Archive for the 'Digital Image Editing Tips' Category
Wednesday, October 24th, 2007
In a recent discussion with a friend of mine who owns an art gallery, and is herself a photographer, she confided that she finds it much more difficult to sell photography to collectors than other types of art. I attribute this phenomenon, in part, to photography’s history as a documentary tool and, in part, to the public perception that it is a product of technology, not a skill of the body and mind. Now that cameras are ubiquitous, there may also be the impression that, while not everyone can paint or sculpt, anyone can take a photograph.
In the last decade digital technology has completely revolutionized photography, not only making it possible for more people to easily and economically shoot, print and electronically share images, but also for art photographers to access a whole range of creative tools that were previously expensive, required specialized equipment or were not even possible. And yet, the new creative possibilities seem to have only decreased photography’s artistic value in the eye of some of the public. In fact, digital photography may now fall into a new category in the public view that is separate from and, for some people, lesser than, traditional film photography.
Through my own experience and conversations with professional art photographers and gallery owners, I have noticed a perspective that troubles me. With increasing regularity, people confronted with a stunning photograph that they clearly find engaging and pleasing are compelled to ask if it is a digital image, and if so, what’s been done to it. The general perception that seems to be emerging is that film photographs are more valuable as art than digital photographs. Additionally, digital photographs that have been digitally processed in any way often are given the least artistic value despite the fact that nearly all digital images are processed to some extent either in the camera or later on. I attribute this attitude, once again, to the technology involved and the access the general public has to it. Film photography is now seen as something a bit more archaic and requiring a set of skills not readily available to just anyone, while digital photography can be done by anyone with a cell phone camera. In addition, some would think that since digital processing or enhancing an image requires even more technology, it therefore requires less skill. With the use of Photoshop, people perceive that anyone willing to spend the time on a computer can turn any digital snap shot into a work of art. I also sense that the viewing public is wary of digitally processed images because of the potential to add, remove, drastically alter or completely fabricate the content of an image. It is accepted that a painting is simply a portrayal of the artist’s vision and not necessarily reality. In many styles of abstract painting the artist is intentionally trying to get away from reality. However, people tend to want their photography to be “real”, although real is very hard to define in any visual medium.
Computer technology certainly has enhanced the ability to do all sorts of interesting things, combining components of various images, adding textures, modifying colors and even entirely and virtually generating an image. However, even though I greatly admire and appreciate this as a completely valid art form, I’m inclined to call this type of art photo illustration or digital illustration, not pure photography. The knowledge that such manipulations are possible may partly be to blame for the public’s paranoia that any visually captivating digital image must have been created in this way. However, I strongly believe that digital photography that doesn’t require these techniques is equal to traditional photography.
I would like to think that with some education, the art viewing public can learn to have a much greater appreciation for the techniques, skill, craft, creativity and mastery required to produce fine photography, whether it is film or digital. Like painters, true photography masters spend years developing their eye, style and technique and they both have the goal of creating an image that communicates an idea or emotion, defines an element of design or embodies the personal vision of a scene. Photographers, like painters, use a variety of tools and techniques to best achieve this goal. Some of these are done in the camera at the time the photo is taken, while others are performed later in the process, but all require a level of competence and ability not possessed by the unpracticed. Many photographers spend days, weeks or years waiting for the right combination of elements to come together in a photograph, and even the masters may only be able to create a few truly great photos in their career.
The public does appear to accept the darkroom processing of black and white film, even though the skill isn’t necessarily understood or properly appreciated. I have yet to hear someone ask, “how has this been altered”, or “is that what the scene really looked like” in regard to a black and white darkroom print, but these are the most common questions asked of digital photos. However, a great black and white photo wouldn’t be nearly as great without superb darkroom skills and creative techniques. Ansel Adams is an obvious and overused example, but many people don’t realize just how much time he spent working on each of his famous images in the darkroom to get them to convey his vision the way he intended. Earlier in his career he was often frustrated by the lack of skill and technology needed to create a print that matched his vision. Much later he went back and remastered many images using new techniques and improved skill. I attended a show of his work that exhibited some of his original prints side by side with the remastered ones. There was no doubt in my mind that the latter photos were better and I didn’t hear anyone complaining that the remastered images were products of technology, not a sign of his matured mastery.
