When post-processing I sense there is a certain pressure to focus on a particular width v height ratio on the final image. My advice is, where possible, to treat the photo on its merits and if you are printing/framing it, make the frame fit the photo rather than the other way around.
That said, I am finding very wide (panoramic) is appealing to me more and more for landscapes; I've even printed recently into a large frame 3 panoramic images one above another which I'm delighted with. I also tend to like the 5x4 ratio (more portrait layout than landscape).. I'm not sure why - it just seems to work, and I have this in mind when I am framing the photo.
Where this can breakdown unfortunately is portraits, especially when you are asked for a photo for framing. Let's say you've taken a family portrait and you have cropped it nicely to print onto 6x4" (photo snaps in old money). A relative then wants to print it for 7x5"... you should be okay if there is enough space around the edges, so hopefully no cropping. However, when you are then asked for an image to frame in a 10x8" frame with a 0.5" border all the way around all hell breaks loose - you can't crop it as it will ruin the image... the only trick really is to always take the photo with enough space around the sides so that you can crop to your relatives' desire.
Mon, 13. March 2017
One size doesn't fit all
Tue, 7. March 2017
Don't forget to print
Sat, 3. November 2012
RAW or JPEG
I shoot RAW almost exclusively and it surprises me that a number of photographers prefer to use JPEG for weddings and parties.
Let me explain the difference:
- When light enters a camera which will form your photograph it is picked up by a load of sensors on your camera. The human eye is more sensitive to green than red or blue and as a result for each four pixels you usually have 2 green pixels, 1 red and 1 blue. The CCD (camera sensor) picks up a voltage across each of these pixels and that is recorded internally as a RAW file (it's the raw data and each camera manufacturer has their own file format although there are standards for it now)
- Unless you know how to interpret that image, it's not much use so the camera can automatically convert it to JPEG. In order to do that, it makes some assumptions which can be configured by the photographer such as white balance (colour is very different under different light - more of that another time), exposure, contrast and sharpness. You then get an image which is useful (for one thing it's what appears on the viewfinder/playback of the camera) and can be viewed immediately on your computer and stored/printed/emailed etc.
In theory the JPEG is ideal as it gives you what you want in a format you can use. There's two huge catches though:
- It assumes you've got those settings right - as soon as you edit the contrast, brightness, white balance, colour tone (eg. make the image a little less red) you are losing quality as you are modifying an already modified image
- JPEG is a "lossy" file format. What this means is that to create a JPEG image some of the information is compressed and therefore lossed a bit (ie. lossy). TIFF files are not lossy and recommended for editing - more for another day
I nearly always shoot in RAW and then use the RAW editor to make any minor tweaks (white balance, exposure and contrast are the main ones I look at). It's also particularly useful for under-exposed photos. I took a photo a while ago of a snow leopard and one image turned out to be badly under-exposed [see left]. Luckily I shot it as RAW because I was able to increase the exposure and ended up with what's on the right.... much better!!! As comparison I tried editing the file as if it was a JPEG (ie. taking the RAW file and converting to JPEG using the camera settings) and was able to improve on the image on the left somewhat. However, all the background leaves were unrecoverable and the eyes lost a load of detail. Although perhaps not the best example, I feel this does illustrate the benefit of RAW.
I do often find myself doing commissions where clients take the photos "unedited". Even then, I generally shoot RAW and run all the photos through a customised tool which converts them to JPEG and tweaks based on what I normally find works best (bit more contrast, and a slight reduction in red levels). It does mean it takes a bit longer, but it means if I want to go back and edit a photo a bit more I can do it without losing the quality. More importantly if for some reason there's a photo that would have been great had it not been underexposed I've got a better chance of recovering it (as my snow leopard friend would agree).
Let me explain the difference:
- When light enters a camera which will form your photograph it is picked up by a load of sensors on your camera. The human eye is more sensitive to green than red or blue and as a result for each four pixels you usually have 2 green pixels, 1 red and 1 blue. The CCD (camera sensor) picks up a voltage across each of these pixels and that is recorded internally as a RAW file (it's the raw data and each camera manufacturer has their own file format although there are standards for it now)
- Unless you know how to interpret that image, it's not much use so the camera can automatically convert it to JPEG. In order to do that, it makes some assumptions which can be configured by the photographer such as white balance (colour is very different under different light - more of that another time), exposure, contrast and sharpness. You then get an image which is useful (for one thing it's what appears on the viewfinder/playback of the camera) and can be viewed immediately on your computer and stored/printed/emailed etc.
