Getting the Most from 53" White Seamless - Part 1

I was asked by a model friend of mine to do a group shot of her and a couple of other models in front of a pure white background.  This clearly called for some white seamless, which I didn't have at the time she asked.  Not to disappoint, I agreed to the task anyway!

My first job was to acquire some white seamless.  I made a quick trip to my local camera store and found that you can get two sizes: 53" or 107" (basically 4.5 or 9 feet.)  The 107" roll was what I really needed but that wasn't going to fit in my compact car.  I would just have to make do with the 53" roll.  Keep in mind this is for a group shot!  Not to worry though, I had an idea of how to make 3 girls fit on 4.5 feet of background.

Next on the agenda was to figure out how to hang the roll of seamless paper.  I looked at background support kits and they appeared to be just light stands with a crossbar of some sort.  Well, I already had plenty of stands at home (I think they must be breeding in my garage.)  I just needed a crossbar and some clamps.  The camera store had several options that would have cost me from $50 to $100.  That sure seemed like a lot to hang a stick!  I also knew I would need some A-clamps to keep my paper from unrolling.  Those were $5 each at camera store prices.  I'm all about supporting my local shop but that seemed a bit much knowing they are usually $1 at most hardware stores.  I left the shop with my paper but missing a few key components.

Back at home, I had an idea and dug through the back recesses of my closet where some drum hardware from my band days resided.  I found something that I thought would work - a couple of tom-tom clamps used to mount drums to stands.  These types of clamps are relatively cheap at around $18.  They are usually called L-rod clamps and you can find them at music stores like this.  They will readily clamp on to light stands.

For the crossbar, I headed up to Home Depot and bought a 10 foot section of electrical conduit.  It cost about $4 and they were nice enough to cut it in half for me.  While I was there, I picked up a few A-clamps for my paper roll at 99 cents each.  I thought at first that I'd drill a hole through each end of the conduit to slide over the L-rod on my clamps.  When I got home and experimented, I found that my setup would be perfectly stable if I just slid the conduit over the end of the L-rod and pushed my stands inward.  Barring someone bumping into it pretty darn hard, the crossbar and paper roll sat fine and felt plenty sturdy.

Below is what the setup looks like in action.  Taking a tip from Zack Arias' great white seamless tutorial, I used a piece of white tile board for the flooring.  This was also acquired from Home Depot for about $14 if I remember right (thanks to my buddy Wes and his truck for helping me pick it up!)  That keeps high heels from destroying your paper while giving a pleasing reflection.  I used a couple of flagged speedlights to illuminate the paper to about 1.5 stops brighter than my key light.

So, back to that group shot.  To pull it off, I shot the models individually for a composite image.  One girl would be a little behind the others (kind of a V shape) so I shot their individual images in those positions by having the two in the front take a step forward from where the girl in the back stood and I moved my key light the same distance.  To keep the camera perspective right, I put it on a tripod that stayed in the same position for all shots.  I shot as tight as I could, making sure there was plenty of blown out white background around all sides.  Even with a 100mm lens, I wasn't able to fill the frame with a white background on a full body shot.  For my purposes, it wouldn't matter if stuff was showing outside the paper as long as I had clean white space all around the model.

A shot like the above can easily be put onto whatever size white canvas that you want in Photoshop.  Since I use Lightroom to convert my raw files, I first cropped out my model and as much of the white space as I could.  Don't worry if you have any areas on the floor or background that aren't blown out.  You can use an adjustment brush in Lightroom or a masked exposure adjustment layer in Photoshop to kick them to white.  I took the initial cropped image of the model on white into Photoshop and used the crop tool there to extend the white space.  To do that, first make sure that the background color is set to white.  Then use the crop tool to create a crop of the desired size, say 8x10, extending it outside the current image size and positioning the subject where you would like in the frame.  Hit enter and Photoshop will fill in the empty space in the newly sized frame with white.  The above image easily became this:

I positioned each of my models at appropriate positions on a wide white background and brought them together on individual layers in Photoshop.  From there, it's a simple matter to use masks to make them appear to be standing together.  There is clean white space all around so the canvas size can be easily adjusted to accomodate a logo or text.

