Behind a waterfall

Part of my growth in photography (such as it is) has been of late: I no longer take pictures of any old thing, but instead I look for a purpose. There can be many different reasons – “I was here” (as a snapshot), or “this was neat/beautiful.” But as I get older and experience more, I find myself letting many of the beautiful things slide. They’re no less beautiful, I’ve just seen them before. As such, they hold less interest for me.

The pool in Kauai had a waterfall. It was neat – but then again, it was a rather small waterfall. You could get inside, and that was interesting – but it was somewhat dirty, and not much to see. From the outside, it was just a wall of water. People were constantly moving in & out, and angles weren’t that interesting.

Because I was drawn to it, I knew I would make some photographs. My goals: to remind my daughter what it was like, and to imprint a memory on myself about why this pool was special relative to all others. So thus began the search for an intimate, unusual view. Something that would stand out in my mind.

Although the photograph associated with this post isn’t really that good on any artistic level, it meets my purpose for shooting in this case. It’s wet, as you are in the cave. The view is unusual – from behind the waterfall. You’re close to the water that is falling – intimately close, in fact. There are people nearby – a little girl taking photos of everything with her camera (that was cute!), her mother with her, people lounging in the sun in the distance, and the building where the magic man made magical drinks that relax mommy and daddy.

Although no award-winner, I consider it a success.

Sweet Tooth, detail

The pic above is one of many moderately successful photos that I made very recently.  The entire concept really came together pretty well, mostly courtesy of my wife. See, the original thought was to embed the tooth in a cupcake.  

We have no cupcakes.

My wife was the one who pointed out that our daughter likes chocolate, and it should be in a pile of chocolate.  So chocolate it was, and embedded the tooth became.  This is the concept that was brought to the table (literally and figuratively).

So the first step was to get the candy (yay!), and a small cup.  But against what background?  For me, there was only one choice: red, and solid.  Red, for the pain (and blood) of the lost tooth.  Solid, for the emotional impact.

The background turned out to be the lining of a carton that had originally belonged to some doll, now long lost. It was enhanced with a red-gelled flash.  The lighting itself was courtesy of a soft-box-wrapped flash, reflected off of a book (look closely & you’ll see lettering in the reflections – I left them, ’cause I thought they were kinda cool, in an easter-eggy sorta way).

Spiderweb in the Golden Hour

Yesterday I posted the spiderweb in the image to the right to Flickr. This particular photo is, perhaps, my favorite (self-made) spiderweb shot to date. I said that at the time, now I’ll give a bit of an explanation.

Typically I tend to *not* like spiderweb photos: they’re all the same.  Particularly the ones that I take – I see something & try to bring out that detail.  But I never quite… catch the beauty of what I see.

A week or so before going on this vacation, however, I re-read the first couple of chapters from Photography and the Art of Seeing. The author (Freeman Patterson) devotes one of the first chapters to “thinking sideways,” and specifically uses the example of a spiderweb:

Webs are so beautiful in their own right that they had kept me from examining them carefully, and especially from photographing them in a personal way…

…When you think sideways you will find new ways to see your subject matter, and you will stumble upon discoveries and happy accidents.  Abandon your normal premises , and go on a search for new ones.

This was in my mind when I first saw the spiderweb. But it was just a web at mid-day.  Nothing special, kinda dingy.  Later that afternoon, the light began to yellow, and the dinginess turned golden.  At this point I noticed it again, pulled out my camera, and started to circle the web. Looking up, down, climbing on a chair, squatting under it.  On a monopod, off the monopod, against the light, with the light…

… at some point, I found that there was an entire side that brought out the gold in the light.  It wasn’t the typical angle I’d normally look for, but I found the view more pleasing.  I kept working up & down, within the same basic area of light (and quickly, the light fades fast), playing with different depths of field.  I was finding the background to be better than the web.

The end result is what you see; the focus on this one wasn’t the spiderweb itself.  Rather, it was creating an abstract in the background, and then using the spiderweb to break up that pattern.

Trail closed, selective color

Or seconds, as the case may be. You may remember this post from a few days ago. It was also posted to my photostream on Flickr, where one of the comments expressed surprise that the selective coloring took no more than a few minutes relative to the rest of the image (total time was two hours).

