And still this is current! A question I answered years ago here and on another forum bears a repeat here. The photographer asked:

I just had a client order an 8×10 of a picture but when I crop it in Photoshop, it goes beyond the picture. (like it only fits for a 4×6 or something) What do I do?!?

A common question. For some reason known only to the good Lord, cameras use a 3:2 aspect ratio, while prints, frames, camera stores, and so on usually use 8×10 (i.e. 4×5) or 5×7, which are entirely different aspect ratios.

This means when you print, you have to do one of only three possible options:

1. Crop off part of the image;
2. Leave white bands on the sides;
3. As in 2, but fill those two white bands with fake picture (what Photoshop calls “content aware fill”).

For methods 1 and 2, you probably want to use Lightroom, not Photoshop: in Photoshop you get burdened with having to know the picture size (pixels, DPI/PPI) when all you want to do at this point is set the aspect ratio. In Lightroom, you can simply set the aspect ratio (like “8×10”) without yet having to worry about the size you will eventually want to print at.

For method 3, however, you do need to use Photoshop. You expand the canvas to the size you want, then fill the white areas using that “content aware fill”, and adjust as needed.

But why is this all necessary? I have many people asking me this with a certian degree of perplexity.

Simply because you cannot fit a square peg snugly into a round hole.

To help understand, imagine if the print the client wanted was square. Does your camera take square pictures? Probably not. So to print square you either need to crop, or have white edges (or fill the edges with fictitious material).

Last tips:

• This has nothing to do with picture size, or with things like DPI/PPI. It is simply about the shape of the picture (square, rectangular, etc).
• I typically crop to the aspect ratio I like – not to the one dictated by the frame makers of this world.
• That said, it is often wise to shoot a little wide, then crop later – just in case of this kind of aspect ratio nonsense getting in the way.

Have fun shooting!

I see on ca.urlm.com that apparently, I am most popular in Japan:

I will take that with a grain or two of salt, but I am nevertheless delighted that this blog is read in Japan, the country the hardware we all use comes from.

So, welcome to my visitors from Japan, and keep coming back!

And it’s time I saw Japan again, it’s been too many years.

…I disagree with Scott Kelby on flash outdoors. He says this in this months “shutterbug”:

I agree that you get s “hyper-real” look by opposing the sun. But that’s the entire point! For an artistic people cure, this feeling that a subject is almost superimposed on a shot is often exactly what the photographer desires

According to Mr Kelby, these here are no good, then:

All wrong, says Mr Kelby.

All right, say I. Even though I am doing the opposite to what mr Kelby says you should do. For good reasons, say I.

You can make up your own mind, but whatever you do: never take mr Kelby’s words, or for that matter mine, for gospel. Make up your own mind.

Happened to me too, once -v in spite of decades of travelling.

http://petapixel.com/2016/08/05/olympic-photographer-robbed-rio-40k-gear-stolen-10-seconds/

Sunday I am shooting a photo booth. The photos I print will look somewhat like this:

Even a “mere” photo booth needs expertise. Shooting expertise. Computer expertise. People expertise. For an experienced photographer, all types of photography are fun: photo booths no less than any other type.

Photo walk “composition “. Three hours tomorrow Saturday morning 4 June, 10:30 at St Lawrence Market in Toronto. $99. Interested?

When I was 16, I first saw Patti Smith’s album “Horses”.

The cover photo of that album changed me: I know instantly I wanted to be a photographer. Here is that one photo, taken by Robert Mapplethorpe of his then girlfriend Patti Smith:

Everything comes together. The light, the high-key shot, the left-right angle, the way we slightly look up at her, her hands, the expression, the coat over her shoulder, the contrast, the greys.

I think I have been in love with Patti ever since. And with photography.

A few years ago I stayed at The Hotel Chelsea in New York, where all this happened. I felt in the presence of greatness, of history… everything happened here. Leonard Cohen. Bob Dylan. Andy Warhol. Dylan Thomas. Arthur C. Clarke. The list is long.

Hotel Chelsea (Michael Willems)

And the hotel has, um, character:

Hotel Chelsea, Reception Desk (Michael Willems)

And art. And a sense of history, and time. I mean… I actually stayed where this was made, the picture that set off my interest in photography: how cool is that?

Patti Smith and Robert Mapplethorpe together at the time, by an anonymous photog:

And Patti Smith, by Robert Mapplethorpe, at The Chelsea:

Another beautiful photo.

And finally, one more from me: the view from the hotel – what Patti would have seen if she looked straight ahead:

View from The Chelsea Hotel (Photo Michael Willems)

I just ordered “Just Kids”, Patti Smith’s autobiography of that time, on Amazon.

Inspired, I continue my day.

One of my favourite lenses is the Canon 85mm f/1.2 lens. 

A prime lens forces you to think about composition. It also allows you to blur backgrounds beautifully. And to shoot in low light. It is also consistent: prime means “set up one shots and all similar shots are the same w.r.t. things like depth of field and tolerance of motion blur”.

85 is a short telephoto lens, which is great for portraits. You can get close without getting too close, and you need no great big spaces. Perfect length.

You can make images with extremely shallow depth of field. Especially when you choose to get close:

This lens is great for outdoors portraits, but also indoors.

You get a typical compressed telephoto look—without it being extreme.

The 85mm f/1.2 is sharp, very sharp.

It is very sharp, with beautiful bokeh, and the manual focus mechanism, being electronic, is the smoothest I have used, ever. Yes, it autofocuses also.

This is my favourite lens now, I am safe in saying. For many purposes: not just portraits. More later.

PS I am doing a studio lighting workshop tomorrow, Sunday 1 May. Just saying. I need signups to go ahead, but not many—it is limited to 4 participants.