An Open-Ended Course in Photography

Update

2010-05-09T14:44:00.001-06:00

I have to apologize for failing to update this blog in 2 and a half years. My son is turning 3 soon, so you can imagine that he is the main reason I have little time for photography anymore.

I still post new photos from time to time at my main blog, Full Metal Attorney. Even though most of them were taken quite a while ago, the quality is still good (they're not leftovers).

If I ever get more time to dedicate to photography again, I intend to come back to providing useful information in this blog. In the meantime, it will remain up, and will be a useful resource. You can check the site index to browse, or simply go back through the archives.

I just hope you have more time to shoot than I do.

How-To: Use Blend Modes for Effect

2007-12-02T10:14:00.000-06:00

Sometimes you'll see black and white photos with an unusual feel to them, and you'll no doubt wonder how they did that. Many times, the answer is that they used layers and blend modes in Photoshop. This is how it's done. The same method can be used with color photos, but I find that it's more applicable to black and white images.

First, open your picture in Photoshop.

If it's not already black and white, convert it using your favorite method. See "I Hate Hue" for one such method. On this picture, I used the Channel Mixer (Image > Adjustments > Channel Mixer), clicked on monochrome, and went with 0% red, 100% green, 0% blue.

The next step is to create a new layer identical to the background. Go to Layers > Duplicate Layer.

Then go to your layers palette to select your blend mode. Make sure your new layer is selected. Click on "Normal" to see the different blend modes. You could keep clicking and picking, but since you won't know what blend mode will look the best, I just click it twice and then press the down key to cycle through them until I find one I like.

Often, the Multiply mode will yield the most interesting results. On this particular image, I like the Soft Light mode for a more subtle effect.

This will many times make your picture too dark or too light. Create an adjustment layer by going to Layers > New Adjustment Layer > Levels (or any other one which you might need). After you do that, you might want to check out the different blend modes again to see if you overlooked one because it was too dark or light. If you change anything, double-click the adjustment layer and make any changes to that if necessary.

Then, when you're satisfied with the result, go to Layers > Flatten Image, and then File > Save As (so you don't write over your old picture). Now it's ready for toning or any other adjustments that you'd like. See "How-To: Split Toning" or "More on Toning" for some tips on that.

Blend modes also have other applications which I'll discuss another time.

And, of course, if you use this method, I'd like to see your results in the Flickr pool.

How-To: Make Redscale Film

2007-07-21T01:20:00.001-06:00

Update: You can now simply buy ready-made redscale film.

Here's something completely different for you to try, if you like, and it can only be done with film. Sure, you could fake it in Photoshop, but that would take all the fun out of it. It's part of the whole lo-fi movement, which I'll talk about another day. This particular technique is called redscale, and the results look like this:

In its simplest terms, this happens because you put the film in the canister with the wrong side facing up, so the wrong side gets exposed. It sounds kind of intimidating to anyone without any darkroom experience, but it's really quite easy, and I'll walk you through it. All you need is two rolls of film, some clear tape, and a pair of scissors.

Step one: take a roll of film, and pull all the film out of it--but don't yank it too hard. You want to leave it attached to the spool. Then snip it with some scissors, leaving just a little bit, and throw away the exposed film.

Step two: get your second roll of film, and cut off the leader.

Step three: tape the two rolls together, but with opposite sides of film facing up.

Step four: roll the film into the other (the first) spool. Using your scissors might be a good way to do this. And make sure to do it in complete darkness.

Step--oh, wait, I suppose maybe you can't see what's going on in that completely dark room. Here's what it would look like in the light:

When you feel a bit more resistance, you can stop and come out into the light.

Step five: pull the spools apart a bit, so the film isn't stuck inside. Cut it off close to the now-empty spool, being careful to leave just enough so you can use this one as your empty spool next time. Put it in an empty film canister and label it, then put it somewhere you can find it next time.

Step six: cut a new leader into your new roll of redscale film, and voila! There you have it!

Now, one thing to keep in mind is that you might want to overexpose everything by one stop. Other than that, there's nothing different about shooting it. When you take it in to get developed, make sure to tell them about the tape, so it doesn't gum up their machines. Another thing to think about is that different kinds of film and different lighting conditions will yield somewhat different results, ranging from a very much maroon tint to a strong yellow.

So what are you waiting for? Oh, I suppose maybe you want to see more results. Here is what some other people have done:

(by sterile)

(by fimdalinha, who was also using a film spoke technique, caused by using 35mm film in a modified medium format camera)

(by trxonspeed)

For even more, you can check out the Redscale Film group on Flickr, but be warned--they don't accept imitations: you must do it with real redscale film, not with digital manipulation.

A Challenge: Shoot Out the Window

2007-07-02T23:33:00.001-06:00

An interesting challenge that you can try is to shoot out the window of a moving vehicle. Preferably, you should be in the passenger's seat of course, but I wouldn't say I've never taken a picture while driving myself.

To get anything worthwhile at all, you'll need to have your window rolled down. It will also need to be pretty bright out, so you may have to sacrifice light quality to do this. But if you have a steady hand, a smooth road, and you zoom in a bit (the stuff further away is less likely to blur), you can still do this with good light. Like in this picture:

A few things to consider when doing this:
- You know how I've said that photography is 50% skill, 25% dedication, and 25% luck? Well, when you're doing this the dedication and luck take the forefront. But that's not to say there's no skill involved. You need to anticipate. And you need to be able to not hesitate as soon as you see the scene you want in your viewfinder.
- Watch out for telephone poles and lines, and watch out for signs. Simply zooming in can usually get rid of the telephone line problem.
- The scenery closest to you will blur, so think of it like depth of field.
- You may want to try looking to the left side of the road on your way to your destination, and think about which pictures you want to take. Then, on your way back, do the shooting.
- There is a Flickr group dedicated to this. Check it out!

Quick Tips for Christmas Pics

2006-12-21T12:28:00.001-06:00

Christmas is coming up soon, and everyone with a camera will want to take pictures of the festivities. Think of this as your assignment for the week.

Here are just a few tips:

- Don't take pictures of people unwrapping their gifts--take pictures of their faces when they see what they're unwrapping. You'll want to get the gift and the torn wrapping paper in the image as well to put it in context, but remember that the important thing is the emotion. Be ready at the exact moment of realization, because it's short. If you're using any automatic features, especially automatic focus, frame the image and hold the shutter button partway down until your camera figures out what it needs to do. That way you can finish pressing the button at the right time.

- For placement of faces in the image, don't forget everything you know about composition. Re-read the article on the golden ratio if necessary, because you'll want to put faces on a powerpoint (or cradle, in golden triangle terms).

- Try to get at least one picture of everyone present, but you don't necessarily want to pose them. Get as many people in each frame as you can, and try to make sure the Christmas tree is in the picture too.

- Take pictures before any of the presents are unwrapped, so you get all the wonderful colors and bows and so forth. Take pics of just the presents, presents and trees, presents and the people anticipating their chance to unwrap them (but with these last ones, again the emotion is paramount). Take pictures throughout the event, and make sure to get pictures of the wrapping paper carnage before it's all cleaned up.

- If there are kids around, take pictures of them playing with their toys before the wrapping paper is thrown out.

- You don't need to get a picture every time a gift is unwrapped. Sometimes it's best to take a picture of someone else who's watching another person unwrap a gift. They'll be less suspecting of the camera, so it's a great opportunity to get a candid shot.

- Look for strange angles. Maybe you can lay down under the Christmas tree after the presents have been removed. Or maybe you can sneak behind someone while they're opening their gifts to give the viewer of the image the feeling that they are the ones opening the presents. The possibilities are endless.

- Don't forget that you're a part of the family or circle of friends, too. Don't let your hobby as a photographer get in the way of having a good time and being with your loved ones.

- And last, but not least, don't forget the true meaning of Christmas.

(Painting by Giovanni Battista Pittoni, 1687-1767)

Opposing Viewpoints

2006-12-15T14:00:00.001-06:00

Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks.

--Henri Cartier-Bresson

The negative is the equivalent of the composer's score, and the print the performance.

--Ansel Adams

Alfred Stieglitz Quote

2006-12-13T11:48:00.000-06:00

No assignment this week, as I am far too busy (graduation and anniversary within two days of each other). Instead, take the time to catch up a bit and reflect on the following:

Let me here call attention to one of the most universally popular mistakes that have to do with photography - that of classing supposedly excellent work as professional, and using the term amateur to convey the idea of immature productions and to excuse atrociously poor photographs. As a matter of fact nearly all the greatest work is being, and has always been done, by those who are following photography for the love of it, and not merely for financial reasons. As the name implies, an amateur is one who works for love; and viewed in this light the incorrectness of the popular classification is readily apparent.

--Alfred Stieglitz

(Alfred Stieglitz is widely regarded as one of the most important figures in the history of photography, not because he made any technological advances, or even because of his own respectable body of photographic work, but rather because he did much to promote photography as an art form. He is also well known for having been married to Georgia O'Keefe, although they didn't live together most of the time and were both known to be unfaithful to each other.)

Winter Photography

2006-12-11T11:17:00.000-06:00

Taking pictures of wintery landscapes can be a lot of fun, if you don't mind the cold, and the results can be quite beautiful. But there are a few things you should know.

When your camera's light meter takes a reading, it assumes that your scene has an average range of tones. But in fact, your winter landscapes will be mostly white, thereby fooling your camera's light meter. So you'll end up with this:

When your picture should look like this:

Now, sometimes this will be OK and you can fix it in Photoshop. But it's always best to do it right in the first place--or at least get it closer to being right. One thing you can do is to use a gray card. A gray card, which should be available at any photography specialty store, is a card that is precisely 50% gray. If you point your camera at it in your current lighting situation, you can get a light meter reading which you can then use when you take your shot.

EXTRA TIP: You could make your own gray card very easily. Just point your camera at something that's completely white, let it take its own exposure reading, and snap the picture. Then print this picture off as a 5x7 and take it with you as a gray card!

Alternatively, you could just set your exposure compensation to overexpose all your shots by about 2/3 to 1 2/3 stops. Experiment to find the right setting.

Another problem with digital cameras and auto-white balance is that many of your pictures will come out with a blue cast to them, at least on days with a clear sky. You could try messing around with custom white balances, but that's a pain. Personally, I think this issue is probably easier dealt with in Photoshop. But your camera may have a special mode dedicated to snowy scenes, as mine does. This mode may also compensate for the exposure issues mentioned above.

So when the snow starts falling, get out there and shoot, but remember that snow will trick your camera almost every time, if you don't outsmart your camera first.

Different Viewpoints

2006-12-08T20:44:00.000-06:00

"I never question what to do, it tells me what to do. The photographs make themselves with my help."
--Ruth Bernhard

"You don't take a photograph. You ask, quietly, to borrow it."
--Author Unknown

"You don't take a photograph, you make it."
--Ansel Adams

More on Toning

2006-12-06T08:36:00.000-06:00

Instead of an assignment this week, I want to go more into toning images. I began this discussion with How-To: Split Toning. Those methods worked very well, but I felt that I was limited by the variations command. So I've done some more research.

1: Original
2: Quadtone
3: Selenium

This article will teach you how to do each of these adjustments, and more.

This article was a big help. He suggests using curves to achieve the toning effects, and he also notes that you can save your curve adjustments. To get to curves, you can either go to Image > Adjustments > Curves or to Layer > New Adjustment Layer > Curves. There is a dropdown menu there which will let you pick individual color channels, i.e. red, green, and blue. This will normally take a lot of experimentation, but when you're finished you can click on "Save" in the Curves dialog and it will allow you to save the exact effect you've used here to use it again another day.

But if you're impatient, or you just want to be smart and use what others have done as long as they've done it well, you might want to use Curves files that others have created. That page has a zip file available with eight different Curves adjustments, including a selenium tone (which is what I was originally looking for and led me to that page), a nice-looking subtle sepia-like tone (which he calls Rustica1), and others. (By the way, I believe Ansel Adams was known for using selenium tones.)

1. Thomas Niemann Tones Silver
2. Denny Wagner Platiunum
3. Ken Lee Bronze Balanced

Rustica 1, Rustica 2, and Rustica 3

You can find other files which will allow you to do the same kinds of things on The Photoshop Action Exchange. There are also many other actions available there (such as one that mimics infrared film, but I had trouble with that one) for you to peruse. To use an action, you must go to your actions palette (hit the actions tab in your history palette). To load one you've saved, click the menu (the little tiny circle with the arrow) and click "Load Action." Then click on the action you want and press the Play button.

Using Curves is probably the most sophisticated method for toning a photo. But there are others. This article explains one of them. You may have to go to Image > Mode > Greyscale, and after that you must go to Image > Mode > Duotone. From here you can select Duotone, Tritone, or Quadtone. Select a tone that sounds good, and try it out. If you don't like it, hold down Alt and then click on Reset. Once you find one you like, choose it and you can adjust the curves if you want. After you're done with this method, you'll have to go back to Image > Mode > RGB if you want to save it in JPG format.

But remember that toning will never make a bad image into a good one. It can only enhance already good pictures or bring out the hidden potential of latently good images.

You sepia tone a bad print, and what you get is a bad sepia toned print.

--Linda Cooley

Remember that when you've tried these methods out, you should share them with the group!

Camera Types and Parallax Error

2006-12-04T23:05:00.000-06:00

When you're looking to purchase a camera, you'll need to know a little bit about different camera types. Some cameras will let you see exactly what your camera sees, and exactly what will appear on the film or digital image file. Other cameras will not.

