Photomom101

Finally

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:31:00 +0000

My new site is finally ready. It is a combination of an instructional blog (like this one) and a photo editing service. For all of you loyal readers who have been following photomom101, there's a special deal. If you want to use the photo editing service, enter the coupon code "photomom" to get buy one get one free! This will be good for a week (through 4/28/10.) Check out the new site, Online Photo Resource.

New Site Update

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 16:51:00 +0000

Ok everybody, I'm getting close to having the new site ready. It's been more work than I thought, but I'm almost there. One thing I've found out, though, is that I'm pretty much going to have to start over from the beginning. This is good news and bad news. The bad news is more work for me - the good news is a better blog for all of you. Since I've learned a lot about blogging over the past eight months, I'll be able to skip some of the mistakes I made. Plus, knowing more now combined with using a better platform (wordpress) will allow me to present everything in a more organized and usable way.

For those of you who haven't been following the blog long, this will be a great way to catch up. I'll be starting off with a series called "30 Days With a DSLR," in which I hope take you from opening the box of a DSLR for the first time to using it with confidence and competence in 30 days (30 days sounds good for now, but that's not firm yet. I'm still whittling it down to the most crucial lessons.) Anyway, I hope you all are excited!

Moving

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:20:00 +0000

So after a lot of thought and resisting the idea, I've finally decided to move my blog to wordpress. There are just too many reasons to do it that I can't put it off any more. I'll be working on this over the next week or so and will let you know when it's all set.

Photo Enhancement

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:55:00 +0000

So, it's been a while (obviously.) I've been working on another project that many of you may be interested in. I'm building a website to start a photo enhancement business. It's still in process, but you can take a sneak peek here.

One thing I need for that site is examples. So if you've got some pictures that need a little help, send them to me and I'll touch them up for free as long as you don't mind me using them as an example on my site. Just email me using the contact link over on the right. Thanks!

Video Instructions

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:43:00 +0000

I've had some requests recently to explain how to make a video like the one above. This isn't a normal photomom101 topic, but I am happy to share how I did it. The only thing is, you'll have to own and have some knowledge of a video editing program to do it like I did.

First I took a bunch of pictures (obviously.) The only trick there is too take them continuously and make sure your settings aren't changing around too much on each shot. You may want to use manual mode, and will probably need to turn off auto ISO if you typically have it on.

Once I have the pictures, I import them into my video software (Final Cut Pro, for me,) and I set the import settings to create stills that are three frames long. So I end up with a bunch of pictures that become video clips all 1/10 of a second long.

Then I drop all these pictures into the timeline, add a title and some music and it's done. So if you've got video software, take a few thousand pictures and give it a try. Then load it on youtube and let us all know so we can watch it.

Capturing Emotion

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 01:28:00 +0000

One of the biggest keys to capturing emotion in an image is getting it sharp - especially the eyes. When an emotional face is sharp in an image, it draws us in and helps us to "feel" along with the subject. So when your kids are laughing, crying, or whatever, make sure you get focused right on their eyes to capture the moment. Consider a couple more examples and ask yourself how these pictures make you feel:

Post Update

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 04:16:00 +0000

In response to a request, I added the shooting data to the pictures in the post below.

Snow Day

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 01:34:00 +0000

I know that snow is not a big deal for many parts of the country, but here in South Carolina it's huge. We got a couple inches of real snow (not just ice like we got a few weeks ago) and it was great. Here are a few shots from today:

Shutter Speed: 1/1600
Aperture: f4
ISO: 200
White Balance: Auto
Focal Length: 55mm
Exposure Comp: +.7

Shutter Speed: 1/1250
Aperture: f4.2
ISO: 200
White Balance: Auto
Focal Length: 68mm
Exposure Comp: +.7

Shutter Speed: 1/1250
Aperture: f4
ISO: 200
White Balance: Auto
Focal Length: 55mm
Exposure Comp: +.7

