Lawrence Ripsher's Photo Journal

Portraits with a compact camera

Initially, I was just going to post this image but decided to describe a little about how it came about instead as I thought it might be of interest.

Currently, I'm experimenting and photograhing with a Canon G9 this week in order to gather enough information and samples to use in a review, which I'll post after this weekend. One of the fun parts of using the camera has been challenging myslef to see what I've been able to produce in the area of portraits - an area which is one of the greatest weaknesses of compact cameras.

The issue with using a compact camera to take portraits is typically threefold:

- Poor performance at high ISO (compared to DSLR's), meaning available light has to be very good
- Lack of good choices of flash
- Smaller sensor resulting in little or no shallow depth of field. It's a generalisation, but wide apertures / shallow depth of fields are typically much better than making everything sharp in portraiture

With 12 megapixels squeezed into a 1/1.7" sensor, the G9 doesn't break the mould for high ISO performance, but interestingly it does take a professional flash.

So, in an impromptu 5 minute shoot last night with Akuri (my wife and resident model), I mounted a Canon EX580 MKII flash. Side note - this setup creates a ridiculous looking piece of kit (I'll definitely include a picture in my review). It was late at night and we weren't in a studio so were working with the gear I just described, regular overhead tungsten lighting, a white wall as a background and another wall to bounce the flash off. With a little exposure adjustment, the camera / flash metered well and after a few shots, I felt I had a good portrait to work with for post processing (coverting to black and white, etc).

However, I like my portraits with a shallow depth of field and the 1/1.7" sensor of the G9 can't do anything about that. However, fortunately Photoshop can. Using the gradient tool and lens blur (similar to a technique I describe here), I was able to get an effect that looked similar to a natural lens bokeh / out of focus. It's not perfect (if you study the different planes of focus you can probably see some discrepencies) but this was a 2 minute fix and I wanted something that looked good, not necessarily super realistic.

Anyway, the result? Actually very good I thought. I've taken countless numbers of peoples' portraits with top of the range equipment and while this particular image is not groundbreaking, the fact that it can pass as something that I shot on high end gear is kinda cool. I am definitely very pleased with it. Perhaps more importantly, the final judge - the subject - was very happy too :).

For me, this is a picture I'll look back on to remind myself of the well known adage that that while gear is important, it's how you use it that really counts.

The image follows below. Click on it for a larger version.

A guide to shooting Portraits. Part 1 of 3

Shooting Portraits – Part 1 / 3

I enjoy portraiture. Most of my best shots contain people and if I also consider the genres of photography I most enjoy looking at, almost all contain some aspect of portraiture whether it be staged, candid, environmental, fashion or something completely different.

When I think about friends of mine who are great portrait photographers, I am fortunate to know many. Although the following list is nowhere near a comprehensive compilation of the talent out there, a number of names do immediately spring to mind. No list could be complete when talking about portraiture without mentioning Manny Librodo. Although probably more well known for his work with models, I actually think it’s his street / candid portraiture which sets him the furthest apart from the rest. People who know Manny and have grown from his influence also include Suwanee Lennon and Aloha Lavina. I’ve had the pleasure of working with these two talented young women and both are rising stars. For excellent street photographers, you should consider checking out Niall O’Shea, Kal Khogali, Chuck Inglefield or AL. Similarly, Jeff Seltzer’s fantastic Carnivals project is an excellent example of environmental portraiture. David Procter and "Curly Kale's" work are a must-see for staged photography (a genre I am particularly fond of also). Finally, for portraiture which spans several genres yet at the same time is hard to pin down because of their unique, respective styles (this is a good thing btw!), see Tommy Oshima or Naoki Hayashi. Once again, the above names are all excellent examples of work with which I’m very familiar - but by no means the only ones. Oh, and of course, if you're interested there is my own work- click here.

So, given that this is such an interesting topic, I thought I’d put together a mini series on portraiture. I’ve never been completely convinced this kind of medium (i.e. written) is the best way to learn portraiture as it’s something that is best taught in person, but if there’s something useful I can add to the topic, then I’ll happily take the chance and it’ll follow in the next few posts.

When starting this, I felt I could almost go on forever talking about the variations of portraiture, the key factors, the mistakes that are made and how to correct them, etc – but at risk of this series becoming too unwieldy and unreadable, I’ve tried to make this as concise as possible, focusing on the key points and will deliver it over 3 parts.

The first part will be what I believe are the fundamentals – the key factors you can control when shooting portraiture and the main considerations.

Lighting

The first item I’m going to talk about is lighting. When I’ve had the opportunity to teach portraiture, this is one of the most asked about questions and it’s definitely one of the items I spend the most time on. Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to describe in words how to find good light – as it’s much easier to show it – but I can explain some of the basic principals that have worked well for me.

The first point to stress when it comes to lighting is that, when you’re in a position to control it, make it your #1 priority. You should, at all costs, avoid shooting portraits in bad light. For me, if the light is bad, I rarely will even bother taking a picture. You should be equally uncompromising. Try to shoot early or late in the day. If it gets towards midday and the light is too harsh, consider changing your point of view slightly to compensate (e.g. shoot from above the model and have her look upwards so this removes the harsh shadows on the face). But in general, go out when the light is good.

You’ll note that I’m mostly talking about natural light when it comes to this. That’s because I don’t use flash for any of my portraits. That’s not to rule it out of course – just it’s not something that I tend to prefer. For a couple of examples follow of why I love natural lighting so much. These are shots of mine which if I wanted to artificially created through studio lights / flash, I honestly wouldn't know where to begin. All photos by Lawrence Ripsher, click for larger versions.

So, rule #1 - find good light. Well, now that’s clear, the question remains how do you actually recognize good light in the first place? Again, it’s easier to show than to describe but good rules of thumb are check places which are bright, but where the light is not too harsh, not always direct and creates “drama”. Obviously places to try are windows. You certainly don’t have to include them in the shot – remember, we’re after them for their light not their aesthetics. Doorways, buildings where there are cracks in the ceiling, under a tree where the leaves will diffuse the light, etc – these are also good places to try. Avoid fully direct sunlight under most circumstances –unless the quality of the light is really good – such as very late in the day or early in the morning. The light is often either too flat or too harsh. This won’t create a bad picture automatically, but it won’t add any drama either. If you have a reflector (which can be used to reflect light from under the models face and point it upwards) then make use of one. It’s not compulsory tho, I rarely use one because of portability / convenience and the locations I have tended to shoot.