The difference between what some cameras show you through the viewfinder and what the picture will actually look like is called parallax error. Some cameras that suffer from this problem will have marks in the viewfinder that will give you a good idea about how to adjust for this problem. Usually it's not a huge difference, but when you're doing up close (or macro) shooting, parallax error is an insurmountable hurdle.

Point-and-Shoot Cameras

Point-and-shoot (or PnS, P'NS, PNS, etc.) cameras are what your average person that's not serious about photography will have. They do everything automatically for you, and generally you can't override its automatic functions. They're popular because they're cheap, compact, and easy to use. But the viewfinder is a very simple piece of glass--and these cameras suffer from parallax error.

However, with a digital point-and-shoot camera, you will have the benefit of the LCD screen. This screen will show you exactly what your camera sees. In other words, it doesn't suffer from parallax error. So if you're using a digital point-and-shoot, remember to always use the LCD screen, not the viewfinder.

Twin Lens Reflex Cameras

A twin lens reflex (or TLR) camera, like my new toy the Yashica MAT 124, also suffers from parallax error. These cameras have two lenses of identical focal length placed one above the other. The top lens is the one that shows you what you see in your viewfinder, and the bottom lens is the one that exposes the film. Focusing is not a problem because they are both connected to the same focusing mechanism, and are synched up by the manufacturer.

Aside from parallax error, TLRs also suffer from a reversal of the image in the viewfinder, although this is not a big problem once you get used to composing images with the camera.

A positive attribute of a TLR is that the viewfinder doesn't go blank when you're taking a picture. However, this advantage is limited in practice because of the image reversal and the fact that it's only really helpful when taking action shots. Some TLRs attempt to make up for this by including a "sports finder," which is essentially just the same thing as a PNS viewfinder (which generally won't hide your view while snapping a shot), so it doesn't take advantage of this factor.

Single Lens Reflex Cameras

A single lens reflex (or SLR) camera is the weapon of choice for most professionals and serious amateurs. These cameras do not suffer from parallax error. This is because the same lens that exposes the film is also the lens that shows you what you see with the viewfinder. They do this because of a mirror that moves out of the way as the shutter is released. This can cause problems because it causes slightly more camera shake and it is quite noisy, but the advantages it gives are very much worth it.

SLRs are also favored because of their quality and adaptability (through various accessory lenses and filters, among other things).

Rangefinder Cameras

A rangefinder camera is an unusual thing these days. They were popular particularly in the 1950's, and some higher end (esp. Leica) models are still popular today. Earlier models would tell you what distance the subject is from the camera and allow you to set the lens's focus to that distance. More recent models will show you two images in the viewfinder, and you turn the focusing ring until they match perfectly.

The problem is, though, that the viewfinder is separate from the camera's lens, and so these cameras also suffer from parallax error--and this factor contributed largely to their fall from popularity (superseded by SLRs). Most will have some mechanism for correcting parallax error, but these are not effective at close distances.

Conclusion

For almost every pro and serious amateur, an SLR is the camera of choice. But other camera types still have their place. As long as you're not getting in too close to your subject a TLR or rangefinder camera can give you superb results. PNS cameras are also good because they're cheap and can be taken places that other cameras can't--and they're less likely to be stolen, for a number of reasons (less valuable, easier to keep close to yourself, and less obvious/tempting). And with the LCD screens on today's digital cameras, even a cheap camera can let you avoid parallax error.

Jonathan Bailey Quote

2006-12-01T12:59:00.000-06:00

This guy's view of photography is much like my own:

I use photography as a point of departure. Like Frederick Sommer, I prefer to view a photograph as "a thing seen" in its own right, rather than considering it as a document of "a thing seen." This is a disengagement from viewing a photograph for its content alone. An image has its own reason for being, perhaps possessing its own kind of intelligence.

--Jonathan Bailey, in Camera Arts Feb/March 2001

Assignment 11: Do Something Different

2006-11-30T08:40:00.000-06:00

Previous Assignment: Still Life

Are you looking for something different in your photography? Sometimes, working with different equipment can give you inspiration and motivation to take more pictures, and it will force you to think outside the box you've become comfortable with.

One way to do this is to try out a Holga camera. This Wikipedia article has this to say about the iconic Holga:

The Holga is a very inexpensive, medium format box camera appreciated for its low-fidelity aesthetic. . . . The Holga's cheap construction, combined with poor quality materials and simple meniscus lens often yields pictures that display vignetting, blur, light leaks, and other distortions. The often bizarre photographic results of these effects have ironically popularized the camera with an international audience, and Holga photos have won numerous awards and competitions in art and news photography.

An eBay search at the time I write this turned up several Holgas available for under $40 US. The Holga uses medium format film, not 35mm, so the shape of the pictures is different--a great way to make you think differently about photography. Also, the distortions and vignetting caused by the poor construction should make your results even more interesting than you might expect. Some photographers like to try to figure out exactly how any particular Holga might distort the picture, and try to use that to their advantage. Many Holga enthusiasts own several different Holgas (or perhaps even dozens of them), all of which distort pictures in different ways. Holgas also offer many opportunities to modify them.

Another good way to force yourself out of your comfort zone is to get a new lens, or lens filter, or some other piece of equipment that will change the way the pictures will turn out. I've done this a couple times--first when I got my wide angle lens, and second when I got my digital camera.

But if you don't want to make that kind of investment, you might try a different kind of film, such as infrared film. I haven't tried this yet (but I think I might real soon), but here's an example of what it looks like:

(by Cocoabiscuit)

You might want to do some research on what kinds of subjects and atmospheric conditions will give you interesting results, and how to determine correct exposure (trial and error, mostly) before you go out with IR film, and this Wikipedia article is a good place to start. There is also such a thing as ultraviolet photography, but it's much less popular and I believe it requires special filters.

EDIT: I have added a link to a FAQ on infrared photography that appears to be very in-depth, in case you're interested. The link is in the sidebar.

Another way to use film to force you outside your box is by using ultra-high speed film (such as 800 or 1600 ISO film) to put a lot of grain in your shots. To take this to the next level, you can use high speed film, but tell your camera that it's a faster speed than what's really in there (for example, use 800 ISO film and tell your camera it's 1600 ISO). Then you'll have to take it to a nicer photo lab (sorry, not Walgreens) and tell them to push process it.

If you don't have a film camera, you can use a one-time-use camera with a higher speed of film. Even if you do have a film camera, you might want to try this out. There are many things you ca do with one-time-use cameras. There are underwater ones and panoramic ones, and this article has information on modifying them to be pinhole cameras, rather than using a lens, or on reloading them with different film (including infrared film).

I don't have any examples to share with you this week, but a friend has just given me a medium format twin lens reflex (or TLR) camera that I'm going to play around with. It's a Yashica MAT - 124, which has a 1:1 aspect ratio (using medium format film, which is 6cm wide, it produces negatives that are 6cm by 6cm).

This will force me outside my comfort zone for a number of reasons. First, it takes square pictures, so I can either think about each picture as a square, or plan a crop for each picture that may be different from the normal aspect ratio that I'm used to. Second, the viewfinder is quite different. You look in the top of the camera, so you hold it at chest or waist height, quite different from the eye level that I'm used to. It also shows everything in reverse (if you move the camera left, the image moves right). And finally, it's a lot more work to use a completely manual, TLR, medium format camera like this, especially when compared to a digital point-and-shoot like I'm used to, so a lot more planning will go into each shot.

When you try something different, why don't you share it with the group, and explain what you did differently?

David Plowden Quote

2006-11-28T10:17:00.000-06:00

Have you ever lacked inspiration? Didn't know what motivates you to take photographs? Here's one great photogapher's take on inspiration and motivation:

I was born astride two eras. The fact that the demise of the steam locomotive and the beginning of my career occurred simultaneously was a coincidence that determined the course of the rest of my life. It was that initial sense of loss—and perhaps that my father died later the same year--that greatly influenced the way I view the world. It also made me keenly aware of photography’s unmatched ability to preserve the moment and, thereby, to capture things on film before they disappeared. It began to dawn on me that I hadn’t simply been documenting steam locomotives in their final hour. I was witnessing something of far greater consequence: the transformation of a culture. In this light, the body of my work depicts an America almost unrecognizable from the one I began photographing forty years ago. The urgency to record has become ever more imperative as I have tried vainly to stay one step ahead of the wrecking ball. . . .
To those familiar with my photographs, it may appear that I have spent my life glorifying works of an age past, that I have tried to enshrine them with an immortality before they vanish. I am filled with a sense of loss, but not just the loss of steam engines, iron bridges, small farms, and the stores of Main Street. I am distressed by what I perceive as a pervasive disregard for the future. I do not hear "America singing" anymore.

--David Plowden, in his preface to Imprints

Anonymous Quote

2006-11-24T13:07:00.000-06:00

If you saw a man drowning and you could either save him or photograph the event...what kind of film would you use?

--Anonymous

How-To: Split Toning

2006-11-22T09:00:00.000-06:00

Take a look at these black and white pictures.

They look pretty nice, don't they? The secret is, they're not exactly black and white. They use split toning to achieve an extra bit of contrast and overall pleasing tone. People have done it for decades in the darkroom, and you can do it with your black and whites, too.

EDIT: Split toning is the application of different color casts to different tonal ranges in the photo (e.g. the shadows and highlights).

The first step is to open up your picture in Photoshop. If it's already a black and white, you're golden. If it's not, then let's convert it to black and white first. My favorite method goes as follows:

1. Look at the "channels" tab in your layers palette. See which channel has the best look for your photo, the red, the green, or the blue. Maybe two of them have some elements that you like. When you get it figured out, click back on the layers tab.
2. Go to Image > Adjustments > Channel Mixer. Click the box that says "Monochrome," and then adjust the sliders however you want. If the red channel looked the best, leave it as is, otherwise move the sliders to where your pic has the best overall look. Make sure the numbers add up to 100. When you're satisfied, click OK.
3. If your image is now too dark or too light, now's the time to fix it by going to Image > Adjustments > Levels.

Now that we're all up to speed with the black and whites, it's time for the split toning.

1. Go to Image > Adjustments > Variations.
2. Make sure the box that says "Show Clipping" is not checked. Normally it starts out checked, so turn it off. (I honestly have no idea why this is, but it's how it was explained to me.)
3. Now, unlike the effect I showed you in the post on silhouettes, this time we want a subtle effect. So take the slider there all the way down to the "fine" end.
4. Now, for the fun part--the real split toning.
4.a. Click on the "shadows" button first. Think about color theory here. Warmer colors, such as red and yellow, tend to pop out a bit more, while cooler colors tend to recede into the background. If you want the darker areas to pop out, try using red or yellow. Most likely, however, the darker areas will be further back into the picture, so try magenta or blue, or maybe green. Just do two to four clicks in the box you've chosen.
4.b. Now click on the "highlights" button. We'll leave the midtones alone, because changes there will be too obvious. Think about the color you chose for the background, and again think about color theory. Combinations that I've found work well are
- blue shadows, cyan highlights (particularly in pictures of snow and ice)
- green shadows, blue highlights (as in "Jack's Place" above)
- red and/or magenta shadows, yellow highlights (as in the other two pics above, in which I used a little bit each of red and magenta for the shadows)
And of course you can play around with different combinations. Start out with two to four clicks here as well.
5. Now, click OK. If you're unhappy with your picture (wrong colors, too much color, too little color), undo (Ctrl+Z) and go back into variations to try it again. My suggestion would be to save it as the original filename plus a letter/number, such as IMG_0001_a, then undo, go back into variations and try a different method, then save the new one as IMG_0001_b, and so on, to find the one you like best.
6. The final step is to share your results with the group!

(Note: I must give many thanks to Popular Photography & Imaging Magazine, where I learned about this technique. While my article closely follows their instructions, it is not a copyright violation because I only copied facts, not the expression of those facts. This article also incorporates my own observations, opinions, and advice.)

Rineke Dijkstra Quote

2006-11-21T10:39:00.000-06:00

As a photographer you enlarge or emphasize a certain moment, making it another reality. In the photograph you can scrutinize all kinds of details, you can see things you normally would not pay so much attention to.

--Rineke Dijkstra

Add Drama By Cropping

2006-11-19T22:33:00.000-06:00

Just a quick tip: you can add a lot of drama to your photos by cropping them to an extreme vertical or horizontal. Just compare these two versions of the same shot and you'll see what I mean:

The best way to do this, however, is to plan the crop before you even click the shutter. That way, the cropping will be easier, and you'll be able to plan out your drama even better. I know I'm in favor of cropping in-camera (i.e. framing the photo perfectly before you click) but often this is the best way to take a shot.

Another quick tip to remember is that vertical pictures are more dramatic than horizontal pictures, so for a real big boost in drama you can try an extreme vertical crop, like here:

A good place to see this in action is the Bookmark Crop group on Flickr, which right now has only 150 photos but is still an excellent source to see what I'm talking about here.

How-To: Vignetting

2006-11-16T09:06:00.000-06:00

This Wikipedia article defines "vignetting" as "a reduction in image brightness in the image periphery compared to the image center." This is often used as a creative device in photography to draw your eye toward the center of the picture, and sometimes to create drama. Many photographers simply prefer vignetting on their images as a rule, rather than the exception. I don't think that's a good idea, but every once in a while you'll get a picture that already looks good with a centered composition (an unusual thing indeed) and you might want to make it even better with vignetting.

