Light Painting

Since buying my dSLR camera a month or two ago, I have been too busy for too much experimentation.  I've had the opportunity to shoot a decent number of photos, but the manual settings is something I still have yet to master.  However, there was one camera trick I was determined to try as soon as possible: light painting.  "Light painting" is something you have probably seen on the internet at one point or another.  It gives the appearance of someone writing, drawing, or "painting" with light in a photo.  Below are a few internet examples of light painting.  The Batman one is my personal favorite...

The steps are actually simple, but execution is harder than it looks.  The only supplies needed are a camera that allows you to adjust the exposure, a flashlight/glowstick/sparkler/laser pointer/light-producing object, a dark setting, and a tripod.  The longer exposure will allow light to come in for a greater period of time, allowing you to draw shapes and have them "stick".  The tripod holds everything steady and keeps the shot from being blurry. 

To take the shot, all that is required is to:

1) Set your camera for a longer exposure.  If you're trying to do something fairly complex, you might want to set it for something on the longer side.  

2) Position your shot correctly before you shut off the lights (if indoors).  If outdoors, try not to stand under street lights or by a busy street where headlights could ruin your photo.

3) Press the shutter button and proceed to "paint" your image.  Quickly draw or write whatever you want before the shutter closes again.

4) Check the resulting image and try again if necessary.

Those steps make light painting seem remarkably easy, but as I said before, that is not necessarily the case.  On a whim, while home over Thanksgiving break, my brother, sister, and I went downstairs to my brother's pitch black room and tried out this technique for the first time.  It definitely takes a great amount of practice and a little artistry to get this to yield interesting results.  Below are some of our feeble first attempts at light painting.  I'm pretty happy with the photos we got considering this was our first try.  If we get the chance (perhaps over Christmas break) to try this out again, I'll be sure to post updates.

As you can see, we kept it pretty basic.  Easy shapes, easy letters, etc.  However, now that we've at least figured out how to get something to show up on the photo, I think we can work on putting together something a little more impressive in the future.  

Anyway, I invite you to try this out.  It's really fun to do (albeit a bit frustrating and time consuming if you mess up), and it has the potential to result in some really awesome photos.

Know Your Camera

Hello, all!  I'm going to revisit the topic of cameras for this post because I recently upgraded to a different camera myself.  I decided it was time to buy a dSLR (digital single-lens reflux) camera because I had somewhat outgrown my point-and-shoot camera.  I managed to find a good deal on eBay, and settled on a used Canon Rebel XSi with an 18-55 mm lens.  Despite the fact that it is used and an older model, it looks and works perfectly, and I'm very pleased with my purchase.

I know this post risks making me sound hypocritical.  After all, I did preach in this post about how you can still take good pictures with a regular digital camera and how the camera you have isn't as important as the skill of the photographer.  I stand by my statement, but in the same post I did also say that a nice camera can take good photography to the next level.  I'd like to think that this camera will help take me to the next level.  I feel ready to try stuff that my little camera just isn't capable of doing!

Anyway, along with a fancier camera comes a lot of confusion, which brings me to my main point: know your camera.  Whether it's a little point-and-shoot or a dSLR, you're not going to achieve your desired result if you don't know anything about the hunk of glass, metal, and plastic in your hands.  I feel extremely comfortable with the different settings/features on my little Fuji--I know that camera like the back of my hand--but my new Canon is a different story.  Granted, I've only had it for a few days, so it's expected that I'll need awhile to get used to it.  However, due to the complicated nature of this camera, I can tell that I'll have to do some serious Googling if I'm going to be able to use all of this camera's settings to its full potential.  

Here are a couple pics I've gotten out of it so far.  They aren't bad considering I'm still utterly lost when it comes to operating many features of this camera.  I was concerned that the camera I spent $450 on was going to yield pictures identical to my $100 Fuji, but I was pleasantly surprised.  There is DEFINITELY a difference.  

