Through Meg's Lens

Photoshop: defining a style

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 04:32:00 +0000

Another long break. Hoping once again to be better.

I did an impromptu shoot with Lucy in the yard today. It was a gorgeous day and the light was pretty and at a good angle for some more back lighting. Unfortunately, my background options are snow, asphalt, or dreary bare trees. Here I am just playing with some different editing styles.

Some questions that come up...

Is this part of defining my style? Is it ok to have a variety of styles like this?

Part of me says, oh sure, of course.

But part of me says, look at these photos on display together... they aren't cohesive. They aren't telling a story. Together they don't work.

Therefore, in a presentation to a client they should be much more similar in style, or broken into different clusters. This is my homework, due later this week.

What say you?

Interestingly, or perhaps I should say that I find it interesting that the images were all a bit more blue hued in their original state. Like the one pictured below. Clearly, I prefer warmer tones when we are talking about a little girl on a winter's afternoon.

And you, my 3 readers... how are you? :-)

Black and white conversion

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:02:00 +0000

Clickinmoms.com had a photoshop tutorial on black and white conversions. I muddle through conversions but it's not often I am really excited about how a conversion comes out.

I did something stupid with this effort and started with a photo I wanted to "save" It was a cute expression and I knew mom and dad would like it. But it took cloning and fussing and I couldn't really get it all right.

Start:

So, I did what I could with the back blurred it out a little and just went on with the conversion. The conversion part was simple, but new to me.

1. desaturate the image completely
2. add a "soft light" curve
3. Add a level adjustment ( 20/.80) to darken the midtones/shadows
4. Add a level adjustment (10/1.4) to then brighten the midtones for contrast.

Then because every image is different, I played with the opacity of the layers. Then I did a quick eyeball sharpen. I liked the outcome for this one (at least in terms of the BW conversion. The background is another story.):

Do you have a "go to" process for BW conversions?

More backlighting

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 03:46:00 +0000

Ok, so the ever patient Lucy was a trooper again today. I should mention that I am really looking at exposure and not composition... Today I really wanted to see what it would look like if I exposed to capture more details in the sun-lit hair. My goal is to love what I get sooc. Then use Photoshop to enhance it.

Here's what I started with...

f/5.6 1/160 ISO 200 My focal length was 130, so maybe if my ss was 1/200 then it would have been sharper. Or maybe there was camera shake. Or maybe the sun flare.

Ok, so what I like about this is that the highlights aren't completely blown. Her messy hair still looks like hair. What I don't like is that its so dark on her face and in her shirt that it's just not working. Her eyes are flat with no catch-lights to speak of.

What could/should I have tried? Maybe a touch of fill flash- or maybe hanging a big white blanket behind me. Or maybe my reflector.

What did I do? I photo-shopped it. Of course my goal is to be way closer to this IN CAMERA, so I don't have to tweak so much to "save" it.

Finished image:

And, the before and after:

Backlighting

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 02:17:00 +0000

(Annette made my day, so I'm back tonight. I'm easy like that.)

This is a backlit photo of Lucy taken around 430 this afternoon. It's SOOC (straight out of camera with zero editing.)

Pretty girl, and she does not look like she's been coughing nonstop for a week.

Here's the technical data:
Nikon D300s
Nikkor 18-200 mm lens
Focal length 70 mm
1/80
f/5.0
ISO 500
My understanding is that for crispness, technically, my shutter speed should have been at least 100 with a 70 mm focal length, but I can't take the noise of a higher ISO. That's not crispy. It's noisy. Also, I was using my Polarizing filter because I read that it might help in sunny hazy situations. I don't know if it helped. Plenty of the other shots had much more haze. I don't have a hood for this lens. I was blocking the glare with my hand.

So, when I'm getting ready to take a picture like this I'm making sure that I'm metering off her face, but I'm going to set it to under-expose a pinch so that there aren't a ton of blown highlights. If you over-expose a photo, even in camera RAW format, you are capturing sections of the photo that have zero detail. Nothing but white. Look at the bright part of Lucy's hair. Blown out. No matter how closely I zoom in, I can't see strands of hair.

In this shot I used a very slight fill flash so that her face wouldn't be totally and completely under-exposed. We were in the woods. Sure, there was sunlight, but I'm still pretty surprised by just how much light you need in a setting like this. That reminds me. I was supposed to try my 50mm with this today. Ooops. Maybe tomorrow.

