Silver Light Photography

Disasters in Portrait Photography - Episode VII: Toxic Waste Dump

2010-11-08T21:14:00.000-08:00

I get it: industrial backgrounds are "in," but seriously, the photo is cluttered, the girl in back has her eyes closed, and it looks, for all the world, like three small children decided to have a picnic at a Superfund site.

Seize the Day

2010-10-19T18:34:00.001-07:00

Sometimes great portraits happen almost by accident. Take this one. During a break in a family portrait session, I noticed this two year old standing in interesting light with golden leaves to match her hair. A few quick shots later and I had this. No smiles (she's very camera shy), but there's something captivating about the image, no? The hair, those deep blues. Something in the look. It's an image that--at least to my mind--makes one stop AND look.

The point is to not be afraid to "seize the day" and press the shutter button, even if it's not according to plan. Perfect lighting, that perfect moment--it's all rather fleeting, so be sure to grab hold of those little unexpected moments and see what can happen!

Disasters in Portrait Photography - Episode VI: Nice Weeds

2010-09-07T14:39:00.001-07:00

When used properly, selective focus is a beautiful thing. When used clumsily, however, you get ... this. Why, in God's green earth, is the couple out of focus?! To my eye, this is a photo of weeds (what's in focus), and there just happens to be a couple in the background. Looks like a cute moment as well, but no, the grass is far more interesting. Put this in your wedding announcement, by all means, and your seed catalog as well.

Disasters in Portrait Photography - Episode V: Search & Rescue Training Video

2010-09-07T14:32:00.000-07:00

Okay, so maybe "disaster" is a bit strong to describe this one. The concept's not bad: a path, a girl, she's placed off-center left, but what's up with that pose? The model looks neither natural nor comfortable (may have something to do with the pending rock slide) and the image is cluttered: dude, what does that sign say? (Probably "Beware of falling rocks and cheap photographers.")

Disasters in Portrait Photography - Episode IV: Land of the Lost

2010-09-04T11:26:00.000-07:00

These kids are cute, and the colors in this picture lovely, but the children seem to have been placed randomly around the frame and just left there, standing awkwardly, wondering what the photographer wants them to do. There's no relationship suggested between the kids either, and they are each "standing alone."

Disasters in Portrait Photography - Episode III: Earthquake Victim

2010-09-04T10:47:00.000-07:00

The human eye expects things like the laws of gravity to apply, even in photography. So, while shifting the horizon DOES make photos look unique, it also makes them look uniquely silly, and, at the risk of repeating myself, detracts from the subject.

Disasters in Portrait Photography - Episode II: "Off With Their Heads!"

2010-09-03T09:39:00.000-07:00

"Amputation" is the word used to describe a cropping error in portrait photography, and then there's this (triple amputation with a double decapitation thrown in for good measure). Where's the focus on this picture? Looks like an ad for a fertility clinic.

Disasters in Portrait Photography - Episode 1: "There's No Place Like Home ..."

2010-09-03T09:06:00.001-07:00

After reviewing ads for photographers on a local website, I decided I would start a new series called "disasters in photography" highlighting photos that are so deliciously bad they are almost--dare I say?--good. Enjoy.

Though I hope the "badness" of these photos is readily apparent, I thought I'd throw in a serious critique in the spirit of informing rather than merely criticizing. And please know that I'm not trying to make fun of any of these poor models, who only had the misfortune of hiring a photographer of questionable skill and/or taste.

Critique: So, what is this picture about, anyway--is it a shoe ad? Did this bride get lost in the desert and then take off her shoes to recline in the shade of a rock, fending off the vultures with her bridal bouquet? The pose is awkward--the bride looks uncomfortable (not surprisingly) and the props are distracting and compete for attention with the bride herself. Other than that, it's perfect!

Great Article on Portrait Photography

2010-04-28T14:13:00.000-07:00

Ran across this article today at the Digital Photography School: http://digital-photography-school.com/tips-for-portrait-photography. Some great tips--and photos--there. Happy shooting!

Photography as Story Telling II

2010-03-11T16:28:00.000-08:00

In a recent post, I talked about how the best photography often tells a story: it has depth and layers of interest.

My wife Becky snapped this photo the other evening of my youngest daughter. Though a casual snapshot, it tells a story, no? (The yarn under her chin, by the way, is the hair of a doll that my older daughter, Sarah, made for her sister a few year's ago, a doll that has become Mary's greatest source of comfort in times of trouble.)

