The Creative Digital Darkroom

I love Photoshop books. I've got tons of them. But, other than the requisite book explaining how to use the new features when an upgrade to Photoshop comes out, I have pretty much stopped buying them. For some time, I haven't found any books that seem to be directed to a true intermediate to advanced level, and most of them seem to rehash the same old things. At the most, I found that I could get some interesting tidbits from continued book purchases, but generally would have to wade through a good deal of the same old stuff to get there....it just wasn't time effective.

On somewhat of a lark, I recently made my first Photoshop book purchase in some time, entitled The Creative Digital Darkroom. The reviews of the book seemed to indicate that it was for intermediate to advanced users and I decided to give it a whirl, despite the fact that I had heard that before. After all, this one was by Katrin Eismann and Sean Duggan, and if you can't give a book by Katrin Eismann a chance, whose book can you give a chance to?

Well, it turns out that it is superb! To be honest, I have not yet finished reading it....but that is only because I am going through it slowly and carefully. Even the 'basic' review portion has lots of tidbits that are useful, including various techniques that I hadn't know about and which I have already put into use. Going through the book, I can see that there is a good deal more information that will be put into use. This text really is directed to the intermediate to advanced Photoshop user.

If you haven't bought a Photoshop book for some time (and even if you have), do yourself a favor and have a look at The Creative Digital Darkroom. This one is four thumbs up!

More Rocks

It has been a bit busy for me lately and so I have not had as much time to photograph as I might like. However, I am continuing to work on my rock project, which I have previously written about.

I just finished processing this image, which I composed because of the strong graphic shapes and contrast.

Three Rivers
Copyright Howard Grill

Because of the abstract qualities of these rock images I have also been trying to make black and white versions of them. In this particular case, because of the strong contrast and dominance of the shapes in the composition, I much prefer the black and white version to the one in color.

Three Rivers
Black And White Version
Copyright Howard Grill

As an aside, this abstract reminded me of Pittsburgh! As you might (or might not) know, Pittsburgh is famous for its three rivers. As a matter of fact, the prior stadium where the Pirates and Steelers played, now demolished, had been named Three Rivers Stadium.

So what are these three rivers? The Allegheny and the Monongahela Rivers come together to form the Ohio River right at a location called "The Point" in downtown Pittsburgh. The Allegheny and "The Mon", as it is known, come in and the Ohio goes out. Looks just like the black (or yellow/orange) shape in the image, except that the size of the 'rivers' are inverted as the single arm should be larger than the two that come together!

Adjusting The Color Yellow

I have frequently found adjusting the color of yellow flowers (or anything yellow for that matter) in Photoshop to be difficult. It seems hard to get the yellow color to be pure and saturated. Often, there tends to be a greenish hue to the yellow that seems hard to eliminate. Here is a great tip to help solve that problem.

Two Hot Photos Over At JPG Magazine

I received an e-mail yesterday from JPG Magazine that two images I had uploaded quite some time ago have become "HOT".

Check them out here and here. If you like them and are registered I would certainly appreciate your throwing a vote my way!

If you haven't discovered JPG Magazine, this is also a chance to familiarize yourself with it. It is, in my opinion, a magazine worth getting. I have a subscription myself and look forward to each new issue.

Big Companies Using Free Images

After my recent experiment with the microstocks (here and here), I had to wonder if it could get any worse than being reimbursed $0.25 per image. Unfortunately, the answer is that, yes, it can! See here. Who knows what the future will hold?

Photographer's Rights: The Wardrobe

I have previously written several posts regarding photographers rights in the city of Pittsburgh. They can be read here, and here.

I have recently found a 'solution'. I don't actually think it will make one bit of difference, but at least when I get asked to leave a location my point will be made without my even opening my mouth. And a bit of humor always helps get a point across as well.

So here it is......my new urban photography shirt. The image on Blogger is a bit small so let me tell you that it reads "I am a photographer (not a terrorist)"


Want one for yourself? I got it here. I have absolutely nothing to do with the company or sales.....I am just a satisfied customer!

More From Oregon

Two more images from the Oregon workshop I attended. These were both taken at the surreal Haceta Beach near Florence, Oregon. As it turns out, almost every beach we went to in Oregon was surreal. It's that good! If you have any interest in going, check out the workshop here.

Haceta Beach Sunset I
Copyright Howard Grill

Haceta Beach Sunset II
Copyright Howard Grill

Bandon Beach

One of the nice things about not doing photography professionally (of course there are lots of not nice things about this as well...such as never having enough time to do all the photographic things that one wants to) is that one can take all the diversions they want without worrying about getting certain projects done. One of my recent diversions has been to submit images to Alamy and PhotoShelter, both of which I was recently accepted to. This has entailed processing some of my older images that I have not yet gotten around to doing.

At any rate, one of the images I ran across and processed is one that I had started working on many moons ago and put down. I took the opportunity to complete and submit it.

