Bracketing in the digital age

Growth rarely seems to be one single epiphany, rarely a situation where one is suddenly faced with a new reality and yells, “AHA”!!! Archimedes notwithstanding, I think artistic growth is more often a series of small steps that delivers us to a new way of looking at our world.

When I was a beginning photographer, I would bracket (making multiple exposures at different camera settings) extensively, hoping desperately that at least one exposure would correctly translate my vision onto film. My wastebasket overflowed, but I learned eventually how to create a “good” exposure. (As long as I could remember which settings I had used for each image). As my skills increased, I found myself looking with disdain at the process of bracketing, seeing it as a sign of a shooter not really confident in his or her understanding of light and exposure. It was a great source of satisfaction to “nail” an exposure and having the confidence not to bracket. Seems pretty shallow in retrospect, eh?

Interesting that now as a digital photographer, I find myself bracketing probably more than ever. I no longer bracket for general exposure, the histogram having pretty much eliminated that worry. I do bracket for very specific exposure, such as the images I placed on the blog previously, in which the color range could not be captured with one exposure. I also bracket for dynamic range, where image contrast far exceeds what I can capture with one exposure. I also bracket for depth-of-field, using layer masks in Photoshop to blend images together in order to increase apparent depth-of-field. And of course, I bracket composition, often choosing my favorite image after the fact, on the computer screen.

“What goes around…”

P.S. The attached image has nothing to do with bracketing. I'm just having trouble letting go of summer. Sorry.

Butterfly House Photography:Tips and Techniques

Well, that last one worked so well, I thought I'd try it again.
Click on the title above to go to a pdf:

Enjoy!!

and thanks to Jeanine Leech (http://www.doubleplaydesigns.com/) for layout assistance!

Another Dragonfly...

Yes, another dragonfly picture. I like this one a bit better than the first I posted. This has a softer entry into the frame--the triangle of grasses doesn't come in quite as abruptly from the lower edge, allowing the insect to float upwards. The stem on which the dragonfly is perched is angled in the opposite direction as the grass stems in the background, lending a bit of tension to the image. And I like how the two dewy strands of spiderweb recapitulate the dewy whiteness of the wingtips.
What I don't like--I wish I had used a shallower depth-of-field, so the background grasses would be just a bit less distinct and distracting. Often a change from f8 to f5.6 will be enough to give you a softer background. Of course, I know that in theory--I just wish I had thought of it in the field. This would be difficult to blur in Photoshop because of all the interacting lines, some foreground or subject, some background.

Field Theory and Perspective in the Context of Katydids: Part Two

Again, I began the process of "composition repair" by taking the camera off the tripod and moving around the subject. Fortunately, this event occurred in the evening and the slightly cool katydid was fairly calm and satisfied just to keep an eye on me as I worked. I had noticed in the background of the previous photograph a small blotch of yellow that turned out to be a patch of sunflowers in another part of the garden. I chose an angle that separated the katydid from the leaf, and a position that used the out-of-focus yellow sunflowers as my background. Much more pleasing, aesthetically, I think. A shallow depth-of-field (notice the repeating theme?) separates the katydid from its background, but I was not totally successful in paralleling the camera plane with the subject plane. (Did anyone notice the missing leg?)

ADDENDUM:
Although the second image is more dramatic and shows off the katydid more effectively, the first photo is not a "bad" shot. If, for instance, I were writing an article on camouflage, I could very well choose that first image as an illustration.

Field Theory and Perspective in the Context of Katydids: Part One

How's that for a convoluted title? Don't fret--all will become clear.

I have been photographing small critters for almost 40 years, and have shown, sold, and taught. One of the more common questions that I'm asked actually has nothing to do with equipment, technique, Photoshop, etc. It goes something like, "how on earth do you see those things?" Aside from the fact that I'm looking for them, there is another process at work below the conscious level that helps me in the field.