In order to get good light, you don’t necessarily have to be in a dramatic location… In fact, the weather doesn’t even have to be that good if the choice of lighting is good enough – often this is a case of experimenting and find the right place. My “After the Rain” series proves this I think. These were shots taken in our car on a dull, overcast, flatly lit day. Just by moving around in the back of the car, we were able to create dramatic and complimentary lighting and shadows that makes portraiture work so well. An example follows from that series.

Expression / Interaction

I think one of the hardest things about shooting portraiture with models when starting out, is how to actually interact with models. It can sometimes feel awkward or embarrassing – even if you know it shouldn’t. If you feel that way, my best advice to give is to simply shoot with models you know and are comfortable with first, or to go along with a photographer who is good at this and work alongside them. It’s amazing how quickly it is to pick up the basics of direction and interaction when watching someone else do it, so try to take advantage of that. This is absolutely an area worth investing in because the expression of the model and the photographer’s interaction with him / her is key to getting the viewer to later feel emotion from the image. A good portrait can be a number of things, but you’ll know it’s worked when the viewer actually feels something from it. One of the most important things that takes place in a shoot is not necessarily what happens inside the camera, but how the relationship develops between the person behind it and in front of it. Sometimes an environment helps things along (e.g. everyone’s happy on a wedding day) but if you get it right, you’ll find something extra in the shots in any situation and it can be the difference between a good picture of a pretty model and a great picture of a person. I definitely feel that this is also one of the hardest areas of photography to master and it requires diligence and patience.

Beyond that, it’s hard to give specific advice as so much of this is about practice. There are some tips that spring to mind however. One is to take advantage of Digital and interact with the model through the LCD screen. What I often do when shooting a model is occasionally show them photos of themselves when they strike different poses which emphasise a different side of their face (tilted to the left, right, chin tilted back, tilted down, turning into the light, away from the light, etc). Doing this and pointing out their best side is very useful for the model – don’t assume they know already their best angles. This helps the model visualize what you’re looking for. After that I’ve made my main points, I don’t show the model the LCD screen again until after the shoot as doing this too much can become distracting but it’s very useful in the beginning.

Another thing to bear in mind is to not force emotions. Emotions are of course important but spell them out too easily for the viewer and it’ll just look too obvious or cliché. For example, I’ve yet to see a convincing photo of a woman crying in a model shoot… No matter how believable the tears look, we all know it’s forced when viewing it. It’s the same for lots of other poses such as head in the hands in anguish and other over dramatic poses. Oh, and while I’m on the subject, never ever title your photos with the name of the emotion you’re trying to convey unless it really works. If you title your picture of someone looking sad with the word “sadness”, you may as well have drawn a speech bubble. In my early days of photography, I used to like words like “reflection”, “introspection” and so on but they’ve become overused now (or they were always that way and I’ve only noticed this as of late). As a result, I rarely title my posed portrait work these days in a descriptive fashion. An example of that would be all the images from my Fragments work, which follows.

A final consideration of model interaction I wanted to mention was the direction of the face. This aspect should take into account at least three things: Interaction with you (the photographer), a flattering view of the face (or an angle which emphasizes the emotion) and an angle which works with the direction of the light. Although it’s not compulsory, I usually start with the third point and position the model in a good light and then figure out how to best take a photo. An example of where I employed this strategy to good effect can be seen in the following shot.

Composition and technique

Moving on to some of the other fundamentals of composition, there are a few things here to mention so I’ll just rattle through them.

-    Point of view. Remember you don’t just have to be eye level with the model. Being significantly above or below can emphasise emotion and feeling. Consider the following shot for example - here I was attempting to accentuate the specific features of a model called Kaoru. I believe this image would have looked dramatically different (and not as effective) if it were taken level on or from below.

-    Orientation. Don’t get stuck in one mode (landscape or portrait). A photo can look dramatically different if you change the orientation at unexpected times. Camera tilt can sometimes provide an interesting and dramatic surprise but should be kept exactly as that – a surprise. Absolutely do not overdo this.

-    Focus. The subject of your photo should be the eyes. Therefore at least one eye should be sharp. Many prefer two to be sharp but I don’t think this is compulsory. Shooting primes for portraits is great as you can use the wide aperture of the lens to shoot wide open, often creating a dramatic falloff in focus. I’ve always loved that look when it works right – using a shallow DOF while anchoring the image at the eyes. Note that this doesn't need a full frame sensor to achieve this - my next image should prove that which was shot with a 50mm f/1.4 mounted on an Olympus E-410 (which has a "four thirds" sensor which is cropped more significantly, and therefore has a greater depth of field, than say a D200, 400D or 30D).

-    Composition. The basics dominate here - which means the rule of thirds. So as I’m sure you already know, the rule of thirds suggest that you imagine the image in the viewfinder is divided by two horizontal lines into three equal spaces and two vertical lines into three equal spaces. According to the rule of thirds, your subject should sit on one of the horizontal or vertical lines. Ideally it would sit on an intersection of a horizontal and vertical (although this is less important). So if you’re shooting a face only portrait, the eyes (which are the subject) should be placed along the top horizontal. This will chop off the top of the head and is perfectly fine. Avoid distracting foreground subjects and be careful about placement of the model so that trees and other background objects are not distracting from the subject, rising out of their head and so on.

Right, that covers about as much as I wanted to go into for Part 1. The next two parts will go beyond 'working with models', which I've covered mostly today and will dip into other aspects such as Environmental and Street portraiture and interesting techniques such as the “faceless” portrait.

The Compromise of Good Photography

There are a few things which make a good photograph. The idea / subject is one, composition is another, exposure is still another. In order to get these elements right, you can vary pretty much three things:

- What's in front of the camera (the subject, lighting, etc)
- The position of the camera (the point of view, distance from the subject, the composition)
- What's in the camera (the camera's settings, lenses, etc)

And that's pretty much it. Simple right?

