Digital Darkroom

In response to my previous post, I got a question about how to get the glow in the last (fourth) photo. Here is my response:

For the last picture of the young lady, Alison, part of the softness came from the effect of a direct backlight, which was the sun coming through the studio window.

For the post-production.
I used Layers in PS5.
1) Load the picture.
2) Duplicate the picture in a new layer.
3) Blur the picture with the Gaussian Blur filter.
For a 800x533, use a strength of 4
For a 1200x1800 pic, use a strength of 20

4) Then go to the composite menu on your Layers palette (I've included a photo of it, and put a pink ellipse around it)

And you'll see a list of choices. The default is NORMAL.
What you want to look for and choose is SOFT LIGHT, this will severely increase the contrast by calculating an algorithm using the highlighted layer (which in your case is the duplicate) and the layer immediately below it (which is likely the Background or the Layer 0)

The glow come from the Gaussian Blur in step 3.

That was the end of the email. In fact, I did that same technique with some modifications specific to the photo on the following, which was 800x533, Sharpen settings were Amoun 125%, Radius 0.3 pixels, Threshold 1 Level, dropped the mids on the Blue Channel curve, but that's all standard anyway (oh, and I cropped and resized the picture):

West Coast Friends!

Original Photo

Hope that helps someone, have fun!!

The Rainbow and the Barbarian

They say that with the analysis of the light defraction of a rainbow, it loses the mystery of its beauty that gives it an awe inspiring magical appearance. Too much analysis takes away from its beauty. I disagree. The colors of a rainbow seem more rich and complex because I know how the different wavelengths of light bend in relation to the density of the defracting object, in this case the water droplets.

But that is simply a long introduction to what I am about to talk about today.

Without knowing it, the Lombards and Nebbletts effortlessly display a good example of a group photo. Most every photographer's nightmare is a group photo where everyone stands as if they were in a police line-up. But not this case. For whatever reason these guys were a dream. The only direction I gave them was: Stand right there. Anyone to Chantée's right will be out of the picture, or to Josh's left.

That was it. I metered off Sean's shirt and dropped the exposure a touch. Counted to three and this is what I got. Cropped minor with about 5 curve adjustments and voilà! The kids did the magic really:

The Lombards and Nebbletts (l-r): Adriana Lombard, Chantée Nebblett, Elissa Lombard, Peter Michael Lombard, Sean Nebblett, Natasha Nebblett, Josh Nebblett.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. There are several things that these guys did without being directed. We're going to deconstruct it so if you ever want to shoot a group shot, use this example.

The rules in group photos ares several: Everyone should be relaxed and standing anyway but straight on. Pay attention to Natasha's slight drop in her right shoulder, and Sean's left shoulder pushed back inadvertently pushing his left leg forward and putting his weight on it, as well as Josh's left-ward lean, and Elissa's lean into her brother and Pete's arm which has to wrap around his sister, and consequently shifts his weight to his left leg, turn his torso slightly to give him a nature bend. And Adri's gentle touch of her hand on Chantée's shoulder. Chantée is the only one who comes close to squaring to the camera, but even with her relaxed stance, she is slightly rotating her left shoulder back more than her right, and her position is further relaxed with the Lombard girls behind her.

But that's not it: What makes a good group photo appear like friends, not a corporate board of director's shot, is the closeness of each of the individuals. The trick is to get every one to relax individually but combine them so that they each appear close knit to the viewer. This is done by forming groups of two or three. Adri's hand on Chantée make them a group. Elissa and Pete with their arms around each other, and with Sean in such close proximity to them, that makes a group of three. The separation of Sean and Natasha make her and Josh as one group. But each group also fits in relatively close proximity to each other group.

A lot of analysis? well, these guys didn't even think about it. I just told them to relax and act like friends and they did. And for we the viewers,  it just felt right. Like looking at rainbow and not worrying about color wavelength or light defraction. It just looks right.

[click on photo for a larger image]

Normal

Every photographer must own a Standard lens.

On most Canons and Nikons, this means a 35mm lens. On Full frame cameras like Film Cameras or the 5D Mark II or the 1Ds Mark III or the Nikon D3 or D700 this means a 50mm lens.

Reasons for this?

1) A Standard or Normal lens is equivalent to the way our eye sees things. We don't have any distortion like a wide angle (this can be simulated by coming up to a subject really, really close) or the flattening of a subject like a telephoto lens (this too can be simultated by closing one eye). This is the truest WYSIWYG (pronounced wizzy wig): what you see is what you get.

2) It forces you to expand your creativity. With a Standard Prime (meaning non-zoom) lens, you really have to stop and think about your composition. A good exercise is a 50mm walk-around. Put a Standard lens on your camera and walk around for the day, and use only that lens to shoot for the whold day. Landscapes, portraits, action, etc. all without specialty lenses. It'll make you think on your feet.

3) It's probably the fastes lens in your kit. Unless you're a Professional or have really deep pockets, the 50mm will probably have a low aperture of f1.4 (or f1.8 if you're a starving dental or medical student), which means you can open up the lens to f1.4, let more light in, and then choose a really fast shutter speed. That's what we mean by a fast lens (not how many frames-per-second we can shoot, which is a function of the camera body, not the lens).

4) It's produces reasonably flat images for good environmental portraits, which allows you to get IN (really IN) to the shot without the distortion of a wide angle lens.

5) It's a low profile (compact). It's small enough that it doesn't really draw attention to itself. You can slide it in anywhere.

6) It's light. Have you ever walked around with a 70-200mm f2.8 ? Thick as a brick and heavy too. A standard lens, which for most of you Canon shooters is the 35mm f2.0 is compact, fast, and it looks quite cool.

7) It's relatively inexpensive. For only $350 on Amazon you can have all of the above. And this particular lens has quite good IQ (that's Image Quality, who wouldn't want that!)

Incidentally, I just got mine repaired and it arrived at work today (don't worry I'm really seeing patients and blogging in between) and here it is with one of my colleague's toys, Ernie, looking through the lens. I'm excited to have my normal, compact, light, inexpensive, and very fast lens back!

Sent from my Blackberry.

Two Lights

Two Light State Park, Cape Elizabeth, Maine

Location scouting for an upcoming photo shoot. You'd think I didn't have a day job. But I have the opportunity to do the senior portraits for one of the guys in our youth group. How's that for a connection, right?! So I found myself at Cape Elizabeth, on a high contrast day. But looks like it has really good potential, I guess it can work. Smaller of the State Parks in Cape Elizabeth, so consequently less people. I like that better, no one meddles with the gear.

Something has to be said for Coastal Maine. Now if I could just find a decent lighthouse to shoot...