Pic. 1 (Extreme HDR) by David Morris _______Pic. 2 (Subtle HDR) by Erik Söderström

HDR photographs are generally achieved by capturing multiple standard photographs with any camera that allows manual over-/under-exposures. The next step is to use exposure bracketing, and then merge the range of under- and over-exposed photos into one HDR image. If you do not have a camera with these capabilities do not despair. Photoshop provides various methods to imitate the effect. I’ve briefly outlined a couple of these below:

A) Create a few different digital images from your original and save them separately. Then just merge them together into one. (see blog: “Double Exposures“)

B) Re-work just one image, by selecting it’s light-varying parts and modifying them via “Exposure” and “Saturation”. I’ll walk you through this below:

First, use the “Lasso Tool” and/or “Magic Wand Tool” to trace around and/or select the darkest, least contrasting section of your image. Perhaps it, in part, fades into the light? Well, in that case, utilize your “Define Edge” button (to the upper, left) and decide on your fade range. Once you have that darkest area (or areas) selected you can go to: Layer ->New Adjustment Layer -> Exposure. You’ll want to slightly bring up the 1st level “Exposure”, and slide “Gamma Correction” towards the right to provide depth to your new brightness level. You may also consider color-saturating that selection: (Layer -> New Adjustment Layer -> Saturation). Play with the “Preview” check box (lower, right of adjustment windows) to make sure the selected area’s border doesn’t clash harshly against its neighboring unselected areas.

Second,  use the “Lasso Tool” and/or “Magic Wand Tool” again to grab the brightest and most exposed areas of your image. Use that “Define Edge” button here as well, if needed. Adjust the Exposure levels again. However, bring the Exposure level down, the “Offset” down to just about -0.0010, and slide the Gamma Correction level to the right a bit to again, to add more depth.

Of course, the key to this method is trial by error and just playing around with the various, selected areas. I highly recommend saving each selected area as you go. You will likely want to re-adjust levels in your attempt to provide your pseudo-HDR rendering the best balance possible. (Select ->Save -> name your selection, and to retrieve it: Select -> Load -> drop box with your titled selections)

Example of the pseudo-HDR method "B" described above

Photo by Melanie Marrow

Double Expose: To merge/blend two images into one.

Creating a “double exposed” image in Photoshop is easier than you might think and can provide you with interesting results. The technique is most commonly used for creating an artistic look. However, it is becoming a popular method for creating a unique ambiance in traditional, straight forward images, when multiple shots of the same image are layered upon each other.

1. First, pick out two images you want to merge together and open them both in Photoshop.
2. Keep the relative image sizes in mind and choose which image will be the “foundation”/bottom layer.
3. Next, press Ctrl + A (command +A for Mac) to quickly select the entirety of the “top image” you wish to be blended over the “foundation image”.
4. Copy that selection and paste it right over your “foundation image”. It will look as if the “foundation image” has disappeared and you will be looking at two windows which should each present that “top image”.
5. Making sure that window in which you just pasted is active, look at your layers in the bottom left corner. Notice that your original image is still there by closing the eye of your latest layer. (Just left click on the eye box.) Before continuing, re-open the eye.
6. At the top of your layers box, on the right side, you will find the “Opacity” controller. If you slide the control down to 50% you will find your two images equally blended together. You can play with this to determine what looks best in your opinion.
7. Make sure to “Flatten” at this point, because you will likely need to do some fine tuning work. (Layer – Flatten Image)
8. I recommend fine tuning with the Burn and Dodge tools, as well as adjusting the Exposure levels. These tools can improve contrast which often gets lost by merging different tones and lighting together.

For examples of this technique and a bit more on the topic, I recommend you check out “Double Exposure Tips and Photos” by Brian Auer.  http://double-exposure-tips-and-photos/

Photo by Hamed Saber

If you’re the kind of person who likes to display your photos in new and creative ways, then we’ve got a fun project you’ll love to share with family and friends. You may seen pictures stringed together in a type of movie before… appearing as if the camera lens is gliding across the image and zooming in or out. Well, there is a free and easy to use program that makes creating these photo film strips easier than what you might think.

This particular slideshow-effect is sometimes referred to as “The Ken Burns Effect”.  PhotoFilmStrip (via FreewareGenius) processes movies out of your uploaded photos in just three, basic steps. 1) You select and upload your photos into the program; 2) you customize the motion path (deciding elements such as where the “lens” starts/stops, how many seconds each picture gets in the film, etc) ,  and 3) you render the video and wait for the program to do its thing. You can make you photos black and white or sepia after uploading, add your own comments/captions, and (highly recommended) you can provide background music for your slideshow. Rendering in full-HD (1920×1080) resolution is a unique option with this particular program, which is, perhaps, one of the reasons LifeHacker recommends it. (Photofilmstrip-creates-ken-burns-style-video-from-images, by LifeHacker.)

A few critiques on the program; Easy-to-use means less artistic liberties for you. For instance, I would prefer that the last frame last a couple seconds longer before the film strip moves along to the next photo, but have no control over that timing aspect. Also, occasionally there would be a glitch in the program by which the latest, uploaded photo into the strip would not appear on the motion path stage. However, I was able to work around this by deleting that photo, saving the strip, rebooting the program and uploading that photo again. (You’ll never encounter that problem if you choose all you desired pictures ahead of time and upload them in bulk, just once.)

