I then used an eyedropper to let droplets of creamer fall into the film of creamer. (If you don’t have an eyedropper, you should be able to buy one inexpensively at a photography store or pharmacy.)

After a few photos, I started getting the knack of the timing, so that I took the photo a fraction of a second after the droplet impacted. From then on, it was four hours of patience, changing the batteries in the flash and camera, and refilling the eyedropper.

A nearly perfect corona. But only nearly.

It is the kind of activity that makes your family and friends question your sanity, no doubt about it, but in the end, I was left with about half a dozen photos I’m very fond of, including the photo above, which is nearly a perfect corona.

But only nearly…

Learn more about macro photography

My book!

This is an extract from chapter 4: The Macro in Everyday Objects, published by Wiley Publishing, and written by yours truly.

Obviously, I’m biased, but I highly recommend you get hold of a copy of my book, because it’s awesome. You can get it from Amazon in the US and in the UK, and most other good bookstores around the world.

It’s also available in Polish, Czech and Chinese, so if you prefer reading one of those languages, nip along to your local bookstore or book-peddling interwebsiteshop.

Copyright Information

Beginnings in street photography

Haje Jan Kamps — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 01:23:59 +0000

Sometimes, I learn more about photography when I teach about photography, than when I learn about photography. Bear with me, it does make sense, honest.

I have one friend – Daniela – who is a n00b at this whole photography things. Some of the questions she asks, and some of the comments she makes, sound like stupidity in my ears. ‘Of course not’, I want to burst out… And yet… that’s a learning moment for me. What is ‘obvious’ to me isn’t necessarily obvious to others – especially if you’re just trying to come to terms with photography and how it all fits together.

Anyway, Daniela was recently in Belgium, and had a go at some street photography. I’ve written about Street Photography many times before: A shot at Street photography, Katie Cooke’s The return of Street Photography, Brad’s Street Photography and the Law, Street Photography in Montreal, Prime Lenses, and why you need one, Oi You! no Pictures! and it’s also mentioned in my article about insuring your photography gear.

What I had never stopped to think, however, is how a beginning photographer looks at street photography. Daniela offered some insights…

Flute Player at Picadilly Circus (click image for large version)

When I was Belgium I had a go at some street photography. I wasn’t entirely happy with what I produced, but it doesn’t mean to say that I won’t try again. In fact, I think I’m rather looking forward to having another go. These are some thoughts on the experience, from someone who is not nearly as talented – technically or artistically – as the Photocritic. I’m not sure if my ramblings are of any help to you, but they might be….

Aside from the obvious, being a camera, what you need most for street photography is confidence. That’s not confidence in your photographic abilities, it’s confidence to walk around holding however many pound’s-worth of camera equipment it is that you own and to take photos. If you don’t have the confidence to point and shoot, you won’t get the pictures that you want. The more photos that you take, the better you’ll become. That’s obvious. So don’t be put off by your attempts not working. They can only work if you actually try it.

Sometimes you catch the most amazing sights on the streets - like this guy with his 1970s ghetto-blaster (click image for bigger)

Make sure that you know the rights and wrongs of taking people’s photographs in public places. If someone stops you, you need to be able to respond confidently and accurately about what you’re doing. Even if you don’t know what you are doing, be confident and act as if you do. It goes without saying that being polite and respectful is something you should be doing, and be careful taking photos of kids.

As much as I know you are anti-automatic settings on DSLR cameras, when you start out it can be helpful to use the automatic setting. Until you are accustomed to it, it’s easier to let your camera do the hard bit whilst you’re getting to grips with the concept of street photography. When you’re more experienced and more comfortable with what you’re doing, you’ll want more control over what you’re shooting and you’ll have a better feel for what you need to do. Don’t overwhelm yourself initially with the technical aspects, concentrate on getting a shot.

Daniela first wrote for Photocritic with her Teaching Photography to a 5-year-old article.

Copyright Information

Get a photo critique!

Haje Jan Kamps — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 07:29:27 +0000

I have been doing Photo Critiques on this blog in the past, but it’s starting to dawn on me that perhaps a blog isn’t quite the right way of doing these, so instead I’d like to start doing them on Flickr.

If you would like me to critique your photographs, here’s how to get on the list…

Follow these steps

1) Get a Flickr account (you should probably do this anyway, it’s free, and Flickr is awesome)

2) Upload 3 photos you’d like me to critique It’s important that you choose three photos, because it’s difficult to give systemic advice on a single photograph. Also, it may be worth not necessarily taking your 3 best photos, but do pick photos that you are proud of, but which you feel might be improved – and yet you don’t know how. NOTE: Nudity and similar themes is perfectly OK, but remember to mark your links with (NSFW) – I don’t want to get my readers in trouble at work or with kids just because they clicked on a wrong link

3) Check your Flickr settings Please ensure that you allow notes on your photos, as these make critiquing much easier for me. Also, the photos have to be of a reasonable size – I can’t critique thumbnails :) If you haven’t turned on notes, I’m afraid I won’t be able to do a critique.

4) Add a comment to this post where the URL leads to your Flickr stream. In the comment itself, please tell add a link to the 3 photos you’d like critiqued on Flickr

5) Pay to skip the queue (optional). You may have spotted that there’s a pretty long wait on these now – I simply don’t have the time to do them all as quickly as I like. If you would like to skip to the top of the queue, and receive your critique within a week – guaranteed – make a donation of $50 via PayPal.

What happens next?

As far as possible, I will follow the structure I’ve outlined in my Doing a Photo Critique article – it’s worth a read if you haven’t yet.

Finally, remember what I said in my ‘dealing with negative photo critiques‘ article – you may not like everything I have to say, but my intention is to help you become a better photographer. If you only want to hear that your photography work is ‘OMG AWESOME LOL’, then you’re not in the right place :)

Also, it’s worth nothing that despite of persistant rumours of the contrary, I’m only human, and I will only do critiques when I feel I can actually make a useful impact – sometimes I may do 3 people in an evening, other times I won’t do any for a while. Partially, it’s because I’m crazy busy with work some times, but sometimes, I’m just plain lazy – do forgive. If you’re desperate for me to critique you immediately, check out step 5 above to find out how you can skip to the top of the queue.

The boring bits

By following the steps above, you give me a non-exclusive license to use your 3 photos as illustration images to a photo critique, if your particular critique somehow works well as a separate article on Photocritic. I will not use your photos in any other circumstance without conferring with you first.

I will pick and choose which photographers to critique first – it’s not meant as an insult if yours sits there for a while while I pick off newer entries first – it may just be that I haven’t got much useful to say about your photos because they already are perfect, or perhaps I’m struggling to vocalise what I like / what I would improve about your particular photos. Don’t take it personally!

Photo: Portrait of Queen Elizabeth II by Photocritic.org on Flickr

Photo Critiques Competed so far

You don’t have to submit your own photographs for critique, of course, it’s entirely possible to learn huge amounts about photography by reading good critiques of other photographer’s work, so here, I’ve collected the criticisms and praise I’ve done on Flickr so far:

Oct 8 ‘09: solofotones - Man with Paper, Street performer and Juntos
Oct 8 ‘09: MondoUNC – Sweater Weather, The Virgins and Cupcake.
Oct 1 ‘09: ooomidgetmanooo – Portrait 1 and Portrait 2
Oct 1 ‘09: HoneyJar – Autumn Leaves, Como Lake from Bellagio and Tulips
Jul 7 ‘09: HeraldK – Admiration, Shadows and Irish Coastal Road
May 25 ‘09: Jacob Wighton – Ants!, Flight of the Birds and Sneaking!
May 1 ‘09: Jack Makio – Ugandan Mother and Child, Dasiy and Plazma light
May 1 ‘09: Jeff – The Remarkables and Milford Road
Apr 28 ‘09: Jack Fussel – Speckled, Bar Bar Bana and Stunning.
Apr 27 ‘09: MrSimbol – Manila by the bay, Business as Usual and High and Dry
Apr 26 ‘09: Per – Heavy Lifting, Bench and Martin Luther King Memorial.
Apr 26 ‘09: Ilan – (Final) Rest, Man and Together and Alone II
Apr 26 ‘09: Mark – Holy Trinity Silhouette, The Long Drive Home and Autumn
Apr 25 ‘09: Adricv – Jean-Claude, de Haiti, Puppet Shop and Moving Sculpture
Apr 25 ‘09: Gary Kurtz – Photo 1, Photo 2 and Photo 3

There is also a hyper-exclusive invite-only Flickr group where you can see some of the photos I’ve critiqued, called, imaginatively, Critiqued by Photocritic.

Copyright Information

Under-water photography

Haje Jan Kamps — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:00:34 +0000

If you thought photography out in the open air was tricky, you’ve got a surprise coming – Underwater photography represents one of the most challenging and specialized segments in the photography world. It’s fun, it’s creative, and it surrounds you with water, which only has one purpose: To ruin your expensive pride-and-joy photography equipment!

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, and while much of it is quite boring and un-photogenic, there are still vast opportunities to capture what is happening beneath the surface. There is a combination of equipment and tecnique required to make this type of photography work for you, include choosing the right camera, making sure it stays safe from water, and finding some way of lighting it all.

Picking a camera

When searching for cameras, knowing your budget and the types of photos you want to take will go a long way in determining the right option for you.

Photo, right: Vivitar underwater camera by Anetz on Flickr. This photo also shows the ’sports finder’, which is much more useful than a viewfinder once you’re underwater

Your options will change depending on whether you want this to be a vacation hobby or you want to become a gadget-tastic underwater photographer with all the bells, whistles, and a bathysphere with an espresso machine in the corner. Don’t get me wrong, underwater photography can become very expensive, very quickly so it is imperative that you identify what your goal is.

Image, left: Underwater Nikon Nikonos-V with 35/2.5 by Mikesub on Flickr

If you just want to dip your toe in, you could actually use a cheap, single-use disposable underwater camera… It won’t give you the greatest quality images but it gives you some photos to show friends, family, and Flickr-admirers back home.

In selecting the right camera there are a billion options to choose from. More or less. Probably less. Both digital and film cameras can each perform well underwater however the major disadvantage for film cameras is that you can only shoot one roll of film at a time. Having to swim back up to change the roll of film is infuriating, to say the least, so stick with the megapixels for photography zen.

Naked Lady by Arno Gourdol on Flickr

If you are a beginner than a point and shoot may be a good place to start. Try to get a cameras with a nicely sized LCD screen which will simplify your picture taking experience – don’t plan to be able to look through your viewfinder much, because between your diving equipment and your (hopefully) water-proof enclosure, it’s not going to be much use. Whatever you decide make sure the camera matches what you are trying to accomplish.

Also, be aware that some cameras marketed as ‘water proof’ may work when they are wet but they may not be designed to withstand the high water pressure in underwater photography – as with most things, you generally get what you pay for, so a £99 waterproof digital camera probably isn’t. Water-proof, that is.

Keeping it dry

Miss Underwater by Kal.LKL on Flickr

To prepare your camera for underwater use you will need housing. Housing provides a waterproof encasement for your camera to dwell in making it able to function underwater. As there are a variety of cameras you will find a wide load of different housing options available ranging in price from $100 for one to cover your pocket-sized compact jobbie, to going in to the thousands of dollars for more professional units.

Many of today’s cameras come with manufacturer-designed housing units, however they may not be as reliable as speciality third party options. Make sure the housing you decide to use will support the water pressure at the depths you want to take your pictures.

When considering housing you should consider the controls on your camera. Some housing will limit access to (some of) the controls on your camera, so look for models that will support all of the functions you want to use on your camera when taking your pictures.

Lights, camera…

One of the biggest challenges in underwater photography is lighting. As a beginner venturing into this new world you may want to start taking pictures using just the built in flash on your camera.

Photo, right: Underwater by Sagicel, on Flickr

Once you become comfortable taking pictures underwater then it is highly recommended that you purchase an external strobe light. Strobes give you more control over the way you bring light to the subject you are shooting.

With the improved light you can highlight various qualities and details that you want to bring out of your subject. You also can angle light toward or away from the subject. By angling away you can help keep backscatter, which are reflected particles in the water, from cluttering your shot.

Dive right in

Underwater in the Pool by Brian Marshall on Flickr

As you can see the options are great when it comes to underwater photography from cameras, housing and lighting, not to mention other accessories we didn’t even mention. Walking into this blindly can be an expensive proposition so start slowly and build your way up but most importantly know what you want to accomplish. Since it is both a scuba diving and photography activity rolled into one, make sure you include the time and cost of scuba diving lessons into your learning curve and your budget.

Some scuba schools also hold photography classes for beginners and might rent / loan you some equipment to get started, so that’s worth a look before you splash the kids’ college fund on something you might not enjoy as much as you thought!

Lastly, have fun and enjoy the underwater world waiting for you.

Copyright Information

Photoshop Makeovers

Haje Jan Kamps — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:22:07 +0000

So there you are, taking rather fantastic photos, and then, one day, you realise that everyone else seems to be getting better results. Unfair? Possibly. Or perhaps they’re just handier in Photoshop. Like my old friend Maxwell. I recently came across three of his photo-shopped portraiture sessions (one, two, three), and was rather impressed.

