Holland Day 1: Working on New Images for My Creative Photographic Composition Project


As I mentioned last week here on the blog, I am starting a new project on photographic composition. The project will include more than 101 images that illustrate virtually every composition technique – including shooting down low, as illustrate in the opening HDR image for this post.

Working with shadows is another cool composition technique. :-)

Below is another new image for my composition project. Tip #1: the background is just as important as the foreground. In fact, you can't have one without the other. Tip #2: Separate (or isolate) the elements in a scene to make them stand out in your photograph.


Hey! Many artist worked here and are working here. So, feeling kinda artistic, I added an artist effect to the image above: Curly Smooth in Topaz Adjust Clean 3. For info on Topaz and other creative plug-ins, click here.

If you want to be updated on my composition project, shoot me an email.

More to come from the trip.

Explore the light,
Rick

New Zealand Workshop Offers Spectacular Photo Opportunities

In March 2012, New Zealand photographer Petr Hlavacek and I will be co-leading a photo workshop to New Zealand. I can't wait for the trip, but I have to :-)

So for now, here is a preview of what we'll be photographing. Take it away Petr.

Petr (pictured above in shorts) and I will be co-leading a once-in-a-lifetime photo tour/workshop to New Zealand in March 2012. Here is a preview of what the participating photographers will be photographing. Shoot me an email if you want to join the photo fun.

This will be one of the best-priced and most exciting New Zealand workshops on the web. 


Important note: Airfare will not be included so you can book the most practical flights – which is very important on a long trip.

All of these New Zealand pictures were taken by Petr.

Take it away Petr.

• • •

To some, it may sound strange that a flash can be used for capturing images in the extremely bright glacier environment. Well, most of the time it is true that you don't need to use the flash. However, there are cases where it pays off to consider using one.

In the follow two examples, I'd like to demonstrate the difference a flash can make when photographing glaciers. Keeping an keen eye on the structure, the layering of the ice, and seeking interesting patterns is the way to determine if a flash will give you the best result.

On site, if you zoom in on an image on your camera's LCD monitor, and when you are back home and view your images on your computer, you'll see that the flash may often separate icy layers due to the ice density. I'm not a scientist, but I assume that this has to do with the amount of air bubbles in the glacier ice, and thus its reflectivity/absorbing capacities of the flashed cold light, being based around the blue range of the color spectrum, similar to the glacial ice.

The image above was made without a flash. The viewer tends to look right through the opening in the ice toward the mountains, initially not paying much of an attention to the ice itself, and using it rather as a natural frame before coming back to it and observing the ice dimples and other details.

The image above tells a different story. The viewer is attracted by the patterns, textures and layering of the ice straight away – before looking further toward the mountains.
This flashed image, with its icy layers in this case, reminds me of a human eye with eyelashes.

The two images are of the same scene, but offer different experiences. Which one do you prefer? I think both image work well, as they both have their own beauty.

Along the lines of using a flash, I'd like to give you an example of when using a flash in an ice cave is not always a good idea.

The image above was shot without a flash. The melting ice and its ice pockets create a beautiful, almost 3D texture on the walls of this blue ice cave.

The image above was shot using flash, and all that magic is completely gone. The image is flat, washed out, and lacks the natural color of the ice cave.

The following images of New Zealand's native Nikau Palms are a great examples of when to use a polarizing filter, and when you may not want to use one. The images were made immediately after a hard rain while it was still drizzling. The rain made the leaves reflective, giving them a great dark green color, created by heavy clouds of the stormy, overcast day.

The image above has no polarizing effect employed, rendering the green as a dark and cold. It feels almost like the leaves are made of steel.

The image above shows the polarizing effect on the leaves, which took that beautiful steel shine away, rendering the green as a warm, juicy and green color. The image feels a bit flat, with low contrast – shifting colors from what I had seen and felt.

To me, the first image without a polarizing filter is much stronger, with rather unique colors giving the image more definition and depth.

The image above shows the winter sunrise over Lake Matheson. It's on our "shot list" and is the most photographed lake in New Zealand.




Note: All RAW files of these images have been processed using Lightroom and Photoshop CS4/5 with standard color and tonal corrections to render scene as real as I experienced in reality.

• • •

To see more of Petr's wonderful work, check out his Web site.


Petr is also a founder and co-owner of New Zealand image stock library NZICESCAPES IMAGES, specializing in imagery from a diverse West Coast of the Southern Alps in the South Island, with focus on the glaciers and its ice.

We both hope you can join us in March 2012 for our photo tour and workshop!

For info on all my photo tours and workshops, click here.

Explore the light,
Rick



P.S. I took these two photographs in Antarctica. I love blue ice - and can't wait to photograph it in New Zealand!

Guest Blogger: Dutch Photographer Frank Doorhof

I met Dutch photographer Frank Doorhof two weeks ago at Photoshop World in Orlando, Florida. We immediately become friends. Next week I will be shooting with Frank in the Netherlands. How cool is that!

