Velox Paper

I was somewhere south of 15 years old and had ridden my bicycle down to the camera store on Colorado Blvd.  It was about an hour’s ride there and another back but I really liked riding my bike… almost as much as whatever adventure I was heading toward.  My brother had just found an old bellows style camera in the trash cans along our back alley and I was riding down to the store to buy some 620 film for the new old camera. I don’t remember the make or model of the camera but I know it had a Carl Zeiss lens and that was good.  It also had a light leak in the bellows, but it was easily fixed with electrical tape.  

The problem was, I didn’t have an enlarger in my make-shift closet darkroom.  So, when I spied the box of paper on the shelf, I thought it would be the perfect size for making contact prints.  So that’s what I did.  I took pictures of people, flowers, trees, my brother and even pictures of pictures.  My parents had a Polaroid and I set about taking pictures of the Polaroid prints so I’d have a negative to work with.

You can surmise that I was pretty much a geek, at least since puberty.  I liked to build things and trips to the hardware store, army surplus and camera store were the starting points for many, what seemed at the time, great ideas.  I built crystal radios, solar-powered transistor radios, electric motors, generators, and even a focused light beam transmitter/receiver for a radio.  If I could have just laid my hands on a laser…

But I digress. My point was that I ran out of film before I ran out of paper and came up with an idea.  Having worked with 4x5 film cartridges in Printing class, I realized that the paper might fit directly in the film guides of the camera and replace the film.  I tried and it did so I started to experiment with exposures to see if I could properly expose the paper to obtain a negative paper image.  Once that was sorted, I just developed it like a print and then put the dried paper negative together with a new sheet of paper and made a contact print, as usual.  The apertures needed to be smaller, for sharpness, and the exposures longer than film but the results were passable.  Not much later, I bought a diffusion enlarger for my darkroom/closet and never looked back.  

Today, that box holds some curling old paper prints, a few flat 620 negatives and a half dozen 35mm negatives.  All from around that time.  They’re nothing to look at really but, in that box, they mark a turning point in my life where I started to see photography as a creative medium; something I could build with.

Mini ZoomA young couple with their new Mini Cooper. Note how the angle adds to the motion effects.

The first thing that you need to ask yourself is what is it you are trying to accomplish with your photos of any particular car.  Are you trying to sell it?  Are you trying to show how it makes you feel or how it represents you? Are you recording it for posterity or, perhaps, you're using it as a prop in a portrait?  The best images make you feel something and this is no different for flowers, fruit, vases, people, landscapes, buildings, seascapes... or cars. 

Into the WindPolished hood ornament from 1937 Cadillac.

The next thing to consider is "scope" of the images.  Is there any particular aspect of the car that is key to your purpose?  For example: the wheels, the steering column, the grill, the headlights, all of it.  Details have their own special beauty separate and apart from the overall vehicle, yet they are often overlooked. If you are only interested in specific details, then the setting or location may not be as important.  However, if you want that full image, then location becomes very important.  SUVs and other recreational type vehicles will "almost" always need an outdoor location like the beach, mountains, trails. I say "almost" because there are no hard and fast rules... creativity would demand that they be broken anyway. That said, you need something that provides a backdrop that says something about the car or will make the viewer feel a certain way about the car, or not. Sometimes a "hint" is all that is needed and allows the car to remain the subject, without distraction.

Probably the most important aspect of the location is the lighting.  What lighting will be available? Along the roadSimply the best car I've ever owned; my 2002 Honda S2000 parked along US Highway 93 between Phoenx and Las Vegas. Outdoors you may have bright sun or cloud covered skies. In a garage, it will be shaded but some areas may be very bright and others excessively dark.  I've found that shaded areas are best... but not dappled shade, for obvious reasons.  Covered parking garages with indirect natural light work well.  Underground garages can also work well but you will need to deal with color temperature issues for the type of lights being used in the garage but they can provide some interesting highlights, if they are not too distracting.  Using flash or other light sources works best when the light is diffused - again, no hard rules.  A garage tends to give a grittier, urban feel and works very well with the sleek, curved lines of newer vehicles.  Antique or more rustic vehicles often do better in open air garages or out of doors.  The most important thing is that the lighting be even.  This will let the shape of the car and details like paint, grill work, badging and wheels pop.  

Pushing the LimitA high angle shot of a new C7 Stingray convertible. Night time images with reflected highlights from streetlights or other sources can be stunning.  Additionally, images taken on a tripod, where the car is "painted" with a flashlight or strobe can be very powerful. The vehicle stands out from any background easily but other background light points like a deep sunset, the moon, lamp posts, stars, or bridges can provide a great backdrop as well. Remember to use a tripod in low light situations.  A sharp, crisp image is paramount.

Depending on what it is you are trying to feature in the photo, the shot angle Woo Hoo!An excited young couple posing with their new car as a prop. can be critical as well, especially if you are using a wide-angle lens. The part of the car closest to the camera can appear distorted and to the point of detracting from the artistry of the car itself.  But it can also add to the image as well.  It all depends on the "look" that you are going for.  Clearly, many shots at different angles provides the best chance of finding the perfect perspective.  Often, going with a high angle provides a clear image of overall car but also tends to compress the perspective.  While shooting low makes the car seem to "loom" ominously and gives a more aggressive look.  If you are trying to accentuate the natural lines, use a more natural focal length, 40 or 50mm, and stand a bit further back from the car.  Try to shoot at a camera level slightly lower than the top of the hood line.  Again, different angles work best going all around the car.

