Photodigitary

Exposure in the digital age

Exposure is still critical for good photography. Sure, you can “fix it” in Photoshop, but that can mean weaker colors, problems with dark tones, and more noise. A good exposure means less work in the computer. I have no interest in spending time at the computer fixing problems I could have controlled when I actually took the photo. And a lot of the newer cameras offer very high ISO settings. They work, but your exposure has to be right on or noise will be a huge problem. 

Keep in mind that a camera has no idea as to what is a “correct” exposure for your scene. It is measuring the light coming from your scene then trying to “figure out” a good exposure based on what it sees. A meter wants to make anything it sees a medium gray with exposure. A bright sky or a dark street, doesn’t matter, it will be medium gray, even though visually these are not the same sort of brightnesses. The camera tries to deal with this challenge by doing a number of things, including metering multiple points on a scene and analyzing and comparing them. It must then do calculations based on algorithms programmed into the camera by the engineers in Japan.

They do the best they can, but they cannot actually see your scene. Most of the time, this works out. But when you have a very bright background, such as your sky, or you have high contrast (especially a lot of shadow around a brightly sunlit subject), the metering system can get fooled. It might think a scene is brighter than it is, even though it is just a bright background sky. So it gives less exposure than needed.

You cannot use your LCD as a check for exposure as it will not read exposure correctly. One approach is to check to see if the highlight warnings appear. On most images, they will appear only on the brightest spots. You want them to either barely appear or just disappear as you adjust exposure, depending on the scene. You can easily change exposure with exposure compensation when shooting with automatic exposure settings.

The histogram instantly gives you a good reading of exposure. The key to a histogram is to try to eliminate big gaps on the right side. That is a sure sign of underexposure, especially if the rest of the histogram is all crammed onto the left side. I am not a believer in “exposing to the right” (meaning giving more exposure so the histogram always favors the right side) if that causes problems with mid-range colors and tones recording too bright. However, exposing to the right, to a degree, does mean adding exposure until there is no large gap on the right side of your histogram. 

Posted in Digital Photo Techniques, Digital camera techniques, Photoshop | 2 Comments »

The Print Attitude

I hear a lot about photographers wanting to match their prints with their monitors. While that is not wrong, I do think it can lead to an attitude that results in less than the best prints.

I do not believe in the idea of getting a print to match a monitor. I do believe in color calibration to give a consistent and predictable work environment. But I think that the idea that a print should match a monitor leads people down the wrong path.

I’m not saying that having a monitor correspond to a print is not important — I am talking about a mindset that a lot of photographers get. People should have, I believe, the attitude that a print is a special thing and must live on its own. No one will ever ask to see if your print matches the monitor. A viewer can only respond to what is in the print. That’s very, very important, so I will repeat it: A viewer can only respond to what is in the print. No amount of monitor calibration, soft proofing, profiling, etc., can help the viewer respond to what is actually in the print. Those things can be important in helping get a print, but they must be tools and not the goal. 

In many cases, a good print does not match the original monitor image. Now you might say, Aha!, then you do need to match the monitor as you go. True, but I find that when photographers really focus on matching the monitor as a goal, and consider that the most important thing, they stop looking at the print as a print.

I had a discussion with master printer John Sexton (Ansel Adams last printer) a couple of years ago and he felt that most digital photographers quit printing before the print was truly done, largely because the print “matched the monitor.”

For me, printing is a craft. While digital technology is important, it still must be in service of the craft. I believe that the Ansel Adams books, The Print and Examples, the Making of 40 Photographs, offer more for printing ideas than most digital photography books.

Posted in Digital Photo Techniques, Photoshop techniques | 4 Comments »

What are you photographing?

Many photographers will simply say they are photographing such-and-such a subject when asked this question. Yet, this is an important question and the answer needs to go beyond the subject. 

The subject is “easy” in a sense. Truly, you can photograph a subject by getting it in front of the camera and squeezing the shutter. Autofocus, autoexposure, megapixels and so forth will get some sort of decent “capture” of that subject. But that is not what photography is really about, unless you are simply a collector of scenes (some people are, and there is nothing wrong with that, as long as it is recognized for what it is). 

This is really illustrated by the photography of Ansel Adams and Edward Weston. They photographed a lot of their work at about the same time. They were friends and knew each other’s work quite well. Both photographed the West, as well as other subject matter unique to each. But if you looked at their work, you would quickly see that they were photographing other things besides their subjects. Compare their work at the library or check out some of Weston’s work at http://www.huntington.org/LibraryDiv/Westonexhibit.html and Adams at http://www.anseladams.com/ansel_art/AA_slideshow.html or Google both of them. 