P.S. Everything turned out okay, and the tooth fairy did in fact visit that night to claim Mary's first baby tooth. A bittersweet day for Mom and Dad.

The Moon

2010-03-05T21:46:00.001-08:00

It walks the sky
cloudless, clear
the moon alone
- Ogiwara Seisensui

The moon rose full on an exceptionally clear night earlier this week. So, I pulled out the camera and snapped this shot. 70-200mm zoom at 200mm. Tripod. Remote switch and mirror lock. Cropped.

To get the detail in the moon, you have to underexpose significantly. So, I used the spot meter, underexposed by one stop, then two, then three, etc. until I got the detail I wanted.

But that's all technical mumbo jumbo. In the end, it's just the moon. Alone.

Window Light

2010-02-27T10:40:00.000-08:00

Ah, window light. I'm a big fan, as anyone who spends much time with my photos can tell.

Why? Because typically it offers the best kind of lighting for portraits: soft and directional, creating that Vermeer-like quality in an image: the deep reflective eyes and warm skin tones. Lovely.

This photograph required almost no post-processing because the lighting was right where it should be, to my mind anyway, and the effect--while possible to duplicate with studio lighting--is soooo easily done without studio lighting (a big plus in my book).

The subject here is positioned close to an open window, at a little more than 90 degree angle from the light (one can experiment with that), with the light either reflected or filtered by a diffuser of some kind (here, high clouds). I also positioned a reflector at camera right, to throw a little light back on the shadowed side of the face. The idea there is to keep some detail in the shadows and prevent the contrast from becoming too sharp.

So, the challenge for the day is to attempt a portrait using window light, if you haven't yet. With low light levels, you'll likely need to either adjust the ISO to a higher setting and/or brace the camera with a tripod (ideally) or against a wall or other object (less ideal, but still works).

Happy shooting!

Vampire Eyes

2010-02-26T16:00:00.000-08:00

A plea to all aspiring portrait photographers: please do not Photoshop your subject's eyes to the point he/she looks like a little vampire. It's creepy, and it's wrong. (Not to mention kitschy--like pink flamigos and garden gnomes.)

Just sayin' ...

The Two-Dollar Diffuser

2009-12-24T13:26:00.001-08:00

Several months ago I wrote a post on reflectors and diffusers and explained how cheaply one can be made. For example, my diffuser cost maybe $2.00 and was constructed from a junk store screen and cheap plastic.

Anyway, I thought I'd post two recent examples. Dads make great "clouds" by the way, and can usually be enlisted to hold the diffuser, at which time I usually start to refer to them as "Cloud," "Mister Cloud," or "Daddy Cloud," as in "Hey, Mr. Cloud: a little to the left."

Both photos here wouldn't have succeeded without a diffuser--and a Mr. Cloud.

Sepia Prints

2009-12-10T11:23:00.001-08:00

What is it about sepia prints? Lately, I've found myself more and more drawn to them for portrait work: more so than traditional black and whites.

Why? That's what I've been pondering. My wife suggested--and I'm inclined to agree--that it has something to do with the warmer tones. So, sepia captures all the great tones and textures of traditional black and white, but the final image is warmer, which seems to suit portraits particularly well.

The only drawback, to my mind, is that many developers used darkroom techniques to create sepia prints in the early days of photography, and so sepia has that "old" connotation. As a result, when used in contemporary photography it can seem a bit gimmicky.

Oh well, I like them anyway. Do you? The good news is that, while a sepia print used to take a lot of time, effort, and specific chemicals in the dark room, one can create sepia prints today with a few clicks of the mouse and a few minor tone/texture adjustments.

So, give it a try! (There's always the back button if you don't like the results.)

Clean Backgrounds

2009-12-09T14:13:00.000-08:00

Backgrounds illustrate both the challenges and opportunities of natural light portrait photography.

In a studio, backgrounds--just like lighting--can be carefully controlled. Outside, however, you have to take the world as you find it: a world that includes cars, telephone wires, and the like--an unending stream of potential image clutter.

So, taking effective portraits out-of-doors means finding good, uncluttered backgrounds (like this one, no? it's a bunch of marsh grass), and employing a few tricks of the trade as well, like using a long telephoto lens and careful placement of the subject to create "bokeh" or a blurred background effect.

It's a challenge, to be sure, but when it works right no sterile studio backdrop can hold a candle to it.

Let 'em be Dorky

2009-11-30T23:39:00.000-08:00

So, here are my four, delightful children, going through the ritual of posing for the annual holiday greeting card photo. Card worthy, eh?