  I would like to see digital processing achieve the same level of acceptance and respect as darkroom processing and for fine digital photography to rise above its “anyone with a camera could do that” reputation. I spend a lot of time carefully composing what I hope are visually captivating images, searching out exquisite light and using my knowledge of the physics of photography to get as much quality and detail from my equipment as possible. However, similar to a great black and white film print, the job is not done when I press the button. A digital sensor does not see in the way a human does, with mental filters of emotion, perception, context and experience. A raw digital image can be very flat and lifeless. Not unlike the traditional photographer, nearly every image I take requires some degree of processing using software, such as Photoshop, in my computer or “digital darkroom”. My goal is to get each image to adequately express my personal vision. Four different photographers will create four different photographs from the same location and time. This is partly due to where they decide to point the camera, but it is also due to the fact that each one of them experiences the scene differently depending on mood, perception, personality and prior experience. The digital darkroom is one of the most important tools for bringing out this individual and personal vision.
Unless I’m intentionally trying to create a photo illustration or composite, I do not alter or significantly manipulate the content of a photo. I do, however, regularly use technique and craft to adjust the contrast, correct the color, enhance or tone down saturation and vary luminosity in my images. These are very painstaking steps in the processing of an image in an attempt to bring out what I saw, felt and experienced at the time I took it. Some images require only a few seconds of my time to bring them to this state, while others I work on and struggle with for hours or days. Some images never achieve what I had hoped. Like Ansel Adams, as I learn new techniques or get better at old ones, I often go back and rework images in the hopes of making them better. My purpose is rarely to deceive or mislead (unless it is inherent in the natural composition or light), but rather to create and enlighten. The processes that I use are not a short cut and they are not an example of technology doing the work. Like a painter, or a film photographer, I use tools, as well as long practiced skills and techniques to achieve my intended final piece. Photoshop is a critical and necessary tool.
It may just be a matter of time, but my hope is that one day digital photography will be respected for the skill ,craft and mastery required to do it well in the same way that fine art film photography and other forms of art are. I look forward to a time when a digitial photo is appreciated for its content and the skill involved in creating it instead of questioned suspiciously, as if the photographer had somehow faked his ability to create something pleasing, engaging, controverial or interesting to look at and enjoy.
Posted in Digital Image Editing Tips, Photography Business, Photography Journal | No Comments »
Wednesday, September 5th, 2007
Since the beginning of human existence night sky events have inspired in us wonder, awe, inquiry, fear and superstition. Solar and lunar eclipses are particularly inspiring because they affect the largest and most important objects in the sky, the Sun and Moon. Armed with some basic knowledge they also provide us with a real-time opportunity to observe and understand the motion, relationships and interactions among the Earth, Sun and Moon. Solar eclipses (the Earth passing through the Moon’s shadow) happen less frequently than lunar eclipses (the Moon passing through the Earth’s shadow) and, due to the harmful effects of staring at the sun, are also harder to observe directly. Lunar eclipses occur about twice a year and, other than happening in the dark, are easy and safe to view. As such, they provide an excellent photography opportunity, one that can yield great documentation of a cosmological event and, with a little creative vision, compelling artistic imagery.
On August 28, 2007 a total lunar eclipse was visible from the western portion of North America. With clear skies and summer temperatures in the forecast a photographer friend, Dane (www.inner-light-images.com), and I decided to take the opportunity to try our hand at photographing the event. Even though lunar eclipses are common on a cosmic scale, they are rare enough in the course of a photographer’s career that there might only be a few chances to be in the right place at the right time to photograph one. Neither my friend nor I had photographed one before, so a little research and education was in order. There are many good sources of information on lunar eclipses on the Web. The following two links were particularly helpful in preparing to capture the eclipse on camera.
