April 28th, 2008 Rob Sheppard
Question: I am in need of organization and am asking for a recommendation for a software that can organize thousands of images and enable me to locate them easily. I have been recommended Extensis, but I am afraid that it might be too hard to learn and frustrating. Any suggestions?
Answer:
This is not an easy question to answer. First, we have to talk a little about how people organize things. Everyone handles a file cabinet differently. How I file my folders will work for some people, but not for others. I have seen, over the years, a lot of ways that slides were organized, for example, and they all worked for the people doing them. Why this is important is that any organization system you use for your computer must be something that works with the way you like to organize things. You have, for example, lumpers and splitters. Lumpers might just put all travel photos from Mexico into a big folder called Mexico, while splitters will have individual folders for each town. A computer is essentially a big filing cabinet when it comes to storage, so one can easily take either approach.
There are basically two ways to find photos on a computer. You can browse or search them visually, but to do that, you must have them grouped in some way that allows you to browse in small groups rather than looking through huge virtual piles of images. You can also search for photos by looking for specific information, such as key words, dates, file names or info in the metadata. This requires you to do the inputting of this information, and the more you do, the easier things are to find, but the more time you have to spend doing it. Photographers typically use both ways of organizing images, but some people prefer one over the other for most things, not because one is inherently better than the other, but because that is what they are comfortable with. I hate doing extensive keywords, for example, so while I do use them and can make some searches, I am happier visually browsing photos that are arranged some way in large groups. I know that keywords will allow you to find specific images very quickly, but I just don’t like spending the time. And I do okay. But on the other hand, you may find Peter Krogh’s DAM Book (Digital Asset Management) of interest as he is a big believer (and rightly so) of doing extensive keywording.
Extensis Portfolio will allow you to do both of these with your computer. It is a very powerful photo organizer and database, but it may have more power than you need, including a steep learning curve. I have now been using Adobe Photoshop Lightroom extensively for my own photography. This has both the visual “browsing” function (although technically, Lightroom is not a browser because you have to import photos into the program first — actually, you point the program to the photos on your hard drive and the program keeps references to where they are, and you can import photos to your hard drive through Lightroom) and the search info function. The browsing comes from the way you set up your files on your hard drive and create virtual collections. The search comes from setting up keywords, metadata info, and so forth.
Here’s how I work in Lightroom, which may give you ideas for other programs, too:
I import photos to my hard drive through Lightroom. I put some basic metadata on them as this happens, including keywords appropriate to a particular imported group of images. This is very easy to do. I start with a folder called Digital Photos (this works well on your desktop). Inside that I set up folders by year. Then in each folder, I set up a new folder for each new import (assuming it is a new type of image) — I actually do this by adding a folder in the Lightroom import dialog box. This folder will tell me something about the photos inside. Since I travel a lot, this might be FL-ABRP 4-08. This tells me that these are from Florida, they are from the Apalachicola Bluffs and Ravines Preserve and they were shot in April 2008. This also makes this folder searchable by a computer’s operating system if you ever have a failure of your computer and have to go back to your back up drive (always have back up drives and use the same file structure as you use on your main drive).
In Lightroom, I sort and edit good from the bad. Then I will put some images into collections that are specifically set up for photos I use a lot. For example, I can have a collection for Clouds or for Kids Sports. These collections are set up to work throughout your photos so you can gather similar types of images from many folders together into one virtual folder, a collection. The imported images already have some keywords. In addition, I will select groups of photos and add other keywords to them so that I at least have a minimal set of keywords on photos for searching that way. I will also add caption information as appropriate in the metadata, which is also searchable. I go over some of this in my book, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom for Digital Photographers Only.
This set up organizes many thousands of images for me. It won’t work for everyone, but it does work for me. I think with modification, this can work for many people, though, particularly if you set up original folders that fit your intuitive way of organizing a file cabinet, and if you use keywords.