While it would be nice to have the 9 foot roll of paper, it's not practical for me at the moment.  I like the portability of the 53" roll and with a little effort it can be workable even for a group shot.  For more possibilities, check out Part 2 of my exploration with white seamless.

All digital images are post processed (and why that is OK!)

My good friend Andy wrote a great blog entry recently about post processing.  We've had a lot of long talks on the subject and I read his article with great interest.  Our styles differ somewhat and I always enjoy talking with Andy and kicking around our thoughts on all things photography.  His thoughtful writing on the subject of post processing got me thinking and inspired me to share my own thoughts - or perhaps just rant a bit!

There are some people who view "straight out of camera" (SOOC) as the purest form of modern photography.  Some folks make a big deal out of it and take exceptional pride in posting images straight off their cards without any post processing.  Except...that those SOOC images ARE post processed!  Huh?  Yep, that's right.  News flash: All digital files are post processed!  If you're not doing it, you've simply entrusted your camera to do it.

SOOC JPG - not bad, but a bit drab.  I think I can do a little better in post.

Raw file lightly processed in Lightroom.  Pops a bit more, don't you think?

Technically, digital camera sensors don't take pictures - at least not the way our eyes perceive them.  The sensor in a digital camera really just takes the photons hitting it, collects them in tiny buckets, and stores that data so that software in the camera (or external software if you're shooting in raw format) can extrapolate an image from the collected data.  When you take an image SOOC in the form of a JPG that the camera's software created, you are trusting the post processing decisions made by the engineers who designed the camera.  There's nothing wrong with that.  If you're happy with the result, go with it.  Heck, it's darn convenient when you can use an image SOOC!  I love it when I can use a SOOC image!  However, using an image SOOC doesn't make the photo any more "pure" in my book and any smugness about doing so is just not called for.  The problem is that if you always rely on that approach you may be missing out.  Maybe you could do a better job of figuring out what is best for your image than your camera did!  Why not find out?

A quick word about file formats here.  I shoot in raw and it's the only way to fly for me.  That's not to say that you can't greatly improve a JPG file.  Your options will be limited though.  Set your camera to raw format and you get every bit of information it recorded about the scene, not the compressed data subset of a JPG.  It's never a good idea to throw away perfectly good data in my book.

Raw file with default conversion in Lightroom.

Very minimal post processing, just a bit of adjustment with Curves in Photoshop - a subtle improvement.

A common argument against post processing outside the camera is that there is too much over-processing going on out there.  Yeah, I can agree with that to a large extent.  Technicolor clown vomit is never a good thing (and sure I've created some in my time!)  Whether or not an image is over-processed depends on the context and what your goals are.  I've come to see photography in two general categories.  You're either documenting something or you're creating art.  There are many styles of photography but that's where I make draw my boundary, at least for the purpose of post processing.  Is the image primarily documentary or artistic?

A documentary photograph to me is simply a reasonably accurate representation of someone or something in an image.  It could be journalistic or editorial in nature.  It could be a regular portrait or a fashion shot.  It could be a landscape or architectural shot.  Whatever it is, the main purpose of the documentary photo is to record a reasonably accurate image of a person, place or thing.  That's not to say it can't be artistic, that's just not the primary purpose.  An artistic photo is anything that you take a picture of primarily for the sake of art.  There are going to be areas of overlap, of course, but one or the other is going to be your main reason for taking the shot.  The methods you use to process an image will vary according to your primary purpose.  What is over-processed in a documentary photograph might be perfectly acceptable in an artistic photo.  How much post processing is acceptable in art?  Ah, who is to say?  Is there anything so subjective as art?

Documentary or artistic intent?  The post processing should give a clue!