For the purpose of this article, let’s shelve any reservations you might have about the ethics of photoshopping the hell out of a portrait or fashion image (you’ve all seen this video, right?), and have a look at how it can be done. As a wise old man once told me, only if you have the skills to do something do you have the skills to choose not to do it…

Maxwell graciously accepted the challenge to talk us through how he edits his portraits, and is using a photo of himself to go through the process… Take it away Max!

Step one – process the raw

My first step with every photograph, including this one, is to adjust the raw file to an exposure and look that I like. Normally it’s a little more contrasted and artistic than this one, but since we are going for a simple beauty shot (or as close as we can get with me!) I want an image that is pretty balanced and a little flat.

When doing this retouching process, my last step is always to photoshop the image as I would normally (i.e. change contrast, colour, detail, blur, etc.) and because every step I do that loses information in the image I highly recommend waiting ’till the end for any artistic choices.

Once I have that, it’s on the manipulation!

Step two – the healing brush and the spot healing brush.

At this point I like to get rid of all of the really obvious blemishes. I don’t get too nit picky, seeing as I do all the fine tuning later on, but make sure to get all the big ones (pimples, moles, unwanted facial hair, lines under eyes).

To do this I jump back and forth between the healing brush and the spot healing brush, the difference – the spot healing brush tool samples for you, whereas the healing brush tool you select the sample area.

I find that usually I have to play around a bit determining which one to use for specific things. In my experience the spot healing brush works great for smaller blemishes, such as pimples and moles, and the healing brush works better for thing like wrinkles.

Usually I use the spot healing brush until it stops working and then switch in order to have more control.

Step three – eliminating the double chin.

Seeing as I was teaching myself as I went along, this was probably the hardest part for me. I tried a bunch of things before realizing that transform was the easiest option. I use transform a lot for the whole process actually.

I made a selection from just below my mouth to about halfway down my neck. I used transform to stretch the selection upwards to have the double chin line align with my actual jawline. I then created a layer mask and used a very soft edged brush to paint my chin back in and to get rid of harsh lines around my selection.

Effectively this step is pulling up the double chin to hide it behind the first one.

Step four – manipulating all my facial features.

Here comes the fun. I made five or six different layers in this step, one for each facial feature we want to change. For me (and most other people, I suppose) we are going to want to change them all. I made a layer for my mouth (and surrounding area), my nose (and surrounding area), one for each eye (and surrounding… you get it) and a layer for each side of my face.

This step is very similar to the previous, in that it is all transform and masks. I made my eyes larger and changed the placement, made my nose longer and thinner, and made my mouth larger and moved down a bit. I also changed the shapes of these features a little, using the warp transform option. (cmd + T = transform and ctrl-clicking or right-clicking gives you the transform options).

The warp option is very useful when you want to pinch in just part of your selection or change one side, etc. I used the warp option to pull in the sides of my face, in order to make them appear even and slim my face a little. I then used masks to paint in the original image around the edges of the selections, once again to get rid of lines. I then used all these tools to tweak what was left of my face (stronger jaw thinner neck, etc).

Step five – skin.

I know there are a lot of ways to smooth skin, and I alternate between a lot of them. For this image I combined a bunch. First, I merged all my layers into a new one (shift+ opt+ cmnd+ e), duplicated it and applied a surface blur to the duplicate layer. I don’t remember my surface blur settings, but it’s really a personal taste thing (I like to still be able to see pores). I also paint out the facial features in a layer mask when I use surface blur, because I don’t want it to touch the sharpness of the eyes and mouth. I then created three new blank layers, one for darks, one for mid tones, and one for light areas.

I used the eyedropper tool to select a good colour to represent the dark tones and painted very subtly (maybe 5-10% opacity) over the shadowed areas of my face. I did this for mid tones and lights also. The reason I made three different layers is because I wanted to be able to adjust the opacity of each tone separately. The image here looked too fake for me, but had nicely smoothed out all of my skin. I wanted to bring some of the highlights and shadows back, so I copied the layer underneath the surface blur layer to the top of my palette.

I changed the layer blend mode to luminosity and dropped the layer opacity down to 38%. Again this would be a personal aesthetic moment, but 38% looked good to me.

Step six – adding depth.

At this point the image looked too flat for me so I selected my highlights (cmnd-click a channel) and created a curves layer set to screen @ %40 to bring out the highlights more and give more depth.

Then comes the dodging and burning. The way I do that is not with the dodge and burn tool; I create an overlay layer and use a really faint (<10% opacity) soft brush to dodge burn.

Black for darkening, white for lightening. I always do this on two different layers so that I may go back and change the opacity of them afterwards.

I also use this method to get rid of any remaining overly dark or light areas.

Step seven – cleaning up the edges.

There are many ways to do this. I jumped back and forth between the healing brush and just using a soft paintbrush to create and sculpt the outline of my hair.

Step eight – colour.

Again, everyone has their methods.

When adjusting skin tones I use a hue/saturation layer to adjust the saturation of the yellow and red tones until I get something I like.

Also to smooth out the colour I use the eyedropper to select the skin colour I want, create a solid layer of that colour and change the blend mode to colour.

Turn down the opacity or paint in the layer mask to change the strength and affected area.

Step nine – finishing touches and artistic processing.

I used the same transform and mask technique to apply some finished touches at this point. I elongated my neck and thinned it more as well as changed the size and shape of my mouth a little.

I did some more dodging and burning using some curves layers set to screen and multiply (I alter my dodge and burn layer using the blend if slider in the layer menu when you double click a layer), in order to only have it apply to the high- or low- lights of the image.

The final step was to merge it all together on a new layer and unsharp mask it a little. And there you have it, a beautified me!

See a higher-resolution version of this image here (or, y’know, click on the image)

About Maxwell

Maxwell Lander is a queer photo-based digital artist and emerging graphic and website designer currently living in Toronto, Canada. Maxwell has been immersed in artistic photography for many years and is constantly seeking out new ways to express a passion for contemporary creativity, including and engulfing fascination with the abilities of the digital photograph and the control/choices it provides photographers.

As one of Canada’s leading emerging artists, Maxwell has exhibited works across Ontario and is continuously developing new photographic series. With a string of awards and accreditations – most recently Runner-Up in the emerging talent category of the 2008-2009 Nikon Photo Contest International and a publication in Photolife Magazine’s emerging artist special issue (September 2009) – Maxwell participates in the political and social sphere of the Toronto artistic community, contributing to the ever-changing art world.

Maxwell’s photography is intended to draw a thin line between beauty and vulgarity, restriction and hedonism, decency and decadence – to expose them all as interconnected and subjective experiences.

In addition to focusing on personal photographic art, Maxwell is available for commercial hire as a photographer, graphic designer, and web designer. To learn more, visit maxwellander.ca, check him out on Flickr, or follow @maxwellander on Twitter!

Copyright Information

The 1% club of amazing photos

Haje Jan Kamps — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:16:30 +0000

Today, it’s exactly 1,000 days ago since my good friend Will started a little website called Earth Shots. Its concept is pretty simple; invite people to submit some of the best photos in the world, and let them stand as a glowing beacon of inspiration for other photographers to aspire to, one image per day. A couple of years ago, I did a run-down of some of the best photos that had come in so far, and it was fantastic.

I still visit Earthshots frequently, and if you’re a photographer who hopes to improve your work and your eye for a good photo, you could do a whole lot worse than doing the same. Why? Well, I’ve 10 excellent reasons (or 10,000, if we are going to agree that each photo is worth a thousand words) for you right here… That’s right, out of the past 1,000 day’s worth of photos, we’ve picked the 1% we think are the most amazing, the funniest, and the ones we think will make you reach for your camera and go “Hells bells, time I took some photos this good”.

Oh, and before you scroll down, you might want to put a pillow on your desk, otherwise you might get injured when your jaw smacks open against it…

10 of the best from the first 1000 days

Descending Mt Rainier by Joel Schenk

Will says: I really love this image! It captures the spirit of adventure and the solitude of the climber. Looking out over the sea of beautiful white clouds, it is easy to imagine that heaven might look a little like this!

Haje says: There is something really awesome about photographs depicting an epic battle between man and natur – the clouds threatening to engulf them where they stand, plus the hint of colour along the horizon – a fantastic capture. Not so sure if it’s about solitude though; someone was there to take the photo after all :-)

Turtle by Thomas Vignaud »

Will says: This was one of the most popular Earth Shots winners ever and it is easy to see why; the jaunty angle, the expression of the turtle, the vibrant colours and the palm in the corner ñ all the elements come together to create a wonderfully engaging and striking animal portrait.

Haje says: Wow. Just wow. I have no idea if this is a HDR shot, if this is even a real turtle, or what in the world is going on here, but one thing’s for sure: it’s a stunning photograph. Such a truly fantastic detail and clarity, coupled with great colours and fantastic framing… An obvious winner

Salmon Netting by Fiona Halliday »

Will says: The composition of this image breaks all the rules… but that’s why I like it! With two thirds of the frame filled by tumultuous, black water, the viewer becomes totally immersed in this Scottish salmon farmer’s unforgiving world.

Haje says: This photograph is purely and exclusively about the action: The water streaming against him, the fish fighting in the net, the quick-flowing water. He’s wearing a hat, so it’s easy to understand it’s cold, and you can just see the wet, cold rawness on his hands – an ususual framing, that’s for sure, but I’m feeling the struggle, here. Great stuff.

In The Beginning by Stephen Oachs »

Will says: This is an incredibly atmospheric image, reminiscent of the dawn of time. The abstract shapes, blurred spewing water and wonderful dawn light all contribute to the primordial, otherworldly sense of place.

Haje says: I have no idea what is going on here – but it looks as if someone broke into China Mieville’s world, and took some photos while they were there. It happens quite rarely that you’re able to capture pure magic, but I think that might very well be what you’re looking at here, folks.

Fields of Gold by Allard Schager »

Will says: This is possibly the most vibrant photo ever to have appeared on Earth Shots! The strong colours and straight lines are very sticking and the people in the background give you a great appreciation for the scale of this incredible Dutch tulip field.

Haje says: I think the people in the background are what really make this photo – I’ve seen these tulip fields before, and they’re stunning, but notoriously difficult to photograph in such a way that you get a feeling for what you’re looking at – the people add a little bit of a break from the monotony of colour – and it’s bloody awesome to boot.

Highway to Heaven by Santi Banon »

Will says: This is another image that is reminiscent of heaven (assuming there are cars in heaven)! The warm light, flowing clouds and strong composition make this a beautiful and very unusual image.

Haje says: This is just fantastic – the light, the clouds, the mountains; the way the clouds seem to be welling up against the motorway without actually breaching across it in the foreground, while completely engulfing it in clouds and light towards the end. The title might be called ‘highway to heaven’, but if Tolkien had written Lord of the Rings set in the modern age, that’s what I envision the highway to Mordor to look like.

Taj Mahal by Thamer Al-Tassan »

Will says: As travel photos go, this is a pretty good one; we have all seen a million photographs of the Taj Mahal so it is quite an achievement to get a picture that makes you go wow! There are several elements that come together to make this image so good – the textures accentuated by the choice of black & white, the different shapes all mirroring each other and the lonely figure in the doorway.

Haje says: The Taj is a very, very stressful place to visit, and it happens incredibly rarely that you see it devoid of ten billion tourists; it’s easy to forget that it’s a spiritual place to many, and the person sitting here, seemingly meditating on its beauty is a gorgeous reminder of how that is still the case. I love the contrasts, the framing, and its subtlety.

Cold Morning by Kevin McNeal »

Will says: The expanse of ice, the blue tones and jagged mountains in the distance are so cold they almost make you want to shiver! However, it is the luminous ice-fissure in the foreground that makes this image so interesting and striking.

Haje says: This is such a contrast-rich photo that I scarcely know where to begin – it’s the peaceful skies vs the dramatic ice. The cold tones of the blues and whites at the bottom vs the warm reds and yellows and pinks of the sky. The rounded shapes of the ice vs the pointy mountains. Fab.

Bee-Eaters by Edri Shimon »

Will says: We see many bird images submitted to Earth Shots but this one really stands out from the crowd. It is not just that these bee-eaters are ridiculously colourful, it is their poses and expressions that make this photograph so engaging and comical!

Haje says:This photo would make for a great entry for a caption competition: The dude on the left saying something outrageous, whilst the fellow on the right goes ‘well, I don’t really know, my good man’. I love the diagonal composition, the strong colours, and the hazy background which contrasts so well with the action in the foreground. Great stuff.

Climbing During Sunset by Lukasz Warzecha »

Will says: I have saved one of my all time favourites for last… where do you even start with this image?! The sense of isolation, scale and drama – it really is jaw-dropping!

Haje says: … (what can I possibly add to this?)

Go on, you know you want to…

For more fantastic images of our planet, check out the current photo of the day or have a look through the EarthShots.org archive.

This post was co-written by Will Burrard-Lucas – checkout his blog or follow him on twitter.

All photographs are strictly © their respective owners, and are used here by permission of Earthshots.

