Blog

This blog may seem a bit presumptuous of me and obvious, especially to those versed with photography, however I have noted a few photographic procedures and hints aimed specifically at those who are new to digital photography, along with some musings. These are not intended to be guidelines or tutorials as such and are by no means conclusive, merely some of my preferences and methods established during practice and experimentation with my camera and software. Everyone works differently and although these are some of the things I generally adhere to, I've learnt that there are no quick fixes to most things photographic, so one needs to be flexible to achieve a particular outcome. It seems to me that a lot of beginners get involved early with using all the whizz-bang software filters and effects prior to understanding the basic skills of photography. A decent camera is a hefty investment so you may as well get the best out of it. My advice, for what it's worth is to first get to know your camera well and what it's capable of, learn the art of composition, the effect of lighting intensity and direction, timing, mood, storytelling and many other things that are essential for good images. Oh, and don't be afraid to practice and experiment as much as possible.

This is an often neglected aspect of digital photography. The purpose of monitor calibration is to measure and adjust a monitor's colour response and establish a relationship to a known standard colour space. Default monitor settings or settings done manually will not conform to this colour standard. Calibration is done with a colorimeter of which there are several brands and models available. To achieve colour consistency between an image viewed on a monitor and that of a print made of the image, a colour profile needs to be made which is used by editing software as a working colour space. That is the task of the colorimeter. Because monitor colours and luminance drift over time, colorimeter calibration should be done on a regular basis to maintain consistency - monthly is recommended.

Plan what you want to shoot and how to go about it. Consider composition, the effect of light and the settings to use. Also establish if a tripod is required for a steady shot. Select a shooting mode appropriate for the situation. If unsure about this, your camera manual will be helpful. Pre-programmed modes are useful if you are not yet familiar with your camera, but using them means relinquishing control over a particular situation which can inhibit creativity. When you are more comfortable with the multitude of settings, your intuition will play a major role in achieving the results you wish to attain. I often take several shots of the same subject from different angles, distances and directions, rarely deleting images on the spot and always reviewing shots in-camera, adjusting and taking more if required. After all, digital film is cheap.

With film cameras this was known as ‘grain’. I went through a phase of using high speed b+w film and did certain things during the darkroom print developing process to get grain - the more the merrier as it was fashionable at the time. Now noise has become the bugbear of many photographers. There are various ways to avoid it during processing/editing, but it is best to try and minimize it initially in the camera because it's impossible to completely eradicate once present. Observing the following simple procedures should assist in eliminating most visible noise.

1. Shoot in RAW mode and convert to 16 bit tiff files for all editing.
2. Make sure there is plenty of light to illuminate the subject or scene.
3. Long exposures in dim light can generate noise but more recent dslr cameras allow for high ISO values so noise in dimly lit situations is not such a problem.
4. Use the lowest ISO setting possible - overriding your camera’s auto ISO setting can often be a good idea but a tripod may be required in those situations.
5. Where there is a lot of contrast of light and shaded areas in a subject, try different exposure value settings (EV) to establish which one gives good rendition of both light and shaded areas - an alternative is the use of high quality ND filters or graduated filters to cut down the contrast
using a tripod and taking several different exposures of the same subject, then layer blending them in Photoshop can also yield good results by choosing the best exposed parts of each image.
6. After transferring your shots to the computer and converting the RAW data, do as little processing as possible that generates noise. Changing colours of things and monotone conversions can whip up a storm noise-wise, so care should be taken to prevent this alteration of pixels if a smooth outcome is desired. Usually, the more that is done of a general nature to an image during processing, the worse the degradation can get, so experimentation and practice is required to find out what suits you and the situation best - and that can differ from image to image. HDR work can produce lots of noise also, but that's another story.

Just as monotone images can be used to a photographer’s advantage, so to can coloured ones. Instead of de-emphasizing certain aspects of an image, colour can be employed as a visual stimulus by directing attention to a certain part or parts of a composition. In that respect, colour can be utilized as an aid in composition by creating a focal point to which the viewer’s eyes are directed. Colour is an important consideration in evoking emotions and commercial photographers make good use of that in advertisements. Subtle use of colour can also be effective. When we are presented with a colourful image it can often be confrontational because our eyes are not as selective in seeking out those things we wish to see by eliminating others - as when looking at an actual scene. Instead, images for display get our undivided visual attention, so care needs to be taken if we want our photos to convey that certain something. Colour is an important thing in our everyday lives and can be a useful tool for our creative ideas. On the other hand, use of monotone can be beneficial by reducing an image to its tonal values. That can eliminate the visual distraction often caused by colour which does not always help a composition or its intended meaning. Colours create their own emphasis which is often misplaced. Black and white photography can be effective in creating contrasting images which emphasize light and shade and all the subtle tones in between. Although colour photography has given us a more realistic looking medium to work with, it is not always as challenging or as successful. All my darkroom work was black and white and I still enjoy dabbling with it now digitally. A combination of colour and black and white is a good way of de-emphasizing part of an image by removing colour where emphasis is not required. Without colour to assign importance to elements in a shot, tonal values become the means of expression. It's often worth converting to black and white to explore the possibilities and maybe achieve better results.