So, I popped the open Photoshop and did some popping. Brightened her face a touch, reduced the red in her face, warmed up the haze, sharpened the eyes a bit and here is the final image:

Once more- the before and after:

Back: Proper Exposure

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 03:35:00 +0000

I joined the Clickin Mom's forums at the suggestion of a hobbyist-gone-pro photographer that I know.

I've been poking around and one thing has become very clear very quickly. I've been technically lazy when it comes to shooting.

So, I'm back. I am going to write here and give examples of what I am working on because I think it'll help me to grow.

The 1st thing I am tackling is in camera exposure. I want the tweaking of light to be minimal in post production. That means really assessing my location and slowing down. It means shooting more and using my histogram to show where I am. It means trying to use my reflector and diffuser more.

Today I dragged the boys out into the yard for the late afternoon light. As luck would have it the glow was gone and for the most part the light was pretty flat. We bounced some light around on my white vest and on my reflector. I got about 10 minutes before they were off doing their thing.

So, I really worked on metering for proper exposure. I worked on playing with focus approaches to get nice sharp eyes. But it was around 4 and not very bright, so I had to punch up my ISO which ruins everything. Next time I'm playing around in the flat light I'll try nailing the fill flash.

Anyway... this is what I came up with, and while they aren't great pictures, I think that technically they are pretty accurate in terms of exposure and focus. Eyes are sharp, no enormous clipped highlights, and the barest bit of blowing the blacks- but that happens with black shirts- and I don't care if the inside of his shirt sleeve is underexposed.

I am hoping for some sun tomorrow so I can practice my back lighting a bit. If not, the flash comes out.

RAW

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Tue, 25 May 2010 16:31:00 +0000

After the last PCC meeting I decided to try shooting in RAW again. I need to work on my processes though. Shooting in RAW means that the camera throws away less information than if you shoot in Jpeg. It also means that every image needs to be tweaked a little, but the end result ends up looking more... well... more.

So when we went to the Sea Dog's game the other night, I should have switched out of RAW and shot in Jpeg. They were a few snaps to remember a moment... not an effort to really create a photo. So, jpeg would've been easier to deal with after the fact.

Blogger won't let me upload a RAW or dng file because they are too big. But following is an edited RAW image and an edited jpeg. The advantages of the RAW file as I see them are: a truer color, more detail in the highlights, and a wider color palette which allows for a less "choppy" background.

If I knew my way around CS3 better I feel like I could make the RAW image more distinctive- better than it is.

Twice

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Fri, 14 May 2010 03:08:00 +0000

Twice I've taken pictures that made me cry. (I've seen quite a few pictures that have brought a tear to my eye, but twice I've been the one holding the camera.)

The first time was almost 2 years ago and it's one of the moments that planted the passion in me. I immediately saw the story. The story began when he was called to duty and ended when our eyes met through the camera. That story should be written. I connected deeply and immediately to that tiny moment.

Months later I tracked down Mr. Rogers (no, really), gave him a copy of this picture, and he (and his lovely wife) gave me a tour of their home (one of the oldest in our town). He has warm eyes and warm hands. He has stories to tell. I keep thinking of going back. To ask questions I never asked my own grandparents.

Mr Rogers has been in every Memorial Day parade since he returned from the war. Each year he has worn the same uniform.

The picture:

The second one happened today.

I expect it might not make sense to many people. That's ok with me.

From time to time to time to time I get wrapped up in what I'm not doing. What can't be done. What should be done. It tangles me up. Hard. Stupid things start to weigh more in the scale of life. I fret. I remain still (but not in the good way).

So today this picture told me a story of hope and possibility and promise and openness and understanding and forgiveness.

Or I am just nuts.

Oh, and I am reading the manual. It is complicated crap, but this camera can perform exorcisms. I expect.

Creatively Correct Exposure

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Wed, 12 May 2010 03:14:00 +0000

Last night Rob and the kids were patient as I climbed hills on our school campus to get this shot. It is unedited. The colors are pretty true to what I saw, which isn't usually the case for me.

Today I watched several Bryan Peterson video clips. The guy has awful hair, but his skills make up for it. He talked a lot about achieving "creatively correct exposure." I played around with some flowers after I watched the videos and I am pretty happy about achieving that creatively correct exposure.

Of course I am a big fan of the shallow depth of field, and I'm pretty consistent with the flowers. Am I as competent with people/portraits?

