White balance

I recently blogged about white balance and left little explanation. Hence, here's a low-tech quickie primer on white balance for DSLR (and possibly point-n-shoot) photography (also applicable to video cameras as well).

Every shooting situation requires your camera adjust to the color of the light that is being used for making the exposure.

You've no doubt seen different color casts on your images when shooting in certain situations. This used to be more prevalent when shooting film but now, digital cameras are much more adept at handling the situation with some exceptions.

However, for people wanting to take the next step up in controlling their images you need to consider "telling" your camera what color or temperature of light you're shooting with.

Instead of using the "auto" white balance, you can choose to select a variety of situational settings like "cloudy," "daylight," "incandescent," "fluorescent," and "open shade" amongst others.

These are handy for quick calculations and when you're shooting on the fly.

But to get really serious, you need to purchase a white balance tool such as a diffusion screen or white/gray/black card or some such.

I prefer a white/gray/black card. It works very well for me. You need to check your camera's manual for instructions on how to exactly do the procedure. Essentially you hold the white/gray/black portion of the card directly in the light you are shooting in and take a closeup photo of the white portion while in the white balance mode as directed by your camera manufacturer.

This sets the camera's white balance for that particular setting. If the light changes, you simply redo the procedure and adjust for the changing conditions.

It's a hassle and it's easy to just pick a preset white balance, but I've found many of the presets are not very accurate because they cannot account for all kinds of situations. They are just averages.

This is just a quickie to get you started exploring white balance. I will add more later about including the white/gray/black card in your photos to further help with white balance.

4x5 Yea!!!

I'm back up and running with the Cambo. Props go to Jason Heitsman for selling me the camera a few years ago. I don't get to use it as much as I like, but when I do, it's a ball.

I'm sad I can't get Polaroid 55 anymore. That really weakens my arsenal.

This is Stephanie. She's model living here in Gastonia. I love her versatility. She can do fashion, punk, art nudes and anything in between and make it look easy.

I like my 4x5 images to be kind of grungy and less than ideal. This one may be a little oversharpened, but I still like it.

The image is from a series I made comparing different photographic formats. I shot a range of images using everything from a 4 mp point and shoot up to my 4x5. I particularly like this image. I love lots of tilt shift and getting close to my models' eyes.

This is one of my last sheets of Kodak TMax 100. I'm going to be switching over to some Ilford HP5 Plus 400 for a while.

For the techies out there, I'm planning on rating the Ilford at ISO 200 so I can pull process the film and hopefully create some better shadow detail and control the highlights a little better. This is what I call a poor man's Zone System. The negs should scan a lot better using this tonal range anyway.

I'll keep you guys posted.

Getting lazy with white balance

One of the most dangerous things about digital photography is that it makes the photographer a lazy technician. The ease of fixing things in post production becomes an alluring path when you're out shooting.

I recently photographed my daughter's first softball game. OK, it was a scrimmage. But she dressed in her uniform and they played in game conditions, so I consider it her first "game".

Anyway, I dragged out the big lenses and really just shot for fun, but I ended up shooting a gallery of images of her and her teammates. The problem was that I shot much of the action using the "auto" white balance. Naturally as I framed images, the color balance changed slightly throughout the range of images as the camera "saw" different backgrounds and foregrounds. Additionally I could see color shifts as the daylight changed temperatures.

So when I got home and starting editing the images for a web gallery, I spent way too much time correcting for all the variations in color. And, of course, I can't get very consistent color across the spectrum of images on my own.

If I was going to be really diligent I would have whipped out my handy white-balance card and performed the manual white balance every 30 minutes or so. At that time of the day, even overcast light changes temperature fairly quickly. Even as I changed from the auto white balance to the "cloudy" white balance I saw changes in the consistency of the color balance.

So, I can't say the lesson is learned, because I knew the lesson already. It's just a matter of not getting lazy. It's probably OK if you're just looking for two or three images for the family album. But when you start putting tens or hundreds of pictures out there for people to consume, then things become a bit more serious.

Plugging away

I worked with a makeup artist a week ago. As is my usual motive when I move to a new city, I try to surround myself with talent who can support and add to my photography services. I found Tim Ferrell on Model Mayhem and subsequently we met over coffee and started bonding right away.

It took us a while, but we finally arranged a shoot with a model so both of us could get a sense of how the other works.

We all had fun and Tim did a great job of makeup with Emily, the model.

The image posted here is one of my composites. I added the background and the foreground. The makeup is all Tim and Emily.

I recently tried my hand at submitting to a stock photography business.

I figured I would try submitting to Shutterstock. So I carefully selected 10 varied images (as per their requirements for initial submission) from my archives.

After submitting the images, I was rapidly and bluntly turned away. With the exception of one photo, each image was rejected for aesthetic reasons: "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.

Composition--Limited commercial value due to framing, cropping, and/or composition."

The other image, a tasteful nude, was rejected because I didn't attach a model release (even though you could not see the model's face).

This has been a valuable learning experience. As I posted my initial dismay on Facebook, other photo friends shared their input regarding their attempts at uploading photos to Shutterstock or other agencies. Their comments gave me pause and forced me to reconsider the shot to my ego.

The crux of the matter is that I should have researched Shutterstock's style and needs a little more. The photos I uploaded were too needy of context and not at all within the style that Shutterstock displays in their portfolio.

It appears, after some discussion, that the current stock photo business is in need of the simplest of compositions; very flat, bright light; uncomplex visuals and an aesthetic that is very different than I am accustomed to shooting.

I was offered some solace from Rob Haggart's blog (www.aphotoeditor.com). Some time ago, he posted a list of stock agencies he considered worthy of a professional's attention. At the bottom of the list under the category of "Crap," he listed Shutterstock.

So I'm licking my wounds this week. Some would say just move on, but I've decided to alter my style and make an attempt to reshoot a set of stock images that may more closely align with Shutterstock's aesthetic.

I'll keep you posted.

reflecting on photography past

I was reading a columnist this morning who was reflecting on changes he's noticed over the past decade. It got me to thinking about how photography and photojournalism has changed since I started doing it professionally about 25 years ago. And, yes, I have photographer friends who are older than I and certainly their starting point of reference is different, but here goes.

It goes without saying that film was the norm. But the standard for newspapers was black and white Kodak Tri-X or Ilford HP5. At newspapers, most of us also carried color transparency film like Ektachrome or Fujichrome in addition to some Plus-X if we wanted some really fine grain.

One camera held black and white film; the other often contained color.

To process these films meant using any combination of machine or hand-processing method with a variety of chemicals. It would take anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes--after driving back to the lab/office--before we knew if we hand any "good" images. There was no such thing as a monitor on the back of the camera to check focus, color balance or exposure.

Changing ASA (now ISO) meant changing out an entire roll of film and/or developing a second batch of film in a different chemistry/time combination.

Shooting something at ASA 3200 meant really grainy black and white images often using bleach and a cotton swab while printing under a dim amber bulb just so you got detail in some portions of the image.

If we ran out of film, we were pretty much done for the moment. You couldn't erase an image to make more space. You either begged a roll from someone or found a drug store or grocery store for more film if you didn't have some rolling around the floor of your car.

You used to be able to drive up to booths and drop off film to someone and return a few hours or days later to get your photos.

Looking at your images with any kind of urgency often required a good light table and a nice loupe if you were in the print media industry. Nevermind using a slide projector two weeks later if you shot Kodachrome at National Geographic.

Most every photojournalist carried two camera bodies and a bag with four, five or more prime lenses and had to change lenses OFTEN to get a good variety of images. Zoom lenses were not considered professional lenses.

Oh...and there was no autofocus on ANY of those lenses.

Seventeen millimeters was an exotic lens.

We carried one or two flashes and often had to dial in the best possible setting using a vague guess of red, blue or yellow setting on that flash to accommodate the distance/ASA/situation variables.

Motor drives were add-on devices. They often shorted out in wet weather. I used Band Aids over the button of my Nikon MD-12 to keep rain out of it.

Nikon was the undisputed king for Photojournalists.

Thirty six was a magic number.

More camera buying tips

As promised, here are a few more random camera-buying tips.

Be sure to consider exactly what kind of photography you plan to do with this camera. Keep that in mind for things like choosing what kind of lens you need, what kind of zoom, video and other critical features that might be relevant to you.

I advise not to buy anything online that is the cheapest price unless you are getting that price from a known retailer. If you get a dirt cheap price from some unknown seller, you may be setting yourself up for a disaster. Don't let a $20 price difference push you toward a poor purchasing decision.

Some of those low prices can mean you're not getting a full warranty or any USA warranty. You may not get a full kit or you might be buying refurbished equipment. You may have a very difficult time returning an item or you might have to pay a restocking fee.

A good rule of thumb is to alway get the camera in your hands and physically look at the features and how the camera feels. I always encourage buying locally. Give your local camera store the business. They are super helpful and their prices can get to within a few dollars of online retailers. They often will toss in a camera lesson or two. And certainly you can always go back with the camera to ask questions.

Another good rule of thumb: don't buy anything that is packed in those plastic clam shells. Just don't.

Also, generally any kid camera sold in the toy aisle or toy store is just junk. Yes, you can spend $35 and get her a "camera". It will frustrate them and you. Trust me.

Enough for now. More to follow