To summarize, whether you're working with a cheapo Walmart camera or a $1000 pro-quality dSLR camera, make sure you know your camera.  Read the manual, use Google, experiment with settings, and whatever else you need to do to get the results you want from your camera.  I know the phrase I'm about to type doesn't really make sense, but I'd love to be able to make my new camera "sing".  :)

Football Season=Photography Season

It's that time again...  The start of football season (and many other college sports) is also the start of new kind of photography "season."  Sporting events can offer a tremendous amount of material to photograph: players, coaches, fans, cheerleaders, the band, tailgaters, etc.  There's plenty of stuff around, so definitely pack your camera as an essential piece of equipment for sporting events!

I myself just attended the first Husker football game of the season.  The game gave me an opportunity (finally) to take a few pictures.  I'm not sure what it's like elsewhere, but it seems like there are awkward periods of time in Nebraska when there's nothing outside to photograph.  The occasional sunset will be pretty this time of year, but there's really nothing blooming and storm season is basically behind us.  Plus, life gets busy in the fall, so there's not always time to seek out an interesting subject.  Football game photography provides multiple easy subjects and is a welcome change from what I normally photograph.  I love nature, but you can only take pictures so many insects, flowers, and skies before you start to crave something a little different.

Below are a couple shots from the first game of the season. My seats were not extremely close, so I didn't really attempt to get much player action.  I experimented with a few settings, but my favorites from the day were my panorama shots and my regular shots (which were edited to look like tilt-shift photography):

So, as I said before, always pack that camera before you head to sporting event!  A couple things I would recommend:

1)  If you're close to the court/field, try out your "sport" setting.  Almost all regular digital cameras have some sort of sport/action setting that is meant to capture people or objects in motion.  A sporting event would obviously be a great place to test this one out.

2)  If you're in a large stadium or arena, a panorama like the one shown above might be a good idea.  Stadiums are huge and you're usually at an elevated position, so I don't think you can really go wrong with a wide shot.

3) Still pay attention to the game! Don't miss out on the action because you're taking pictures nonstop the entire time.  Snap a few at key moments, but do remember to focus on what's happening!  Don't be that annoying person who is preoccupied with their camera the entire time. :)

Have fun!  Before I go, I can't help myself....GO BIG RED! 

Fading Effects on Picnik

For this post, I want to briefly revisit the topics of curves and fading effects on Picnik.  Since I discovered "Curves" on Picnik (click HERE to see how to access that section), I've been using it quite often to edit my photos.  As I have mentioned in many previous blog posts, I almost always used the fade bar to lessen the impact, except for when using dramatic sepia, daguerrotype, and the various B&W options.  Recently, I've been experimenting with fading the effects that I just mentioned.  I've found that it can yield some interesting results, and I thought I would share so others could try it and provide their input.

As an example, here's a photo of the engraving on my father's old shotgun that I took a couple weeks ago.  This is the "normal" edit, with hardly anything about the photo being tweaked.

For the final product, I applied dramatic sepia and faded it to about 50-60% strength.  I also layered on the "Gritty" effect to bring out the detail in the engraving a little more.  It faded the colors a little and made the metal look even more metallic.  Overall, I feel like it added a lot more interest to the photo.  The original was not bad, but I definitely prefer the look of the final product.

Anyway, I know this is a very short and random post, but I liked this combination of effects, so I thought I'd put it out there for others to try or provide their opinion.  Go ahead and give it a shot or let me know what you think!  Also feel free to comment on any other blog posts.  I'm always open to suggestions or opinions!

Flash or No Flash?

I'll be honest with you, flash photography is something I avoid like the plague.  I know many will disagree with me on this point, but I've always liked the appearance of natural light much better than flash photography.  Probably 99% of my photography is taken without flash, even when I take the picture indoors.  I will argue with anyone who says that you always have to flash 100% of the time when the picture is being taken indoors.  Personally, I think flash can ruin the coloring of a photo (especially macro photography) and create harsh light and color tones.  For example, the following photos would have sucked, in my opinion, if flash had been used.  As I said before, I've tried flash with macro shots before, and I have had zero success.

