Shadows

Boughs, originally uploaded by - Lenny -.

while it may not look it, this photo's main quality is shadows. actually, EVERY photo's main quality is shadows. without them, the photo would be one shade of color... there'd be no boundaries, no contrasts... you wouldn't be able to pick out one shape from another and everything would look like a flat, boring sheet of paper. so as you're thinking of your next photo, give some thought to shadows and how they can help you.

some might argue that shadows are the difference between light and dark areas, or that shadows are comparably darker than the surrounding area, and while they're describing contrasts, they're still technically right. but a shadow is really nothing more than a lack of light. and while you can control the shape, size and "density" (for lack of a better word) of the shadow by changing the object causing the shadow, you can do the EXACT same thing by changing the light source. soften the light source and the shadows will begin to lose their edges. harden the light source and your shadows will have a distinct border. move the light away and your shadows get smaller; move it close and they get bigger. and so on...

why is this important?

consider this photo. the only thing that was done to it was to remove the color information. there was no other post processing done... no curves, no contrasts, no boosting, dodging or burning. nothing. there are also no light modifiers... no flags, gobos, cookies, barndoors... nothing like that. but if you look closely (or maybe even take a step back), you'll notice an aura around the model... an area of relative lightness surrounding her. there's no extra light doing this... the same light that's hitting the model is hitting the background. but it's brighter right behind her than it is around her, and that's what's giving her the aura.

it's a VERY subtle effect, but it's one that i, and hopefully some others, appreciate.

this effect was accomplished by using two lights to cast two different shadows, not directly behind her, but to each side. notice the shadows at her feet.. they're moving away diagonally, and if you follow them, you'll see the shadows cast by her body. THIS is what's causing the aura. it's not light that's doing it, it's the LACK of light. cool, huh?

i've pretty much already told you how to do it: position two lights an equal distance (and at the same power) at 45 degree angles to the model, then use the model's own body (or whatever you're photographing) to cast the shadows. the important thing is to position the model so that some light passes behind her and lights the area immediately behind her. let her shadows do the work, and viola! you've created an aura.

at this point, you may be noticing that in my photo, the shadow on her right (your left) is darker than the other shadow, and there's a bright spot in the upper corner. this is caused by the light on her right (your left) being slightly higher than the other. i did this for two reasons, both having to do with the model's body:
1. her face is turned slightly to her right (your left), so i wanted more light
2. her body is positioned in such a way (she's kicked out her right hip) that if i'd left the light at the same level as the other, the shadow on her left (your right) would not be as oval as it is here.

if this had been a "pro" photo, i would have done some work during post processing to darken the lighter shadow and also to get right of the light spot in the upper left corner along with some other cosmetic touch-ups. but because i'm not a pro, i'm leaving it (and also because it helps illustrate my point here).

so my point is this... as you're composing a shot, take everything you can see into account, then take everything you didn't notice the first time into account (there are actually two other discussions i could go on and on about in this photo, but i'll save it for another) then use all that information to make the photo. in this case, it's a picture of a girl holding spheres (that are actually red), but i chose not to color them in. neither the spheres nor the model was ever the point of this photo. whether it was her, a vase of flowers or a cute puppy, this photo would have been about the same thing... using shadows to create an aura.

and i think i pulled it off, not because i can see the aura, but because i got a TON of emails asking me how it was done. that means the people who looked at the photo noticed it. while the effect was subtle, it was still enough to get people thinking. and for me, that's pretty much the goal of any photo i take.

Change of Direction

this is my second post, and already i've changed my mind. i'm not going to pick one photo from the previous week discuss how it was done. there were too many things floating around in my head for one discussion and it was too hard to write everything down in any way that would be easily understood. so instead, i'm going to try to pick up where others have come up short.

i've seen so many blogs dedicated to helping beginners and amateurs, and while they start off right, after a while they end up with swollen heads, treating beginners and amateurs alike as... well, beginners and amateurs. not ALL blogs are like this... that's not what i'm saying at all. but after seeing some of the 'pros' and veterans, i decided that that's not the kind of photographer i want to be when i grow up.

so i'm going to try to do my part to help you, and ultimately myself, out. i'll be the first to admit that i don't know anything about lecturing, teaching, or guiding anyone through anything, so if you're reading this, keep that in mind. i'll do my best to tell you what i know, why i took a photo a certain way, and most importantly... HOW i did it.

