04/1/14

Making of “Pens and Swords”

Today I’m going to start a little project about how I make some of my photos or build my light tools, usually using materials that can be found at home, because sometimes there’s no need to have an amazing studio to create decent photos. I won’t describe the details in each case, and the making of photos will probably be made with the smartphone, but feel free to ask if you have any doubts ;)

The idea was suggested by my friend and photographer Xavier Carol, check his blog if you want: lalquimista.com

For this first photo, I used a feather I found on the street. With a cutter, I carefully cutted the feather to the point I wanted, and then I placed a decoration sword I had at home inside the feather. I wanted a dark background but also emphasize the details of the sword and feather, so I used my computer screen and a polarizing filter in the lens, rotating the filter to a point where I saw a black background.

With some exposure time, I could illuminate the objects and also keeping a dark background. Also, although I knew the final capture would be vertical, it was much easier to make the photo horizontally due to the working area of my “soft box”.

Before:

20121124_220459

 
After:
 

 

 

07/30/12

State of Your art: What makes an artist improve?

Paths to consciousnessHow many times can you overcome the same challenge feeling the satisfaction you had the first time? Some people only need one or two times, others can keep repeating the same thing for a long time and still enjoying it. This number will depend on our degree of demand and perfectionism, which in practice is the time that takes us to need a more complicated challenge, and see what we’re capable of. That’s why I think artists or professionals learn and get results at different rhythms.

From my experience, the learning curve is based on what I’ve just mentioned and two more factors that I’ll explain now, but in a different perspective than the typical “learn, practice, learn, practice”. What I find more interesting is what do we think about the results we’re getting. Are they good, bad? Are we proud of them? Which aspect would have a better result?

The first and more important factor is what I call State of Your art. If you were asked to position your work in a “quality ranking” among everything you know about that subject, where do you think it would be? You’ll probably think there’s a lot of people already better than you at that, and still more if you’re just beginning, but knowing the State of Your art will allow you to have an imprecise but also global reference, and wou’ll not be disappointed when you find out somebody else had the same idea as you and executed it in a much better way, or with a slight difference that you wouldn’t have thought of. Knowing the State of Your art won’t give you so much satisfaction when creating something new, but neither you’ll be disappointed if you discover that your idea was already done, because you already knew that this could happen.

How do you know your position in the ranking? Suppose there’s still a lot to see, that there’s somebody better than you, and that you still have a lot to learn. Thinking this way won’t give you an exact position, but I believe it’s an appropiate attitude to have. I find interesting and useful to read and talk with other professionals, to see how they work and also to learn and inspire myself, but I also think it’s important to develop a personal style that, while being influenced by some others’ works, are the product of our vision as an artists and professionals.

The second factor which I find necessary to improve is self-criticism. Just before creating something, many times comes the initial euphoria of “This is amazing!”. It’s fine to feel this way at first, but then it’s necessary to place your new work in the ranking of what you know and settle down.

I think the previous factors allow us not only create better art, but also better products and services, as long as exists a continuity and passion in what is being done, without thinking about getting huge results, just to improve, do someting meaningful and setting personal goals, the rest will follow.

08/24/11

Tutorial: Realistic HDRs with Photomatix

In the last years I’ve seen a lot of people abusing of this technique (me too at the beginning), creating irreal, oversaturated and noisy captures, usually made with Photmatix. I think that Photmatix is a very nice software but keeping always in mind its weaknesses, otherwise it’s easy to get fatal results, so that’s why I wanted to share some tips and personal recommendations about how to get slightly more realistic results with this program.

Not every scene will be better in HDR (High dynamic range), this technique is appropiate when the scene we’re capturing has some very dark or very bright parts (completely black or white parts). Sometimes our eyes can see these differences properly, but the camera’s sensor has less dynamic range than our eyes so some information will be lost. For example, a very bright sky but with dark shadows on the ground is a typical situation. But even in this kind of situations, it’s good to ask yourself which result do you prefer, getting all parts of the photo correctly exposed, or take advantage of this contrasted lights and get just the silhouettes of the mountains. In that case it wouldn’t be necessary to make an HDR.

For this tutorial I’ll suppose you know how to use the basic features of Photomatix, to get at least “ugly” results.

Before starting with the photomatix options, it’s important to say that to get a good result, it’s very important to start with a good set of photos. The typical bracketing option of the DSLRs usually offers +1, 0 and -1 steps between each of the three photos it does. I always to it manually, because I think sometimes it’s not enough with three photos, and sometimes I prefer doing the photos with less than 1 step between each one. I usually do 2/3 of a step between each one. I also start with the brightest frame, then I take several shots, lowering each time 2/3 of a step, and I do the necessary photos until I think it’s dark enough and it’s useless to make more photos. I recommend that if you can do more than three, do it, and once processing, you can choose if it will look better with three or more captures. The only two possible disadvantages of not using bracketing is that you may move slightly the camera while changing the exposure of each shot, and the other disadvantage is that you need to be quick if you’re capturing a landscape with clouds, because if it tooks you more than some seconds the clouds won’t be at the same place on the next photos. This last thing is something you need to avoid, because once in photomatix, when aligning the whole set of captures, it’s possible that the program uses the clouds to align instead of your main subject!