StingrayFuel door detail in toned black and white image. Note how the highlight runs through the key elements.

Be careful not to get reflections in the chrome or body.  This means you will need to avoid shooting square on to the vehicle since you and your camera are likely to become subjects in your image.  Minor reflections can often be removed in Photoshop or other photo processing tools.  Which brings me to dust and other imperfections.  Clean your car thoroughly.  A small amount of effort in wiping and dusting will save a lot of time and effort in post processing.  And, if you're not planning or not able to do post processing, pre-shot cleaning and dusting are vital steps to getting the best possible results.

Urban C7Post processing used to smooth out the overall look of the vehicle while leaving the grunge of its urban locale.

Movement is a big issue.  Cars are meant to move and it just seems natural to photograph them that way.  There are more than just a couple of ways to portray movement in your image.  "Panning" is a common choice and involves moving the camera with the car as it passes by you.  You will need to keep your shutter speed low but not too low.  Probably around 1/60th to 1/100th of a second.  Keep the car in the camera's viewfinder as it passes by and move the camera with a smooth, steady motion.  As the car comes square to the camera, exhale and squeeze the shutter gently so there is no vertical momentum added. Another popular method is by traveling in another car or truck ahead of or even behind the vehicle being photographed.  This can be dangerous so proper precautions should be taken. Again, use a slower shutter speed but keep pace with the vehicle.  Depending on the speed of both cars, the photographed carshould then appear sharp with it's surrounding blurred around it. You can also achieve a similar appearance using layers and motion blur in Photoshop. Import the same image into two separate layers in Photoshop then add motion blur to the background layer with the position of the vehicle in the frame as the focal point of the motion.  The mask around the vehicle in the top layer and use "Transform" to make the vehicle slightly larger than the one in the base image.  You just need to soften around the edges of the vehicle to pull the blended image together.

Mini Coper, Max FunNote how the angle also adds to the motion effect.

Lastly, I'm a big fan of post processing.  Not just because of what can be "fixed" but mostly because of how the mood of the image can be manipulated.  You can add glow effects to smooth paint and brighten chrome or you can go gritty and dark to give amore menacing or even somber feel to the image.  The same image can often be done in multiple ways with different effect and it can be hard to choose which is the best overall.  There's so much that can be done that, if you haven't tried any tools like Lightroom, Photoshop, Topaz or Perfect Photo Suite you are really missing out on half the fun.  Getting the best image out the camera to start with is key but, as said in my favorite quote from Ansel Adams, "You don't take a photograph, you make it".

 

IMG_9446-Edit

But that's not what this post is about. It's about having fun with your pictures by playing around with some new "toys".  Topaz Labs recently introduced their "Topaz Glow" product and I've been anxious to try it out.  Fortunately, there is a 30 day trial available so I signed right up.  Having spent so many hours already editing Christmas images I wasn't thrilled with the idea of more editing but I had to see what this "Glow" product could do.  As I've mentioned before, I'm addicted to the "Wow!" feeling. Sometimes so much so that I have a tendency to "over cook" adjustments and have to dial it back a notch... or two. 

After a quick install on my iMac, I was able to edit directly from Lightroom and I wasn't disappointed. The first image i tried was of my granddaughter's favorite "princess" ornament.   Princess OrnamentUsing "Brilliant Fibers" filter of Topaz Glow. I went with a neon style filter that, although it darkened things considerably, resulted in a fireworks type display at the top of the image.  I played around with the adjustments but, as usual, I found that I liked the effect "full on" the best. 

Under the TreeChristmas packages and toys under a Christmas tree fractal processed in Topaz Glow. Next, I decided on a reasonably well composed but somewhat uninteresting image of packages and toys under the Christmas tree. I tried out a lot of filter types but, when I selected "Brilliant Fibers", that "Wow!" moment hit me as the image seemed to come alive with color. Again, maybe too much - but i loved it! It has actually turned out to be one of my favorite images.

By now, I was feeling pretty empowered by the type of abstract beauty that the "Topaz Glow" fractal manipulations could pull out of some of these "less than thrilling" images. So, I went after a few more brightly lit and colorful decorations and tired out a few more filters.  Of course, most of them didn't really  Garland Hanging on a LightBrilliant Fibers filter of Topaz Glow deliver and I just left well enough alone but, when I found the right image and filter combination the artistic pull was compelling.  And, photography is art. Different medium, different skills and different tools but art nonetheless and, as such, the results should make a connection with the viewer. It should make them feel something.

So, when I say I'm "playing around', that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm trying to create something - usually from something not that great to start with - that gives me the rush that you can only get when something goes directly from your eyes to your heart so fast that your brain can only stop and say "Whoa! What just happened?".

Chris & SarahA side by side and over the shoulder pose works well with couples by keeping both faces in the same focal plane.

