Creating better photos

This month's SI entry was great and I really enjoyed commenting on the
photos but as I was doing so I began to realise that I was typing the same
two phrases repeatedly so I thought I'd post a note reminding us all about
some of the basics. I realise that this posting runs the risk of being
condescending and that's certainly not my intention at all, please read it
as me trying to be helpful to those who may not be aware of these
techniques - if you already know all this you're not my target audience but
please chip in with constructive comments.

First the big disclaimer, "rules" of photography, like any art, are there to
be broken. A good photographer is aware of the rules and will probably
apply them either consciously or sub-consciously to almost all photos but
they will be happy to not apply them when the need arises. A good
photographer knows they are breaking the rule and is dong it for effect or
expediency. They are aware of the effect of breaking the rule. So I'm not
saying "every shot has to do this" but if you're not even thinking about it
you're in trouble.

One of the differences between a good photo and a snap is that the artist
ensures the viewer's attention goes to the intended parts of the image
easily and is drawn back to them when it wanders. The human brain has a
very short attention span and is actively trying to find other things in the
photo so it's very easy to lose control of the viewer by allowing
distractions. The biggest of these two are things in the background and
extras in the image.

Depth of Field.
Backgrounds can be really troublesome. In a studio it's easy because you're
in control but out on the street all sorts of things try to muscle in.
Often it's simply impossible to find an angle from which to shoot which
doesn't have something, a car, a pole, a building or all three sitting just
behind the subject. One way around this is to try to throw the extras out
of focus.

The most basic technique is to control the aperture of the camera.
Essentially the smaller the aperture (smaller "F" number) the less of the
image will be in focus. Often just switching to Aperture mode on the camera
and selecting the smallest number can change a shot from snap to Wow!

Slightly more advanced is that a longer focal length (bigger) lens will have
less depth of field. So if you have a choice zoom in or use a long lens and
move the camera back to compensate. Doing that has other effects too
because it changes the size of the subject relative to the background which
mostly helps with avoiding distractions.

Hopefully these two techniques will allow you to rescue even a dire
situation but when they aren't enough there's another quite useful trick
which might help. Any combination of focal length and aperture has a
certain depth of field, that is to say a certain band of distance which will
be acceptably in focus. Normally most of us simply let the camera autofocus
on the subject and it will usually put the subject into the middle of that
band. Usually however the area in front of the subject is not causing a
problem whereas the area behind is often cluttered with things we'd rather
not include so by focusing slightly in front of the subject you can arrange
for it to be at the back of the acceptably sharp area and so throw the
background out of focus. I have to admit that's hard work though.

For an excellent example of how an out of focus background forces you to
look at the subject take a look at Interesting_TimConway3_old.jpg
http://ic2.pbase.com/o3/83/267083/1/...onway3_old.jpg
and for exactly the opposite see how Tim had real problems with
Interesting_TimConway.jpg
http://ic2.pbase.com/o3/83/267083/1/..._TimConway.jpg


Cropping
When you're concentrating on the subject and the depth of field and the
lighting and the focus it's all too easy to not notice the
dog/car/finger/etc creeping into the shot at the edge. Almost all image
manipulation and editing tools allow you to crop an image and you really
mustn't be afraid to use them.

What's worse than finding a worm in your apple... Even worse than a stray
object in the shot is half a stray object in the shot. The viewers brain
will simply scream that's something's wrong.

For a great example of the problem see Int_MarthaCoe_1.JPG
http://i.pbase.com/g1/83/267083/2/11...1.dUr2vbx8.jpg where a bench, or
rather the top part of a bench, could easily have been cropped. And at the
other extreme see Int_MarthaCoe_3.JPG
http://i.pbase.com/g1/83/267083/2/11...1.iMioZrT3.jpg for perfection in
both cropping and depth of field.


Editing
Many consider it cheating to use software such as Photoshop to manipulate a
shot. I don't. Learn to use clone brush and you'll be able to create great
things from disasters, remove that ex-partner from the old family photo
(same thing really) or just get rid of a single annoying object which ruins
your best work ever. For a shot I love but which could be even better see
the glass in SI_Interesting_Solomon_Peachy_2_old.jpg
http://ic2.pbase.com/o3/83/267083/1/...hy_2 _old.jpg
and for an example of a shot which has had stuff removed see just about
anything I've ever published but especially Leapfrog
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3062/...b439227236.jpg where about
half a dozen people were surgically removed in order to turn the worlds most
nothing shot into something I like.


Hopefully I've not patronised too many people and even more importantly I
hope Tim, Martha and Solomon aren't too upset by my singling them out.
Believe me they weren't alone and I chose them as examples because they've
shown they are perfectly capable of producing great stuff.

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 22:58:17 +0100, "Calvin Sambrook"
wrote:

--- snip ----

Hopefully these two techniques will allow you to rescue even a dire
situation but when they aren't enough there's another quite useful trick
which might help. Any combination of focal length and aperture has a
certain depth of field, that is to say a certain band of distance which will
be acceptably in focus. Normally most of us simply let the camera autofocus
on the subject and it will usually put the subject into the middle of that
band. Usually however the area in front of the subject is not causing a
problem whereas the area behind is often cluttered with things we'd rather
not include so by focusing slightly in front of the subject you can arrange
for it to be at the back of the acceptably sharp area and so throw the
background out of focus. I have to admit that's hard work though.

There is another factor also. I (and probably you) are equipped with
permanent wide angle vision but tend to concentrate on the small
central area. When I took my photograph 'INT Eric Stevens 4.jpg' my
mind concentrated on the chair sitting there in the midst of all that
antideluvian machinery. To emphasise the point I did a few minor
things with brightness, contrast and saturation for the chair.