Copyright Information

Self-Portrait Friday

Haje Jan Kamps — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 07:00:51 +0000

I’ll be perfectly honest with you: I feel a bit sad. Here I am, a world-famous blogger (well, I can’t but hope. And my sister lives in Vietnam at the moment, so between London and Hanoi, that covers most of the world, right?), but I haven’t yet created any internet memes, so I figured I’d start one right now, along with a cause I get behind fully. It’s simple: 1) Take a photo of yourself. A good one. 2) Post a link to it on Twitter, using the #selfportraitfriday hash-tag.

Apart from making me super-famous (which is, believe it or not, not my chief objective with this project), getting into the rhythm of taking at least one self-portrait every week is great practice.

But why should you bother with self portraits, and why am I so strongly in favour of ‘em? Read on, fellow shutter-soldier, for my 10 tips to better self portraits, along with the whats, whens and wherefores of onanistic photography fun.

Why bother with self-portraits?

Inspiration hits at the strangest of times – sometimes, all it takes is to see the light fall in a special way, a reflection, or just the sudden, uncontrollable urge to hear that sweet, sweet mechanical noise of the shutter going “kerr-chunk” (or “…” if you’re one of those smug, whisper-quiet Leica rangefinder owners). There’s nothing quite as annoying as not having a willing accomplice around to help you fulfill your photographic ideas – so perhaps you should turn to the only model you’re guaranteed to have around at any time: yourself!

Self portraiture is a tried-and-tested tradition among snappers and MySpace-camwhores alike; but it’s actually an incredibly useful exercise for photographers: Directing models is difficult enough as it is (unless you’re working with particularly talented models, but that’s a different post altogether), and the only person who is guaranteed to be as patient as you when you’re fiddling with lighting is yourself.

So; why not make it a habit to force yourself to take a self-portrait at least every week? It’s an interesting and frequently illuminating thing to do; how often do you get a chance to think about how you would like to project yourself to the world, who you really are, and how you’d like the world to see you?

10 Top Tips for better self portraits

1 - If you’re taking photos in a studio, use a mannequin for light testing: Much easier than guesstimating!

2 - Think about your motivation and emotions: Blankly staring at the camera rarely gets good results. Be silly, don’t be afraid to over-act. The worst that can happen is that you fill up your memory card with useless photos; but you might also find yourself with a proper gold-nugget of a self portrait.

3 - If you’ve got a remote trigger, that’s usually a better and more controllable than trying to use the self-timer.

4 - If you can, hook up your camera directly to your computer (or, for extra-fancy bonus points, your TV) so you can see your pictures come up as you take ‘em. It’s a lot easier to iterate and to make gradual improvements to your photos that way.

5 - Use a tripod. Seriously. While it’s possible to get good photos while you’re hanging on to your camera at arms-length, it’s a lot easier if you’ve got the freedom to move around a bit.

6 - Focussing is easier if you use a smaller aperture; My favourite lens at the moment is the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4, (hence the abundance of photos taken with it on Flickr, I suppose) but I’d probably not use it wide-open when taking self portraits; It’s tricky enough to get the focus right when you’re behind the camera – when you’re on the wrong side of the lens, having a slightly deeper DOF is a lot easier!

7 - Don’t be afraid to do a bit of photoshop jiggery pokery – you can do a lot of cool stuff by ensuring you’re in the photo multiple times, for example. Here’s how – and the Self-Kiss gallery on Trendhunter has some wicked ideas :)

8 - Use a mirror! It seems so obvious, but how to use mirrors is important, too – take it down from the wall, and experiment! Here’s a couple of examples to get you started: ValpoHB, Could it be a mirror on the floor?, Reflection of Myself, Alive and Her Reflection.

9 - Use props! Are you a dad and a rocker? Bring your kid and your guitar. Are you a photographer? Add camera gear. Painter? Paint. Poet? Words. Make-up artist? Guess… You get the idea.

10 - Have fun with it. Be sexy. Be yourself. Be awesome. Be different. Be creative. Whatever you do, have fun with it. That’s part of the point, after all.

BONUS TIP: Finally, a controversial tip which not everyone will agree with: If you set up the shot and you decide on the lighting and camera position and what you are doing, but get someone else to push the shutter, it’s still a self portrait (the other person is basically acting as your remote control) – so don’t be shy about asking for some help with your self-portraits. As Scott suggested: “I let my young daughter have the shutter release – means it stays random and I’m relaxed!” – brilliant idea!

(thanks to @rchristopher, @netlenka, @markbrosnan78, @scottmliddell and @LaPetiteMort for input and tips above)

Show it off!

The best thing to do with self-portraits is to get them out there – sure, they’re great for learning, and good fun to take ‘em, but as a side-effect, you get some bloody great photographs of yourself, so why not just flaunt it ‘cos you’ve got it?

Post your best self-portraits to Flickr (remember to tag them with ‘Self Portrait’ so people can find’em more easily), update your FaceBook profile picture, or post to your blog with the details of your photo.

Then, if you’re one of these Twitterati-type people, post a link to your photo on Twitter using the #selfportraitfriday hash-tag – this allows other Twitter users to easily find other self portraits; a great way to get to know the people you’re following better, and to get a load of inspiration for your next batch of self-portraits. Oh, and it’s sort of cool to be part of something like that, don’t you think?

It’s example-o-clock!

The past few days, I’ve been gathering a wide variety of really random examples of self-portraits. If you’re stuck for ideas… You could do a lot worse than trying to emulate some of these ;-)

Week Four by LPM on Flickr (@LaPetiteMort)

133 of 365 by Andy C on Flickr (@andyctwit).

Hatman By Roger the Dodger on Flickr (@rogermcnally)

Advent Calendar: Day 24 by The Giant Vermin on Flickr (the rest of his 356 set is also phenomenal – if not always SFW)

Untitled by kukkurovaca on Flickr (@kukkurovaca)

Selfportrait by netlenka on Flickr (@netlenka)

Just Me by HilaryQuinn on Flickr (@proximowebs)

Dual Umbrellas by Baggage494 on Flickr (@baggage494)

Film Noir 3 by Taurec on Flickr (@taurec)

We are Cats by CiaoChessa on Flickr (@CiaoChessa)

Geiranger, Norway, by Will Burrard-Lucas on Flickr (@willbl)

The Scotsman by Greg Easton on Flickr (@GregEaston)

The Teacher Needs Two Glasses of Wine by Jess on Flickr (@veraciousjess) – see also the rest of her 365 day favourites, there are some really good photos in there!

1st self portrait by Mark Brosnan on Flickr (@markbrosnan78)

120 / 356 by John on Flickr

And finally, a self-portrait by, well, me. With my lovely Kawasaki Versys motorcycle, half-way on my recent 3,500-mile motorbike trip around Scandinavia

Finally, there are a few photographers who’ve been running some pretty awesome projects dealing exclusively with self portraits – the Self By Christy Marie (@ChristyMarie
) website is an excellent example, but quite a few people are doing ‘364 projects’ as well – one photo a day for some, one self-portrait a day for others – a quick search for 365 on Flickr throws up loads of interesting results. Happy browsing!

Copyright Information

Where does digital noise come from?

Haje Jan Kamps — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:35:25 +0000

‘Bollocks, it’s dark out here’, you think, and scratch your head. ‘I’d better up the ISO a little bit, to ensure that I can use a decent shutter time’. The downside of using a higher ISO, of course, is that you introduce digital noise. But where does this noise come from? Why does your image quality go down the pan as soon as you touch that ISO dial?

Read on to find out what it is, where it comes from, and what you can do about it!

A regular reader recently e-mailed me with essentially the above question – and it’s a good one: The inner workings of a digital camera are a little bit obscure to most of us. So, here is my imperfect and slightly simplified explanation of what ISO noise is, where it comes from, and what you can do to reduce it.

How does an imaging work?

Whether you use a CCD or a CMOS chip in your camera, the basic functioning of an imaging chip is pretty much the same: Imagine millions of tiny little light meters squashed into a tiny little chip the size of a postage stamp. How many million? Well that depends on the resolution of your camera, of course, but if you’ve bought yourself a Canon EOS 500D, you’ve got a 15.5 or so million pixels (of which 15.1 million are used), which are squished into a grid of 4,752 cells across and 3,168 cells tall. All of these pixels are somehow fitted on roughly 22mm by 16mm sized space – yes, that’s about the same area as the button on your average door-bell.

When you take a photograph, there are a set of shutter curtains which move aside – exposing the imaging chip for as little as one eight thousandth of a second – giving the sensor time to measure the light that falls on it. Then, the shutters close again, and the sensor sends the measurements to the camera’s cpu, which does some calculations, and then stores the whole thing as a digital file.

Where does ISO come into it?

Now you know pretty much how an imaging chip works – but where does ISO come into it? Well, all imaging chips operate at the lowest ISO your camera supports – usually ISO 100. In this mode, your camera takes its light measurements from its millions of tiny little light sensors, passes it directly to the brain of the camera, which then stores it.

When you crank up the ISO value to, say ISO 400, another step is added to the mix: Your camera still takes the same measurement, but in the CPU of the camera, the measured values are multiplied by 4, to get ISO 400. Or by 8 to get ISO 800. Or by 32 to get ISO 3200. Pretty straight-forward stuff, right?

So, er, Where does digital noise come from?

Silhouette in Concert by Photocritic.org – Also see the full-resolution image for an excellent example of digital noise in photography

Well, think about it: while chips have gotten much, much better in recent years, it’s still a case of 15 million tiny little sensors doing their thing in a space the size of your thumb nail.

The problem is that – as with all precision measuring instruments – they can only be so precise: all of them introduce a degree of measuring inaccuracy. The problem with imaging chips is that they are internally inconsistent, and they are unpredictable.

The inconsistency is a problem which can largely be resolved: The camera can take a photograph, and realises that if one particular pixel always reads a little bit higher than its immediate brethren, it can calibrate so that one pixel is adjusted down to fit better. This calibration is done before the camera leaves the factory, and it’s trivial for camera manufacturers to built-in calibration checks on an ongoing basis – it’s relatively trivial to detect a dead pixel, for example, and then interpolate what its likely value would have been from its surrounding neighbours; and because there are 15 million of them, and we rarely check each individual pixel of a photograph, you’d never know.

The unpredictability issue is different, however; imaging chips are sensitive to temperature, and the act of taking a photograph actually causes the chips to warm up a tiny little bit (there’s a lot of electronics in a camera, after all, including the battery, the CPU, and all the circuitry to tie it all together – all of which generates various amounts of heat). Some cameras have a ‘noise reduction’ feature where they take another photograph immediately after you take a long-shutter-time photograph – but with the shutters closed. The theory is that it should be recording perfect darkness, but in practice it records a variety of readings from all the sensors. By subtracting these readings from the original image, you reduce (some of) the digital noise in an image.

Imaging chips are precise enough that at ISO 100, the differences in readings introduced by digital noise are practically unnoticeable. The problem comes from the multiplication process.

A thought experiment

Imagine you take a photograph of a perfectly gray wall at ISO 100, f/8 and 1/30 second exposure time. Three randomly selected pixels now read 100.5, 100 and 102. No problem; it looks great, and the stored values are within 2% of each other – the wall looks like a perfectly even, gorgeous gray wall.

Now, switch the camera settings ISO to 800, f/8 and 1/240 second. The final result – in a perfect world – should be precisely the same: We’ve reduced the shutter time to 1/8 of the original exposure, but the camera will multiply the exposure by 8 because we’ve changed the ISO. The same pixels now read 12.6, 12.5 and 15.5: The margins of error are the same as above. The camera multiplies it all by 8, and stores 101, 100 and 120 to the memory card. Suddenly, there’s a 20% discrepancy between the 3 values, which becomes very clear in the final image: What you’re seeing here is digital noise.

Now, imagine the same effect at ISO 3200: the pixels read 3.5406, 3.1250 and 5.1875, which the camera multiplies back up to 113, 100 and 166 – a far shot off from the 100, 100, 100 you’d get with a perfect imaging chip.

In reality, the metering tolerances in an imaging chip aren’t that pronounced; but the point is that if you multiply any meter reading with 32 (or even 64, in the cameras which support ISO 6400), you’re talking about pretty serious discrepancies, and some pretty serious noise in your final image.

How can I reduce digital noise in my pictures?

Use as low ISO as you can get away with; Often, it’s better to use a tripod and a remote release cable combined with a longer shutter time and lower ISO, than trying to shoot free-hand at shorter shutter times and higher ISO.

Use shorter shutter times; If you can, use shorter shutter times – the metering discrepancies will still be there, but less pronounced.

Keep your camera’s insides cool; when you take a lot of photos, you’re introducing more camera noise. Also, if your camera has a ‘Live View’ mode, it sucks battery, and means that the camera’s electronics are constantly working hard – which causes heat, and introduces more noise.

Use noise-reduction software; There’s a few options out there by now, and I haven’t used any for a while (Personally, I quite like a bit of noise in my photos – it makes them look more accessible and ‘real’, I feel – but that might just be me), but I know there are some very good options out there. I may do a separate post on noise reduction software when I can.

Copyright Information

Abolish automatic settings!

