Rasmus Rasmussen dot com

5 Noise Makers in Digital Photography

rasmus@theprint.dk (Rasmus Rasmussen) — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:08:44 +0000

If you take pictures for yourself or your friends on Facebook, noise might not be a huge factor for you. However, if you sell your images as stock, or to paying clients, you will want to keep it to a minimum. As an image inspector for iStockphoto, I have seen all kinds of images from every type of camera, and I’ve learned that no matter what you use to record your images, there’s always a chance you’ll end up with some noise. In fact, when an image is rejected for inclusion into the collection, noise/artifacts is very often the reason. So here is a short list of some of the most common ways the dreaded artifacts might appear.

Shooting and Working in JPG

When a JPG file is saved, it compresses the data and causes some quality loss. Even if you save at the highest quality setting. If you shoot in JPG, your image is compressed even as it is being saved onto your memory card. Every time you save that file afterwards, it’s compressed a little more, and more noise appears. The damage done to your file is permanent and irreversible. This is one of the reasons, I always recommend working with RAW, but even if you can’t or don’t want to do that, you should save your file as a PSD or TIFF while you’re working on it, to avoid further compression along the way.

JPG compression will typically show up as “wrinkles” around the edges of the elements in your photo, or as square blocks.

High ISO

While some argue that ISO noise is the digital equivalent of film grain, it doesn’t change the fact that high ISO images will have a harder time making it into your stock portfolio. The exact amount of ISO noise greatly depends on your camera. Some models produce much less of it than others, even within the same brand. If you shoot in well lit environments, it won’t matter much since you’ll be able to shoot at low values always, but if you shoot a lot of dark images, you will want to research your camera’s performance.

Though digital grain is less of a problem in higher resolution cameras (simply because a huge image won’t show the noise as much, when the image is printed or scaled down), I generally recommend shooting at the lowest possible value. Preferably not going above ISO 200.

Low Light Captures

Darker parts of the image contain less data than well lit areas. If you try to brighten a dark spot in post processing, there is a good chance you’ll get noise. This is because Photoshop (or whatever you’re using) has to guess what data to put into your previously dark area, and in doing so, it ends up creating artifacts. Sometimes in the form of ‘pixel discoloration’, meaning green, red and blue dots appearing in the parts you are brightening.

The best way to avoid this, is to expose your images correctly during capture. It’s always easier to darken something (taking away data) than the other way around (adding data where there was none). If that is not an option, you can combat the noise during the processing, though you will still want to be careful not to take that too far.

Too Much Tweaking

Artifacts can come from too much processing. In stock photography, highly saturated images are very popular, but too much saturation will make little blotches appear. Also, bumping up the contrast or saturation too much can cause moire patterns/banding to appear in the gradients of your image. If your image has any blue sky in it, that’s a very good place to check for this type of noise, as is any other large one-color surface. Pay special attention to areas, where a darker shade is transitioning into a lighter one. Obviously, the way to avoid this type of noise, is to not push your post processing too far.

Upsampling

A surefire way to get noise in your images, is to upsample them. Upsampling is when you make your picture larger than it was when it came off the camera. If you shoot microstock, you should not upsample your images at all. Ever. If you also submit to macro stock collections, you may have to do it to meet the file size standards there. In that case, I recommend going about it in small steps, so you can keep an eye on the noise, and on the other danger of upsampling: Softening the focus.

Technically, when you upsample an image, again your post processing software has to guesstimate what pixels to add, where previously there were none. That’s why enlarged images tend to get soft and fuzzy. And not in that nice blanket-on-a-cool-night kind of way. If upsampling is a necessary part of your workflow, I’d recommend you invest in software that’s specialized for the purpose. Otherwise, the best suggestion is to avoid it at all costs.

Dealing with Noise

If you get a lot of noise/artifact rejections on your submitted stock photos, first try to identify where it comes from. By referring to the list above, you might be able to sleuth your way to an explanation. Once you know where the problem lies, you can take measures to counter it in the future. One exercise you could do, is to purposely try to recreate the five types of noise listed above. By doing that, you will get a much deeper understanding of just how far, you can push your camera and post processing. Training yourself to see the artifacts is a huge step, and one that can positively affect your image approval rate.