This isn't to say that there isn't bad post processing out there.  I know I've been guilty of over baking some shots with ham fisted post processing (and some will surely argue that I still do from time to time!)  Still though, heavy post processing isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Last year, I attended a workshop taught by David Nightingale that changed the way I think about post processing.  We photographers spend a lot of time behind the camera composing, posing, and lighting shots.  David challenged our class to put as much thought into post processing BEFORE we take the shot as we do into capturing the shot.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with thinking of post processing ahead of time.  There is also nothing wrong with post processing techniques that deviate far from what the camera produces and what the eye sees.  Dramatic and tasteful can coexist!

It has been about a year since I took David's class and my techniques are still very much a work in progress.  Those who follow my work know that I typically do a good deal of post processing work.  It comes (most of the time) out of a predetermined vision and plan.  More and more, I know what I want the final shot to look like after post production before I take the shot.  That's not to say that I won't do some experimentation and some of those experiments might fail.  However, I do know that the direction is going to take a documentary or artistic path and I've got a good idea of what I'll be working toward in post production.

Raw file converted in Lightroom.  Not what I envisioned before I took the shot though.

Heavily processed?  You bet!  I knew the look I wanted before I snapped the shutter.  I couldn't get there SOOC.

For some photographers, the click of the shutter is only the beginning.  The main event happens later in front of a computer where their art really comes to life.  I'm not sure I'm willing to say that is entirely the case with me.  I'm much happier being out "in the field" with my camera than sitting in front of my computer staring at raw images late at night.  Capturing images is very much a creative process but for the most part - and maybe this is the engineering side of me talking - I see the act of taking a picture as gathering the data that I'll use to create an image later with my artistic side.

The point I want to drive home is that there is nothing wrong with post processing and it in no way waters down the art of photography.  Rather it is fundamentally at the core of digital photography and it happens whether you have a hand in it or not.  Unless you are a photojournalist or otherwise have time critical deadlines there is no reason to settle for what the camera burns to a JPG file.  As a photographer, you train your eyes to see the composition and read the light to create that perfect exposure.  Your talent shouldn't stop once you click the shutter button.  You can do better than what the camera gives you by default.  If you don't believe me, set your camera to record both a raw file and a JPG if you can.  Take a look at what the camera created and then take a stab at tweaking the raw file.  I'm not talking about fixing a bad photo.  If it's a documentary style photo, chances are you can improve it.  It it's an artistic style photo, you can carry the creative process forward and create something really cool.

One of the raw files from a bracketed set.  It probably documents the scene well enough.

My artistic side decided on extreme post processing through HDR!  Too much?  Are you kidding?  It's freakin' aluminum foil dinosaurs! 

Roadside Attractions

Often when I am driving somewhere, I'll see something that I think is interesting off on the roadside.  "I should grab a shot of that," I'll think to myself as I keep on driving to my destination.  Sometimes I really don't have the time.  Usually, I could probably spare the time but instead of stopping I just file a mental note and tell myself I'll grab that shot the next time.  I've missed a bunch of shots with that sort of thinking!

Recently, while out running errands, I took my camera bag with the intention of grabbing some of those shots that I had been just driving by in my daily commute.  I purposely sought out some rather ordinary looking things that I typically see on my way to work each day.  In addition to taking shots of a few things along the roads I commonly travel, I wanted to challenge my post processing skills and see what kind of dramatic images I could create from rather ordinary looking scenes.  I learned last year in a workshop with David Nightingale that you don't need an inherently dramatic scene to create a dramatic image in post processing and it had been a while since I really put that that idea into practice.

Alone in a Sea of Green - Click here for post processing before and after.

This first shot is extremely simple.  That's what I liked about it!  The freshly painted fire hydrant sitting in a green field with a blue overcast sky in the background really appealed to me.  I saw this fire hydrant by the side of a country road in what used to be farm land.  I can only assume that there is going to be some development on this land in the near future.  This is the sort of shot that you should really take when you come across it.  If I were to have kept procrastinating, the empty green field might be paved over with a strip mall or a subdivision and the opportunity would be lost.

I kept my processing of the the hydrant shot as simple as the scene that I had captured.  The simplicity of the scene was a powerful statement on its own.  I did make the sky look a touch more dramatic with Topaz Labs Adjust.  Everything else - cropping, slight exposure adjustments, and saturation tweaking was done in Lightroom.  Not particularly dramatic maybe, but it does illustrate how something as common as a fire hydrant can be turned into an engaging image.

The Thicket - Click here for post processing before and after.

Now we're getting into some dramatic post processing.  I've driven by this thicket of trees many times on the way to work.  I don't really know why it was appealing to me.  I just saw "something" there.  It was an overcast day and the scene as captured was bland and lifeless.  When I got home and looked at the image I wondered what I saw here.  This was a challenge to make something out of.

The thicket got a generous dose of contrast and a burned edge effect through a black and white layer that I created with Nik Silver Efex.  I blended the B&W layer in with luminosity mode to preserve the color.  Nik Color Efex Pro Contrast was used to further hone the contrast.  The result is a sort of sinister looking image with a lot of depth.  I had some fun with this one!

Reclamation - Click here for post processing before and after.

For this next image, I had a pretty good idea of what I wanted to do with it when I took the shot.  I had seen this damaged wind mill, neglected and in the process of being overtaken by nature.  Although I had seen this scene months ago and thought about getting a shot many times, I felt somewhat justified in waiting so long because I did want to have an overcast sky in the background.  The wind ravaged windmill needed a gloomy backdrop.

I wanted an antique look to this image with a very bold and moody feel.  I got the burned edge and contrast through Nik Silver Efex with the Antique Plate preset.  The tone of the image comes a split tone effect in Lightroom.  Here again, the original scene wasn't that exciting but with a little post processing I came away with a very dramatic image.

Abandoned Silos - Click here for post processing before and after.

This last image is a vantage point I had in mind for a while.  Remnants from an old Co-Op, these silos sit along the main highway through Hutto, TX.  Rather than shooting from the main road, I wanted to get a shot from a side street, across a field before anything else gets built on this land.  This shot was a bit drab due to the overcast skies.  It was lacking in contrast and color.   I also wanted a bit more drama in the sky without going over board.

Basically, this image needed just a little pop.  I called upon Nik Silver Efex again to create a black and white layer that I could use in Photoshop to adjust contrast and add more detail to the sky.  I also used Nik Color Efex with the Indian Summer preset to boost color ever so slightly in the field.  A slight vignette in Lightroom finished off the image.

I hope my little exercise will inspire you to stop and get a shot of something that you pass by in your daily commute.  It's an ever changing world and you never know when something that you thought would make a great picture might disappear from the landscape.  It doesn't have to be anything special. With a little creative post processing work, even a seemingly mundane scene could be turned into a great photo.

Street Photography - To B&W Or Not To B&W?

I recently did a bit of street photography with a couple of my photog buddies.  Generally, I take more pictures of things than people on the streets and taking photos of strangers is something that remains outside of my comfort zone.  I'll have to write more about that at a later time.  Suffice to say for now that on this particular photo outing I chose to mostly photograph street performers.  It feels better since to me since they are putting themselves on public display so I don't feel so weird about snapping a shot.

What I  really want to talk about is how street photography images are processed.  I'm only two years into the art of photography and I'm always looking for examples of the type of photography that I dabble in.  I've looked at a lot of inspiring street photography examples and I've noted that many photographers choose to process their street images in B&W.  I've wondered for some time why that is.  As I considered how I'd process my images taken on my recent outing, the idea of doing B&W conversions was at the forefront of my thoughts.  However, I resisted the idea for a number of reasons.

B&W conversion - not my preference for this image.  It seems a little too contrived to me.

I prefer this color version because it's true to what I saw.  The colors are somewhat muted due to the low sun creating harsh shadows.   It kind of gives the image a faded, dated look that seems to fit.   

One of my biggest concerns about B&W street photography is that it may come across as cliché.  While there are certainly many B&W street images that I really like, I'm rather adverse to doing something solely because it is "just what you do" based on a trend.  I don't want to go B&W just because that's what a lot of the great street shooters do.  For me to consider a photo to be a true reflection of me as an artist, I need to make the decision to go B&W for myself because it fits my preconceived vision for the image or because it's what the image "needs."

