David, I've been going to SF conventions for over 40 years and the only suggestion I'd give a fan who wanted to take "good pictures" would be that they should be aware of what's going on around them. Situational awareness can produce very good images that are truly memorable. Costumers will pose in the halls for the occasional "formal" photo; the best snapshot is when you catch the "alien" scratching his/her butt. The technique is closer to street photography. Bill -----Original Message----- >From: David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx> >Sent: Apr 21, 2011 1:22 PM >To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Subject: Better snapshots! > >I should have thought of this earlier; the panel is tomorrow, so there's >not much time for me to benefit from any thoughts out there. > >Tomorrow afternoon I've got 15 minutes on a panel on "Taking better >convention snapshots". This is for people attending a science fiction >convention (that's where it's being presented). For those not familiar >with SF conventions, very roughly, that means photos indoors, and mostly >of adults rather than small children or pets. > >There's another presenter, plus we're keeping a good chunk of the time >open for questions from the audience. > >This is NOT for people who want to become serious photographers. I'm >pretty sure I'd be wasting my time extolling the benefits of fast lenses >on DSLRs and bounce flash; these are people with a P&S camera who aren't >interested in carrying 10 times the weight at 5 times the price. > >But they wouldn't be at the panel if they were fully satisfied with the >pictures they were getting now, I wouldn't think. > >This is in some sense a photo-education project. So I should have thought >of you people weeks ago. Sorry! Still, I'm still mucking with my outline >and selecting my example photos, so there's time for me to make use of >some suggestions. > >I'm planning to have examples on different framings of a photo, and of >simple post-processing. > >I'm looking for things I've overlooked and need to add, and for things >that are not going to help this level photographer and need to be removed. > >My current outline goes roughly like this: > >1. Work harder for better results > Mostly this means paying more attention. That's the most > profitable approach. There is also room for some technical > improvement from spending money on equipment, and hauling > the extra weight around. > >2. Taste is subjective. I'm going to be talking in terms of > common preferences, but if the photos are for YOU, and you > have uncommon preferences, shoot for your own preferences. > There's nothing that's "right" or "wrong" in photography > itself (though photographs can have real-world impacts, > so ordinary real-world ethics can arise). There isn't > a "right" exposure, or a "right" cropping, or a "right" > moment to shoot the photo. > >3. Learning to see. Looking at a photo, which just sits there and > is flat, causes the human visual system to behave differently > than when we're looking at a real scene. To take better photos, > you need to learn to see what will be apparent in the flat > photo. You need to pay attention to the edges, and to > juxtapositions at a distance (which we mostly ignore live, but > become obtrusive in a flat static photo; the "pole growing out > of the head" is the classic example). > > Digital photos are free. Experiment. Deliberately try things > changing one variable at a time. Examine the results and see what > you can learn. > > The human visual system doesn't really work the way it seems like > it does. Our eyes dart around, capturing small areas at high > resolution (with a hole in the middle) and everything around at > much lower resolution (and in B&W). Then our brains stitch it > together into an impression that we see everything around us > sharply, and some things leap to our attention (especially moving > things in peripheral vision). What we see is a construct of the > brain as much as it is the input from our eyes. > >4. Taking control. Your camera is not nearly as smart as you are. > > Moving. Moving towards, away from, and around your subject > changes how it looks in relationship to everything else in the > frame. Think about this, experiment with this. You can get rid > of distracting backgrounds, or introduce interesting > relationships. Don't forget up and down! Very often, a photo > looks better from a bit below the eye level of the subject. (The > technical term for these relationships between objects in the > scene is "perspective".) > > Cropping. Decide where the frame boundaries are. And don't be > afraid to crop tighter in post-processing. > > Focus. The time it takes the camera to focus is the biggest part > of the delay between pushing the button and actually taking the > picture. Most cameras let you pre-focus by half-pressing the > button (and holding it). Then you can take the actual picture, > with much less delay, by pushing the button the rest of the way. > (DSLRs also focus MUCH faster than P&S, because they use a > completely different technology to do so). > > Review. It's easy to check whether you got what you wanted, these > days. Remember that you have to zoom in quite a bit to accurately > judge whether the picture is sharp. > > Posing and directing. Getting people to cooperate with you can > help. Another presenter is much more into this than I am, and I > know will be covering it, so I'm not. > > 5. Flash. The flashes built into P&S are very weak and very > limited. Most of the best flash techniques (bounce flash in > various forms) are not available with them. > > Blasting them straight into people's faces gives very flat > lighting that usually looks horrible. Few P&S can get a good > flash exposure more than 6 feet away. Flash falls off rapidly > with distance, so direct flash works very poorly for subjects that > are at a range of different distances. Technology may have mostly > conquered red-eye, which is good. > >6. Ongoing projects. It's often fascinating to have a series of > photos of the same thing taken over significant time. Same house > every five years, same person every year, or whatever. Same rose > bush every day. The photos should be simple, and similar to each > other, so that the primary thing you see is the differences > between the subject from photo to photo. > >7. Picking and choosing. Big wastebaskets make good photographers. > Shoot heavy, display light. (No, I'm not very good at practicing > this.) > >8. Post-processing. You can make a huge difference without spending > much time on each photo, or buying expensive software. > > The Gimp is free, and very powerful. Picasa has some simple > tools. Irfan view can do cropping and some other editing, and is > also free. > > Adobe Lightroom is at least cheaper than Photoshop, and is more > approachable. Bibble Pro is older than Lightroom, has about the > same capabilities, is cheaper, and is by a small independent > company. But we're still past $100 (LR is about $300). > > While Photoshop is the industry standard, and my strong first > choice for producing exhibition prints or doing restoration work, > I strongly recommend against it for people who want to poke just a > little bit at their snapshots. It has a learning curve like a > brick wall and as high as Mount Everest; it will annoy you, > confuse you, and probably defeat you in the end. > > Color balance adjustments are often as easy as clicking on > something that's a neutral color with a tool, or picking the > conditions the photo was shot under (sunny, cloudy, open shade, > incandescent light). (There are much harder cases, but mostly you > won't run into them.) > > Cropping is easy, just drag a rectangle, and then adjust it > precisely. Cropping is one of the very best things you can spend > time doing to your photos. > > Moderate brightness adjustments are easy. Bringing up dark photos > works surprisingly well. Photos that are too bright, especially > photos where the bright areas are clipped (overexposed) pretty > much can't be fixed (if you shoot in RAW mode, which many P&S > don't even offer, you can fix some clipped highlights). > >9. Display. Presumably you show some of your photos to some people. > These days the options include online services (SmugMug, Flickr, > galleries on your own website), hardcopy, mobile devices. > >10. Preserving memories. Snapshots are often used to help remember > things. So you need to write on the back of them the names of the > people, and where and when the shot was taken. > > In electronic form, that means using IPTC data, or picking file > names to encode that information. Both are useful tools. You can > put a lot more information into IPTC fields. (Most programs that > display or manipulate photos will display and manipulate IPTC > fields). > > If you put the data in the master file, most programs will copy it > into any derived (edited) versions you make. Most online > galleries will pick up much of it. > >11. Backups. No digital medium yet devised does very well under > benign neglect. But an actively managed digital archive can last > forever (so long as the management continues). > > Keep a set of backups away from where you keep your primary copies > (if nothing else, sick 'em in a drawer at work). The big benefit > of digital is that a copy is just like the original; exploit this! > > Online backup may be workable for you. It's automatic, and gets > you an immediate off-site copy. > > Copying to an external disk is probably the best overall choice > right now. Have at least two, preferably three, backup disks; if > lightning strikes while writing your new backup over your old > backup, your can lose your original and all your backups at once. > So overwrite your oldest backup while the newest is not > connected. > > Optical disks can be good, but they're rather small, and the > lifetime of media varies a lot. Use good media, ideally MAM gold > archival or equivalent. They are a pain to make and to check, > especially if you're making multiple copies. > >-- >David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ >Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ >Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ >Dragaera: http://dragaera.info >