This week, instead of an assignment, I'll share the evolution of a so-so capture into a powerful, dramatic, and yet playful image in the tradition of Homeward Bound, and at the end of it I'll explain how you can add vignetting to your own pictures.

The original:

It's very difficult to get a good capture of dogs, especially when they're playing and moving around more than usual. Here I set myself up pretty well to get an interesting and dramatic composition. But as you can see, there's a lot of excess in this picture. I cropped the right side out, up to the tree. Then I cropped the top and bottom a bit, to retain the drama and eliminate unwanted details.

There was some dust on the lens, and since I was pointing in the direction of my light source (the sun) they showed up as white specks. I used the clone stamp tool to eliminate this problem.

Then I converted to black and white. To follow how I did that in more detail, read the article on silhouettes. In short, I went to Image > Adjustments > Channel Mixer, clicked the "Monochrome" box and for this picture I left the red channel at 100% because of the nice contrast it gave to this picture.

Vignetting

Then comes the step you've been waiting for. As I understand it, the latest version of Photoshop, CS2, has a special vignetting tool. But for those of you, like me, who are stuck using an older version of Photoshop, this tutorial will help you. I believe this trick will work in all versions of Photoshop beginning at version 5.

The first step is to go to Layer > Duplicate Layer. This creates an additional layer identical to your background.

The second step is to darken the background layer appropriately. Click the eye next to your new layer in the layers palette, so you can see the original layer only, and click on the original layer. Now go to Image > Adjustments > Levels. Grab one of the rightmost sliders (either under the histogram or the output levels) and move it left until you think the edges are as dark as you want the darkest point to be. Don't overdo it at this step, or your picture will look cheesy rather than dramatic. Also, you can always go back and make it darker if you want, but making it lighter will be more difficult.

Now click the eye on your top layer again, and your picture will go back to normal. Make sure you click on the top layer in the layers palette as well, so we can be sure you're working with that layer and not another one.

The next step is to add our layer mask. For this, you'll want the elliptical marquee tool. This should be the top left icon in the toolbox palette. If a different marquee tool is there, such as the rectangular marquee, you'll have to hold down that button and a smaller window will open where you can select the elliptical one. Now, use that tool to select the area of your picture that you want to stay normal. In other words, everything outside it will fade as part of the vignette. After you're happy with your selection, look at the layers palette again. There are several tiny little icons at the bottom of it. Put your cursor over each one and wait for the little help message that says "Add Layer Mask." It should be the second from the left. Click that one.

Now you'll have a hard line between your regular-looking picture and the darker area around it. This isn't very pleasing to the eye, so let's make it into true vignetting.

Now, to the final step. On your top layer in the layers palette there will be two little thumbnails. Click on the one to the right (the plain white box), which is the layer mask itself. Then go to Filter > Blur > Gaussian Blur. Make sure the preview box is checked. Now, mess with the radius until there is an amount of fade that you like, and then click OK.

And that's it! You have your dramatic vignette. If you want to adjust things, undo the gaussian blur to change the amount of fade, or go back to the original layer and make it darker if you want. You could, I suppose, change your original layer to all-white or all-black, but to me that looks kind of corny. But again, some people like that, and they might even put some flowery, frilly stuff around in the empty space too. But that's not for me.

Here's my result:

If you add vignetting to your photos, why don't you share it with the group?

Paul Caponigro Quote

2006-11-13T11:21:00.000-06:00

In my years of photography I have learned that many things can be sensed, seen, shaped, or resolved in a realm of quiet, well in advance of, or between, the actual clicking of shutters and the sloshing of films and papers in chemical solutions. I work to attain a "state of heart," a gentle space offering inspirational substance that could purify one’s vision. Photography, like music, must be born in the unmanifest world of spirit.

--Paul Coponigro

Assignment 10: Still Life

2006-11-09T10:09:00.000-06:00

Previous Assignment: Critique

This week, I want you to try a still life shoot. This will help out your photography skills immensely. It will teach you about composition and color, and will bring together many of the other lessons you've learned.

Still life is probably the easiest form of photography. This is because you can move your subject around in any way you choose, rather than just having the option of moving yourself and your camera. And I recommend that when you do it, you move your subjects around quite a bit, to find the most pleasing arrangements.

Note that you'll probably need a tripod, since you'll be indoors. Make sure to turn your camera's flash off, and most of the time you'll want to make sure your camera is set to focus on closer objects (on many cameras, this autofocus mode will be called "macro mode" and may be represented by a flower icon) or that you're using manual focus.

To do it, first figure out what your subject will be, and how that will affect your choice of a background. You may want to just go to your desk and arrange the things you find there into a pleasing composition. There may be other locations in your house or office that have the elements you need in a location that will work. In the alternative, you may want to do fruit or flowers. If so, find a location that will work for that. If you have a nice-looking table, then you may want to use it. Otherwise, it might be a good idea to get a piece of poster board, probably white poster board, to eliminate any background distractions. Or you may want to use the information in my post entitled How-To: Floating in Space.

Wherever you decide to do your shoot, it may be a good idea to have light that you can move around. It would be ideal to have professional lighting equipment, but a simple lamp will do the trick.

Your next step is to bring all the elements together. If you have antiques, like antique cameras, typewriters, or whatever, they might be a good first step. On the other hand, you may want to go to a grocery store and buy some nice, ripe, unbruised fruit. When you choose it, don't think about taste, as you normally would when shopping for food. Think in terms of pleasing colors and textures, or unusual shapes. If you go with this route, you may want to pick a bowl that will complement the backdrop and the fruit.

Arrange your subjects, and shoot. If you're doing fruit, it's a good idea to start by taking pictures of the whole fruit first, and later to slice it open to reveal the inside goodies. After you cut it, remember that many fruits (such as apples) will start to change colors rather quickly, so don't mess around.

While shooting, make sure to move yourself and your subjects around to find as many pleasing compositions as possible.

Here are a few examples, just to get you thinking about color, texture, and arrangement:

Now go out, shoot, and share!

Next Assignment: Do Something Different

Bokeh

2006-11-07T10:42:00.000-06:00

Bokeh (from the Japanese boke ぼけ, "blur") is a photographic term describing the subjective aesthetic qualities of out-of-focus areas in an image produced by a camera lens.

--Wikipedia article (footnote omitted)

Bokeh is much more important when your depth of field is shallow. It's something that is essentially beyond your control, as it's determined entirely by the lens you're using (both flaws in the glass and the shape of the aperture). It's also very subjective, but most consider good bokeh to be very fuzzy, soft blur, while bad bokeh will be sharper shapes.

There's no real way to quantify it, so it's hard to evaluate. But it seems to be gaining in importance in the US, while it's been important in Japan for many years. Some day you may expect to hear about bokeh on a regular basis when asking for critiques of your photos.

Diane Arbus Quote

2006-11-06T10:22:00.000-06:00

I never have taken a picture I’ve intended. They’re always better or worse.

--Diane Arbus

(photographer and copyright status of this portrait unknown--if this is an unfair use and you have authority to object to it, please contact me)

Assignment 9: Critique

2006-11-02T11:27:00.000-06:00

Previous Assignment: Leading Lines

Let's try something a little bit different this week.

I've mentioned again and again what a great benefit you can get from critiquing the work of others. Yet in the group so far I've been the only one to give any critiques. I realized, though, that maybe you don't know what you're looking for in a critique. So here's a checklist that you can go down. Not all of these will necessarily apply in every case, but it's a good place to start. The technical issues apply to almost every picture, but the compositional and creative issues may not. The compositional issues are also creativity issues, but I've separated them because composition is always important to a photo, whereas creativity is much more subjective and complicated.

There might be a few jargon words in here that you may learn. I may come back and add to this list later, in case I missed something. After the checklist, I'll give a few famous examples for you to critique. If you figure out why they're good, or what's wrong with them, you'll be able to apply that knowledge in your own work.

The Checklist

Technical Issues
Focus: Is the picture in focus, or is the focus too "soft"? Is the focus in the most interesting place, or is it misplaced?
Depth of Field: Is the DoF appropriate to the picture? Is it too shallow, leaving interesting elements out of focus? Or is it too deep, allowing for too many distractions in the background?
Blur: Is the picture blurred from camera shake? Are moving objects in the picture blurred (sometimes this is good, sometimes not)?
Exposure: Is the picture underexposed (too dark)? Is it overexposed (too light)? Is the lighting too harsh? Are certain details "washed out" (areas too dark on the picture are less of a problem than areas that are too light)? Is the exposure uneven (some areas too dark, some too light)?
Tones (for monochrome pictures): Are the tones pleasing to the eye? If there is some added color, is it pleasing? If the picture has an overall color cast (such as blue or sepia), is it pleasing to the eye and appropriate to the subject?
Colors (for color pictures): Are the colors accurate, or was there a color shift? Are the colors vivid enough (in other words, is there enough saturation)? Are the colors muted, and if so, is it pleasing in this composition?
Distortion: Are lines in the image distorted due to the shape of the lens, and if so, is it distracting?
Bokeh: Is the bokeh pleasing to the eye? (This is rarely considered important to Westerners, but in Japan it's very important. I will post more on it at a later date.)

Compositional Issues
Overall: Is the overall composition pleasing? Does it follow the rule of thirds or the golden ratio?
Busy: Is the composition too busy?
Slant: Is there an unsettling or distracting slant to the picture, such as a tilted horizon (especially for water images)?
Distractions: Is there a distracting element in the image, such as a sign in the middle of a peaceful forest scene or a tree that seems to be growing out of a person's head?
Leading Lines: Does the photographer make good use of leading lines?
Patterns and Textures: Are there interesting patterns and/or textures in the image?
Light and Shadow: Is the lighting interesting and dramatic, or are there interesting shadows in the picture? (more on that here)
Illusions and Reflections: Are there interesting illusions and reflections in the picture?
Point of View: Has the photographer chosen an interesting POV, or is it dull and everyday? Does it send a message of power, size, or importance? Does it shed new light on the subject?
Perspective: Has the photographer made use of linear or spatial perspective?
Action: Is there interesting action in the image, and does the action move into, rather than out of, the picture?

Creativity Issues
Originality: Is this something new, or have we seen it a million times before?
Appropriateness: Were the photographers choices of how to display the subject appropriate to that subject, or did they do something inappropriate? Does the background complement the subject? Did the photographer give the picture a weird Photoshop treatment? For example, sepia is good for an old steam engine or someone dressed up as a cowboy, but not for high-tech computers or brand-new cars. Adding a glow to the picture is appropriate for a picture of a new mother and a baby, but not to a couple of guys hanging out.
Edginess: This is the flip side of appropriateness. If the photographer does something inappropriate, it may be to good effect. For example, posing a woman in a wedding dress provocatively is creative and unsettling, putting a typewriter into a modern office setting will catch people's attention, or showing a child from a low POV with a strong sense of depth will make him appear huge and strong rather than small and needy.
Breaking the Rules: Sometimes (although rarely), breaking a technical rule can send a powerful message, or set the picture apart. Did the photographer take any risks, and did they pay off?
Meaning: Does the picture have any meaning? Does it say something to you?
Et cetera: Is there anything else particularly creative about the picture?

The Examples

Here are a few pictures that you can critique using this checklist.

"Steerage" by Alfred Stieglitz

untitled by Paul Strand

"Migrant Mother" by Dorothea Lange

"Old Typewriter" by Wynn Bullock

"Marilyn Monroe During the Making of 'The Misfits'" by Henri Cartier-Bresson

If you want, you can share your critiques in a comment in this thread, or share them with the group.

Next Assignment: Still Life

Alan Bennett Quote

2006-11-01T10:51:00.000-06:00

One glibly despises the photographer who zooms in on the starving child or the dying soldier without offering help. Writing is not different.

--Alan Bennett

History of Photography: Niépce to Eastman

2006-10-30T22:12:00.000-06:00

I'm not sure how much this will actually help you in your photography, but it is interesting to know the early history of photographic technology.

For centuries artists have used the camera obscura as an aid to drawing. To make one, all you need do is poke a pin-sized hole into a box. Light will travel through the hole and project the scene from the other side of the box onto the back of the box or an object placed inside it.. Artists using this technique would then sketch what shapes fell onto the target area.

Then along came Nicéphore Niépce. In 1826 he produced the first photographs using a camera obscura and chemicals in paper. His techniques produced a positive image on paper. They took hours upon hours in direct sunlight, and produced the image at the same time as the paper was exposed. At right you can see his earliest surviving image.

Louis Daguerre, another Frenchman, teamed up with Niépce, and together they refined the process. After Niépce's death, Daguerre continued to work. He discovered a way to make a latent image on the target object, which was later developed. In 1839 he introduced the Daguerreotype: a positive image on a copper plate. These were very high-quality images (see image at left), but since they were positive images they couldn't readily be copied. In this way they are much like Polaroids, except they are much more archival, as long as you don't scratch them (which is quite easy to do). Many of these images still survive today, and can fetch quite a price. On eBay at press time the beautiful picture at left is available, and bidding is currently at $208.50.

About the same time, William Fox Talbot was working on a process to make negative images that could later be printed into positives. His process was called calotype. They were not as high-quality as the Daguerreotypes, and not as long-lived either.