Haje Jan Kamps — Sat, 16 May 2009 09:14:55 +0000

If you look at the top of your SLR camera, you’ll probably find a little round dial, which has a whole load of different settings on them. Some of them are automatic settings (like the green square), some of them are ‘creative automatic’ settings (like the little runner), and others are the modes that let you do the heavy lifting yourself (P, Tv, Av and M).

This little dial is called your mode wheel, and it’s your mortal enemy, the destroyer of creativity, and the root of all evil in the world including, but not limited to, wars, swine flu, and stepping in chewing gum with a new pair of shoes.

In this article, I’m going to show you the error of your ways (if you’ve been using it), or I’ll show you what each of the settings means, what it does, and how to recreate the effect by using the manual shooting modes instead.

Why do they upset you so much?

Good question. The creative automatic modes make me angry because they take important decisions out of your hands, but that’s not the worst of it: People who are using the creative automatic modes might, in the short term, be able to take photographs of a technical quality beyond what they would normally be able to, but if you resign yourself to letting your camera do the work and make the creative decisions for you, the problem is that you don’t understand the underlying theory behind what you are doing, and despite getting better results, you’re not becoming a better photographer.

Imagine, say, that you had an oven that would automatically detect what you put in the oven, then calculate how big it is, what you’re trying to do with it, and select the right temperature and time, before beeping at you when your Sunday roast / cake is finished or your socks are dry. (What? You don’t dry your socks in the oven? Hmm, just me, then.) Either way, the result would be perfect every time, but where’s the satisfaction in not knowing what your oven did to bake this cake? And more importantly, what if you want to take creative liberties – say, you might prefer your cookies a little bit American-style; gooey inside – or you might want to make them crispier, for example…

The purpose of this article, then, is to ensure that if you want gooey or crispy photographs, you know how much heat you need to turn on, for how long, and if your cookie tray needs to go in the top or the bottom of the oven.

Okay, enough of the dodgy similes already, let’s have it!

Right, in the picture above, starting from the top, going counter-clockwise, the modes are:

Suppress Flash

Photo: Into The Warmth by me on Flickr – no flash needed here, it would have ruined the effect.

Why this is even a mode to itself I have no idea – depending on why you want to shoot without a flash, the easiest thing to do is to use Program mode (but also see Tv and Av, below), which means that the flash will only come on if you tell it to.

If you’re in a low-light situation, pick a higher ISO speed – this will create a bit more digital noise in your photo, but it means that you reduce the need for using a flash. If possible, select a bigger aperture so your shutter speed becomes lower.

Remember the general rule that you can hand-hold a camera at a shutter speed which is the same as the focal length of your lens: So if you’re shooting at 300mm, you should use 1/300 second shutter time or faster. If you’re using a sexy little 50mm prime lens, you can hand-hold at 1/50th of a second. Zooms are the same: if you’re using a 17-35mm zoom, you can hand-hold at about 1/10th of a second at full wide angle, and about 1/30th of a second at full zoom.

Of course, it’s possible to bend these rules, but if you adjust your ISO speed and shutter time to stick with them, you generally get a good, blur-free exposure without having to resort to using your flash gun.

Night-time portraiture

Photo: Electric Light Afro by me on Flickr – By combining flash and a longer shutter time, you get the foreground sharp and the background bright enough to see.

Night-time portraiture is the only of these settings which actually has any merit, in my opinion – not because it’s that difficult to do, but until someone has explained to you how you can get good night-time portraits, it can be a little bit counter-intuitive.

Imagine you’re in Paris with a loved one, and you want to take a photo of them, at night, with the Eiffel Tower in the background. You take a photo with a flash, and you can’t see the tower. You take a photo without a flash, and you can see the tower just fine, but your friend, who naturally is unable to stand still for more than a microsecond at the time, is all blurry and hazy. What to do?

Actually, Av is your friend: In Programme and Tv modes, the flash and shutter time will combine to try to expose your foreground correctly. In Aperture-priority, however, your camera will measure the light that is available to you, and then fire the flash to ‘fill in’ the foreground.

What, in effect, is happening, is that your camera is taking a ‘normal’ photo – exposed for the background – but then also uses the flash to expose the foreground correctly.

For further control (you might decide, for example, that the full 3-second exposure to get the ‘right’ exposure for the background isn’t necessary, and that the background looks OK after only a second, or fraction of a second), you can use full manual mode. On most D-SLR cameras and some external flashguns, you can also set the flash output manually, or adjusting it up or down. This differs from camera to camera (on the Canon, you’re looking for Flash Exposure Compensation, or F-EV), so check in your manual.

Top Tip: For creative effect, try to take a photo in AV mode, but move the camera or use the zoom while you’re taking the photo. Because of the flash your foreground will be static, but you get a hugely dramatic and awesome swirling, moving streaks effect because of the lights in the background.

Sports

Photo: Skate-Zo-Phrenia by me on Flickr

Sports mode is a complete fraud: Use Tv mode, set to a fast shutter time (‘fast’ in this case depends on the sport you’re trying to capture. For snooker, fast isn’t very fast, and 1/60 of a second should do, but for horse racing, you need a much faster shutter time), and see what your camera comes up with.

If the pictures are too dark, it’s because your camera needs to use an aperture which is bigger than your lens can do (say, it’s using f/5.6 but needs f/2.8 to do the correct exposure). This is signified by a blinking aperture in your viewfinder, and can be solved by either using a lens with a larger maximum aperture, setting a higher ISO speed, or using a flash gun (although, say, darts players don’t really like it when flashes are going off in their face when they’re trying to throw A HUNNNNDRED AND EEEEEIGHTYYYYYYYY).

Macro

Photo: Coloured Paper (macro) by me on Flickr

I know a couple of things about macro photography, and I genuinely can’t see a single good reason for that Macro mode being on a SLR camera. For a compact camera, sure: It puts the lens into a ‘focus close to the camera instead of in the far distance’ mode, which means that it’s not wasting its time trying to focus far away. On a SLR, if you’re savvy enough to have bought a macro lens, you probably will be fine with Programme mode, and if you haven’t got a macro lens, then you’re basically out of luck (unless you build your own, of course, but that’s a different article altogether).

To replicate this mode in the real world, use programme or Manual mode, use a macro lens, and snap away.

Landscape

Photo: Freedom in Black and White by me on Flickr

Landscapes, glorious landscapes. Set your lens to manual focus, and turn it to the little ∞ (infinity) symbol. Note that it IS possible to focus past infinity – that’s because when you’re working with infrared photography, the light is refracted slightly differently, and you may actually need to focus past what is ‘infinity’ for daylight.

Anyway, your lens at infinity, set your mode dial to Av, and select a large-ish aperture. f/8 or f/11 is a good starting point.

Select as low an ISO mode you can get away with (bearing in mind the rule about hand-holding your camera, above, or just go ahead and use a tripod), and bob’s your uncle.

If you want to get advanced, and you need a very deep depth of field – say, for example – you want a person in the foreground, but you also want the background in focus – read up on ‘Hyperfocal distance’ and prepare to be amazed.

Portraiture

Photo: Shaken, Not Stirred by me on Flickr

I can’t believe they created a separate thing for portraiture – do a search on Flickr for portraiture, and see what comes up. How can they possibly assume that one single mode fits all styles of portraiture?

Anywhoo – for getting good portraits, start with a reasonably long lens (130mm or so is perfect), stand back a little, use a large-ish aperture (f/4 or so) to throw the background out of focus, and start from there.

Full automatic

This mode will select whether you use a flash or not, your ISO speed, your shutter speed and your aperture for you. It reduces your nice, expensive dSLR camera to nothing more than a big point-and-shoot. If I ever catch you (yes, you, I’m looking at you) with your camera set to the fully automatic mode, I’m afraid I’m going to have to ban you from visiting this site ever again.

Go on, live a little, flick your mode dial one notch clockwise, and enter the world of Program mode. The camera still does most of the thinking for you, but at least you are controlling it, rather than the other way around.

P – Program mode

Is one step up from automatic mode – and I confess to using it on occasion: The photographer selects everything except the aperture and shutter time, which the camera calculates for you. If it comes up with a combination of the two you don’t like, use your index finger wheel to change them – turn one way and you’ll see the aperture get smaller and the shutter speeds get faster – and vice-versa for turning it the other way, obviously. Use EV compensation to over- or under-expose your images a little, etc.

Program mode is great if you just want to get the right exposure, and you’re concentrating on just getting the photo, without worrying too much about depth of field etc. I know quite a few news photographers (!) who decided that manual mode was too finicky for them, and are shooting in programme mode most of the time. If it’s good enough for the national press, it’s good enough for me.

Tv – Shutter-speed priority AE mode

In Tv-mode, you dial in a shutter speed (say, 1/200 second), and the camera will attempt to get the ‘correct’ exposure by using the aperture to compensate for varying lighting situations.

… Interestingly, I very rarely use Tv mode, but that’s mostly because if I find myself in a situation where I want to actually control the shutter speed directly, I’m already shooting in fully manual.

One situation where it might be handy is if you’re shooting sports – say, rally racing – where you know you want a fast shutter speed, but the light can change quickly. The other situation I can think of is if you’re panning (i.e. a bicyclist comes flying past you, and you want to get them in focus while the background is out of focus), and you need a slightly slower shutter speed.

One thing to be aware of is that most lenses have a far more limited aperture range than your camera has a shutter time range. Think about it: your camera can do from several minute exposures to a fraction of a second, while your lens will only usefully span a much lower range. If you’re shooting in Tv, keep an eye on which apertures your camera is selecting for you, because if it’s getting too big, some of your photos might come out over-exposed

Av – Aperture priority AE mode

Av mode is the opposite of Tv mode, above: You select the aperture, and the camera calculates the right shutter time. Generally, I shoot either in Av or in fully manual, because for most of my photography, the depth of field (i.e. how much of the photo is in focus) is more important to me than whether the motion is frozen or not.

You get a deep depth of field by selecting a small aperture (f/22, f/32), or a shallow depth of field by selecting a big aperture (f/1.8, f/2.8).

When shooting in Av mode, still keep an eye on your shutter times – if they are very fast without you needing them to be, you may be able to use a slower ISO (switching from ISO 400 to ISO 200), which gives images with less noise. If they’re very slow, your photos might be coming out blurry, and you may want to ramp up the ISO or use a slightly larger aperture.

M – Manual

Go on. Try it for a week. You’ll love it. This is photography at its most control-freakishly delicious.

A-DEP: Automatic depth of field

Is just plain weird. The idea is that you focus on the point that is furthest away, then on the point that is closest to you, and the camera will then focus and select the aperture you need for you. Basically, it’s using the Hyperfocal Distance (mentioned above, under landscapes), but in an automatic way which is actually more complicated to wrap your head around than just doing it yourself in the first place.

I think I can honestly say that I’ve never, ever used A-DEP before in my life, and that I don’t think I ever will. Give me manual exposure and a bit of guesswork any day of the week :-)

Go forth! Prosper!

So, in summary, what I would love for you to do is to reduce your photography to only 4 of the modes above: P, Tv, Av, M. if you’re feeling particularly hardcore, limit yourself to Av and M only.

And if you are a truly epic photographer with skillz beyond my wildest dreams, set your camera to M and pry the button off altogether. Chuck it away. You’ve graduated. Nothing’s gonna stop you now!

Copyright Information

Why is wedding photography so expensive?

Haje Jan Kamps — Fri, 01 May 2009 07:59:06 +0000

I’m often asked about how much people charge for photography, and then frequently in the context of wedding photography. Honest truth? I don’t really know, but the persistent feeling out there is that wedding photography is really, really expensive.

This is, in fact, true – it ain’t cheap to get your wedding photographed – but have you ever thought about why that might be? I decided to find out, and spoke to Randolph Quan, a London-based wedding photograher.

In Randolph’s own words…

Spring is in full bloom here in the UK, so the hectic summer wedding season is about to arrive. Lately I’ve been getting a lot of couples asking me why wedding photography prices are so expensive. While it may seem like wedding photographers live an amazing life by charging through the roof for a day of work, it’s hardly the case.

It goes without saying that weddings are a costly affair. From the venue to the caterer to the wedding favors, the tab just keeps getting higher, and it often seems that wedding photographers are charging a large chunk of that tab. But have you ever though why wedding photography prices are so high? It’s because of the associated costs of being a wedding photographer.

Photo by Randolph Quan on Flickr

Being a good photographer is an expensive investment. Sure, you can find cheap wedding photographers out there, but they’re cheap because they’ve possible cut corners on equipment, and insurance. Or they’re just plain stupid (you hired cheap and stupid?) So let’s take a look at what goes into a photographer’s overhead that adds up to the final cost of your wedding photographer.

1. Labor costs. This one is pretty standard across all industries. A photographer’s work doesn’t end when your wedding does. After the 5-10 hours they’ve put in working (on a Saturday, no less) at your nuptials, the photographer spends hours and hours editing your images so you get a wide array of perfect photographs by which to remember your day. Its not uncommon to work a full 3-4 days editing a wedding. Their time is even more valuable when you factor in the limited number of weekends in a year there are for a photographer to work.