Here's the point. With few exceptions, kids don't like to pose, particularly if they are asked to do so repeatedly. Furthermore, as I'm sure you've experienced, the more you ask them to pose, the worse those poses typically become. One simply solution? Let them dork it up now and then. They want to do it, and, in my experience, it helps relax and loosen them up for the next series of shots.

Besides, all those goof-ball shots make for great blackmail material later ...

Photography as Story Telling

2009-11-16T13:07:00.001-08:00

I am always excited to find new photographers whose work I admire. Stumbled across this one recently: the Indonesian photographer Rarinda Prakarsa, who has an fantastic grasp of lighting, composition, and story telling through photography.

I believe his work is heavily manipulated digitally, but done so with a real feeling for the image and subject matter.

I can't find a stand alone website, but the following link should bring up a wide sampling of his work: http://photo.net/photos/rarindra. Gorgeous stuff.

A Fine Line

2009-10-05T23:29:00.000-07:00

Do you like this picture? I do, but there’s one problem: it’s a lie. A little white lie, but a lie nonetheless. See the red leaves at bottom right? I put them there. Moved them only about five feet, but I still moved them, thereby “creating” a photograph more than “capturing” one.

It reminds me of a photograph taken by a famous Utah photographer that I saw not long ago in the Salt Lake City International Airport: a classic landscape photo, taken on American Fork Creek, a stream that I know and love having spent most of my formative years playing in and around it. The picture shows the dark, sinuous lines of the creek in the background with the branch of a maple tree, covered in brilliant, bright red leaves, arching out over the river. So, what’s the problem? Well, maples don’t grow that close to Utah’s streams, which experience a high, scouring runoff in the spring. As a result, I’m quite sure that the photographer (who shall remain nameless) ripped that entire branch off a nearby maple, and then “posed” it by the side of the river. For shame!

Same goes for portrait photographs. One extreme (we’ll call it “uber-manipulation”) is exemplified by many commercial photographs of women, as illustrated by the brilliant short film by the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty available at the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U. If you haven’t watched it, you should. Unfortunately, thanks to Photoshop, most portrait photography today is rife with that kind of manipulation.

At the other extreme are the minor touch-ups that, in this digital age, follow each and every portrait session. I suppose many people think portrait photography is cool and glamorous. Well, I spend hours—literally hours—after each session, wiping stuff off faces. It may not be as gross as doing it by hand, but I’m still wiping off boogers, dandruff, jam, cookie crumbs, bruises, scratches, spider veins, moles, acne … you name it. I’m just doing it digitally. Ah, the glamorous life of the portrait photographer! Boogers at 2:00 a.m.

Here’s the question: does manipulation matter? I think it does, though I also think that image manipulation falls on a scale from extreme to slight, and that some kind of fair balance lies in the middle.

So, where does that line between “manipulation” and “minor correction and/or enhancement” lie? I don’t know, though I’d offer at least a few factors to consider in making that judgment call:

(1) Does it distract? Far too many image enhancements—particularly in portrait photography—are done awkwardly, leaving a result that detracts from, rather than enhances, the subject. Two areas particularly ripe for abuse? Eyes and skin. Gotta love those children’s portraits with the funked out eyes. I like the pose, but why did you make my son/daughter look like a demon child from the underworld? With skin, the trouble is overworking it until it looks like plastic. Plastic looks good on a Barbie (perhaps), but on my five year old? I think not.

(2) Does it damage? With nature photography, I have real problems with anything that destroys the subject the photographer wants to capture, like the “natural light” photographer out of Moab who, a few years ago, left permanent burn marks on Delicate Arch. This is a tougher factor to apply in portraiture, though I think it covers stuff like making women impossibly thin/perfect.

(3) Does it distort? Again, “distortion” may be in the eye of the beholder, but I think in portraiture, we want to capture our “best selves.” So, I see removing that bit of acne as okay, but the minute my self-portrait starts to look more like Tom Cruise, well, maybe I’ve crossed that line, tempting though it may be … (On the other hand, I do have muscles like Arnold Schwarzenegger, so that’s legit!)

That all probably raises more questions than answers, but it’s something to think about.

(By the way, I took this photograph on the same trip, with no manipulation whatsoever, so there may be something to be said for “keeping it real.”)

Moon Photos

2009-09-30T09:12:00.001-07:00

Playing around with an interesting night sky and long exposures the other night. These are color exposures, and I haven't tweaked the lighting at all.

