Shutterfinger

How to Take Portaits to the Next Level

This is pretty close to how the original, unprocessed Raw image looked. I just reduced the clarity (microcontrast) and color saturation a bit. Most of his expressions looked like this one. He's actually a very amiable and thoughtful young man who was trying to look "hard" for the camera. Canon EOS 60D with 85mm f/1.8 EF at f/11.

Portraits are the sort of thing that, once you've mastered the basic technique--which isn't particularly difficult as techniques go--the challenge becomes less about getting a portrait that's in focus and well lit and more about producing a portrait that has staying power. By "staying power" I mean an image's ability to maintain a viewer's interest over repeated viewings.

It's harder to do than you might think. The average portrait looks like the ones we see in countless school and college yearbooks: competent but generic and unimaginative. A great portait, on the other hand, offers insight into the subject's personality and state of mind even if you've never met them and don't know who they are.

I can't claim to have any exclusive secrets to achieving great portraits every time. I can, however, offer a few tips you may find helpful:

1. Pay attention to your subject.

Many photographers focus far too much on their lighting and not enough on their subject. A subject who senses this will naturally tend to withdraw or become bored or annoyed. Keep your lighting simple and flexible enough that your subject is the center of attention.

2. Connect

There's more to paying attention than simply staring at someone. You should try to observe and intuit how they feel. Are they nervous, insecure, distracted, fearful? Are they trying to project a certain image? Think about what you actually see in front you rather than what you or your subject might like to see. It could make for a far better portrait than what you originally had in mind.

3. Lure rather than chase.

Rather than try to manipulate and coax your subject into making a particular type of expression or pose, try to opposite approach: Calmly wait for them to let their guard down and make an expression or gesture that is characteristically their own. It may be the subtle shift of an eyebrow or a tilt of the head. If you're paying attention you'll know it when you see it and you'll release the shutter the instant you do.

4. Post-process to enhance, not exaggerate.

Chances are that even if you have your lighting and camera set up perfectly, you'll have to post-process your final picks to adjust their clarity, sharpness, color, and tonality. With portraits of females you'll generally want to "take the edge off" by muting the contrast and color saturation and smoothing out skin blemishes. You'll want to do the opposite with men. Take it easy though: If you go too far in either direction your subjects will either look plastic or as if they were hewn out of granite.

Here's a whole 'nother look, this time with Lightroom's "Old Polaroid" preset. I think it over-emphasizes contrast and imperfections in his skin.

Whole books have been written on the subject of portraiture, so the list above is by no means all you need to know. It will make your portraits better though; that, and needless to say, plenty of practice.

  Here's my personal favorite. Black and white adds a richness without over-emphasizing blemishes and blotchiness.

 

Your Sliders Move Both Ways

This is an unaltered version of the scene. You might like it just the way it is. Then again, you might prefer one of the versions below.

I don't know why, but there's a tendency among some photographers (I won't name names) to overdo their image processing. More often than not, the options they choose show a bias towards more: more saturation, more sharpening, more clarity (microcontrast), more shadow detail... You get the idea.

If this particular shoe fits better than you'd like, just remember that your sliders move both ways. There are some subjects and images actually that look better if you decrease the saturation, sharpening, and so on. Take portraits and people pictures, for example: Not everyone needs or wants to look like a freeze-dried Bedouin. You don't have to reduce the clarity and contrast to the point where everything looks as if it's been shot with a soft-focus filter, but taking the edge off can make the difference between a flattering photo and one that elicits gasps of horror.

This is about as far as I'd be willing to increase the saturation. Some photographers would just be getting started.

The same applies to saturation. Not all colors need to "pop." In fact, if you move the saturation slider too far to the right you actually reduce tonal subtleties. Images take on that overheated, overcooked look we know all too well. Subjects worn by time and use, as well as subjects that consist of pastel shades, often benefit from your moving your slider in the direction of less rather than more.

In this version I reduced the saturation to the same degree I increased the saturation in the version above. In many ways it's more true to how the scene looked to my naked eye than the unaltered version.

While you're easing up on the saturation, you might also try dropping the contrast a bit too. Although high contrast is an effective tool for emphasizing bold, geometric compositions, reduced contrast is a way to emphasize softer, gentler, more contemplative moods.