I often bring up this distinction at workshops. People usually know Adams, but don’t always know Weston. It is so interesting to look at their work of similar sorts of locations. You can definitely see how Adams often photographed light while Weston photographed shape and form. You can see these consistent themes throughout their work.

You don’t need to photograph light or form (although it is a really interesting exercise to go out and take an hour to only photograph light or only photograph form — you will see the world differently if you do), but knowing that photography is always about more than a subject will help you better see the world for getting better pictures. Photography can be about light, form, color, texture, abstract shapes, depth, impact, and so many other things. Think about seeing more than the subject the next time you are photographing.

Posted in Digital Photo Techniques, Digital camera techniques, landscape photography, nature photography | Comments Off

Off-Camera Flash

One of the best ways to immediately improve your flash photography is to get the flash off the camera. I just finished doing a weekend workshop on flash at the Lepp Institute for Digital Imaging (www.leppinstitute.com) and this was once again very dramatically demonstrated by all of the participants in the class. Getting the flash off the camera instantly changes the look of the light from the flat, standard look of on-camera flash. With digital, you can also see exactly what the flash is doing by checking the LCD. You learn in a hurry how to move that flash around.

There are two ways of using the flash off camera — connected by cord or wireless. Wireless is great because you can move that flash almost anywhere (within the limits of the wireless system) and you never have to be connected. But as this class reminded me, there is some effort involved in setting up a wireless flash. Plus, it doesn’t always work that well outdoors with nature photography (which is one area I use flash more often these days — not all the time by any means, but flash gives me new options).

The other way is the old-fashioned cord. Today, this is a dedicated flash cord that allows your camera and flash to communicate regarding exposure and flash settings. While it is inconvenient at times to have this cord attached (and it limits where you can put the flash), the big advantage is simplicity. For the camera, a flash attached to the cord is seen the same as a flash directly attached to the camera. This means you just plug it in and start shooting. There are no wireless settings, no extra flash units needed for a master control, nothing extra is needed. In addition, the dedicated flash cord always connects to the flash so there are no communication problems that can happen outdoors.

Flash on flowers

This photo was shot with an off-camera flash held to the right for the rhododendrons, which were totally in the shade. The existing light on the background was underexposed by using manual exposure and changing the shutter speed until the background looked dark (so as to set off the flowers better, plus the background light wasn’t that great). The flash exposure was normal and done with automatic E-TTL based on the f-stop.

Posted in Digital Photo Techniques, Digital camera techniques, Equipment thoughts, nature photography | Comments Off

Olympus vs. Other DSLRs

I don’t usually do such heavily gear related blogs, but I find that Olympus cameras are underrated gear for serious nature photographers (and more). Why should I care? I am not paid by Olympus, nor do they affect anything I do for Outdoor Photographer or other work I do.

The reason is simple — I really want Olympus to succeed. I use the gear, I really like the equipment and want to be able to use it for a long time into the future. But in addition, all photographers need competition in the marketplace. If only Canon made DSLRs or just Nikon, or even just those two cameras, there would be less incentive for innovation and change to meet photographers’ needs. 

I just had a great class this weekend on flash at the Lepp Institute of Digital Imaging. All students used either Nikon or Canon (which certainly offer excellent camera systems). And they were all impressed by the simplicity of the Olympus wireless flash system and how well it worked. I then got a lot of questions about why I use the E-3 and I answered honestly — it gives me a very compact system, it is easy to use, it is a very rugged camera, the swivel Live LCD is a phenomenal tool and the dust reduction system is the best I have seen.

Those things, and the responses I get from students all around the country, really strike a cord. Yet I find that Olympus’s marketing and advertising don’t seem to address them. I think they are really missing a great opportunity to market a unique camera system that is not simply like all the rest. Let me explain.

Size — sure, the size of the camera is mentioned in Olympus’s marketing, but I am talking about the whole kit of gear, all smaller because of the Four Thirds sensor. Olympus marketing seems to emphasize Four Thirds assuming everyone knows it. Yet in truth, few photographers who do not own Olympus know it. When I explain that I have the equivalent of a 16mm full-frame fisheye all the way to 800mm in a SMALL backpack, my workshop attendees are amazed. And I have found these lenses are excellent. The 12-60mm standard zoom is absolutely terrific as is the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5. That latter lens gives me the equivalent in 35mm film or full-frame sensor focal length of 100-400mm at f/2.8-3.5, all in a small, compact lens! Many baby boomers are looking for gear that is easier on their backs and shoulders. Many young people just don’t want the giant backpacks of my generation.

Easy-to-use — the menu system is largely very intuitive and easy to use. Details show up on the back of the camera immediately. Wireless flash setup is the easiest of any on the market. Control buttons and dials are well marked and easy to use.

