[thechat] Photography help

[Martin Burns]

On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, Madhu Menon wrote:

> OK, I have a digicam - a Canon Powershot A20 (2.1 megapixel)
>
> I suck at photography. I really do.
>
> What I want to know is how to make my digital pics look this good:
> http://www.simonhoegsberg.com/
>
> Is this a function of the camera, the editing software, or both?

Both.

For the camera, the most important thing he's doing is using a long lens
with a very shallow depth of field (the two tend to go together anyway).

With the editing software (and I'd be *very* surprised if it weren't
Photoshop), he's being very careful about bringing out the colours and
contrasts.

I would also put a large amount of cash on there being *lots* of unused
shots.

He's also placed himself very carefully to get his subjects lit right - as
well as the main daylight coming in from the right (and it looks like near
sunset in a lot of the shots, which is a very flattering light), there's
also something to the left reflecting light back. See how many of the
subjects have light on both cheeks? This may be related to the pics being
taken within a small physical space - that's the space where the lights
right.

He's also got the timing right, and you often get the best from
(non-professional model) subjects if they're unaware of being
photographed. Little spoils a photo more than having the subject bring
their mind into how they expect a photo of themselves to look. That's why
kids photography is relatively easy - they're less self-conscious.

> If it's in the software, could you point me to resources on making photos
> look so snappy?

I'd pick up some general photography books, ones which concentrate on
composition, lighting and timing, rather than technology.

> See, I want to snap photos of food I make. And I want them to look like the
> ones on Martha Stewart's site ( http://tinyurl.com/14sf ). Instead, they
> turn out like this: http://madman.weblogs.com/2002/04/11 (scroll past the
> recipe). Now, I'm sure her photos were done in a professional studio, but
> any tips on improving my pathetic photos would be welcome.

Ideally, you'd use a real SLR, where you can control depth of field, and
you'd be very, very careful with your lighting. That's not just "Is it
bright enough?" but "Where does the light come in from? How many light
sources? What's their relative brightnesses, and are they general floods
or are they spots which cause stronger highlights and shadows?"

All this is *easy* in a studio. Less easy at home.

But I think the best quick win is to turn off any on-camera flash you
have, and let natural light do it for you. On-camera flash blasts
*everything*, flattening your subject. With natural light, you can ensure
that the main light approaches from the side, and the shadows it casts
enhances the shapes of your subject.
[sidebar - that's why black and white is a really good medium to learn
photography. You're forced to learn about lighting and composition as
that's all you've got]

This may require you to use a tripod to avoid camera shake... but if
you're turning up the brightness in Photoshop, then you can get a
grainy-ness which can be rather nice too.
Example:
http://www.easyweb.co.uk/pics/morgan/birth/dsc00378.jpg

> Is it a Photoshop thang?

Photoshop can help, as any darkroom (physical or digital). But if the
basics of lighting and composition aren't in the original, you're SOL.

If you're buying photoshop books, avoid *anything* which claims "Wow"
factor, or coolness. You're looking for photography subtle enhancement,
not special effects. Take a look at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1931841926/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1883403510/

Cheers
Martin

---------------------------
"Names, once they are in common use, quickly
 become mere sounds, their etymology being
 buried, like so many of the earth's marvels,
 beneath the dust of habit." - Salman Rushdie