NASA’s Eclipse Info Site
The eclipse photo site of the famed “Mr. Eclipse”
A lunar eclipse only occurs during a full moon because that is when the Moon is situated directly opposite the Sun with the Earth in the middle allowing the Earth to cast its shadow on the Moon. An eclipse doesn’t occur with every full moon because the Earth casts a shadow along a plane in line with the Sun, but the Moon’s orbit only crosses some portion of that plane two to four times per year. The rest of the time the full moon is either above or below the plane of the Earth’s shadow and no eclipse occurs. Additionally, a full moon can only be seen at night due to its location opposite the sun. This means that even if an eclipse happens, you must be on the night side of the Earth to observe it. The day side of the Earth faces the Sun and faces away from the full moon, so people on the day side of the Earth during an eclipse will not be able to see it. The NASA link above provides some excellent diagrams showing how this works.
 Photographing a lunar eclipse presents some challenges, but due to the slow speed and predictable nature, it is possible to prepare before hand and do a lot of trial and error while photographing one. The first challenge is being in the right place at the right time. Some enthusiasts will travel to a place on the planet where it is known an eclipse will be visible. Others, like myself, wait until an eclipse will be visible where they live. Weather is another challenge. If the sky is cloud covered the eclipse will not be visible. Many eclipses occur late in the night and getting out of bed can be a particular challenge for some. Also, a total eclipse can last up to several hours from start to finish, so some commitment and patience is required to photograph the entire thing.
 Photographically speaking there are several considerations to take into account when preparing to photograph a lunar eclipse. To see the surface of the moon with a great amount of detail, a large telephoto lens is necessary. Lenses in the range of 300mm to 500mm will enlarge the moon enough for sufficient detail, but even larger lenses or small telescopes fitted for photography are needed to get a full frame image of the moon. A wider angle lens can be used with a film camera to take multiple exposures of the moon on a single piece of film. If exposures are taken every ten minutes or so, the final image will show the actual arc of the moon in intervals throughout the period of the eclipse. Most digital cameras aren’t able to take multiple exposures in one image, so to get this affect, individual exposures of the moon must be taken and then placed together in an arc in a computer using image editing software like Photoshop. For my image of the full eclipse arc I took photographs about every 10 minutes during the five hour duration of the eclipse. Then I selected 20 photos that I felt made a good sequence. In Photoshop I cut the moon out of each imaged, sized them and placed them in an arc on a black background. Then I superimposed the moon arc onto a foreground image that I took from the same location on the same night. The final image does not show the actual path of the moon in the sky, but does give a pleasing and somewhat accurate representation of the event. I chose to include the pre-dawn colors on the horizon for artistic affect even though a full moon is actually located directly opposite the rising sun.
Regardless of whether you want to take close-ups or a wide angle, multiple exposure image, you will need to be prepared to adjust the length of exposure as the eclipse progresses. A fully lit full moon is very bright and has the same exposure requirements as sunlight on rock (since that’s what it is). But, as the shadow passes over the moon and the light shifts from direct light to indirect light, the exposure times will lengthen considerably. For the completely lit full moon my exposure times were 1/400 of a second at f/5.6 with an ISO setting of 100. As the Moon passed further into the Earth’s shadow the exposure times became longer. I bracketed my exposures on almost every image to make sure that I had at least one image in which the moon was properly exposed. Eventually I reached an exposure time of one second. From calculations made before the shoot (with help from THIS website), I knew that with a 400mm lens, any exposure time longer than one second would not be fast enough to stop the Moon’s motion in the sky, resulting in a blurry image. To maintain my one second maximum exposure time I began to adjust the ISO instead of my shutter speed to offset the drop in light. In digital cameras, ISO is the measure of how sensitive the sensor is to light. Higher settings are more sensitive so they would allow me to maintain my one second exposure time, even though the Moon kept getting darker. However, higher ISO settings also introduce noise into a digital image, so I wanted to keep the ISO as low as possible to minimize noise. When the Moon was completely within the Earth’s umbral shadow (totality) my exposure was 1 second @ f/5.6 with an ISO setting of 640. Then as the Moon passed back out of the shadow I reversed what I did during the first half of the eclipse.
