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.

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.

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.

Developing Your Own Style

I'm going to try make this post short and to the point.  Basically, the title says it all: try to develop your own  unique style of taking and editing photos.  It's always a good idea to take pointers from others, but there's no enjoyment in mimicking someone else's work.  It's very likely that your style will come of its own accord as you experiment and improve your skills.  The best way hold yourself back is by trying too hard to replicate someone else's technique!

To illustrate what I am talking about when I say "style," I will post links below to three Flickr photostreams rather than trying to put the differences into words. One photostream is mine, one is my sister's, and one is my mother's.  If you take a look through some of these pictures, you will see that,  despite the fact that we are blood relatives, our photos look quite different.

My Photostream

My Sister's Photostream

My Mother's Photostream

There really isn't much more I can say to add to this topic.  The message is simple: Do your own thing!

Also, I would highly recommend checking out my mother and sister's photos.  My mother only really took up photography a year or two ago and has no training whatsoever.  My sister is only 14, and she's already taking photos that are 1000 times better than what I took at that age.  They both keep me on my toes and make me want to continue to improve.  I want to say that they are my competition, but inspiration is probably a better word to use.

The Frustrations of Night Photography

Just to change things up a bit, I thought I would talk about an aspect of photography that I am nowhere near mastering.  Because this blog is primarily intended for other photography hacks like me, who are still learning techniques and are using cheaper equipment, I decided to touch on a topic that frustrates me and others like me.  I generally believe that you can still take great pictures with a cheap, regular digital camera.  However, when it comes to special lighting situations, like night shots, I have to take that statement back to a certain degree.  The fact of the matter is, even if you camera has a night setting and you use a tripod, you will still struggle with night photography without a nicer camera.

I don't attempt much night photography, and when I do, my results are not consistent.  I have used many different settings, and none of them consistently yield good results.  I don't own a tripod (I really need to get on that), but I have used flat, stable surfaces to take night shots, and it still isn't a guarantee.  I tried to do some night photography this winter, and out of dozens of shots, I only got a couple worth keeping (see below).

My main problem is blurriness, and I have to resort to editing to fix the photos as much as I can. Stability is improved with a tripod or hard surface, but even then the picture often doesn't come out how I want.  If anyone out there has good advice for getting better pictures with TYPICAL digital camera at night, I would love to hear it.  The reason I use the word "typical" is because suggestions for a fancy camera aren't going to help me or anyone else who has no plans to upgrade anytime soon.  If you have any advice to offer, you can go ahead and leave a comment to this post. If it is good advice, I may mention your suggestions in a later post for those that might have missed them in the comments.  Remember:  You don't need an account to comment on my blog.  Anyone can comment!

When to Take Outdoor Photos

For those of you who enjoy outdoor photography, whether it be nature photography or other subjects that are outdoors, you may have noticed that the time of day you choose to take pictures can have quite an impact on the final result.  It's possible to take good pictures at any time of day and in any weather, BUT I feel that the lighting at certain times is superior to others.

To put it simply:

Sunny sky > Overcast sky

Mornings/Evenings > Middle of the day

In my personal experience, I have found that it's much harder to get the photo I want if the sky is dark, gloomy, and overcast.  The lighting tends to be dull, and even with editing you can't easily fake the shadows that a sunny sky would have created.  When at least some sun is shining, the colors appear more vibrant, interesting shadows are created, and the overall product is much more interesting.  Also, morning and evenings have always produced more impressive results for me.  The middle of the afternoon is okay, but once again you lose shadows when the sun is directly overhead.  In addition, the mid-day sun tends to be harsh and washes out colors rather than enhance them.  If I take photos in the middle of the day, I usually try to find areas where some shadows are created by trees or or buildings.  It seems to lessen the impact of the sun and soften the light.

Most of the photography I do is either nature or still-life, but I think that the same idea would apply to photographing people.  I would expect that when taking outdoor photos of people, that they would tend to look better in morning or evening light on a sunnier day.  Clouds or overly bright light would wash out a skin tone the same way that it would wash out the color of a flower.

As an example, here are some photos taken at different times of the day and in different lightning situations.

This was taken near sunset.  As you can see, the photo would not be the same if taken in mid-day light rather than the softer, more yellow evening light tone.

This photo would have been pretty lame without the evening light.  None of the shadows that make this shot interesting would have existed.