Rugged camera — the E-3 is a pro camera with sealed joints, etc., yet it is less expensive than similarly constructed cameras of other manufacturers.

Swivel Live View LCD — this is so exciting for so many photographers when I show it. You can see through your lens on the LCD, and you can position that LCD at many angles. Many wish and hope their manufacturers will have this. Yet, Nikon and Canon do not have it. It is such an amazing tool for photographers, yet Olympus seems to give little note of it in marketing efforts. You can shoot up high, down low, without contortions. It also makes it very easy to shoot with a camera on a low or high tripod. This is a great boon for aging baby boomers (who struggle with aging joints), yet you never even hear about it from Olympus (I suspect young marketing professionals who have no clue as to what this really means). It is also a boon for young or old photographers who want to quickly and easily try new and creative angles on a scene.

Dust reduction — I can’t begin to tell you how many complaints I hear about dust on sensors. When I tell people that I never do anything except blow out the mirror box and sensor area once in a while (or if I notice a problem), they sigh and are jealous. Yet Olympus says very little about this. From everything I have seen from working with a lot of photographers using different gear, the Olympus dust reduction system is far superior to anything else on the market. I simply don’t have a lot of problems with dust. Occasionally, I do find it on skies (especially after working in a dusty or windy area), but the dust is gone after blowing out the mirror box with a Giottos Rocket Blower (an inexpensive, great little bulb blower).

Posted in Digital camera techniques, Equipment thoughts, Uncategorized, nature photography | Comments Off

Non-Destructive Editing

There is some confusion about non-destructive editing or image processing in Photoshop and Lightroom. Non-destructive means that nothing in the original image is affected as adjustments are made. I had written about Lightroom in Outdoor Photographer magazine a couple of months ago and said everything was non-destructive compared to Photoshop. Some people had questioned that because you can use adjustment layers to “non-destructively” work on a photo. That is true, but it can also get you into trouble.

Photoshop is pixel-editing software. It was designed from the start to do that and is still considered the premier pixel-editing software on the market. Pixel-editing is “destructive” processing by definition because the original pixels are changed from the state they were in coming from the camera. Adjustment layers, in a sense, are a work-around that allow you to make adjustments to a photo without changing underlying pixels, a very useful tool. However, these layers can be merged and flattened at any time, which then applies the adjustments to the photo, and pixels are changed. In addition, the more adjustments you make, the more layers you have to deal with, and if you need to make changes, it can be a hassle to manage all of these layers.

Lightroom never touches original pixels — it is designed from the start to be non-destructive and cannot ever be destructive. You cannot change original image pixels. This really keeps your photo safe. So, based on how the programs were designed, you can say Photoshop is pixel-editing software that can affect original pixels while Lightroom is non-destructive software that can never affect original pixels. That is not to say that this makes either program “better” — better will depend on the needs of the photographer and both programs offer things the other does not. I still use both programs and my work requires both. I really like the integration between Lightroom 2 and Photoshop CS4, too.

In addition, all adjustments in Lightroom are applied seamlessly, and automatically in the right order (no matter what order you actually did them unlike Photoshop) when the image is exported from Lightroom. Finally, all adjustments are readily accessible in the processing panel of Develop and you need know nothing about layers to use them (Photoshop CS4 has a new interface that uses this idea quite nicely for adjustment layers).

Posted in Digital Photo Techniques, Lightroom, Photoshop, Photoshop techniques | Comments Off

More on Lightroom

A friend of mine from Minnesota, Ken Fournelle (http://web.me.com/kenfournelle), a really terrific Photoshop user, asked me about Lightroom. He felt it seemed like it was more for photographers with a lot of photographs. While it does help for that, it is really much more. Here is my answer to Ken that I thought would be of broad interest:

I feel that Lightroom is the best and most efficient way of working with images for photographers regardless of the number of images they shoot. Photoshop was never developed for photographers, but for photography. Lightroom was designed from the ground up for photographers. CS4 actually reflects this as it uses some things Adobe learned from Lightroom.

I have a number of things about this on my blog, plus I did an article for Outdoor Photographer, which should be on the www.outdoorphotographer.com site. If your Photoshop and Bridge workflow works for you, that is great and keep doing it. Once I started using Lightroom heavily, it rapidly became my main way of working with images. With Lightroom 2, this is especially true.

The biggest thing for me is speed. Yes, it works very well for database needs, such as renaming files, adding and revising metadata information, editing photos in a traditional photographic meaning of the word (i.e., selecting good and bad), and using keywords and collections for finding and organizing images.