2. Staff salaries. If you book a photographer that comes with assistants or second photographers, your cost is going to be higher. In return for getting more images from various places on your day, your photographer is going to have the pay those assistants.

Photo by Randolph Quan

3. Equipment. The pieces of equipment a photographer carries around is not your typical point-and-shoot. High-end lenses and bodies average around £1500 each. Photographers also carry back-up equipment in case their primary equipment fails, which adds to the cost of the wedding photography prices. In case your photographer is living in the Jurassic period and hasn’t switched over to digital (there are a few out there, somewhere), you also have to factor in the cost of film. Good wedding photographers easily can bring over £10,000 worth of equipment to shoot your wedding. Add in the prices of computers and editing programs like photoshop ( you did buy it right?) and costs begin to skyrocket. Luckily, its not always necessary in the UK to own a car so let’s not go there.

4. Insurance. Because cameras and equipment cost so much, photographers are smart to insure them. Just in case your drunk (who your mom insisted on inviting) cousin Jimmy decides he wants to spray champagne all over the wedding photographer’s equipment for a joke.

Photo on the left by Randolph Quan

5. Web site. In this day and age, a photographer has to market himself with a very high-tech, professional Web site, which can cost a lot to design and maintain if the photographer doesn’t have web design skills. Its not unreasonable to spend over £5000 a year on website updates, and online marketing such as the sponsored links on Google.

6. Advertising. In that same vein, photographers also have to spend money on other types of advertising such as ads in the newspaper, business cards and brochures.

7. Photo extras. If you knew how much albums cost you’d have a heart attack. Albums are extraordinarily expensive and are often added into the wedding photography prices. Don’t forget the time it takes to design them as well.

Photo by Randolph Quan

8. Education. The more educated a photographer is, the better techniques and specializations will be used while shooting a wedding. As everything else, that education comes at a cost through instructors, college degrees, extra classes and seminars, etc. Intangibles such as expertise aren’t easy to measure monetarily, although we try!

So while you may be asking, “why does photographer X cost so much more than photographer Y?” the answer might be simple: Photographer X has spent more money developing his or her business into a full-fledged photography service, which ends up costing more money than an inexperienced photographer who moonlights part time on the weekend.

….And those Porsches we drive up to your wedding in just don’t pay for themselves now do they? :-)

About the Author

Randolph Quan is a London reportage wedding photographer. You can follow Randolph on Twitter and Flickr or contact him via his website if you’d like to get a quote to get him to photograph your wedding

Copyright Information

Photographing dancers

Haje Jan Kamps — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:12:41 +0000

A couple of months ago, I had to eat my pride after my first foray into dance photography went terribly awry.

Since, I’ve spoken to Laurie, who is a friend, Ruby on Rails coder, dancer, and fellow photographer, who offered to write me an article explaining how to get dance photography done The Right Way™. His top tip: Learning about dancing makes you a better dance photographer!

Take it away Laurie…

Ballroom dancing is the hardest photographic challenge I have personally come across. It seems everything is set up to make it hard, and nothing makes it easy. Everyone moves too fast, the lighting is horrible, and getting a spot to stand can be a challenge in itself. None the less, after years of working on it. I finally think I know enough to pass on some advice.

Photo on the right © Laurie Young – see it bigger on Laurie’s Flickr stream!

The first thing, as with any photographic trip is to know what you want to get. For me there are three different goals I can be thinking of. The first is to try and great stunning photos. The sort that i want to frame and maybe even sell as art. Secondly I want to document the dancing, including all the bits that don’t look so good, the mistakes and the moments in between the rehearsed lines. Surprisingly this is what most dancers are looking for when they ask to see my photos, as it helps them improve. Finally I want to capture the emotion of the day, the excitement and nerves before the competition, the release after coming off the floor, and the joy or disappointment that any competition brings. I’m not going to talk about this one today, as technically its similar to portraiture, and so off topic.

Like any demanding field of photography, the equipment you have really makes a difference. You are just not going to get really good photos with anything less than a semi-professional DSLR.

The biggest single leap I took was getting my hands on a camera with no shutter lag. If you are waiting between when you press the shutter and when it takes the photo, you have no chance of getting anything, dancing is ALL about timing, and so is dance photography. Hand in hand with this is a camera with fast autofocus. More than anything else you can spend your money on, no lag, and instant AF will improve your pictures.

For the choice of lenses, I like to go for the extremes, either a telephoto, or a wide-angle. Standard lenses have little to no place in my kit bag. Having said that, I use the telephoto to pick out just one couple or dancer, and if the competition is in a small room, then this job is done best by a slightly longer than standard lens like 70mm.

Either way, the lighting is going to be low, so the fastest lens is going to pay dividends. Personally I use a Sigma HSM 70-200 f/2.8, and this seems to be the lens of choice among the other photographers. For wide angle I like about 20mm, which i use mainly for the Standard (ballroom) dances from right up close.

Photo on the right © Laurie Young – see it bigger on Laurie’s Flickr stream!

Flash is a good next addition to your kit. You are going to be taking a LOT of photos, so it needs to recharge really fast. In a dark room you are going to be dumping a lot of charge with each flash. I use a Metz Hotshoe Mounted gun, charged from a Quantum battery pack, and even then can easily go through 2-3 full charges of it in a day.

The last thing you need is memory cards. Lots. If your shooting an all day competition, you are probably looking at between 1000 and 5000 photos. At full quality thats a lot of GB, so stock up, or bring a laptop to download onto.

When I arrive at the competition the first thing I do is get a feel for the light levels. Competitions are held in lots of different venues, from community halls with lots of windows and ample natural light, to the Winter Gardens in Blackpool, a massive hall with quite dim lighting. If you are lucky there will be some spots of lights from down-lighters, or even follow spots, which can make for some great photos. Personally I prefer not needing to use flash, it is hard to avoid flash shadows, but its not always an option.

I tend to meter manually, taking some sample shots till I am happy with the ambient light, then setting the flash on auto, (use the most advanced form of auto your camera supports) which will generally do a nice fill in. Because the dancers are moving so fast, and because the background at competitions is typically horrible, a wide aperture and really fast shutter speed is the best. Autofocus should be on, but if your camera can’t focus fast enough, then pre-focus on a specific part of the floor, and only take photos when people dance on that spot.

Next decide where to position yourself. My two favorite spots are on the balcony, looking down with a telephoto, or right on the edge of the floor, close enough to get hit by the girls dresses as they go past.

Photo on the left © Laurie Young – see it bigger on Laurie’s Flickr stream!

If you do this, be nice to the judges. They are competing for the same floor space, and often have to stand right in front of you to get their job done. It can often feel like part of the judge’s training is learning how to stand right in front of photographers, but I have been assured this is not true. Annoying as it is, its something you have to accept. If you are at the floor edge, then kneel down. Your camera should be at or below the dancers waist height. Otherwise you are going to foreshorten their legs, and no girl, and pretty much no dancing guy is going to be happy with that look. The lower the camera is the nicer the legs will look. Just don’t get so low you get accused of trying to take photos up the girls skirts!

Now its time to take photos. This is where your biggest problems are going to begin. At first it will feel like lots of random motion is going on, and you only ever see a good photo after you have missed the chance to capture it. To fix this, you need to learn more about dancing, and learn the individual couples routines. Here Latin and ballroom start to differ. Ballroom is all about motion, so still photos are always going to be difficult. Add that to the fact that each couple is effectively embracing each other for the whole dance, you will always get the back of one persons head.

Except in the “lines”, those moments when the dancers stay on the same part of the floor for a bar, and show how they can stretch, and create impressive shapes. Learn the routines. If you watch them for a lap or two of the floor you can start to see that they repeat the same steps each time. This lets you predict when such a line is about to happen.

In the Latin dances, there are lots of accents. Highlights in the music where the dances do something dynamic, powerful, or sudden. As you learn more about the music these become more predictable. In Cha Cha, its normally on count 1, in Rumba, its on 4. In Paso there are two specific highlights. Learn the music and you can tell when these accents are coming. If you have learnt the couples routines, you can know when they are about to go into a line, if not, assume they are going to do something that hits the accent. You will be surprised how often you are right.

You really have to listen to the music, and be as aware of it as the dancers are. Its the only way to get good photos of dancing.

Thank you!

Thank you, Laurie, for writing up your guide for us. If you liked Laurie’s writing, check out his website, and of course, give his Flickr stream some love, too.

Inspiration

As with so many other things in life, Flickr is great for inspiration for finding great dance photography. Plug in the name of the dance and search by most interesting, get a feel for what can be done!

Can’t be bothered searching yourself? Can’t blame you – here, let me help: Tango, Paso Doble, cha cha, Rumba, Salsa, Merengue

Other searches worth trying: Latin dance and dance, of course.

Copyright Information

Taking fantastic photos with an iPhone

Haje Jan Kamps — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:54:37 +0000

Back when I was doing my Top 100 amazing iPhone photographs, a few photographers’ names kept returning again and again – one of them was the amazing Sion Fullana, whose Flickr photography stream is full of absolutely fantastic street photography; mostly in New York, all taken by iPhone.

After gawping at his photos in incomprehension, I just had to ask him if I could interview him about his technique, and see if I could get some tricks of the trade out of him – luckily, Sion was happy to oblige.

So, if you have an iPhone and want to learn how to put its camera to good use, or if you just want to find out how you can take incredibly moving photographs even with inferior equipment, you’re in for a proper treat…

King of the Castle by Sion Fullana on Flickr

1) Why do you take photos with your iPhone? What other cameras do you
have, and why don’t you use them?

There are various reasons why I love using the iPhone for photography. I guess the most basic is that you carry it on your pocket all the time so you have a photographic device always ready if the opportunity shows, instead of having to wear a big bag with a heavier camera.

Secondly, even though I know the 2MP lens of the phone is not too much for quality, I am convinced that under the appropriate amount of light and holding the iPhone very still, you can get images that would put to shame some great SLR cameras. It’s something about the colors and the light that the iPhone captures beautifully, and it allows you to go for certain type of shots that may be less perfect but with a very special and distinct signature.

Last but not least, since I do mostly street photography, the iPhone certainly allows me to get some good “sneaky” shots of people without them noticing. Something that with my bigger camera I couldn’t be able to do.

When I don’t shoot with my 3G iPhone, I take out my Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50, a camera that despite being considered a point and shoot still, has all controls and zoom manual, like an SLR. I use that one mostly when I cover journalistic events, or when I’m exploring a new area in the city where I want to take some wider shots or some street portraits from a bit further, zooming in.

Gentleman on a rainy day by Sion Fullana on Flickr

2) How long have you been using camera phones for photography?

Well, my iPhone was my last birthday’s gift from my boyfriend, on July 2008. So I’ve been using iPhone for 8 months, and taken around three thousand pictures with it. Almost 400 per month. Not bad, i guess.

3) Your work is quite amazing – your iPhone photos (despite all the limitations of the iPhone) are better than many people would be able to do with a DSLR – can you pick one of your favourites and talk us through your process step by step, from fishing the camera out of your pocket to people being able to see it on Flickr?

Oh, thank you very much!! Let me actually use for this the last photo I have uploaded on Flickr, as I really like it.

So here’s the story: I was on my way Uptown for a birthday dinner and I take the subway towards Times Square. In front of me, on the platform, I see this beautiful, elegant girl with her boyfriend. They both look awesome and I decide to take their picture, using the Camera Bag application, Helga Style (my favorite!). Unfortunately, the app decides it’s one of those times when it will crash and force you to restart the phone, losing your good image.

A bit down, we all enter the train, super packed in rush hour. The girl is sitting right in front of me, while I stand up. And suddenly, even with the movement of the train running, I see her using her pocket mirror to put some make-up on, and I’m fascinated. So I quickly snap the photo and off we go, Times Square…

Hours later, back home, I download the photos to my MAC, I see and like the image of the girl, and I go straight to Picnik, my favorite processing software. I tweak the image a bit by using the Cross Processing and the Orton-ish effects, and I upload it to Flickr and start spreading it around in my favorite groups.

So you can see here the original image and the final result (which you can also see (and comment on / favourite etc) on Flickr, as “Paint my eyes in blue“). I love post-processing and what you can achieve sometimes with it. It’s a fascinating part of the process of taking photos, for me.

4) What are your top tips for people trying to wrangle some sense out of the iPhone as a camera?

I would say “Don’t stop trying”. Shoot, shoot, shoot. Experiment. Look for reflections, seek for rays of light in the hours after lunch on a sunny day, stay quiet for a while in a corner and hold your iPhone very still and snap at everything that crosses your path. Try movement effects. And also, do not hesitate about using photo applications.

My truly favorite had been VINT B&W, that allows you to get some beautiful black and white images, with the right contrast and tone… until I have recently tried and fallen in love with the CAMERA BAG app, specially the Helga and 1962 styles.

5) What would you improve about the iPhone to make it a better camera?

Obviously, there are things that could improve the experience of iPhoneography, indeed. Giving it some extra resolution wouldn’t be bad at all (more Megapixels for better quality). Some settings straight from camera (some control of shutter speed, or white balance) would be great too.

Woman on Heels by Sion Fullana on Flickr

6) Are you a professional photographer? Tell us about yourself!