I'll be posting photos from our shoots here on my blog, so stay tuned. For now, here is a guest blog post from this cool Dutch dude.

Take it away, Frank.

• • •

Let’s start by introducing myself.

My name is Frank Doorhof. I’m a Dutch fashion/glamour photographer with a passion to teach. In the last few years we released seven instructional DVDs which are sold worldwide. In 2010, I was asked to join the team of instructors at www.kelbytraining.com, where you can now find five of my instructional videos.

A frequent topic of discussion on my workshops is about shooting in stunning locations vs. shooting in everyday, closer-to-home locations. After all, not everyone has the time or money to travel to exotic locations.

Well, I strongly believe that you can shoot in every location, you only have to train yourself to see the photo possibilities in the location, and that’s often the start of a real improvement in your work.

The best locations

One could argue that the best locations are the locations that are stunning: think about old ruins, churches, castles, luxurious hotel rooms etc. Of course that is true, However, often the really best locations are the locations you don’t expect to be good locations.

A while ago, I taught several location workshops where I choose a basic hotel room or basic location. The first response of the students was that the location was not interesting, and they wondered why I choose it. Some, I think, even panicked and thought the workshop was wasted money.

The first thing I did during these workshops was to let the students look for “shots." It’s fun to see that in every group there was only maybe one or two students who found some angles that they found interesting.

The problem, in my opinion, is that most photographers think in images they see – instead of thinking about looking through the lens. When you simplify a scene by looking through the lens, it often opens up loads of options you simply don’t see when looking without the lens in your mind.

Think about movies. Through the lens a scene looks like you’re in a wonderful and real room/space. However, if the camera were to move just a little you would see that it’s all fake and a set. The reason the illusion works is because the filmmaker makes you see what he wants you to see, or what he thinks is interesting.

As photographers, we have to think in complete images and angles, and when mastering this technique you can use the most standard locations to your advantage.

Locations far away?


The best locations are far away…… we travel to distant locations to shoot and to create stunning images. However, when you look closely you will find that often there are very interesting locations close to your own home town or even around your own house/studio.

Our studio is located in a smaller town and located in a business park. At first sight it's not that interesting. However, when starting to explore the area I found several small “sets” that work really well, and I use them during my workshops. The nice thing about this is that during the workshops the students learn to see that something that at first sight looks terrible is totally transformed when a model enters the set and the angle and light are combined.
Shot just outside our studio, a very uninspiring industrial scene, but when closing in and styling the model the scene is transformed into something I found interesting and I keep coming back to that scene.

When on a trip

Because I teach the workshops around the world, we do travel a bit, and as a photographer this is of course the perfect situation to shoot some nice images. However, I hate the standard snaps that you see a lot, so I always try to do something special with my images.

For me this often means including some people that are interesting, but also choosing the angle and including the sun can make some stunning images that are different than the standard.

Choosing wide angle, including the sun and a low angle gave me a shot that I really like.

Walking on Rodeo drive there are many options to shoot, and for some you have to be quick, and don’t ask permission.
 
And for some you just have to ask permission, the nice thing is that most people will give you the permission to shoot, take your time and always give your card so that the “model” can get his/her images.

It’s mostly in the angles

A lot of photographers think in terms of light and showing the area as complete as possible, and often I also use this, of course. However, when you want something interesting it’s a good idea to experiment with different angles. We all see the world from eyes height, when you shoot from this height you will get images that record what you see, but this will almost never really produce something that is stunning or interesting. It's just a record of what we saw, and the scene has to be pretty impressive to be impressive as an image, we all know the feeling that you think you shot a great image and when you see the final result it somehow is not that spectacular.

One thing you have to realize in this is that a camera does not see depth, it sees in two dimensions: width and height. The only way the camera can “fake” depth is by choosing the correct angle and (and this is my favorite thing to play with) by choosing the right lens. A wide angle for example will give you a totally different rendering of a scene than a longer lens. The wide angle will exaggerate the scene by making details closer to the lens much bigger than details further away; this can give you very “funny” results when used in model photography.
Shot with a 35mm lens on a Medium format camera gives a nice distortion to convey the image a totally different look.
A longer lens will compress the scene, giving you the option to show details in the background that with a wider angle will not be visible. Also the field of view is different between the lenses, so this gives you a lot of options to play with.
Using a longer lens can compress the scene and show much more of the chaos of billboards than you will see with your own eyes.
By using a longer lens I could include the background in the scene, in reality the billboards and building are far away from the hotel where we shot this image, by compressing the scene they appear much closer.

Including the location


Especially model photographers can sometimes fall into the trap of not showing the location. We all know the blog and forum posts were a photographer tells you about the stunning location he/she shot in, the amazing scenery etc. and when you look at the images you will see images that could just as easy be shot in a studio with some styling or in any other location. This is not wrong of course, in essence it’s about the model.