These film strips make perfect gifts and are great for posting to You Tube, social networking sites, and even personal photo-sharing sites that can handle the larger file size. The important thing is to present carefully chosen, nice-looking photos, because the “Ken Burns Effect” forces the viewer to focus on each picture for an extended period of time and directs focus to the photograph’s details. (Visit Picture Perfections for affordable, image touch-ups!)

These days, there are many different file formats you can choose when saving a digital photograph.   Yet, choosing the right format can be stressful if you are serious about your photos.  Each format is great in its own way, but some formats are definitely better suited for a specific job you might have.

Compression

When choosing a file format, the biggest factor you should take into consideration is compression.  In short, compression is the method used by a digital camera or scanner to process a digital photo down to a specific file size.

In the realm of photo compression, there are two basic methods:  Lossless and Lossy.  They work exactly how they sound; Lossless looses almost no image quality, whereas Lossy does.  The basic thing to remember with compression is this: the greater the compression, the smaller the file size.  However, the greater the compression, the worse the image quality will be.  So deciding on file size, at the expense of quality, can be a tough decision, when choosing which method to use.

File Types

Here is a basic run down of the common digital photo file types, along with their best uses.

JPEG – This is by far, the most common file type out there for digital photos.  It does use a lossy compression method to process the image.  However when creating the file, most programs/cameras/scanners allow you to set the amount of image degradation.  Of course the higher the image quality, the larger the file size.

“When Should I Use This?” JPEG’s are the go to file type for sharing and cataloging photos.  For this reason, most cameras (especially point and shoots) come with this as their default file type.  The size to loss ratio is usually a perfectly acceptable for the casual photo taker.

TIFF and TIF – They are basically the same, but yes there is a difference.  TIFF’s can be both lossy (TIFF) and lossless (TIF), so may pros prefer this format over others.  It’s usually only available for use in higher end cameras, using the lossless compression method; of course huge memory cards are required.

“When Should I Use This?” Although TIFF can be both lossy and lossless, you will often find them in their lossless form.  Because of this, web sites and many applications are unable to process them, and therefore these file types are best used for printing.  If you’re planning on printing a photo larger than an 8 x 10 photo, TIF’s are usually the option to go with.

RAW – This file type always uses a lossless compression method.  One of the great qualities the RAW is the smaller file size, compared to the TIF.  Yet, the downside is no two camera brands handle these files in the same way.  This might not be a problem for the average person, who only uses one camera, but this just won’t stand for some pros and serious shutter bugs.

“When Should I Use This?” Due to the lossless quality and nonstandard structure, there aren’t many everyday uses for this file type.  Large format printing and high quality archiving are the best uses for this type, but many still prefer TIF’s.

Other Image Types

Although you probably won’t run into these file types that often in digital photography, you will find them on the web quite a bit.  Here’s some info on two worth mentioning.

GIF – One of the first file types on the web.  The GIF can’t handle colors as well as other types, but it does provide a lossless compression method while keeping files sizes relatively small.  Other advantage: animated picture in one file!

PNG – Here is another versatile format that can be lossless and lossy depending on the user’s needs.  Because of this many of the older web browsers can’t handle this format, but today it is the go to file format for web comics and basically any image that involves text.

Comic via Digg

For more info I recommend listening to the How Stuff Works – Tech Stuff podcast on the issue.  They are great at explaining the different types in a way anyone can understand.

Top Photo By Enoch! Retouched by Picture Perfections

ZTUWM6YHZ6QB

9WPHMMD6SUG6

With the rise in self-printing, online developing competitors have drastically lowered their prices for print orders.  To further lower the cost of print orders from online sources, I recommend buying your prints in bulk (saves on shipping and the personal time it takes you to order through various websites.  Also, you can wait for a special and often get your bulk order’s price lowered by %20-50 percent.  (Here are some great sites to check for specials and coupons: Retail-Me-Not, Deal News, and Slick Deals)

Here is a list of top top online Developers and their price for a 4×6 photo development (shipping NOT included):

WINNER:

$.06/print   Winkflash (Winkflash.com)

$.08/print   York Photo (Yorkphoto.com)

$.08/print    Clark Color (Clarkcolor.com)

$.09/print   Kodak Gallery (Ofoto.com)

$.09/print    Dot Photo (Dotphoto.com)

$.09/print  Snapfish (Snapfish.com)

$.09/print   Walmart (Walmart.com)

$.10/print   Shutterfly (Shutterfly.com)

Okay, I'll admit it. I'm guilty...

… and also because the cliché’-ed image is readily available.  If the shot is meant for your eyes only, then by all means, capture that memory.  However, even beginner photography artists should be wary of the over-done subject.

