Photodigitary

The Olympics

Olympic National Park is one of my favorite locations. It has a huge range of conditions, from beaches to temperate rainforest to mountains. I have a workshop there this spring from April 15-19 through the Great American Photography Workshops. The theme will be “Beyond the Obvious in the Olympics – Finding New and Better Nature Photos” and what a great place it is for that! The weather is generally great in April with lots and lots of green everywhere, plus wildflowers and more. You can learn more from www.gaphotoworks.com.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Organizing in Lightroom

Organizing photos in Lightroom is not really any different than organizing photos anywhere, including slides in cabinets in a room. Lightroom really does not have a “system” for filing. It  is designed to be flexible in order to follow your system. Treat Lightroom like a storage room with cabinets and bins for your work. How you organize any storage room will affect if you can find anything there, and so it is with Lightroom.

It helps to have a system for organizing before you start doing things in Lightroom. I have a system that  stores original images on my hard drive in a folder (or you could look at this as a storage “room”) called digital images, then into folders by year (or cabinets in that room), then finally into folders by “shoot” (or file folders in the cabinets in the room). The shoot folders are labeled by state, month and any other info that would help (such as CA Spring Garden 0309).

This structure is then used by Lightroom as it looks at what is on my hard drive and is used when I import images with Lightroom. This keeps things organized and relatively easy to find. In addition, I add keywords and caption information to photos as I import them in order to better find them in the future by searching. Actually forcing myself to do keywording is harder than doing it in Lightroom — I am not a keyword sort of guy, but it does help to at least do some keywording.

Collections are like bins to keep groups of images duplicated from your originals (although in Lightroom, no originals are in fact duplicated, only references to the originals). I constantly set up these collections for special purposes, and if a purpose is gone, I get rid of it. I will often set up a collection for images that I want to use for an article or a book project. I set up collections for slide shows, for personal projects, and for anything that I want to be able to gather diverse images from different folders into a single category “bin.”

I really like Smart Collections and Targeted Collections in Lightroom 2. A Smart Collection lets you set up a collection that automatically gathers images that fit a criteria that you define when you set up that collection. For example, I have a Smart Collection for Fire Ecology that automatically “collects” any image with a keyword of fire, no matter where it is.

Targeted collections are really useful when you are trying to put together a special group of images. For example, I might set up a collection for an article I am doing on macro photography, then set it as a target collection. Once done, I can go through images in any folder I want and click the small circle that appears in the upper right corner to make it go to that collection. If I get too many images in any standard collection,  I can simply delete the excess — they are not removed from Lightroom or your hard drive, only from the collection.

These are a few ideas that work for me. More is in Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2 for Digital Photographers Only.

Posted in Lightroom | 1 Comment »

Lightroom Workflow

I had promised a lot of folks in classes and workshops that I would put together an outline of my workflow for Lightroom. I have finally completed it. It is now posted on my website, www.robsheppardphoto.com, under the What’s New section of the first page. There is also an outline of a recent class I did on Photoshop Elements, as well.

Posted in Lightroom | 3 Comments »

Color problems in printing

I got a question from a student who was having problems with her printer giving her prints with a slight green cast. If one is following everything in the printing process as you “should”, then this can be hard to diagnose. Sometimes a specific computer system just doesn’t work together as we expect.

This is usually not a calibration issue — few photographers would actually be adding greens to the image. A misconception that many have is that calibration gives you good prints. It doesn’t. Calibration gives you a consistent and predictable workspace which is important for getting better prints, but it does not guarantee good prints.

There are some things that can be tried if you run into similar problems. If you are using profiles in your printing, I would suggest you try having the printer manage colors instead. Or the reverse. You will often hear that you “must” use profiles, but some printers do as well or better when they manage colors, and sometimes, I have found that on a specific computer system, one method is perfect when the other does not perform as expected. Be sure you turn off printer management in the printer driver if you are using profiles and be sure it is on if you are having the printer manage colors.

If that doesn’t help, then it is best to download a new printer driver from the Epson website (to ensure you have the latest one) and install it.