Even so, the chair does not stand out in the relatively small picture
which is all I get on my screen (24"). I see more or less the entire
field of view at the center of my vision and the chair is just one
more item in the general clutter. However, I have made an A3+ (13" x
19" slightly cropped) print which I have stuck on the wall in a part
of the house where there is not room to step back more than about 5'
and the picture works like a charm. I won't say that the chair
dominates the picture but it does appear as a center of interest.

The moral is that size and viewing distance does effect how you look
at pictures and what part does or doesn't catch your attention.



Eric Stevens

On 2009-09-09 15:56:19 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 22:58:17 +0100, "Calvin Sambrook"
wrote:

--- snip ----

Hopefully these two techniques will allow you to rescue even a dire
situation but when they aren't enough there's another quite useful trick
which might help. Any combination of focal length and aperture has a
certain depth of field, that is to say a certain band of distance which will
be acceptably in focus. Normally most of us simply let the camera autofocus
on the subject and it will usually put the subject into the middle of that
band. Usually however the area in front of the subject is not causing a
problem whereas the area behind is often cluttered with things we'd rather
not include so by focusing slightly in front of the subject you can arrange
for it to be at the back of the acceptably sharp area and so throw the
background out of focus. I have to admit that's hard work though.

There is another factor also. I (and probably you) are equipped with
permanent wide angle vision but tend to concentrate on the small
central area. When I took my photograph 'INT Eric Stevens 4.jpg' my
mind concentrated on the chair sitting there in the midst of all that
antideluvian machinery. To emphasise the point I did a few minor
things with brightness, contrast and saturation for the chair.

Even so, the chair does not stand out in the relatively small picture
which is all I get on my screen (24"). I see more or less the entire
field of view at the center of my vision and the chair is just one
more item in the general clutter. However, I have made an A3+ (13" x
19" slightly cropped) print which I have stuck on the wall in a part
of the house where there is not room to step back more than about 5'
and the picture works like a charm. I won't say that the chair
dominates the picture but it does appear as a center of interest.

The moral is that size and viewing distance does effect how you look
at pictures and what part does or doesn't catch your attention.



Eric Stevens

In the case of Interesting_Savageduck-01.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/116995073 I used my Tokina 11-16mm
f2.8 at 11mm on a D300. I was about 18 inches from the gun, and that
provided the wide distortion and intrusion into center stage,
effectively emphasizing its menace.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 17:01:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2009-09-09 15:56:19 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 22:58:17 +0100, "Calvin Sambrook"
wrote:

--- snip ----

Hopefully these two techniques will allow you to rescue even a dire
situation but when they aren't enough there's another quite useful trick
which might help. Any combination of focal length and aperture has a
certain depth of field, that is to say a certain band of distance which will
be acceptably in focus. Normally most of us simply let the camera autofocus
on the subject and it will usually put the subject into the middle of that
band. Usually however the area in front of the subject is not causing a
problem whereas the area behind is often cluttered with things we'd rather
not include so by focusing slightly in front of the subject you can arrange
for it to be at the back of the acceptably sharp area and so throw the
background out of focus. I have to admit that's hard work though.

There is another factor also. I (and probably you) are equipped with
permanent wide angle vision but tend to concentrate on the small
central area. When I took my photograph 'INT Eric Stevens 4.jpg' my
mind concentrated on the chair sitting there in the midst of all that
antideluvian machinery. To emphasise the point I did a few minor
things with brightness, contrast and saturation for the chair.

Even so, the chair does not stand out in the relatively small picture
which is all I get on my screen (24"). I see more or less the entire
field of view at the center of my vision and the chair is just one
more item in the general clutter. However, I have made an A3+ (13" x
19" slightly cropped) print which I have stuck on the wall in a part
of the house where there is not room to step back more than about 5'
and the picture works like a charm. I won't say that the chair
dominates the picture but it does appear as a center of interest.

The moral is that size and viewing distance does effect how you look
at pictures and what part does or doesn't catch your attention.



Eric Stevens

In the case of Interesting_Savageduck-01.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/116995073 I used my Tokina 11-16mm
f2.8 at 11mm on a D300. I was about 18 inches from the gun, and that
provided the wide distortion and intrusion into center stage,
effectively emphasizing its menace.

Viewing it at the (larger) original size increases the effect. I
thought WOW! - what is that! (although I already knew).



Eric Stevens

On 2009-09-10 09:24:46 -0700, Annika1980 said:

On Sep 9, 5:58*pm, "Calvin Sambrook" wrote:

a lot of good advice

I agree with this post.

I'll add one of my pet peeves which concerns "poor" image
manipulation.
When something immediately looks wrong to me as a result of poor use
of Photoshop or some other image editing program, it ruins the shot.
I mentioned Tim's HDR attempt in another post, and Savageduck's
airplane engine shot here is another example.
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/116995083

I am afraid I am guilty as charged here. There were several problems
with this image as shot and in my efforts to recover something
acceptable to submit I probably over did it. I have been working on it
to get to a better solution. (I am drawn to all things aviation and I
couldn't resist that fat radial engine)

A good rule of image editing is that if it calls attention to itself
then it's probably overdone.

Agreed if what is wanted is an accurate photographic representation of
the subject. However that is one aspect to the presentation of an
image. There are areas where a deliberate artistic expression is
intended, and possibly cannot be totally reached in-camera.

I can't look at images that are oversharpened or have halos due to
poor dodging/burning techniques for more than a few seconds.
Photoshop's Shadow/Highlight command can produce some nasty results if
used poorly.

Once more agreed, and as in the darkroom we can (and here I mean me)
only work of improving techniques with PP software to get to the image
we want to present to the viewer, be it a perfect clean, sharp
photographic record of the subject, or an artwork produced via
photography.

On to the next project.

--
Regards,

Savageduck