Many others contributed to this process over time. Not the least of which was George Eastman, founder of Kodak, who introduced a camera that was preloaded with a roll of film (about 100 exposures) and was turned into the company to be developed, not unlike the disposable cameras of today (diagram at right). They didn't have a viewfinder of any sort, but despite this flaw it made photography available to the general public at the then-quite-expensive but still affordable price of $25, inclusive of processing. The slogan: "You press the button, we do the rest." And the rest is, as they say, history.

Assignment 8: Leading Lines

2006-10-26T11:06:00.000-06:00

Previous Assignment: Putting It in Perspective

I found a nice way to explain the topic, leading lines, over on Kodak's web site:

Select a camera angle where the natural lines of the scene lead the viewers' eyes into the picture and toward your main center of interest. You can find such a line in a road, a fence, even a shadow. Diagonal lines are dynamic; curved lines are flowing and graceful. You can often find the right line by moving around and choosing an appropriate angle.

You can find a lot of good examples of this in the post on perspective, particularly the part on linear perspective, but here are a few examples of the technique:

Notice how the lines lead your eye into, and not out of, the picture, just as action should always lead into the picture. One of the best ways to do this is to start your leading line in the corner, as in the corn picture above. The corner is a place where the eye can easily wander out of the frame, and it's your job to draw the eye back in. You need to be careful, though, because you don't want it to go directly into the corner. That will lead the eye out. But you do want it to start very close to the corner.

A good way to judge whether you are using your leading lines effectively is to just sit and look at your picture, relax, and let your eye move where it will. Take this picture, for example:

Notice how your eye immediately wants to start in the lower right corner, and the railing leads your eye across and into the picture, but doesn't lead your eye out. Then it leads your eye up and to the right for a while, but the edge of the ceiling saves your eye from going out, leads your eye around and back down. This picture is a particularly good example of the use of leading lines because the lines draw your eye to every facet of the picture and keep your eye in the frame.

Leading lines are an excellent tool for portraiture, as well. When posing your subject, it's a good idea to use their arms, or some object, as a leading line. And it's a good idea to remember the golden triangle, as it's quite good for portraiture. See this example:

Notice how the elbow follows along with the golden triangle's lines, and it starts a leading line that leads up to the face. Just in case your eye wasn't sure where to go, the hilt (or tsuka) of the katana also draws your eye to the face. Notice also that the scabbard (or saya) is dark enough to be almost unnoticeable, so it doesn't draw your eye out of the frame. When doing portraiture, the face (and especially the eyes) are where you want the leading lines to go.

Leading lines are generally most effective when they are diagonal or curved, rather than horizontal or vertical. However, the best leading lines of all are the elusive S-curves. I don't have any good examples from my own work, but here are a couple from other people that I thought were awesome examples:

(by cobalt123)

(by ikonjon)

Aren't those last two amazing? I think so.

So why don't you go out, shoot, and share?

Next Assignment: Critique

Always Take Your Camera

2006-10-24T09:42:00.000-06:00

Always take your camera with you. I keep telling myself this, but I don't practice what I preach.

This picture has loads of potential. But I took it with someone else's camera, and didn't know how to ensure that the focus would be up close. So it's blurred. It's good enough that a professional wedding photographer wanted to take the same picture, but it's fatally flawed by the blur. Sure is a nice focus on the background, though . . . .

Learn from my mistake, even if I don't. Take your camera with you wherever you go.

Did you ever wish you had your camera?

David Bailey, on Photographers Versus Painters

2006-10-22T22:15:00.000-06:00

It takes a lot of imagination to be a good photographer. You need less imagination to be a painter, because you can invent things. But in photography everything is so ordinary; it takes a lot of looking before you learn to see the ordinary.

--David Bailey

Advanced Composition and the Golden Ratio

2006-10-19T07:55:00.000-06:00

This isn't really intended to be an assignment, but if you take all of this in and try to put it into practice, it will vastly improve your compositional skills.

Power Points

You already know about the rule of thirds, but let's talk about it in more detail.

Here again is a diagram of a frame divided into thirds. You already know that placing different fields of interest into one third or two thirds of the frame will make a compelling interest. What you may not already know is about the existence of power points. The power points are the places where the lines intersect. Positioning an element onto one of these points is a powerful tool in photography.

Now, there is some play in this, meaning that you don't have to be exact with it. But the point is that placing elements in one of the corners, rather than in the center, is much more aesthetically pleasing. The following two pictures will show power points in action:

Notice how the head of the windmill and where the windmill touches the ground are both on power points, and the dog and branches are also both on power points.

The Golden Ratio

What is the golden ratio? Well, this Wikipedia article could give you a long mathematical explanation, but let's just say it's the mathematical formula for aesthetically pleasing composition. It's the reason the rule of thirds works. But there are many photographs that don't follow the rule of thirds, but the composition is still pleasing. The golden ratio accounts for that.

You see, the rule of thirds is simply one manifestation of the golden ratio. The golden ratio is, so to speak, the golden rule of photography. To use it in your photos, it's much easier to break it down into specific applications, such as the rule of thirds. In fact, the rule of thirds is a manifestation of the golden rectangle (Wikipedia article on the golden rectangle).

Another application is the golden triangle. To use this as a compositional guide, you have to imagine lines going through the frame so that they form equi-angular triangles, that is, triangles with the same angles in them (different sizes, but always the same shape). The diagram at left shows what this looks like, but you can add more and more lines conceptually if you wish, as long as the angles always remain the same. The following images all have a nice composition, but they do not appear to follow the rule of thirds. The golden triangle is a much better way to conceptualize them.

The area just inside the point of the smallest triangle is sometimes called a cradle. This is often seen as a good place in the frame to position the elements of your picture. Let's go back to the windmill photo.

As you can see, if the lines are drawn correctly, the cradle is in the same spot as the power point. This is not just a coincidence.

The final compositional tool based on the golden ratio is called the golden spiral (image from the Wikipedia article). This is probably the most pleasing of all of these tricks, if used expertly. It's the reason that spiral staircase photos and photos of snail shells are so appealing. But it's not limited to those contexts. It's also another way to look at photos that utilize the golden triangle. And it's always another tool that you can use. The more tools in your toolbox, the more situations you can deal with effectively. Here are two examples of the golden spiral (I had a little trouble superimposing the spiral onto the pictures, so you'll just have to use your imagination):

On the first one, you can even imagine the spiral coming from one of two ways. The better one is from the bottom left corner, but you can also imagine it starting in the top right corner.

I hope that this will expand your horizons, and help you to look at photos in a new light.

Inspiration from David Plowden

2006-10-16T23:13:00.000-06:00

A friend of mine gave me a book, Imprints, by David Plowden, with the following note scrawled on the inside cover:

Kelly,
I know you’ll be inspired by these images.
Keep up the good work!

-- Todd Morten

Well, not only have the pictures inspired me and even affected the way I look through the camera, but the words have inspired me as well. David Plowden is gifted in that he not only communicates well with a lens, but also with a keyboard. I'll share many of the things he wrote in that book with you, but the most inspirational story I've ever heard about photography, one to which I relate, was written in the pages of that book, and I'd like to share it right now.

Many years ago when I was crossing Kansas on a train, I went to the dining car for lunch. Once there, I discovered to my horror that all the window blinds had been pulled down. The steward seated me, and I immediately raised the blind so I could look out on the immensity of the flatlands . . . . A moment later the steward reappeared, reached over, and pulled the blind down again, assuring me that “there’s nothing out there to look at, son.”
Perhaps not to his eye, but certainly to mine. I raised the blind once more and have never lowered it since.

--David Plowden, on "The Flatlands," in his book Imprints

How-To: Silhouettes

2006-10-12T08:51:00.000-06:00

Instead of an assignment this week, I thought I’d share the story behind a picture, and maybe you can learn something about silhouettes from it.

I took this back in August. I knew there was something I liked about it, but as you can see it’s terribly flawed: an almost complete lack of contrast. If you’ll remember the post on light quality and quantity, you’ll recall that too little light means too little contrast, and that’s the problem here. I had let it simmer for some time, hoping that I could figure out something to do with it.

I did.

I decided to turn it into a silhouette. I’ve seen many silhouette pictures. Many of them work. Many don’t. Why is it that some silhouettes are compelling, while others are dull? The answer is simple. Compelling silhouettes are easily recognizable, stark shapes. A windmill is perfect--Nebraska license plates had a windmill silhouette on them for years; they’re probably the most iconic structure to symbolize life on the plains. But the windmill here is only one example; others include people, some landmarks (e.g. the Eiffel Tower or the Washington Monument), fences, birds, and some other animals. There are many more to pick from. Contrast that with trees. Most trees almost never make a compelling silhouette, although there are exceptions.

The old-fashioned way to get a silhouette is to get a strong light source behind your subject, like in these images:

Sunrise and sunset are often the best times to do this. When you do it, it's a good idea to bracket (take a picture at the exposure your camera tells you, then another two stops lower and another two stops higher). But that’s not always an option, and here I’m trying to save an almost-good picture, not start from scratch.

So I opened up the picture in Photoshop. I wanted to change this to a black and white image first, to get the most mileage from going in the stark direction of a silhouette. But I wanted to change it to black and white in the best way possible. To figure that out, I went to the "Channels" tab in the "Layers" palette.

Here, I was looking for the channel that had the least range of values, i.e. a lot of black and white but not a lot of gray. I clicked red, green, and then blue, and found that the blue channel was what I was looking for. Most of the time, the red channel will have the most range and the blue channel the least, so this is no surprise.

Then I went to Image > Adjustments > Channel Mixer.

I clicked the box that says "Monochrome," set the blue channel to 100 and the red channel to 0.

But there was still a bit too much range for my liking. So I went to Image > Adjustments > Brightness/Contrast.

Then I messed with the contrast slider. If you jack it all the way up, you’ll ruin your image completely. I played with it so that the contrast was as high as possible without losing much texture in the clouds. For this picture, that sweet spot was at +36.

But now the image had too much dull area at the bottom. When there was some detail in the field, it added some interest to the image. But now that the contrast has been jacked up, it’s just dull and boring. I want to keep some of it, but I took a little bit out with the cropping tool (the letter "C" on your keyboard, or the icon in the toolbar that’s circled in red in the above picture).

At this point, I had done everything needed to the picture to get the nice silhouette and composition that I liked. But I wanted to give it a little something extra, so I went to Image > Adjustments > Variations.

And then I messed with that until I got something I liked. When you’re doing this to a silhouette, chances are you’ll only want to adjust the midtones and highlights, but not the shadows. Remember not to go overboard, or it’ll just look goofy. You could do the same thing by going back to the Channel Mixer (remember this time not to check the box that says "Monochrome") but I think this method is easier and precise enough.

Here’s the final result:

I’m happy with it. Why don’t you go out and find something with an equally iconic shape and do the same thing, and share it with the group?

How-To: Light Trails

2006-10-11T10:36:00.000-06:00

I thought I'd share a quick how-to with everyone. Light trails can make some interesting shots. To get them, all you need to do is get in as dark an area as possible and use a longer exposure, and then find (or make) moving lights. You could do this in a pitch-black room with a tripod and move a flashlight or, preferably, LED lights, or anything else like that (if you're moving the light yourself, you might want to use a timer on your camera so you can get in position before the shutter opens). Or you could go out on the street and find some moving cars, like I did on this shot:

Since you have a lot of leeway on creativity with this trick, you don't have to even use a tripod, or even stand still! If you want, you might try experimenting with moving the camera instead of the light source. That's what I did here, but my light sources (car lights) were moving as well. I used a two second exposure, held the camera in my hand, and just walked down the street with the camera pointing at the cars. My walking is what gives this picture its rhythm.

Have you ever tried this kind of shot? Share it!

Image Stabilization

2006-10-09T21:49:00.000-06:00

In the most recent issue of Popular Photography & Imaging magazine, the had a feature on doing wildlife photography. One of their recommendations is to get a 500mm lens with optical image stabilization. You don't even want to know how much that costs . . . but if you want to play the guessing game, you might want to start at $5,000.

But that's not the point I want to get at here. Optical image stabilization, a technology apparently introduced by Canon, is the point. I believe some earlier technologies were digital, so you can imagine how bad they were. This one works differently.

A camera's lens is made up of several pieces of glass, called elements. They might look something like this sloppy diagram I made in MSPaint (I was basing this diagram on the elements of a microscope, so the picture isn't entirely accurate, but you get the idea). The light travels through all of the elements before it hits the film or digital sensor.

Normally these elements don't move. But with optical image stabilization, they are allowed to float a little bit in such a way that it doesn't matter if the front elements shake a little bit.

At first I put the idea out of my mind, thinking that it couldn't make much of a difference. But Canon claims that it makes a two stop difference. That is, if, with your focal length, you could shoot without shake at 1/500 of a second without image stabilization, you could shoot without shake at 1/125 of a second with it. This means, the way I figure it, that you could potentially handhold a 500mm lens under some fairly weak lighting conditions, especially considering that such a lens probably doesn't have a very wide aperture (many are limited to about f5).

So if you're looking into buying a new lens, especially a longer one, I would definitely consider looking into Canon's new technology.

Another Point of View

2006-10-08T21:47:00.000-06:00

Just to prove that I know I'm not always right, and not all photography advice applies equally to all styles of photography, here's a quote from a true master of photography who would think I'm dead wrong in regards to my post Don't Be a Wuss:

There is a lot of talk about camera angles; but the only valid angles in existence are the angles of the geometry of composition and not the ones fabricated by the photographer who falls flat on his stomach or performs other antics to procure his effect.