The benefit of digital imaging, especially if you shoot Raw, is that if you don't like the result you can always revert back to the original or go the opposite direction. If you're habitually moving those sliders in the same direction though, why not trying switching things up, if only for the sake of variety? You just might like what you see.

Related articles

Shadow Details

This photo of my niece Maya was shot in my sister's living room, which, believe it or not, had light walls. Because the room was so large and Maya was standing in a shaft of direct sunlight, not enough light bounced off the walls to lighten the rest of the room. The result: a dramatic portrait of a confident young woman.

There are photographers who are almost obsessed with shadow detail. They buy cameras based on the dynamic range they can deliver. They use tripods, low-flare lenses, and shoot at the lowest available ISO. They bracket like hell, just to make sure they've got at least one "perfect" exposure. Needless to say, they always shoot RAW files, then process them, often with HDR software, to wring out the very last iota of tonal range. Their results are--and I say this without an ounce of sarcasm--very often impressive. The trick, of course, is for the details in those shadows to be worth looking at.

Here's what the same photo looked like before I dropped the shadows a bit and cloned out my nephew (also a photographer) in the background.

Personally, I have a hell of time managing that feat. What I do instead is to let the shadows fall where they may. I might even darken them to the point where they're solid black. If the shadows are geometric this converts them to graphic compositional elements that serve as negative space that naturally attracts the eye to the the brighter, more colorful areas. That's the idea anyway. Go too far and you end up with a big black mess.

Sometimes deep shadows, bright highlights, and shadow detail can co-exist happily.

If you'd like to try this for yourself, here are two tips: First, keep in mind that the eye naturally moves to the brighter areas of the image first. Try to develop a sense for whether the detail in the shadows adds or distracts from the highlight detail. If the latter, try adjusting the contrast curve or shadow/black sliders to darken the shadows just enough that they visually recede and the highlights begin to "pop."

The dark background looked almost as bright as this lighting fixture to my eye, but with judicious exposure and a bit of curve tweaking, the actual photo looks likes this.

The second tip is to remember that high-contrast lighting can be your friend. Pretend you're an old-school film photographer shooting color transparency film: Expose for the highlights and let the shadows fall whether they may. Then think of the shadows as solid shapes. If the shapes look interesting to you, there's a good chance they will look interesting to someone else.

Your photos are worthless (unless…)

The fact that the analog side of my photo filing system is so lo-tech is what makes it so effective. Anyone who can read could figure out how I categorize my photos and where they're stored.

Yes, I said it: Your photos are worthless--that is, unless someone else knows they exist, is aware of their general significance, and knows where to find them. This is not something you should take for granted. Let’s start with the fact that, like so many advanced photographers, you probably shoot and process raw images. That’s all well and good for us advanced photographers. It’s not so great for the average person trying to sort through our photo archives. Most image browsers can’t even read raw files. It takes specialized software such as Lightroom, Aperture, and ACR that most people either don’t have or don’t know how to use.

Even if someone is familiar with these applications, they’re not likely to understand how you organize your files, the way you stack your layers, which files are transitional, which are final, and so on. If you assume that someone other than you will want to invest the time it takes to figure all of this out, you assume too much. And if you assume that you will always be around to do the sorting and showing yourself, well, good luck with that.

With all this in mind, here are a few tips for how to ensure that other people will have a chance to see and appreciate your work as much as you do.

#1: Export the files you care the most about as JPEGs or TIFFs.

With JPEG and TIFF files your processing choices are “baked in,” practically any image file browser will be able to read and display them, and any digital print service will be able to produce a decent print. Better yet, copy them onto a clearly labeled CD, DVD, thumb drive, or flash card. The easier is is for your best shots to be found and seen, the more likely it is to happen.

#2: Print your work.

Speaking of prints, as convenient as it is for you to store all of your images on digital media, nothing beats a modest stack of actual prints in a storage box labeled “Best Prints” or something equally obvious to make it quick and easy for others to review your work. It doesn’t make much difference whether the prints were produced at a mini-lab, a custom lab, or you yourself, as long as they are reasonably high quality and printed on stable media.