So what this post is going to discuss is the third aspect - what's going on inside the camera, how you can influence your camera to do your mind's work and why good photography is actually all about compromise.

Aside from specific settings like in camera contrast / sharpening / etc (which are more about processing than anything else), there's actually not that many settings you can modify when taking a picture. If you shoot in Aperture mode, where you set the aperture and subsequently influence the shutter speed, then it's even simpler. Aperture mode, by the way, is what I use 95% of the time and would implore everyone (beginner or otherwise) to adopt this mode. Without requiring much more effort, it's so much more useful than Program mode and so much more practical than Shutter / Manual mode. Only for sports or night scenes do I ever think about switching from anything other than Aperture mode - and it's with that in mind I continue the rest of this article.

So back to the camera. There are really three settings inside your camera that you can modify:

- The Depth of Field (DOF), also known as Aperture
- The ISO level
- The shutter speed

When shooting in aperture mode, the third (shutter speed) is not even something you can actually directly modify - you can only influence it by changing the other two settings.

And so that's why photography - or rather photography as far as the desire to exposure correctly, obtain sharp images, etc - is all about compromise. Unless you're in perfectly lit conditions (and I seldom am for most of the images i take), you going to have to sacrifice something. That sacrifice could be any one of the following:

- The sacrifice of Aperture. This means reducing the depth of field by shooting wide open (e.g. at a large aperture  of F/1.4). The sacrifice might be that you might not be able to get all the scene you want in focus which could defeat the purpose of the image. In contrast, the plus side is that you'll be able to use a high shutter speed and low ISO

- The sacrifice of ISO. Here, you might want to keep a larger depth of field or don't have a fast enough lens (e.g. F/5.6) but you still want to keep the shutter speed high. So you bump up the ISO which allows you to do those things but unfortunately results in higher amounts of noise. Noise in itself might not be bad but the lack of dynamic range and the effect it has on colour certainly is. I could write an entire article (and probably will soon) about why high ISO is bad for images - but in the meantime I can say this definitely qualifies as another sacrifice.

- The sacrifice of Shutter Speed. Here you decide you want to shoot in low ISO (for nice clean images) and / or want to keep a small aperture for increased depth of field. So you let the shutter speed drop. Now however you risk camera shake or a moving subject causing a blurry image, and wonder why you bothered having it in focus in the first place if you weren't going to get a sharp image.

That's a simplistic way of looking at it. But there are other factors though of course. For example, you can overcome the sacrifice of shutter speed by using a tripod, having in camera IS or just employing steady hands - but that only works when the subject is not moving. Similarly, you might overcome the sacrifice of aperture by shooting with a cropped camera (rather than full frame) or by simply going for shallow DOF images in the first place. So does this give you a way out of the sacrificial pit? Sort of but it comes at a secondary cost - such as expensive lenses, practicality (carrying a tripod, setup time, etc) and so on.

So for the most part, when the light drops, the scene becomes challenging or you have less than perfect equipment - you're going to have to sacrifice something in order to get the shot you want. And this, essentially summarises what I consider to be the challenge to shoot technically proficient / well exposed images. Simply put, it is a decision of which aspect to sacrifice for a particular situation and to what extent.

So, while there's no real way out of this, you can make your life (and your images) a lot better by practicing and reflecting upon which of the three paths you're most likely to take before an image or even an entire shoot. For example, for my personal case, I've expended some effort at understanding the shutter speed I use to reliably hold a camera steady (for different focal lengths) and that helps me understand the extent at which I have to drop depth of field or increase ISO. Usually, given the choice, I tend to lean towards opening up the aperture before I increase ISO - but that's not a golden rule by any means - it really depends on the subject and what I want to convey. The final decision I make usually depends on the specifics of a particular situation (which are a bit too detailed to cover here) and of course perhaps a bit of instinct / luck.

So rather than being a recipe for what to do when, what this article is meant to be more of a explanation of the principals behind the "Compromise of Good Photography". Hopefully it will allow those who read it (and haven't perhaps given this topic much thought before) to gain a bit of insight into both the importance and implications of those little dials on the top of their DSLR.

RAW vs JPEG

Although it’s certainly not the first question I’m asked about shooting, the topic of RAW vs JPEG does often come up. It’s actually a fairly well discussed issue (Google it and you’ll many people have given their views on the debate), but I figured that shouldn’t stop me weighing in with my own views. In addition, in the near future I plan on providing a couple of articles on the broader topic of workflow so I figured this would be a good primer.

So, the topic of RAW vs JPEG. Almost all DSLR’s and several compact cameras allow you to shoot in either (or both) and the question is what is the best. Or to put it a better way, which is the most appropriate.

RAW is often called the equivalent to the “Digital Negative”, a file format which contains all the data that was available to the sensor at the time it was recorded, and written in a way that does not undergo any kind of compression (there are exceptions to this but we’ll ignore that for now). This means the format is “lossless”, which in itself means that no data (and therefore image quality) has been lost in the process. Essentially, what you see is what you get. Modern RAW image files from Nikon end in the file extension “NEF”, while Canon images are called “CR2”. Note that the formats are completely different – no universally accepted standard exists for a single RAW format. As a result, you can’t really take a RAW file, process it and then shove it up on the web for all to see as, among other reasons, you wouldn’t be sure that everyone else’s PC would be able to understand the format you’d be posting. So what you have to do is “develop” the RAW files. It’s an exciting word and makes digital only photographers like me get excited that we’re locked in our [digital] darkroom with the modern day equivalents of chemicals, Portra and … stuff. What it actually means in reality however is that we just press a button in Photoshop or another RAW converter (which supports the camera’s RAW format), process it and then save it into something the rest of the world can see… and that format? Well, given you’ve found this blog in the first place it likely means you’ve actually photographed before – so it’ll be no surprise that the format is JPEG. 

So, following the above premature introduction, let’s get to JPEG which is the other option available to photographers. JPEG is a well known image standard which is the dominant format for displaying pictures on the web. Often shortened to JPG (which is also the extension used for JPEG images e.g. picture1.jpg), these images are different from RAW in that they are “developed” in camera. During that process, they undergo a conversion from the image data captured by the sensor, compression and then are written to your camera’s memory card in the JPEG format. Because of the type of compression normally used, the format can be considered to be “lossy”, meaning that some visual quality is lost during the process.