The trick to getting the selective color so quickly was twofold:

1. I was fortunate in that the image is almost monochrome already (remember me saying that before?).
2. I was using Photoshop CS5

To explain: if I were to do this quickly, without the editing out of distracting objects and fine-tuned sharpening, the steps to create this would boil down to:

• Duplicate the original layer;
• Convert new (top) layer to B&W;
• Add a layer mask, showing all grey;
• Punch holes in the mask to let some color through;

Looking at it like this, you would think that I hand-painted each bit of color.  This should take a lot of time, no? Well, doing it that way would take a lot of time.

I did it a better way.  Remember that this is essentially a monochrome image.  Mostly green, with some blue and some orange.  That means we can almost safely use the Color Select tool in Photoshop to select the individual elements.  The sign, for example:

• Open Photoshop.
• Click “Select” in the menu, then “Color Range.”
• Click anywhere on the orange areas.
• Move the “Fuzziness” slider until all oranges are selected (you’ll get part of the trail and a few trees, too).
• Use the lasso tool (or marquis, which is what I used) to unselect (alt-click & drag) everything that I don’t want.

Repeat for the blues.

Following the duotone instructions, it’s certainly possible to achieve a similar result, but it’s not really true-to-form.  Then again, nothing in the digital world is. But the folks at Nik have done a pretty good job of getting close with their Silver Efex pro tool.

So, for creating a cyanotype with their tool:

1: open the image for processing

Original Image, for converting

Notice that I’m using the same image as before.

2: Fire up the NIK Silver Efex tool

Select Silver Efex Pro

3: Scroll down the presets to Cyanotype

Don’t forget to select it.  This gives us a starting point.

Select starting settings

4: Customize settings to your preference

In my case, I wanted a darker, higher contrast end result.  Spike up the contrast, drop the structure, and drop brightness (slightly), and I’m pretty much there.  I did add in a red filter, though:

Final Result, Cyanotype processing

Thoughts

Personally, I like a nice, dark feel to this type of photo.  At this point in my life, at least.  What I *really* like: how quickly Silver Efex Pro does this processing.  Notice that there are far fewer steps to get here – for the same result in duotone, I’d be doing masking, vignetting, selective burning, and a whole host of other details.  30 minutes in PS vs 3 in Silver Efex.

It’s pretty easy to make a duotone in Photoshop – I’ve been using PS since version 5.5 and I don’t remember it *not* being there (although I didn’t really use it until CS2 came out, so my memory may be faulty).  The effect can be quite nice, and it’s a favorite technique that I often use with infra-red photos.

So, how to convert your  image:

1: Open your image in Photoshop

For this article, I’m using an older color photo that came out… poorly.  The light was good, but a combination of environment and lens resulted in an unnaturally low-contrast image.

Original Image, for converting

Note the blues from the shadows, and how (typical Alaska), the slanted sun didn’t really have a lot of the golden hues that you’d like. What was a great view in life rendered… poorly in the camera.  But no worries: it makes a decent black & white image.

2: Convert to B&W

Use your favorite technique here.  You could go old school: desaturate, use curves to enhance contrast, and go on.  Or use Photoshop’s B&W filter – it does a pretty good job.  In my case, I used Nik’s Silver Efex tool to get here:

Original, now converted to B&W

Personally, I use the Nik tool for speed.  Nothing better, and I’ve always loved the end result.  Plus, it feels a bit like the old film days: this conversion was all of 20 seconds.  Red filter (darken out those blues), a slight increase in contrast, decrease in structure, increase in brightness, then local controls to darken the sky.

The photo itself now gives me a bit more feeling, something I like with the perpendicular (but uneven) lines.

3: Convert to full Grayscale

Even though this image image looks like a B&W image, it isn’t.  Depending on your technique, it could just be a layer hiding color info.  Whatever the technique, you need to start by getting back to a single layer.  I’m keyboard oriented, so my technique:

• Click on the highest layer.
• Engage “the claw”: press ctrl-alt-shift-”E” (mac: opt-alt-shift-”E”).  Your hand will look like a claw as you press it, and you’ll get a new top layer with all layers merged.  I.e., a full B&W layer.
• Press ctrl-E (mac: opt-E) until you are back to a single layer.

An alternate technique: just above the “Opacity” option in the layers panel is a button with three lines & a down-arrow.  Click it, and one of the options will be “flatten image.”  Most will find this faster, but for me it’s a distraction (hand off the keyboard to the mouse makes it slower for me).

Now, convert to full grayscale by navigating through the menu to “Image” -> “Mode” and selecting “Grayscale”:

Converting to Grayscale

You may get a warning pop up:

Discard Color Info? Yes!

Click “Discard” if you do.