Capturing the Non-Event

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 03:05:00 +0000

Most of us think about taking pictures at birthday parties and holidays. And whenever something "super-cute" is happening, we are sure to race for the camera, hoping to get it in time. But what about everything else in between? I've noticed that some of my favorite pictures are of everyday things, not necessarily special occasions. Our pictures of "the ordinary" remind me of what was really happening and what life was actually like. So here's a challenge for all of you:

Come up with a list of 10 (or more) normal things that your kids do right now. Then, over the next week, try to get good pictures of those things. If you do this consistently you'll end up with a "photo journal" documenting your family's life. Here are a few regular days of ours from the past few weeks:

Beautiful Baby

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:35:00 +0000

Anybody heard of the beautiful baby competition on Live with Regis and Kelley? Well we tried to enter it, but couldn't. Probably because the last two days to enter (which were when we were trying) thousands of other procrastinators were clogging their server. Anyway, here are the images we would have entered (at least we can show them off here):

Wide Angle Distortion

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:58:00 +0000

I explained last time how focal length changes the perspective of our images. Here are a couple of examples of how a really wide angle lens can expand the scene. Candy Land seems smaller than I remember it from childhood, but it was never this big…

In the second image, notice how much longer the right arm seems compared to the left because of the wide angle stretching effect. If that were a nose, it would look huge. That's why you have to be careful if you ever use wide angle lenses for portraits.

Composition: Zoom and Perspective

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:21:00 +0000

Often when we zoom in or out all we are thinking about is how much of a scene we are capturing - or how "close" our shot is going to be. But zooming has another, very important, effect on our images. Zooming can greatly alter the perspective of an image by compressing or expanding a scene. As we zoom in, the distance between objects in our picture seems less and less. Conversely, as we zoom out, the distance between objects in our picture seems greater and greater. Consider the following two images:

Notice the tree in the foreground (red arrow) is basically the same size. However, the tree marked with the blue arrow seems much farther away in the second image than it does in the first. You can see that all the elements in the two pictures are affected in a similar manner. The fist image was taken at 180mm and the second at 17mm. I ended up with two substantially different images because of the focal length.

Picture of the Week

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:48:00 +0000

Shutter Speed: 1/40
Aperture: f1.8
ISO: 800
White Balance: Sunlight
Focal Length: 35mm
Exposure Comp: 0

What's Wrong With This Picture? (3)

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 03:44:00 +0000

I took this picture a couple of weeks ago (while we still had our Christmas tree up) and it has a pretty glaring problem: it is overexposed. If you can't tell right away from looking at it, that's ok - you will learn with experience. The most obvious clue is the neon yellow in the cheek and nose. If that doesn't seem obvious, consider the histogram:

All of you faithful readers will immediately notice the spike on the right side of the red-channel graph. So the problem is that the colors in the skin look unnatural and uneven. One way to correct this problem is to adjust the exposure compensation, which I did, to -.7 (in this case.) Here are the results:

So I ended up with a better looking histogram. The image is better too, but now seems dark. That's ok though. It's more important to get a good exposure that doesn't fall out of the range of what your sensor can record. Because I captured all the information, a quick adjustment in photoshop produced this:

This was a quick fix, because the second exposure produced an image file with all the information intact. It would have been impossible to "fix" the first image because once you blow a channel(s) out, you can't get that information back.

Would You Be Interested in a Forum?

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:01:00 +0000

Photomoms, I'm thinking about starting a forum or group so that all of you could upload pictures, ask questions, give feedback, and (dare I say) show off some of your own images. I think this would be a great way to learn more about photography and help everybody get better no matter where you are now. Let me know in the poll in the sidebar if that sounds like something you would participate in.

Pictures of the Week - Mr. Mom

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:27:00 +0000

This past weekend I was Mr. Mom while mommy was away. So that means extra time in PJs.

And when it is time to get dressed, my go-to outfit is overalls, or "oree-yalls" according to our eldest. And also, the girls get to pick any bow they want, whether it matches or not.