Also keep in mind that your prints can be in the form of photo albums, scrapbooks, and press-printed photo books produced by companies such as Shutterfly and MyPublisher. This is often the ideal way to present your work as a unified theme and in a particular sequence.

#3: Label your prints.

While you’re at it, it wouldn’t hurt to label the back of each print with basic information such as the approximate year you shot it, where you shot it, and who or what it is. If you’re like most mortals, you’ll only have a few dozen “best prints” or prized photos of family memories to label anyway, so it’s not a particularly difficult task.

#4: Share.

Rather than hoard your precious prints and photobooks, freely distribute them to family and friends. Tell them enough about what it is that they understand how important it is, if only to you (although if it's significant to them too, so much the better.) It’s a lot easier for people to care for a tangible analog object than a set of computer files that add to the clutter on their hard drives. It's also easier for them to appreciate work that looks great from the get-go, as opposed to how it might look on a low-quality, uncalibrated display.

If any of this has hit home, now might be a good time to put these tips into action. The year is coming to a close and the holidays are upon us. What better time to do a retrospective of your best work for 2012? You can probably think of at least one or two people who would be delighted to receive some samples. Give Santa a call to schedule a delivery at your earliest convenience.

 

Knowledge vs. Skill

What does it take to get an interesting photo of neon lights at night through a rain-covered window while using a cellphone camera? Is it knowledge, skill, or luck? Do you care?

A friend of mine once asked if I wouldn't mind him watching me print. This was back when printing involved arcane devices such as enlargers, safelights, chemicals, and trays. When he saw me focus by placing my grain magnifier on the easel, he felt compelled to recommend that I insert a sheet of exposed enlarging paper first, so that I would be focusing on the actual image plane.

It seems my friend had read in a magazine article somewhere that this was the right way to do it and was quite surprised I didn't know. He offered this recommendation despite the fact that I was using a glass negative carrier to prevent the negative from "popping" due to heat from the enlarging lamp, and that my prints are almost infallibly sharp, which was one of the reasons he wanted to watch me print in the first place. In other words, my friend had confused knowledge and information with skill. He thought that knowing the right way to do something (or thinking he knew) was the same as being able to do it.

In this respect he was a lot like guys I would spar with at various martial arts schools. They "knew" their style was superior to mine and that my style had serious flaws because this was what their teacher and fellow students had told them. You can imagine their frustration and discomfort when they discovered that what seemed so true and obvious in theory didn't always work so well in practice. In this case, it's not that what they knew was wrong, it was that they lacked the skill to pull it off.

I chose this as the topic of today's post for two reasons: First, because I make my living as an instructional designer. I train people how to do things. My goal is to do more than simply share knowledge; it's to provide opportunities to practice; to unlearn old skills and habits and learn new ones. The second reason is that photography forums and blog comments (Shutterfinger comments excepted) are full of strong opinions from people who claim to have a lot knowledge yet offer little evidence of any actual skill. In my world, knowledge and skill are both wonderful things to have. Combine them and you become a force to be recconed with; someone who often appears to be amazingly lucky.

Upgrade Update

Adobe has decided to modify its previously stated upgrade policy for its Creative Suite products, which includes, among other things, Photoshop. In December Adobe announced a policy that would basically require you to upgrade to Photoshop 5 or 5.5 to qualify for a discounted upgrade to Photoshop 6. This policy was, ahem, not well-received by Adobe's customers.

The new policy is a lot like the original policy: You still qualify for a discounted upgrade price if you own CS versions 3-5, at least until December 31, 2012. (What happens after that is anyone's guess.) The difference is that the upgrade pricing is tiered. The more recent the version of Creative Suite/Photoshop you own, the greater your discount. Feel free to click this link for more details.

Isn't it nice to know that even companies as big as Adobe listen to the voices of their customers--or should I say "howls of protest?"

Dropbox: A Convenient Way to Share Photos

  Here's what your list of folders would look like on the Dropbox site. I've added an arrow that points to the Photos folder. You can also open Dropbox from your desktop or file manager, in which case it would look like any other window with a list of folders and files.

How often has someone asked if you could send them a copy of the photo you've just taken? It doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. After all, all you have to do is e-mail it to them. Except that if you're shooting RAW you'll have to convert it to JPEG first. You might even be tempted to adjust it a bit first so it looks the way you intended. And if you're shooting at anywhere near full resolution, you'll have to resize it so it won't choke their e-mail server. If you're sending several photos, e-mail really isn't an option. Then you're looking at either burning the images onto optical media and sending them the disc or uploading them to a website where they can access and download them.