In the spirit of "confronting your fears", I decided to set up my portable studio at the family gathering for Thanksgiving at my Mom's house. I forewarned everyone, of course, which accomplished two things: first, I couldn't back out at the last minute, and second, everyone would show up mentally prepared and dressed a little better than normal.

For the unfamiliar, let me explain the concept of a "portable" studio: the key elements of a "permanent" studio thrown into a big-ass, heavy bag. I got mine on eBay and it came with a backdrop stand, three light stands, 3 fluorescent soft-box lights, 12 light bulbs and 3 different cotton backdrop cloths. Throw in some extension cords and clamps and you're "good to go" - mostly.  

There are a few problems, starting with fold lines in the back drops.  You can usually handle that by placing your subject far enough in front of the back drop that it's not in focus and the lines disappear.  But, guess what? Portable studios are usually set up in tight quarters - spare bedroom, office, etc. and there is not much room to work and fewer choices still about where to place the backdrop. And then there's usually some window with a small amount of ambient light that ends up highlighting the creases.  You just have to deal with it so be prepared to spend some time in PhotoShop.

JessicaHaving the subject look up can be effective in opening up the eyes. It also minimizes reflections from eyewear.

Because you're in such tight quarters, the temptation is to use a wider lens. Maybe 50mm or even less. Don't - you may not notice the distortions while shooting but they will become painfully evident in post.  I prefer a 200mm for portraits because of the flat field, shallow depth and you are far enough away that the subject isn't uncomfortable. But a 200mm will almost never work while shooting 8 feet away unless you're going for the "mug shot".  I try and stay as close to a 100mm lens as possible.  It still works in tight quarters and is sufficiently flat.

Aperture is the next most important thing to the lens itself. A 2.8 aperture, or better is preferred but 4.0 still works. Don't be afraid to shoot wide open. Aberrations or softness at the edges will probably get fixed in post through a lens correction filter, cropping or vignetting. A wider aperture provides a shallow depth of field and keeps the attention on the subject, not the background.  There is a huge problem with this approach though. Too shallow of a depth of field will cause parts of your subjects face to be out of focus as well.  And, though that can be desirable at times, you never want the eyes to be out of focus.  The eyes are almost always what pulls the viewer into the portrait.  So, if you are shooting with a wider aperture it is important to focus and re-focus, keeping the focus point on the forward or best illuminated eye of the subject.  Easy to say, not so easy to do. I usually don't use a tripod for portraits. That allows me to move around and get different angles quickly and easily.  My subject will move as well - tracking with me or at my direction. This means my focus may have changed as well.  This happens most often when the subject is more animated by laughing, making faces or hair tossing.  It's not so much a motion blur problem because you can address that with a faster shutter speed or using flashes, it's that the subject's face (and eye) is moving in and out of the narrow focal plane.  Auto focus doesn't address the issue fully unless you can keep the focal point specifically on the eye.  Otherwise, you get shots with forehead in focus, the chin in focus, the cheek in focus, etc. - but not the all important eye.

MichaelStarting with an HDR image gan give a gritty feel to the image and often works well with men. So what to do if you have that great shot but the eyes are not in focus? If the eyes are not too far out of focus, you can add a little sharpening, clarity and brightness in post to just the eyes and it will make them appear to be in focus - sometimes.  If they are too far out of focus, it's usually the trash bin. There are exceptions, of course. Shots with glasses, sunglasses or where the eyes are hidden or obfuscated and another part of the subject becomes the primary viewer focus (e.g. a smile).

That brings me to my next point: it's all in the details. Make sure that your subject has clean teeth and gum line, mascara that has not clumped, combed or, at least, non-frizzy hair, no lint, clean glasses, clear eyes, etc. You can fix a lot in post but it's best to start with as little as possible that might need "fixing". I am a big fan of re-touching, but not re-forming.  Everyone has blemishes or skin aberrations that come and go.  Anything that is not a "permanent" part of their facial features is ok to fix - up to the point that it no longer looks "real".  What I don't like to do is to reshape the jaw line, elongate the face, widen the eyes, etc.  When I first began playing with those things, I thought it was "cool" but, as soon as I started flipping between the before and after images and I was "startled" by the difference, I realized it was just "too much".

Now for the all-important lighting. I said, my "portable" studio has three lights so it makes a 

ChrisA hollywood style with a more rugged look. A warmer tonality makes the image more appealing and the eyes are bright and clear.

great three point system.  I can also turn each soft box on to "half power" to adjust the lighting without moving the lights further back.  This is not only important because of the often cramped quarters but also because the farther away a light box is from the subject, the harsher the light becomes. So, for the softest light, you want a larger light box placed closer to the subject. Usually, I have two lights at 30 - 45 degree angles to the subject and another higher up and somewhat behind the subject as a "hair light". Light boxes can be unstable - especially when fully extended - so I hang weights on the stands, toward the feet. If you don't have sandbags with handles laying around, I've found that a grocery bag with a heavy object in it works well. I ended up using cloth grocery bags with fireplace logs the last time!  Also, watch out for the extension cords. They are easy to trip on and hurt yourself, your subject or your equipment. Keep them out of the way and tape them down, if possible.