Histograms Part 6

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:55:00 +0000

Now that you are all experts on how to use histograms to evaluate exposure, here are instructions on how to access them on a Nikon D40 (I would guess that the D40x, D60, D3000 and maybe the D5000 are probably about the same.)

After you do this one time, the camera will remember your choices making it a lot easier every other time, so don't get overwhelmed.

Start with a picture displayed on the LCD and press "ok" in the center of the thumb pad.
Toggle down to "filter effects" and press "ok" again.
Toggle to "color balance" and press ok

Now you are looking at the three histograms you need to evaluate your exposure. They are being displayed as part of a gimmick-tool used to change the color balance in your picture - which you don't want to use - so be careful that you don't make any changes to the color balance by accidentally moving things around. (If you make a mistake, just press the play button to cancel as it indicates.)

After you've done this once, you won't have to do any toggling on the menus because the camera will remember your previous choices. So all you have to do is press "ok" three times in a row and you're there.

If you have another Nikon camera, there is an easier way (typically) to access the histograms. When you are looking at a picture on your LCD, just press the directional thumb pad on whatever axis you don't use to switch to a different picture. In other words, if you navigate through your images using left and right, you will use up and down to scroll through a few information pages associated with the currently displayed picture. And if you navigate using up and down, you will use left and right to see the information. Just go through those information pages until you see the three colored graphs.

If you have another brand of camera, I'm sorry to say I can't tell you how to access the histograms. But most cameras have them in there somewhere, so dust of your manual to find out how to get to them.

Using histograms to evaluate exposure is a lot more useful on your camera when you can make an adjustment and take another shot than it would be later on your computer.

Histograms Part 5

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:55:00 +0000

So now we get to it. It may seem obvious at this point what you can do with histograms (if so, great,) but just in case, I'm going to try to explain exactly how to use them.

When you look at a histogram (hopefully a three-color histogram,) you are looking for mountains of data spreading across the graph that don't bump up against the edges of the graph. If you do have a peak or a spike against an edge of the graph, you will be losing information in your file and consequently, texture and contrast in your image. Additionally, you don't want a large space between your data-graph and an edge (the right edge especially.) So here are some examples…

In one of my very first posts on exposure, I gave same ideas to help judge exposure based on what you can see on your camera's LCD. Those judgements are be based on visual cues which lead to an evaluation that is ultimately subjective. I'm going to use those same images, but this time evaluate them objectively using histograms. Here are the images with their corresponding histograms following each:

The above image is underexposed. Even though the graphs are not bumping up against the left edge very much, the fact that there is no information in the right quarter of any of the graphs tells us that this image is underexposed. Very badly underexposed images may have graphs that are more extreme than this, but those will be more obvious without a graph. This type of underexposure is where histograms are really valuable. If you see a graph like this, use exposure compensation to adjust your exposure.

This image is overexposed. You can see in the red channel, that the graph is running into the right edge - this is often the case in overexposed images of people since most skin (black, white or in between) will show up in the red channel. The overexposure of the red channel causes the neon look in the skin (notice the nose in particular.) If you see a graph like this, use exposure compensation to adjust your exposure.

This is properly exposed image. The graphs come right up to the right edge with out running into it. These are the types of graphs you should look for. Here are some other good looking histograms following their corresponding images:

This last one is a curveball - and an important lesson. The histograms are running into the right edge indicating that there is some overexposure. However, this is a properly exposed image of my daughter. What is overexposed is the snow. That is why there are patches of pure white in the snow where you can't see any texture. The only way to save the detail in the snow would be to underexpose my daughter. I didn't do that since, obviously, she is the most important part of the picture.

In many images, there will be decisions like this you will have to make. So don't just depend on histograms without thinking. If you can identify why your graphs are hitting the edges, and your ok with losing that information (like the snow,) then don't worry about it.

Read Part 6 next.