So what are the differences and importantly, what advantages / disadvantages does this practically result in for photographers. Lets run through them now.

 

Image Quality

I always smile wryly when I see forum posts talking of the value of shooting in RAW, particularly when a new camera has been released and samples are doing the rounds on the net, and how the “real truth” of a camera’s capabilities will be shown when someone starts posting RAW images. I am not sure if it’s just a general misconception, whether that someone had a bad experience with one (or the other) format or if there is something exciting about “developing RAW” that makes it so preferred for that person. Whatever the case, I think I’ll make this section easy and say this right now, that despite the lossless nature of RAW and lossy nature of JPEG’s – 

it is very rare for there to be any significantly noticeable difference in resolution / sharpness / image quality between a RAW which was converted to a JPG using a PC and a JPG which was developed in camera.

Now that’s not to say all JPG engines in cameras are created equal but I would bet I could find a hundred photographers, show them a two 13x19” prints and not one would be able to tell the difference between the two pictures from a resolution perspective. That’s not to say there isn’t a difference at all – if you check out DPreview’s reviews (and their obsession with 100% crops), you’ll find some examples where you can see minor resolution improvements with using RAW. My point however is that 99% of the photographic population will never take advantage of that minor difference and other factors like the lens, the quality of the image, scene setup, technique and so on will come into play long before that marginal difference ever does. 

How do I score this section? Well, I’ll give it to RAW in principal – but from a practical point of view, there’s not enough difference to be able to say there’s an actual real world advantage for the vast majority of people.

 

White balance and in camera settings

So, with the exception of exposure and ISO, most of the settings applied by the camera to a RAW image are non destructive. In other words the white balance, sharpening, saturation, contrast, etc – these can all changed in decent RAW processing software on your PC. With JPEG’s, this is not the case, set your Nikon to “Vivid” mode and the saturation enhancements will be “burned” into the image. Put your Canon in Tungsten mode and forget to change it back when you walk outdoors and all your images will be blue. 

Now, this difference is where the real benefit of RAW starts to come in. RAW allows for you to make mistakes and allows for you to experiment while undoing those experimentations on your PC later. A great example of that being done can be seen on Chuck Inglefield’s blog here. Of course, these changes could have been done with JPG’s also – but the problem is that if you push the changes in post processing too far, then you will start to see a degradation in image quality.

One other thing I should say on this particular topic is that with RAW files, you can’t accidentally save over an image. This is actually very useful and prevents mishaps –a problem I I had with JPEG’s on more than one occasion (although in truth this was a failure of my backup policy at the time rather than anything else).

So here we have a real and definite benefit. Now, the real question is whether having this safety net and greater latitude for experimentation is a big enough deal for you to shoot in RAW (particularly when you consider the downsides of RAW which we get to later).

 

Exposure

So RAW records in 12 bits and JPEG in 8 bits and it’s another example of something I see being touted as a savior for all things photographic as (I have heard so many times), “with raw, you can adjust the exposure in Photoshop later”. Well, it’s true – in Adobe Camera Raw for example there is a Exposure value which you can set to +2.0 EV (for example) to correct an underexposed image. The problem is that like with any post processing action which increases the brightness of an image, it does so at a price – and that cost is that it introduces a lot of noise into the image. In that regard it is nothing like correctly exposing the image in the first place through EV compensation. 

A better argument would perhaps be in better highlight retention due to the greater level of information available. 

Having said that, in either event (underexposing or blowing highlights), there is definitely a case that RAW provides you with a better ability to correct an image after and I do like this. The problem I have is more with the fact that it’s ability to do so (at no cost) is vastly overrated in many cases and is no substitute for exposing correctly in the first place.

 

Size and Speed

RAW images take up significantly greater space than JPEG’s. Nikon has a compressed version of RAW which claims to be lossless which I always used whereas RAW images from Canon on my 5D come out at about the same size anyway. JPEG images however on either camera are much smaller which means more shots on a comparably sized card and less storage space later. 

Another advantage of JPEG in this regard is the speed at which the camera can handle it. It’s not as significant a difference as it used to be a couple of years ago as DSLR buffers have gotten larger. A modern day example of the difference would be say (on the entry level D40x) that it can handle 9 consecutive images in RAW at 3 frames per second, whereas can shoot at this speed indefinitely in JPEG.

Out of the camera, there is of course a speed advantage in the workflow process of not having to convert / develop RAW’s.

 

Conclusion

So does the major latitude of experimentation and image correction warrant the extra space and processing time? Well, to date, I’ve cared little about the slightly greater level of shadow detail / highlight retention as I tend to try to exposure properly in camera (and hate the introduction of noise from correcting horribly underexposed images). But despite that, for me, when it comes to DSLR’s the answer is a definite yes. The safety net of being able to set / reset white balance without any concern for the effect it has on image quality is reason enough for me. The downside of the extra storage I find to be an acceptable trade off – I don’t shoot thousands of pics per week. Having said that, if compressed lossless RAW wasn’t available to me and images started pushing upwards of 20MB, then I’d start to seriously look into carrying a gray card around with me as it’s mostly laziness / freedom from that that causes me to shoot RAW, rather than any obsessive desire to see minute benefits at 100% crops. 

Aside from that that tho, there are other reasons when I would not use RAW. One of times I won’t use it when it’s available is if the shot to shot speed suffers too dramatically. Compacts are almost always a culprit for this – with writing of RAW images taken 5 – 7 times longer in many cases on cameras where it is available. So on compacts, I’ll almost certainly use JPEG.

Another time I’ll shoot JPEG is if a camera doesn’t have a RAW + JPEG mode. You see, while I capture / process RAW images, I actually shoot in RAW + JPEG (where both formats are written for each picture) – with the latter being important as I use it for previewing in the field on an image viewer that will accept a SD or CF card. If I were to lose that capability, I’d start to see a good case for me switching to JPEG (or switching camera). 

So that’s my take on the issue.

If you’re like me – you enjoy being able to either alter white balance after the fact for creative purposes or hate carrying a gray card – or if you’re nothing like me but love spending hours looking at images at 100%, then I wholeheartedly recommend RAW. 