--Henri Cartier-Bresson (1908-2004)

In fact, there's a good chance he's laughing at me from beyond the grave. I'll just laugh at him because he's French, and dead. No, I won't laugh at him for being dead. He was truly a great photographer.

Assignment 7: Putting It in Perspective

2006-10-05T08:09:00.000-06:00

Previous Assignment: Less Is More

An excellent device for creating an interesting image is to use perspective. If you can look at a photo, and your eye follows it into the background, it's very pleasant to look at it for a long time.

One way to give a picture perspective is to use linear perspective. When you look at a scene, a road, for example, the lines converge toward the middle. Here are a few examples:

Another way to use perspective is to find a truly unique one, by lying down on the ground or whatever you need to do to show an ordinary scene in an extraordinary way. Of course, this isn't what is usually meant by expert photographers when they use the term "perspective," but I think it's conceptually related to these other kinds of perspective. Sometimes, all you need to do is tilt your camera, but often it's better to get above or below whatever you're looking at. Examples:

Notice that the ladder and drawer pictures also use linear perspective. Always remember that combining different photography techniques will create very compelling images.

And a final way to effectively use perspective is to think about the picture in terms of foreground, middleground, and background. This last trick is called spatial perspective. This is one of the areas where Ansel Adams really excelled, and honestly I'm not very good at it yet. It's probably the most difficult to use of all these tricks. But the idea is that you should find something interesting to put in the foreground, something interesting in the middleground, and something interesting in the background. This gives the picture a great feeling of depth in a more natural way. When you do this, you'll want to use a tight aperture (high f-number) to get detail at all levels, and using a wide angle lens would be ideal. An example:

I'm kind of disappointed in myself that my best example of this is over a year and a half old. But notice how the column is the foreground, and it gives a frame of reference, then the wall on the left and the patterns on the floor are the middleground, and the rest is the background. It gives a feeling of depth without forcing it, as the converging lines of linear perspective do.

Spatial perspective is most effective when the foreground elements are easily recognizable (such as a person, car, door, or tree) so that they serve as a reference point. This gives the viewer a sense of the scale of everything in the picture. You can use it without easily recognized elements in the foreground, but this does make it more effective.

Two more examples (not as good as the first):

In the first of these, the foreground is the fence, the middleground is the first hill, and the rest is the background. It would be better if I had gotten in closer to the fence. In other words, this one has a weak foreground. In the second one, the kids provide the foreground, the man in the chair and the tractors are the middleground, and the grain elevator and building are the background. This one, however, has a weak background. On the plus side, both of them do use an easily-recognizable foreground element that gives the picture a sense of scale.

If you go back to my first example for linear perspective (the gravel road), you'll find that it also is a flawed example of this type of perspective, lacking a powerful foreground. Also, if you go back and look at the picture of Jack Daniel's paraphernalia, you'll see how spatial perspective can be used to fool the viewer instead of giving them a true sense of scale. It looks like a liter bottle, doesn't it? If you look closely, you'll see it's 375 mL.

So it looks like I have some work to do as well! Try to use all three kinds of perspective, then show me what you get!

Next Assignment: Leading Lines

When You're Ready to Sell Your Work

2006-10-04T11:56:00.000-06:00

When you're ready to sell your work, there are many different avenues you can choose.

Fine Art Sales Online

The cheapest and easiest avenue to try is the Internet. Art.com is one example. Free accounts are allowed to upload up to 16 pictures, and make them available for printing directly from the site. You only get 10% of the revenues, but it can add up if you make enough sales. This site is great because the prints are high quality and they look at pictures for artistic merit rather than technical quality.

Stock Photography

Of course, there are also more commercialized avenues, such as Fotolia and Shutterstock. These are great if your pictures are of pristine technical quality and have great commercial potential. There are also other stock photography sites, some of which use a more complex fee arrangement, but many of those are harder to get your foot in the door and have less reliable results.

Galleries

I've been looking into some local galleries, and if you really think you're good enough, you should too. They will want to see a portfolio of your work, but don't put something together like "my best pictures" or anything like that. They'll like to see a more cohesive portfolio, something with a theme, that would make a good photo book or exhibit. Try something along the lines of "Country Landscapes" or "Black and White Abstracts" or something like that. These will, of course, require an investment (something I can't afford right now and that's why I haven't tried it yet). You'll have to make some prints and matte them, and maybe even frame them. That is, of course, if they accept you. Once I give this a shot, I'll let you know how it went and give you some more tips.

Your Input

Have you tried any of these avenues? Do you have any other good websites or other outlets to share, or any stories? Leave a comment here or in the Flickr group!

Falling Down, Skinning Knees, and Getting Dirty

2006-10-02T21:57:00.000-06:00

If you remember my post entitled Don't Be a Wuss, you'll remember that I asked for stories. There are a few in this thread but I thought I'd share the best of the group with everyone. These stories come from Cornell Finch:

I am regularly scraping knees, elbows, chins etc to "get the shot".

This one for example i had my EOS mounted on a Manfrotto tripod, legs fully extended (as low as they go) to get down there. I took the shot and stood up, over balanced, tripped over the tripod and skinned my left elbow and knee (I was wearing shorts at the time).

This shot found me lying on the floor of a petrol station forecourt to get the angle. This was hand-held with a 50mm f1.8 lens. You can see from the shot that it was raining.

Thanks for the stories! I want this blog to be as interactive as possible, so always feel free to share your stories, thoughts, experience, and expertise!

How-To: Floating in Space

2006-09-28T09:33:00.000-06:00

In lieu of giving an assignment this week, I'll explain how I did a photo project, so that you can do something similar if you want. For this one, I wanted to take a small subject and completely isolate it from the background. This way, it really pops.

You can do this with anything small enough so that you can put a solid-color background behind it. You might even be able to transfer some of what you learn from this post to other contexts.

First, decide what your subject will be. I chose a sea shell. I did make one mistake, though. You should pick a background that contrasts very well with your subject. Since the shell had warm tones, I should have used a blue shirt. But I did get by with the red one. Put your subject on a background that contrasts with it. You could use a t-shirt, or construction paper, or whatever else you have available.

Frame your picture so that the subject fills the entire frame. Don't worry about composition, because with this project it'll be easy to change that in post-production. But do get a good angle on your subject. Because of the way I wanted it to turn out, I underexposed the shot by 2/3 of a stop, but that might not always be what you want to do.

Now that you have your original picture, take it into Photoshop. Use the magic wand tool, and click in your background. If this doesn't select all of your background, increase the tolerance. If it selects part of your subject, decrease the tolerance. As soon as you've selected as much of the background as possible without selecting any of your subject, hit the "delete" key. Now, you may need to go in and clean up the edges a bit by selecting a few pixels here and there and deleting them. Do this at 100% magnification, and go over the whole picture meticulously.

Now, zoom out again. If you don't like the white background it gave you, fill the area with whatever other color you want. If you want to change the composition, increase the size of your canvas, move the subject wherever you want it, and fill the remaining area with the same color you used before.

Now, I used a black background. You don't have to, but you should probably use either black or white if you want the picture to be black and white. If you want the picture in color, you need read no further. You have your pic! But if you want a high-contrast black and white like I do, read further.

Go to Layers-->New Adjustment Layer-->Hue/Saturation. Click OK, then click OK again. Go back and create another layer: Layers-->New Adjustment Layer-->Hue/Saturation. Click OK, but this time take the saturation slider all the way down to 0 and then click OK. Change the blend mode to color (in your layers palette, there should be a drop-down menu that says "Normal"; just click that and find "Color"). Double click on the first layer I told you to add, and mess with the hue slider until you get a look that you like.

Here's my result:

(this is available through Art.com and Fotolia)

Now, if you do this, show me what you get!

Light: Quality and Quantity

2006-09-27T10:14:00.000-06:00

Most of the time, while taking photographs, we only think in terms of whether there is enough light, how it affects our camera’s settings, and whether we will have camera shake. But just as important to getting good photos is the quality, rather than the quantity, of the light.

To understand this concept, perhaps it’s easiest to think of a sunset. When the sun is very low on the horizon, the sky around it turns red. When the sun is highest in the sky, the sky is very blue. But clearly this isn’t an instantaneous change. At times earlier or later in the day, the light is warmer (more red). Toward the middle of the day, the light is cooler (more blue). This affects your color balance in your camera, for one thing (a digital camera will usually automatically compensate, but film can’t do this, so the colors may be wrong if you shoot at the wrong time of day).

So if you’re shooting with a digital camera, you won’t have to worry too much about the color shift caused by shooting at different times of day, although it may be an issue and you may have to override your camera’s automatic white balance.

A related issue is the problem of too much light. You may not think this is possible, but it is. Imagine you are shooting in very dark light. Your picture will have very little contrast, i.e. the overall tone will be in similar shades of gray. As more light enters the scene, more contrast will show up in your pictures. During the brightest sunlight, this hits the extremes--and your camera can’t pick up the full range of tones like your eyes can. Your pictures will have areas of extreme light and dark, but the middle range will be left out. The problem is bad enough when you’re shooting in black and white, but it gets even worse in color, because the colors will also have too much contrast, and no middle range. See this shot for an example:

That’s what to avoid.

So, taking all this into account, what should you do? My recommendations:
- shoot in the hour before, and two hours after, sunrise, and the two hours before, and the hour after, sunset
- shoot on partially cloudy days
- on completely overcast days, shoot up-close subjects; you won’t cast a shadow, and the colors will be nicely saturated, so if you get the right exposure, the colors will really come out
- find shaded areas to take pictures of, like the shaded side of a building; be careful, though: if any unshaded areas get in your frame, they’ll be completely washed out
- if it’s really sunny, I’ve heard that some people will put an umbrella over their subjects (e.g. flowers)
- failing all that, try a warming filter over the lens of your camera

Useful Flickr Groups

2006-09-25T09:45:00.000-06:00

Getting feedback is one of the most important things you can do to hone your skills as a photographer, after actually doing it and being critical of your own work.

And Flickr has some interesting groups that are great for getting feedback on your work. Sure, I'll review your work and give you feedback, but if I'm too slow, or you think I'm all washed up, or you just want more opinions, you should check some of these out.

Score Me! is a group that allows you to post a picture and get five ratings on it from other people, on a scale of 0-10. You must also give ratings on the five pictures that were posted before yours, or you'll get kicked out of the group really fast. The admins are very good here, and there is a thread you can post to if you want to report a rulebreaker, and another one to get the scores you missed. Also, make sure not to post another picture until five others have been posted! This one is only somewhat useful if you want some real feedback, since the group doesn't require anything more than just a rating, but many people there will give you good feedback. The best part is that you can strive for a high score, and if you get a high score you can post your pic in one of the appropriate threads reserved for high-scoring photos.

Plus-minus comments is a group with an excellent premise. It's much like Score Me! (and all the other groups I mention here) because when you post a picture, you have to comment on pictures that were posted before yours. On this one, instead of giving a rating, you talk about the positive features of the photo as well as the negative features. My only complaint is that this one only requires three comments per picture posted, so you only get feedback from three people.

Hit, Miss, or Maybe is a group that will get you some fast feedback, but it's not very in-depth. It's only a matter of whether they like it, hate it, or are undecided. Again, this one only gets you three comments. For a similar group but with some feedback (albeit limited) you can check out Hit, Miss, Maybe, WHY?

Comments Comments Comments is one that will get you feedback from five people. The rules are very loose here, so people can say pretty much whatever they want about the picture, but I find it to be more useful than the Score Me! group.

Rate and Comment: Amazing Photos is almost exactly like the Score Me! group, but it requires some feedback in addition to the score. It might take longer to get your comments here though, and if you miss a comment it might take longer to get the replacement ones. There are also some specialty groups based on the same framework, first and foremost in my mind being Rate and Comment: Black and White, for black and white pictures only. I was recently made an admin there, so if there are any problems you just need to let me know and I will take care of it.

10 to 1 is a group much like Score Me!, but you have to comment on 10 photos to get your score (but this means you get feedback from 10 people). If someone "favorites" your photo, they score it an 11/10. I haven't used this group yet, but I was in a similar one that fell apart due to bad administration. This one was founded by people fed up by that group, so I imagine it will be good. Like the Score Me! group, this one has threads for high-scoring photos.

So, check them out, and if you're not already a Flickr member, you should sign up. Then you can come over and join the group for this blog while you're at it.

Assignment 6: Less Is More

2006-09-21T09:10:00.000-06:00

Previous Assignment: Action!

A basic rule of composition is that less is more. If the picture is busy, it's not very interesting. Everywhere we look in life we see busy scenes; it's the photographer's job to isolate a small piece of beauty in all of it.

If an element in the picture doesn't add to it, then it detracts from it.

With this assignment, I want you to take this compositional rule to the extreme. I want you to do minimalist photography. Here are some examples:

As you can see, when you're working in minimalism, you have to be technically perfect. Any small flaw becomes a huge flaw. The rule of thirds becomes more important than it ever could be in any other type of photography. This makes minimalism the most difficult style of photography.

But forcing yourself to work in minimalism will do wonders for your photographic skills. You'll be forced to look closer at things that you would normally pass by. You'll be forced to get all the technical issues exactly right. And when you see your results, I bet you'll be pleased. Anyone can make a picture of a flower speak to people, but someone who can make a picture of a garage door or a trash can interesting is a good photographer indeed.