If that doesn’t help, there are some other things you can do. If you have the printer manage colors, then you can set up the printer driver to correct for the color problem. Not all printer drivers handle this the same way, so I can’t give the exact way this is set — however, you want to either decrease a problem color (such as my student’s green) with less of that color’s slider (green in the example) and/or add more of the opposite color slider (magenta in the example). Once you get that worked out, you can usually save that setting for future use.

You can also add a print correction layer in Photoshop or Photoshop Elements, or a virtual copy and/or preset for Lightroom. Then you make a correction that reduces green in the photo (adds magenta). There are a number of ways to do this. In Lightroom, it is easy as you can use the white balance area of Develop (Basic) to change the warmth of a photo (Temperature) or green/magenta (Tint) — this works great if you do this to a virtual copy so you keep the original processing intact.

In the Photoshops, a simple thing to try is adding a fill layer with a color the opposite of the problem color, change the blending mode from Normal (click on the word normal at the top of the layers palette to get a dropdown menu) to Color, then reduce the Opacity to a low amount (maybe even 10% or less). The fill layer is handy because you can reopen the adjustment box and change the color to tweak the correction without hurting the underlying photo. Once you get this right, you can take notes on the adjustment or save a small version of the file with that fill layer. Then you just open that photo and drag the fill layer over to your new image anytime you want to make this change again (you could even call this your printing layer).

Posted in Digital Photo Techniques, Lightroom, Photoshop, Photoshop Elements | 1 Comment »

Your Photos?

Illinois prairie under powerlines.

I just got back from the NANPA Summit. NANPA is the North American Nature Photography Association and an excellent organization dedicated to supporting nature photographers and nature photography — www.nanpa.org.

I was doing some critiques with students. I would talk to them about their interests, then see some of their personal work, then some work they had done at programs they were involved with at the summit. It was very interesting to see something about their work that represents something in many photographers’ work — photographs that represented the photographer’s heart vs. photographs that were done to please others.

I would look at the photographs the students had brought with them. Then I looked at the work done under the guidance of the older photographers there as leaders. I could see the young people’s heart in their earlier photographers, but I missed seeing them in the new images. This was very clear. I even asked one student where they had gone during this field trip and if they had done this photos (nicely done, though) for themselves or really more to “please the adults.” They had to be honest and say it was the latter.

This is such a common thing in photography — taking pictures not based on our core interests and visual personality, but to please others. We all have done it. We take certain photos because we think we have to because of what we see in images from people or hear from teachers we respect. We all will change how we take pictures at times because we got praise for a certain type of photograph, whether that praise came from a pro’s critique, a camera club competition or an editor. We will start avoiding certain types of photos because we got some sort of direct or implied criticism or dislike of a photo, also coming from such things as a pro’s critique, club competition or an editor.

There is no question we can learn from others, and critiques, criticisms and comments about our images can help us better see what we do right and wrong with our photos. However, this becomes a problem when you start changing your photography from what you love and value to someone else’s love and value. I had even asked one of the students where a certain type of photo was from their field trip (based on what had been told to me about their interest and what I had seen in photographs) and was told that they had tentatively shot a few of those but had not included them because an instructor told them not to use that type of shot.

It can be hard to find our own photographs then have others “reject” them in one way or another. I totally understand that. I have been there before. I can even remember starting to take one photo then thinking to myself, “Well, such-and-such won’t be interested in this”, then stopping and looking for another photo. I have really fought that idea in recent years.

Sure, sometimes you need to take photos for specific reasons, including pleasing someone else, such as working for a client. But I believe that as soon as you quit taking your own photos, you also do a disservice to yourself and that “client”, because you are no longer bringing your heart and your love to the work. You suffer and your photography suffers. In addition, I think it is sad because it means that you don’t bring that special view of the world you have (and I believe everyone has something special to see) to share with the world. I really believe that sharing of our unique views of the world is one of the very special and valuable parts of photography.

I have been reading a really excellent book, The Courage to Teach by Parker Palmer. He says something very much about this: “When I follow only the oughts, I may find myself doing work that is ethically laudable but not mine to do. A vocation that is not mine, no matter how externally valued, does violence to the self — in the precise sense that it violates my identity and integrity on behalf of some abstract norm.”