This picture was taken right next to a window, so I didn't have many problems with clarity.   I did color-correct this photo slightly, but I preferred the natural color tones to something washed out by a flash.  Plus, flash would have created a huge bright spot in the somewhat reflective surface of the bottle.

This photo was taken indoors in my mother's brightly lit (by windows) kitchen.  This is the unedited version of this photo.  I think, given the situation, the coloring is quite good.  I don't think I would have liked the yellow, artificial tone that would have been created if I had used flash for this photo.

Moving on, the point of this post is not to discourage you from ever using flash, but to let you know that you do not have to use flash indoors every single time.  I've talked to people before that think it's practically the law, but that's definitely not the case.  However, not using flash can limit your photography because it always requires a good lighting situation.  Besides being genuinely interested in nature, the fact that outdoor photography does not usually require flash is a part of why I am drawn to it.  The only time I typically use flash (besides experimentation) is when I am taking photos of people or animals indoors.  Unlike objects, I think people generally look better when flash is used.  It seems to brighten a person's face and take away unflattering shadows if used correctly.  Honestly, if you're taking a picture of anything indoors when it is dark outside (meaning that artificial light is being used), flash is probably going to be needed.  Trust me, I've tried to go without it, and all you get are incredibly blurry photos as a result.  Flash is also involved in the "night" setting on most cameras, but as I said in a previous post, night photography is not my forte, so I won't get into that.

Even then, I suggest taking photos of people outside whenever possible.  I think almost everything looks better in natural light.  It's just my personal preference.  Anyway, I know this has been a more opinionated blog than usual.  I just wanted to make it clear that there is no absolute law stating that indoor photography requires flash.

Take-away Points:

1) You CAN get away with not using flash if the indoor room is brightly lit or has many windows.

2) You MUST hold the camera more still than usual when taking indoor photos without flash to avoid blurriness.

3) Flash is usually more flattering when photographing people indoors (unless the room is very bright).

One final thought, flash isn't all bad, but I believe some extra training with a nicer camera (with more settings options) is required to make flash look less harsh and more natural.  Because blurriness is a problem for me at times, I do plan to experiment more with flash in the future.  However, for now, everything above pretty accurately reflects my opinions on flash photography.

Salvaging a Crappy Photo (Part 1)

Let's say, for example, that you went to a rock concert with your friends.  After the show, you waited in line for autographs, and you even got a picture with the band.  Unfortunately, when you go home to look at the pictures on your computer, you notice that the picture of you with the band is dark and slightly blurry.  The venue had bad lighting and your friend didn't use flash, so now your only picture with the band sucks.

I would be willing to bet that this scenario is fairly common.  You have one shot of a once-in-a-lifetime situation, and the photo ends up looking like crap. This always sucks, but there are a few simple things you can do to salvage the photo rather than deleting it.  For this post, I will use a picture I took of my dog over Christmas.  It was a cute shot that I tried to take, but the room where I was shooting it had only lamplight.  In my case, I purposely didn't use flash because I didn't want my dog's eyes to glow.  When I got the picture off of my camera, I liked the composition of the shot, but not the lighting/clarity.

Here are the steps I followed to salvage this photo and make it something a little more presentable.  I did not show the photos for each step because many of them are extremely subtle changes, and I didn't want to post near-identical photos for some of the later steps.

1) The original:

2) In either Picnik, iPhoto, or other basic photo-editing software, the first thing I would generally recommend trying is adjusting the Shadows setting.  Already, the picture is much better due to the fact that you can actually see my dog's face.  However, now the colors are a little washed out.

3) If you want to lighten the picture further, try increasing the exposure slightly.  I wouldn't recommend maxing out the "lighten shadows" option because it tends to make the photo grainy.

4)  Next, in iPhoto, I barely increased the contrast, definition, highlights, and sharpness to improve the clarity a little bit.  With any photo, you'll want to take it easy with definition/sharpness.  If you over-sharpen a photo, it honestly looks terrible.  Sometimes a little blur is actually preferable.