However, I think it’s great to also show some of the location, in the end the attention always has to go to the model for me, to achieve this I often use some flash or bounce on the model letting her stand out of the scene. I do shoot some material where there is not much of the scenery in the shot but I always try to include some key elements of the location in my shots so that people will recognize the locations were we shot. This helps with the story telling.


This shot was taking in the staircases of our hotel, a very uninspiring location, expect when adding some strobes.

Turning around 180 degrees and we found the elevator. Using one strobe inside the elevator gave me yet another option to shoot this location and telling a story.

Conclusion

I could write several articles on this issue, but with a blog post we don’t want to make it too long. For me, the message I want to bring to you is that you have to challenge yourself to see options in every day locations, look through the lens if you start out with this and soon you will find that you will get better at visualizing scenes without looking through the lens and a boatload of options will open up for your photography.

Follow my work at www.frankdoorhof.com where you will find my blog which is updated several times a week with technique, reviews, visions and guests.

You can also follow me on twitter at www.twitter.com/frankdoorhof.

When Will This HDR Fad End?

HDR Photograph by Rick Sammon
This post originally ran last year. I am running it again because someone at Photoshop World asked me the same question that inspired the original post: When do you think this HDR fad will end?

In thinking about a response, I first turned to my friend/HDR expert Trey Ratcliff of Stuck in Customs fame. We talked about a response.

I'll let Trey go first:

HDR Photograph by Trey Ratcliff
Anyone who thinks HDR is a fad is possibly someone that secretly wants it to be a fad. It's okay, H[DR]aters gonna Hate.

But, seriously, HDR is not a fad just like color TV is not a fad. In my experience, people do indeed see and process the world differently, and roughly 60-80% of people see and process the world in HDR. Thus, HDR photos are very satisfying to look at and produce for these people.

We often hear vociferous complaints by those other 20-40% that just don't see the world like this. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with these people -- they simply see the world in a different way. When they do visual pattern-recognition (what brains naturally do), they see line, contrast, and shape before they see color, light, and saturation. They do see it all, just like us (the HDR-seers), but in a different order. It's not better or worse -- just different. To these people, often B&W photography is more appealing than HDR because it speaks directly to the way they pattern-match the world around them.

• • •

Okay, my turn:

I think there is a time and place for HDR, which is something that I stress in my seminars and workshops. If you want a natural looking landscape, such as this Monument Valley scene, then you definitely want a non-HDR image. In this situation, HDR would have ruined the mood and feel of the image.

If you simply want to have some fun creating an artistic image, such as the South Beach Miami bar image, play with HDR to your heart's content. Have fun! That's why you got into photography in the first place. Right?

If you need HDR to capture the entire dynamic range of a scene, like this inside/outside image of an old car I photographed in Los Osos, California, then HDR is the only way to go – unless you want to spend a few bucks on lights and gels, and then spend the time setting them up. Even then, however, you might not get such a natural-looking image.

Consider this: the Renaissance painters often painted in HDR. No one complained about the dynamic range of the paintings– to my knowledge.

Ansel Adams basically printed in HDR by using different contrast papers, developing times, filters, burning and dodging, etc. Complaints?

When one uses Shadows/Highlights in Photoshop, he or she expands the dynamic range of an image, as does double-processing an image. No one seems to mind.

HDR can look realistic or artistic. The choice is yours. "Follow your heart" is what I recommend.

If you want some interesting reading on HDR, do a Google search: I hate HDR.

Maybe I am getting seasoned, having been around for long enough for Trey to call me, "One of the godfathers of photography." But I have to ask: Why hate anything that another artist produces? Might be better to say, "Ah, it's just not for me."

Sure, we are all entitled to our opinion. But I think the world would be a much better place with less hate.

As far as the "HDR fad" goes, I am sure HDR is here to stay. The picture below, I feel, illustrates my point.

No way, no how could I have captured the dynamic range (seven f-stops) of the lobby of the Florida Hotel in Old Havana, Cuba without HDR.

Hey Trey! Maybe we can do another post on the HDR movie fad! :-)

Explore the light – naturally or with HDR,
Rick

P.S. If you like HDR and want to learn more about HDR, check out my latest iPad app: Rick Sammon's iHDR.



My #1 Expoure Tip: Expose for the Highlights

 

When it comes to getting a good exposure, here is my #1 tip: Expose for the highlights - the brightest part of the scene. In the above photograph, I did just that. 


The best way to ensure that the highlights are not overexposed is to check the histogram on your camera's LCD monitor, and to make sure you don't have a spike on the right.

In the photograph below, I didn't exposure for the highlights, and you see what happened: the detail in the leading edge of the bird's wing is lost. 


Sure, you can recover up to about a stop of overexposed areas in Camera RAW, Lightroom and Aperture. But in this case, the details were too far gone.


Below are two more examples of why it's so important to look for the brightest part of the scene and to exposure for that area. Learn how to see the light, and expose for the light, and you'll be much happier with your exposures.



Of course, all rules are meant to be broken, as illustrated by the image below. :-)


Explore the light,
Rick