Remember: When checking your photos for noise and artifacts look at them at 100% resolution. At less than that it might not show, and if you zoom in past full resolution, you might see noise that isn’t really there.

A final note about noise removal software, such as Neat Image or Noise Ninja. These all have one major flaw: They attack noise after it has appeared. In my experience, it takes a lot of tweaking to get the software to behave. Often it will go too far, giving the photo a plastic look, smoothing out details in areas like hair, leaves etc. I have never been a fan of noise reduction software for this reason, and instead of trying to remove it after the fact, I advocate simply minimizing the noise to begin with.

Photo credit: Justin Horrocks

12 Seattleites Website and Next Step

rasmus@theprint.dk (Rasmus Rasmussen) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:04:11 +0000

I recently launched an actual website to act as the official home of my photo project ‘12 Seattleites’. This is the project where I follow local Seattle people around, documenting their lives with the goal of ending up with a portrait of the city itself, through its inhabitants.

I thought it would be a lot easier and faster moving than what turned out to be the case. Finding the right 12 strangers, willing to let me into their private lives, then arranging the right days to go photograph them, requires a lot of footwork and administration.

To get me started, I got some help finding the initial subjects. This investment got me committed to following through and gave me something concrete to start with. However, this being a personal (as in not-profit-making) project, I can’t afford to have someone handle all the administrative work.

My strategy for ‘12 Seattleites’ is to let the web help me. I’ve set up a subject application form on the site, so Seattleites coming to it can sign up and be considered for the project. I’m also showing a few photos off, to give a better idea of what to expect. Having a website is, on its own, probably not enough to get me what I need, but it’s a start and a good source to refer to.

So, next step here is to get the word out about the site. Because I’m working alone on all of this, I’ve chosen a soft launch. The site is there, but I am not pushing it aggressively, for fear of burning out. Later, I will contact Seattle based bloggers and media, hoping someone will pick up the story. Simultaneously, sites like Craigslist and Facebook will be used as channels. None of this, of course, involves picking up a camera.

I work on many projects at once, often jumping back and forth between them. ‘12 Seattleites’ just reached a milestone with the site launch, so I’m taking the opportunity to let that energy seep into other things for a bit and focus on getting some actual photography done.

Creative Partnerships vs. Self-Motivation

rasmus@theprint.dk (Rasmus Rasmussen) — Fri, 29 May 2009 23:25:31 +0000

One of the greatest dangers of working alone, is that you are working alone. There is no one there to crack the whip or hold the carrot, so it is up to you to find your own motivation and inspiration.

There are many tools and websites to help you with this. You can use GTD, project management, celebratory trips to the local [insert frivolous business of your choice], social networking and more, to keep yourself going. All have their pros and cons, but in my experience, none are as rewarding as having an actual real life creative partner.

By partner, I don’t necessarily mean someone that you work with directly. Working side by side with another creative professional, can be just as (if not more) inspiring. Not only is it someone to bounce your ideas off of (after all, a facial expression says more than any direct tweet ever could), but simply observing your partner will get your own creative juices flowing.

I am lucky, that I live with food photographer and stylist, Kelly Cline, who not only is a culinary mastermind, but also a person with a mind that never rests. Sure, I have to listen to all her recipe ideas, gardening plans, baking experiments and none of it really interests me per se. But her passion does. It spills over into her photography, and it makes me listen and watch, until it it rubs off in the form of inspiration and motivation. I think this is actually strengthened by the fact, that though we both share a love of photography, our respective niches and approaches are completely different.

If you work in a creative environment, surrounded by others who are experts in their field, you are lucky. It has a completely different effect than meeting up after work over a drink, because when working, you will be in your element, just like your partner will be in hers. That generates a different kind of understanding, not only of the people involved, but of the projects they are working on. And this is where you might strike gold.

I realize that not everyone is as lucky as I am, when it comes to having a live-in genius/muse by your side. However, there are other ways to cultivate a creative partnership. Some people work in communal spaces, so they get the feeling of having co-workers (plus it’s great for networking). Others set up sessions at their own homes, offices or studios, arrange photo walks and so on. There are plenty of ways to go about it, and there really is no substitute.