Follow the Light

2009-09-08T23:01:00.001-07:00

If my last post encouraged budding photographers to learn to "control and manipulate" light, this one encourages them to "follow" it. What I mean is that, sometimes, light needs no control or manipulation, and a good photographer will recognize that moment and take advantage of it.

Consider the two photographs of baby Christian here. The "eyes" have it, no? If these photographs succeed at all they do so on account of the light reflected in those big baby eyes, and I did nothing to modify, manipulate, or enhance that light in any way. To the contrary, I didn't plan on taking a photograph until I noticed how sunlight reflected off a vinyl fence and through the windows was throwing huge highlights into Christian's eyes. A few shutter clicks later and there you have it: like taking candy from a baby ... hah!

Reflectors and Diffusers

2009-08-22T20:36:00.001-07:00

One can't excel at photography without learning to control and manipulate light. To do so, a photographer can employ a wide range of tools, but I'd like to focus on two that are particularly important when it comes to natural light portraiture: reflectors and diffusers.

I'm sure you've seen those white circles professional photographers like to use when shooting outdoors. Well, those little (and not so little) white circles come in two principal types: (1) diffusers, which scatter the harsh rays of the sun, covering the subject in a softer, more diffuse light; and (2) reflectors, typically employed in shady locations or with a backlit subject and used to reflect additional light onto the subject. Fair enough, and one can read about those tools endlessly on various photo blogs and "how to" sites and buy them and try them out and "look professional," but here's the point I want to make: the world is full of reflectors and diffusers, most of them free (or cheap) and readily available.

Best diffuser: clouds.
Best reflector: water.

But that's only the beginning! ANYTHING that reflects can be a reflector, and ANYTHING that diffuses (scatters light) can be a diffuser. Consider for a moment your hand: does it reflect light? You better believe it does. Try holding it close to something small (say, a flower) and notice what happens to the light on the flower. Does that mean one's hands are make for a good portrait reflector? Not at all (far too small), but for that flower close-up? Maybe so.

White objects of any kind make wonderful reflectors: white walls, white cars, white drapes, white snow--anything--but so does literally anything bright or smooth: stone walls, the sides of building, parked cars, you name it. So, keep an eye out for those natural reflectors, and be sure to position yourself and your subject to take advantage of them.

Same goes for diffusers. Can't afford an expensive professional diffuser? Well, I made a diffuser for about $2.50 with an old screen from the local junk store (Deseret Industries). I bought the screen for $1.00 (maybe 3 feet x 5 feet) punched out the screen, and attached a double layer of clear polyethylene pastic in its place. Voila! A diffuser that works every bit as good as an expensive circle thingy. (I've seen similar low-tech diffusers used in professional fashion shoots.) I use another to cover windows: it's a cheap set of sheer white drapes I bought at Walmart for next-to-nothing. (I also bought a few stick on velcro buttons so I can easily attach it to any odd curtain rod.) What difference does it make to the final image that I used a cheap set of Walmart drapes instead of a professional diffuser? None. Nada. No difference at all.

But even if you don't have on hand a cheap set of Walmart drapes, realize that the light is there for the taking: it's a tool you can use if you pay attention and understand what's going on.

So, go forth and conquer. Lights, camera, action!

Making Color Count

2009-08-15T21:53:00.000-07:00

href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBqp7SCa_19QBaZm8eqGu0ygMpGMzXH89nO32ZUepYT6IgT4ErQWm4n1H2PBOJIXUzf9TrvT1Aj_NpHDxnzcGf225Cu7fr9-fRy07N2FT2sZ6lH2fxo8AqWhLQ3k61AUaUd-zlvw4rf-w/s1600-h/IMG_0051_edited-1.jpg">

Paying closer attention to color is a great way to add extra "oomph!" to your photos. So, at the risk of evoking bad memories from junior high art class, I wanted to talk briefly about color and how to use it as a creative tool.

At the top, you'll see the familiar color wheel. (Not quite sure why this version chose to add the funky shape in the middle, though, if I had to guess, it looks like it's designed to serve as a reminder that the primary colors are red, yellow, and blue, and they combine to form the secondary colors of orange, green, and purple.) Considering the various colors in relation to one another, you'll find the "complementary" colors at opposite points on the wheel: for example, red and green, purple and yellow, orange and blue. Nature produces bold complements in spades: think red holly berries and green holly leaves, a field of dandelions and violets, california poppies against a blue, blue sky, or, as in the second photo, a bright red blanket flower against a background of green grass. That picture pops because the colors complement each other.