Posted in Digital Photo Techniques, Lightroom | Comments Off
April 25th, 2008 Rob Sheppard
Lightroom is quickly becoming one of my favorite programs. It is far faster to work with than Photoshop or Camera Raw. Photoshop was not originally designed for photographers, rather for photography. It is not set up for a good photographer’s workflow. You have to constantly open and close dialog boxes, for example. And for every new photo to process, you have to open it separately. Camera Raw is better as many controls are accessible right away. In fact, the underlying processing engine of Camera Raw is the same as Lightroom’s. However, even Camera Raw forces you to go through separate tabs to get at adjustments, and though you can process multiple files at once, you still have to go back to Bridge to access any new images.
Lightroom is totally different. All processing controls are instantly available in a panel to the right of a photograph in the Develop module. In addition, all photos from a folder (which is typically a “shoot”) can be seen in a filmstrip below so any photo can be instantly accessed.
For even faster, more photographic work, there are the little buttons in the Tone Curve and HSL areas called Target Adjustment buttons, but the magic buttons might be a better term. Click on one and you activate your cursor. Move your cursor over the image, and depending on the adjustment, Lightroom will find the appropriate tone in the Tone Curve or color in HSL. Then you click and drag up or down, on the photo, to make the adjustment. You can very quickly optimize your image, and you are thinking photograph, not trying to figure out what sliders to use. Very, very cool.
Finally, you can select other photos like the one you processed, then sync the adjustments you made on the first photo with all of them very quickly. This is a simple, easy thing to do and really speeds work flow.
I am not one who “enjoys” working at the computer for the computer’s sake. But I love seeing my photos, re-experiencing the location and helping them come to life in Lightroom. Lightroom keeps my time down considerably, and I haven’t even touched on how fast it is to use for selecting good from bad images or adding information such as copyright or captions.
Posted in Lightroom | Comments Off
April 21st, 2008 Rob Sheppard
Not too long ago, I had a question from a student who was disappointed in a lens she had bought. I happened to know the lens and found it was a perfectly fine lens. So I suggested that she get to know that lens.
I used to do that whenever I got a new focal length and I think it is a good idea for any photographer working with an unfamiliar lens. What you do is take the camera out with one lens — the new one. Then you take a lot of photos with just that lens. Years ago, that meant shooting a whole roll of film (or more) with the lens. Now you can try the lens with at least 30-40 photos. The subject is not that important, using the lens is.
Shoot with the lens at multiple focal lengths if it is a zoom. A good way to do that is to shoot an image at the widest focal length, then shoot at the most telephoto for the next shot, then keep alternating. This will really force you to see what the lens can do.
Shoot with different apertures so you can see how f-stops affect the image. This can be more than simply an arbitrary “quality” or sharpness. If you look closely, you can see how a lens deals with light, in and out of focus areas and more. Try shooting at different distances, near to far, and so forth.
Knowing your equipment will always help you become a better photographer. And you know your equipment by taking lots of pictures. Have some fun with this exercise and you will really learn a lot about the capabilities of your gear.
And by the way, my student really began to enjoy her new lens after this exercise.
Posted in Digital Photo Techniques | Comments Off
April 13th, 2008 Rob Sheppard
I am down at Florida’s Birding and Foto Festival in St. Augustine. This is a great set of days for nature photographers. You can learn all sorts of things from better bird photography to basic Photoshop to better digital photography, plus you can go out on a lot of shoots with photographers like Rick Sammon, Lewis Kemper and me.
I had a question from a photographer as to what I would recommend, a Canon
EOS 5D or 40D. Now in general, I am leery of questions about what camera to buy because there are so many subjective things that go into such a decision. What works for me doesn’t necessarily work for someone else. You can see all sorts of arguments on the Internet where one photographer accuses another of being stupid for recommending or even using a particular camera. I find those arguments silly, because the truth is, a camera can be both great and awful – it just depends on who is using it.
Still, the 5D or 40D question goes beyond those two cameras into format choice, too. I have shot both cameras, though I own a 40D. Also, I had spent a little time with this photographer and understood a little of his needs. So immediately I said, “The 40D!” Now I realize that immediately there are people who will take exception to this. I also know that the 40D is not for everyone. But I had some very good reasons for my choice, which are, of course, related to how I like to deal with cameras.