So turn off your Twitter, look your personal muse in the eye and ask: ‘What are you working on these days?’. You might be surprised.

Photo credit: Kelly Cline

The Lawyer: Venkat on Copyright and More 2/2

rasmus@theprint.dk (Rasmus Rasmussen) — Tue, 26 May 2009 15:45:52 +0000

This is part 2 (of 2) of an interview with Seattle based lawyer, Venkat Balasubramani, who works with social media, rights, technology and more. We are talking about photography and law, licenses, rights and releases. Don’t forget to check out the first part of this interview.

Why are model and property releases important, and should photographers obtain them for art projects as well as commercial stock?

Model releases are key because the law generally recognizes publicity and personality rights, including for people depicted in photographs. When a picture of someone is being used on the side of a bus in an advertisement, the person’s personality/publicity rights are being exploited, and their permission is generally necessary. Art and reporting are somewhat different. While a model release is advisable, depending on how the person is depicted, the photographer may be able to make an argument that a release is not necessary. Often an art project will be designed to use a candid photograph and obtaining a release is tricky because it’s only logistically possible after the fact.

Also, from a licensing standpoint, most people require model releases in order to license a photograph so my advice is to always always secure a release. However, if you take a photograph of a crowd on a street do you need a model release for everyone depicted? Maybe not. The general rule of thumb is that if the individual is recognizable in the photograph try to get a release, because if you don’t you could run into hassles later on.

RF photography is based on common themes, but where is the line between drawing inspiration from others and plagiarizing them?  

Another tough question that I don’t have the answer to off-hand – ideas themselves are not copyrightable, but the expression of ideas are. Artists and photographers take in a significant amount of input and generate ideas based on collective knowledge. Any art or photography is influenced by existing examples. The concept of a photograph of a “relaxed German tourist sipping a beer in popular Seattle tourist location” cannot itself be protected. If you set out to replicate the photograph then you may be getting close to the line. 

If shooting on location, in a public place, what is the best way to deal with overzealous security and/or police?

 I think it’s most important to know your rights. Photography which does not cause any traffic or safety issues from a public space is First Amendment protected activity. Police officers or public security officers do not have the right to ask you to leave, stop photographing, or to seize your camera. (You also have the right to photograph law enforcement while they are doing their jobs.) Unfortunately, we’re seeing more and more examples of law enforcement harassment of photographers and treatment of photography as suspicious activity. I’m representing a photographer as an ACLU cooperating attorney in one such case, and we’ve seen reports of numerous similar incidents around the country, including in Seattle.  

Maintaining your composure, being cooperative (while not forfeiting your rights) and calmly explaining your purpose are all important. I guess the big question to ask yourself is how badly do you want to make the photograph and not compromise your rights? Given the increased public awareness of this issue, it’s not as difficult as you would expect to find a lawyer to lend a hand, but often the photographer is required to undergo some cost in order to get the photograph or vindicate his or her rights. Simply being rebuffed and going home in response to a security office threat may not result in enough “damage” to take the trouble to go to court over. Getting permission in advance is often not feasible or results in compromising the quality of the photograph.

Two resources that are worth keeping track of: (1) Carlos Miller’s blog - he regularly reports on incidents of photographer harassment by law enforcement and (2) a document created by Bert P. Krages II.

Venkat has been practicing law since 1997. He has his own firm which he started in 2006, and represents primarily internet, technology, and media companies. He also represents several photographers, including an art professor who was detained for taking photographs in the City of Snohomish. He blogs at spamnotes.com, where he writes about legal issues relating to spam, privacy, and online social networks. Like many others, he is probably addicted to Twitter.

The Lawyer: Venkat on Copyright and More 1/2

rasmus@theprint.dk (Rasmus Rasmussen) — Sat, 23 May 2009 02:49:15 +0000

Meet Venkat Balasubramani, a Seattle based lawyer who deals in social media, technology, photography and more. He was nice enough to let me ask him a few questions about copyright, licensing and all that stuff that leaves the rest of us with a big question mark floating above our heads. And he didn’t even bill me for his time. In fact, he was so generous, that the interview will be split into two parts. This is part 1, so let us start by letting the man introduce himself.

What is your background, your specialty and why is this such an important topic to you?