If you’re shooting JPEG however, while I still think it's worth getting into RAW processing (if only to use it as a motivator to understand processing more), I wouldn’t sweat it. Until I meet someone who can look at a large print and tell me it was shot in RAW or JPEG, I'll continue to feel comfortable with my view that there's little difference in actual real world image quality between the two.

Post Processing - How Much is Enough?

A common question I often get asked from photographers who look at my images is "do you process your photos?". In most cases, I lie and and explain that I've never even used Photoshop... ok, I'm joking. But back to the point - this question comes up a lot and I find it interesting. What you may be surprised to know is that I actually find the question a compliment too.

You see, someone whose studied, practiced or worked with photography for a while is usually pretty good at telling when a picture has been post processed - and can even sometimes give an idea of the degree to which it's been enhanced (or even how it was done). So when someone is unsure of whether I've even used Photoshop - I take this to be a good sign that I've done it right, as it satisfies pretty much my only rule for processing. And this all encompassing rule my processing pretty much lives by is that when looking at a photoshopped image, it should not be possible to tell where the original picture ended and where the processing started. Or to put it another, less cryptic way - an experienced photographer looking at it should not be able to clearly define the steps which were taken to get to that final image (and as a result, know that the original was some way off).

Basically, the finished product should somehow be "believable". You see, sometimes processing is required to rescue an image - and I've certainly been thankful on those occasions - but for the most part, I believe that processing should extend the natural qualities of an image to simply make it "more" of what it already is. I have no higher moral code with changing the picture completely - far from it - it's just that it's very rare for an image to be altered heavily and for it to not be obvious. It's why during workshops / teaching that I emphasise good "judgment" of processing as much or if not more than the processing techniques themselves.

To give a few examples, some rather obvious (i.e. bad) tell tale signs of processing include:
- Oversharpening from too much unsharp mask
- Plastic looking skin from too much noise ninja / neat image
- "Halos" around people and objects which show where someone has burnt the sky but left an area around a person
- Too much dodging on an object (usually a person's face) which brings out too much noise or distorts colour
- Unnatural lighting from too over ambitious dodge / burn
- All in one filters which apply dramatic changes to the image in a uniform way. An example would be some (but certainly not all) NIK filters (email me if you're interested in knowing more abt these)

And how does this play out in my own pictures? Well, without going into what I actually do in processing them (the second most frequent question I get asked with regards to processing and a topic for another day), below are three few examples of images which satisfy my criteria. All are photos where the processing played an important part in the final image:

And what about ones that didn't make it? Well, I'll go back to an image I took and processed last year that still makes me cringe to this day. While it's an interesting shot potentially, I now see such obvious haloing, heavy handed addition of contrast and so forth that I actually have kept it like this to remind me of what not to do. That image is here:

Shooting with Compacts - Tips and Advice

There's a couple of reasons for this post. One is that I've been asked several times now how I've been able to overcome certain limitations when shooting with a compact camera... The second is because I recently came across a great article that I wanted to share. I had actually seen the article some time before but only recently found it again... the story is about an award winning Magnum photographer who shoots only with compact cameras... If you're only interested in that part (and even if you're not interested in compact cameras I definitely recommend this article) - skip to the end.

OK so back to the main topic, shooting under limitations. The first thing you need to accept is that shooting with a compact camera is very different from shooting with a DSLR. Given the right amount of time / equipment, I can't think of a single situation where I'd choose a compact camera over a DSLR. However, in real life we're often presented with less than ideal situations. Many times I won't carry a big / expensive / heavy DSLR with me but might be willing to take a compact. Or I might not have an appropriate lens with me (or even own one in the first place), yet find that the focal length is covered by my compact camera's focal range. Or I might just want to have a bit of fun and do something different. In any of these cases, carrying a compact is a definitely a good thing I'm glad to own and occasionally shoot with one.

OK with that said, it's also nice to be actually able to take half decent pictures with a compact and understanding its limitations is the key to being able to achieve that. I'll now go through what I consider to be the biggest issues and then talk about how I overcome each one.

Auto focus and not shooting the subject

OK so this is the first thing I need to mention. It's probably one of the most noticeable things - that irrespective of how fast a compact's autofocus system is, it's never quite fast enough. DSLR's have a feeling of being able to instantly respond to your needs whereas compacts are deathly slow by comparison. Everyone who’s used a compact will know the feeling of wincing after having missed a shot – and not nearly missing - but missing it truly and completely because the AF system couldn't lock in on the target and while the subject raced by, the camera was left simply "hunting" back and forth.

OK so one of the important things to first understand about your compact is what actually affects the AF system. The following will usually cause problems for the camera’s AF:

- Low light
- Areas of similar tone or lacking in contrast
- Certain types of patterns
- Shooting at a long telephoto

So shooting a subject in bright light with a wide angle lens is usually pretty reliable on all cameras. However, turn down the available light and / or shoot at a long telephoto and you’ll often find the situation much more challenging. Add to that a subject that is of a similar tone / colour to the background or has no significantly discernible marks and “challenging” can quickly become “impossible”. So what can you do to compensate? Well, when the AF system is at its most troubled, I often will not even shoot the subject. Instead, what I do is look for an area of high contrast near the subject and aim for that. You see, the AF system works best when it has high contrast areas to focus on. So what I do is aim for something in a similar plane of focus, recompose the frame back to the subject and then take the shot. It takes practice but can be a much faster way of getting an AF lock.

So if you're not shooting the subject what about out of focus shots? Well, this is the one area where compacts have an advantage over DSLR’s. You see, because the sensor size of a compact is so much smaller than a DSLR’s, you get a multiplying effect which both increases the focal length but also “compresses” the image. As a result, much more of the image (shot at comparable 35mm equivalent focal lengths) is sharp. It’s one of the reasons why web resized files from compacts tend to be quite large in size (compared to similar scenes from DSLR's) – because so much of the image is sharp. So while this effect is not great for certain types of portraits where you actually want subject isolation (and nice blurry backgrounds), it is good for approximate framing. With a compact you can actually be quite far off in terms of focus yet still have a sharp subject – and remembering this can make the difference between making a shot and not.
 

