PhotoWalkPro

It’s amazing how a little processing can change the look of an image.  This is especially true when the image process is HDR in nature.  There are so many looks to HDR and it seems that most folks really like that hyper-realistic look that comes from pushing the sliders to their max.  If you aren’t sure what I’m talking about, check out this image from inside the St. Salvator’s Cathedral.  I shot a 3-shot series of images for this picture and then used Photomatix Pro to create the HDR and tone map for the final look.

Please click on the images for a larger view

As you can see, it has some extreme stuff going on but it does have great information in the shadows and highlights.  Unfortunately the colors are way too vivid and the mid-tone contrasts are way over the top.  Or perhaps I should say that they are way too over the top for me.  That’s the thing about HDR, some folks really prefer the way this image would look over the ones below.  For me though, it’s just completely unrealistic and doesn’t come close to representing what I saw.

To get things a little more on track, I ran the process again but this time I was less aggressive with the sliders.  It still has that classic HDR look to it but there are less halos, the colors aren’t nearly as bright, and the tonal contrasts are a little smoother.

Still though, when I sent this to a buddy, he kind of snapped me back to reality that this image was still not very “true to life”.  After giving it another look, I decided to process my image one more time, just to see if I could tone things down a bit more while still getting the benefit from the HDR process, which is better tonal values in the shadows as well as the highlights.  To do this, I ran the bracketed images through HDR Photostudio 2.  I find that this program has a much smoother look to it when creating photo-realistic HDR images.  As you can see from the result below, there is much less of a gritty look to this image and yet it still has great tonal values thoughout.

I guess the moral of the story is that when it comes to HDR processing, there is definitely more than one way to move those sliders and it’s all about where your personal preferences lay as to how much is too much.

Yesterday’s post discussed some scenarios that require shooting a little unconventionally with the intention of using Photoshop to complete the photographic process and complete the pre-visualized image.  I ended the post with a picture of the I Amsterdam sign that is located in a park in Amsterdam.  I also told you that I shot the image with the express purpose of using Photoshop to make it look the way it does below.

Several of you posted your guesses as to what I did in Photoshop to make it look like it does above.  Unfortunately no one had the correct answer.  So here’s the deal.  My buddy, Jeff Kelby, had been to Amsterdam before and he told me about these letters he had seen that were located in a park in the Southwestern part of the city.  We set off to the park and sure enough, we rounded a corner and there were the big red and white letters, spelling out the I Amsterdam slogan that is found all over the city (mugs, bumper stickers, hats, t-shirts, you name it). I really wanted to get a photograph of the landmark but it was covered in tourists.  They were climbing and posing and basically blocking me from getting a good shot.   So here’s where I had my “shoot for Photoshop” idea.

As I walked around the rear side of the letters I noticed that there was no one there. Everyone was posing on the front side so that the letters would be readable in their own pictures.  That’s when I pulled out my camera and composed my shot of the rear of the letters, completely unobstructed by other tourists.  Of course the letters were backwards in my image but that was my plan.

Once I had my shot, I simply opened it in Photoshop and then flipped the image to reverse the backwards text so that it read correctly in my image.  No multiple image stacking or masking as some of you guessed, just a simple horizontal flip.  Crazy, huh?  But totally conceived at the time I took the image with the intent to change it in Photoshop.  Sometimes a little planning can really go a long way towards getting the shot that you want.  Here’s the original image as it came out of my camera.

That’s it for me this week.  I am going to try and catch up on some well needed rest and put some finishing touches on the D3000 book.  Have a great weekend and I’ll see you Monday.

Getting the shot right in the camera should always be the goal of any photographer but sometimes the shot you want is beyond the camera’s capabilities.  So what do you do when you know what it is you want but you know you can’t get it in one exposure?  In those circumstances, you can shoot for Photoshop.  Here’s a good example of what I mean.

While walking in a cathedral in Bruges last week I saw a beautiful stained glass window at the end of a large hall.  I wanted to capture the entire scene but when I shot with a proper exposure for the hall, the window was completely over-exposed.  When I shot to get a good exposure of the window, the hall became so dark that you couldn’t see any detail.  To remedy this, I decided to shoot two exposures with the intent of combining the two images in Photoshop.

To get the two images as one, I adjust the images in Lightroom and then opened both of them as layers in one Photoshop document.  I then had Photoshop align the two layers and used a layer mask to combine the best parts of both.  I am sure that some of you are wondering why I didn’t shoot an HDR and the truth is that I considered it but I think that the processing would not have given me the result that I was after.

So here’s another shot that I took with the intention of fixing it in Photoshop.  I’m not going to tell you what I did but take a look at it and see if you can figure it out (Jeff and Scott Kelby are not allowed to comment).  I’ll post the answer on Friday.