Another concern I have is whether a B&W image might be come across as impersonal or detached.  Veiling an image in monochrome sometimes has the effect, at least to my eyes, of creating distance between me and the subject.  This "distance" might seem chronological or personal.  Maybe it's that B&W images create an association with old photographs.  Maybe it's because street shots are often taken from a distance without the subject's awareness and a B&W representation might emphasize that disconnect.  This distancing effect is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is something that I keep in the back of my mind as I contemplate whether to go the B&W route with a picture of a stranger.  I think that there is a certain risk of jeopardizing the potential connection with a subject and ending up with a sterile looking image.   On the other hand, a carefully composed and processed B&W can make for a powerful and engaging shot.  It's just something to think about as you contemplate the B&W route.  Does the end result draw you in and help make a connection with the subject or does it create distance?  Is that your intended effect?

If I'm honest with myself, I think one of the reasons I am sometimes resistant to B&W photography is because I'm largely color blind.  Huh?  Wouldn't that mean that B&W would be ideal?  Maybe, but the thought of processing in B&W for that reason just doesn't sit well with me.  I do struggle sometimes to get accurate color representation and it can be very frustrating.  To process in B&W because my eyes don't perceive color like most folks in the world seems like a defeatist attitude.  If I'm going to do it, I need a better reason.

This is B&W conversion just didn't feel right.  I tried several methods and all seemed forced.  I purposely brought in the sun flare and its effect is lost in the B&W conversion. On the other hand, the performers stand out from the shadows better in this rendering.  

This is what I wanted - warm sunlight visibly streaking into the scene, bathing the performers.  I let the sunlight color the scene gently, creating a subtle faded look.  

So, what are some good reasons to process street shots in B&W?  The most common reason I hear is that it removes the distraction of color.  That concept struck me as odd at first.  I hadn't really thought of colors as being a distraction.  Maybe that is because I don't see color as vividly as most people.  There is definitely something to this.  In an urban scene, there will likely be plenty of distractions in a shot: cars, signs, buildings, lights, and, of course, people other than the subject(s).  All of these people and things will be sporting differing colors and that can create some visual clutter.  Processing in B&W levels the playing field, minimizing that distraction.  From there, careful contrast adjustments or a bit of dodging/burning can help lead the viewers eyes to the subject.

A B&W Lightroom preset worked well here.  The bright colors behind the girl on the bench are taken away and competing elements in the scene, such as the city skyline are less conspicuous.

A busy scene, a few bright colors, and harsh light create a lot of distractions.  The image could certainly be tweaked but B&W seemed like the best fit.

Another case where an image might benefit from a B&W conversion is when the subject is in a low contrast environment, such as a heavily shaded area.  I have found that it can sometimes be easier to add contrast to people and their environment in a shaded setting than a color rendering.  This can be used with great dramatic effect.  In instances where the subject is shaded but there are large areas of blown out skies, I find that a B&W conversion can help to deemphasize the disparity in dynamic range.

A B&W conversion can also evoke emotion and change the mood of an image.  The distancing effect might be purposely used to emphasize the idea of isolation or loneliness.  You might make a subject look stronger or more powerful with a high contrast B&W rendering.  Subtle toning of a B&W image with a warm or cool tone can completely change the way an image might be perceived.

B&W really fit the mood I was after here.  Distracting color and blown highlights were subdued.  I found the B&W conversion to be more dramatic, giving more attitude to this musician.

The color version could also work and perhaps if I hadn't engaged in conversation with this guitarist, I might have kept it this way.  He came across as a frustrated, struggling artist and I felt that was a bit lost in the color version.

Hopefully I've provided some examples and food for thought that will be helpful the next time you snap some shots of folks on the streets and contemplate a B&W conversion.  It was not my intention to make an argument for or against B&W street photography.  Like any photographic technique, I do think that the decision to go B&W should be carefully considered to determine if it is the right tool for what you are trying to accomplish.  It's a great technique when used discriminately.  There are no absolutes and only you can decide what looks and feels right.