so let's get started...

basically, there are two types of photos... good photos and bad photos. that's a pretty broad statement, but stay with me on this one. as a photographer, your job is to record a single instance of time. that's it. there's nothing else you CAN do. your job as a photographer starts when you set your camera up for a shot and ends when you take that shot. if that's all you're interested in, that's fine, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. photojournalists fall into this group. but there's another side...

in addition to being a science, photography is also an art, and this is where it gets fun. like i said, the photographer captures a slice of time, but it's up to the artist to present that slice of time. and as an artist, it's completely up to you to determine HOW to present that slice of time, and you'll use various tools to pull it off.

so what does this have to do with taking a good photo? that's really up to you. there really aren't any concrete rules that say that one photo is better than another. in other words, show one photo to a group of people and you'll get a set of opinions. show the same photo to another group of people and you'll get a completely different set of opinions. or, show a set of photos to a person, then some time later, show the same set to the same person, and you'll get two different sets of opinion. cool, huh?

so ultimately, what makes a photo good or bad isn't how it was taken or presented, or the idea behind the photo, or who/what is in the photo... what makes a photo good or bad is really up to the person looking at it. in technical terms, photography is subjective; people make up their own minds about what they're looking at.

in my next post, i'll go over some of the different tools every photographer has, regardless of the equipment used. i'll also post some examples where i put some of those tools to use.

Welcome!

ok, so i'm an amateur photographer, and enough people have asked me about my photos that i decided i'd pick one photo from the previous week and discuss how it was done. at some point, if this ever gets enough exposure, i'll start a poll and use reader-selected photos. but until then, i'll use whichever photo was the most popular. and the first one is:





























this is a really simple, static set up. the idea behind this was asymmetry... since i was shooting her facing forward, i didn't want a flat, seen-it kind of photo. so instead of shooting her entire face, i decided to only get one side.

i also wanted to get a high fashion kind of look, so i went with REALLY bright lighting, positioned closely, so that:
1. i could get a wide range of light and dark in a short distance
2. i could use a tighter aperture to get everything from the tip of her nose through the back of her shoulders in focus
3. the texture of her skin would be more pronounced

so here's the set up. she standing straight up, about 3 feet away from a bright white seamless sheet of paper. there's only one light, shooting through an umbrella, at 1/2 power, positioned to her right, just inches from her right arm (you can see it in the lens of her goggles). one thing to notice is that you can see the ribs in the umbrella.

this isn't typical, but it's in this photo because the light is so close to the subject. normally, when you see catchlights in the subject's eyes, the ribs are still there, but the catchlight is so small, you can't make them out. this brings up an interesting technique that you can use in your own photography:

no matter how dim or bright your lights are, they'll seem bigger the closer they are to your subject. one way you can test this is to look around and find something, like a picture or a plant or a television... anything. extend your arm straight out in front of you, close one eye and "wrap" your hand around the object. notice that the object, whatever it is, takes up the space in your hand. now, without opening or closing your hand, bend your arm so that you bring your hand close to your face. the opening in your hand is the same, but notice that you can see SO much more... the space inside your hand, while it's stayed the same, seems bigger. you can use this to your advantage... place the light closer to your subject, and it appears to be a bigger light. move it away from your subject, and it seems smaller.

there's a caveat though... the farther you move your light, the more power you'll need to get the same brightness. or put another way, a light 1 foot from your subject will need significantly less power to light your subject than the same light positioned 10 feet from your subject.

so to review, the closer your light is, the less power you'll need and the bigger it appears... but you'll get less coverage. the farther your light is, the more power you'll need and the smaller it appears. but more of your subject will be lit.

but wait, it gets better (i've saved the best part for last)... light loses power faster the closer it is to its source. it sounds confusing at first, but think about it a little... it'll make more sense. take an ordinary flashlight and hold it about 6 inches off the floor. hold it straight down and notice that it's pretty bright. now tilt the light up so that it starts moving away from you, but still pointed at the floor. notice that within a few inches, the light's gotten quite a bit dimmer. also notice that as you keep going, it gets dimmer, but it gets dimmer SLOWER. this is the effect... i don't know what it's called, but it's VERY useful, and it's this effect i was trying to exploit (see point #1 above).


i wasn't really planning to go into so much detail about why i chose the lighting i did, and i don't claim to pretend to know the physics behind what i've explained, but it works.