JonathanUsing a slight angle in the pose can bring the subject's posture more upright and forward, into the frame. Of course you can also use flash - open, umbrella or boxed. I'm "on the cheap" right now so I only have the one flash and it "does not a system make" so I only use it for "fill" in a "studio" environment. I tried using it to light my subjects from a lower angle in order to soften some shadows but it didn't work out as well as I hoped. It made the subjects faces flatter overall while also darkening some shadows in the upper face, around the eyes. In general, lighting from below is usually not flattering in a portrait and should be avoided. Again, there are always exceptions and one of the most fun things to do with your photography is experiment!

From my other posts, you know that I use Lightroom, Photoshop and Perfect Photo Suite.  I have rediscovered Black & White photography as part of my post-processing with the introduction of Perfect Black & White 8 from OnOne Software. I am particularly fond of the "Hollywood" styles and have tried them on a number of my recent portraits.  They add tone, softness and a glow to the image that is reminiscent of Hollywood in the 40's and 50's. Great stuff - I am looking forward to trying out more filters as I continue with MY experimenting!

I love fine art and landscape photography but, as a friend of mine recently noted, pictures of people are more "interesting".  He has a point.

Manhattan Panorama_HDR-Edit

The first image of the series, "Vermont Barnyard", set everything in motion.  It was a drab, lackluster image that I had managed to ignore for more than 7 years.  When I finally purchased Adobe Lightroom and imported all of the images I'd accumulated over the years, they all came "front and center" back into my life.  I adjusted, I tweaked and I cajoled new life into them and was rewarded with the occasional "Whoa! Where'd that come from?" moment.  That little rush, it turns out, is about as addictive as crack cocaine!  Who knew?

Apparently, Lightroom (or LR as we addicts call it) was a "gateway" drug.  I needed more... so I turned to HDR with the help of HDRsoft's Photomatix Pro.  That was really a "guilty pleasure"; I had entered the realm of "stylization" and surreal lighting effects.  My "Car Parts",  album is that first foray - and I love some of those images.  They taught me to look deeper into a photograph for what might be there - not just at what I saw on the surface.

Then I found onOne Software's Perfect Photo Suite and Brian Matiash's tutorials on stylization.  I quickly learned there was so much that I didn't know (and still don't) but one thing was clear to me: less is more.  I learned to compound effects by taking each from zero to the point where it became "a little much" and then dial-it-back a notch.  The images have an enhanced but still believable look.  The truth is, many of the "enhanced" images are actually a better representation of reality than the original image.  And that's good, because that's what I set out to do - make the viewer feel like they are there.

Still looking for more, I turned to Topaz Labs for effects that weren't in Perfect Photo Suite.  Things like "star effects", "cleaning" and "simplifying" that allowed me to abstract images to works of art.  "Surfer Dude", "Slippery When Wet" and "Right Hand Rails are good examples where the image becomes so much more with an "artistic" spin.

Finally, after all of my "experimentation", I turned to the "heroin" of digital art; the drug of choice for photographers and digital artists everywhere - Photoshop.  My addiction complete, I set about making all of these tools part of my daily life - my "workflow".  And, the truth is, they all blend so well that I now live in an unending fog, medicated by my "drug cocktail" and mesmerized as much by what I have been able to do as by what lies still beyond my grasp.

So, when I say "That's a Wrap!", I only refer to this project, "The Wall", because I am addicted to the rush of discovery.  As photographer Imogen Cunningham once said, "Which of my photographs is my favorite? It's the one I'm going to take tomorrow".

As you might imagine, there have been a few problems and a few surprises along the way. Not the least of which has been the inordinate amount of time it takes to actually publish images on a daily basis.  The mechanics are pretty straightforward: find images from my library, edit as needed, push them to a staging area online (a hidden directory on my website) and then publish one image each day from the staging site to my FB Fan Page. The whole "staging" thing works pretty well since I can actually publish from anywhere I can get an internet connection and I still have over 170 images queued so I'm really less than 100 short to make the whole year.  Not to worry though - I still have thousands of images yet to be digitized and, as you've noticed, I slip a brand new image into the mix pretty regularly.

As easy as it may seem, I could not leave well enough alone so I decided that every published image had to meet certain criteria: each had to have a title and caption along with when and where it was taken (if known).  It also needed to have other basic metadata set such as copyright, my name and my website URL embedded.  So that set up an extra bit of work for each image; but I wasn't done yet. I deided that I needed to track certain data points after each image was published: how many FB likes and comments, number of FB Ad clicks, number of website visits, etc..  That meant extra time for hitting multiple pages on a couple of other websites to collect the data.  But I still needed somewhere to store the information.  So, in my infinite wisdom, I decided to build a book where each photo published was displayed on a page with all of the analytics for that day - add more time for updating the book with both image and data points!

All told, I seem to average an hour and a half each day just re-editing, updating metadata, looking up data points, capturing the data in my "book" and managing the online libraries moving images around.  Of course that doesn't count any time I might spend shooting new photos or even the initial editing of those images.