Getting round Shutter Lag 

So this is actually an extension of the previous issue. Shutter lag, which can be very noticeable in compact cameras, is actually caused by first having to wait for the AF, and then the time for the sensor to capture the image. The latter actually happens quite quickly so the best way to speed your camera up? Remove the most time-costly component which means you have to prefocus.

It’s not going to work for every subject or every scene – this only works when you can anticipate what’s going to happen. In this situation – prefocus the AF by pressing the shutter halfway, recompose and the simply wait for whatever you anticipated, to happen. Using this technique, you can get shots that are close to impossible using the camera to track the subject. Two shots where I’ve done this in the past couple of weeks are:

By Lawrence Ripsher (click for larger version)

In this first image, it was actually the light I noticed on the floor first. Stopping to see it, I then realized people were walking through the light which was in creating interesting patterns on the floor. I then prefocused on the area where people were walking and within a couple of minutes a couple walking in perfect unison kindly obliged. All I had to do was press the shutter and an instant capture resulted. 

By Lawrence Ripsher (click for larger version)

Similarly on this image, this was a shot which would have been close to impossible to capture using subject focusing and tracking with a compact. I was watching this little energized Jack Russell for about a minute, jumping in and out of the water at that tennis ball. I noticed he was moving towards the edge first, then taking a little run up and taking off. So I waited until he moved towards the edge, focused on the point where he’d take off (ignoring him completely), reframed and just waited for him to enter the frame. As soon as I saw him – click – and voila, a mid leap action shot.

Now lets be very clear, both of these images are more for fun than what I’d call “serious” photography, but they are demonstrative that you can easily exceed your camera’s AF system by employing this little trick.

Emulating the Old Masters

A common technique by the old masters of street photography was to set their focal length to a prefixed amount, stop down the aperture (e.g. f/8 which is a smaller aperture & provides a greater depth of field) and simply point and shoot. Well not "simply" point and shoot but you get the point. By not having to worry about manually focusing their cameras, they were able to concentrate on composing and capturing the decisive moment. Again, because of the large depth of field of compact cameras, this is also possible – even with fairly “wide” apertures (e.g. f/2.8).
 

Horizontal or Vertical

Another thing to bear in mind is what kind of lines / patterns your AF system is most likely to produce an accurate focus. Depending on the type of sensors, you’re camera will better at detecting vertical or horizontal lines. If it’s a cross type, it’ll be fine with either. You can tell which you have in your camera by trying to focus on a scene of only horizontal lines, followed by a scene of only vertical lines. If it struggles with neither – you have a cross type. If it struggles with either – you need to remember this when shooting. 

For example, on my recently purchased Olympus SP-550, I discovered this weekend that it has a big problem focusing on horizontal lines when in landscape mode. I was surprised but is this a disaster? Certainly not – armed with this new info there is a simple way to get round this – rotate the camera to portrait mode, focus on the subject, and rotate back to landscape. It takes an extra half a second – but it’s a hell of a lot quicker than waiting for the camera if it’s hunting.

Learn the limitations and then where possible, find ways to compensate.
 

High ISO

The last point I think I’ll make is about noise and ISO. I always use the lowest possible ISO when shooting a compact camera. With the exception of the Fuji’s which are famed for their great high ISO performance (and even then, it’s still only relative), I’ll never use above ISO 400 if I ever have any hope of using the image for anything other than the web. In most cases, I’ll hardly ever use above ISO 200. Even the decision to use ISO 200 is a difficult one if I’m ever expecting to print the image. The point is that I sacrifice just about everything (exposure, shutter speed, blur) before I sacrifice ISO. I can live with a little softness, blur and underexposure – but one thing I think really looks horrible in the digital age is digital noise from a small sensor. And the smearing techniques to rescue them aren’t much better.

For me, the advice is simple – shoot low ISO. 

Skipping to the end

So for those who made it this far, or for those who simply skipped to the end, if you want to see how a compact is really handled in the field and proof that the photographer is the key to a great image – go to this link and read how Magnum photographer Alex Majoli produces works of art with his old Olympus compacts.

If your pictures aren't good enough...

    ... you're not close enough.

These words - "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough." - were first uttered by the legendary war photographer Robert Capa. I actually read them when watching the movie / documentary "War Photographer" a couple of years ago, a great film featuring another hugely influential war photographer by the name of James Nachtwey. The statement however does not just apply for photojournalism - it's an invaluable clue of how to take great pictures and it's something I've since repeated countless times. If there's only a few statements you can tattoo to your memory when it comes to photography, this one should unquestionably be among them.

The concept is simple... get closer to the subject. You see, the eye is not easily fooled when viewing photographs. When you shoot portraits / street / journalism with a long telephoto lens, the image is compressed in a way which instantly recognisable by photographers and non photographers alike. We know there is distance between the photographer and a certain disassociation creeps in between the viewer and the subject. Now that's not always bad of course. Sometimes it's a good thing, being used to actually create the atmosphere. But it's presence is undeniable.

Similarly, when you get up close to a subject and use a wide angle lens, when viewing an image we instinctively recognise how close the photographer was to the action. Our proximity detectors go into overdrive. If it's composed well and the atmosphere is properly conveyed - we feel as if we're inside the shot.

The difference it can make to an image is huge.

Now, that's not to say that only good shots are made up close - or that telephoto shots can't be intimate... I can think of countless examples that disprove either - and many of my own favourite shots are taken with plenty of air between me and the subject... But like all overarching quotes / statements of any value - the trick is to take the lesson and apply it where it makes sense.

When I look through my own photography, I always try to remember this statement (and am always appreciative of anyone who reminds me)... I continually ask myself whether I have taken a step forwards, whether I could have leaned in a little further, and how this would have subsequently pulled the viewer into the image. I found a good example how how that difference looks when thumbing through my archives. The first was a photo I'm pleased with technically, but was shot at an effective focal length of around 150mm.

By Lawrence Ripsher (click for larger version)

Aesthetically and technically, it's very pleasing. However, there's nothing here that really allows the viewer to connect with the subjects. When you look at the shot - you're brought to where the photographer was - as a viewer in the crowd. Now of course, that's not necessarily a bad thing - the important thing here is to recognise the effect (FYI, view more here from this shoot if you're interested).

