About what you do not see

Posted on by
Reply

Sometimes, what you do not see in a picture is as important as what you do see.  Like in this picture:

There are four reasons I may want to blur the background: It would be distracting. And it is not really part of  the story. And implying is sometimes best. And I might not want it in the image for “facebook/SFW-reasons”.

So I shot this at 800 ISO, 1/160th second, f/1.8, using my 85mm f/1.2 lens.  Yes, f/1.8, and the gives me extremely shallow depth of field, and an extremely blurred background.

Wonderful, but it necessitates me using a very steady hand. After I focus (on the eyes) neither I nor the model must change our distance even by a few millimeters.

Here’s one more, for good measure:

Now, the lens. My 85mm lens on a full frame camera is equivalent roughly to a 50mm lens on your crop camera. And the 50mm f/1.8 lens incredibly affordable and great. So.. if you do not have one, get one. And if you do, use it!

 

 

Go Toward The Light

Posted on by
Reply

One thing beginners often forget is the light;l specifically, where is it coming from.

So tip: always ask yourself that in every picture. Where is the light coming from.

In the picture above, I asked my model to turn towards the light (which was window light on the north side of the room; i.e. soft reflected light). If I had not done that, the back of her head would be lit. In portraits, I think carefully about where the light should be coming from, and usually the answer is “from 45 degrees above, in front of the subject, perhaps left or right slightly”.

And you can do the same. As long as you ask the question!

 

Interview

Posted on by
3

I was interviewed this morning by “Frontaal Naakt”, a leading Dutch opinion blog. The editor, Peter Breedveld, will publish the interview in the next days. In the mean time, some of my work is used as illustrations to his other articles:

One of the questions in the interview was about societal acceptance of nudes. Which, as most of my readers know, are among the many things I shoot.

I told him that in North America there is serious resistance to nudity, and that we, um, kind of missed the 1960s here. Does that sound extreme? Not to me. The Netherlands had full frontal male and female nudity on prime time TV by the 1960s and 1970s. Here, this may perhaps happen eventually, but we certainly are not there yet.

That said, young people in North America are much less prone to having body or nudity hangups than older people. In The Netherlands, however, mr Breedveld tells me, it is the other way around. The pendulum swings everywhere, always. Right now, that is encouraging to me here, and discouraging there, because as a child of the 1960s I cannot understand what anyone would have against the human body; and I certainly cannot see how they would wish to impose those views on others. Those views to me seem Victorian—but to each his or her own.

The other subject was “subjects”. Are all my subjects pretty young women?

No. I shoot people of all shapes, walks of life, and ages—but I will only publish them with permission, obviously, so they are less available. But I do love photographing all manner of people: everyone is interesting. You’ll see a few there I expect. “Selfies”, too. Why not? If I say nudes are OK, why should I not want to shoot myself that way? I could not ask my models to do something I would not do myself.

Are nudes sexual? Not usually; not to me; but there is a continuum. From 0% sexual (medical illustrations) to 100% (porn). I like to think I am somewhere in the lower half of that continuum.

Am I an activist? In a way, yes. I would like society to ease up a little bit on the Victorian values, and start realizing that there is nothing wrong with human bodies. Once you realise that, there’s a lot of freedom, and we all like freedom. Right?

Anyway: anyone who likes my nudes can see them on tumblr (my blog name there is mvwphoto). I would say “NSFW”, but I personally believe this is perfectly suitable for work!

 

The secret of fluorescent

Posted on by
2

Consider this: two images taken at the same time.

Same projector. Same time. Huh?

A hint of what happened is in the projector light. It is the same hue in both images. So the camera’s white balance setting did not change. So the colour changed.

And the light, what was it?

Fluorescent, and that is the reason for what you are seeing.

Fluorescent lights are not continuous. Instead, they go off and on many times every second. Some flash on and off 1,000 times per second, but the cheaper ones go on and off 60 times a second. And that means that if you use a long shutter speed, like 1/60th of a second or slower, you will not notice any strange effects. But if you use a fast shutter speed, like 1/1000th second, then you can easily accidentally hit the part where the light is only just beginning to glow or where it is just going off.

So, when using fluorescent light, use slower shutter speeds than the light’s frequency. Which can be 1/60th second for the traditional older fluorescents.

 

The secret of darkness

Posted on by
Reply

The shot I showed you the other day had a darkish background.

How dark? It was my usual “two stops below normal”. I.e. when I look at the scene, my light meter indicates not “0”, but “–2”.

Today: what happens when you make the background even darker. Like, four stops below normal. I.e. I use an aperture even smaller (I still of course use 100 ISO and 1/250th second).