It can be tough to fit that extra time into my day when it's already full from my day job, a weekend job and building iPad apps in my spare time.  But, lest you think I am complaining; I am not.  The truth is that photography has always been the "Yin" to the "Yang" of my other life.  It lends balance and perspective and, though I may become obsessive about certain aspects of my life at one time or another, I am always pulled back by the "creative" side of each because, no matter what I do, I am "building" something - and that has always given me the greatest sense of satisifaction.

I hope you've enjoyed the first 100 images and that you find the next 100 to be even better! 

There was a point in my life where I subscribed to that thought as well.  It was particularly useful when I was learning the basics.  The assumption was: if I can select the right subject, compose the image and get the proper exposure then I have a technically "good" photograph.  Needless to say, I don't subscribe to the "purist" philosophy any longer - though I still think it is important for every photographer to be able to take a technically "good" photograph with as little assistance from the on-board electronics as possible.  Try it.  Put your camera in "Manual" mode and turn off auto focus.  Now select an image (outdoors in daylight works best here), set your ISO speed, shutter and aperture for what you think is the correct exposure and then manually focus and take the shot.  If you need some tips, see my earlier blog on "Making Light Work". 

_MG_4070_HDR

Okay, so how did you do?  Was your image good enough to print directly from the camera?  The truth is that technology has made getting the "technically good" image much easier over the years.  Multi-point auto focus, built-in multi-zone metering, image stabilization; all of these things make it faster and easier to take pictures.  

But all of that is still pre-processing - it happens before the image is taken.  In digital cameras, the camera actually can (and usually does) go a step further.  It automatically adjusts the image tone (brightness, contrast, color) when it saves the image to the memory card.  So it's actually doing some basic post-processing for you - the same kinds of things that you can do in Photoshop!  Professional photographers usually avoid that in-camera post-processing by having their camera save its images in "raw" format.  This format varies from manufacturer to manufacturer but it basically saves all available image data and creates a very large image file in the process.  The good news is that the post-processing software used by the photographer can leverage all of that information to help create the best possible image.

When using a film camera, photographers often did their own development processing so they could "adjust" the image in case the working negative was underexposed or overexposed.  When they printed the image, they could also select different types of papers and chemicals to give the image a particular "look".  Again, a lot like what is done now in Photoshop for digital images.

Post-processing is as much a tool as the camera itself and, now, with so many options for adjusting color temperature, saturation, sharpness, tone mapping and HDR processing it is possible to take your images in completely new directions - and different directions.  Personally, I use Photoshop to remove annoying and obtrusive bits of trash, branches or telephone lines and then i use OnOne to get the stylization I want.  Often I will use PhotoMatix to blend multiple exposures into an HDR image and I will also use Topaz for additional stylizing.  All of these tools allow me to get the look I want and to capture the viewer's attention just long enough to go "wow!" or "cool!".  Of course it doesn't hurt to have that "technically good" image the "purist" in us strives for to begin with.

The bottom line is that each of your images is, potentially, a piece of art.  How you manipulate the image to evoke the desired viewer response is as much a matter of personal taste as a artist's selection of brush, canvas or technique.  And, like any artist, your goal is to have someone appreciate the image so much that they buy it and hang it in their home or office.

All of that said, there are times and situations where image manipulation can go too far.  A case in point is Journalism.  Manipulating a journalistic image to depict what was not there or to unduly enhance negative (or positive) aspects of a person, event of situation is dishonest and, potentially, illegal.  

In my opinion, image manipulation is as necessary as "developing" a negative or print used to be years ago.  It is up to you, as the photographer, just how much you think the image should be manipulated.

There are three aspects of your camera that control the exposure process: your sensor (or film) sensitivity, the aperture setting and the shutter speed.

IMG_0099 The sensitivity of the film or sensor to light (also called film speed) is rated in a number of different ways but the most common is the ISO rating.  When I was learning photography we used ASA.  In both cases, the higher the number, the more sensitive the film or sensor is to light.  On the surface, one would think “great, get the highest sensitivity possible”.  But, we all know how things work, “there is no free lunch”.  It turns out that the higher the film speed, the grainier (film) or noisier (the digital equivalent of grain) the image.  Although this can be a desirable effect in some cases, it generally results in a loss of detail.

The second problem with film speed is a little more insidious: it changes the range of settings needed for the other exposure components, shutter speed and aperture.  If your camera has a top shutter speed of 1/2000 of a second and the smallest aperture is f/22 then a more sensitive film speed, in bright sunlight, might require 1/2500 of a second at f/32 resulting in an over exposure.  If you have ND (neutral density) filters available, you can work around it – but that’s another subject.  More importantly, what if you want that very slow shutter speed to have a smooth water effect on a waterfall or the wide aperture to make the background out of focus?  You no longer have those options if your film speed is too high.

Conversely, a film speed that is too low will force you to use a wide aperture setting and risk losing focus in the foreground/background of an image or it may force you to use a slower shutter speed and risk a blurred image from camera or subject motion.

In the digital world, your camera can usually change the film speed for you, if needed, based upon your aperture and shutter speed selections.  You simply select AUTO or (A) as the film speed.  But, back in the day (I love that expression), setting film speed was usually a manual affair.  In fact, some cameras even provided film tag holders to keep the box label on the camera to remind you of what film and film speed you had loaded in the camera.  As film cameras became more advanced some could even read the code on the film canister that was loaded and automatically set the film speed for you.