However, a few months later, I managed to get access to Ballet Philippines and shoot them while rehearsing. Here, I was more than just an innocent bystander - this time I was in amongst the dancers, talking to them, walking past them. I have a number of images from this shoot (again, you can view more here), but one that sticks in my mind is this one:

By Lawrence Ripsher (click for larger version)

Here - the connection is very clear. I think it's much easier to become part of the image - knowing the photographer is crouching down, shooting upwards, with the dancer almost leaping over the camera the viewer is almost tempted to believe for a second they're in the same room.

Now, whichever image you prefer is actually irrelevant for the point I'm trying to make - that is, as you get closer, the image and the subject come to life in a way that can't be achieved when shooting from a distance. As you close in, what you do with that subject is then up to you and your skill as a photographic technician (plus a health sprinkling of luck :).

So - as photographers lets all agree to make a pact and the next time you're in doubt about how to frame something, lets just take a step forwards and see what happens.

Small Planet - Creating a miniature effect

When I was in Japan last year, I had a chance to meet a great friend of mine (and fantastic photographer), Tommy Oshima. Tommy gave me a book called "Small Planet" by Naoki Honjo. It is a book of normal scenes of cityscapes, streets, etc - shot from a long distance with specialised equipment to make the scenes look like toy models. It's interesting how the eye / mind is tricked into believing these real scenes are miniaturized cities and opens the door to many potential interpretations about the world being a small place, and so forth.

Below is the cover image from this great book which gives you an idea of the effect I'm talking about.

Small Planet by Naoki Honjo

When I got back from Japan, I decided to give it a go myself. Here was my first attempt (click to enlarge):

Toy Town, by Lawrence Ripsher (click for larger version)

Now, this was a bit of a quick and dirty example and as I am writing this, I'm actually sitting on the 20th floor of a hotel in Asia. So, while watching the world go by on the street below, I decided to take a few shots and give this another try. I also thought it would be interesting to explain how this effect is achieved.

There are three ways:

The Tilt Shift Lens
This is the correct way to do this and it's how Honjo (along with a few other photographers) does it. If you shoot with a DSLR, you can purchase a Tilt Shift lens. These lenses are normally reserver for architecture, landscape or product shots. They allow you to tilt the focal plane of the lens to allow a building shot to be more accurate, or against a macro / product shot to allow for larger apertures without a shallow depth of field. However, if you use these lenses in the opposite way to which they were originally intended, they create ultra shallow depths of field.

It is this effect that tricks the eye.

You see, when you look at a picture of a landscape, you expect it to all be in focus. However, when you see a macro image, your eye naturally expects the depth of field to be much more shallow. So - combine these two effects - an ultra shallow depth of field on a landscape style picture, and your brain is tricked into thinking it's a macro. Or in other words, the only logical thing that could be in the macro - a model.

Now, it takes more than just buying a tilt shift... You have to invest time / effort, find interesting scenes and work hard on getting the depth of field 'believable'. You also have to include other aspects such as shooting from the right angle and so forth.

I've never actually invested in this type of equipment so have not tried it. But have seen it used with excellent effect.

So, then what's the alternative?

Shooting through a plane window
Well, this is one way to do it - but it's not really an alternative as it's too impractical. But it is possible to achieve by shooting through the window of a plane. If you shoot through the window at a low altitude with a long enough lens - you can get the model effect. The trick is to aim at your subject through a clear part of the glass, and use the natural distortion / dirt / thickness to cover the rest of the image. What you can be left with is a similar looking effect. Here's one I took flying over London in a 747. It was shot with a D200 and 18-200 VR lens. No zooming / cropping / photoshop (other than levels) has been applied to the image.

"Extravagance", by Lawrence Ripsher (click for larger version)

So if the first method is expensive, and the second is impractical (and expensive), what's the cheap / practical alternative?

The Photoshop Approach
If you don't have a tilt shift lens (or a private jet :), you can actually achieve a remarkably similar effect through Photoshop. Here's how you do it, followed by a few samples at the end with my compact ultra-zoom.

Step 1 - First of all, you need to find a scene where you can get up high, zoom to a sufficient level and take an image of something below you, at around 45 degrees.
Step 2 - Once you've done that. Open the image in photoshop and press Q to go into Quick Mask mode
Step 3 - Once in quick mask mode, select the Gradient tool from the toolbars and drag it across the screen. You want to start just beyond your subject and drag it in the opposite direction for about an inch. What you'll see is that about half the screen turns red while the other half remains normal colour. An example can be seen below (click to enlarge)

Step 4 - Press Q again to exit Quick Mask mode. A selection triangle will appear on the screen - this is the bounding box we're about to apply a blur filter too (to confirm, this triangle should not cover your subject)
Step 5 - Go to Filter -> Blur -> Lens Blur
Step 6 - Enter some values. I usually just change the Radius and Blade Curvature. For example, for a 7MP image you might use values 40 and 40 respectively. Apply the filter
Step 7 - Repeat steps 2 to 6 on other side of the subject so that you're blurring the majority of the image
Step 8 - Resize for web
Step 9 - Apply an Unsharp mask

And that's it! How does it look? Well, here are some examples taken today from my hotel room from the 20th floor, with an Olympus SP-550 compact ultrazoom. It depends on how much time you spend getting the photoshop correct (I'm lazy and so rushed mine a little) but with some effort and the right image, the effect is great. As with all Optics vs Processing alternatives, the tilt / shift method is going to give a more realistic / graceful gradient of depth of field. But if you're not in the market for one and want to give this a go (or just want to see what it looks like), this article is a step in that direction.

Click on images to view a larger version.

Investing in Subjects

Last year sometime when I was in Japan, I visited an exhibition of the World Press Photo in Tokyo. It was an incredible experience - walking past dozens of bus stop sized photos of scenes that for many different reasons, would quite literally take your breath away. I can clearly recall those pictures now... an African man standing in the street alongside his chained and muzzled hyena, a polar bear perched on a lone slab of ice in an environment rapidly giving way to global warming, incredible pictures of ballet students dancing, or an art "factory" in china... Some scenes were inspiring, many were harrowing, but each was so unique that I never felt desensitised - each image gave way to new feelings.