This shot was taken in the morning.  However, you can tell that it is later morning, and the light is beginning to wash out the colors a bit.  It's still not a bad shot, but it may have been more interesting about an hour earlier.

Here is an example of how you can find sheltered, shadowed areas to take pictures on a bright sunny day.  I actually took this in the early afternoon, but there is no direct sunlight in this area.

This was taken on a mostly overcast day.  It's a good photo, but I can't help but think that it would have taken less editing if it had been taken on a brighter day.  It took some work to get the colors to really pop the way I wanted.

Here's a perfect example of what you get when you take a picture at noon, in direct sunlight, in the middle of the summer.  Not bad, but just a little harsh.

As I said before, good shots can be taken any time of the day, but I think you can increase your chances of a worthwhile shot if you stick to days with sun and go out to take photos in the morning and evening.

Side Note:  I was reading a book on digital photography awhile after posting this, and there was an interesting section on the time of year that is best to take photos.  I have to say that I agree with the author:  Winter > Summer

In my experience, for some of the same reasons that I mentioned about shooting in the middle of the day, summer lighting is not always the best.  The light is harsh and there's often an ugly haze in the air.  Something about winter light is excellent for taking outdoor photos.  I can't remember having any issues with winter photos at any time of the day.  Anyway, that was just something I wanted to tack onto the end of this post for those that are interested.

Don't Be Afraid to Look Stupid

This blog post has a simple enough message: Don't be afraid to look a little silly (and possibly crazy) when trying to get a good shot.  I guarantee many great photos you have seen were not taken by someone standing straight up and holding the camera out in typical fashion.  There is a strong possibility that the photographer was lying flat on their back, on their stomach, crouching, twisting, reaching, or climbing when they took the photo.

I'm not trying to say that you can't take a good photograph in a normal position, but many times you can achieve a much more interesting angle using strange body positions.  You might look a little odd to passersby, but who really cares?  If you get the awesome shot you were seeking, it's worth it to appear a tad eccentric.

Here are a couple examples of my own work that I took in rather odd positions.  Most of these involved sitting, kneeling, or laying down.

I know for a fact that I was sitting in dirt for this shot.  Hopefully, not in white shorts.

I chased this squirrel 50 yards across a construction zone for this picture.  Talk about difficult...  I think he knows what a camera is and was trying to hide from the paparazzi.  He's the only black squirrel I've ever seen on campus, and people are always whipping out cameras to take pics of him.

I got the strangest look from a guy who was walking by as I took this photo.  He was probably wondering why I had my camera in an ashtray.

Once again, I encourage you to get creative with your body positions as well as your angles.  I think you'll find that you get more interesting shots that way.  However, I do want to make something clear.  I believe that you should not be afraid to LOOK stupid, not that you should go out and DO something stupid.  Standing perilously close to a cliff edge or a dangerous wild animal may not be worth the spectacular shot if you sustain serious bodily injury.  If you're willing to take the risk, that's great, but don't blame me if something goes terribly wrong!

To finish out this post, I want to share a few pictures I found of photographers on Flickr.  None of these pictures are mine, but I thought they would illustrate my main point quite nicely.  Take a leaf out of these people's books:

Depending on whether or not this guy can swim, this might an example of a risky photography position.

Clearly, this woman is not afraid to look insane.

Nice flexiblity.  She clearly stretches before a photo shoot...

Taking a Picture of a Picture

If you're a member of the "older" crowd that was born in the era before digital cameras were common, you probably possess a large number of real, physical photos.  Most of my childhood photos (except high school and beyond) were taken with film cameras, so there are literally hundreds of hardcopies of photos in boxes in our basement.  Although I appreciate "real" photos, the fact that they are printed on paper is often inconvenient if you want to share them online, put them in a slideshow, or use them in some other project.  This is an easy fix for those who own a photo scanner, but is a bigger problem for those who do not.  In this post I will provide a simple way to digitize images for people who, like me, are too cheap to buy a scanner.

This solution is laid out pretty well in the post title: take a picture of a picture.  When you're in a pinch and don't have access to a scanner, you can use your digital camera to snap a picture of the picture you want to put on the computer.  Through trial and error, I've found that the best way to do this is to follow these steps:

1) Find a room that has a lot of natural light if taking the picture during the day.  If it is dark outside, find a room with a bright overhead light or lamp.

2) Lay the picture flat on a tabletop in a way that there is not too much glare on an important part of the photo from either sunlight or a light fixture.