Also, photomatix allows you to make Pseudo-HDRs with only one RAW file, and then it does the bracketing, but this way the results tend to be much more noisy, so I recommend doing always separate captures, except when the scene has motion, in which case it wouldn’t be possible. My recommendations are the same for both methods, but my example will be with only one photo (on the right, 6″ exposure, ISO 400 and f/4.5). I tried to make a proper exposure because I just had the opportunity to do one photo (I was the last visitor that day).

Now these are the controls which I consider more important:

  • Strength: The name says it clearly, the more strength, more irreal and contrasted will be the result. I think that what it does is to let the darker captures manifest more than the bright ones. If you really want a real result, keep it low. This will also help to improve the noise of the photo. If lowering this parameter the photo becomes too bright, you can control this using the next parameters, do not increase again the strength just to get it nice exposed!

 

  • Color saturation: I personally like it a little saturated, this way I have the enough color information on the photo to increase or decrease it later in Lightroom. Even when I know that the photo will be in b/w I save it in color, maybe I realise later that it could be more interesting in color.

 

  • Luminosity: One of the most important controls, keep it as low as you can, it’s true that will be hard to get all the parts of the photo correctly exposed, but believe me, if you start with a good set of captures with slight exposure differences, this won’t be a problem. The error a lot of people does is to put a lot of luminosity, when I see these captures I think “oh, he used Photomatix”, because it’s very typical to get blurry and false results with this control, so keep it low!

 

  • Light Smoothing: One of the controls people thinks is cool at the beginning but also betrays that you used Photomatix. Depending on the position, different parts of the photo will be nice exposed, but as you get more parts good exposed, is when you get irreal results again. In very low or low, equals science fiction, so try to use always high or very high. Very high is the smoothest choice, which will expose especially the center part of the photo. Sometimes is better the High option, which affects to the whole photo and depending on the capture can give better results, its your choice to see which one fits better with your photo, but I don’t recommend using a lower value of this control.

 

  • Microcontrast: Another important control, in combination with Luminosity, affects dramatically to the overall result, and I recommend to move it as high as you can. If you used a very low Luminosity you can decrease a little this value to get a little more of light if you need it, but you’ll also lose contrast.

 

  • The White Point and Black Point is a personal choice, using a higher black point will give darker results, which you can compensate with the white point, but any radical choice will result in an irreal result or more noise, or both.

 

  • Temperature: I use the same for most of my captures. If you don’t touch the temperature control, after processing several photos you can observe that it give kind of orange/yellow tone to all the photos, so to compensate that, I use a lower temperature (usually -3 or -4) to get the correct color.

 

  • Micro-smoothing: This control can give more textures and details to your photo when it has a low value (typically 2), and you can even get more details with 1 or 0, but with this slight changes the noise of the photo can dramatically increase, so again, if you want real results, try to use a value greater than 2, there’s no problem if you move it very high.

There are some other controls but I think they’re less important, you can even leave them by default, but one thing I noticed is that’s complicated to get sharp results using only Photomatix. I usually export the file to tiff format and import it in Oloneo software (http://www.oloneo.com), just to increase the sharpness of the result, otherwise it may look dreamy or even blurry.

 

I hope this was helpful to somebody, below there’s the resulting image processed with Photomatix, then Oloneo for increase sharpness, and then imported to Lightroom to do some slight changes of contrast and temperature. In fact
this photo is not very realistic, but what I wanted was to explain how to get more real results.

Luxury colors

08/21/11

Consuming art to create art

Since I started doing music, photography and other arts in which I’m interested, when I asked some people for advice at the start, the typical answer was “draw/listen/copy/play someting you like”. I think that trying to imitate a reference artist can be useful and motivating in the beginning to learn some technique, but what happens when all your education is based on learning that way?
Old music sheets
Learning classical piano for example, the common denominator of most schools is that they teach you how to read sheet music gradually, to be able to play more and more dificult songs, songs which most of them were composed two hundred years ago, isn’t there any good classical piano composers at present? Things are quite different in modern music styles like Jazz or Blues, where an significant part of the song isn’t in the paper but in the artist, this forces the interpreter to contribute with a personal expression to the song. Due to this “extra” effort we do have some brilliant Jazz musicians at present, Brad Mehldau for example. I don’t pretend to say that modern styles are for most talented musicians, I just think that some existing (and extended) teaching methods don’t maximize the creative abilities of the artist.

This has happened to me for example, when I try to create a new song, half of the time I have an idea I’ve thought “Cool! Wait a minute…”, and then I realise that that melody was from a soundtrack I listened a year ago. Is it really valuable having listened and learned to all that songs or technique when talking about creating something new? I think it happens the same with photography. In my opinion is like wanting to build a castle with those wooden pieces games, if you have the pieces in front of you, you will build only with that pieces, but if you start with no pieces but you still want to build the castle, you’ll find something to replace them, don’t be afraid of not having the proper education or knowledge about an art, because in my opinion all of that is less important than curiosity and attitude.

What is also interesting is that if you can play a Rachmaninoff concerto you’re a genius, but if you draw a copy of a Monet’s painting, this is not so amazing at the eyes of another artist, to be euphemistic, so innovation is more or less important depending on the art we’re talking about, and I’m not sure if this makes any sense.