I personally find uploading to a website to be the most convenient approach. Once I upload the photos, all I have to do is send the requester(s) a link to where to find the photos, then it's up to them to go get 'em. No muss, no fuss, no discs, no postage.

There are a variety of ways to set up such a website. The one I find the quickest and most hassle-free is Dropbox.What is basically is is an amount of disk space that you have reserved on a remote web server. Anything you upload to this server can be available to anyone you want to share it with, including yourself. Sharing with yourself is convenient because it allows access to the same files even if you're using multiple computers in multiple locations. The only "catch" is that because Dropbox is web-based you have to Internet access to access the files.

It costs nothing to sign-up for Dropbox and the first 2GB of space are free. Two gigs can store a hell of a lot of JPEGs, especially when you're just using it as a temporary place to upload files until whoever asked for them has had a chance to view and download them. To do this, you send an e-mail invitation to whomever you want to grant access to a shared folder. Your invitees will only have access to folders you specifically share with them. Anything else is private and visible only to you.

Another convenient aspect to Dropbox is that it resides as a folder on your desktop, taskbar, finder, or wherever else you choose to replicate it. All it takes to move files is to select, drag, and drop--hence the name "Dropbox." It doesn't get much easier than that. And just in case you're wondering, I have no financial or otherwise self-serving interest in recommonding Dropbox. I don't get any money or extra GB of space if you use it or not. I just like using it and think you might too. Another other Dropbox users out there who would like to share your experiences, pro and con, should feel free to leave a comment.

 

It Depends on What You Mean by "Simple."

The top of this Sony NEX-7 mirrorless interchangeable lens digital camera looks wonderfully clean and simple, doesn't it? Maybe a bit too clean and simple... As far as size and weight are concerned, though, the NEX-7 actually weighs about half as much and is 20% smaller than the Nikon FM3A below.

One of the things I have to think about in my day-job as someone who designs and scripts web-based training is user-interface design. User interface is a techy term for “controls.” I generally try to make the user interface as obvious, intuitive, and simple as possible. One of the complicating factors is that simplicity isn't always as simple as it seems.

For example, take a look at the top of the Sony NEX-7 above and tell me if anything jumps out at you. No? Well, let me put it another way: Can you tell by looking at the controls on the top of the camera how to set the exposure mode, aperture, or shutter speed? Do you have any idea how you would find out? Can you tell for sure which one of the two buttons on the top of the handgrip is the shutter button, short of pressing one of them to see  what happens? I've only shown you the top of the camera, but trust me, you won't find any more clues on the back either.

Nothing jumps out at you because this is a classic example of a hidden interface. The NEX-7 has so many features and functions that the designers decided not to “clutter” the camera with dedicated buttons, dials, levers, and switches. Instead, they created dials whose functions vary depending on what mode you’re in. That’s what the button to the right of the shutter button is for, by the way: It cycles you through the NEX-7’s various modes. What to know what mode you’re in? You have to look at the menu on the LCD display. It’s therefore impossible to set anything directly. You first have to be in the right mode, then you need to know which of the dials to turn and in what direction. Keep in mind that I've never handled an NEX-7, so for all I know it's a lot easier than I'm making it sound--but I doubt it.

The dial on the left is for setting the ISO and exposure compensation. The dial on the right is for setting either a specific shutter speed or aperture-preferred mode. The only other controls would be on the lens: focus and aperture. This may look more complicated than the Sony above, but to some of us it's actually a lot more simple.

Contrast this approach to the user interface of an old school Nikon FM3A (or the many other manual film cameras that look pretty much the same). Even if you didn’t know what each of these dials did, it would be pretty evident that each one does only one or two things and they are the same every time. The aperture ring controls the aperture, the shutter dial controls the shutter, the ISO dial controls the ISO. Period. There are no menus, so the interface has to be clean, simple, external, and self-evident.

As for which approach is “better” than the other, well, that depends. Some people like having almost limitless combinations of options they can program into their camera and then let then program run with an occasional tweak every now and then. Others would rather use their brain as the software and exercise direct, real-time control with their fingers. Either interface approach can produce fine pictures. From what I hear, the NEX-7 has been a hit for Sony. The more retro-designed Fuji X-100 and its recently introduced sibling, the Fuji X-10 have been hits too. May they all continue to do well. As for me, well, let’s just say I plan to hold on to my Nikon FM3A for as long as I can still get film for it.

Ricoh GR Digital IV Review – Part 2

Is This the Perfect Compact Camera for Street Photography?

Here's what the Ricoh GR Digital IV looks like in its fully relaxed state. The generous grip allows for a secure hold despite there being space for only two fingers. On the bottom you might just be able to make out the reflection of the stainless-steel tripod socket.

 In Part One of this review I highlighted the Ricoh GRD IV’s key features and explained how I set it up for my own particular style of street photography. In this second and final part I'll cover some of the more operational and experiential aspects of using the GRD IV.

I want to reemphasize that the GRD IV has an amazing range of setup options, most of which are quite useful, depending on your needs and desires. The catch is that there are so many of them that the choices can be bewildering, especially for the neophyte. My approach, which I recommend to anyone else who decides to buy a GRD IV, is to focus first on familiarizing yourself with basic controls such as how to adjust the aperture, shutter speed, focus, and exposure compensation. Once you’ve got that down to the point that it all becomes second nature, you can then add specialized settings and custom functions at your leisure and as you find useful.

Okay, I should have shot this so the controls on the rear are easier to see, but trust me, they're there, along with enough space to rest your right thumb.

I used the GRD IV with the file size set to maximum resolution (3648 x 2736 pixels) and the file format set to RAW. With a freshly formatted 4GB SD card this allowed a maximum of 203 frames; more than enough for an average day of street shooting. The advantage to shooting RAW is that you don’t have to worry as much about white balance and exposure; you can make adjustments in post. The disadvantage is that it significantly slows down the GRD IV's frame rate.It needs 2-3 seconds after each RAW shot to clear the buffer before it’s ready for the next. If you set the camera to Continuous mode you can shoot several RAW shots in a row at approximately 1 fps, but each shot you take will still need 2-3 seconds to clear before the camera is ready to shoot again. If you’re big on continuous shooting and you insist on RAW format you may want to look elsewhere.

Battery life shouldn’t be a concern under normal use. When fully depleted it takes roughly 2.5 hours to recharge. Once charged it’s spec’d to last up to 390 shots, depending on how much you use the flash and LCD. After a few hours of fairly steady shooting with the LCD used for framing and reviewing, the battery charge indicator still showed "full."

It takes approximately two seconds for the lens to extend or retract once you press the power button, so for the sake of speed and readiness you may want to leave the camera on for several minutes at a time. If you're worried about forgetting to turn it off, there's an Auto Power Off feature which can be set to 1 minute, 5 minutes, or 30 minutes.

I was less than five feet away from this produce vendor in Philadelphia's Chinatown. Because of the low angle he probably thought I was taking pictures of the scallions and bok choy. I converted to B&W because the colors were too varied and distracting. The sunlit areas are overexposed, but given the extreme dynamic range this GRD IV still did pretty well.

Framing with the LCD-only has several advantages over optical and SLR viewfinders. From a street photography perspective it makes you look more a harmless amateur and less like a serious pro with expensive equipment and questionable intentions. I felt comfortable enough to point the GRD IV directly at people and in full view. Most simply ignored me. If not, the most they would do would be to either move aside, so as not to “get in the way,” or glance behind them to see what I was photographing. From a framing perspective I could set the camera at ground level, against a wall, or on a counter, and still be able to use the viewfinder without contorting myself into awkward positions. I have to say it made me feel a lot more free and adventurous in how I framed my photos.

Another major advantage of the GRD IV for street shooters is quietness. You can adjust the shutter sound in three increments, from an audible “chirp” to a whisper “snick.” Even at the default medium setting I could stand right next to someone and release the shutter several times without being noticed.