5) Finally, because I wasn't satisfied with the colors in the picture, I increased the saturation slightly (plus adjusted the exposure a tiny bit more).  I've found that with most photos that I edit, you actually make the picture look clearer by messing with the colors rather than definition/sharpness.

So, the picture is still not spectacular, but it's greatly improved compared to the original.  If the color still doesn't satisfy you, you can use black&white or sepia effects to mask the bad color.  In general, if you want to save a photo, using heavy effects can somewhat hide the fact that the photo is not very high quality.  Here's an example of the result if I use "Faded Daguerrotype" from Curves on Picnik:

In conclusion, to briefly summarize my main points:

If your photo too dark: Mess around with Shadows or Exposure for the bulk of the lightening process.  If the photo begins to look extremely grainy, back off of the effect a little bit.

If you photo is too blurry: Experiment with contrast, saturation, highlights and other color effects first.  Often, you can solve the problem without even touching the sharpness or definition levels.  If you do need to use sharpen or define, DO NOT overdo it.  A little blur is actually more attractive (in my opinion) than an unnaturally over-sharpened shot.

As you can see from the blog title, I plan to have more posts on this topic.  I'll round up some more subpar photos and get those posts up as soon as possible!

Don't Overlook Featured/Seasonal Effects

For those of you who turn to Picnik for much of your photo editing, you may have noticed that in the "Create" tab there is always a section with "Featured" effects.  These usually correlate with whichever season (sports and nature), holiday, or other major event is coming up.  After the event has passed, these effects are then relocated to the "Seasonal" tab.  If you're anything like me, you largely ignore these featured effects.  Many of them seem tacky, such as the effect that provides dorky St. Patrick's Day clipart or the bunny filter that was featured around Easter.  However, over time I have learned that not all of these seasonal effects are cheesy and unusable for anything other than comedy.

Surprisingly, many of these effects are quite cool. A personal favorite of mine is "Scary Movies" in the Halloween section.  We actually used Scary Movies for a couple pictures of my brother.  If you follow my blog at all, you may recognize both pics from my earlier post on taking your own senior pictures and making your own invitations.

My brother's graduation invitation minus the invitation information.  Text was added when he got closer to the date of graduation. 

One of my brother's senior pictures.  The photo was taken by my sister, but was edited by me.

Ialso used Scary Movies on one of my own photographs to give it a slightly different feel.  Below I have two identical pictures of a swingset that is at a school playground near my house. The first pic is edited with more typical coloring, and the second uses the seasonal effect.

This photo was edited using the Lomo-ish effect, faded slightly.

The same photo edited with Scary Movies.

Personally, even though the orange sky is artificial, I prefer it to the original.  I like the spookier, red/orange tone in the sky better than the typical blue.  Another interesting feature that I used recently was the "Space Textures" feature.  I was looking for a wackier editing option, so I gave it a try.  Using a combination of Posterize and Space Textures, I turned a picture of my eye into something that looked more like a painting than a photograph:

It's true that the majority of these featured effects will not generally provide you with a terribly natural-looking photography in most cases, but they're still worth a try!  You may be surprised by how interesting some of these effects can be if you use them in the correct situation. Nearly every holiday has at least one texture/effect that is applicable year-round.

For those of you who aren't sure where to find the Featured or Seasonal section on Picnik, I have provided screenshots for you below (click to enlarge):

As you can see, this section is easy enough to find.  Featured effects should show up before anything else when you go to the "Create" tab.  The featured effects will rotate out depending on the time of year, but remember that you can always find them again in the Seasonal section.

Season is the little calendar icon under the create tab.  All of the featured effects are stored here, even when they are out of season.

I wish I could give you a full list of featured/seasonal effects that might be reasonable for editing year-round, but as you can see from the photo of the Seasonal section, there are too many to sort through.  I will say, though, that I have had a lot of luck with Halloween in the past: Scary Movies, Halloween Textures, and even VampiraScope are all workable.  Other than that, I invite you to dig around on your own to figure out which effects suit you the best!