There was a simple rule that we used to “guestimate” exposure: the inverse of the film speed should be used as the shutter speed with an aperture of f/16 in bright daylight conditions.  So, if you were using ASA 100 then, on a sunny day, your aperture would be f/16 and the shutter speed of, approximately, 1/100^th of a second.  This was pretty handy since, knowing that shutter speed and aperture are inversely proportional to each other I could get the same exposure by setting 1/200^th of a second at f/11.

This probably all seems a little useless at this point – after all, who really cares as long as my camera takes good pictures? If that's what you are thinking at this moment, then you need to ask yourself one question: “Am I the photographer or is it just the camera?”. If you are the photographer then you need know how to be in charge – even if you let the camera figure it out most of the time.

_MG_2103 So, now that we know a little bit about film speed let’s talk about shutter speed.  The shutter speed represents the amount of time that the film or sensor is exposed to light.  Shutter speeds usually come in standard increments as well: 4, 8, 15, 30, 60, 125, 250, 500, 1000, 2500, 4000 but these will vary from manufacturer to manufacturer.  Of course, each increment represents the inverse in terms of time (e.g. 125 is 1/125^th of a second). Again, in digital cameras, things are a little different because you can usually select from more increments. 

On the other end of the scale you have shutter speeds that are measured in full seconds. Usually from 1 to 30 seconds; these will display with a quote mark next to them so that you are aware that 4" is really 4 seconds and not 1/4 of a second.

Lastly, there is the “B” setting.  The “B” stands for “bulb” and harkens back to the days of rubber compression bulbs where you would open the shutter by compressing the air in the bulb and close the shutter by releasing the bulb.  And that is, effectively, how it still works.  Pressing the shutter release will open the shutter until you release the shutter button, at which time the shutter will close.  This can be used for many interesting effects which are, unfortunately, beyond the scope of this article.

So why is shutter speed so important?  Because it controls whether or not an action will appear frozen or blurred in the image.  Depending on what effect you want, you may choose to have a slower or faster shutter speed.  If you are shooting a sports event, you probably want to freeze the action and capture a sharp image of that moment.  On the other hand, you may want to have a slower shutter speed to emphasize that objects and people are in motion.

The last component to exposure is aperture, sometimes referred to as an “f/stop”.  The aperture refers to the size of the lens opening with respect to the focal length of the lens.  To illustrate, think of a paper towel tube.  Hold it up to your eye and you can see the opening at the other end.  Even though the opening is about an inch and a half in diameter, it looks small because it is about a foot away from your eye.  Now, cut the tube in half, and hold it up again.  The opening looks much bigger even though it is still the same one and a half inches.  There is more light but nothing has changed except for the length of the tube. 

The size of the opening represents the maximum aperture so, if we want less light, we need a way to make the opening smaller, in effect, reducing the aperture.  This is done with an “iris”, a circular ring with multiple leaves designed to open and close together forming a series of smaller openings and allowing less light to reach the film or sensor.

Depending on the lens, aperture settings generally range from 1.2 to 32 with larger numbers representing the smaller opening.  This is because, once again, we are dealing with a ratio of the diameter of the lens opening to the focal length of the.  In the case of the 1.2 aperture, the size of the opening is roughly 80% of the focal length of the lens. For example, a 50mm lens at f/1.2 would have a 40mm maximum opening.  Clearly, as the focal length increases, to allow the same amount of illumination we need a larger opening and thus, a larger piece of glass on the end of the lens.  This can become prohibitively heavy and very expensive which is why you see smaller maximum apertures on lenses with longer focal lengths.

The math can be affected by some of the optics used but, in general terms, the size of the aperture represents the same amount of light from lens to lens.  That is a 200mm lens at f/4 lets in the same amount of light as a 50mm lens at f/4 even though the physical diameters of the lens openings will be different.

PA200552 Like shutter speed, aperture is also important for a very specific reason: it drastically affects what is known as “depth of field”.  This is the range of distance from your camera to infinity that will appear in focus when the image is captured.  It is very effective for giving depth and perspective to an image by forcing the background (or foreground) to be out of focus – the viewer’s eye will naturally go to the sharp detail of the in focus part of the image.

In an effort to simplify this measurement of light, the EV (Exposure Value) was born.  An EV unit of 1 represents a full stop so, in effect, changing from f/16 to f/11 will change by an EV of +1 because we have increased the amount of light by 1 full stop. Similarly, changing the shutter speed from 125 to 250 will have an EV impact of -1 because we have decreased the amount of exposure time by one full stop.

Why did I put you through all of this?  Because your camera, ultimately, is just a tool.  While it's true that photography is part luck, it is also true that  "knowledge is power" and, with the right knowledge, you can make your own "luck".  

If you are taking "snapshots" then you can probably get by with setting everything on automatic (sometimes called "green box" mode) and letting your camera do the work.  On the other hand, if the artist in you is struggling to be set free or you just find yourself in a "difficult" lighting situation, then knowing what your camera is trying to do and how will let you switch over to "Manual" mode so that you can coax it in the right direction and  get the effect you really want by making light work for you.