This is something that most photographers do to some extent, even if it is only to adjust a camera setting. Software has made the things that were done to an image in the darkroom much easier. Those alterations that were once virtually impossible or at least often difficult to achieve, have now become a relatively commonplace thing. In spite of all the manipulative power at our fingertips, there are still the purists who maintain that the least that is done to an image the better. For me, photography is all about creativity and I believe that if an image can be improved in any way, then that has to be a good thing. Invariably, RAW images with settings nullified as can appear flat and dull - the idea being to give as much scope as possible with post processing methods. Producing images that simulate reality is not always that important to me, preferring to add my own input most times.

Since getting a DSLR camera, I have only shot raw images - prior to that it was JPEG's. After reading about the advantages and disadvantages of those options, I realised that I had not been getting the best quality from my edited photographs. When unloaded from camera to computer, RAW files must be converted to another file type like TIFF or JPEG. If your camera is capable of shooting in RAW mode (all DSLRs are), then doing so will enable you to obtain the maximum quality images possible. RAW files are not really images - they are data files that consist of camera settings and sensor information markers (the markers contain all the information required to decode the image data). Although your in-camera setting choices such as colour mode, contrast, saturation and sharpening have been made, with RAW format, those settings are not applied even though the image will appear in your conversion software with such settings. They may be altered prior to conversion in such a way as to appear like the new settings were made in-camera. Not having camera settings applied permanently is a strong feature and advantage of using RAW files. Processing a RAW file takes more time and commitment - conversion to 16 bit TIFF files (recommended) requires more storage capacity, but if it is quality your require, then this is definitely the way to proceed. Unfortunately, choosing JPEG conversion permanently sets the image markers and does not allow for proper modifications to be done later - some image data is lost. JPEG files are characterized by 'lossy' image compression which cause editing and subsequent re-editing problems. These are often seen as 'noise' and 'artefacts'. On the other hand, conversion to TIFF files allows for high quality image modifications to be made during post processing - and re-editing later is not problematic. By choosing RAW mode, there can be much more control over the final image appearance if the appropriate decisions are made, because you will be making those decisions, not your camera. Shooting RAW allows all recorded image data to be stored in that format. Should you ever want to change how an image looks, then the original data can be conveniently accessed via your conversion software.

In any composition, consideration should be given as to what needs to be included within the frame. Such aspects are background, foreground, colours (or tones if mono is used), lines, forms, textures and the relationships between them. Cropping images during editing can often lead to better composition by cutting out irrelevant elements and distracting things adjacent to edges. Strength and direction of light are often important aspects when composing because they directly effect the mood of an image and help create a three dimensional illusion in an otherwise flat medium. Proper placement of the main object(s) of visual focus within the frame to obtain balance and interest is usually desirable - however, a main object or objects are not always necessary if the intention is otherwise, for example if the whole frame is filled with a pattern or where a flat representation is the issue. The 'Rule of Thirds' is one of my pet hates in photography. It's important to understand when composing and/or cropping an image, but once the concept is grasped and one is familiar with visual structure within the frame, the rule of thirds can become an unnecessary restriction which can lead to formulaic, predictable looking images. Freeing up the frame also offers greater possibilities for abstract and symmetrical work. The R O T is not always that significant and is often a visual comfort thing which can become a meaningless ploy, automatically done. A point or points of visual interest or focus can be anywhere - or not, yet the result can still be effective. Sure, learn the 'rules' of photography, know them backwards, then break them, experiment and help realise your creative potential. Try and avoid getting bogged down with rules. If unsure about them, try articulating what you find pleasing about various compositions of others and your own, but being too analytical can spoil the fun of photography. Composition is a subjective thing although there are certain universal parameters worth observing. Each subject and situation should present its own compositional requirements which can be effected by lighting, mood, atmosphere, emotion and a whole host of other aspects depending on what it is you want to portray, how you want to do it and how you want to make the result appear. When you shoot an image, having in mind what it is you want to achieve is important - there are no rules for that, just your imagination and expectations. Composition can be a complex thing but what happens before the shutter button is pressed is the most important part. I think the best advice I can relate to those who are flummoxed by the rules of composition is - bear them in mind but give yourself the freedom of not being tied to them. Practice and experiment often, familiarising yourself with different situations, both simple and complex. For a composition to be successful it must contain visual interest and how that is achieved is entirely up to you. It involves more than merely capturing what is in front of the camera.