Now, here's a wrinkle: which colors are "complements" depends on the color wheel you use. So, for example, on an RGB color wheel--the color wheel used in ink jet printing, computer screens, and Photoshop--the complement of blue is yellow, green is magenta, and red is cyan. Fun stuff, eh?

But here's the point: regardless of the source of the color wheel or exact location of Color A and Color B on whatever wheel one chooses to use, complementary colors work: in painting, in advertising, and, yes, in photography.

To illustrate, take look at the final photo. Here the complements are subtle and soft: a slate blue dress (and blue eyes) with a faint yellow wall/drape in the background, and yet that bit of complementary color gives the photo a balanced and refined feel, at least to my mind.

So, give color some thought. Often there isn't much a photographer can do about color, particularly if one is photographing children outside and on-the-fly. But even if you lack the ability, as in a studio setting, to pick the perfect background, often a little foresight can help make color work for you. So, for example, consider putting the little girl in the pretty pink dress in an orchard in early spring, where the fresh green of the orchard grass will act as a perfect complement. Little boy blue? Maybe stand him in front of a row of sunflowers. Get the idea? Think. Color. Create.

In Praise of the Snapshot

2009-08-11T12:10:00.000-07:00

I've discovered a certain tension in portrait photography between control and spontaneity. At the one extreme, a studio gives one ultimate control over every aspect of the photograph (except, of course, your subject); at the other extreme is the casual snapshot, which offers variation in everything: lighting, movement, backgrounds, colors, etc. etc. Little control available there: just point the camera and fire away. Success is equal parts instinct, equipment, and dumb luck.

As I suspect is clear from my various blog posts and photographs, my personal taste leans more to casual and informal settings, even as I sometimes find myself wishing for more control.

I guess what I'm saying is this: I love taking snapshots, grabbing those "moments" posed or casually posed ("psst! hey Mary!!"), the infinite variety of expressions and emotions that play across a child's face.

I suppose that desire is captured in this quote by Henri Cartier-Bresson: "Photographers deal in things which are continually vanishing and when they have vanished there is no contrivance on earth which can make them come back again."

A Last Word on Lenses

2009-08-06T21:42:00.001-07:00

Okay, so we talked about focal length and f-stops, so you know everything there is to know about lenses, right? Not quite.

While those are the primary features of lenses, I need to explain why a 50mm f1.8 lens sells can sell for under $100 at B&H Photo while a 50mm f1.4 lens sells for $400, and an 50mm f1.2L goes for an eye-popping $1350. (You can see these for yourself at the following link: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=search&A=search&Q=&sb=bs,upper(ds)&sq=asc&sortDrop=Brand:+A+to+Z&ac=&bsi=&bhs=t&shs=&ci=274&at=Brand_Canon&at=Lens+Type_Standard&basicSubmit=Submit.) As we discussed, engineering for those extra f-stop values likely accounts for some of the difference in cost, but not all of it. What explains the rest is build quality. Simply put: some lenses are engineered and built for consumers (read: occasional, light use, demand a low price), while others are engineered and built for professionals (heavy use under a variety of conditions, image quality at any cost).

So, for example, a professional lens will almost certainly be built out of metal and the finest optical glass available, while many consumer grade lenses incorporate a lot of plastic into the body and sometimes into the lens itself. Drop one of those 50mm f1.8 lenses and it's probably done. Gone. Finished. (Some pros call them "disposable" lenses for that reason and use them only as an emergency back up.) Drop that 50mm f1.2L on a rock, and, while you probably will have a heart attack, except for a few scratches, the lens itself may be just fine. So, choosing a lens is all about trade-offs. Generally--if you're serious about anything beyond scrapbook photos, you want the best lens you can afford, and you'll typically find the best values in fixed focal lengths (50mm 100mm etc.), but you have to decide what's most important to you. If in doubt, many professional stores will let you take a lens out and given it a trial run for, say, a weekend. For those here in Utah, I believe Pictureline in Salt Lake will let you do that.

One final note: photo retailers sell lenses made in the USA and also "gray market" lenses made elsewhere, which retail for less money. The trick to keep in mind here is that a gray market lens may not have a USA-backed warranty, meaning that if you have problems with the lens, you are out of luck. While a reputable dealer like B&H will make that clear, some less reputable dealers will not. So, I would recommend paying a little extra for a USA manufactured lens or making sure that a gray market lens has a warranty (for example, a "North America" warranty) that can be used in the U.S. If the seller doesn't specify what warranty applies, that should be a warning flag to you.