For more examples, try these pages:

The Minimalist group on Flickr has some good minimalist photography in it.

The Secret Minimalists' Club on Flickr is a bit more exclusive, so the quality of the pictures is higher (although as I publish this there is at least one blatantly non-minimalist pic of a tree on the front page).

And finally, for a really good minimalism experience, check out David Fokos, my favorite photographer. This guy is one of the elite few that can actually make a living off of fine art photography. Don't expect to be able to do anything as good as he's done (he uses a large format camera that allows him to take really long exposures).

After you check those out, go out, shoot, and share!

Next Assignment: Putting It in Perspective

Don't Be a Wuss

2006-09-18T10:20:00.000-06:00

A quick tip: don't be a wuss. If you're not getting dirty or hurting yourself, you are missing out on some great photo opportunities. See this example:

(photo by waiting_line)

Yes, I could have taken a "normal" picture of this sculpture, but aren't you glad I didn't? I sure am. This is my result:

This is the fun part of photography, and if you're not afraid to do this kind of thing, you'll get much better results. Another example of the results you get when you get dirty:

Compare that to pictures taken of the tops of mushrooms, where you don't get that nice detail on the bottoms of the caps.

And of course, it never hurts to hurt yourself. Well, yes it does, but don't be afraid to do it. I whacked my head on one of these . . .

. . . BUT I got this amazing shot:

Take this tip to heart, and show me what you get.

Assignment 5: Action!

2006-09-14T09:00:00.000-06:00

Previous Assignment: Patterns and Textures

Out of all the different kinds of photography you can do, the one that involves the most trial-and-error is action photography. But when you do get a great action shot, it's just that much more impressive. So this week, I want you to go out and capture some action shots. Don't be surprised if they don't turn out all that well. As I've said before, 25% of photography is luck, but you also need to remember that 25% of it is dedication, and the two of those are going to be your best friends when you try to get action shots.

Tips:
- Try to figure out where the action is going to happen in advance. If you can, focus and get an exposure reading before the action gets there.
- If you're using auto-focus, pressing the shutter down halfway will cause the camera to focus and get an exposure reading so that when the action gets there, you can snap it a bit faster.
- Your camera may have a burst mode. The icon for it will probably look something like this, an image of three frames stacked on top of one another. A new high-end Canon camera will be able to shoot 3 frames per second for up to 9 seconds at very high quality, but unless you've spent quite a bit of money on your camera I doubt it will do that. If you have trouble locating this feature, you may not have it, but consult your manual. On my camera at least, it's in the same menu as the time-delay functions.

One of the problems with shooting in burst mode is that it will keep a constant exposure reading and focus throughout the shooting, so if the action gets closer to you it may become dark or out of focus. See this picture for an example:

(Click to see it larger, opens in new window)

This is four consecutive shots taken with burst mode. Note how they get darker as the rollercoaster blocks the light. Also, when you shoot with burst mode, you won't be able to use flash, because the flash needs time to recharge after each shot. If burst isn't working for whatever reason, you'll just have to work on your timing. In the end, I turned on my flash for some fill and got the timing right for this shot:

Composition can be very difficult with these kinds of shots because there's so much going on and it's hard to get in position to do the right thing. But the more you try, the more likely you are to get at least one good shot. Compare these two shots of my dog Russell taken months apart in terms of composition:

By looking at these, you can see that catching the perfect moment isn't everything. In both of them he's at a very high point in his jump. But in the first one, although Lily gives you a sense of how high he's jumping and draws attention in to him (because she's looking at him), her tail is cut off, and that hurts the composition. Also, the colors are kind of drab. In the second one, on the other hand, she's completely in the frame and she draws attention to him just as well as in the first one. Still, I wish those power lines weren't there. There's an example of a shot I've tried over and over to get right, and still haven't done it, so I'll keep at it!

I still haven't captured that perfect action shot, so I wouldn't be surprised if any of my readers beat me to the punch on that one.

So, try your hand at some action photography, and then you can share them with the group!

Next Assignment: Less Is More

Shedding Light On Dark Images

2006-09-12T17:01:00.000-06:00

Hello, everyone! I'm Khorbin, the new Photoshop geek. My philosophy is that if you don't take a perfect picture every time, then that's ok. As they say, we'll edit it out in post-production.

Among the many powerful features of Photoshop, the ability to lighten or darken an image is certainly one of the most useful. As with nearly everything in PS, there are several ways to go about adjusting the light in your photos. Let's take a look at a few!

Before we begin, I should note a few things. I'm using Photoshop CS2, the most current version. Don't worry, though, if you are still clinging to an older version. Most of the things I'll talk about will work in much older versions of PS. Also, I'll assume that the reader is fairly new to Photoshop, so if you aren't, then please sit quietly until the rest of the class has caught up to your uber PS skillz. I'll also try to throw in a bunch of keyboard shortcuts, tips, tricks, and alternate ways to do things, so it's probably worth a read even if you aren't a newbie.

The Challenge:
Kelly approached me with this image:

The main flower in the picture (specifically, the middle circle) is too dark, and lacks detail in some spots. Let's open it up in PS and see what we can do!

The Interface:

The above image shows the main interface for Photoshop. If you've never used PS before, it may look complicated, but don't worry. The average user can more than likely get by with very little of it and still get a lot done!

The first thing I always do is to create a copy of the background layer. This is for two reasons. First, if you want to see the original picture at any time, all you have to do is hide the layer that you've done the work to, and it's there! Second, the background layer is pretty limited in what you can do to it, so it's always a good idea, just in case. To do this, grab the layer labeled "Background" in the bottom right box, and drag it down to the icon at the bottom of that box that looks like two squares (the "create new layer" icon).

Brightness/Contrast:
The easiest way to adjust light and dark in the image is to simply use the brightness/contrast controls, which are located (in CS2) under the Image menu, under "Adjustments," and then click on "Brightness/Contrast." However, on this particular image, this won't work very well. Go ahead and try it, and you will see that you really can't lighten the flower effectively without lightening the entire rest of the picture way too much!

Levels:
The next tool I'll talk about is a bit more complex, but much more useful in common situations like vacation photos where some jerk put the sun behind you in the shot. Once again, use the Image menu, and select "Adjustments." But this time, click on "Levels." Alternatively, you can just hit CTRL-L to do the same thing. Either way, you will get a dialog box that looks like this:

The black chart-thing is called the "Histogram" of the image. It shows the distribution of light and dark tones. If the histogram is squashed to the right side, the image is overexposed. If it's to the left, the image is underexposed. Either way, you will typically want the outer arrows to go close to where the black part of the histogram begins and ends. Moving the right arrow will make the image lighter, and moving the left one will make the image darker. The middle arrow adjusts the midtones. You can also adjust the Red, Green, and Blue channels individually, if you want, but for this one, I stuck with the standard. For this particular image, sliding the middle arrow to the left seemed to produce the best picture. Here's what I got just by using the levels, and about a minute of moving arrows:

A definite improvement, but to really make the picture look good, we need to go into a bit more depth.

Layers:
The last two methods both share the problems of affecting the entire image. To fix this, we will use layers, and adjustment layers. If you don't know what layers are, imagine clear sheets of plastic that can be drawn on, and then stacked on one another. You can see all the way through to the bottom layer, so long as none of the layers above it have been "drawn" on. Each layer is independent from all of the other layers, so you can apply the things I've already talked about to a single layer, or if you want, to all of the layers. This is what I'll call the "layers panel," "layers pane," or "layers box."

Probably the easiest way to select what we need in this case is to use the Magic Wand tool. Find the icon in the top section of the toolbar on the left side of the screen, or simply press the "w" key. Several options come up directly underneath the top menu bar. One of them should be "Tolerance." Change the value in the box to about 20, and click in the dark area in the middle of the flower. Most of the dark area should now be selected. Hold shift to add to the selection, and click on the parts that weren't caught by the magic wand again, until you get the entire dark part selected.

Quick Tip:
Instead of holding down shift to add, you can change the settings. Just to the left of the tolerance setting is a group of icons that affect selection. The first is "New Selection," which gives you a new selection every time you click the wand. The second is "Add," and the third is "Subtract." These obviously add to or take away from the selection. The fourth, if it's there, is "Intersection," which I hardly ever use. It selects only the intersecting parts of the current selection and whatever you select next.

However you do it, select the entire dark part of the flower, and right click on it. On the context menu that comes up, click "Layer via Copy." This will create a new layer in the document, which you can change independently from the rest of the picture.

Repeat this process for as many different layers as you want. I did three on this picture: one for the background, one for the flower (including the dark center part), and one for the center part alone. Remember that the more effort you put into selecting the layers, the better this will turn out. Make sure you go to the layers pane and select the background layer when selecting, or else you won't be able to select properly. When you've got all of your layers, arrange them on the layers pane by simply dragging them up or down, so that the middle dark part is on top, followed by the one with the entire flower, followed by the background image.

Adjustment Layers:
Now, let's talk about adjustment layers. With adjustment layers, each effect is created in its own layer, which you can move around on the layers pane to affect different layers. Adjustment layers can affect every layer below them, or just the layer directly below them. They are great for when you do something that you may want to take out later, because they don't actually affect the image.

First, select the center image, and click the little icon at the bottom of the layers panel that looks like a circle that is half black and half white. Select "Levels" from the pop-up menu, and do basically the same thing you did last time you edited the levels. Notice that a new layer has been created on top of the layer that was selected. This adjustment layer will affect all of the levels below it, which is not desirable in this case. We want it to affect only the center part. Hold the ALT key, and move the mouse to the bottom border of the adjustment layer in the layer pane. Your cursor should change to two black circles. Click while still holding ALT, and the adjustment layer will move to the right, with a little arrow pointing down appearing to the left of it. This means it is affecting only the one layer. Good work! Repeat this process for all of the other layers, lightening or darkening them according to what looks best to you.

Quick Tip:
If you can tell where one layer starts and another begins, you probably should make them a bit less obviously different. Try adjusting the "opacity" setting for the top levels in the layer panel.

Here's what I got from it (I didn't spend too much time on selecting, but you get the idea):

Shadow/Highlight:
One final method I want to talk about is using the "Shadow/Highlight" feature. This feature is new to CS1, so if you have an older version, you won't be able to use it. Upgrade ASAP if you plan on doing this kind of thing regularly, because it's certainly the easiest and most effective way, hands down.

Start over with the original image (no layers are really needed for this image, but if you wanted to, you could use them.) From the Image menu, select Adjustments > Shadow/Highlight. You can immediately see the improvement in the image, but it gets better. I left the Shadow setting at 50%, and dragged the Highlight setting up to 50% as well. I ended up with this:

So there you have it. You now know three very good and relatively easy ways to adjust the brightness of an under- or over-exposed image! As a final comparison, here are all of them side-by-side.

The Results:

Original:

Levels only (~30 seconds):

Levels with Layers (~10 minutes):

Shadows/Highlights (~30 Seconds, Requires CS1 or higher):

Now go find those photos you'd passed up because of bad lighting, and get to work!

Digital "Zoom"

2006-09-11T10:27:00.000-06:00

Many digital cameras come with claims that they have a "digital zoom" in addition to, or instead of, optical zoom. If you have such a digital camera, do yourself a favor right now and get your camera’s manual and find out how to disable this feature. You’ll be much better off without it.

All a digital zoom does is show you fewer pixels from your picture. This apparent zooming acts nothing like a normal optical zoom, and in fact it will reduce the quality of your pictures enormously.

You can get the same, or perhaps better, results if you take the picture without digital zoom and then crop it later on your computer. So turn it off!

No Excuses!

2006-09-07T08:01:00.000-06:00

No assignment this week. That will give people a little more opportunity to catch up. Instead, I want to warn you about the biggest mistake a photographer can make.

I've been involved a bit lately in critiquing the work of others on Flickr. Most people are very good about taking criticism how it is meant. A few people get offended, though. They're not the ones I'm talking about here. I'm talking about people that make excuses for problems with their photos. I'll talk about two I've encountered so far. I'm probably guilty of the same things, but it's something to avoid. I also want to note that these two people are good people with a good attitude, as I've encountered them several times, so don't look down on them for making this mistake.

I want you to make mistakes. But this is the one mistake I want you to avoid. If you make excuses for your work, you won't improve.

I Couldn't Help It

I critiqued one guy's shot of two butterflies, saying that I didn't like the composition. He told me that he didn't think I understood, and that nature doesn't pose for you.

So what!

My response? The final image is the only thing that matters.

Photography is 50% skill, 25% dedication, and 25% luck.

Sure, maybe he did the best he could under the circumstances. I don't really care if he did. If the results aren't good, then I don't care that he found the best possible composition. Drop the picture. Maybe he just wasn't lucky that day. This is where dedication comes in. Wait for another opportunity.

I, myself, have committed this same kind of wrong-headed thinking. I encountered the work of a really good wildlife photographer, got jealous, and thought "Well, sure, it's easy when you have all kinds of money for 400mm lenses and trips around the world." This is not the right way to think. Yes, he does have those advantages, but the dedication is key when you're photographing nature.

"Artistic" Decisions

I also had the pleasure of critiquing the work of a woman who left one face blurry in an otherwise very creative and compelling shot. She defended it as an "artistic" decision.

I don't care.

Yeah, maybe it was an artistic decision. The wrong one. Like I said before, the final image is the only thing that matters. Photography is about results, not that you tried, or that you were being creative. Yes, these things are important to honing your skills, but suck it up. The final image is what counts.