I’ve always been a voracious consumer of media in every form. I appreciate photographers, artists, and musicians, and see the value of creativity and intellectual property (both from a consumer and producer standpoint). As a lawyer I’ve been involved in a variety of copyright/content-related disputes and have advised many photographers and other clients on these types of issues, including the issues that arise in the on-line context or when different media are involved.

What are the most common misconceptions about the internet and copyright/fair use?

Probably the biggest misconception is that fair use is formulaic – I’ve often seen metrics thrown around, like you can use x% of an image without “getting into trouble.” This is just plain wrong, as illustrated by the recent dispute involving the AP/Fairey. Fair use is a very contextual determination, and if the stakes are high enough, will almost always result in litigation.

The second misconception is that if there’s no copyright notice then an image is fair game. An image that does not bear a copyright notice is not necessarily in the public domain, and people often incorrectly assume this is the case. While a notice may bear on the issue of whether infringement was willful, lack of a notice will not excuse unauthorized use.

Two other misconceptions are that attribution cures unauthorized use, and non-commercial use precludes a finding of infringement. Copyright infringement is – technically – any unauthorized exercise of any of the rights reserved to the copyright holder (display, reproduction, public performance, etc.).

What is the difference between owning the copyright and licensing the use of an image?

Licensing the use of an image is to grant someone permission to use it for a limited purpose. The licensor (the person who grants the license) has pretty much free rein to impose conditions on the scope of the license. Owning the image is the opposite of being a licensee, and allows you to freely use an image.

What should I do, if I discover someone using one of my photos without permission?

The biggest tool in the arsenal of the copyright owner is to register the copyright in the material. While copyright vests upon creation (without any additional acts) registration grants additional benefits such as statutory damages, and attorney’s fees. It is simple and inexpensive and if you have a registration your leverage increases dramatically. I have heard the term “poor man’s copyright” – like when someone mails themselves a copy of material which they’ve created. This is legally meaningless (for the most part). Spend the fees, which are minimal, and register. If you have a registration, the infringer will likely take down the image right away, and they would be foolish not to.

If you discover someone using your photos without permission the first thing is to gather details and preserve them. Get a screenshot, information regarding the website, and other details. The next step is probably to approach the infringer and depending on your motivations, request them to take down the image, and/or ask them to pay you a reasonable licensing fee. A letter on paper rather than an email would be better. This is the self-help route obviously. If you have a lawyer call him or her. Finally, most websites have DMCA notices which is a simple way to request a website to take down material it hosts. This is often a good route to take in order to get the material taken down right away.

Editors note: If you are tied to a microstock agency, you will want to check out their support, before taking any action yourself. They may be able to help you.

Should photographers provide usage licenses on client work? 

A work for hire arrangement is where the client owns the photographs, and where possible, it makes sense to avoid this. When entering a work for hire agreement you are essentially signing your rights away in the photographs.

As far as how to go about licensing, this is a tougher question – and it depends on the goals of the photographer in question, and their stomach for dealing with the administrative hassles of licensing. Agencies provide a good platform, but submitting your photos to an agency often results in some loss of control. Microstock and direct to consumer agencies have emerged as an alternative.

What if a client paid to use an image for one thing, then later uses it outside the realm of the original agreement?

Use outside the scope of a license agreement is likely considered infringement and a breach of the license agreement. One point here is that it’s important to have the scope of the license spelled out clearly. Often the “license”, or arrangement, exists in the form of multiple emails or correspondence going back and forth and a court is left to unravel the precise scope of the understanding of the parties. Clarity is key and the scope of the license and any modifications to it should not be left to implication.

Survey: Blog Content

rasmus@theprint.dk (Rasmus Rasmussen) — Thu, 07 May 2009 19:07:46 +0000

Update: The survey results have been posted. Read all about it!

I am taking a look at this blog, its potential and trying to find the right balance of content. For that reason, I have set up a survey, which I am hereby inviting you to take. It’s all about the types of content, you prefer. It’s very simple: I list a bunch of different types of posts, you rate them from 1-5.

The list is not complete, which is why I have a blank field at the bottom, where you can include notes and suggestions. It does cover the most common post types, from how-to and interviews to podcasting.

