Monthly Archives: February 2013

Pics of the day

Posted on by
Reply

Time for a few pictures of the last few days, and a simple discussion of each. Miscellaneous Thursday!

One flash, off-camera, is needed for this (thanks for the tilted composition, Adnan: well done):

Expose for a dark background and use the flash, direct if you want. Another take of the same session:

Michael Willems, Photographer

Both of those have been altered a little in Lightroom: less saturation, more presence. A fashionable technique for post work on dramatic images. But the alteration does not make a material difference: the original looks the same in terms of dark background and dramatically lit subject. It looked more like this: a bright sunny day:

The the evening. 12,800 ISO and the tilt-shift lens while I watch TV gives this effect (unchanged, no noise cancellation done):

As you see, it is clean…  and the shoe as well as the TV with “fringe” are both in focus: the focal plane has shifted. And as you also see, 12,800 ISO is fine with this camera. And yes, I carry my camera all the time.

Even when having a hot chocolate on Toronto’s Distillery district:

Degas-like cropping. And no trickery: I simply focused on the window with the room name.

One last Image of the Day: the Kodiak Gallery in Toronto, where some of my work is exhibited and for sale. To wit, three photos are on permanent display, all visible in this image:

Why show this? Because it struck me that I am getting back to the old film skills: the tilt-shift ;lens needs me to focus manually as well as exposing manually – and when I am tilting or shifting, the light meter cannot give an accurate reading. Ao I have to do it by experience. And I usually get it right or nearly so.

And so should you. To be good, you need to know roughly what kind of aperture/shutter/ISO combination will work, just like you need to know roughly how much your supermarket bill will be without using a calculator. So today, shoot everything manually and observe.

___

NOTE: just one spot left on The Art of Shooting Nudes on Saturday. There is time, if you do it now!

 

Separate!

Posted on by
Reply

Tip of the day: separate your subject from the background.

Like in a portrait like this, of my friend and student, talented photographer Adnan, (using one off-camera speedlight). I suppose it is “OK”, but no more than that.

…but there is no separation between the subject’s head and the background.

Better, use either a hairlight or simply a better background:

We still have the dramatic look, but now we see where Adnan ends and the background starts. And now I could make it black and white:

Simple portrait rules like this make all the difference!

 

Bon appétit

Posted on by
Reply

Since I am hungry, I think a quick Food Photography recipe is in order. Here’s food, from the other day:

My way of shooting food:

  1. I shoot from a 40 degree angle, roughly.
  2. I use selective focus
  3. I use one soft light, and a back light. This can be natural light, or flash.
  4. I crop tightly.
  5. I like to make it look natural – with cutlery, etc.
  6. I arrange things as carefully as I can, and clean plates etc. after arranging.

If you use flash, here’s what you need: a table, the food, a flash with an umbrella above the food, and a flash behind the food aiming at you, possibly with some kind of modifier too, to provide what in portraits I would call “shampooy goodness”, and in food “yummy goodness”. That is all (well – that and the camera).

That’s what it looked like the other day, when I helped a student do some food shots.

And the shots looked like the one above, and like this:

Student Rhonda was kind enough to leave me the fruit cakes, and I ate them. Yum.

 

 

Trixie

Posted on by
Reply

I shall now repeat a flash trick I have mentioned here before years ago. Time for a refresher.

You all know how important it is to avoid, at least when the flash is on your camera, direct flash light reaching your subject. Both in order to avoid “flat” light, and especially to avoid those nasty drop shadows, like this (don’t do this at home, kids):

But you have also heard me talk (and those who come to my upcoming flash courses will learn hands-on) that you should “look for the virtual umbrella”. For most lighting, this means 45 degrees above, and in front of, the subject.

So when you are close to that subject, you aim your flash behind you to get to that point. Good.

But what when you are far, as when using a telephoto lens? Then the “virtual umbrella” may be in front of you. And aiming your flash forward is a no-no, since the subject will be lit in part by direct light.

A-ha. Unless you block the direct part of that light!

Like this:

As you see, I use a Honl Photo bounce card/gobo to block the direct light. Simple, affordable, and very effective. I use either the white bounce side, or the black flag side, depending on the ceiling and position.

Simple, effective – done!

And one more thing. Direct flash is not bad per sé. Not at all. As long as it is not coming from where your lens is, it can be very effective, like in this “funny face” shot of a recent student (you know who you are):

Lit by a direct, unmodified flash. And the hairlight, the shampooy goodness? Yeah. The sun. Just saying.

(And yes, that too is something I will teach those of you who sign up for one of my upcoming flash courses.)

 

A bottle is a bottle is a bottle?

Posted on by
Reply

I don’t think so.  Look at this bottle:

Now look at this bottle:

Now look at this bottle:

They are of course the same bottle, same  time, same camera, same lens: but lit very differently. Number one, back lit with visible background. Number two, lit from its front by soft umbrella light, with a simple reflector/scrim background. Number three, back lit with soft light, bounced against the reflector; also with that same simple background.

The point is: hardness/softness of light and direction of light will make major differences to the image. When you make a photo, ask: what if the light was on the other side?  What if it was hard and direct instead of soft? Wat if I had several light sources, not one? And then, try these things. Use flash, of course, not just available light – try both, or a combination. What will happen is that you will get a good appreciation of what’s possible – and these skills will take you far.