4: Start the conversion to Duotone

This is pretty much the same as what you just did:

Just as before, it’s under the “Image” menu – select “Mode” and click “Duotone.”

5: Set number of tones and colors

In my mind, the “Duotone” option is really a “multitone” option.  You can use anywhere from one to four inks, so it’s not really “duo.”  That being said, the default is a single ink – we want two, so select that from the drop-down:

Select two inks

The next step is up to you.  You can click on each ink and select a color.  You can also select a preset.  I like using presets to get close to where I want to be:

Select a color scheme

Notice how there’s a dark green overlay to the entire thing?  If you’re familiar with cyanotype, you’ll see that we’re getting close to that kind of effect with this preset.

Once you’ve made your final selection of colors, click OK and you’re done.

6: Bask in the glory

Or perhaps enjoy your work.  Or post to Flickr, which I will do with this pic sometime soon:

Final Duotone Version

Note that I deliberately selected a different (non-cyan) color scheme.  I personally like the cooler schemes, but hey – why not mix it up?

Other things to do

If you like this effect, some thoughts for play:

• Play with it.  Try different colors, or different numbers of inks.  Two, three, four – each has its own unique effect.
• Use clashing inks: spin the color wheel & go for something obnoxious.  Like mouldy pea-soup green with neon pink.  Who knows, might be cool!
• Play with the curves – you’ll get different gradations in the overall effect.

No, to properly write up an overview of the creative process, it should really be set in order.  So in bullet points, here is the thought process that led to the layout for the final shot:

• Examine the object.
  What did I want to show?  On reflection, I wanted to show the almost-reticulated pattern on the back, the edges and how it flattens out on the bottom, and the ridged crevice that is effectively the entrance to the shell.
• Find a background.
  I needed a solid surface that would compliment the shell, while still being different enough to really show contrast. My options: a concrete floor (too hard, would have to get down), a soft wooden floor (too much surrounding light), a mottled-glass table (dusty, dirty, distracting, slightly greenish), a metal-grate table (didn’t compliment, distracted), and a wooden table (arguably, distracting).  I settled for the table.  It was more comfortable, had easy-to-control lighting (environmentally speaking), and nice, warm tones.  Being brown, it worked well with the the shell itself.
• Position the shell.
  The first thing to do is place the shell.  What am I showing? In the case of the ridged middle, I needed that to be visible.  From the left, right, top, bottom, other? To my mind, it didn’t matter – but since the ridges were primary, I put them to the left.  Western eyes start by looking at the top-left, so I tried to help them out here.
• Position the primary/key light.
  The primary light for this object should bring the most contrast to the most important part of the item.  Again, the ridges – so I angled it to be from camera left, pointing at the ridges.  After a test shot, I moved it slightly further forward, too.  This gave a slight emphasis to the ridges. It made them stand out more.
• Position the secondary/fill light.
  The primary gave a lot of light on one side.  As a result, the far side fell off into complete shadow. As such, I lost the shine to the right, along with the reticulated pattern and the dappled spots in the middle of the image (the edge of the cowry). I want them to be well lit, but not quite as well lit as the ridges.  Enter flash #2.  There is no softbox on this, so it’s a strong, bare bulb.  Way too powerful.  Enter the diffuser: the Oceanic catalog, which was nearly solid white.  By positioning it properly, I could reflect the flash off of it & create a larger, softer light source.
• Take test shot #1.
  The first one was at a stab-in-the-dark shutter speed of 1/140 at f/8.  Key was set at 1/32nd power, fill at 1/64th  At this point I find that only part of the image was in focus. A large part of the background was underexposed, too – the table was almost black, not the warm tones of orange and brown that should have been there.
• Take test shot #2.
  For greater depth of field, I bump it up to f/11.  Shutter speed goes down to 1/60th.  I now find: still slightly lost on focus, but better.  The background is OK, but the overall feeling is underexposed, like there isn’t enough light.  It’s flat.
• Take test shot #3.
  Shutter at 1/40th, aperture at f/14.  I’ve really cut down the aperture now, so I bump up the power to 1/8th on the key and 1/16th on the fill.  The results are still… uninspiring.  Not quite enough light – but nothing blown out.
• Take test shot #4.
  Shutter and aperture stay in place.  Flash up to 1/4 power on the key, 1/8th on fill.  Slightly overpowered – the  areas with sheen are slightly blown out, but everything else looks pretty much where it ought to be.
• Take shots, wrap.
  Considering the slightly blown-out highlights to be acceptable, I go for it.  In post (with RAW) I should be able to recover most of them.