3) Aim your camera directly above the picture.  Make sure your flash is OFF!  All it will do is create a massive bright spot in the middle of your photo, especially if the photo finish is glossy.  Using the macro setting might be a good idea for greater detail, as well.

4) Try to keep the camera as steady as possible.  I often use my elbows for stability when taking the picture.  Those of you who have a tripod will probably find it immensely helpful if you can get it positioned correctly.  

5) Take the picture.  Take a few different shots in case you moved too much and ruined the picture.  Just because the picture looks clear on the LCD screen, it doesn't mean that it won't be blurry when you upload the picture.

6) Upload and edit.

The first few times I did this, the results were not always spectacular.  However, now I feel like a combination of practice, using the correct settings, and mastering the art of holding the camera perfectly still makes my pictures of pictures look a lot more like something that was scanned onto the computer. In fact, many of the photos that my family and I have converted to digital in this way actually look better than they did originally. Here are a few examples of pictures of pictures taken by my mom, sister, and me:

As someone who knows what the originals look like, I can tell you that these look pretty much identical.  This technique is definitely not as consistent because the lighting/glare and how steady you hold the camera can affect outcome of the photo.  However, I think the benefits outweigh the costs in this situation.  This is a great cheat for those of us that don't want to pony up the cash for a scanner, and I strongly suggest giving it a shot!

Quality Over Quantity

I can't tell you how many times I have flipped through photos on Facebook, Flickr, or an email and been annoyed by the sheer volume of photos.  It's one thing if you have 200 photos that are equally fascinating and totally different from one another, but that's rarely the case.  There is nothing more boring than looking at a Facebook photo album that has 50 photos in a row that look almost exactly the same.  As dull as albums like this are, they are shockingly common on the web, which is why I'm dedicating a post to this topic.

The bottom line is: KNOW WHEN TO DELETE.  If you take 10 photos of the same thing, even if they are all good, you either need to:

a) Pick a couple favorites and delete the rest.  It will save you computer memory space.

OR

b) If you really can't let go of the photos forever, pick a couple favorites to upload and leave the rest on your computer.

I'm guilty of doing this myself.  There have been times when I've uploaded similar photos and created some redundancy on my Facebook or Flickr accounts.  However, I periodically go back and weed the not-so-spectacular photos from both my online albums and iPhoto on my computer.  If you go back later you often find yourself much less attached to photos you couldn't let go of weeks or months ago.

As an example, I will use some pictures that I took yesterday to demonstrate how to choose.  Yesterday afternoon, my mother made cupcakes and I took the opportunity to take pictures of them and some of the sprinkles she had spilled on the counter.  As usual, I took many similar shots (see my earlier blog post on this topic) to ensure that I got a shot I liked.  Here are three unedited shots of sprinkles that I took:

Now, a lot of people would keep all three of these and add them back to back to an email or online album.  Understandably, this gets really old, really fast.  Who really needs to see three nearly identical close-up shots of sprinkles?  One is plenty.  So, I chose my favorite, edited it, and uploaded that shot to my various online albums.  Now, I can delete the others and de-clutter my iPhoto album as well as free up memory on my laptop.

To put an end to this little rant, please do not bore your friends and family with repetitive photos.  You're much better off with a 15-photo album with unique, well-taken pictures than 300-photo album that looks like the world's worst flip book.

Be Random

One thing I'm learning about photography is that you don't always have to take stereotypical photographs.  You don't need a sunset, a beautiful landscape, a flower, people, or anything else that you would typically see in a photo to take an interesting shot.  If you're bored, try to make something ordinary interesting by photographing it.  Something as simple as a pen on a desktop or the texture of a blanket can be turned into an attractive photograph.  The ability to take a picture of anything at anytime will help you avoid having to wait around for something to inspire you.

However, there are tricks to this kind of photography.  If you take a picture of a Diet Coke can, it could end up being remarkable or remarkably dull depending on your technique.  You have to put some thought into the angle and staging of your photograph in order to make the photo intriguing.  I can't really give a step-by-step lesson for this type of photography because it varies so much depending on the subject of the photograph, but my main advice is simply to think outside the box.

Here are a few examples of random photos that I have taken.  Many of these were taken either when I couldn't find anything particularly inspiring outside or when I was in an especially creative mood.  Again, these are just a few examples of the millions of possibilities for random photography.