When I first laid my hands on a camera, everything was my subject.  I saw lines, shapes, people, plants, textures - gritty, dirty, smooth and glassy.  Of course, at that time, black and white film was all that I had so I taught myself to see in black and white.  Film and development was expensive so I needed to "see" it in my minds eye before I knew if I wanted to spend my money to capture it on film.  My eye would be pulled from one thing to another but, constantly, I had to choose - take the shot or pass it by.

Reflection in Yellow I'm no longer burdened by that dilemma.  I can capture it electronically, review it and then trash it or keep it.  What this has taught me is to trust my gut.  My eye catches something that, on the surface, may seem uninteresting but I take the shot anyway.  Later, sometimes years later, I finally "see" it.  

The image of the reflected building in the office windows here is a good example.  The lines caught my eye while walking along the sidewalk and it seemed a "ho, hum" shot but I took it anyway.  In post, I processed it as an HDR image and tone mapped the result.  The details and the color became evident and even though "enhanced", I finally saw what my mind had already seen, lines, color, pattern, texture all wrapped in a nice composition.

Now I'm not going to say that this is "my best shot" but I am pleased with it and I never would have taken it if I hadn't been shooting from the hip and following my "instincts".  That is why I don't miss the "good old days" - I would never have done that.  It would have been "wasteful" of film and money and although I would have "seen" the shot, I would have passed it by because I would have judged it "not worth it". 

That is why, even today, I will go out in my own yard with my camera and just "see" it.  I see the scattered leaves that need to be cleaned up, debris in the pool, an empty beer bottle.  But I also see flowers blooming, the glistening water, the dogs relaxing and the textures of concrete, stucco, wood and iron cavorting in a hundred different "compositions".  They are all images waiting to be captured - even the beer bottle.  

All of that said, be prepared for some grief for the ones that don't quite work.  I often hear "Why'd you take a picture of that!?" and it's usually hard to explain - beauty is, after all, in the eye of the beholder.  It's your job, as the photographer, to convey that beauty to others and that means you have to look for that "diamond in the rough" that others might pass by.  

Take the shot - you never know when it might be your best.

As you may well know, photographers go through "phases" and often have pet projects during those phases.  Something, probably mundane, catches your eye and it becomes your mission to explore all of its aspects.  Over the years, I've had more than my share.  Some can be interesting; others, not so much.  Some of my friends and family will fondly remember my "Dead Tree" phase - any old scraggly twig popping up out of the ground could qualify if I was in the right mood.  I would go wandering off from the group and someone would say "Where's Duane?" - "dead tree" was the usual response.  As if I had been abducted by aliens and dead, scraggly trees were the bait. Really.  It was so bad that, to this day, if someone comes across a dead tree they still yell out "Quick! Get Duane!".

P6076555 In my younger days (we're talking pre-20's here), I had the "Street Light" phase; how neon lights (or any lights) played off of moving cars or other objects at night.  And, more recently, my "Doors of the Kingdom" taken in London and "Car Parts" in my cousin's own auto garage and car lot.  Now some of these don't technically qualify as phases since they were of relatively short duration (who can really afford to live in London that long); however, they certainly qualify as "projects".

I was discussing photo projects at my office with a friend of mine that had a particularly good idea: "Bathrooms of Las Vegas".  Interesting, but the logistics of hauling camera gear into public restrooms seemed a little dicey.  I think what she really meant was the more opulent bathrooms in some of the luxury suites at the better hotels.  Still, a logistics problem - convincing hotel managers to let me tour the bathrooms of their best suites could be problematic.  On the other hand, if I were quite well known, I'm sure there would be no problem!  

And that's the "rub"; taking on a project usually means exploring the subject "in depth". For a lot of subjects, that can be difficult due to time, money and/or access constraints.  At one point, I thought I would do a series on Arizona golf courses - shots of club houses, signature holes, amenities, landscaping, etc. but the golf course managers were less cooperative than I thought.  For example, Rancho Mañana in Cave Creek, had no problem and happily sent me on my way to explore - even providing a cart for free.  But, when I approached Kierland, in Scottsdale they refused to let me on the course without an escort caddie and then only knowing in advance exactly where I wanted to photograph.  Their excuse wasn't unreasonable: they didn't want some photographer getting in the way and interfering with a guest's game.  However, the end result is that it thwarts any necessary exploration to develop a feel for the course and come up with ideas for the best images.  The work-around, of course, is to do some planning and find out when the course will not have players on the fairways.  That could mean shooting under more difficult light conditions - but that's another issue.

In this day and age, photo projects can also be a little dangerous or controversial as well.  Consider photographing the homeless in parks, alleys or the doorways of downtown office buildings at night. You're likely to get your camera handed back to you in pieces, if at all.  Once, when I was photographing exterior doors in London, I was working my way through the financial district and down toward the Thames on a beautiful Sunday morning when an off-duty police officer ran up and put his hand in front of my camera telling me that it was "not allowed" to take pictures in the area.  I played dumb (I've been told that I'm good at it) but I could clearly see this was the result of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Londoners were not taking any chances that someone was "casing" their buildings for entry points or some other weakness.  It is sad though - where do you draw the line, and how do you draw the line, between tourist, street photographer and terrorist?