One thing you need is flash skills: learn them from me. All new dates on www.cameratraining.ca/Schedule.html – sign up now, if you want to take part in a great learning experience.


Street

Posted on by
Reply

A shot from today, as I was awaiting my lunch Roti, on Queen Street East in Toronto:

Grunge. Street. Sign. Composition. Thought. Storytelling, or rather, making the viewer look at what’s happening and try to figure it out. The moral of this story: carry your camera everywhere. Do not be afraid to use it. Tell stories, raise questions. No, I do not only shoot portraits and nudes.

(Though I do shoot those, too. Look here for a set of two (warning: nudity – if that warrants a warning in your world), and view both: a recent nude I shot, and then one from over 2,500 years ago – an awesome coincidence, as I had never seen this until after the shot. Plus ça change…)

 

Equipment doesn’t matter.

Posted on by
Reply

Except sometimes it does.

When should you buy a new camera? Not often, and not because the new camera has more functions or pixels.

One reason: because it has higher useable ISO. I have talked about this before. Here’s another example, from my Canon 1Dx, which has fewwer pixels than that 1Ds Mk3 I was using before. Fewer pixels plus more modern technology means higher useable ISO.

For example, unchanged from the camera, I just converted this from the RAW to a JPG – an image I shot at a whopping 12,800 ISO at f/2.8, 1/160th sec:

Yes, 12,800 ISO. No noise reduction in Lightroom – this, as said, is from the camera.

Even magnified to real size, 1000 pixels wide (click through to see at that size), it is really good – good enough for a large print.

So with a modern camera you can shoot dinner in a dark restaurant at good quality with an f/2.8 lens, using available light. Is that cool, or is that cool? And that is why eventually you will trade in your 5D Mark I for a Mark III, or something like that.

On a side note:

Q: how did I get both glasses sharp at f/2.8? Shouldn’t f/2.8 from up close look like this, with only one of the glasses sharp?

A: Yes it should. But I used my 45mm tilt-shift lens, which allows me to shift the focal plane to where it is in line with both glasses.

 

About A Crop

Posted on by
2

Yesterday’s post prompts me to talk a little about cropping, today. After all, cropping your picture (either in camera or, more commonly, afterward, in post) is an essential step to making the image what it is.

You crop in order to:

  • Fit to a certain aspect ration (say, 5×7).
  • Get rid of “stuff” that doesn’t belong – i.e. to simplify.
  • Get in close.

Famous photojournalist Robert Capa once said: “if your pictures aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough”. He had a point.

Consider these three images from the other night: the original, and two crops:

There is no “right” or “wrong” in these crops. But I would argue that the third image, i.e. the closest crop, is the most powerful version. They are certainly all very different images, that tell different stories (or raise different questions).

You can crop in camera, or shoot a little wide, to leave space for cropping later (that’s why the Good Lord gave you all those megapixels). I tend to often shoot just a little wide in the camera, so I can creatively crop later.

Exercise: crop your recent images really tight and see what you end up with. Yes, you can cut through heads, as I am doing above.

 

Last chance, plus more chances:

Posted on by
Reply

Allow me to do a little course promotion, because many have asked me for new dates. My Hamilton courses are filling up, but there is space enough, still, if you act:

Click here to see the schedule and to book courses like:

  • The Art of Shooting Nudes, featuring model Danielle (see http://mvwphoto.tumblr.com/ – warning, nudes) has only two spots left.
  • Using Canon/Nikon TTL flash, a shorter version of my full flash workshop, which teaches you all about using those systems with TTL automatic flash for great creative results.
  • The full Flash course, which is also on again, on April 28. I have extensively updated this hands-on workshop!
  • More of my courses are available now also at Vistek Toronto in the next month or two.

This is a great time to learn professional photography skills; or, if you are already a working photographer, to hone your skills. “Digital” has made it much easier: with a good teacher, you can now learn in a few hours what used to take weeks, even months, to learn. Go for it, and be proud of your work!

 

All’s fair in love and war… and art?

Posted on by
5

There is a controversy over the image that won the World Press Photo award. The photographer did some desaturating: read about it here.

Personally, I think that in a press photo, changes are allowed only if they do not change the nature of the photo (i.e. cropping, exposure adjustment, white balance are OK), or if they bring back the image to what a person would have perceived. But when the adjustment is done to make a political point, as seems the case in the above example, I am against it.  There is no well-defined line, so it is a tough call, but if I did that for a press photo, I would not work in press again.

However, in art, all is allowed. The question there is: is it OK to still call yourself a photographer, when you do such trickery?

Like this image from a few hours ago, showing, um, me:

The original, “actual” image, was this:

But then I added some Lightroom effects to desaturate the image, and increase the contrast. Cropped, it looks even better (can you tell, I rather like negative space, and the rule of thirds?):

View at original size to get the idea. Nice, no? And very fashionable. This desaturate thing, like HDR,is all the rage.

But if I do this, am I still a photographer?

On balance, I think so. If I do not overdo it, yes. If the original is still recognizable in the end product, yes. If I don’t do it every time, yes. If I do what can be done in camera, in the camera, yes. After all, photographers have always spent lots of time in the darkroom. Ansel Adams spent more time in the darkroom than in nature. And in the past, you would have chosen a film to give you the effect you wanted, and filters.

So I think that you can do dramatic post as long as:

  1. You do it well.
  2. You do not overdo it.
  3. You could not have done it in camera.
  4. It’s not journalism.

What do you think?