Sciagraphy is the art or science of projecting or delineating shadows as they fall in nature. I studied sciagraphy for six months, drawing the effects of light and the shadows it cast on solid objects and the ground. When I was a kid I found a strip of old 35mm cinematic film that had been thrown out from the local picture theatre. I was fascinated by the fact that each frame was slightly different to that which preceded it and to those that followed it. I had a toy projector in which the film could be wound through manually and my interest in photography began. The light, shade and colour of the film impressed me and seemed magical. Getting my first box camera soon afterwards clinched my further interest and I've had many cameras since. The quality of light and shade are photographic elements that have been all important to me since those early experiences.

For several months my camera sat idle. It wasn't due to lack of inspiration though. Instead, I had been looking back at past images, some of which had already been processed and at others that had not had an airing. I experimented a lot with various techniques and ways of presenting stuff. It was a cathartic experience, delving into the pure essence of images and discovering what made them tick - what worked and what didn't. One of the exercises I set myself was using tritones to produce a series of images using exactly the same colour values of the tones each time and layer blending with certain emphasis to extract light and contrast.

While feeling uninspired about what to write here next, the thought eventually occurred to me that inspiration itself might be appropriate. Where does inspiration come from? For photographers, it can derive from many sources: art, the photographic work of others, visual media from which we are constantly bombarded, our environment both natural and man-made, books, magazines, the internet, music, etc. The list is endless and I'm sure you could compile your own extensive one. We are not only influenced by our own thoughts and those of others, but everything in our environment. Photographic opportunities are wherever we go, so being inspired by something is really a matter of becoming attuned to and exploring such possibilities. What at first glance may appear to be a boring subject and not worthy of photographing, could easily prove to be otherwise. In a world where instant gratification and throw away products have become the norm, it can be worthwhile sometimes to pause to 'smell the roses'. I take many photographs of varied subjects but am not always feeling inspired at the time and an idea may only emerge later as to what to do with a particular shot.

Old buildings are a rich source of subject matter for photographers. Not only are they usually full of character, but they exhibit skills and methods of construction that are virtually lost in the modern era. Although I like some recent architecture for its sleek lines and good design attributes, buildings from the past remain one of my favourite subjects. Unfortunately, with the rapaciousness of contemporary developers and general apathy and lack of forethought from the powers that be, much of our old and worthwhile building stock is being destroyed. It is the wise and thoughtful developer/architect/owner who can find a way to restore and give a new lease of life to our building heritage. Photographers can also have an important role in recording them for posterity.

That probably seems like a contradiction of terms. Not so, because even an abstract needs composition to be visually effective. One dictionary definition of abstract is given as ‘difficult to understand’. With any form of abstract art, we sometimes need to be told just what we are looking at and only then can we begin to comprehend what was previously a mystery. The artist knew what was meant because he/she was the creator. Denying the viewer any sense of scale in an image can add to its abstract quality - so can removing a subject from its environmental context. That isolation whether done in-camera or by editing, can serve to make the subject, its detail, pattern, texture, etc., more apparent and poignant by drawing attention to something that may not otherwise be noticed. The possibilities are endless and are limited only by one’s imagination.

Perspective is usually an important consideration in architectural photography because it helps create and represent three-dimensional objects and depth relationships on a two-dimensional surface. Wide angle lenses can be used to advantage to accentuate perspective and although the photographic results are not always realistic in appearance, can often enhance and dramatise an otherwise ordinary view. The old master painters knew all about perspective and often drew horizons, perspective lines and vanishing points on the base canvas as guides.