I got bored in my dorm room, so I took a picture of my tennis shoes.

My mom's old Chi Omega figurine from when she was in college.

An old Dr. Pepper bottle from the 1970's. 

A light fixture and window at the Nebraska State Capitol Building.

It occurs to me that most of my examples are pictures of inanimate objects, but that's not what it has to be.  It's difficult to define "random" photographs for obvious reasons.  I guess "creative" or "artistic" photography might be a better word.   In other words, be random, be creative, and be artistic when taking photographs.  Sometimes we all need a break from the same old flower and landscape pictures.

Sunsets

All of us, at some point, have seen a sky so spectacular that we scramble try to capture it in a photo.  Most of the time, a beautiful sunset photo isn't something that you can generally plan out--it sort of just happens.   However, there are a few ways that I have found to predict which nights are likely to produce an impressive sunset to photograph.  I also have a few tips (though I am still learning myself) on how to photograph sunsets.

The main way to predict beautiful sunsets is simply to look at the sky.  If the sky is completely clear or completely cloudy, put the camera away--you aren't going to get any decent shots.  I've found that partly cloudy skies (even if the clouds are "barely there") wispy clouds, are the best for sunsets.  You still need some sky showing (obviously) so you can see the sun or sun rays, and you need clouds to reflect the light and create color.

As you're photographing a sunset, if possible, stay outside until the sun is completely gone and all of the color has faded from the sky.  In my experience, an A+ sunset often turns into an A+++ sunset if you have a little patience.

As you can see, if you stick around awhile, the colors and clouds can change a lot in the space of only 20 minutes or so.  Sticking around and taking many shots of the same sunset can give you more photos to choose from later.

Another thing I would recommend is trying different angles with sunset photos.  The examples above feature the sun in the center of the photograph, but that isn't how the picture  has to be structured.  Try placing the sun off center or don't include it at all.  You can get awesome pictures of clouds as the sun is setting and the sun itself isn't necessary to make the photo work.  A few examples of what I am talking about are shown below:

There's no sun in this shot, but it still works.  The trees, flags, and cloud color are more than enough to make up for its absence.

This photo was taken at ground level and the sun was not visible in this shot because it had already set.  Despite this fact, the clouds still retained their color, and the farmhouse is an interesting detail, so there's no reason the sun has to be in the picture.

The sun is in this shot, but as you can see I placed it to the left in the photo.  In case you're wondering, I did apply an effect to this particular photo to bring out the colors even more.

Finally, I'm still figuring out exact camera settings myself, so I can't give much advice in that respect.  The only obvious advice I can give is to NOT use flash.  It's an outdoor photo, and it would just look strange if you tried.  When in doubt, try Auto.

To summarize:
1) Look for partly cloudy skies or skies with some kind of detail (even trails from jumbo jets can work) when trying to predict if a night will yield a good sunset.
2) Take multiple pictures over time of the same sunset for variety.
3) Experiment with angles and sun placement.
4) DON'T use flash.

I'm assuming that a lot of this also applies to sunrises.  I'm not going to lie, I'm rarely up to see a sunrise, so I have no photos of that particular phenomenon. :)

The "Flower" Button

I want to dedicate this post to the mysterious "flower" button that appears on most digital cameras.  This button actually turns on the macro setting, which is used for close-up photography. It is extremely useful when photographing something small because it provides better clarity and detail.  As I mentioned in the previous post, it also gives you that nice blur in the background.  Some of you may have used the macro setting without even realizing it.  Many cameras, like my newer one, will automatically kick on the macro setting when the camera is trying to focus on an object near the lens (when on Auto).  If your camera is older or if you aren't using Auto, you might have to turn it on manually by pushing the flower button.

Personally, I really enjoy using this setting.  It's the only special camera setting that I use frequently, and I think it really improves the look of my photos.  Here are a few of my photos that involved the use of the macro button.

Just to put things into perspective, the subjects of each of these photographs are NOT large items.  The owl in the last photograph is probably an inch tall or smaller.  Macro is an interesting way to blow up a small object to a much larger size.  When I take pictures of some of these small trinkets, leaves, flowers, etc. I don't even notice certain details until I upload the photos and can see the object at 10 times its size on my computer screen.  

As I said before, if you have never used macro, it is definitely something that you will want to try.  Here is a picture of the button you're looking for in case you're confused (the location of the button will vary depending on the brand and model of camera):