Lens Compression January 29, 2010
Posted by Nicole : Photography, Tips & Tricks , 13 comments
Canon 7D, 1/250th sec at ƒ/5.6, ISO 100
LEFT LENS: Canon 70-200 ƒ/4L IS; RIGHT LENS: Canon 24-105 ƒ/4L IS
I photographed the two images above to demonstrate one very cool bit of knowledge about photography – lens compression. The longer your lens the more compressed, or blurry, your background will be. Both images used the exact same exposure, light, subject, etc – the only difference is that I used a different lens for each shot. A longer lens is going to create the perception that the background is actually closer to your subject, and, in this case with the lights in the background, the more zoomed-in you are to your subject the larger your background bokeh will be.
The image on the left was photographed with a Canon 70-200 f/4L IS lens, zoomed all the way out to 200mm. For the image on the right I used my 24-105 f/4L IS, zoomed all the way to 105mm. (Note that I am using a Canon 7D, which is a crop-sensor camera so the focal length is actually a little bit longer).
Image in Use: Logitech Webcam January 29, 2010
Posted by Nicole : Photography , 1 comment so far
Some friends on Facebook (the family in the photo) found their image in use and they shared it with me. Other people are more likely to find out about my images used “in the wild”, especially when it’s their face in the photo and this is no exception. :)
Here’s a link to the photo on iStock and a link to the website where the image was found.
Food Photography: Finding Triangles January 28, 2010
Posted by Nicole : Food Photography, Food Styling, Photography, Tips & Tricks , 11 comments
Canon 7D, Canon 24-105ƒ/4L IS lens, 1/15th second at ƒ/5.6, ISO 100
In food photography, and photography in general, a good fundamental tip on composition is to create or find triangles in your images. Triangles keep the viewer’s eyes on the photo, since when you follow a triangle with your eyes you are basically circling around the image, looking at all the elements. In this image the basil leaves are the boldest color, so your eyes probably were drawn to that part of the image first. If you followed your eyes to the other leaves then you were fooled into looking at the entire photo. ;)
Your triangles don’t have to all be the same colors or shapes – they could be as simple as three different elements in an image that your eyes will be easily drawn to. If you are photographing people then the direction of a person’s eyes are going to draw the viewer’s eyes in the same direction, and you could use that element in your “triangle”.
In food photography you will also find that adding this technique to your styling is very pleasing to the eye. I always add the “final touches” to the dish while it’s sitting on its mark, since I have a better view of the image through the viewfinder and can create or find the best placement for things like garnishes and silverware from that perspective.
Sundance January 27, 2010
Posted by Nicole : Photography , 2 comments
Canon 7D, Canon 24-105 ƒ/4L IS, 1/60th sec @ ƒ/4, ISO 2500
Yesterday I had the opportunity to drive out to Sundance and help out a friend by shooting some quick video clips for a webisode series they are putting together. It was fun, and I even snapped a few photos of one of the bands playing at a club we were hanging out in. The band that was playing was called “The Rescues” … I’d never heard of the but really enjoyed their sound, especially their last song when they did a perfectly harmonized a capella piece.
On a side note I’d like to say “Thank You” to everyone who read and commented on yesterday’s blog post. I got an amazing response – it seems as though it was a topic that many of you feel strongly about. There were some really good points that I didn’t think of, too. If you missed out, check out the post and comments here.
Photoshop Abuse? I Plead “Not Guilty” January 26, 2010
Posted by Nicole : Photography, Photoshop , 20 comments
Last week I came across my name and a link to one of my recent blog posts in a forum (thanks to Google alerts), and in the same sentence were the words “… photographers vastly overuse the Photoshop crutch to repair their images”. Another photographer chimed in and said that we should “shoot it correctly in the first place – you won’t make any money in Photoshop”. (Hmm … last I checked the guys over at NAPP don’t seem to be hurting.) :)
Now, I’m not the kind of person to get into heated discussions in a forum (and I actually think that that kind of thinking is out-dated and somewhat comical) so I stayed out of it. But the idea did stick with me … and if I could have a face-to-face conversation with someone like that over coffee, what would I say? Well, keep reading and you’ll find out.
First of all, who really cares? Some people get so wrapped up in the process that they forget what our goal is as photographers – to create memories and make beautiful images. It doesn’t matter how perfect you photograph something in-camera, in my opinion it can always benefit from a little touch-up. And just to set the record straight: getting it right in-camera is a wonderful thing, and I highly encourage it! I want to spend as little time staring at pixels on my computer screen as possible and still get wonderful results, and when I perfect an image before it hits my computer then I shave off a lot of time to my editing.
But if a photographer wants to heavily rely on Photoshop to make their images look good, then so what? I really don’t undersand why it’s such a big deal. Photography is evolving and changing, but it’s still photography if you digitally edit, enhance, crop, tint, or alter your images. I’m sure that there is a point when the image crosses the “photography” line and becomes “digital art”, but think of some of the types of photographs we can create these days that were difficult in the past. HDR would not be possible without using some sort of post-processing software … but we could always argue that it’s still something that could be carried out in a wet darkroom, tedious though it may be (as are several other methods of post-processing).
I also wonder, is the overall debate an issue of new technology and younger photographers? Are these people worried that they’re going to lose their corner of the market to someone who’s owned an SLR for three months but can use a computer? As a photographer heavily involved in micro-stock I’ve seen other photographers throw a lot of hateful comments towards the industry in general, and there is only one word that I can use to describe those types of people: insecure. If you’re really afraid that your job is at risk, then adapt and overcome. The cream will always rist to the top.
And in my own defense – I do know photography, and I have a pretty good understanding of light … but I still use Photoshop. And back when I was shooting film and processing images in both color and black-and-white wet darkrooms, I still had to adjust the color and tones, and even use filters to make my prints look the way I envisioned them. Oh, and I even had to push-process my film every once in a while cause T-Max didn’t go past 3200 ISO. Is all of that cheating, too?
When I hear comments like I read in that forum post I always wonder if there’s more “between the lines” than what is actually said. I don’t think those people are anti-Photoshop, I think that they try to justify their insecurities and refusal to adapt by belittling photographers and artists who do use digital editing tools. But enough of all this talk – I’m gonna stop ranting and go make some more photos. Cause, as we all know, talking about photography is not doing photography.
:)
Photo by Rich Legg