It can be hard to do your own work, especially when you are in an environment that does not support it. Whenever you do photography that is intensely your own, you risk not only your photos, but also your self becomes vulnerable.

Yet, I think this is important for any serious photographer to do exactly that, find and support your own images. Without that, photographs can even become superficially beautiful, but there is no heart or soul in the images. This is often true with advertising photos, but they are often supposed to be exactly that, superficially beautiful.

I have seen too much superficial “good” nature photography that looks just fine as “pretty picture on the wall” but does nothing more than act as decoration. I think you deserve more than that for your view of the world and nature deserves better than that, too.

Posted in Nature, nature photography | 1 Comment »

“Reality” and the Camera

An important learning for any new photographer is to recognize that what you see and what the camera sees are two different things. This means that you start to look for conditions that the camera “likes” — often new photographers think if they just buy a “better” camera, they can better capture the reality that they see. But cameras do not capture “reality” — they can only interpret it based on their limitations.

This is a common problem with flower photography, for example. A beautiful flower is in front of the photographer, so all he or she needs is a good camera and lens, right? Well, that flower is a work of art of its own, and unless you are just interested in snapshots for recordkeeping, just pointing the camera at the flower and photographing it will be disappointing. The flower is always better than its likeness in the photograph. The photograph of a flower is not the same as the flower — that is a very important thing to remember.

So to get a good flower photograph, we must approach the flower as an interesting subject for a photograph. The photograph is a separate entity than the flower. Anyone who looks at a photograph sees only what is represented by the photograph, so the craft of photography is absolutely critical — everything from light to composition to depth-of-field to focal length choice and so forth. It is important to interpret that flower in such a way that the image looks good as a photograph and does justice to the flower. It is impossible for a photograph to be anything other than an interpretation as real life is so much more than what can be held in a two-dimensional, stopped time photograph.

One area that I see a problem with a lot comes from when photographers see an interesting subject, but don’t see how the light is affecting the photograph. They end up trying to make the sensor and  camera do things it cannot. One of the things any photographer must learn is how to see the world the way the camera does and not simply how we do. The camera cannot see the world the way we do. The biggest challenge is that the camera cannot always capture the range of colors and tones we see with our eyes.

This is especially true when a scene has high contrast between bright and dark areas. In many such situations, it is impossible to get good colors because, although you can see the colors okay in a contrasty situation, the camera cannot. A good exposure cannot show the whole range of colors and tones in the scene. Sometimes, as photographers, we have to recognize that certain photos are not possible and try a different angle, different light, etc.

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

Megapixel madness once again

I had a student wanting to “upgrade” from an APS-C format camera (a Canon EOS Rebel) to a Canon EOS 5D Mark II. I wondered why, as I couldn’t see the benefit for the student. The student thought the “more megapixels” was important.

I hear this a lot. Everybody seems to want a high-megapixel, full-35mm-frame digital SLR. I think this may be a mistake for most amateurs and the money may be better spent on lenses and a high-quality carbon-fiber tripod and magnesium head (such a tripod is expensive, but it is so light that you will always take it with you, which will guarantee higher quality images).

What do you get with a high-megapixel, full-35mm-frame format camera?

• A sensor that does very well with high ISO settings if you need them frequently.
• A better use of fast wide-angle lenses, such as the 24mm f/2.8.
• A different look for telephoto lenses.
• The ability to make really big prints.
• The possibility of HD video.
• A really big price tag.

Let’s look at some of the issues a little more:

• A quality APS-C or Four Thirds format camera can easily make 16×20 or 16×24-inch prints that will equal the results of that from a full-35mm-frame sensor.
• Small format sensors such as the APS-C or Four Thirds do very well at ISO settings of 400 or less. At higher ISO settings, full-35mm-frame sensors do better.
• Small format sensors allow for smaller camera bags and lower price tags for the same quality lenses. What I mean is this. A small format sensor allows you to use a smaller focal length lens and get the same results in terms of subject size in the image frame. For example, you could use a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens for an APS-C format camera and get the equivalent of a 300mm F/2.8 lens on a full-35mm-frame camera at half the cost, more versatility, the same quality, and half the weight & 2/3 the physical size. Or with a Four Thirds camera, that same sort of lens would give the equivalent of a 400mm f/2.8 lens at less than half the size and about a fifth the price.
• The price you pay for a larger-format sensor is not necessarily giving you a higher quality camera. You are putting most of that money into the sensor. For example, the build quality of the Canon 5D Mark II and Canon 40D or 50D is essentially the same.