Taking part in the survey is anonymous and I encourage people to be completely subjective in their picks. If you hate reading reviews for instance, don’t be nice on behalf of those who might like them. Seeing what is not wanted is just as helpful as the other way around.

I will of course be posting a follow-up to the survey, so other bloggers might learn something from the results as well. Sharing is caring and all that.

~~So, please take a couple of minutes to complete the blog content survey.~~

Good Photography Comes from Within

rasmus@theprint.dk (Rasmus Rasmussen) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:10:50 +0000

There are a lot of photographers who seem obsessed with gear and creating “correct” images. I keep seeing posts on blogs, in forums and social media, talking about the importance of creating what I would call text-book photographs. Here’s what I think: L-glass and grey cards will not make you a good photographer. Correct exposure is no guarantee for beauty.

Obsessing about technical details takes focus away from what really matters: Creating compelling images. I would dare to venture that the photographer concentrating on visual stimulance will create better work, than one whose attention is on technicalities.

Understanding what goes into a correctly exposed, color balanced image is important. Every photographer needs to know about color space, histograms, how to treat RAW files, how lenses work etc. But knowing the theory is not the same as setting it in stone. Learn the rules, so you can break them knowingly and to your advantage.

Once you understand the possibilities and limitations of your medium, you can do what you want within those parameters. Even push them. There really is no right or wrong. If you think your image looks better with a tungsten tint or extreme contrasts, by all means, go there! It doesn’t matter if the image is technically outside the norm or even flawed, if its subject matter and how you chose to portray it is strong enough.

At the UGCX conference, I listened in on a panel where stock photography guru Jack Hollingsworth said something, which really stuck with me: Good enough is good enough.

This is not an encouragement to cut corners or create sloppy work. It’s about knowing what matters, how to apply your knowledge and when to stop. And this applies to all aspects of photography, from what gear you invest in to the amount of post processing you do.

I believe that the most important ability in photography (not to be confused with knowledge), is to trust your eyes. If it looks good, it is. Of course we’re often bound by the limitations of client spec, agency standards and so on, which is another good reason we need to know the basics, but if you really want to push your work and put your personal touch on it, you have to look beyond the technical aspects. Only then will you develop a personal style to set you apart from the sea of other photographers out there.

If you have the budget for it, by all means knock yourself out with the latest and coolest gear. Take classes and go to workshops, and pick up all the theory you need. Just remember that none of that will take the pictures for you. Your eyes and hands do that, and they don’t care if your tool is a full frame DSLR or a Holga.

A favorite tip, I picked up in photography school, and which might help some, is to try and create specific mistakes on purpose (wrong exposure, “accidentally” shooting at high ISO, wrong white balance etc). By making conscious “mistakes”, you learn how to avoid them as well as how to use them to your advantage, for those occasions where alternative thinking will actually make your photograph stronger.

Photo credit: Me!

The Creative Ratio

rasmus@theprint.dk (Rasmus Rasmussen) — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:05:32 +0000

If the following seems a little abstract to you, don’t worry. It is. There’s a mantra, I’ve been repeating to myself for a long time, but I only recently wrote it down. This is it:

“If 1 in 10 ideas become projects, that’s good. If 1 in 10 projects is finished, that’s great. If 1 in 10 finished projects are successful, I’m happy.”

It made perfect sense to me while I was chanting it in my head, but as soon as I wrote it down, it seemed to require a little explanation.

Anyone who does creative work knows that ideas make up the primordial soup, from which all our creations crawl. And ideas have a tendency to spawn more, new ideas. Pretty soon you’ll have more scribbled notes, sketches and archived thoughts than you’ll know what to do with.

Enter the internal editor. He’s the little voice in your head that tells you what ideas to pick, which ones to mull over and which ones to discard. He’s also the first part of the statement above.

Once you’ve decided to evolve an idea into an actual project, various obstacles and challenges will invariably present themselves. You either overcome them, work around them or let them weigh your new project down, until you either finish what you’re working on or not. In the latter case, a project may end up in the drawer, in the garbage or as a starting point for more new ideas.