Goal- read 1 section of the d300s manual.

Fun

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Wed, 05 May 2010 03:07:00 +0000

I got the manual for the d300s and I am looking forward to reading through it. In some ways I feel like this camera is so different from the d60. It is, but it's different like Volkswagen:Audi not like pine tree:matchbox car, which is kindof what I've been thinking.
It's hard to know what steps to take to get better. Books. Blogs. Apprenticeship. I think I'd really like to assist a local photographer for some shoots.

I had a long photo walk in Boston on Saturday. Here are a couple shots I'm pretty happy with:

Manual

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 02:03:00 +0000

I ordered the manual for the D3oos today and I should have it within a week. This is a lot of camera and what I do second nature with my lil D60 is a mystery on this bad boy.

I love bleeding hearts.

I will be in Boston this weekend and am looking forward to bonding with the D300s.

Bokehlicious!

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 01:11:00 +0000

The depth of field on these is so sweet to me- the soft blur in the back hinting at what's there but not distracting from the main focus. And the hydrangea bud? Tiny itybity dof. Fun to play!

party portraits

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:55:00 +0000

I went to a friend's 8th birthday party over the weekend. When I got back I threw a handful of photos up on Facebook in an album entitled Brady's b'day party. It might have appeared more suitable were it called First Funeral. Look at a few of them:

Don't they all look so sad? But... I like them anyway. They kindof make me wonder about what's causing each expression... atypical birthday shots, though.

These were shot with the Nikon d300s in a high ceilinged school entrance. I used a Nikkor 18-200 3.5-5.6 and a Nissin Di622 speedlight. Post-processing varied but was done in Photoshop CS3.

D300s

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 03:12:00 +0000

A crazy lunatic of a friend is letting me use his Nikon d300s for awhile. It is a lot of camera and I am really looking forward to falling in love with it... which I fully expect to do. I have so very much to learn.

I love this boy, and I love the bokeh behind him.

Birthday

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 02:09:00 +0000

Happy 89th Birthday, Memere!

I am really enjoying my flash. I was sad when my batteries died today. I have a lot to learn but I am excited about the new possibilities.

Caught

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 01:11:00 +0000

Like yesterday, the weight of my camera felt just about right today.

I like finding pictures. This is captured quietly, just a girl laughing with her cousins. It's not choreographed. It was just a moment.

The blurry bangs and sharp face make sense to me in this shot.

Back

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:32:00 +0000

I'll be trying to post photos daily again- even just here- for me. This is from yesterday.

I don't know what kind of flower it is, but it was a lovely sight to see during our hike yesterday.

People

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:03:00 +0000

Last week I decided to do a week of people. I managed to shoot 5 people, one dog and some markers.

This week I am going to do all outdoor shots.

I found my Kelby book and am reading it again.

I've noticed my pictures seem much less sharp then they need to be, and often with a lot of noise. I remember, at some point in the last year, thinking that this camera body would suffice for a good long while, not really feeling its limitations. My biggest complaint is the noise in low light situations (which I am shooting more of in an effort to own them). I am using 2 pictures as an example, but I also want to say that I think noise CAN compliment a photo- I don't hate the effect of it in this example, but I'd rather it was always intentional.

It's a bit inconsistent though. Take this shot of Rob's hands:

The black isn't really black and there's a lot of noise. It was shot at ISO 200, 1/50, f/5.6. I did lighten it a bit, applied a gradient map, and did a slight crop.

Then here's Lucy:

Now this was also shot at ISO 200, 1/50, f/5.6. This is straight out of the camera without editing. much crisper. Much more black. She was closer to the light source.

So, yeah. I need to operate what I've got with greater consistency in low light, but I'd also someday like to have a camera that handles these lighting situations with less fuss.

Grrr...

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:51:00 +0000

I seem to have lost my Kelby book. Grrrr...

I have decided to focus on people for a week of my x365s.

What should I do next week? Here's my list:

vehicles
broken
circles
wet
food
out of place
symmetrical
hot
cold

You'll notice people isn't even on it- but I'd gone about 2 weeks without a person shot. Inanimate things require less of an investment. Especially when I'm not planning anything and am looking around in the evening for something to make interesting. Like spoons. Ahem.

Summer?

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:55:00 +0000

I forgot that I wanted to do an evening shot tonight, and when I remembered I didn't want to shoot anything. Poor planning.