Well, when do you get to call yourself a professional photographer? When you work exclusively taking photos? When you have made any money with them? When you are famous because of your images? :-)

Right: Mirror of Soul (Self Portrait) by Sion Fullana on Flickr

Let’s just say for now that I have become more serious about photography in the last year and that I love documenting the world through my lens, and that I have been selling my first images recently. My greatest goal with photography is try to raise awareness of the small details and the special moments in daily life that surround us but we tend to overlook in our rushed lifestyle.

When people have told me that this is one of my strengths, I feel I’m on the right path. Whatever the future may bring me with photography, let it be welcome!

The Yellow Line will take you home by Sion Fullana on Flickr

As for my background, I am originally from Majorca (Spain). But I have also lived eight years in Barcelona, two in Cuba (where I graduated in filmmaking) and now I reside in New York, where I am currently since 2006. I am a journalist, writer and filmmaker.

I work freelance as a reporter / photographer, and I’m currently in the very early steps of investigating a documentary film project about GLBT homeless kids in New York. You can see some of my previous work on my Youtube page and -if interested- purchase some of my photos on my website.

Thank you!

Thanks for helping us along and explaining your work, Sion! you’re a star!

If you liked this article, why not take a closer look at Sion’s work on YouTube, Flickr, or his own website?

Copyright Information

Painting with light

Haje Jan Kamps — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:28:28 +0000

You’ve probably seen the effect of camera blur (moving your camera, giving a fuzzy, streaky effect), zoom blur (by zooming during an exposure, I have a modest example here), and motion blur (something moving on camera). But what do you reckon would happen if your scene isn’t moving, your camera is firmly locked down on a tripod, but your light-source moves?

Well, if you can imagine such a thing, you’ve just imagined the bright art of painting with light. I’ve spoken to my good friend Brent Pearson who is ‘a bit good’ at this light painting malarkey, in the same way that Pele is a bit handy with a Football, and Antonio Lucio Vivaldi knew a thing or two about chord progressions.

“I have enjoyed landscape photography for almost 30 years”, Pearson told me in a recent interview. “However over the past few years my landscape photography has evolved and I’ve started doing more and more long-exposure photography.”

It was as part of this long-exposure work that I first ‘discovered’ Pearson – he has an amazing way of combining the zen-like peace of landscapes with the chaos of motion and light.

Getting into light painting

“I enjoyed capturing the movement in landscapes and the abstraction that long exposures introduced to my images allowing me to simplify my compositions.”, Pearson explains. Night-time landscape photography was the natural extension of that work

Of course, landscapes are tricky enough when they’re done during the day – take away the sunlight, and you’re up against a whole new set of challenges. “Composing and focusing when you can’t see through the viewfinder is tricky”, Pearson laughs, but obviously there are issues beyond merely not being able to see what the hell you’re doing, like the challenge of calculating your exposure at night without the aid of a light meter, and managing noise of long exposures with a digital SLR.

“With a reasonable amount of experimentation and trial and error I started understanding the techniques that would give me consistent results at night and wanted to continue exploring and experimenting with night photography.”, Pearson explains “… And that is how I was introduced into the world of light painting.”

Light painting is a term that often associated with the creation of light trails in an image, however there is a totally different type of light painting that offers the landscape photographer unprecedented levels of creativity – the painting of landscape images using light sources that are not visible to the camera.

“By photographic standards, this is the Wild West!”, Pearson claims, “There are new frontiers to explore and new trails to blaze. There aren’t many photographers doing this type of photography… perhaps because of the technical challenges associated with photographing at night, or perhaps because there are not a lot of comprehensive guides or manuals to help photographers climb the learning curve without becoming frustrated. ”

The Benefits of Landscape Lightpainting

By having control over the light, light painting is like unleashing the control and creativity of studio photography into the outdoors. With the long exposures that are associated with night photography, you are not limited to lights being statically positioned; “free to wander around a scene with various light sources literally painting landscape features with light means you get a completely different level of creative control.”, Pearson says, and lists off some of the extra control you’re granted by taking the camera outside in the dead of night:

You get the chance to control the direction and intensity of light, the quality (by changing your light sources) of the light, and the focus and colour as well, by using light painting techniques, coloured gels, ‘barn doors’, etc

In post-production you also have incredible control to blend your light painted images together with the control of a lighting director using a light mixer.

Getting started with light painting

Probably the most important component of light painting is the light source(s) that you use.

“Over the past 12 months I have been trialling a variety of light sources from the humble house torch through to home-built high powered light sources that emit a very even high-quality light”, Pearson says. “My light painting kit now includes three light painting tools: My workhorse light which is a high powered fluorescent light, my camera flash unit, which is great for lighting interiors with colour, and my high-powered head torch LED that can light objects up to 80m away.”

Learn from the master

Pearson has been noticed, and is often approached by people who want to learn the tricks of the trade. “I’ve had numerous photographers ask me how they can learn how to light paint landscapes.”, Pearson says. Like any good teacher, he decided to seize the opportunity and run with it: “I have finally put together a comprehensive step-by-step guide to night photography and landscape light painting” – which is available on his Night Photography Guide website.

“If you feel like your ready for the next photographic challenge”, Pearson concludes, “then I urge you to get out at night and start discovering a new photographic world!” – and I couldn’t agree with him more! Get over to Brent Pearson’s site and grab a copy of his eBook – it’s well worth the cash, I reckon!

If you’ve taken any light-painted landscapes (or any other style of photography for that matter), do post a comment with the URL in the comments below – I’d love to have a look!

Copyright Information

Manual Exposure week

Haje Jan Kamps — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:52:34 +0000

For the coming week, here’s a challenge for you: Abandon the safety of Program (P) mode. Shy away from Aperture priority (Av) or Shutter priority (Tv) modes, and reach for the holy grail of photography: The M of Miracles, Magic and other alliterative phrases. Yes, kids, it’s time to stop letting the machine do the thinking for you, and do all the hard work yourself.

I admit it; I’m as bad as the next man. “Hell, I’ve earned this”, I tell myself. “I paid a lot of money for a camera that has a good light meter, who am I to second-guess it”? And I’m right of course – Programme mode is great for snapshots. I use Aperture priority mode frequently when I want the fastest possible shutter time. And I override the light meter too, by setting a -2/3 Exposure value, because I’m petrified of over-exposures.

Rusty by boliston (Creative Commons) on Flickr

But here’s how the boys are separated from the men, and the girls from the women: Unless you have an instinctive feeling for how shutter times and apertures work in perfect harmony, you’ll be struggling to really realise your visions as a photographer. Opinion? Fact? Who knows, but what have you got to lose? Go on, go manual, and add your photos to the Manual group on Flickr while you are at it. (Or you could, y’know, start the manual mondays challenge!)

For one week only, set your camera to Manual, and take photos only like that. Don’t cheat even once. At the end of the week, if you still don’t like it, then you’re welcome to switch back.

But I bet a good few of you would benefit greatly from making the switch, if but temporarily. I know I will.

Good luck!

Big thanks to @Patryk for the idea, and to boliston for the illustration image.

Copyright Information

Wedding photography 101

Haje Jan Kamps — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 21:33:39 +0000

If everything goes to plan (what with the ‘until death do us part’ bit, and all), most people only get married once. And even if someone gets married multiple times, a wedding day is a pretty big deal. A lot of people spend a frankly ridiculous amount of money on getting married too, so they are keen to be able to re-live the moments as often as they like to.

Every reasonably enthusiastic photographer eventually gets asked if they wouldn’t mind photographing a wedding. That, my good friends, should be your cue to run. Run for the hills, run for the bus, run for you life, just get the hell out of there. Leave it to the professionals or those with worse judgement than yourselves. Just don’t do it.

Ah, what am I saying, as if any of you were going to take my advice on that point anyway. Right – so if you really have to do a set of wedding photos, remember rule number 1: Get it right. No, seriously. Get it right the first time. Don’t screw it up. It’s a big deal.

To help me convey quite how big a deal it is, I’ve got some help from the amazing Tom Wicky, who has taken some mighty fine wedding photos in his time.

Isn’t it just portraiture on steroids?

Well, yes, sort of – Wedding photography is a lot like most portraiture: Your job as a photographer is to capture people. Capture the spirit of the events, the tears and laughter, and the raw, sheer emotion that comes bubbling to the top whenever two people get married.

It’s more complicated than that, though.. “Wedding photography is different than most types of photography because there are no retakes.”, Wicky explains. “Sports photographers know the pressure I’m talking about. In fact, wedding photography gets me in to a very similar state as sports. As a former swimmer, I get the same butterflies/nervousness in the church as I did on the starting blocks.”

And he’s not wrong – there’s something magical and awesome about wedding photography: you get to see people at their most intimate (okay, perhaps they get more intimate later in the evening. About as intimate as they’ll get with their clothes on), but the moments are very, very short indeed, and if you miss them, they’re done.

When I photographed my very first wedding, I was absolutely bricking it, never been so nervous in my life. What if my camera fails? (I brought a spare). What if my autofocus didn’t work? (I shot the whole thing on manual focus). What if my memory cards got corrupted? (I went out and bought some very expensive SanDisk Extreme cards to safeguard against that). What if… What if… I couldn’t sleep the night before.

Stealing a glance by Photocritic.org on Flickr

In advance, I’d met the bride, who was a friend of my then girlfriend, and seemed nice enough. Then I met the groom, who was a friendly guy indeed. But then I met the parents, who were intimidating, including a mother who, during the 20 minute introduction, managed to ram home ‘this is a once in a lifetime experience, you know, I’m very worried that you’ve never photographed a wedding before’ about seventy eight times.

Wicky experiences weddings much in the same way: “I even have a pre-shoot ritual like in swimming that I do to get ready for the event to get my mind clear and focused. It sounds nuts, but if you’ve every been lead on a wedding gig, you know the butterflies and sweaty palms I’m talking about.”

But don’t let me scare you out of it, because – as with every other harsh test of reality you’re likely to come across – there’s gold at the end of the rainbow. “Funny thing about weddings is – and here’s the good part – when all is said and done, all the wonderful food, dresses, the location, the atmosphere, the huge budget… it will all slowly fade over time… only the pictures will remain”, Wicky explains, and summarises in a few words how I feel about wedding photography: “I’m proud and honored that people trust me to record these memories for them.”

Formal wedding photography

If you get over the first hurdle, and you’ve decided that, yes, it’s worth going through all of this, then you’ve got another barrier to scale: There’s a lot of etiquette and expectations around wedding photography. I’ve shot one formal shot where I was asked to reproduce the bride’s parents’ wedding photo from the early 70s – both of them standing on a stairway, one step up from each other, in glorious 1970s dresses. It sounds god-awful, but the result was bloody awesome, because it meant something, and they both wanted to nail this one particular shot. I’ve done other photo shoots (thankfully not as part of wedding shoots) where the well-meaning art director had a brilliant idea which Just Didn’t Work – because one of the models was too tall, and another model was wearing a skirt where (I’m sorry there’s no truly polite way of saying this) there was no way of photographing her without showing off her girly bits.

Till death do you part by Photocritic.org on Flickr

Anyway, do excuse my rambling – the point is, as Wicky points out, that “at first glance it appears that the photographer is limited in creativity. Every has seen the stereotypical bossy obtrusive wedding photographer, who all get the same shots. It’s like getting your picture taken for your high school yearbook – but you don’t have the text or your senior quote to set yourself apart.”

As for myself, for one of the weddings I photographed, I was approached by the bride’s mother, who had a neat Excel spreadsheet with a list of the shots she wanted – 45 of them. Of which 30 were various combinations of ‘bride, groom, family member A who doesn’t like family member B’, followed swiftly afterwards by “… and family member B and C who can’t be seen in the same photo as A”. I got through it (and subsequently – most unprofessionally, I admit – drank a prodigious amount of strong brandy from the free bar to get over the ordeal), and vowed never again.

Don’t get me wrong – wedding photography can be lucrative business, a lot of fun, and perhaps even both – but your biggest strength as a photographer will always be to know your weaknesses. Me, I’m not much for patience, and I much prefer doing things my own way, so I can’t give much advice on the formal shots.

Stolen kisses by Photocritic.org on Flickr

But seriously – think about it this way: you were asked, chosen, or blackmailed into doing wedding photos for a reason, right? That reason is probably that they like your photos, not that they want you to operate as a technician. The key thing is to be clear, frank, and upfront about this with the bride and groom: Tell them clearly what you can and can’t do (and what you will and won’t do, even if you can), and then it’s up to them to decide whether you’re the right photographer.

As my favourite wedding photographer Wicky puts it: “I think as photographers, all this parity in the marketplace is the opportunity to set yourself apart”. Amen.

Documentary style wedding photography

Most of the weddings I’ve photographed have been 90% documentary style (as in – everyone, please get on with what you’re doing, and please ignore the camera altogether). I guess perhaps that’s why I was drawn towards Wicky’s style as well, as it’s similar in philosophy (As he puts it: “I like to think of my photography as natural and intimate. My best shots are emotive with a journalistic, street photography edge to them.”), yet quite dramatically different in execution.