Need some inspiration, beginner?  I recommend this read: “11 Photos You Should Take at Least Once (before you die!)“

Cliche #1: Flowers

It may be hard to resist, because flowers are so universally appreciated for their beauty, and they are pretty easy to come by.  Just try to keep in mind, most up-close images of flowers have been done and most people are in on that fact. (Related Cliches: Insects on flowers, and autumn leaves )     Photo By Holger

Cliche #2: Sunset Landscapes

Also, hard to resist. Sunsets are like snowflakes; every one is “unique”…. and if every sunset picture taken were combined, that blizzard would blanket the world. (Related Cliches: Sky, and reflections in water)

Photo By Tom

Cliche #3: Moving Water (waterfalls, streams, falling droplettes, etc)

When beginner photographers start experimenting with exposure variations, they tend to drown in this cliche. Practice makes perfect, but resist the temptation to grow attached to the theme. (Related Cliches: Tear drop, and rain drops across panes)     Photo By Erik Söderström

Cliche #4: Children and Pets

Advertisers are well aware of the power children have to captivate. Cute pictures of babies and kids are all over the place. However, children and pets (especially your own!) are subjects that are beyond “classic”. (Related Cliches: Young animals, mother-and-child, and animal crossing a field)     Photo By Nicole

Cliche #5: Old Shack/Dilapidated Structure

This common subject evokes the eerie knowing of expansive history. Buildings like these hold much character and are often labeled as a type of landscape. Inarguably interesting to many, but unfortunately exhausted.    Photo by Visualrhetor

One last word – There’s no denying, cliché subject matter, if done right, can be fresh and visually stimulating.  Marko Kulik writes “If you absolutely adore these types of shots, but feel as if they are all too commonly done, challenge yourself. Be as creative as you can with the shot and it will be sure to stand out among the rest.” (Done to Death) That’s great advice.  Always remember to be creative… not re-creative. Photo By

photo by Orin Zebest

Just about 12 years ago, digital cameras started to become affordable and since then, they have gotten unbelievably popular, easy to use, technologically amazing, and pretty darn affordable. Remember the day when every trigger of the shutter was sort of an investment? After all, the price of film and development added up fast. Now, folks snap-off  picture after picture without giving a thought to the price of film, and many people opt out of developing all together. But what do the rise in shutterbugs do with their endless mountain of digital  photos? Answer: PHOTO SHARING. Even if you have no interest in “sharing” your pictures, photo sharing programs are the best way to safely and easily organized all your photo files in one place.  If you do love to share your photos with family and friends, do them a favor and stop emailing bulky files that waste time, (and small, resized images that lose quality.)

photo by Karin Dalzeil

There are so many options on what program to use though! Lucky for you, I have some recommendations based on research and experience and I’ve collected some links to reviews and such to help you decide. Many are free, but if you want to pool thousands of pictures every month, you’ll either have to pay a small fee and/or take the time to build your own website.

1^st Choice: Google’s “Picasa 3”.

It allows users to store and share 1 gigabyte/GB (that is: 1,000 megabytes/MB) of photos for FREE, and that is quite a lot of storage space.

It offers other plans for a price. For instance, you could get 10 GB (that’s 10 times what you would get for free) for $20.00.  It’s easy to use, organize, and search for your pics in this program. It even has facial recognition software to help you sort by people’s faces! It has some basic editing software, geo-tagging software for mapping out you picture’s locations, and some fun collage options – all for free as well. You can title/caption/and post privately if preferred.

2^nd Choice: Yahoo’s “Flickr”.

Free account users are allowed to upload 100 MB/month or 1.2 GB/year.

(It offers two types of accounts: Free or Pro.)  If a free user has more than 200 photos on the site, they will only be able to see the most recent 200 in their photostream. The other photos that were uploaded are still stored on the site and links to these images in blog posts remain active.  Pro accounts allow users to upload an unlimited number of images for about $25.00/year.  Flickr is more of a social networking/online community platform and is a great photo-sharing alternative to MySpace or Friendster because it is designed around exhibiting pictures. It has blogging and mapping capabilities and will even let you pick out your personal icon for your site’s account – how cute!

Other recommendations include  PhotoBucket, which offers 500MB for free and is much interconnected with popular online sites, and has a slideshow and scrapbooking builder.

Also, if you’re willing to pay $40.00/year for a bump in quality, then I recommend SmugMug. Keep in mind; it aims to attract professional photographers.

Blurred images can happen for a number of reasons, such as a smudged lens, movement while shooting, or the object being out of focus. There are a few things you can do to give the appearance of a crisper object and/or overall photo.

The illusion of a crisper object can be lent simply by intentionally blurring the surrounding area. Also, lighting adjustments, such as shifting the image to a higher contrast can do wonders. (Layer – New Adjustment Layer – Exposure – Gamma Correction) The Clone Stamp Tool is going to provide the most dramatic sharpening effect. Use the surrounding material to redraw the lines. Lastly, use your Smudge tool to smooth the re-drawn lines and the Sharpen Tool along the lines afterward, for a finishing touch.

To make the child in the portrait “pop” a bit more, we decided to make the background a few shades darker. However, simply selecting the negative space and auto-filling it with a selected shade of gray would give the “cut-and-paste” appearance.

The background was, instead, filled with a white-gray gradient, which preserves the lighting nature of the original portrait.