But speed is the big deal. In Photoshop, you must open an adjustment dialog box for every adjustment (this has changed somewhat for CS4); in Lightroom, all adjustments are instantly available in a single panel. In Photoshop, the interface makes the program the “star”, which is actually important because there are so many menu options in the program. In Lightroom, the interface makes the photo the “star” — I find that I feel more connected to my photograph as I adjust it, and I find others feel this way, too.

Lightroom includes some amazing controls for speed, including the parametric curve sliders, the targeted adjustment tool (you can click and drag on the photo itself for adjustments, e.g., you can change a color’s hue, saturation and luminosity by clicking on that color — Lightroom finds the color for you in its controls, then you drag the cursor up and down on the photo to adjust — this is an amazing, fast control that no other program has, although CS4 now includes something close), a color luminosity control that actually works, a sharpening function that is better than anything in Photoshop, an easy-to-use “vignetting” control that offers a lot of control for traditional edge-burning, and the new local adjustment controls.

The local controls are phenomenal. You can literally paint adjustments (from lightening to darkening to color and more) onto the photo, yet it is all non-destructive and instantly changeable (far, far faster and easier than using layer masks in Photoshop, although layer masks do offer more precise control when you need it — that’s one reason why I still use Photoshop); you can also add a “graduated filter” of the same sorts of adjustments by dragging and rotating on the fly (you can’t do that with a layer mask).

All Lightroom adjustments can also be quickly copied from one photo to another … or many. This really speeds up processing. While you can do this to a degree in Camera Raw, you always have to open specific images into it in order to do this. In Lightroom, if you want to copy adjustments to another photo, you just select that other photo and do it. And since all of this is just instructions (nothing is applied to the photo until you export it out of Lightroom), any of the adjustments you copied to another image can be changed without cost to the photo.

Lightroom is also very well connected to Photoshop. For example, you can quickly double process an image (such as once for optimum dark areas and once for optimum bright areas — this works very easily by creating a virtual copy or copies for the dark and light processing), then open those images to layers in a single file in Photoshop for combining those adjustments into a single image. You can do this with any images that need to be worked as layers in Photoshop. Panoramic shooting also works well this way.

I should get paid by the Lightroom people I am so enthusiastic about this program for photographers, but I am not. I have done workshops on this program around the country and have seen firsthand how consistently photographers really get excited by working in Lightroom that I really want to help others benefit from it as well.

Yes, indeed, I do have a new book on Lightroom 2 (be sure you get that one and not the old Lightroom 1 book). It does cover the key things a photographer needs to know about using the program.

Posted in Digital Photo Techniques, Lightroom, Photoshop, Photoshop techniques | Comments Off

Filters and Digital Photography

The use of filters for photography has changed a lot with digital photography, and it continues to evolve. A lot of what you might do or not do with filters will depend on the way you like to work. Even in the “film days”, I knew photographers who used lots of filters, and those who used none, yet both groups got excellent results.

I find that there are two filters that I use regularly — the polarizing filter and the neutral density filter. The polarizing filter is an important one because it allows you to do some things you cannot do in the computer, such as removing reflections from water or glass, removing glare from leaves in a landscape shot so colors look better, and cutting through haze (the last one is not a magic effect — it won’t remove haze, it will only make it less hazy). The polarizing filter also helps make blue skies richer (at 90 degrees to the sun for max effect), which can be done in the computer, but this makes workflow easier (one less thing to do in the computer).

I use a neutral density filter to knock down the light and allow longer exposures. A neutral density or ND filter is a dark gray filter that cuts the light coming through the lens. This can be very important when photographing water, but it can also allow for some very interesting, unexpected and dramatic photos. It can be a lot of fun to photograph blowing leaves or grass at slow shutter speeds to capture their movement patterns — the images can be quite dramatic. The ND filter will help allow slower shutter speeds than normal. You can also use the polarizing filter for a slight ND effect.

I used to use graduated neutral density filters a lot. This is a filter that is half dark gray and half clear, with a gradient blend between the areas, through the middle. This type of filter allows you to darken part of a scene that is too bright, while still allowing good exposure in the darker parts of the scene. I still use them on occasion for workflow reasons — they allow me to hold detail in more areas of a scene, such as a landscape with a bright sky, making less work in the computer. However, they are a problem to use in many scenes because the real world doesn’t match the line of gradation in this filter. Their effects are also looking a bit dated because the photo often has the darkness in very obvious parts of the image.

HDR and other digital imaging techniques allow a much better and more natural way of dealing with extreme exposure challenges in a scene. You can actually get results that truly look like the scene (a grad filter often will not because it will darken a mountain top, for example, when it sticks into the bright sky) and look very natural.

Posted in Digital Photo Techniques, Digital camera techniques, Equipment thoughts, landscape photography, nature photography | Comments Off