1. The 40D is a new technology, small-format camera. It uses a state-of-the-art 10-megapixel, 14-bit APS-C size sensor. I like small cameras, what can I say? However, the new technology part is important – it means that the small format sensor will outperform lower megapixel Canon sensors of the past, and even will match physically larger sensors of older cameras such as the 5D.
2. The 40D has some great new features that really help the digital photographer. First, the LCD screen is nice and large – easy to use. Second, the camera includes a dust reduction system that is critical for me. I have gotten used to dust reduction systems now (I also shoot Olympus and their dust reduction system is incredible) – it is so nice not to have to constantly clean the sensor or remove dust specks from a photo. Third, the live LCD feature is something I really like. I wish the LCD tilted or swiveled, but it is a start. Using a live LCD on a tripod is a great experience, and I believe, helps you photograph better because you are looking at an image, rather than sighting through a viewfinder. It is almost like shooting with a small view camera. Fifth, the camera is beefed up with new levels of sealing against water and dust. No, you can’t take it underwater, but a little rain won’t hurt it.
3. I prefer the small-format cameras. They allow me to carry a lot smaller gear and get equivalent results to a full-frame sensor (this is why I also use the Olympus E-3 system). I know the arguments that this format is just a “cropped” version of the full-frame. By the same argument, 35mm film is just a cropped version of 645, 6×6 or even 4×5, and no one ever makes that comparison. To me, that is just silly. APS-C is a specific digital format, and to gain a given magnification of the subject within the image area, you need less focal length.
This is where the magnification factor comes from. But essentially that means I can get away with a smaller, lighter, even less expensive 300mm lens on the 40D to get the equivalent of a 480mm (or nearly 500mm) on a 5D. Sure, you could crop the 5D image with the 300mm, but who wants to compose in a small part of an overall image, and anyway, when was the last time you heard of someone saying they would just shoot medium format and crop it instead of using a 35mm camera?
There is a good argument that the small-format cameras do not have the flexibility with wide-angle lenses that full-frame cameras do. That is very true. However, I like the Canon EF-S 11-22mm wide-angle zoom. It does a good job for me and is very compact, lightweight, and meets my needs to travel light. It offers an equivalent range (compared to 35mm) of approximately 18-35mm.
Posted in Digital Photo Techniques, Equipment thoughts | Comments Off
April 3rd, 2008 Rob Sheppard
I get a lot of questions as to what is the “best” camera. I honestly don’t think there is such a thing as an arbitrarily “best” camera. The best camera is one that works the best for you. What is best for me may or may not be best for you. I happen to really like small cameras, so I am uninterested in the large, so-called “pro” cameras. A couple of friends who are professional travel photographers feel the same way. But if you need the features on a large camera, then that is the camera you need.
Sometimes people will use megapixels (MP) as the defining characteristic of a camera. That can be a big mistake if that gets you the wrong camera for your needs and personality. The difference between 10 MP and 14 MP, for example, is not that great. You might be able to theoretically get a slightly bigger print from 14 MP, but at 10 MP you can easily get a print 16×24 that is better than 35mm film, so I would say other factors are more important.
I am also wary of a lot of the image quality ratings on websites. There are so many truly good cameras with excellent sensors on the market that such ratings will be very subjective even if they seem “objective.” Often I see real biases in such ratings and reviews, not deliberate, but based on the comfort level of a photographer with a certain type of gear. He or she will typically blast a certain piece of gear, spelling out all the shortcomings, yet if you read between the lines, it is really that the gear is unfamiliar to the reviewer and he or she is really most comfortable with the gear they shoot with regularly. So the unfamiliar gear gets rated poorly even though it probably doesn’t deserve it.
There are indeed big differences in cameras today, but within a given price range, the difference is less quality and more in features and how the features are designed into the cameras (which then makes camera choice very subjective indeed). Another big difference is in the lenses available and the rest of the system you might need. I shoot with both the Canon 40D and Olympus E-3. I work with two systems for a variety of reasons. I like Canon because I have shot with it a long time and have system gear for it. But both systems give me consistently excellent results.