I’ll note: each time I move the shell to a slightly different position, it required moving the flashes slightly & re-taking test shots.  Generally speaking, this didn’t require changes to the shutter speed or aperture.

Another view of this specimen:

Cowry, alternate angle

(Note: slightly different from the previously shown shot, this one had a goal of showing the lip at the front of the shell, along with the reticulation on the back.)

Snakehead Cowry, side profile

By taking just a few flashes with me on trips, I can create DIY studio shoots wherever I may be.  Take the image to the right, for example: you’re seeing a snakehead cowry. We found this shell (about 3 inches long), washed up on mile 69 beach, just south of Hapuna beach.  A gift from moana, one could say.  Its owner had long since been eaten, this being just a memory of a life that was.

Now, the sea-lover in me wanted it in the deeps.  What a perfect home for a young hermit crab!  But the photographer in me wanted to see it up close, under the lens.  So to the condo it went, for a short while.

Here’s the problem with a seashell like this: it’s shiny.  Like many shiny objects, it’s tough to photograph.  You need broad light sources, but they can’t be overpoweing. Ideally you would use a professional light box. No such luck, but I did have: three flashes (I only needed two, though), a softbox flash adapter, an Oceanic sales brochure, and a wooden table.  Some tweaking of the layout, and this is how I ended up shooting that shot:

Flash setup for the Cowry shot

The purpose of questioning, I suppose, was due to curiosity: I spend so much time doing things, that it seems impossible that there would be time for learning.  Since most of us are busy, including the questioner, there is also the subtext to the question: “how can I keep up?” questions the questioner.

The answer is, perhaps, not helpful: “it depends.”

However, I do have a few tricks.  So consider this the first installment: Keeping Caught up with Educational DVDs.

What sort of DVDs, you ask?  Mostly Photovision’s Video Seminar (note: not a plug!). Every other month they send a 2-hour DVD, and I have to find time to watch it.  Time in front of a TV or screen with a DVD player.  This competes with various other DVDs: Tony Sweet videos like Visual Literacy and Visual Artistry (both highly recommended, BTW), or Annie Liebovit’s Life Through a Lens.

Watching these takes away from work, rest, and family time.  But I do make time: when I get them, I rip them to MP4 and load them onto an iPod.  This gives me a mobile viewing opportunity, and then I watch: during downtime, when waiting for appointments, etc.

So that’s it: the cheap way of keeping caught up with DVDs.

So, for starters: the two images.

Original Treeline

Moon, correctly exposed

The treeline picture has a pretty decent exposure for the nighttime, but it’s noisy, there’s a little blur, some color cast, and the moon has… funky things going on.  Not only is is pretty much over exposed, which was expected, but you can see a second sub-image.  This is due to me being lazy and it being cold outside – I shot through a window.

The correctly exposed moon is a much faster, higher speed pic.  It’s much smaller, however – there isn’t the over-exposure glow, so it’s really thinner rather than smaller.

So now comes the thought: how to combine these?  First step is to remove the moon in the treeline pic. I did this quickly with the patch tool in Photoshop CS4: select the moon, drag to a solid part of the sky, and presto – no moon! Entirely believable, too.

Now that we have a flat (albeit noisy) sky, it’s a matter of copying the moon from one to the other.  I’m interested in speed, so I’m going to cut corners. I start by duplicating the background layer, then selecting the background via the menu: Select->Color Range. If I stop here, the edges of the moon will be too sharp, so next I click on Select->Refine Edge.  Settings (after playing for less than a minute): Radius=1, Contrast=0, Smooth=3, feather=1.0.  The selection now looks like this:

Selected and smooth

Hit the “delete” key, and you’re left with only the moon on that layer. The next step: click & drag it over to the original image.  If it lands on top, you’re set: just move it around to the position of the original moon. It’ll look OK, but it’s choppy at the edges (still) – needs some smoothing.

Now, I said I was going for quick & dirty, and here’s the quick & dirty for smoothing out those edges: pull up layer styles (double-click on the new layer), and move around the “blend if” options.  Here’s what I ended up with:

"Blend If" settings

Do you see what’s going on there?  We have a black & white image, the moon.  It’s blending (i.e., hiding) from the moon layer all pixels from the upper marker and darker on the upper layer with anything darker on the lower layer.  Since the moon is brighter, a quick drag of those markers gets us right in, and looking sharp.

Moon over the Treeline

The final result, with a little noise still around the original moon: