Focus the Viewer's Eye

Too often I see images where the photographer "finishing" the shot forgets one step. The image is left for the viewer's eye to fall off the edges of what's presented to them. Today's shot is extremely simple in it's composition. A diagonal line from lower left to upper right. Two foot prints, yet it tells a story. Someone was the first person of the day to walk on this portion of the beach. I tend to refer to this type of image as a "wandering" image. One that takes the mind on a flight of fancy. It could be anywhere (well, anywhere warm enough to have someone walking on a beach). It could be anyone. A Robinson Crusoe, along on a barren island. Maybe the person is out in the morning, running to be first in the water. Is the shot taken close to the ground and the feet are very small, or taken from a height and the feet big? The one thing that keeps you "in the picture" is the slight vignette holding you, directing your gaze, not allowing your eye to fall out of the frame.

The "frame" of an image doesn't have to be a piece of wood or metal surrounding the paper the image is printed on. It can (and should) be an integral part of the "finishing" of a print. The eye should be held in the shot by something other than a physical frame. It should also be subtle. There, typically, isn't a reason to beat someone over the head with the vignetting. Occasionally it'll work, but that would be a very rare occasion. If it gets that bad, you might as well put flashing arrows saying "look here". The only thing the viewer should be thinking is the he/she doesn't want to leave the subject of the shot. Anywhere looked at should delicately redirect the person viewing the print back to the area the photographer wants.

Putting a vignette on an image (in Photoshop) couldn't be much simpler. If you have many layers (more than one) affecting the image, first make sure the upper most layer is selected. Get a composite of the completed image by clicking on (get this one) Crtl, Shift, Alt, E. This will put a flattened copy of your image at the top of the stack. Select the Marquee tool and set the "feather" to a reasonably high amount (about 15% of the image's width). The reason for not suggesting a specific number is that we haven't discussed the resolution of the image. If you have a very high resolution image it would be one number, a lower resolution would be a very different number of pixels. Create a marquee, centered, leaving somewhere around 20% of the image around the outside. On a 16" x 20" I'd start at the 2" x 3" point and drag the marquee to about the 2" x 17" point and pull the "marching ants" out to the same dimensions on the right side of the image. Once you have the marquee set, click the delete key. Looking at the thumbnail you should see the the center has been punched out. Change the "Blend Mode" to Multiply. You'll see a fairly dark outer edge of the image has been produced. Use the "Opacity" slider to give you infinite adjustment over just how dark the vignette area is. This is, by no means, an absolute. You may want your vignette to be off centered to draw the eye to the main subject. If that's the case, an offset vignette would be called for.

Remember, finish the image. Don't allow the person viewing the print to decide where to look. Direct the viewer's eye to the place in the shot where you want them to focus. Read more!

What Can You Do If You Don't Have the Right Lens?

I don't know about you, but I certainly don't have the budget to own every lens Nikon has available. There are great places to shoot that cry out for a certain lens. The shot that goes along with this post is a classic. If you're ever up on the Maine coast, you too can have a shot very much like this one. Pemiquid Light is one of those places that almost has a Kodak sponsored marker saying "stand here, point your camera toward the lighthouse, squat down and click the shutter". The small "well" in the rocks fills, daily, with water providing a reflection of the buildings. The clouds are a little more iffy. You can't expect to get the same, dramatic clouds every day. It's a bonus if they're there, but you can't count on it like you can count on the water being in the depression worn into the rocks.

I gave a reasonable sized print of the lighthouse to a couple of friends. They thought it was good enough to frame and gushed about the image. Later, after we parted company they did a Google "images" search on Pemiquid. Up popped a gazillion shots just like the one I had just given them. Next time I saw these folks they said "hey, we saw that same shot online. Did you really take that shot?" I had to explain that Pemiquid Light, from that viewpoint, is one of New England's classic shots and every photographer who's ever shot on the Maine coast has probably stopped there. Portland Head Light is the same way. It's probably been shot (or painted) since the day it was built (1791). I wouldn't be surprised to see degarotypes of the light. (Think Civil War photography.)

What makes the accompanying image a little different from many is the "wideness" of the shot. It was shot using a Nikon 18 - 200mm VR lens, at 18mm. In post production (in Photoshop) a perspective distortion was applied, stretching out the bottom. This gives the impression of having been shot with something closer to a 9 or 10mm rectilinear fisheye. The net effect is to make the distance between the puddle and the buildings appear greater than it actually is.

The other comment I hear about this shot is that it appears to be an HDR (High Dynamic Range) image. Nope! The only (color) thing that was done to the shot in Photoshop was that the saturation of the individual colors (red, yellow, green, cyan, blue and magenta) were brought up past "normal". The high intensity of each color produces a faux HDR shot. Other than that, the super clouds were there. That was just a matter of hanging out until the cloud framing the light got to the right position. They say that timing is everything. It certainly doesn't hurt.

If you ever do get to the Maine coast and shoot Pemiquid Light make sure you stop by at Shaw's Fish and Lobster Wharf. As you can see from the link, it's good. Have a good weekend. See you on Monday. Read more!

Get Rid of Color Cast

First things first. Before starting to saturate colors in an image the colorcast needs to be eliminated. Beginning with neutral image, with no shift in color in one direction or another is an essential step when optimizing a picture. It's easier than you might think. It follows a formula and determines what's black, what's white and what's medium grey. Once you're there the colors can be manipulated in any direction. That would be the case in today's image.

.

The absolute first step is to determine what is the final image you're looking for. Therefore, we'd crop to the aspect ratio of the finished print. That out of the way, it's time to apply the formula for zeroing out any colorcast. This isn't something developed here at the gallery. I first saw it written up by Dave Cross (of Photoshop Guys fame). It absolutely works great and is probably faster to do than it will be to read in this post.

.

First, get a Threshold Adjustment Layer. (The Adjustment layer icon is the B&W "Cookie" at the bottom of the Layers Panel.) This produces a strictly black & white representation of the shot. Drag the slider all the way to the left. This results in a completely white image. Start bringing the slider back to the right until a small piece of black appears in an important area of the image. (If there is something like a night sky in the picture it's going to remain black. Move on to something critical to the image.) In the Tools Panel, select the eyedropper (the Color Sampler Tool The eyedropper with the target). Place a sample point on the piece of (important) black. Second, move the slider all the way to the right. This produces a completely black image. Bring the slider back to the left until the histogram indicates the first "important" area that goes white. With a large enough sample revealed, place a second sample point. (Large enough is governed by what your sample size is set to. 1 x 1, 3 x 3 or 5 x 5 pixels.) We now have the maximum black point and the maximum white point of the image. Place a new layer under the Threshold Adjustment layer. CTRL click the "New Layer" icon to put the layer under the Threshold Adjustment layer. Change the "Blend Mode" to "Difference". What this does is fold the distribution of tonal values back on itself at the 128 level point. Click back on the Threshold Adjustment layer. You'll see that the max value is now 128. Slide the slider back over to the extreme left. Middle gray will be at the far left. As soon as you see a useful black area appear in the image on the histogram, place a third color sample point on that spot. Now we have black, white and gray.

.

At this point either eliminate the gray layer and the Threshold Adjustment layer, or turn off their visibility. You'll see your original image with the three sample points. Occasionally it's tough to spot one or more of the sample points. You may have to look for it. Select a Levels or Curves Adjustment layer for the actual colorcast removal. Up to this point it's all been prep work. You'll see a set of eye droppers on either Adjustment Panel. There will be a black, a white, and a gray eyedropper. Amazing. Select the black eye dropper and click on the #1 sample point. This will set your black point. Select the white eye dropper and click on the #2 sample point. This will set your white point. I'm pretty sure I can leave it up to your imagination what to do with the gray eye dropper.

.

Tada!!! You image is now color neutral. Any colorcast has been removed. Now you can "start" modifying the colors to deliver the punch you're looking for in your shot. Like I said at the start, it took you longer to read this than it will to do it. Give it a try. Some images need very little correction and others need major adjustments. Be willing to play.

Read more!

Know Before You Go

There's a saying called the Five P's. It stands for Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance. That's often the case when it comes to photography. Today's shot was taken in Watkins Glen Gorge in New York State. The hiking trail through the gorge is 1.5 miles long and has an elevation change of about 500 feet. The trip through the gorge takes you past 19 waterfalls. If you're into waterfalls, that's a pretty good falls per miles walked average. You may be able to tell from the accompanying shot (or maybe not), but it's dark in there. We decided to hike down from the top and take the shuttle bus back.

So, there we were, hiking along with cameras around our necks and me with a tripod slung over my shoulder. The cameras have matching quick release plates. Whichever one of us saw a shot would pop the camera onto the tripod and shoot away. As we walked many people looked at us askance. Well, truth be told, they were looking at me with a wary eye, carrying the tripod. Cameras aren't that rare in the gorge, but, apparently, tripods are. Like I said, it's dark in there. To get any sort of Depth of Field (F22) your ISO needs to be jacked up and your shutter speed still winds up at about a gazillion. One woman, hiking up the gorge, commented that she should have thought to have brought her tripod. If she was interested in a shot like this one, yes. If she wanted a shot of "Dad and the kids in the gorge", no. An off the camera flash, shooting on rear sync, would have produced some very nice shots of a family outing.

Needless to say, stopping and shooting on a tripod did make the hour long walk into an all morning affair. This image came toward the bottom of the trail, just past one of the many stone bridges you cross in the gorge. There was a little "step out" area where a tripod could be setup without interrupting the flow of people. I was shooting with a Nikon D300 and rather than sticking my face to the camera was using the "Live View" feature to do my composition. The sound of foot steps fell away, which I attributed to intense concentration. That is until I turned around and saw a crowd, looking over my shoulder checking out the image on the LCD, blocking the entire trail. Oops! It's amazing how many people can see what's going on on a 3" screen. Due diligence was paid and each exposure was made using the self timer to reduce the effect of mirror slap. That might have been just a little over kill considering the pounding feet trouping past (once the crowd dispersed).

