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!

End of...the Season

our garden,

long past prime...

bleeding hearts

Color Problems: Part 3

I then take a second exposure, using values that bring the red histogram back within reasonable range. I say reasonable because there may be spikes of red and yellow which are simply NOT capture-able (is that a word?) by your sensor. This looks like a pretty under-exposed image on the LCD, but I take it anyway.

When both images are opened in Camera Raw (or whatever software you use), there is visible detail in the darker one within the areas of red that were blown out on the original exposure. When I blend those two together, I have one image which maintains detail throughout.

Color Problems: Part 2

So here is the original image. Again, the luminance histogram (the black-and-white one) tells me that the exposure is just fine. Experience tells me, however, that red is n easy color to overexpose, and I check the RGB histogram. Imagine my (lack of) surprise when it shows me that the red channel is way blown out!

I take my first exposure based on the luminance histogram, and you can see above the areas of red next to and in front of the Japanese beetle that have no detail whatsoever.

Crab Spider on Datura

Two items of interest here. One is the neat way that the spider's arm recapitulates the curve of the datura's petal. This is pure serendipity--you can move some insects around to pose them--the arachnids generally are not amenable to that type of manipulation and will usually head underneath the flower.

The second issue is the white flower. For hairy insects (yes, I know--a spider is not an insect), I like to use fill flash to help the little hairs stand out a bit more. It is very easy to over-expose whites, and I rely heavily on my histogram to prevent this. With whites, the luminance histogram (black and white) is quite adequate. With colors, particularly reds and yellows, the luminance histogram may not tell the entire story, as we will see in the next post.

Just Playing...

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.

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.

Fill-flash with Early Morning Light

The sun rises here at about 6:15, and the light is sufficient for focusing at about 6:30 or thereabouts. This is my favorite time for photography. I love the soft, even light, relative lack of wind, and cooperative subjects. Insects are poikilothermic, or cold-blooded. Their activity level rises and falls with the temperature of their surroundings. In the chill of the early morning, they are torpid and slow--posing nicely, just like this beetle. I occasionally use fill-flash in situations like this. Sometimes the lighting can be too flat, and fill-flash can add just a bit of "pop" to the colors without destroying the soft feel of the image.

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?