Faking Tilt-Shift Photography in Photoshop

Most of the time, I try to stick with topics that will apply to most people, but I'm afraid I'll have to break that little rule by talking about Photoshop.  I know not everyone has Photoshop, but it may be possible to do tilt-shift editing on other online or cheaper programs.  I invite you to research similar photo editing and manipulating programs on your own to see if you can find a more affordable Photoshop alternative.  I'm not familiar with any alternatives personally, but if you do find any, feel free to comment and inform me of your discoveries.

Now, back to the main event: tilt-shift photography. If you've never heard of tilt-shift before, don't feel bad.  I was only introduced to the term a couple week ago myself.  Basically, tilt-shift an effect that leaves some of the photo in focus and blurs the rest.  It sounds unremarkable, but it creates the illusion of "minatures."  I know that description is pretty vague, so here are a few great examples of tilt-shift photography that better illustrate the effect:

Pretty sweet, huh?  

It seems like it would be an extremely difficult effect to achieve, but as I looked up online tutorials, I found that there weren't as near as many steps as I was expecting.  Rather than typing out all of the steps I followed, I'll just give you a link to the tutorial that I used when first trying out this effect a few days ago:  http://www.tiltshiftphotography.net/photoshop-tutorial.php

I would like to point out, however, that although there aren't many steps, it does take a great deal of trial and error to get the effect to work correctly.  First, it can be tricky finding a photo that actually works for tilt-shifting.  Ideally, you'd want a wide shot that was taken from a slightly elevated perspective.  Second, getting the area of focus where you want it can be frustrating.  I would suggest getting a lot of use out of the "step backward" command if you find you don't like the area you selected.  Even for people much more experienced than myself at tilt-shifting in Photoshop, experimentation is key.  You can't do exactly the same thing for each photograph.  It simply won't work.

As I mentioned earlier, I am still a total hack at tilt-shifting.  I had to dig pretty deep into my personal photo archives to find suitable shots to edit, and it took me awhile to achieve that miniature effect.  My edits still don't look quite as much like a miniature-scale model as I had hoped, but I still think it adds a lot of interest.  Here are a couple examples of my tilt-shift attempts:

A wide shot of Sioux Fall Park that I took back in 2006 or 2007.  It worked really well for tilt-shift editing.

The Husker marching band.

Another shot of the band.  I think this photo was actually my first attempt at tilt-shift.  Not quite mini enough, but it still looks cool.

This is not my photo, but it is my photo editing.  I think I was able to achieve more of a "mini" look in this particular shot.

I still have some work to do with this effect, but it was so cool that I had to bring it up.  If you have Photoshop, I would definitely suggest trying this effect out.  Even if you don't have any photos that work for this kind of editing, you can still experiment with it.  Do what I did, and surf the internet for the right kind of photo, and try to improve your editing skills.  That way, you'll be prepared when one of your shots does meet the requirements for tilt-shift!


UPDATE:

I finally managed a tilt-shift photo that makes me proud.  I went to a Husker game earlier this season and took a good shot of the marching band.  The photo was better suited to tilt-shift (it was not zoomed in as far), so I took it into Photoshop and got a much better result than the marching band tilt-shift attempt above.  Here it is:

UPDATE #2: I haven't edited this post for a couple years, but I thought of a tilt-shift-esque effect that is incredibly simple.  On Instagram, if you select the "teardrop" button and choose the rectangle option, it will allow you to have a rectangular, horizontal section of your picture in focus.  The parts of the photo above and below will be blurred.  This is essentially the same thing you do in the tutorial linked above.  You can enhance the effect by also selecting a filter that provides greater saturation and contrast.  It may not be quite as startling as an edit done in Photoshop, but it is basically a two-step, super easy alternative.

Fun With Panoramas

When I purchased my current camera, I quickly noticed that it had a "panorama" setting--a feature that wasn't offered on any other camera I had ever used.  As you probably know, panorama shots can be pretty spectacular, so I was certainly motivated to learn how to use this setting.  I only dabble in shooting panoramas, so this won't be an instructional blog post per se.  Instead, I just want to make you aware of the panorama setting and what it can offer.  