I have a friend who was a dedicated hunter. He didn't believe in ambushing from tree stands--he stalked his deer with a bow and arrow, and claims that all he needed was the twitch of an ear or flick of a tail, and the deer was his. He hunts now with a long telephoto lens, but the lessons he learned as a hunter have stood him in good stead in his new persona as a wildlife photographer. What he was doing was identifying field patterns.

When we become really familiar with an environment, we internalize the patterns that it contains. The patterns of branches, leaves, ripples, etc. all become associated in our minds with that environment. Although this is a subconscious process, we can call upon it and bring it into awareness. When I am in the field, my eyes/brain pick out anomalies or variations from the familiar patterns. Subconscious: "Hmmm, the lump on that leaf should not be there as part of the leaf; what is it?" And. there it is--a leaf-green katydid! Or the antenna of a praying mantis, peeking out from behind an identically-colored stalk of grass.

This photograph is an "accurate" one in that it portrays the animal camouflaged in its environment. It is, however, certainly not an aesthetic tour-de-force." How can we fix this? On to Part Two!

Monarch Butterfly Caterpillar (Daneus plexippus)

This monarch butterfly caterpillar is pretty well isolated against its background. It was photographed at f8 and I tried to parallel the sensor plane of the camera with the plane of the caterpillar's body. The choice of d-o-f is always a compromise in macrophotography--too much and backgrounds and foregrounds become distracting. Too little, and parts of the subject that you would like to be sharp are not.

Neither the monarch butterfly nor its caterpillar are subtle in their coloration. In fact, they advertise their identity. They are toxic and/or bad-tasting and are avoided by most birds. Like many caterpillars, the monarch has a set of "horns" both fore and aft, to confuse predators so they will not know which end is which. This gives the caterpillar better odds of surviving an attack.

Spider and Web 2

Spider and Web 1

Spiders and Spider Webs

Spiders and their webs become increasingly interesting subjects as we enter late summer. They are larger than the spiderlings we saw in spring and early summer, and their webs are larger and more intricate. In addition, cooler mornings give us more opportunity for dewy webs.

These two images demonstrate several issues so vital to effective macrophotography: perspective and depth-of-field (d-o-f). Both images were photographed at f5.6, for shallow depth-of-field. If I had not done this, the spider and web would have disappeared into background clutter. The shallow d-o-f isolated the subject nicely. (In this case the subject is both the spider and the web.

After choosing the aperture, I then took the camera OFF the tripod and moved around the subject as best I could (there were pretty dense bushes in front of the spider, so I could not approach from the front) to evaluate the view from different angles. The lateral angle isolates the spider well, but doesn't show much of the web detail. To show more of the web, I had to photography from slightly below the level of the web (with the camera back on the tripod, of course).

Yet Another Use for Layer Masks...

We know that depth-of-field decreases as magnification increases, that is, as you move closer to your subject. In this image, I could either have the edge of the flower in focus or the insides of the flower, but not both at the f-stop I had chosen. And I had chosen a shallow depth-of-field because I wanted the background to be just a soft green, with no distracting detail.

Once again, Photoshop to the rescue. I photographed the flower twice, once with the inside sharp and once with the edge sharp. No other settings were changed except for the point of focus. In Photoshop, I brought both images together with a Layer Mask. (I always make the top image the one from which I will be using the most information, in this case the outer flower). I then used the Brush tool to bring out the sharp detail in the center. Note that there will always be a slight change in size, since when you change focus, there will be a change in magnification.

Once again, is this cheating? Or are we simply bringing to the screen the image as our eyes saw it in the field? Your call, but perhaps another reason to learn to use Photoshop's Layer Mask. But remember, this is a technique that needs to be planned for while you are photographing. I have put together as many as four exposures of the same subject to create the image I wished to see.

What I like:
The balance of the image. I like how the bud recapitulates the color and position of the butterfly.

Cabbage Butterfly

What I like:
The balance of the image. I like how the bud recapitulates the color and position of the butterfly.

What I don't like:
The image appears almost two-dimensional -- quite flat. I used fill flash and perhaps this has obliterated the texture that gives objects their dimensionality. Background is BORING! Looks almost like poster board. Would selective dodging and burning help?