Histograms Part 4

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:19:00 +0000

Three Color Histograms
To really use histograms effectively when evaluating exposure, you need to use three-color-histograms. If you understand what I've explained in Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3, this isn't too complicated. We must simply realize that our cameras aren't recording different levels of grey, but actually different levels of red light, green light and blue light. So instead of thinking of brightness levels as the variation between black and white, we must think of them as the variations between dark red and light red, dark green and light green, and dark blue and light blue. If that doesn't make sense, come back a read this paragraph again after you read the rest of this post.

When we look at the three color histogram from the picture in Part 3, we see this:

from this picture

So what you are looking at in the graph above is the variation in brightness of red light, green light, and blue light in the picture. So that's how digital cameras work - they record the variation in red, green, and blue light and then overlay the three one-color images to produce color images. So when we take a picture, we need to make sure that all three graphs stay away from the edges.

Next time we will take all the theory and make it practical and usable.

Read Part 5 next.

Christmas Ideas

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:37:00 +0000

I read an interesting post on ideas for taking pictures during Christmas that I thought you all might enjoy. It definitely has some creative tips. Check out 16 Digital Photography Tips for Christmas if you are interested.

Picture of the Week

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:16:00 +0000

Shutter Speed: 1/50
Aperture: f1.8
ISO: 800
White Balance: Incandescent
Focal Length: 35mm
Exposure Comp: +.3

Histograms Part 3

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:36:00 +0000

Read Part 1 and Part 2 first.

So today we actually get to it. Hopefully, after the last two posts, this principle has become clear: the sensor in a DSLR can only record a limited range of brightness levels in any given scene. Because of that, it would be nice to know how well we are utilizing the different brightness levels that our sensor is able to record. Our effectiveness in using our sensor in this way is all about proper exposure. And the best tool we have to know how well we have exposed a picture is a histogram. So here we go…

As I said in Part 1, a histogram is just a graph that plots data. In digital photography, the data that it plots has to do with brightness levels. The graph basically tells us how many pixels were recorded at each available brightness level. So here's what a histogram looks like:

What you are looking at is a graph with all the different brightness levels the camera could record across the bottom and the number of pixels recorded at each level up the side. Here is the image that this histogram came from:

In this image the available brightness levels are used quite well - this is a well exposed image. The hump on the left of the histogram represents most of the wood and hair while the hump on the right of the histogram represents most of the skin and dress. Here is a color-coded comparison of where the brightness levels are actually distributed:

So you can see the large blue hump represents lots of pixels in the image. Similarly, the green/yellow hump represents a lot of pixels too, but fewer than the blue hump. Obviously there aren't a lot of pixels in the red area, which is why that part of the graph is so low.

When you look at a histogram, a well exposed image will have most of the pixels distributed with the humps away from the edges. If there are humps in the graph up against either edge, you will be losing information. Consider these two pictures from Part 1 with their corresponding histograms:

Notice how this histogram has a hump on the left representing the blackest parts of the pipe. A wide range of brightness levels that fell below the recordable range are getting assigned the lowest brightness levels. In other words, parts of the pipe that should have been recorded at levels like 0, -1, -2… were all recorded at level 1 since that is the darkest level available. The result is that there is no separation between what differences in brightness there were in real life. So instead of seeing texture in those very dark parts of the pipe, we just see black patches.

In this histogram, notice the spike on the very right edge. This spike represents every pixel in the sky of the image. Even though there were differences in the level of brightness in the sky in real life, they all fell above the range that was recorded and therefore were all assigned the highest brightness level. So in this image, let's say the brightest level is ten. The problem is that the sky has levels 11-15 in it. But since ten is the brightest level that can be recorded, all those pixels were recorded at ten. Again, because there is no difference in the recorded brightness level, there is no detail in that part of the picture.

Ok, so we covered a lot today and actually started talking about histograms. But there is still a lot to cover including how to use this information when you are taking pictures and the importance of three-color-histograms. Like I said in the beginning, this is a complicated subject, but a very, very valuable tool. I hope you stick with it. Let me know if you have questions so far.

Read Part 4 next.