I'm still learning about panoramas myself, so I'm not sure if the panorama setting works the same way on all cameras.  On my camera, you create the shot by taking a series of three pictures.  First, you can choose whether you want to take the pictures from left to right or vice versa.  Second, you take each picture, trying to line up the end of the previous picture (which is usually semi-transparent and on the edge of the camera screen) to the beginning of the next picture.  After three consecutive shots have been taken, the camera processes the shots and stitches together the panorama for you.  As I said before, I'm not certain that all cameras do this in the same way.  Some cameras allow you to put more than three shots together to form a panorama, and some people choose to create/edit the panorama with computer programs like PhotoStitch.  I would suggest playing around with your camera, reading the manual, or making use of Google if you are uncertain about how to use the panorama setting on your particular camera.

In my little experience, this setting can be finicky.  You have to have a tripod or an extremely steady hand to line everything up correctly.  One of my early panorama attempts left me with a bizarrely warped horizon, and another led to obvious lines between the three individual photos.  I feel that my use of this setting has improved, but I'm definitely still getting accustomed to it.  Here are a few examples of panorama shots that I have taken since getting my camera in March. I would suggest clicking on the photos to enlarge them.  

A very early panorama attempt.  Just a shot of my neighborhood.  

Here's a good example of what can go wrong when taking a panorama shot.  Lincoln doesn't actually have a crazy curved horizon...

Another panorama of Lincoln.  I think the wide angle makes for a very interesting shot of downtown.

This is towards the Haymarket area of downtown Lincoln.  Kind of an interesting sky shot as well.

I'm obviously still learning about this setting myself, but I would still encourage you to try it yourself.  Well-done panoramas like the ones below can be really impressive and awesome if you have the a subject that would make a good wide shot.  I can't take credit for the ones below (all Google finds), but I wanted to show you some more professional images as examples.

Photo Backup

Few things would be more devastating to someone who enjoys photography than losing all of their photos in a computer theft or failure.  For this reason, it's extremely important to backup all important photos somewhere safe in case something happens to your computer or laptop.  I thought it would be a good idea to touch on this subject because of a recent computer issue that my family is facing with our home desktop computer.  Yesterday, a nasty virus (the Windows Vista Restore Virus, I believe) totally wrecked our computer.  My dad spent hours trying to fix it, but it seems impossible to remove the virus completely without professional help.  Even if we do take our computer to the experts for repair, it's uncertain as to whether we'll be able to recover all of the photos and other files that were saved on our hard drive.

This little technological crisis prompted me to start backing up the photos on my own computer.  I already had most of my pictures uploaded in one place or another, but for peace of mind I wanted to put them all in the same place.  I have a Mac, so I have little fear that my computer will crash or get "sick."  However, Macs are not invincible, and it's still possible for me to randomly drop my computer onto a hard surface or to have it ripped off.  To prevent a complete loss of my photos, I decided to upload all of them to an internet photo album so I could access them from another computer if need be.  There are multiple ways to backup pictures, but the main two that I use are:

1) Creating hard copies of my photos by burning them onto discs.

2) Upload photos to Internet photo albums.

I have many of my more important photos burned onto CDs so that there is a physical place where the photos are stored.  This method works, but I'll warn you that buying the discs will cost you money and space. Depending on the quantity of files, you may need a large number of discs to backup all of your photos.  A more popular way to backup photos is probably by uploading them somewhere online.  Personally, I use www.photobucket.com.  It allows you to upload large quantities of photos at a time, customize your privacy settings, and organize/personalize your albums however you want.  Naturally, there are many other websites with similar features, and you can choose the one that works best for you.  I would not recommend using Facebook or Myspace (if anyone still uses it...) as a storage place for your photos.  Those websites dummy down your photos, so although the photo is saved, it won't be saved at its original size or quality. Keep in mind that having your photos stored online can be both an advantage and a disadvantage.  On the positive side, you can view your photos anywhere that you have internet access.  On the negative side, if you don't have internet, you won't be able to get to your pictures (which is when a hard copy would come in handy).