I'm referring to deliberately leaving the camera home and going out to shoot with the mind's eye. In a word, visualisation. My best shots have been the ones I haven't taken. How may times have we clicked the shutter button, only to be disappointed because the results haven't matched what we saw, or thought we saw? Shooting without a camera allows time for contemplation, to study the effect of light at certain times of the day and year, to freely compose and to generally open up the mind for future creativity. I've missed some great shots because scenarios were momentary but have filed those memories away for possible future action. Hopefully I will be on the ready next time such opportunities exist. Visualisation in photography is all about what happens before the shutter button is pressed. I tend to view most scenes as potential captures and holding back from shooting all the time has been a good discipline to get used to, helping me to be more selective. Sometimes I go out for the day with my camera gear, fully intent on utilizing it, but return without even taking it out of the bag. That's never a waste of time though because it's all good experience.

Photography really is all about images painted with light. To state the obvious, without light present there would be no image. Light falling within the camera is the single most important aspect of photography. Its direction, colour, quality and intensity can assist the photographer in creating mood/atmosphere, emotion, special effects and also the illusion of three dimensionality in an otherwise flat medium. Whether natural or artificial, obtaining suitable light for any given situation is one fundamental requirement for a successful result - an image of a striking subject can be rendered ineffective by poor light. For outdoor photography, being in the right place at the right time to take advantage of the prevailing light is often very challenging. I have returned to some locations several times to obtain a suitable lighting condition. Reliance on strong light and shade is not always necessary for definition though - shooting on a dull, overcast day can yield acceptable results because the even, diffused light is capable of producing a softer, less harsh appearance. There are many aspects of light that can come into play – its strength, direction, the atmospheric conditions effecting it and the time of day. Sometimes it can be variable within a short period of time and can also be subtle or unpredictable. Understanding how a camera will respond to different light conditions takes lots of practice and patience, so visualising how a landscape for instance could appear in various lighting scenarios can assist in making decisions about the best time to capture it.

Film photography was unforgiving and that's what I liked about it. Some things could be improved in the darkroom during development and printing stages but most times it was a case of WYSIWYG. Since having SLR, DSLR and mirrorless cameras, I've never used AUTO and don't intend to, preferring to change combinations of settings to suit the purpose. Although that can be hit and miss at times, with digital cameras the results are immediately apparent and shots can be re-done if necessary. You might ask why not use AUTO - well, the simple answer is because better results can be gained. AUTO settings cannot be overridden and they are general ones based on what the camera sees and according to what a camera designer/engineer thinks is best for any given situation.
Shooting in RAW mode requires conversion and editing software applications because RAW files are not usable until converted. My RAW files look dull and lack sharpness, tonal adjustment, vividness, contrast and saturation. That's what I've set because I want to 'make' a photo, not just 'take' one. For me, taking a shot is purely to get the composition and lighting right. RAW files with null settings is how the camera perceives the image without adjustments. Many people shoot JPG images which require little or no editing - the problem with doing that is the lack of image information for proper processing.

Making a photograph is opposed to taking a photograph. The perfectionists attempt to get everything right in-camera, as true to the subject and prevailing conditions existing at the time - maybe they achieve that but they are the only ones who know it. They are 'taking' a photograph and they miss the opportunities of carrying their images further by shunning post-tweaking. The pseudo-perfectionists do a bit of tweaking afterwards if their results fall short of their expectations. Others snap with little or no consideration of the outcome and rely solely on their camera's automatic settings. Each to their own. My preference is to 'make' a photograph - although I no longer have a darkroom or use film, the making aspect is still an important consideration because it allows for more creative input after shooting, with better results often being achieved.

It has occurred to me that being a photographer is a bit like being an alchemist of times past. In an image, one needs to extract and distil the essence of a subject then present it, with or without context. The main challenge is to establish just what those characteristics are in any given instance - not an easy task for a photographer on the fly. Visualisation and instinct play a large part in discovering the magical ingredients and how they react together. There is no formula for this because every situation is slightly different and that is where trial and error though experimentation is important. A successful image is one that imparts a certain something to the viewer - I call this the 'essence' and when applied to photography it's more than words and images - it's a feeling projected to the viewer.

Many online photography competitions require a fee to submit images and for that reason alone, the organisers are suspect. I have realised that such competitions are purely money-making ventures that generally cost very little to run, just a web page or two and the opinion of a judge who is often the organiser. With that in mind, I have ceased entering competitions demanding a fee. The prizes offered are an important consideration also if that is a motive for entering. I ask myself if the prize is something I want or need - of course money is a big motivator. If it's self esteem, kudos or publicity one seeks, then maybe there are more meaningful reasons for doing photography. Just my opinion.