Right: Trash the Dress by Tuffer on Flickr

So, how do you shoot ‘documentary style’? I find that it’s useful to let everyone know what you’re doing, and why you’re there: That you’re taking photos, but that you just want people to ignore you. At first, this is a little bit tricky for people to accept, but the trick is to shoot a lot of photos in the beginning of the event – even if you don’t see anything worth photographing. Once the initial edge wears off, people become more off-guard, they get used to the incessant clicking, and you are able to blend in much better.

Once people are used to your presence, the time has come to do what you do best: Observe.

The Bridesmaids by Photocritic.org on Flickr

Wicky explains it best: “I get my best photos by looking for things and observing things that most people miss. Whether that is a pattern in the audience, a background hiding somewhere, interesting lights sources or color arrangements – I try to exploit these differences so my work stands out from other photographers.”

Wedding photography, like portraiture, is a constantly changing landscape where people are the chief ingredient. Observe, and you’ll find the most amazing pieces of theatre playing out right in front of you – all you have to do is to catch a sixtieth-of-a-second slice of the action.

The key is uniqueness – every wedding is different, and so every set of wedding photos will be special, unique, and exciting. But you’d be amazed at how much of the photographer you see in the photos. “It is very hard to get shots that truly differentiate themselves from my competitors”, Wicky muses, “but that, make no mistake, is the goal.”

Photo by Tom Wicky

Play to your strengths – I, for example, have a lot of experience with doing live gig photography, and so I feel most at home with a long, fast zoom lens (my preferred weapon is a 70-200 f/2.8) or a fast prime (I’ve been using a cheap-as-chips 50mm f/1.8 so far, and can’t wait to put my new 50mm f/1.4 in use, if I’m ever invited back to photograph anyone’s wedding, but that’s a story for later in this article)

In short, if you’re used to working in a studio, then set up a makeshift studio. If you prefer high-ISO, tricky-light situation shots, then stick to that. By all means, get creative and explore, but ultimately, someone else’s wedding is probably not the right place to try out a new lens. As Wick illustrates: “I wouldn’t know what to do with a softbox or an umbrella if you gave them to me – besides the obvious.”, and so he has the wisdom to just leave them be.

Photo by Tom Wicky

Is that a Canon in your pocket…

When it comes to equipment, you have to be quite clever, but ultimately, if you’re comfortable shooting street-style with a Leica M-series, if you love shooting film instead of digital, if you think it’s a wise idea to shoot a wedding with a Lomo (and, I guess, if your bride and groom agree), then have at it, and knock yourself out.

The most important thing is comfort: You don’t want to pick up a hired top-of-the-line Canon digital SLR only to discover that it’s too heavy for you to operate comfortably, or set out to take a set of photos with a lens that turns out to be too wide (or too much of a tele, for that matter).

Father and Bride by Photocritic.org on Flickr

Personally, I shoot weddings – as already mentioned – with whatever Canon EOS dSLR body I’m currently using (right now, a 450D because I’m not working professionally at the moment and my 30D wasn’t too fond of being dropped from a great height), my 70-200mm f/2.8 lens and a fast prime. I’m itching to photograph a wedding where the starring pair are willing to let me experiment with a Lensbaby – which could cause some absolutely awesome photographs, but may also end up with a load of photos that are a little bit too wacky to be useful, and I haven’t been brave / stupid enough to try.

Wicky shoots with a Canon 5D MarkII and a Canon 450D, with a variety of Canon L-series lenses.

Top 10 wedding photography tips

Tom, who has far more experience than me in all of this wedding photography lark, helped me put together Photocritic’s top 10 tips of type absolute golddust – if you take away nothing else from this article, go ahead and memorise these – they’ll come in handy some day, I promise:

1 – Create your own style

Be yourself. Post authentically. Don’t try and be someone you are not. Find a style and vision that is your own. Make sure it matches what you believe in and stick to it. Study others but let that influence translate into your work and push your work to a new level.

If you don’t have a style yet – keep shooting! Following on the sports metaphors, the more at-bats you get, the more time you spend on the range, the better you know your equipment, the better your results will be.

Make a Wish by Photocritic.org on Flickr

2 – Build your portfolio

When starting out it is vital to gain experience, so build your portfolio carefully. It is a bit of chicken or egg dilemma but eventually someone will let you shoot their wedding for free. Once you have one, use that work to get another one.

At first, look for unique weddings (e.g, exotic locations, ethnic weddings, unique style of wedding, etc.) to shoot – this will allow you to distinguish your work more easily. Be prepared to shoot many wedding for free as you build your portfolio. When you have enough excellent shots, put together your portfolio and begin telling your story.

Dance little sister by katialo on Flickr

3 – Use color

Many ‘experts’ insist on B&W and many clients will tell you they only want B&W – I don’t buy it. At times will B&W give a better feel? Sure. But not always. Use color as an additional element in your work. Watch how the light hits colors in your frame and capture it. Look for patterns in colors or color sequences and see let them work for you…you can convert to B&W anytime.

Touched by Photocritic.org on Flickr

4 – Use the internet

I can’t imagine building a wedding photography business without it. The internet is a great equalizer. it let’s you broadcast your message, your style, and your work just as wide and far as the other professionals in your field.

Leverage Twitter, Facebook and weddings sites where potential customers hang out online. Build a blog and update it often with valuable information. Spend time and energy in building your online portfolio – this is your virtual handshake and look in the eye. It better make a good first impression.

5 – Use a Second Photographer

As there are no timeouts and no retakes, consider using a second photographer. Be sure you can work with him before jumping into a partnership. It is very important his style meshes; if his style is highly post-processed with studio lighting and equipment – probably won’t mix well with your handheld photojournalistic style.

Right: A Bride by Neona on Flickr

6 – 3 G’s – Get Good Glass

Lenses – buy the best glass possible. Digital cameras might be the biggest marketing hoax in the history of marketing – buy the glass. Going from standard kit lenses to professional series lenses is a watershed change in quality. Forget megapixels, forget sensor size – it’s all in the glass boys and girls…

If you can’t afford Canon L-series (or whatever Nikon’s top-of-the-line equivalent is), try using high-end Sigma or Tamron lenses (their cheap lenses are even worse than Canon’s own kit lenses, but the top-end stuff is 90% as good as L-series glass at 40% of the cost). Failing that, buy yourself a couple of nice prime lenses.

7 – Be Ready

Adrenaline junkies apply here. You’ll love shooting weddings. You should always be ready to shot – keep your finger on the trigger – you never know when the shot of the wedding is coming. Without fail, the shots that are the best are never the ones you think they are or going to be. I almost always find them when searching through pics afterwards….

8 – Know your bride

Well, yes, and the groom as well. Getting to know your bride/groom/wedding party is critical. The better you know them, the more comfortable they will be with you and the easier time you will have make them at ease and getting your shots. As you get to know them, you will feel more and more comfortable moving them around and asking them to try different things.

Most importantly you will be more likely to get authentic, true emotion. Like here:

Photo by Tom Wicky

If I had not been on good terms with this wedding party – I never could have gotten them to light up like this. That emotion makes the shot.

9 – Be Prepared

Go to the venue(s) ahead of the big day, get them to provide you with a brief about who the key people are (Bride and Groom are obvious, but can you tell the groom’s mother from the groom’s mother’s best friend?), and find out if there’s any issues or frictions you should be aware of. I (Haje) once screwed up really badly in one wedding by asking the groom’s mother to pose with the groom’s father – only to discover that they hadn’t been married for 20 years, had gone through a deeply acrimonious break-up, and scarcely were able to stay in the same room together. Needless to say, the photo didn’t come out very well.

The last wedding I did – for a good friend of mine – I didn’t actually make it to the wedding ceremony in time. I blame my satellite navigation system, London Traffic, and the weather, but nonetheless: If you think it may take you 5 hours to get somewhere, plan 10 hours. There’s absolutely no excuse for not showing up at least an hour in advance – in fact, I’m damn lucky they’re still talking to me.

10 – Visualise

Would you let you shoot your own wedding? If the answer is ‘no’, then don’t even embark on this particular adventure – but if it’s ‘yes’ – how would you shoot it? What would you want to have photographed? Which of your guests would you definitely want to appear in the photos somewhere?

Go on, storyboard the top 10 photos you’d like of your own wedding – and then do the same for the wedding you’re about to do. Whatever you do, don’t show these storyboards to anyone, but the process of putting them together will go a long way towards thinking up new ideas ahead of a photo shoot.

Walking down the aisle by Photocritic.org, on Flickr

Recent favourites

So, of course, between Tom and myself, we’ve got a couple of favourites up our sleeves.

Tom knows what his recent top shot was… “My favourite has got to be this one from the mountains in Austria. We were in a little village in the middle of the Austrian Alps. The church we were in had no heating and was poorly lit. Outside, the fog rolled in the morning of the wedding and was thick as soup. I was worried I might not get 10 ‘keepers’ from the entire job. But about 10 minutes after the church ceremony ended, a crack of sun broke through the clouds. The ray of sun was there for literally 5 minutes. I quickly got the bride and wedding party out behind the church in the snow and the outcome was magical. The white dress on pure white snow with a peek of sun through mysterious clouds was truly a once in a lifetime shot. The bride and groom were thrilled.”

My shot has a similar story behind it – this is by far my most favourite wedding shot I’ve ever taken. They wanted some photos done in a field with sheep (they’re both from Texel in the Netherlands, which is famous for sheepswool). All the way at the end of the shoot I had an idea – which came perfectly true in this shot. Needless to say, they loved it.

I pronounce you… by Photocritic.org on Flickr

About Tom Wicky

Tom’s love for the lens developed in 2001 over a six-month trip through Europe when his Canon 2-megapixel beauty was his only currency. His days consisted of documenting his travels and finding creative ways to offload images from his 128MB CF card in remote places that had never seen a digital camera before.

Tom is the publisher of popular photoblog ZoomVienna - a photoblog detailing his life as an expatriate living in Vienna, Austria. In 2005, Tom captured an image a day for a year documenting a year in his life on the road. Since then his works have appeared in various travel books and magazines, music CD covers, textbooks, and in United Nations brochures. National Geographic considered ZoomVienna a top photo resource on Vienna in its November 2008 issue.

Tom brings his vibrant street photography style to weddings which allows him to cover different angles than those typically seen from other traditional wedding photographers. Although happy to shoot the compulsory ‘formals’ of the wedding party, he prefers to blend in with the guests letting his photojournalistic style document the action as it unfolds. Check out his website – Tom Wicky Photography, or find him on Tom can also be found at tomwicky.com, zoomvienna.com and on twitter!

Copyright Information

Capturing Urban Decay

Haje Jan Kamps — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:55:20 +0000

Rarely do cities come more alive then when they are dying – or at least, that’s what the rather distinctive Urban Decay sub-genre of urban exploration photography is trying to prove.

Graffiti, buildings falling apart, and Mother Nature reclaiming what was once rightfully hers all have a place in my heart – so it was pretty awesome that Roy Barker decided to approach me with an idea for an article on the topic – without further ado, Roy Barker’s guide to photographing urban decay…

Above: Fallen Arches (cc) by iboy_daniel on Flickr

Some of the most telling photos come from the stark reality of street shots of the buildings and people living in urban decay. And, as a photographer, you either need to be up early or late to catch the true essence of life on the streets.

Getting good photos of urban decay is not necessarily hard; it is more a matter of patience and understanding of the subject. So what is it that can help you become a better urban landscape photographer? Here are 10 tips for great urban photos:

1 – Get Up Early.

Early morning is one of the best times on the streets as the light is diffused and the sky is like a giant light filter that gives amazing results. Also the street cleaners are out and there are not many people around.

2 – Get it into Perspective.

When shooting urban shots the buildings should alter the way you use them to frame your photos. Make sure there is always some background behind buildings to give the viewer some perspective and appreciation of its form. Square buildings look their best when the photos are taken from a 40 to 60 degree angle.

3 – Get Permission

It may be that you need permission to take photographs in some public places. In some cases, this can mean the difference between you owning the images or not (i.e. if you have climbed over a wall or trespassed, you may find yourself in court with no rights to your own photos)

Right: Go Ahead, Open it (cc) by stephcarter on Flickr

4 – Photograph Buildings as they Grow – and as they Fall

Take photos of urban landscapes as they are built as well as the finished product, shots of construction can make for some interesting urban shots, but it doesn’t really matter if they’re putting the buildings together or taking them apart.

5 – Attack from Different Angles

Look at buildings through a different perspective. Look for shapes, patterns, textures, angles and reflections that make your work completely unique.

6 – What Lenses to Use

Take a wide angle and a zoom lens that is up to 300 mm. This will give you the flexibility you need to capture any angle. Be aware though, a zoom lens is great for capturing street scene details but can flatten your photo if you are not careful.

A wide lens gives a bigger depth of field to your photos in an urban landscape as they can capture the whole picture – and urban stuff is particularly well suited to Lensbaby photography, too…

7 – What else to take on Location

This obviously depends on your individual style and budget but you might also want to take a tripod for night photography on the streets, UV and polarizing filters, an external flash, and a camera bag that sits over your shoulders with easy access to everything you need.