Histograms Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:12:00 +0000

Read Histograms Part 1 first.

As I explained yesterday, our cameras' digital sensors can only record a limited range of brightness values at a given time. Anything that does not fit into that range will show up as either white, if it is brighter than the range, or black, if it is darker than the range. Here is an illustration that I hope will help you to understand this principle.

Imagine that you are working on a paint-by-number picture in gray-scale. You have eight shades from black to white to paint with. When you look at the picture you notice that there are sections numbered from one to ten. Now, you only have eight shades, so you can't paint all ten different shades that are in the picture. You have two choices.

You can use your darkest shade as #1 and let anything marked with #8, #9 or #10 all be filled in with your lightest shade.
You can use your lightest shade as #10 and let anything marked with #1, #2 or #3 all be filled in with your darkest shade.

Either way, you are going to lose some detail that is supposed to be in your picture. Either the three lightest shades will all be one shade, or the three darkest shades will all be one shade. Look and see . . .

Here is your paint by number picture:

If you had ten shades, it would look like this:

But since you have only eight, you must choose one of the following options:

In the first option, the lighter sky shades are combined so you can't distinguish between the sky, clouds and birds. In the second option, the darker shades are combined so the middle of the flower runs together.

I simplified this picture from yesterday to illustrate this point in a real image:

If my D40 sensor could have recorded more levels, there could have been more detail in the pipe. But anything darker than "1" was all recorded as "1."

I hope this is helping you understand a little bit more about how your camera is working. Please let me know if you have any questions. Ultimately, this knowledge will enable you to judge your exposure much more quickly and accurately. Read Part 3 next.

Histograms Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:49:00 +0000

With this post, I'm in danger of covering a subject that is overly complicated and beyond what photomoms want to know. But I'm going to give it a try anyway, so let me know what you think. Hopefully I can explain it simply enough to be practical and useful.

Introduction
Histograms are graphs that plot data. When used in digital photography these graphs can provide valuable feedback regarding exposure. This feedback is particularly useful because it is objective. It takes a little effort to understand histograms, but once you do, they are quick and easy.

Important Background Information
The sensor in your camera can only record a certain range of brightness values at a given time. That means that if there is too much contrast in a scene, your camera cannot record it all.

It may help to think about your sensor as the paddle in pong. You can move it back and forth from right to left in order to capture a different range of the brightness spectrum, but the paddle can't cover it all. Thankfully, most scenes don't have a "full spectrum" of brightness in this sense, but often the variation in brightness is greater than our sensors can record. Consider these two examples:

In this image I slid my pong-paddle-sensor toward the brighter side of the spectrum so that I could capture my wife and daughter at the other end of this pipe. In doing this, I sacrificed a lot in the darker part of the spectrum. As a result, much of the pipe appears as solid black with no texture.

In this image I sacrificed some of the brighter part of the spectrum so that my daughter wouldn't be too dark. The result is that the sky is pure white without any detail.

If you understand this principle, you are on your way to understanding histograms and using them to your advantage. Read Part 2 next..

Judging Exposure

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph) — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:04:00 +0000

In a recent comment, one reader wrote:

"A lot of my pictures look well exposed on the screen of my camera, but when downloaded to the computer - they are way too dark!!!???"

Let me encourage all of you to trust your DSLR more than your computer screen when it comes to exposure. Your camera might not be perfect, but newer cameras (including the Nikon D40) have great displays. Your computer screen, on the other hand, probably won't be accurate. It may be older and dim, making your pictures look dark. Or the brightness value may be adjusted either way to change how your pictures look. Have you ever seen one of your images on someone else's computer and thought, "That's not what it looked like on my screen." Who's screen is right? Probably neither. Unless you have an expensive display that is calibrated regularly your computer screen is giving you a pretty arbitrary view of your pictures. It's not a good way to judge exposure or color. Sorry.
I'll explain how to judge your pictures' exposure from an objective point of view next time. In the meantime, don't trust your computer display.