Handling was great. I could set the aperture with my right index finger and exposure compensation with my thumb on a rocker switch on the back of the camera. I could also use my thumb to press in on a dial/lever on the back, which brought up a sub-menu that allowed me to choose and adjust other frequently-used settings such as white balance, ISO, file size and format, image setting, metering pattern, and AF point position. I found the GRD IV's size to be just right—not too large, not too small. On the other hand, a few non-photographer female friends of mine thought it was tad large.

Of course, all the ease of use and flexibility of the GRD IV wouldn’t count for much unless the image quality met expectations. I’m happy to say it did. Unlike most compacts I’ve used, the GRD IV usually managed to retain detail in the highlights, yet because I was shooting RAW there was still enough dynamic range that with judicious exposure I could use curves to boost the shadows or reduce the highlights in post if necessary. I could boost the shadows by at least one stop without the image posterizing or otherwise falling to pieces. All post-processing was done in Adobe Lightroom. Ricoh’s native RAW format is Adobe DNG, so Lightroom had no trouble digesting it. The color balance was on the cool side of netural, with colors that were rich without appearing garish or over-saturated.

ISO 100 (0.3-stop above the base ISO). Click to enlarge.

ISO 800 -- the highest I would feel comfortable using. Click to enlarge.

ISO 3200 -- not so bad at smaller sizes. Click to enlarge.

To get the best image quality, however, you’ll need to shoot at as low as ISO as possible. When set to Auto ISO the GRD IV ISO never rose over 154. That was fine outdoors in daylight. Indoors it resulted in shutter speeds too slow to stop camera and subject motion, even with the GRD IV’s built-in image stabilization. You can set the ISO as high as 3200, but I personally wouldn’t go any higher than 800 unless there was no other way to get the shot and I didn’t plan to make large prints. The high ISO examples I’ve provided should explain why. There’s only so much a 1/1.7” sensor can do, even one as good as the one in the GRD IV.

So is the Ricoh GR Digital IV the right camera for you? That depends. If all you need is a simple, low-cost, general-purpose compact, you can find plenty of good options for a lot less than the $599 the GRD IV will cost you. On the other hand, if you’re looking for a fixed-lens, wide-aperture, compact camera that can perform almost as capably as larger, heavier micro four-thirds or APS-C alternatives, the GRD IV deserves to be on your short list—and in your pocket.

By the way, should you decide to buy one, I'd recommend using the link to B&H Photo that I've provided here and above. They're an authorized Ricoh distributor, their prices are competitive, and ordering from them helps support this site. Also keep your eyes peeled for a short review of the GRD IV's bigger brother, the Ricoh GXR with A12 module. If you've been wondering how practical it would be to attach Leica M-mount lenses to a camera with an APS-C sensor, here's where you'll find out.

My Hard Drive Migration Story

I recently filled up the external hard drive I use to store my photographs. This was no great achievement: It has a maximum capacity of 250GB, small these days. For me that represents over eleven years of photos, from the year 2000 to the first half of 2011, so I couldn't complain. I did, however, have to expand my hard drive storage.

One option would have been to buy a second drive and simply begin where I left off. The first drive could store the first decade of 2000 and the second could start with 2010. The downside would be that most of my photos would be on the older drive. Even if I transferred the original photos to a new drive of the same capacity (thus ensuring redundancy and a safe backup) I would still have to switch back and forth between drives to manage my catalog. That's more work and more opportunity for error than I cared to contemplate, so I scratched that option.

The option I chose was to transfer the photos to a new Mercury Elite AL-Pro hard drive with a 1.5TB capacity. This way I still have access to all my photos on one drive. I will back up the first ten years of 2000 onto a physically smaller drive that I will store off-site in a safe deposit box. It's a free service at my bank and I can't think of a safer place for my photographs.

I'm also in the continuing process of backing my best photos onto other media such as high-quality Taiyo Yuden DVD-Rs and the hard drive in my Mac. This works well for me because all of my best photos can still fit on two 4.7GB DVDs with room to spare. Depending on your perspective this is either a testament to my superior editing skills or my meager output of quality photographs.

In any event, the transition has gone smoothly. I created a new catalog in Lightroom, set it as the default, and was back in business. As the size of my catalog continues to grow I will have to be more careful to maintain a sound yet simple backup strategy, but so far everything is under control. If any of you reading this have faced a similar situation and have any brilliant strategies or unmitigated disasters to share, please feel free to share.