One of the nice things about going back to older images is that they truly do bring back memories of having been at different locations. This particular shot was taken on a workshop with Nancy Rotenberg on the Oregon Coast.

Bandon Beach is truly a surreal place with amazing sea stack formations. The memory of the location is great, but remembering the great folks who I spent time with on that one week trip is even sweeter!

Bandon Beach Sunset At Low Tide
Copyright Howard Grill

Canon Quality Control

Shoot Canon?? So do I. Have you followed the complaints that inevitably occur with releases of new Canon cameras and, not infrequently, lenses? So have I.

Luckily, I personally have not had too much in the way of issues with my equipment....but many have. I ran across a blog that has had some interesting things to say about Canon's quality control. Read about it here, here, and here.

Making Rock Images: Part 3

I have previously written two posts on making rock images and they can be read here and here.

As I mentioned in one of the prior posts, if the rock sample is not polished (and they generally are not when bought through e-Bay... plus they are also less expensive when not bought polished) then it is best photographed wet, as the coating of water really brings out the color and contrast in the stone. I first had to try to figure out what exactly wet means. I discovered that it does not mean a pool of water on the rock surface. Yes, this will make the rock stay wet longer, but you will also get very small air bubbles as well as dust particles floating in the water that will be visible in the image. So wet really only means moist. Just a very light covering of moisture to make the surface of the rock wet without having a three dimensional pool of water is what you are aiming for.

The downside of such a thin coating of moisture is that it dries out very quickly. So here is what I do. I keep a moist washcloth next to the tripod and use it to wipe the surface of the rock and then compose. By the time I find something interesting the rock has dried out, so I wipe it down again to fine tune the composition and manually focus. If it is still moist (look at the edges of the viewfinder and see if the drying out is 'creeping in') I shoot. If the edges are starting to dry out, as they usually are, I hold the rock sample in place with one hand, wipe the area of the rock I am photographing with the washcloth using the other hand, and quickly make any fine adjustments needed to the position of the rock while looking through the viewfinder. Usually I don't have to refocus, but if there is time I might do that as well.

I have tried putting the rock in a bucket of water for a few minutes before shooting to see if it would 'saturate' and stay wet longer, but this didn't really seem to help.

What about lighting a wet rock...ah, the reflections and highlights coming off the wet surface....but there is a way around this and that is to use cross-polarization. I was thinking of writing a whole post about this technique but, frankly, I don't think I could do a better job than this....so have a read of it!

My Interesting Observation

I was away with my son for the last week, at the national fencing competition which, this year, was held in San Jose, California. Since he was competing, we didn't get to see much of San Jose, but we did get to go out on the night of July 4th.

We went to a large park near our hotel, where they had a music festival followed by fireworks. It was during the fireworks that I noticed something interesting. Needless to say, I was spending my time looking upwards. But when I averted my gaze to the crowd I saw something I hadn't expected. I saw a sea of cell phone LED panels pointed upwards. I don't mean one or two. I mean thousands upon thousands of people using their cellphones to take pictures of the fireworks. It was really quite odd to see.

I am not sure what it means in regards to photography in this day and age, but I thought it quite interesting that the people watching the fireworks were somehow not satisfied until they had documented the event with their cellphone cameras.

Out Of The Micros II

Though I certainly wasn’t planning to do more than a single post about my decision to slowly leave microstock sites, I thought I might write just one more to address some comments and e-mails I have received. Once again, I would stress that these are simply my personal opinions and I don’t necessarily mean them to be appropriate for others who may have different needs and/or goals.

1) I do not believe that the microstock industry is going to go bust nor do I believe that the failure of Lucky Oliver (a microstock site) is the harbinger of a larger industry-wide demise. On the contrary, I suspect that just the opposite is true. From what I have read, revenues at the major microstock sites continue to climb while they are on the decline at the macros. Surely, other micros will go under, but this just reflects the difficulty in new players competing with the established giants in the industry......the same holds true for every industry. I suspect that the Shutterstocks and iStocks of the world will continue to grow.

2) Moreover, as I mentioned in my prior post, I believe the ‘horse is out of the barn’. I suspect a critical mass of photographers and images are available on the micros such that it would be difficult for any group of people to stop the trend by deciding not to participate. That is one of the main reasons that persuaded me to give it a try. In the end, participating in it just didn’t ‘feel right’ to me.

I fully recognize that slowly pulling my 100 images isn’t going to make one bit of difference to the agencies that have them. In fact, even if the largest individual microstock contributors pulled their many thousands of images, I suspect it wouldn’t have much effect. If the majority of the major contributors pulled their images it might make the sites have a brief second thought, but then they would likely quell the revolt by reimbursing a few more cents per image (along the lines of the recent mini-uprising on Fotolia).

