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.