But I also really like the E-3 because of its live, swiveling LCD. But not everyone needs one. Also, I happen to like the 4/3 system because camera and lenses are smaller for equivalent focal lengths. However, the 4/3 system uses a smaller sensor and it does have more noise at higher ISO settings, though I find it is very controllable. For low light and high ISO, the 40D definitely has the edge. And because its sensor is smaller than full-frame, it also gives me a smaller and lighter camera and lens system, which I like.
The Canon system is huge and offers a lot for photographers. There are certain things in it that are important for me, which makes the system work for me. But if you don’t need it, then it doesn’t matter. The Olympus system is next in line for versatility, but again, if you get what you want in your system, no matter what it is, this is not a big deal.
If you have a camera system and like it, ignore what anyone else says and enjoy taking pictures with it. If you are looking for a new camera, I think it is important to go into a store and see how the camera feels in your hand. I would never buy a camera from what I saw from reviews or ratings without actually handling the camera. Some cameras will seem to belong in your hand, while others will feel like an awkward brick. Guess which one you will enjoy photographing with? And unfortunately, you cannot predict this from a review because we all have different hands, different physical strength, and different experiences with cameras. For example, if you were used to one brand and suddenly changed brands, you might immediately feel discomfort that other photographers would not if they were familiar with the brand.
Posted in Equipment thoughts, Uncategorized | Comments Off
April 1st, 2008 Rob Sheppard
A few notes about some of my books. My book, Outdoor Photographer Landscape and Nature Photography With Photoshop CS2, is not specifically about CS2, nor is it an encyclopedia of Photoshop tools. It is a book specifically done to help nature and landscape photographers use Photoshop better for their type of photography. It applies to CS3 and also earlier versions of Photoshop. It even applies to a large degree to Photoshop Elements. I even was able to include some work by Ansel Adams and talk about how his approach to photography affects how we use Photoshop. I have a chapter, for example, about layers that relates layers to Adams work in the darkroom.
My book, National Geographic Field Guide to Photography: Digital, is a little older and the equipment section is outdated. However, that is a small part of the book and I am very pleased with the rest of the book. It is a good, short book on digital photography.
Also, I am quite pleased with my new book, The Kodak Guide to Digital Photography. I put a lot of effort into this book to make it accessible and helpful for most photographers. It is not meant to be an advanced guide, but it is a good overview, I believe, of things photographers need to know about digital photography, and a good start for anyone who wants to photograph seriously with a digital camera.
Posted in Books, Photoshop | Comments Off
April 1st, 2008 Rob Sheppard
Question: I followed the Photoshop Elements adjustment layer technique that you described. I am not sure exactly what is happening, especially with the screen layer over a darker image. Is the white brush masking the darker pixels with the screen just allowing certain pixels to be affected? Just wondering.
Karen H.
I know layer masks can be confusing. My website, www.robsheppardphoto.com, has some additional information on using adjustment layers and layer masks in Photoshop and Photoshop Elements (actually, they are the same thing). One thing you have to do is practice. Don’t worry if everything works perfectly at first. Just keep trying and you will get it. Adjustment layers and layer masks are so very, very useful for photographers.
It helps to look at what the specific tools are doing. First, you can always use an unadjusted adjustment layer (sorry if that seems confusing, but that is exactly what you do — use Levels, for example, but don’t apply any adjustments) with layer modes Screen and Multiply. Those modes are accessed from the drop down menu that comes from clicking on the Mode: Normal button at the top of the layer palette. Screen makes everything brighter because it is a layer mode that is telling the layers how to communicate with each other. In this case, that communication makes things brighter. Multiply makes them darker.
The layer mask, shown as the white box at the right of the adjustment layer icon, is something that only affects what is on a given layer. It has no effect on anything else. This is why you can do the same thing in a layer mask and get different effects on the photo, such as paint black on a layer mask and make the image darker one time, lighter the next. I know that seems confusing, but the layer mask is really only affecting what the layer is doing. So if a layer is making the photo lighter (Screen), then the layer mask can only change that effect of lightening. If a layer is making the photo darker (Multiply), then the layer mask can only change that effect of darkening.