 Many people have asked me about the color of the Moon when it is in totality. This particular eclipse featured a beautiful brick orange/red color. The color is determined by the way light is refracted through particles and clouds in the Earth’s atmosphere as it curves around the surface of the Earth. Depending on cloud cover, pollution, fires and recent volcanic activity, the color of an eclipsed moon can vary from light orange to brick red to dark brown. The difference in brightness between the lit and shadowed portions of the Moon during partial eclipse is so great that a camera can not “see” both the dark and light side at the same time. However, the human eye can, so when we observe an eclipse we see the reddish shadow advancing across the bright face of the moon but we see detail in all areas. What a camera sees is either the red shadowed side with the light side completely white, or the light side with the shadowed side completely black. By blending two different exposures of the moon in Photoshop, I was able to create an image that shows detail in both the shadowed and lit portions of the Moon during partial eclipse, much closer to the way it would appear the human eye.
I hope you have enjoyed viewing my lunar eclipse photography and found the information on eclipses and how to photograph them helpful. My lunar eclipse photos are available as signed art prints as well as more affordable special editon poster prints. If you are interested in purchasing a signed art print or a special edition poster, please contact me HERE.
Posted in Digital Image Editing Tips, Digital Photography Tips, Photography Journal | No Comments »
Thursday, June 7th, 2007
One of the factors that can often make the difference between a photo being eye-popping mind candy and lackluster visual soup is the appropriate amount of contrast. Photographically speaking, contrast is the difference between the light and dark areas of an image. The less difference, the less contrast and the more difference the more contrast, one of the few things in the confusing world of photography that has a direct and logical correlation. In some images, such as foggy landscapes, low contrast is the goal. For other images, low contrast makes the image look muddy, washed out and lifeless. Depending on the nature and direction of the light source and how the light is interacting with the atmosphere, digital camera sensors naturally capture some images with less contrast and others with more contrast. Images that come out of the camera with more contrast are not usually a problem since our eyes and brains see it that way automatically. However, digital images often have too little contrast as captured by the camera. Fortunately, digital imaging software such as Photoshop gives us tools to bring low contrast images back from hazy obscurity. Below I will outline a few simple techniques to put some pop back into your low contrast images.
Open a low contrast image in the photo editing software of your choice. I use Adobe Photoshop, so my tips will be specific to that software, but most programs use very similar approaches.
Check the levels. In Photoshop, go to Image>Adjustments>Levels (or type control + L) to open the Levels dialog box. The histogram shows you the spread of color values in your image. The highlights are on the right and the shadows are on the left. If either end of the histogram doesn’t reach the end of the graph then your lights, darks or both aren’t as light or dark as they could/should be. By pulling the sliders in to meet the ends of the histogram data you will be darkening the darks and lightening the lights, which by definition will increase the contrast of your image. Hint: pulling the sliders past the end of the histogram data is generally a no-no. It will “clip” information from your image causing some areas to be completely black or completely white. Avoid this unless you are purposefully going for a Euro-fashion, impressionistic look.
   Create an “S” curve. Making Levels adjustments, as explained above, is usually a good place to begin on every image. However many images will have Levels that are already in the right range. Some images with the Levels in the correct range will still benefit from some additional contrast control. Open the Curves dialog box by going to Image>Adjustments>Curves (or type control + M). (Note: Photoshop Elements does not feature a Curves adjustment so you are stuck using just Levels.) The Curves dialog features a grid with a 45-degree diagonal line bisecting it. The lower left of the grid represents darks and the upper right represents lights. It is most often desirable to try to increase contrast without losing detail in the shadows and highlights, as discussed above. To increase shadows without losing detail, click on the diagonal line towards the lower left and drag that point down slightly. To increase the highlights without losing detail, click on the diagonal line towards the upper right and drag that point up slightly. This will create an “S” curve on the graph. Such an “S” curve increases contrast in your image. It is easy to go to far with this adjustment, so watch that itchy mouse-button finger. If you do go too far it is a simple matter to re-click each point and move it up or down until the right amount of contrast is achieved.
 
Posted in Digital Image Editing Tips | 6 Comments »
|