Technical rules are there for a reason. This woman said the following:

[T]echnical rules are not usually right. . . . If I wanted to be a boring commercial photographer I would and could... but I am not merely a photographer... i am an artist LOL I am about feelings not following the "rules".

This. Is. An. Excuse. My response to her? I asked whether Ansel Adams, or Dorothea Lange, or Paul Strand were "artists" or merely commercial photographers. They followed the rules. Were they just commercial photographers? Google them and you tell me.

Don't Be Discouraged

Don't let this discourage you. Take this as a warning. It's easy to fall into the trap of defending your photos. You pour your heart and soul (and time and money) into taking these photos. You develop an attachment to them. Of course you like them!

But when someone critiques your work, even if they're harsh, don't fall into the trap of defending the shortfalls of your work. I'm sure I still do it. Sometimes I'm right. Sometimes I'm not. But you need to seriously consider the possibility that the one critiquing your work is right.

And then again, maybe the critiquer just doesn't "get it." But if they are right, wouldn't you like to learn something from them?

Basic Lens Types

2006-09-04T08:32:00.000-06:00

Photographs are, as the Latin name implies, pictures created by light. And the first part of your camera that the light meets is the lens, making lenses a very important accessory for users of SLR cameras. "Normal" lenses are those with a focal length around 50mm. Anything much shorter than that, for example, a 28mm lens, is called a wide angle lens. Anything much longer than that, for example, an 80mm lens, is called a telephoto lens. But most lenses that people use will have a variable focal length, such as 28mm-80mm, or 80mm-210mm, and these lenses are called zoom lenses. When a zoom lens is set at a particular focal length, it will have the properties of a lens with that fixed focal length, so all this knowledge will apply to zoom lenses as well.

This article discusses the three basic lens types, normal, wide angle, and telephoto, and concludes with a short discussion of lens speed to help you avoid camera shake and to buy the best lens.

"Normal" Lenses (about 50mm)

Normal lenses will give you normal results. They are the most similar to using the human eye, and for that reason are often the lens that comes with a camera. Everyone will have a lens that is capable of being set at a normal focal length. These are perhaps the most useful of the fixed focal length lenses.

Wide Angle Lenses (35mm or less)

Wide angle lenses, or those with a short focal length, will allow you to get more into the picture. Say for example that two shooters are standing in the same spot in a subway tunnel. One shooter, who has a 50mm lens, will get a nice picture of the tracks and the tunnel ahead. The shooter with the 28mm lens, however, will not only get the tracks and tunnel, but also the pipes and wires on either side of the tunnel.

The catch is that wide angle lenses will cause distortion of the image. Things at the edge of the frame will curve. This can be used to artistic effect, but most of the time it’s a price you have to pay for using a wide angle lens. This makes them poor candidates for portrait photography, because no one wants their face distorted, their nose enlarged, and their ears shrunk.

On the positive side, wide angle lenses will cause your pictures to appear to have more depth. This creates pictures that will be much more interesting, as a rule.

Additionally, for good or ill, wide angle lenses give your pictures greater depth of field. This means that you can have a fencepost in the foreground, a field in the middleground, and a mountain in the background, and all of them will be in focus. This makes wide angle lenses ideal for most landscape photography. But it is another feature that makes them poor portraiture lenses, because you usually will want only the person in focus.

Telephoto Lenses (70mm or more)

Let’s take the example of our two shooters in the subway tunnel, and let’s add a third shooter. This one has a very nice (and expensive) 400mm telephoto lens. Instead of getting the tracks or the tunnel, this shooter is able to get a picture of the next train coming down the tunnel, even though it’s still a long way down the track.

Telephoto lenses, unlike wide angle lenses, will cause very little distortion of the image. Straight lines will appear straight, as they should, if you shoot them with a telephoto lens. This makes them ideal for portraiture, because your subject will appear as he or she appears in person.

Longer lenses also have a shallower depth of field. This is another plus for portrait photography, because you can isolate your subject very well. And of course, nobody wants you in their face while you’re taking their picture. This would make them uncomfortable.

The downside (or is it a plus?) of telephoto lenses is that they will make your pictures appear flat, as opposed to the great depth given by wide angle lenses.

Finally, telephoto lenses are a must-have for anyone serious about wildlife photography. Most animals won’t let you get in close enough to take their picture without a very long lens.

Lens Speed

One thing to keep in mind when using a longer lens is that you will more often have a problem with camera shake. Recall that a good rule of thumb is that you can shoot at a speed at least the inverse of your focal length: if you use a 200mm lens, you can handhold the camera at 1/200 second or faster, but if you are using a 28mm lens you can handhold it at 1/28 second. This means that telephoto lenses will more often require you to use a tripod.

But that is not what experts mean when they talk about lens speed. All lenses will have a maximum aperture. My wide angle lens for my Yashica FX-7 Super, for example, has a maximum aperture of f2.8. This will be designated as 1:2.8. What does it mean? Remember that wider apertures allow more light into the camera, allowing you to use faster shutter speeds. So my 28mm lens is faster than a lens designated as 1:3.5, but slower than a lens designated as 1:1.4.

Zoom lenses have another issue with maximum aperture. They have a maximum aperture at the shortest focal length, but they usually have a smaller maximum aperture at the longest focal length, meaning that the more you zoom in, the smaller your maximum aperture. The lens that I first got with my SLR, for example, is designated as 42-75mm 1:3.5-4.5. This means that it’s a zoom lens, with 42mm as the shortest focal length and 75mm as the longest focal length. It’s also a very slow (and cheap) lens, with a maximum aperture of f3.5 when zoomed all the way out, and a maximum aperture of 4.5 when zoomed all the way in.

Lenses with a larger maximum aperture are more expensive, but they are also faster and therefore more desirable.

Assignment 4: Patterns and Textures

2006-08-31T10:21:00.000-06:00

Previous Assignment: Illusions and Reflections

One of the things that makes photography very interesting is the ability to capture patterns and textures. Usually, the human eye ignores them, just passing them over as a mishmash. But when you freeze them into a photograph, they can be very compelling.

A repeating pattern can be very pleasing to the eye, as you will see in the examples.

This assignment will incorporate (or can incorporate) all that you've learned in the previous assignments. It will also force you to focus perfectly. If your focus isn't in the right place, it will ruin the picture, at least for the texture portion of the assignment.

Again, you will probably do the best work here if you work in black and white, although color can be compelling as well.

Here are a few examples of interesting patterns:

Note how, on all of these pictures, your eye doesn't want to leave the frame. It just wants to go around and around and see everything in it over and over again. This is one of the most basic composition strategies, and your goal should always be to capture the eye, move it around the frame, and never direct it outside the frame.

And here are a few examples of interesting textures:

(Note on the second one, however, that it's washed out a bit. Avoid this if possible.)

Did you notice how you can almost feel these pictures? That's what you need to go for when you're shooting textures!

Also, did you notice how I've used some of these pictures as examples before? That's part of what I'm trying to teach here. You should try to use what you've learned in each assignment and apply it to all the others. If you combine more than one trick you've learned in the same photo, you may surprise yourself at how good the results will be!

Now, go out, shoot, and share!

Next Assignment: Action!

I Hate Hue

2006-08-28T20:56:00.000-06:00

If you read the post titled Color or Black and White?, you may have already tried to convert some of your color pictures to black and white. I bet your results weren't very pleasing. That's because converting a color picture to black and white doesn't give the same quality as you get with a black and white original.

That is, unless, you really know what you're doing.

The article entitled I Hate Hue from the website of Popular Photography & Imaging magazine should be a great help. They have two easy-to-follow processes to convert color images to black and white in PhotoShop.

If you don't have PhotoShop, you'll have to try to take a few pictures in black and white and color without changing any other settings, and moving the camera as little as possible.

Color or Black and White?

2006-08-28T13:16:00.000-06:00

To be a good photographer, you absolutely must be a good photographer in black and white. Even if you prefer color in almost every circumstance, you still need to hone your skills in black and white first. Learning photography in color without first learning it in black and white is like trying to learn algebra without knowing basic arithmetic. Everything you learn about black and white photography will transfer to your color photography.

But once you get it down, how do you know whether to do a shot in black and white or in color? Take a look at this shot:

One person left this comment about the picture:

I've photographed it a couple times and had never thought of this angle in black and white!

I get a lot of comments like this, comments to the effect of "What made you think to do this in black and white?" This is the wrong question to be asking! In my mind, every time you set yourself up to take a shot, you should think of it as a black and white. Do black and white every time unless you have a really good reason to do it in color. The colors must be very compelling, either because they really pop, or because the muted tone adds something distinctive to the shot. If the color doesn't really add much of anything, do it in black and white!

Try an experiment for yourself if you can: take the same pictures in both black and white and color and compare them. Color photography does tend to hide flaws in the photo, but if it's a high quality picture it will usually look better in black and white. See for yourself with your own work!

Assignment 3: Illusions and Reflections

2006-08-24T10:24:00.000-06:00

Previous Assignment: Light and Shadow

One of the great things about photography is the ways that you can trick the lens and use it to confuse the eye. That's what the third assignment is all about. Don't forget the previous assignments when you're working here!

It is a little easier to trick the eye in black and white, but it's not quite as important that you work in black and white for this assignment.

One good way to trick the eye or confuse the viewer, or just to get a neat effect, is through the use of reflections. It's even better when there's a repetition of a pattern, as well. Here are some examples:

Another way to confuse the eye is to use what you know about depth of field to induce a sense of vertigo, or to make something appear to have no depth when the eye recognizes the scene and wants to see depth. Remember, a wide aperture (low f-number) will give a sense of depth while a small aperture (high f-number) will make the image appear flat. Sometimes, when you want to create a feeling of depth, putting the camera at an odd angle will increase the effect of the illusion. Sometimes it's better to point straight down, though. Here are some more examples:

If you go back, you'll notice that "Black and Yellow" incorporates both of these techniques. If you can do that, you'll be in really good shape for this assignment! Also, notice that "Stairwell at Lincoln Capitol" and "Staircase Vertigo" use shadows as distinct design elements, like in the last assignment.

A tip: to increase the effect of your illusions, sometimes it's good to frame the image in such a way that it's difficult to tell what the subject of the picture is.

Now, go out, shoot, and share!

Next Assignment: Patterns and Textures

Taking Pictures Is Only Half the Battle

2006-08-21T20:17:00.000-06:00

Going out and shooting is really only half the battle. And the better portion of what's left is sifting out the good from the bad. Let's say you have 20 pictures (or even 50 or more) of the same subject. You absolutely need to throw out the bad ones and only keep the good ones. Of any given subject, you should only keep 1-3 pictures from the shoot, and they should all be very different compositions if you keep more than one.

I know it's very hard to let go of some of your work if you really like it. But this is truly a part of the art of photography. Think of how the reputation of a mechanic would suffer if he did a good job on only 4 out of 5 cars. As a photographer, likewise, you can only get respect if you do a good job every time. You're not a true artist if you throw everything you have out there for public scrutiny.

Take for example this series of shots I took back in February. Can you guess which one I decided to keep and put my name on? (Answer at end of post.)

This is also why you need to learn to critique the work of others. Getting really, seriously critical of others' work will make it easier for you to be critical of your own work. A good place to give and receive strong critiques is on the Score Me group at Flickr. Not everyone will actually leave a critique, but they will give you a score from 8 to 10, and even that can be helpful.

The more you shoot, and the more pictures you throw out, the better your actual shooting will be next time. If you eliminate one composition on day 1, and you go out shooting again on day 2, you'll be more aware of what shots you are better off just skipping rather than trying.

But don't take this as advice to go easy on the shutter, especially if you have a digital camera. Particularly when you are just beginning to hone your craft, you will need to shoot a lot and make a lot of mistakes. That's what learning is made of.

And of course, you may have to throw out every single shot that you took of a given subject or on a given day. It happens, but don't let it stress you out.

And I didn't forget--this is the picture I decided to keep:

Is that the one you would have picked? There's not necessarily a right or a wrong answer, here!

And finally, I'd like to invite everyone to join my Flickr group for this course. If you post there, you'll be sure to get an in-depth critique from me!

Assignment 2: Light and Shadow

2006-08-17T09:30:00.000-06:00

Previous Assignment: Basic Composition and the Rule of Thirds

I hope you learned something from the first assignment. If you haven't completed it yet, I suggest that you read it and try it out.

For this assignment, I want to recommend again that you use black and white film or switch your digital camera to black and white mode. On my digital camera, I can't switch to black and white if it's in automatic mode, so if your camera is like mine, it's time to stop cheating! You may need to switch to aperture priority mode, or shutter priority mode (I shoot almost exclusively in aperture priority mode--read your manual for details if you don't know how to do this). If you can't figure out how to do this, you will still be able to complete the assignment, but I don't think you'll be as pleased with the results (and you won't learn as much).

Part 1: Shadows as Distinct Design Elements

For the first part of your assignment, I want you to shoot a roll of film (or about 24-27 shots). For every one of these shots, I want you to go out and find a scene where shadows make interesting patterns or shapes. Don't forget the rule of thirds!!! If you can't follow it perfectly, that's ok.

You'll have the best luck with this assignment if you shoot when the sun is out and the light bright, but not directly overhead (don't shoot between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m). You may need to decrease the size of your aperture (in other words, increase the f-number) so you don't over-expose the picture.