Lest you think that most projects are planned, I have to tell you - they are not.  Most (mine anyway) happen by accident.  I will be photographing something, for example: a bright blue door on a masonry office building, and think "I wonder what the door looks like on this other building?" or "What is different about the next door knocker or door handle?".  And you're off...  one thing leads to another and you have hundreds or even more photos that you are culling through, looking for the "stoppers" - the ones that just look really cool or tell a story in themselves.  Maybe you end up with enough for a book or just a page in your web portfolio; but it's a learning experience - and that's what projects are really about.

If you love photography or just want to learn more about it, I encourage you to start your own project.  Pick out something that you love; food, wine, cars, bathroom sinks... it doesn't matter.  Take a lot of pictures.  Learn what worked, what didn't; what looks good and what doesn't.  I guarantee that your will learn more about your camera, more about photography and maybe a little more about yourself too.

The Wall

With tens of thousands of photos in my library, I could do that easily without taking another photo during that same period.  So, I've tightened my rules somewhat; they must have "artistic merit" (generally not a family snapshot) and I cannot have posted them on Facebook, in that edited version, at any point in the past.  Note the "in that edited version" - that's my "get out of jail free" card.  If I can edit an older image (like my Vermont Barnyard) such that it looks significantly different, it qualifies.  In fact, that would probably be my preference.  To find something new in something old.

Now, I have to assume that I will not always be at my computer and ready to edit some obscure image into its next incarnation. So, I can - and will - post pictures from my iPhone, if necessary, to fulfill my "picture a day" commitment.  Again, not my preference, but I do have a couple of iPhone images that I am quite proud of and I do know that some photographer's have chosen to use their phone cameras exclusively. My daughter's friend, Ty,  in particular.  I have been to his site and most of his images are quite original and very impressive.  A phone camera is, generally,  convenient, simple to use, has great picture quality and even has some basic editing software available. It also has the added benefit of being so ubiquitous that it is usually "invisible" in most situations, lending itself well to street photography.

The "wall" project sounds like fun all on its own but I think it will also be interesting to see if it generates any additional traffic to my website.  I think the whole idea, for me, began to germinate when I had a discussion with our Marketing VP (alas, from my real job).  He is intent on using social media in the company's marketing plan and I was offering my "two cents worth".  Social media is a marketer's dream; essentially, people providing the details of their lives and preferences voluntarily.  But, somehow, you've got to tie it in with what you are trying to sell.  Or, at least, leverage it to boost your "presence" in the marketplace.  Boosting my presence... that's my plan and I'm sticking to it!

The good part, for me, is that the logistics of image posting to Facebook have been greatly facilitated by Lightroom 4's publication function.  I just had to set it up by providing my Facebook id and password and then tell it which of my photo libraries to use for posting.  It, in turn, set that library up as a collection in LR4.  I can then move any photos I want into that collection and click "Publish". Bam! There they are on my Facebook wall.

Are you ready?  There's no telling what I might post over the next year - be afraid, be very afraid. Or be excited, I am!

I've been having a great deal of fun lately revisiting old photographs and even a few new ones with a new set of eyes and aided by a few new tools: Lightroom, Topaz and Photmatix.  I can see now that I've been, pretty much, a purist at heart - at least with regard to my photography; the closer to "natural", the better. However, these new (to me) tools have enabled me to do some pretty "jaw dropping" things with, what I previously considered, marginal photographs.

It's quite the rush when I start tweaking a photo that I've seen for years in my collection and see it morph into something new and exciting. Subtle details lost in a (relatively) low resolution jpeg just jump into view and add entirely new dimensions to the image.  Of course, the possibilities are even more profound with a 20 MB RAW image from my newer camera.  

I guess it started when I began reading about HDR (High Dynamic Range) images where multiple, bracketed, exposures are merged together to bring out the details that regular photographs sacrifice to obtain an, overall, properly exposed image.  I downloaded LR Enfuse and then found Photmatix to help me merge the physical images and reduce ghosting artifacts.  However, they also include tone mapping tools that adjust the end result to be more realistic - or not.  Some of these effects make a photograph more like a watercolor or acrylic painting while others add a more popular "grunge" feel.  Putting the right effect on the right photo and making some fine adjustments is literally, an eye-opening experience.

While I appreciate the HDR process and effect, just taking a "flat" image and pulling details out of an overcast sky is probably my favorite thing to do now.  It can add "drama" to the photograph and pull you right into the image.  The irony is that it was always there - at some level.  This picture was just that, flat and unimaginative.  The composition was good and the subject was "classic" but it just didn't go anywhere.  When I started playing with it in Lightroom, it started to come alive so I pushed it just a little more with the Clarity adjustment and the sky jumped out at me and it became a completely different picture.  A few more changes in color saturation and luminance with a slight bump in sharpness and "ouch!" - it looked so good it almost hurt. The final touch was a , relatively, heavy vignette to add a little more drama to the sky and focus the eye on the barn as the subject.

My takeaway from all of this has been that art is not just all around you in life - it's also there in what you've already captured, just waiting to be seen in a different light.