So, entirely uninspired I grabbed the mini-mums I'd picked up earlier in the week and had already shot once. The flowers are boring and I'd already taken one picture of them... but I felt like my choices were the flowers or an egg.

Here's what they look like sitting in the middle of my gross kitchen floor:

And this is my photo of the day from 2 days ago:

So, tonight I blew it out with no flash and got a shot that screams summer to me. I love summer:

Tomorrow is Monday and I'm going to pick a week long topic to focus on... topic: TBA

Container List

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:44:00 +0000

...well, it's not a bucket list, but I've been thinking about project topics...
Here's what I've got:

vehicles
broken
circles
wet
food
out of place
symmetrical
hot
cold

Now... where to begin?

The Beach

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 04:04:00 +0000

I can only go so long without a visit to the ocean.

Times up.

Update: Capturing

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 02:08:00 +0000

One of my 2010 words is "capturing," and part of that is to engage more in the online photo community. Over the past 12 days I've made efforts to sink more deeply into the communities on Flickr. I've joined new groups and have expanded my contacts and been more active in leaving comments and checking out what's been happening. It's fun!

At it's best, Flickr provides an opportunity for photographers and aspiring photographers to hang out together and "talk" about what they are trying to accomplish and share their efforts. It's like a meet-up where people can show their work and give and get critiques, support and encouragement. It's also an opportunity to soak in the images of other folks, to learn from them, and immerse in the passion of people who want to learn and grow and share. The best part is that everyone I've "met" so far has been positive- which isn't to say they aren't offering suggestions and opinions, but they do it in a helpful respectful manner.

And that's why I love Flickr.

Lighting: a quarter of an experiment

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:00:00 +0000

Earlier in the week I wrote about some lighting experimentation that I did. I have zero lighting equipment and used regular room lighting, a white reflector, and one of these silver clamp lights with a CFL (which has a color temperature of 3000). How and why the 3000 is relevant I am not sure, because the only information I can find indicates that it creates a spectrum of light which contain both more orange and more blue. So yeah, try correcting that.

Ok so looking at this picture of Clay that I took the other night (untouched):

1/50, f/4.8, white balance set to white flourescent

I did not have time to play with the settings because, well, let's not go there. Suffices to say I could not take the shot with a variety of white balance adjustments. Having thought about and read a little I expect a "cool white" setting might have balanced out the green cast. Hard tellin' not knowin'.

I kind of like the shadows in this shot, but with more time I'd have liked to go for uniform soft lighting, too. I wonder if I'd used 2 of the clamp lights (1 on each side) and reflected light from the front if that would have done it. I also would've liked to have tried fill flash with the compensation notched down. And, thanks to a Flickr friend, it's now impossible to get past the blue cast on his left eye. So I like this one:

So, that's all I've got to say about that (in my best Forrest Gump voice).

On Books

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:56:00 +0000

I am currently reading Scott Kelby's The Digital Photography Book. When I first got this book I flipped through and read some of the pages, but hadn't yet read it from cover to cover.

I really wish I had!

So, Kelby writes in this, I'm-your-buddy-and-we're-just-hanging-out-chatting-about-photography-the-way-some-people-chat-about-football way. I like the straight forwardness, but the banter gets a little tiresome.

That said, it is really nice to read about it in a non-technical manner that is easy to understand. He weaves in pretty easy to understand photoshop tips, too. Even for a photoshop bonehead like me.

The information he's parsing out isn't even new information. I've read/heard/figured out a lot of it already. But it's still really useful to me to have it laid out the way Kelby does. Here's an example: shoot landscapes only at dawn or dusk, really think about composition (include 3 segments- foreground, middle, and background), and stop down for maximum depth of field (which really made me want to play with wide shots with low dof). And if you mess with these guidelines it's likely you'll have some flat photos. (see these for examples of what not to do :).

So, I'm about a 3rd of the way through this book and it's concisely reminding me of general rules of photography.

I'm liking it.

White balance and a Book List

noreply@blogger.com (Meg) — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 04:02:00 +0000

I didn't get into the snow today, however, I did take some pictures of Teddy (the bear) and saw a big difference in a little adjustment.
White Balance on Auto:

White Balance adjusted for a bright white fluorescent:

Hmmm.... green bear or brown? Pretty cool.

Also wanted to share what looks to be a great book list.

My photo of the day (POTD) is here. And, before you leave, if you'd like you can subscribe to these posts so that they come in through your email or RSS reader. Check out the sidebar.