Whenever I come back from a shoot I usually head straight to my computer and download my images.  Like most of you, I can’t wait to see all of the great shots that I got.  And like many of you, I find that the majority of my shots kind of suck.  They aren’t necessarily bad, they just aren’t great.  But here’s the deal, I don’t just round up all of those bad shots and send them to the round file, I let them alone for awhile to marinate.  It’s not that I think they will get better over time, in fact the opposite is usually the case, when I look at them down the road and wonder, “What the hell was I thinking when I took that?”  But that’s sort of the point.

By leaving them for a while, I can separate the emotion from the photograph and start looking at it from a more analytical perspective.  What is it that made that shot so sucky.  Was it the light?  Was it my choice of lens?  Maybe it was the angle that I chose or perhaps the lens.  Perhaps I would have done better had I used less depth of field or maybe more.  There are so many reasons that an image can fall down the scale from great to just so-so but by taking some time to really look at the image you can start to develop that mental checklist for the next time you are standing behind your camera.  I’m reminded of some great advice I heard Joe McNally give during a presentation, which really brings it all home.  Joe said that you should “embrace your failures, take them out to dinner and really get to know them.”

If you ignore the shots that didn’t turn out the way you had envisioned and just send them to the trash, you are missing out on an opportunity to learn from your experience.  And it’s not just the things that didn’t work but also the elements that did.  A great photo is made when a combination of things all go right so it’s not fair to say that your “bad” images didn’t have their good points as well.  The point is that you should spend some time to really look at all of your images so that you can constantly evolve and create that internal database of experiences so that when you are presented with a similar situation in the future you will have the knowledge to know what didn’t work the last time.  I think Thomas Edison said it best when he said, “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.”

The last thing I did before leaving San Diego was spend some time at the zoo.  Yes, it’s true, I actually paid the $37 to get in but it was such a beautiful day and I had so much time to kill that I figured it would be money well spent, and it was.  I saw all of the great exhibits that the park is famous for and enjoyed the beautiful sites and sounds of nature.

There is one thing that you’ll see more of at the zoo than animals is cameras.  And it also seems that every time I visit a zoo, I see more and more DSLR’s.  With that in mind, I thought I would share some tips for getting better shots at the zoo.

1. To really get the type of intimate images that focuses on the animal and not the environment, you will want a long lens.  The longer the better.  I have three lenses that I use for zoo close-ups, a 70-200mm, 70-300mm, and 80-400mm.  Many zoo enclosures are designed to keep some distance between you and the animals.  A long lens will help cut the distance and get you close again.

2. If you are going to use a long lens, you might want to consider using a monopod as well.  Tripods can be cumbersome when getting through the crowds at a zoo.  The monopod option is easy to transport and still gives the measure of stability you sometimes need when working with long focal lengths.

3. Move close to the enclosure.  Whether it’s a wire mesh or bars, you are bound to get a better shot by moving your camera as close as possible to the obstruction.  The closer the fence is to the lens, the greater chance that it will be blurred so far out of focus that you won’t see it in the image.

4. Another way to help blur those obstructions is to shoot as wide open as possible.  This really serves two purposes.  First for the reason just mentioned, large apertures help blur objects close to the lens.  The second reason is to work with a very shallow depth of field.  This will help put the emphasis on the animals and off of the possibly distracting backgrounds.

5. Try visiting on an overcast day.  If that isn’t possible, try to work in the shadows if at all possible.  The truth is that many zoo environments contain open-air enclosures for the animals and are often in full-sun, which creates harsh shadows and very contrasty scenes.  Cloudy, overcast days, or shaded locations will provide more saturated colors, better details, and a better overall image.

6. Finally, be patient.  Find a good vantage point and don’t settle for whatever shot you can get.  Animals in captivity will move about their enclosures sooner or later and your patience will pay off in the end.  I have seen some photographers who have camped out for hours at the same enclosure just to get the perfect shot.  I’m not suggesting that but you should plan on spending some time to get good shots.  If an animal isn’t out where you can get a good picture, try swinging back later to see if the situation has changed.  I am betting that your persistance will pay off for you in the end.

Is there a profession that is any more difficult and emotionally tormenting than that of a photojournalist during a time of disaster and crisis?  Maybe, but I really can’t think of it at the moment.  Earlier today I was at the Boston Globes “The Big Picture” blog, which had just posted the latest images coming out of the country of Haiti.  The images were rife with the pain, suffering, and death that has gripped the small Caribbean nation after a devastating earthquake on January 12th.  As I finished looking at the images, I began to read some of the comments from viewers of the blog.  Mixed in with the calls for prayer and statements of disbelief were comments that were bashing the photographers for not putting down their cameras and helping.  “How can someone just stand there and take pictures while people are digging with their bare hands in effort to find survivors?”, asked one person. Read the rest of this entry »