Now it is true that most of the highest level pro cameras are full-35mm-frame cameras. These cameras are built to a very high level of durability that most photographers will rarely need, but if you are a sports photographer shooting in all sorts of conditions, or a wildlife photographer going to difficult locations, such a camera can be a critical need. But such cameras come with a price of both more cost and they are like carrying a heavy brick!

It is curious to me that I will hear photographers talking about buying a high-priced, high-megapixel camera then talk about how a high-quality, carbon-fiber tripod (such as a Gitzo) and lightweight, high-quality head (like one from Really Right Stuff) is too expensive! I can guarantee that the tripod will ensure truly visible higher quality than the camera.

Posted in Digital camera techniques, Equipment thoughts | 2 Comments »

Making an Image Look Its Best

I recently got a question from a reader that is a good item for the blog. He noted that he knows Photoshop technology pretty good, so he knows how to use it to control the image. But he felt he is not so good in recognizing and knowing what actually needs to be done to an image to make it look its best. He wanted to know what books might help.

I do hear this comment often enough that I know it is a concern. Unfortunately, a lot of Photoshop and Lightroom books are more about “gee-whiz” techniques than in working on this issue of how to look at an image and know what needs to be done. I admit that this can be hard to explain at times.

However, I do feel that a good resource comes not from modern Photoshop or other computer books, but from a classic of good photography — Ansel Adams. I highly recommend his books, The Negative, The Print, and Examples, the Making of 40 Photographs. They are all still in print, but can be also found at used booksellers (such as Abebooks.com) and libraries. You can skip all the developing and chemical stuff in the negative and print books, but the captions, the discussion chapters, are all quite good.

The Print has some really excellent discussions of specific photos and what Adams did working on them, plus I think his opening chapter should be required reading for all nature photographers. Examples, the Making of 40 Photographs gives some very specific information on how Adams worked on 40 photos, from the actual shooting through the darkroom work.

Posted in Books, Digital Photo Techniques, Photoshop, Photoshop techniques, nature photography | 1 Comment »

How Many Megapixels Are Enough?

I  just got back from a terrific photo event, FotoFusion, at the Palm Beach Photographic Centre. This annual event brings together a large contingent of photographers doing all sorts of programs, everything from Photoshop and Lightroom tips to a panel on travel photography to ideas for marketing wedding photography and much more.

I did a few programs including printing and nature photography, but I also sat in on some others. I have known John Isaac for a while — he was a long-time photographer for the U.N. — so I knew his latest book on Kashmir would be great. He did a program about his photography there with a very personal travelogue through the area that was outstanding.

But what was interesting to me, and surprising to the packed crowd, was that the entire book was shot with the Olympus E-1 (done before the E-3 was out). This is not about Olympus, but about megapixels. This was a 5-megapixel camera — not 25, not even 15 megapixels, but a mere 5 megapixels. And the photos were terrific. I have seen the book, too, and no one would know that there were only 5 megapixels available.

This shows that a good sensor, attention to the craft of photography (exposure, camera steadiness, good lenses) and compelling photos are extremely important and can match a high megapixel camera any day. I am not suggesting that John or I would want to exchange our 10-megapixel E-3’s for the old E-1, but it does say that megapixels are not everything.

A good example of this include the Canon EOS 50D and 40D. I bought a 40D when it came out for my Canon system that I use for certain indoor work where I need a higher ISO (it does better than the E-3 in that situation). I used a 50D when I was working on a book about it (the 50D is basically a 40D with more megapixels and a much better LCD). The 40D is 10 megapixels, the 50D is 15, but I feel the 40D gives far superior results than the 50D. I think the sensor on the 50D simply is not as good as the one on the 40D. Once again, megapixels are not everything.

Posted in Digital camera techniques, Equipment thoughts | 2 Comments »