8 – Do your Research

While most people think that great urban shots come from being in the right place at the right time, this is not generally the case. It takes good research and planning to get those spectacular photos.

You will be amazed how the one spot in a street can change and be completely different depending on the time of day. How much the dynamics and contrasts change with the light and the ever-changing activities of daily life.

Lights Out (cc) by B Rosen on Flickr

9 – Plan your Photos as Themes

Urban landscapes are full of diversity but there are always common themes that run through them. For example, a series of shots about where people live – park benches, a warehouse, a modern penthouse to a period home or an old people’s home or hostel. These can be incredibly powerful when displayed side-by-side.

10 – Capture the Night Life

Urban landscapes become a completely new landscape at night. Everything changes. A city that is featureless and dull in sunlight can be an exciting, vibrant scene full of character that presents good opportunities to an urban photographer.

Right: Bright Rust (cc) by tanakawho on Flickr

The twilight zone is also a great time to shoot in the city streets as the city street lights reflect into the sky as the sun goes down.

The great thing about digital photography it easy to experiment and delete what does not work. Now get out there and try these tips for yourself – you will surprise yourself with the results.

Guest writer Roy Barker provides further information you can read on his site about the subject of photography.

And now… It’s your turn

As always, I’m curious to see your photographs – Why not share your finest urban decay photos with me and my readers? Add a comment with your link below!

Copyright Information

How to photograph fireworks

Haje Jan Kamps — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:00:44 +0000

Oh my, it’s nearly That Time Of Year again, so perhaps it’s a good idea to brush up on the ‘ole fireworks skills, yes? Indeed…

So have a lovely celebration folks, if you’re of the drinking kind, then try to stay vaguely upright until midnight, at least, and give 2009 a becoming welcome!

Rock on…

Many a budding shutterbug has attempted unsuccessfully to photograph fireworks by merely pointing their film camera to the sky and shooting, resulting dark useless prints. With the advent of digital photography, photographing fireworks has become easy, just by following some basic steps…

Find a location away from the crowd and power lines. An elevated location on a hillside might be adequate. You might even want to scout out your perch beforehand.

Set your camera to use standard quality pics. Having too high quality settings will result in too long of write speed, thereby making you miss shots.

Set the shutter speed to 1 second or longer. Don’t be afraid of underexposing your photos, though. You won’t.

Use a tripod. If you can’t find a tripod use a nice steady base.

Turn off the flash. This might seem like common sense, but remember you are photographing lights, so you don’t need to add more light yourself.

Point your camera toward the sky and shoot. A key to getting a good shot is anticipating when the firework will explode. Initially you will have many hit and miss shots. As the show goes along, you will be able to perfect your timing thereby getting excellent shots.

Can’t get enough? Well, try the guides, tutorials and tips from Better Photo.com, Garry Black, about.com, calphoto, DPchallenge, and Smithsonian institute!

Copyright Information

Beaten by Dance Photography

Haje Jan Kamps — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:54:18 +0000

I’ve got a rather long history of rambling on about all sorts of awesome stuff on this blog – and I’ve prided myself on being able to pull off most types of photography with more or less success. I’ve photographed a fair share of concerts, I’ve got a post lined up about wedding photography (although my post on event photography covers some of it).

Anyway, all of this goes only to illustrate that I am relatively handy with a camera – so when I was talking to my good friend Laurie about him being in a dance competition, I arrogantly proclaimed ‘how difficult can it be?’. Well… As it turns out, it’s pretty damn tricky.

Just think about it – you’re in a dodgy-looking room, with crappy backgrounds, poor lighting, and the dances normally last only for about 90 seconds at the time. The people you are trying to photograph aren’t just moving – they’re moving fast (which necessitates a fast shutter speed), in 5 dimensions (back / forward, left/right, up/down, around each other, and in time), and they’re on the dance-floor with anything up to 10 other couples, who twirl their way in front of your lens just when you think you’ve got the killer shot lined up.

A poor tradesman blames his tools…

I’ve been speaking very warmly about the Canon EOS 450D – which is currently my main camera, as I don’t really do that much professional work anymore. The camera has served me incredibly well; I’ve succesfully photographed concerts and weddings, macro and portraits, and I’ve been telling everyone who cares to listen to me that it’s probably one of the best bang-for-the-buck cameras out there.

Now, given that I always shoot RAW (one of the tips here, remember…), I finally found the point where the 450D meets the wall; It only has a 5-frame RAW buffer, and the poor DIGIC chip can’t chomp down the photos quickly enough. I’m absolutely, 100% positively convinced that I missed some absolute crackers of shots because the buffer was full, and nothing happened when I tripped the shutter. Aw shucks.

Anyway – I have to honestly admit that there is very little point to this post – I just figured it’s been a while since I last posted anything, and I wanted to share some of my not-very-good photographs with you guys…

On dance photography; stay tuned

My dance-and-photography-obsessed buddy Laurie has promised to write you all a thorough guide to dance photography, so rest assured that we’ll get a proper guide here soon enough

As an aside, those of you who know me know that I don’t really do failure… The last time I knew little about a topic I ended up getting slightly obsessed, ended up building my own equipment which culminated in writing a book on the topic – so expect a lot more writings, musings, and guides to dance photography going forward!

Show me what you can do!

I’ve seen some wicked cool dance photography on the internet in the past – and I’m jealous. Not just a little bit either, but properly jealous – so if you’ve ever done any, feel free to show off in the comments below – I would just love to see what you guys come up with!

Some could-have-been-better photos…

So yeah, I think there’s a lot of improving to do before I’ll be happy with my dance photography skills – and who knows, perhaps this is finally the excuse I’ve been looking for to buy myself a new camera… And now that the Canon EOS 5D mk2 has broken cover, maybe it’s time to start saving some money or see if Santa doesn’t want to buy me a new camera this year…

Anyway, here’s some of the shot which I felt had a shred of potential, but still need a load of work…

Copyright Information

The ultimate guide to HDR photography

Haje Jan Kamps — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:01:54 +0000

Haunting, surreal, and quite possibly the first major way in which digital photography does something which film photography can’t emulate – or even come near. HDR – or High Dynamic Range – photography is nothing new, but as new tools and techniques make the artform more available, HDR photography is taking off in a big way.

If you’ve never had a go… and especially if you don’t even know what I’m on about – you’re in for a real treat…

What is HDR Photography?

High Dynamic Range photography or HDR photography is an advanced set of photography techniques that play on image’s dynamic range in exposures. HDR Photography allows photographers to capture a greater range of tonal detail than any camera could capture thru a single photo.

While many imaging experts regard HDR photography as the future of digital photography, the discipline has long been in existence.

HDR photography is present in many pictures taken through modern day digital cameras. The truth is, if you are a real photography enthusiast then there is a great chance that you have taken at least one photo exemplifying HDR photography.

The real functions or even executions of HDR photography may be debatable. But no matter which website or source you consult they will always say it is a technique that employs the great use of exposure range to get distinct values between light and dark areas of the image. Its real intention is to create an image that accurately characterizes the intensity levels found in natural scenes. If you ever wondered why the picture you took was different from the scenery you actually saw, then maybe it’s time for you to learn HDR photography.

HDR Photography is the technique used to capture and represent the full (as possible) DR found in a scene with high perceptual accuracy and precision. To remember things better, think of the 3S: sunlight, shadows and subjects. These are the things that make an ordinary picture an HDR image.

The history of HDR Photography

While the technique is more commonly used now to create astounding images of art, fashion and landscape photography, HDR photography’s humble beginning is ironically designed to capture a rather fearing, shocking and destructive image – nuclear explosion.

Charles Wyckoff (the same guy who inspired Computational Photography) developed HDR photography in 1930s to 1940s. He is genius who took the 1940s Life magazine cover of nuclear explosions – an image that would later change the world. Of course the technique didn’t have the acronym HDR before, but the principles remained the same.

A deeper and perhaps more scientific understanding of HDR photography and imaging was first introduced in 1993. This was done by playing on two established photography elements: tone mapping and bracketing. A complex mathematical theory regarding differently exposed images of the same subject matter was then released two years after. Paul Debevec, a computer graphic researcher, applied this theory and combined several differently exposed images to produce a single HDR image was accomplished. Talk about putting a lot of science and even math to discipline.

Today, things are a lot easier. Thanks to the wide selection of portable and digital cameras as well as easy-to-use software, HDR is no longer limited to people studying nuclear explosion and computer graphics technology. But the technology on image capture, storage, editing and printing devices still has some limitations. And since each of these elements affect the DR of image; we need to study them if we want to get an HDR image with superb quality.

Theory Behind HDR photography

There are two theories behind HDR photography. And as the technology around HDR photography evolves so is the discipline itself. But if one wants to take HDR imagery seriously then he must first understand the concepts and theories that make up this discipline.

The most fundamental of all HDR photography theories is to take multiple shots at varying exposure levels of a particular subject. A special computer program will then combine the images together into a single image. This is just an incarnation of the original theory during the time when there are no digital cameras and advanced computers and programs were nothing more than a work of science-fiction.

The second theory is the one that capitalizes on the RAW processing software to create various exposure levels of the same image. Modern Digital SLR camera and a lot of the Point and Shoot models allow photographers to capture RAW images. A RAW image or file is the data captured by your Camera’s sensor that is not processed yet and therefore does have color information. You can manipulate this file, adjust its color, lighting or while balance.

How to gather data for HDR photographs

Taking the images is the first stage in HDR photography. You can use a simple point and shoot camera or a fully configurable digital SLR camera camera.

In both techniques you will need a camera with configurable exposure settings. All DSLRs and most point and shoot cameras have this. Certain SLR cameras have bracketing function which makes it easier for photographers to change exposure settings.

For starters, you can use the following setting: ISO 200 and Aperture Priority Mode. And as they say good things come in threes, you can take picture with three different exposure settings: EV 0, EV -2 and EV +2. You can experiment more on these but generally speaking, the more exposure versions you can have, the better your final image will be.

It is recommended to use a tripod when taking HDR photo. This is because tripod stabilizes the camera and you need to get the clearest image you can get since you are experimenting on exposure values. The best way to do this is to use a shutter remote or if your camera doesn’t have one, just make sure you press the shutter button lightly.

Post-processing

Post processing is the last stage in HDR photography that you can really control. This is where technical skills merge with creative sensibility. And with the introduction of advanced digital cameras and photo editing software, HDR image post-processing is made a lot easier.

However, this does not guarantee that having an excellent HDR image will be as easy as clicking the shutter button. There may be times that the three or more images you took with varying exposure values are simply not enough. With this, the only chance you are left with is to do a post-processing of the image.

Post-processing generally involves color correction, saturation, contrast and brightness and darkness adjustment and other image element manipulation. But in HDR photography we need to concentrate on contrast and brightness and darkness adjustment. Brightness and darkness adjustment is the direct digital translation of exposure manipulation in the picture taking stage. If in the camera you adjust exposure settings, in the post-processing stage you will adjust the brightness.

The main advantage of process is surpassing the limitation of actually configuring your camera in different exposure levels. While some cameras may have eight exposure settings and therefore 8 different images, post-processing can simply give you a limitless number.

After the shoot, transfer the images to your computer. There is a merge to HDR feature in many photo editing software including Adobe Photoshop CS2 and above, Photomatix Pro, Dynamic Photo HDR and others.

Post-processing software also allows you to blend photographs with different exposures. This clearly increases the dynamic range of the final output photo. There is also tone mapping which reveals highlight and shadow details in an HDR image made from multiple exposures.

Further exploration

Whether you are an HDR photography amateur, hobbyists or a professional these websites will surely give you something to focus on.

HDR 101

The site claims that it is the first and most visited HDR tutorial on the web. It offers easy to understand tutorials as well as Photomatix software walkthrough. But we think HDR101’s best content is the monthly favorite Flickr.com HDR photos.

HDRSoft’s Resources

HDRSoft, maker of one of the most popular HDR software Photomatix gathered tutorials, DVDs and videos as well as mailing list subscriptions for all HDR photography enthusiasts.

CambridgeInColour

CambridgeInColour offers photography tutorials and forum where photography professionals and enthusiasts like you can discuss anything about photography.

Flickr’s HDR Group

This HDR group has 30,000 members and counting. Share your passion and be inspired with HDR images on different subjects taken by photographers from all over the world.

SmashingMagazine’s 35 Fantastic HDR Pictures

One of the most popular blogs combined “35 extremely beautiful and perfectly executed HDR-pictures” on different subjects and execution.

Visual Photo Guide

Camera, equipment and photography software reviews and video tutorials on HDR photography all in one place.

HDR Crème

HDRcreme is the first HDR photo gallery that lets you share photos, explore and learn about High dynamic range imaging.

Tutorial Blog’s Collection

A Single link to many great HDR Photography resources.

Photo credits

The photos in this article are from Flickr, licenced under CC/Attribution licence. See the full-size photos of Pasargad Bank Branch by Hamed Saber, Moon on Mars by Extranoise, Tour Eiffel by Al Ianni and HDR 01 by CodyR on Flickr.

Top tip: a Flickr search for ‘HDR’ filtered by ‘most interesting’ is a great way to get some awesome inspiration.

Enjoy!