Here are some examples from my work:

I guess I tend to do these a lot in verticals. You won't have to do it that way. You'll notice that this technique often works best when there isn't a lot of detail in the image, so that the shadows stand out better. This is a good thing, because working in strong light can wash out details. Finally, here's an example of a horizontal:

Part 2: Distinctive Lighting

After you finish part 1 of this assignment, I want you to shoot another roll (or 24-27 shots), preferably again in black and white. This time, I want you to look at light and shadow as a tool to emphasize the elements of your picture and evoke a mood, rather than using them as a distinct design element.

Here's a good example. Note how the interplay of light and shadow emphasizes the wings and the folds of the robe, while draping the angel's face in shadow, lending an element of mystery.

Here's another example. Here the light and shadow emphasize the repetition of a pattern (repetition of patterns is a good subject for a future post). They also help to give character to the shape of the auger.

And finally, note here how the light in the lower left hand corner draws your eye into the image. This picture is a little busy--try to avoid that, as a rule, but sometimes it can be used to good artistic effect. But do note how the business of this picture makes it somewhat less pleasing than the above two pictures. In photography, less truly is more.

Now it's time to go out, shoot, and share!

Next Assignment: Illusions and Reflections

Reverse Tunnel Vision

2006-08-16T08:57:00.000-06:00

Tunnel vision is defined as "[v]ision in which the visual field is severely constricted, as from within a tunnel looking out". A tip I've often read is that you should give yourself the reverse problem when shooting.

What do I mean by this? Well, many people make the mistake when shooting of always putting the center of interest in the center of the frame. While sometimes this can be attractive, usually it's not. Try sticking a small square from a post-it note in the center of your LCD screen. If you use the camera's viewfinder, you might try putting a small dot of washable marker in the middle of it (you can clean it later). Try to make your compositions interesting regardless of this area, and you'll come back with amazing results.

Proper Exposure

2006-08-14T09:10:00.000-06:00

Most people, even some very talented photographers, always use their camera in fully-automatic mode. When you shoot, I want to invite you to step out of that habit. You'll learn a lot, and you'll get a lot more control over your photography.

But to do that, you'll have to understand how it works.

An exposure is determined by three things: film speed (or ISO, or ASA), aperture, and shutter speed. If you don't have your camera with you, I recommend you go and grab it and try to find everything I'm talking about here. This is a long post, but this is absolutely essential knowledge, and it doesn't do you any good to understand only one of them, because they must work together.

Film Speed, or Digital ISO

A higher-speed film has more noticeable grain than a lower-speed film, but the higher one needs less light, and so it's faster. This is because film is made up of tiny crystals of some kind of silver compound. (Don't ask me what it is exactly, I'm not a chemist.) The larger the crystals, the faster the film, but the more noticeable they will be.

"But wait!" you say, "I use a digital camera." Whether you know it or not, your digital camera has an ISO setting on it that simulates this effect. (Don't ask me why, I'm not an electrical engineer.) You should be able to adjust it manually, within limits. My digital camera, a Canon Powershot A520, has ISO ranges from 50 to 400. You can see the difference between them here:

The first shot was in the 50 ISO setting, and the second one was in the 400 ISO setting. You'll be able to notice the difference more clearly if you click the images to enlarge them. The second one is much grainier. I was forced to switch the ISO setting because of the low light in the church--I was concerned about camera shake. More on that later.

One of the benefits of using a digital camera is that you can adjust film speed between each shot, if you want. But you may not be able to adjust it if you're in full manual mode, so get out of it!

Aperture

The aperture on your camera (represented by an f number, such as f2, f11, or f22) represents the amount of light that your camera allows to reach the film or digital sensor. The lower the number, the more light it lets in, and the faster your exposure will be. Typically, f22 is the smallest (and therefore the slowest) possible aperture, and it lets the least light into your camera.

Like film speed, aperture affects proper exposure. But instead of affecting grain, aperture affects depth of field (or DOF). Depth of field represents the depth of the focal plane of the image. Sounds complicated, but it isn't. A faster aperture, such as f22, will have more of the image in focus. Many people like to operate that way, because they like images with a lot in focus. The downside of it, though, is that it makes the image appear to be more flat. I don't like this effect personally, although many people do. So I don't have any examples from my own work to illustrate this effect, but you can check out the f/22 group on Flickr to see some examples of flat pictures. Also, my digital camera is a point-and-shoot, so it only goes up to f8. If you have a point-and-shoot camera (not an SLR) it probably also doesn't go up to f22.

A wide aperture has the benefits of being both faster (because it allows more light into the camera) and of giving the picture the appearance of depth. This can be illustrated with this picture I took with my SLR film camera:

Note how the wide aperture makes the bridge appear to have more depth, to be disappearing into the background. Here's another example, this time in black and white from my digital camera:

You may notice as you mess around with your camera that if you zoom in, you can't get as wide of an aperture as when you are fully zoomed out. This is normal, so don't worry about it.

More on depth of field and its uses in another post some day.

Shutter Speed

The final setting on your camera that affects exposure is shutter speed. This is how long the shutter stays open to allow light into the camera to hit the film or digital sensor. Like aperture and ISO, the shutter speed also has an additional effect: blur. Most of the time you'll want as fast a shutter speed as possible, especially with action shots like this one (at 1/800 second):

But often, a slow shutter speed can be used to great artistic effect. Just check out the lights on these cars in this 2-second exposure:

Longer exposures are also very pleasing if you are taking pictures of running water, like waterfalls or streams. Professional fine art photographer David Fokos (a favorite of mine) uses exposures ranging from 20 seconds to a full hour to magnificent effect. But your camera may not be able to do that (my digital will not, and with my SLR I'd have to hold down the button).

The catch is (there's always a catch) that with slower shutter speeds, you won't be able to hold your camera by hand. When you shake the camera, you ruin the picture. How do you know when your camera is going to shake too much? A good rule of thumb is to take the inverse of your lens length, and if you go below that it's no good. For example, if you are shooting at 50mm zoom (fairly standard) you can shoot by hand at 1/50 of a second, and if you're at 28mm zoom (wide angle) you can go all the way down to 1/28th of a second. However, if you are zooming in really long--say, 100mm--it gets more difficult to hold the camera steady, and you'll have to go up to 1/100 of a second.

Combining All Three

Every time you take a shot, you're going to have to take into account all three: ISO, aperture (or f number), and shutter speed. Generally, it's best to set your ISO as slow as possible (lowest number) and, for the most part, forget about it. Then take into account your aperture. Do you want a shallow depth of field (for a greater feeling of depth) or more detail? Remember, a wider aperture (lower number) gives a greater feeling of depth and a shallower depth of field. And then, if you're shooting in fully manual mode, switch your shutter speed to whatever your light meter tells you is correct. Bracket if you're not sure (more on that another day).

Of course, it's not cheating if you use a priority mode on your camera. I use the aperture priority mode on my digital camera almost exclusively. It allows me to set the ISO (I almost always shoot at 50) and the aperture (I shoot as wide as possible) and it will automatically choose the correct shutter speed for me. If I don't agree with it, I can adjust the exposure compensation on my camera as well. You can also use a shutter priority mode on your camera, but I find this to be less useful.

It should be noted that each standard aperture or shutter setting is called a "stop". You will often hear an aperture setting referred to as an f-stop. Each step towards a larger aperture is called a stop, and lets twice as much light in. So f11 lets twice as much light in as f22. Likewise, each successively slower shutter speed is also called a stop, and lets twice as much light in. So 1/60 lets in twice as much light as 1/125 (the numbers are rounded off, that's why the math doesn't always work). Similarly, each basic film speed, as you go lower, requires twice as much light to achieve the same exposure. So 50 ISO requires twice as much light as 100 ISO, or four times as much as 200 ISO.

With this knowledge, we know that all of the following exposures are the same (in terms of how much light they put on the film or sensor):

50 ISO - f5.6 - 1/250
50 ISO - f11 - 1/125
50 ISO - f22 - 1/60
100 ISO - f5.6 - 1/500
100 ISO - f11 - 1/250
100 ISO - f22 - 1/125
200 ISO - f5.6 - 1/1000
200 ISO - f11 - 1/500
200 ISO - f22 - 1/250
400 ISO - f11 - 1/1000
400 ISO - f22 - 1/500

Next time you shoot, I hope you try to use this knowledge to your advantage. If you don't break out of your shell and make some mistakes, you'll never improve!

The First Amendment and Photography

2006-08-11T06:54:00.000-06:00

Click here to learn how my constitutional rights were almost violated.

Also, note how this photo follows the rule of thirds.

Assignment 1: Basic Composition and the Rule of Thirds

2006-08-10T12:31:00.000-06:00

For the first assignment, let's focus on basic composition. For this assignment, any camera will do. However, an SLR camera or a digital camera with an LCD screen are preferable (because you can see exactly what you're going to get).

You will also learn more if you work in black and white for this assignment. And, try to remember, at least for this assignment, that the picture isn't "of" anything. It's just a picture with pretty shapes and shades.

For this assignment, there will be absolutely no cropping. We're going to do what they call "cropping in camera," which means that everything you see in your viewfinder (or LCD screen) will add to the picture. This is all you need to know to complete this assignment. Read on if you want to complete it well.

The Rule of Thirds

The rule of thirds is the most basic composition rule in photography. It means, essentially, that you should imagine lines going through the frame at 1/3 and 2/3 of the way through. This can be horizontally, vertically, or both.

Just imagine these crosshairs on your viewfinder, and try to line things up with the lines or fill up each successive section with a different, interesting thing. Often, it's better to fill up just 1/3 of the image with one thing and 2/3 with something else. Believe me, your pictures will be three times as good just from following this advice.

Now, because a picture is worth a thousand words, some examples from my work:

This is a photo that follows the rule in a purely horizontal way. Note how the upper 2/3 of the image is dark and the bottom 1/3 is light. Remember, the picture isn't "of" anything. It's just a picture with nice lines and shading.

This picture gives you an example of how the rule of thirds can work vertically. The wall on the left is 1/3, the column on the right is 1/3, and the more open space in the middle is another 1/3.

And finally, this picture is an example of how you can mix both vertical and horizontal lines. The picture is split into three different sections from top to bottom, but it also uses a strong vertical third (here, it's almost 1/2, but try not to push it this far until you get some more experience).

Now, go out, shoot, and share!

(When you complete the assignment, why don't you share it with the group's Flickr pool?)

Next Assignment: Light and Shadow

Welcome!

2006-08-10T12:30:00.000-06:00

Welcome to An Open-Ended Course in Photography! I am your instructor, Kelly Hoffart, also known as Full Metal Photographer. On this blog I will post tips on improving your photography, as well as photographic assignments so we can learn together. This is intended to be an interactive experience, so be sure to complete as many assignments as you can. Share your results by leaving a link to your photograph with your comments in the thread for whichever assignments you have completed.

I will post all kinds of different assignments, simple and advanced, but I will start with the basics.

And if you got here late, feel free to complete older assignments or jump in at any point that you find interesting.

If you complete at least one assignment, I will add a link to the web page you have that's most relevant to photography (if you have a photoblog, that will be it, or your Flickr account, or any other blog where you regularly post photos).

NOTE: I am looking for someone to write articles on artificial lighting, or perhaps the professional side of photography, or anything else that you feel is missing from this site.

Index

2006-08-10T12:25:00.000-06:00

This page serves as an index for the site.

Welcome!

Assignments
Basic Composition and the Rule of Thirds
Light and Shadow
Illusions and Reflections
Patterns and Textures
Action!
Less Is More
Putting It in Perspective
Leading Lines
Critique
Still Life
Do Something Different
A Challenge: Shoot Out the Window

Knowledge
Proper Exposure: Film Speed, Aperture, and Shutter Speed
Basic Lens Types
Digital "Zoom"
Light: Quality and Quantity
Image Stabilization
Advanced Composition and the Golden Ratio
History of Photography:Niépce to Eastman
Bokeh
Camera Types and Parallax Error

Quick Tips
Reverse Tunnel Vision
Color or Black and White?
Don't Be a Wuss
Always Take Your Camera
Add Drama by Cropping
Winter Photography
Christmas Pictures

How-To and Photoshop
I Hate Hue (color to black and white conversion)
Shedding Light on Dark Images
Floating in Space
Light Trails
Silhouettes
Vignetting
Split Toning
More on Toning
Make Redscale Film
Use Blend Modes for Effect

Other
Know Your Rights as a Photographer
Taking Pictures Is Only Half the Battle
No Excuses! (The Worst Mistake You Can Make)
Useful Flickr Groups
When You're Ready to Sell Your Work

Contributed by Readers
Falling Down, Skinning Knees, and Getting Dirty

Quotes
Henri Cartier-Bresson (on camera angles)
David Plowden (on "The Flatlands")
David Bailey (photographers versus painters)
Alan Bennett (photojournalists versus journalistic writers)
Diane Arbus (on happy accidents in photography)
Paul Caponigro ("attain[ing] a 'state of heart'")
Rineke Dijkstra (on enlarging and emphasizing a moment)
Anonymous (a good joke . . . or is it?)
David Plowden (on inspiration and motivation)
Jonathan Bailey (a photograph's independence from what it records)
Different Viewpoints (do you take a photograph, borrow it, or make it?)
Alfred Stieglitz (on the labels "amateur" and "professional")
Opposing Viewpoints (Is what you do after you click the shutter important?)