Now aside from the technical brilliance that shone through the vast majority of images, the thing that stuck me was just how important it was to be "in the right place at the right time". The best camera equipment (or even the best photographic skill) was actually secondary in importance to the fact that the photographer had been in a position to take a photo in the first place. This realisation was perhaps the first time that the importance of "investing in subjects" really hit home for me. You see, we're all interested in improving our skills and nuturing our talents, but these can't happen in a vacuum. Give the most talented photographer in the world a boring subject and there's only so much he / she is going to be able to do with it. What I was realising as I walked through the exhibition was that while it was great to see hidden beauty in the everyday world that surrounded me, there was perhaps even an a greater adventure in trying to open closed doors and seeing what was inside.

So, given that I was not about to go jump on a plane to a war torn state in Africa, when I got home I sought out subjects that were more accessible and more within reach. Some required travel, some required research, some required developing contacts and some required a bit of blind luck. All required opening my mind to new opportunities I had previously not seen. And so shortly after, I began a series of photographic projects that I feel so privileged to have been able to participate in.

Although I was not a fan of ballet growing up, it's something I've learned to appreciated in the past couple of years. Two of those projects were in this subject. Getting a chance to shoot at a training session of the Ballet Philippines was fantastic - in the end it took little more than some initiative, some courtesy and a favour I've yet to fully repay. Likewise, getting backstage access to a local Singaporean ballet school was a wonderful experience and something I hope to do more of in the future.

In Singapore, I also got a chance to hook up with my good friend Manny Librodo and shoot the behind the scenes images for one of his SIngapore workshops. That project coincided with a much more serious move into portraits for me which remains a strong interest for me today. A couple of months later, I found myself on a 300,000 tonne supertanker - a location usually completely off limits to the general public. And finally, after a great recommendation from a fellow photographer here, I managed to find a dream location for my abandoned / storytelling series "Fragments", a project that has become so important to my development as a photographer.

Now, putting some perspective on this, obviously none of these images are going to change the world or raise public awareness of social / climate / economic issues. But as a photographer whose primary aim is to improve his breadth and skill, that was never the aim. The goal was quite simply to expose myself to scenarios and surroundings that I wouldn't normally face in everday life, and draw inspiration from those scenes to create images I wouldn't have imagined taking 12 months ago. And fortunately that's exactly what happened.

And so this is one of my favourite pieces of advice for someone who's reaching that first level of photography - the phase when you feel as if you've understood the basics of composition, exposure and technique, and are starting to get a little jaded or tired with creating the same images. If that's you then invest in finding more interesting subjects.

You might have to develop some new relationships / contacts, jump in a car and drive somewhere. You might even take a plane to another country. Or if you're already familiar with traveling, it might require dragging yourself well off your normal schedule or agenda and arranging something unique in advance... It won't necessarily be easy, nor something you can do every day but by occasionally investing more in subjects, you'll have the chance to see a slice of life you've not experienced before. And that fresh look you get may even return home with you, providing a new perspective on your existing surroundings too.

Either way, you'll end up with great images.

Mirrored

A number of people have (privately or publicly) asked me how I achieved the following image in my Last Visit gallery.

"Mirrored", Lawrence Ripsher. Click to enlarge

From conception, to execution, to actually watching the reaction of people as they discover something is “wrong” with the scene, this has been a very fun image for me.

Just in case it really needs spelling out, the disconcerting part of this picture is that the reflection of the girl (in this case, my wife Akuri) should actually be looking away from the camera – but instead, like the model – it’s looking directly at the camera.

A few people guessed this was Photoshop. Other guessed tricks with mirrors. A further superstitious few suggested some darker (cue spooky music).

OK, so in the spirit of sharing and education, I thought I’d provide the answer on here with a step by step explanation of how I ended up with a shot like this. However, choose now if you’d like to continue as like with all magic tricks, learning of the secret is not always as fun as being left in the dark. It is however more useful so, onwards.

So let me first get right to the point – there is no trickery with multiple mirrors. This is a Photoshop job. Now, it’s not just Photoshop – in order to achieve an image like this, you first need the idea. After you have the idea, you need to execute it and that means two images. Now at this point I should also say that I’m actually not actually an expert with Photoshop – I typically describe myself as having better judgment at how / when to process rather than having masterful skills with processing. So this is a rare (for me) case of a composite image. And honestly, if I may be so bold, I’m rather pleased with it.

So, the first image I took was actually to get the reflection. I already knew what I wanted from the portrait part of the image and that it would be the easy part. So the reflection was what I wanted to kick things off… Knowing that the image would need to be roughly divided in half between the subject and her reflection (in order to allow for processing later), I composed the model on the left and asked her to look at me through the mirror. The whites of the eyes were a critical part, accentuated by a sideways long glance. This actually took about 20 images to get exactly right – with me taking more than I actually thought I needed just to give myself a good selection later (as it's actually quite hard to visualise this kind of thing when you're at the scene). The first image looks as follows.

"Mirrored - Image 1", Lawrence Ripsher. Click to enlarge

OK now, if you glance up at the original image, things should be coming clearer already.

Next, I needed the actual portrait so I asked the model to direct her gaze at me. This time the reflection of course points away from the camera (as it naturally should). The expression I wanted from this needed to be fairly subtle – too expressive would become cliché as the discovery is meant to come slowly. So “deadpan” was the look I was going for. Surprisingly, this was perfect on the first picture (credit to the beautiful model) and that was the image I used.

"Mirrored - Image 2", Lawrence Ripsher. Click to enlarge

So we have our two pictures… what next?

Now it’s a simple case of careful Photoshop. You clone the reflection from one image to the mirror of the next image. The setup actually allows some mistakes to be made (the mirror is dirty, it’s nicely divided as an image, etc) so it's not as hard as it sounds. Below is a screenshot of how it's done:

"The Making of Mirrored", Lawrence Ripsher. Click to enlarge

And that's it!

To finish up, it just took a bit of cloning, dodging, touching up – and voila, you have an image that slowly creeps up on you and stays a little longer than it comfortably should.