White in a layer mask is like a clear window on that effect — it allows it. Black is like paint on that window — it blocks the effect of the layer. So if you have a screen adjustment layer, for example, and the layer mask is filled with white, it is the same as “allow”, so the effect is allowed. When the layer mask is filled with black, the effect is blocked so that nothing can happen with that layer. Any addition of white to a black layer will allow the effect at the location you added that white (such as from the paintbrush). Any addition of black to a white layer will block an effect at that location.
By painting in white on a Screen layer, you allow the effect to occur, which in this case lightens the photo. However, if the effect darkened the photo, painting white would allow that effect, which would then allow the photo to be darkened. Conversely, painting in black blocks the effect, which in this case would darken the photo. Why? Because it blocks the Screen effect of lightening.
By painting in white on a Multiply layer, you also allow the effect to occur, but in this case, it darkens the photo. Conversely, painting in black blocks the effect, which in this case would lighten the photo. Why? Because it blocks the Multiply effect of darkening.
White or black in a layer mask have no direct effect on what a photo will look like — they can only turn on or off the effect that the layer is causing.
Posted in Photoshop | Comments Off
April 1st, 2008 Rob Sheppard
A challenge for any nature photographer comes from dull, gray days that just don’t photograph well. The subject still is interesting, but it just does not translate well into a photograph. An interesting use of flash is just for such conditions where the flash becomes your main light and the gray or blah landscape becomes darker than the subject. This is actually a pretty trendy technique that can be used any time you want to make the subject look good in challenging light and keep the background a little darker.
This can be a really cool effect and it has become pretty easy to do with digital photography because you can take a picture with flash and immediately see the results. I recommend using an accessory flash with a dedicated flash cord so you can get the flash off camera. The off-camera flash really “dresses up” the look by allowing some dimensional qualities to the light. You can hold the camera off camera and point it at the subject. Wireless flash don’t always work well for this type of shooting.
The easiest way to do this is to use Manual exposure and set your exposure to underexpose the scene. Take a test shot without the flash to be sure you are underexposing the scene. Then use the flash normally so it gives the proper exposure to your subject. On most cameras that just means using the flash set to normal E-TTL auto — the flash and camera will work together to create an exposure based on the f-stop used for your exposure. Then check your LCD to see the results.
Posted in Digital Photo Techniques, Nature | 3 Comments »
April 1st, 2008 Rob Sheppard
Sometimes photographers will want to try to match the original subject in a photograph. There is nothing wrong with that, but it can cause some unneeded problems for many photographers. First, unless you are doing advertising product photography, no one in the world will ever ask to see the original subject. Second, all photography is an interpretation (including the photo as it comes straight from the camera) — you have to decide if an interpretation is appropriate to your subject AND your intent. Third, what a subject looks like in the real world is never what it looks like in a photograph simply because the photograph is not the subject, but a representation of it. And one more — the subject itself changes in color and appearance throughout the day because of light, background changes and so forth, so what exactly is “real?” I am not one for changing the world in a photograph, but I am also realistic that a photograph is not the same thing as the world. The reason I say this is because as a photographer, you will really limit yourself, even if you do perfectly realistic work, if you start thinking what is in a photograph is “real.” Andreas Feininger talked about these issues in his classic photo books that were very popular 30-40 years ago — way before the computer. Plus, if “being real” were the main thing to think about, no nature photographer could have shot with the very popular Velvia film (which all pros used).
Posted in Digital Photo Techniques, Nature, Photoshop | Comments Off
April 1st, 2008 Rob Sheppard
Photodigitary is my (Rob Sheppard’s) blog about digital photography. I will be offering ideas, tips and analysis about digital photography, from digital cameras to Photoshop to Lightroom to digital nature photography and more. Much of this will be based on questions I get from students of my workshops and seminars as well as questions I get from people reading my books. I love photography, especially digital photography and nature photography, plus I have a bit of experience with it from 12 years of experience in the industry as editor of Outdoor Photographer magazine, one of the founders of PCPhoto magazine (and the first editor), and now editor-at-large for Outdoor Photographer. I have done nearly 25 books and hundreds of workshops and classes around the country. I try to bring that experience to folks through my books, classes and articles, but I get so many questions (and there is so much misleading information about digital), that I decided to start this blog. Hope it helps!
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