Now we get a very dramatic portrait:

Which one is right? That is an impossible question to answer. It depends on what you want. On your style. On the picture and its purpose. There is no one “correct” photo. What you need to learn is the techniques to do all this. Then you can make up your mind for each photo you make.

One thing to keep in mind: the lower picture used such a small aperture that the flash had to be sued without a modifier: else it would not have had enough power. If you take my Flash course I will teach you a trick you can use to always know when you have enough power–or not.

___

 

 

 

 

Light, Portrait, #1

Posted on by
Reply

A few words about lighting. Today, two lighting types for you:

Broad lighting—you are mainly lighting the half of the face that is largest to you )turned toward you).

Short lighting—you are mainly lighting the half of the face that is smallest to you (turned away from you).

There are many other types of lighting (Split, Rembrandt, Butterfly, Loop, etc), and they merge into each other rather than being cleanly split (e.g. you could make the case that the second picture is really more Rembrandt Lighting); but these two will do for now.

The effect: Broad Lighting makes a face look broader. Short (or narrow, as I like to think of it as) Lighting makes the face look narrower.

 

Travel!

Posted on by
Reply

It’s Springtime. We Travel. We Come Back With Photos.

But are they Any Good? Relax. In a three hour lesson this Sunday, I teach you how to ensure that they will be good:

  • Camera settings for each situation;
  • What to bring;
  • Travel safety for you and your equipment;
  • What lenses to consider;
  • Composition basics;
  • Common mistakes-and solutions.
  • Practical composition tips;
  • Storytelling, and Using an B-Roll;
  • Post-production tips;

This seminar will allow you to do pro travel photography quickly. You will be amazed at how much better your shots are upon your return!

What you need: Basic camera knowledge, a camera, preferably but not necessarily with DSLR capabilities.

BOOK NOW: LIMITED SPACE. Go to  http://cameratraining.ca/Booking.html and select your travel course. This is a small seminar, max 6 students.

If…

Posted on by
Reply

Robert Capa said: “If your pictures aren’t good enough, you are not close enough”.

OK, he was talking about war photos, but he was right in general. Often, pics are better when you get close.

And you can get very close. Here’s student Chantal during Saturday’s flash course:

We call the above an “extreme close-up”. Yes, you can cut off half a face. The result: you get closer than ever, and the photo has a very intimate and personal feeling.

Your homework: try to do some close-ups and extreme close-ups.

___

More about that pro shot

Posted on by
Reply

As for yesterday’s shot: why do we call a portrait like that “dramatic”?

Because it is dramatic. And it is that for two reasons:

  • Two, you bring drama to colours and texture and contrast and skies by underexposing.
  • One, the (flash-lit) subject stands out clearly against the darker background.

Consider yesterday’s sky the way it “really” was (if the camera exposed the way it wanted):

Now consider the way I shot it (2 stops “underexposed”:

See how the second shot shows detail and texture? And the dark ominous look allows me to light the subject so the subject is the “bright pixels”. Hence, a dramatic portrait.

 

 

 

Pro Aesthetic

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday’s shot of the day was an “amateur” pro shot. Today, a “pro” pro shot. This one:

Lit how? With one off-camera flash (a Canon 430EX II speedlight) on the right, shooting through an umbrella. Using a 50mm lens.

The secret here is the “looks like it’s photoshopped in” look. Without actually using Photoshop or Lightroom. This is shot in camera. And you get this kind of “dramatic portrait” look by making the background darker.

How? The recipe for such a bright day, outdoors shot is simple.

  1. Set ISO to 100.
  2. Set shutter speed to 1/250th sec (the fastest sync speed; on some cameras it is 1/200th or even 1/180th)
  3. Now select the aperture that gives you a dark background, ca “minus 2” on the meter. This is generally between f/5.6 and f/18, depending on how bright it is. In the above shot, it was f/13.

That’s the background done. Now the flash:

  1. Set the camera to master/commander, and ensure the flash on the camera only issues commands (i.e. it is “off” when the actual picture happens).
  2. Set the remote flash to slave/remote
  3. Put it on a light stand and use a modifier like an umbrella if possible. 45 degrees up, on the side. (If possible: if you are shooting at f/18 the flash may not have enough power when you use a modifier, unless it is very close to the subject.)
  4. Test shot. If the flash part is to bright, use flash exposure compensation (FEC) to turn it down a stop. If it is too dark, try FEC as well, but the reason may be “insufficient available power”; in that case, bring the flash closer or dispense with the modifier.

And that’s the shot you get. Simple, very simple. now you go do it!

___

Learn all about this: Buy the Pro Flash Manual

More hands-on courses in Oakville imminent: see http://cameratraining.ca (http://cameratraining.ca/Schedule.html for the schedule). See the Kelby quote on the front page 🙂