Unless you’ve got issues beyond the scope of this post, you will eventually finish projects. This is the second part of the mantra. Very often though, the end result is not exactly what you’d imagined, when you first started out. Ideas evolve as we work on them, there’s nothing strange or wrong with that, but just because you finish something, doesn’t mean that you’ll be in love with the result. Or that it will sell, impress or otherwise find any kind of success.

I’d be lying if I said, I don’t want my projects to be successful. Of course I do! I want my stock images to sell, my clients to love what they pay me for, listeners to like my music, readers to enjoy my writing. All of that and more. I want to please some of the people, some of the time. Achieving that does make me happy, but it just does not happen every time a project is released.

The 1 in 10 ratio is not based on scientific fact. It’s just a number I came up with, that seemed reasonably realistic. If the result is that approximately 1 in 1000 ideas produce successful results, the trick then seems to be picking the right idea to begin with. And productivity-wise, the goal becomes to lower any of the three ratios. If I can turn more ideas into projects, more will finish and end up fulfilling (or exceeding) expectations.

In other words, I look at the creative ratio as a starting point. A reminder that succeeding as an artist, whether you write books, make movies or whatever, is a continuous effort. There is no such thing as overnight success, but trial and error over and over until you get it right. This is true, whether you dream big or small. The ratio scales accordingly.

The mantra keeps me on track. It can be frustrating when the ideas keep coming, and I have too little time. Or when the ones I do start working on grind to a halt for whatever reason. Of course I am both proud and happy when something is ready to be set free, but even then I have to remind myself that the rest of the world might not be that into it. The ratio serves as a reality check.

Photo credit: Me!

Toys, Tools and Guest Blogging

rasmus@theprint.dk (Rasmus Rasmussen) — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 19:32:35 +0000

Lately I’ve been having fun with all sorts of things that are only marginally related to photography. I’ve been making a couple of toys, just for kicks. First it was the Microstock Crossword. Not that I’m a big crossword fan (mostly because I’m not that good at them). I just like making stuff. So I made this puzzle, put it on the internet and got some encouraging comments.

They say critique is a better way to move forward than a pat on the back. I say it depends on what you’re doing and where you need to go. In my case the encouragement egged me on to produce another microstock inspired toy. Re-using an old php script to make funny, random sentences, I tweaked it to produce the Stock Photo Concept Generator. And this time, the response was downright overwhelming. So much so, that I ended up integrating Twitter and putting a couple of banners on it, referring visitors to some real stock photography tools.

Basically, the generator has three lists. A look, a subject and an action. An element is picked randomly from each list, combined and turned into a sentence on screen. I wanted to make it funny but also, hopefully, inspiring to some extent. So I populated the lists with stock photo clichés/stereotypes and a few silly elements thrown in for good measure. The result was a record breaking spike in traffic on this little blog of mine. I am as surprised as I am humbled.

I also got a few suggestions for expanding the Concept Generator. I’ll be saving those for next time, I feel like doing something like this. Also, I plan on adding new elements to all three lists, creating many new combination possibilities. All because of the positive reception the tool got. This right here, is the reason I love the web.

It’s really all about networking. Not to make a profit but to exchange knowledge and ideas through which we may grow as creative human beings. That very philosophy made me jump at the offer to write a guest post at Photography Review. I was asked to submit a short, very basic introduction to microstock. Basically condensing the Microstock Guide down to about 500 words. A wonderful challenge.

Most of my personal projects and shooting has been on hold lately, while I’ve been dealing with some of those obstacles Life throws at all of us from time to time, but being able to express myself through other outlets has kept me going. And the encouragement and support from the microstock community has been hugely motivational and inspiring.

Photo credit: skodonnel

Rasmus Rasmussen dot com

5 Noise Makers in Digital Photography

Related Posts

12 Seattleites Website and Next Step

Related Posts

Creative Partnerships vs. Self-Motivation

Related Posts

The Lawyer: Venkat on Copyright and More 2/2

Related Posts

The Lawyer: Venkat on Copyright and More 1/2

Related Posts

Popular Blog Post Types

Most Popular Post Types

Related Posts

Survey: Blog Content

Related Posts

Good Photography Comes from Within

Related Posts

The Creative Ratio

Related Posts

Toys, Tools and Guest Blogging

Related Posts