Compostion, Lighting, Subject, more (by PM)

Andy

PM wrote:

I have a question for you Andy!

Of the shots that you have displayed on your site in the popular photos gallery...like the butterfly, the oldman in the chair playing his guitar or any of them for that matter, do you compose that shot or do you do post editing like cropping, tweeking colors and such???

I just have to ask because you are very talented with the camera and it gives me as well as many others a lot of inspiration to meet the standards that are set by you and others among you class of photographer.

How much extra work do you put into an image before you think it is ready for release into the public and how do you decide what is to be done with these fantastic works of art???

Thanks for your time and keep up the killer work,

Super Stoked
Nate

:wave Hi Nate, and thanks for asking such a great question. I don't answer questions by PM, because there's so much for us all to learn in when we have these questions in the public forum AND, we can hear from all the great shooters here on Dgrin! Let's have a discussion about it, shall we?

Of course, there are loads of things that go into a good photograph, but here are some key elements I think of at shooting time:

* composition
* subject
* light

after that, I think about how I can affect the shot with camera settings:

* ISO
* aperture
* shutter speed

Then, after the shoot, I'll use my post processing skills to make the most of my shots. Doesn't mean you can't get great shots out of the camera, with no post processing, but I prefer to shoot in RAW and then do all the decision-making about color, final exposure, tonal-range, contrast, sharpness, cropping and more, myself.

One could argue that since photography = writing with light, that light is critical. Once you have light, then you need to manage it. Then comes the subject - is it something that people will want to look at, find interesting? Or at minimum, do *you* find it interesting Finally, I always think about composition when I'm shooting. Always. I try to frame carefully, even when shooting street, in a hurry. Or landscapes on a tripod. Get it right at shoot, and you've little cropping to do in post.

Let's hear from others!

wxwax

My brain staggers through things in roughly this order...

Hmm, this looks interesting.
Ooh, I see the composition.
Heck, is the light any good?
Say, what's my depth of field?
OK, will my palsy make a blurry image, or is my shutter speed fast enough?
Come to think of, when's the last time I checked my ISO?
What's the meter telling me?


After I take the shot:

Quick, look at the histogram! (Always, without exception.)
Dang, what's my focus mode? Sure hope I changed it back from Manual.

pathfinder

Hi Nate,

Welcome to Dgrin.

You have asked a great question, and one that is, for me, a lot more interesting to discuss than lenses, camera bodies, lines per millimeter, which is the best lens, yada yada yada.

For me, the truth is that some shots are planned, before I ever put the viewfinder to my eye. This one for example.

I knew I wanted to capture the deer's footprints and let the viewer see that the deer crossed the covered bridge too. But how to do this - the foot prints are small and the bridge is so large and far away. Use a wide angle lens to emphasize the forground elements and keep the bridge smaller and in focus . Get very low and close to the snow to emphasize the footprints. After I had the image, I decided that B&W might work better at isolating the footprints in the snow.



Here is another - I planned the sunlight radiating from the edge of the sculpture I was shooting



Most are captured as I work, exploring angles and compositions as I work a subject and its lighting.

Post processing ( image editing after shooting ) I think of as working in the darkroom. I grew up using a B&W and a Color Printing darkroom and I think of Photoshop as my darkroom without the chemicals, the mess, or the smells. The darkroom lets me create in my image what I saw in my mind's eye when I shot the picture.

I know that I can crop if necessary, and later change the color or contrast as needed. I can clone out objectionable things that I could not remove at the time of shooting. I shot this frame in the Shipwreck Museum at White Fish Point in color, but realized later looking at it on my computer, that it was better served in B&W because of the dramatic lighting and the absence of real color in the original scene. Do you prefer the color or the B&W??

[imgl]http://Pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/79587329-M.jpg[/imgl][imgr]http://Pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/79587637-M.jpg[/imgr]































For me, shooting pictures is a way of exploring and seeing something in a new way or a new light. I can't always plan on a new discovery each time, until it hits me in the face, but if I keep working at it, sometimes I get lucky.

The more you shoot, and the more you edit, the better you become about anticipating how you need to capture the shot, and what in the way of post processing will be needed to display what you saw in your mind at the time of shooting. Then you can plan the sot more in advance.

Here's another one I shot that I knew would work better in B&W when I shot it. Why B&W?? It was dark in there 1/13th sec f5,6 at ISO 1600. The lighiting was dramatic and highly shaded, and the color that was present was a monotone. The subject was not that interesting - just a ladder and a hole in the ground. But in B&W....



This image needs to be in color. The lighting is not dramatic, but is nice, warm soft ligthing that is best displayed in color. The subject is flat and not dramatically shaded - It needs the monotone color for the warmth



The more you shoot and then look at your shots after the fact and edit them to make them their very best, the better you will be able to anticipate how you want to shoot images in advance. And the luckier you will become with your shots.

As you get better planning your shots, you may find your post processing becomes less important, but still necessary, to really bring out the best in your shots.

I always shoot in RAW to maximize the potential for editing later.

I look forward to seeing some of your shots, Nate. Be sure and post them here on dgrin for us all to see and enjoy.

claudermilk

Now, for an example to two different persepctives on the same subject, my take on that Kiva:



In this case, I think the color is an important part of the shot (also helps distract from the kids who wouldn't quite get all the way out of the way).

gluwater

Andy wrote:

One could argue that since photography = writing with light, that light is critical. Once you have light, then you need to manage it. Then comes the subject - is it something that people will want to look at, find interesting? Or at minimum, do *you* find it interesting Finally, I always think about composition when I'm shooting. Always. I try to frame carefully, even when shooting street, in a hurry. Or landscapes on a tripod. Get it right at shoot, and you've little cropping to do in post.

Let's hear from others!

I think this is a very good synopses Andy. Lately I've been trying to work on my composition and the first thing I look at is the light. If you have an interesting subject but the light is drab, then the shot may not come out as nice as you would have liked. Also, just waiting a couple minutes or even seconds sometimes can produce images that will be much more interesting. While in the UP of Michigan earlier this year we were taking sunset shots about every night from a dock at the end of a boathouse. I knew that eventually the light would be sweet on the boathouse so I kept watching and waiting and eventually it happened.


Now that is not a stellar shot but it is interesting to me. The shot from the dock facing the sun is probably more interesting to most people.

wxwax

Good examples, Nick.

pathfinder

I commented in Nick's gallery that I thought his shot of the boat house in the warm setting sunlight was very nice, and that I had missed it entirely, because I was so absorbed looking west, and shooting the setting sun.

Sometimes we need to get our eye out of the viewfinder and look around behind us to make sure we are not missing something!!:):

Nick's point about finding the sweet light is one that I learn over and over and over again. The right light will make an otherwise mundane subject sing.

pathfinder

claudermilk wrote:

Now, for an example to two different persepctives on the same subject, my take on that Kiva:



In this case, I think the color is an important part of the shot (also helps distract from the kids who wouldn't quite get all the way out of the way).

I am inclined to agree that I think the color helps in your shot. The light shaft is quite bright, and the kiva is not nearly as dark or colorless as mine. In mine, it is dark and brooding, and the shadows play a much bigger role.

Other than the light shaft, the lighting in your kiva is more diffuse, and illuminates the kiva more evenly, displaying the color better.

I have commented previously, that you rarely see shots of light shafts from Antelope Canyon displayed in B&W. Even though there is little color there - monotone reds and greys, maybe some pinks or yellow, most of the Antelope shots are displayed in color. I think the light shafts display better in color maybe.