The "morale" of the story is to think ahead. If you can picture the shot(s) you might want to get and can visualize the conditions you're likely to find, you can probably figure out most (some) of the gear you'll need to carry with you. Remember, whether it's a tripod, speedlights, filters or other gear, Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance. Read more!

It's Contest Time

If you've been following this blog for any length of time, or have read through older posts, you probably recognize this image. It's been discussed before.

Just for something different we're going to have a contest over this weekend. The prize will be a 20" x 24" print of this image. The contest is easy. Just click on the photo to the right to enter the contest. All you have to do is have the people you invite to check out this blog answer two questions. The first is "Who sent you?". Your friends, family, business associates or strangers would put your full name there. It would be impossible to determine the winner with just the name "John". It could be John Smith, John Jones, John ... The second question is "What is that person's email address. I sort of need this information to be able to contact you. Neither your name nor your email address will go any further. After the winner is contacted, the file with the information will be dumped.

Rather than a random drawing, the winner will be the person who gets the most people to give them credit for suggesting this blog. If "Fred" invites "Sue" and Sue puts Fred's name in as the person who recommended the blog, Fred gets a point. If "Sue" invites a friend of hers, she would get the point. It's not going to flow back up to Fred. I have no interest in making this a pyramid scheme. It's just a fun way to introduce more people to the blog. Good Luck. Read more!

"They Give Us Those Nice Bright Colors ... I Love to Take a Photograph. So Momma Don't Take My Kodachrome Away..." (Paul Simon 1973)

Here's an example of an image that has the colors brought to the tipping point. Any more saturation and it becomes cartoonish. Any less and you don't get the intense feeling of the fall colors in Acadia National Park.

This one winds up being a faux panorama. Rather the several images being stitched together, it's cropped into a pano format. That means decisions have to be made. The first is what is the picture you're going for. It's full width, but taken in from the top and bottom. The bottom of the original has the grassy patch leading up to the edge of the forest. The top had plenty of trees, but not a whole lot of color. Out they go. Neither one was adding to the image and both became distractions. With the grass on the bottom you'd look at it and want to see "something" of interest in the grass. Had there been a woodland creature (a rabbit, a squirrel, a bird pecking for worms) it would have been the "center of interest" and the foliage would become secondary. There was nothing there, so it added nothing to the shot. Why keep it.

The "focus" was to create a mild abstract. To give the colors the stage. If the colors are the objective in the print they might as well be bright colors. Were the colors really that bright? Probably not in the natural world. If you were to look at the original print you'd be able to pick out depictions of things. On the right side you can "see" the head of a person, mouth agape, made up of a couple of yellow leaves that just happen to come together at that moment. Other things that can be seen are depictions of a bird and a squirrel. Neither are actually there, but you can justify them in the image.

There is a master of hiding things in her paintings. Bev Doolittle has done several paintings where the more you look at it the more you see. An example is "The Forest Has Eyes". (The title is a link to a site showing the painting.) Everywhere you look you see Indians watching. It would be interesting to be able to create similar images in photography without making the hidden objects too obvious. I'll have to work on that.

Remember, you can click on every image on this blog and see a larger version. Read more!

And Now, Something Completely Different

Occasionally, ya just gotta play. Sometimes that playing takes a bit of forethought. Such is the case of the image that goes along with this post. You won't typically see a lot of trees with white foliage, but here we have a few. This image is a combination of a straight color shot and an infrared shot of the same scene.

If you read any of the articles on infrared digital photography they'll say you'll have to have your camera modified with the filter covering the sensor removed. With this type of modification you can take infrared shots fairly quickly and you have a dedicated "infrared camera". But, if you'll willing to take long exposes you can coax an infrared image out of a "typical" digital SLR. One of the big things you need is an almost opaque red filter. It's just about something you could use to watch welding going on. If you hold the filter up to your eye, you can't see through it. You have to take it as a matter of faith that light (some portion of the spectrum) will get through. Exposure for the setup used in the infrared piece of this image ( going for max Depth of Field, aperature setting - F22), with the light available on the day it was shot, run about 20 seconds. Having a bright sunny day is a definite help when trying this. The filter was put on with about one thread caught. A set of alternating shots were taken. One for the infrared, then, with the filter off, one for the "normal" color image. The color shots were taken at the meter read shutter speed.

Once the images are captured the post production starts. The infrared shots are tinted red (this can probably be avoided by setting the camera to monochrome setting). Converting the red image to straight B&W can be done in any of several different ways. If you've ever made a B&W out of a color shot you can do the same here. Once you have a good infrared B&W image you'd pair it up with the same image shot in color. Then it's a matter of using the blending modes in Adobe(r) Photoshop (tm) to make the combined image shown here.

With shutter speeds of 20 seconds for the infrared and 3 seconds for the color image, this isn't a casual, spur of the moment type of photography. You need to have an idea what you're looking for in the final image before you click the shutter. It's a style of photography, it's not for everyone, but there are photographers around who do it as a "signature" style. To the rest of us it's something to explore, to get a taste of and move on. It is fun and worth playing with. Read more!