I realize that the topic of backing up files isn't exactly thrilling, but I still felt obligated to bring it up. What some may view as common sense might not be so obvious to others, so it can't hurt to review this subject.  As I have said before: don't put all your eggs in one basket.  Always have your most precious photos backed up somewhere reliable!  If you don't want to use discs or an online photo hosting site, use a flash drive, separate computer, or anything else you can think of that will protect your photos.  Whichever method you choose, just make sure that it would prevent you from losing all of your important files in the event that something like this happens:

Photography as Wall Art

In past blog posts, I have suggested a couple different ways that photography can save you money.  They were:

1) Taking a picture of a picture rather than investing in a scanner (click here to read).

2) Taking your own family/senior portraits instead of paying a professional (click here to read).

My mother recently suggested another topic that involves a money saving technique: using your own photos as art in your home.  Rather than spending money on expensive paintings or framed photos from a store, you can print out your own photos and frame them yourself.  My mother has done this in our own home a few times and has gotten compliments from people who had no idea that she had taken the photos herself.

Not only is it cheaper to get your photos printed out at home or Walmart/Walgreens, but your own photos will offer more versatility.  If there is a specific subject you want featured in the photo, you can take it upon yourself to get the shot you need (your subject can be anything, but nature and still life are your best bets).  Using your own pictures also allows you to match the mood and and coloring of your room perfectly.  If a sepia toned photo would look better in the room than full color, you have the option of editing the photo to suit your needs.  That's definitely not always true with a store-bought print.  It's even possible to match the season.  My mother switches out the photos in our living room to better reflect the weather outside.  It looks weird to have flowers on your wall in the middle of January.

Finally, if you want the photo to have a more artsy feel, applying effects is usually necessary.   Effects that soften or fade the color, such as sepia, black and white, fancy focus, ortonish, cross process or combinations of these will usually do the trick.  A photo is generally more attractive as an artistic piece if it looks less "real."  Below are examples of photography that might work as wall art.

Taken by my Mom.  As you can see, it has a softer, warmer tone rather than sharp,  bright colors.  

Taken and edited by me.  This one works as a more artsy piece because of the selective coloring and glowing edges.

Taken by my sister.  It's simple and pleasing to the eye.  

Taken by me.  This would be a good wall hanging for winter.  It's relatively simple and the black and white effect makes it more neutral.

This one was taken by my mother.  I'm not 100% sure, but she may actually have this photo up in our house.  She has a 3-picture frame that shows various pictures of daycare children playing outdoors.  If this one is used, I think she also added a white vignette to make the photos more ethereal.

Taken by me.  This is a picture of my sisters curtains, but it's ambiguous enough that it could be used as a still life shot.  The effect also neutralizes and softens the color.

Taken by my sister.  The effect she applied to this makes it good for a wall hanging.  I'm not sure exactly which effect she would have used for this one, but it gives it a grainy, sepia-like tone that adds interest.

Taken by my sister.  The colors in this particular photo are probably muted enough as it is, so no editing would necessarily be needed.  This would be a good choice if you wanted a boating or beach theme in the room.

It's a little difficult to give examples for this topic because people's taste and need varies so much.  All of the photos shown above could be edited further to fit the color and style of a particular room.  Anyway,  to summarize, here's what I suggest:

1) Use a relatively simple photo.  Personally, I don't think overly busy photos look as good.  For wall hanging you don't necessarily want something too distracting.


2) Edit the photo to match the look of your room.  Most of my suggestions involved toning down or softening colors, but ultimately you can do whatever you want.  


3) Print the photo in the size you need either at home or at a store that offers a printing service.


4)  Frame it yourself.  Matting the photo isn't absolutely necessary, but you could do that, too.

Overall, it's a fairly simple process that will save you a lot of money.  Prints are ridiculously high priced, so if you use your own photo and (ideally) a frame you already have, you can save yourself a ton of money.   Plus, having your own photos on the wall is nice personal touch you can add when decorating your home.  What could be more original than having your own photography or artwork on the wall?