In theory the JPEG is ideal as it gives you what you want in a format you can use. There's two huge catches though:
- It assumes you've got those settings right - as soon as you edit the contrast, brightness, white balance, colour tone (eg. make the image a little less red) you are losing quality as you are modifying an already modified image
- JPEG is a "lossy" file format. What this means is that to create a JPEG image some of the information is compressed and therefore lossed a bit (ie. lossy). TIFF files are not lossy and recommended for editing - more for another day
I nearly always shoot in RAW and then use the RAW editor to make any minor tweaks (white balance, exposure and contrast are the main ones I look at). It's also particularly useful for under-exposed photos. I took a photo a while ago of a snow leopard and one image turned out to be badly under-exposed [see left]. Luckily I shot it as RAW because I was able to increase the exposure and ended up with what's on the right.... much better!!! As comparison I tried editing the file as if it was a JPEG (ie. taking the RAW file and converting to JPEG using the camera settings) and was able to improve on the image on the left somewhat. However, all the background leaves were unrecoverable and the eyes lost a load of detail. Although perhaps not the best example, I feel this does illustrate the benefit of RAW.
 |  |
I do often find myself doing commissions where clients take the photos "unedited". Even then, I generally shoot RAW and run all the photos through a customised tool which converts them to JPEG and tweaks based on what I normally find works best (bit more contrast, and a slight reduction in red levels). It does mean it takes a bit longer, but it means if I want to go back and edit a photo a bit more I can do it without losing the quality. More importantly if for some reason there's a photo that would have been great had it not been underexposed I've got a better chance of recovering it (as my snow leopard friend would agree).
Wed, 17. October 2012
Photographing religious ceremonies
I've just finished editing photos for a family christening I recently photographed. Families want the memory recorded but don't want to be annoyed by seeing the photographer all the time and perhaps more importantly the flash from their camera.
Two things I've learnt over time (and try to stick to) are:
1. Try not to be in the face of the family the whole time. In particular for an official / religious ceremony taking photos from the side is less intrusive to the participants, but there's another benefit. You're there to record the memory... having a cheesy snap with everyone smiling at you during the ceremony looks false and will only annoy the family and ceremony official - showing them really enjoying the moment is a much better memory. By being a little to the side you have more time to frame the photo and can make sure the shot is completely natural. (Needless to say you need to take both candid and posed ones).
2. Ask the ceremony official and the main participants to give you priority for the group poses. More often than not there will be lots of people with cameras at such events (often several semi-pros who are thinking the same way as you in terms of what shots to take). You all want the best shot but don't want to have eyes in different directions, smiles missing etc. By taking it in turns it becomes easy. The problem can be the family member with the compact who doesn't follow the same rules. That's where getting everyone to know that when you are taking a photo they should look at you makes a difference. I also tend to ask the ceremony official to announce it at the end so that people know they have to give a little bit of space... ceremony officials by nature are cautious of photographers for getting in their way, but if you stick to my first tip above then you'll be in their good books and they'll happily ask you are given that little bit of space.
Anyway, here are some photos from this particular special day. Sharon and Ricardo had a great time with their twin daughters Eva and Marina and needless to say gave me permission to include a few of the images here (a point I tend to blog about a lot!).
Two things I've learnt over time (and try to stick to) are:
1. Try not to be in the face of the family the whole time. In particular for an official / religious ceremony taking photos from the side is less intrusive to the participants, but there's another benefit. You're there to record the memory... having a cheesy snap with everyone smiling at you during the ceremony looks false and will only annoy the family and ceremony official - showing them really enjoying the moment is a much better memory. By being a little to the side you have more time to frame the photo and can make sure the shot is completely natural. (Needless to say you need to take both candid and posed ones).
2. Ask the ceremony official and the main participants to give you priority for the group poses. More often than not there will be lots of people with cameras at such events (often several semi-pros who are thinking the same way as you in terms of what shots to take). You all want the best shot but don't want to have eyes in different directions, smiles missing etc. By taking it in turns it becomes easy. The problem can be the family member with the compact who doesn't follow the same rules. That's where getting everyone to know that when you are taking a photo they should look at you makes a difference. I also tend to ask the ceremony official to announce it at the end so that people know they have to give a little bit of space... ceremony officials by nature are cautious of photographers for getting in their way, but if you stick to my first tip above then you'll be in their good books and they'll happily ask you are given that little bit of space.
Anyway, here are some photos from this particular special day. Sharon and Ricardo had a great time with their twin daughters Eva and Marina and needless to say gave me permission to include a few of the images here (a point I tend to blog about a lot!).
 |  |  |