I suspect it is quite true that I stand to make much less on the ‘macros’ than the micros; in fact, I recognize that there is a very good chance that I might never make a sale there. But, for me, I would rather feel good about making nothing than feel bad offering my best work for a pittance, while making a few hundred bucks a year.

I do find myself wondering how this pricing model ever started. Who decided that an image should be sold for 5 or 10 dollars. Well, perhaps 5 or 10 might, in some instances, be reasonable, but for the photographer to get $1 or less from the sale? I am not familiar with the history of microstock, but why did people flock to the subscription model where they get 25 cents an image…..was it the promise of selling it 1000 times over?

3) I find that I don’t believe, as some have said, that the micros can be a place to develop a name or reputation that will allow one to move to the macros. In fact, I suspect just the opposite is true. My guess is that you probably do more harm than good to a photographic career if you get known as someone that sells their images for peanuts. Again, I have no proof of this, but my guess is that one would ultimately get further by working hard to make great images and offering them at appropriate price points (even if they get less sales and income) than by selling them at micro sites.

I personally do not find particularly believable the claim made by Corbis at their SnapVillage micro-site that ultimately their most successful micro shooters might be culled to become regular Corbis photographers.

By the way, why do the majority of micro shooters submit under a pseudonym? I don’t know, but I have always felt that if I am not proud enough of something to attach my name to it than I probably shouldn’t be doing it.

Someone commented to me that one reason for using a pseudonym is to sell the same royalty free images on micro and macro sites since that would make it harder for a macro buyer to find that the image he just paid top dollar for was available for a few bucks by searching for the photographers name on micro sites.

Whether the same royalty free image should be able to be sold on the macros and micros (after all, royalty free is royalty free) is another whole question (and I have decided not to do so). But, if you think it is right you shouldn’t have to hide the fact that you are doing so. That fails my ‘if it’s right you shouldn’t be ashamed of it’ test.

4) I do believe that the quality of the images that are currently being accepted on the micros are excellent. In fact, based on what I have experienced, I suspect the technical quality of the images are at least as good as on the macro sites. Which is why the buyers keep coming back. I just can’t understand (yes, I know, I was doing it myself) why the contributors are willing to accept the extremely low fee per image that they get. If I were a buyer for anything other than a large corporation the micros are probably the first place I would look as well.

5) I should mention that there are some images that, to me, do seem appropriate to sell on micro sites, but that is because I believe their value may well be what the micro reimbursement is. Colored backgrounds, quick shots of a location I might be walking by, images I am not interested in developing or working on etc., but not your best work.

I think there is ‘lots of stuff’ to think about here and certainly the answers I have come up with are purely personal ones. Maybe, as someone who is not a photographer by profession, I shouldn’t be offering my opinion, but, then again, this is a personal blog........

Out Of The Micros

I have, in general, always found myself trying new things instead of taking the word of others. Maybe that is unwise (if you jump off a building, do you really need to experience the impact to know that it is going to hurt?), but, on the other hand, I have always been one to want to prove things to myself and not simply take another's word and surely there is some wisdom to that. And so it was when I decided to see if my images (as opposed to my prints) might sell in the open market.

This question launched my experiment with the microstock agencies that I wrote about a few months ago. And the results of this experiment?

Well, my images do sell. And there is a certain 'kick' that one gets when a download is registered (which, by the way, is, I believe, the drive for many, if not most, micro contributors.....like a hit of a drug, you want more). But is it worthwhile? Is it reasonable? Is it respectful to your work? Having, to some degree, immersed myself in it for 4 or 5 months, I have my own personal answers to those questions. Like my original posting, my answers are certainly not the answers for everyone, they are just my opininon.

First off, the sales. I have been earning about $75-85 per month. Some might think this is a lot and others might think it is very little. Certainly, it is not enough to represent a meaningful amount of income to most people. The gain or loss of this much will not effect my (our most peoples) life style at all. But it has taken a reasonable amount of work to prepare images, spot them, keyword them, upload them etc. In and of itself, that is not necessarily a negative as artists can work for a long time on images to hang in a gallery or show and not necessarily make a sale. They have, however, for their efforts, had people enjoy their work and attribute it to them. They have shared their artwork with those wanting to see art. But for my efforts, does anyone know me better as an artist (yes, I know that microstock is not art, but people don't know me any better as a photographer either)? Have I had any bylines or copyright notices next to my images? Do people know the images are mine? One word answer. NO. In fact, the venture has, if anything, detracted me from my more artistic endeavors.

Who has been making the most money? Without question it is the microstock companies. I believe they are laughing all the way to the bank. For the photographer to get $0.25 to $3.00 for an image (with 99% of my sales being $0.25-$1.00), despite the fact that the image can be sold many times over is, I have come to believe, an insult. At least it seems an insult if the photographer is submitting their 'good' work to the agency. And it seems a bit absurd to try to sell your bad work.

Should I have realized this before giving the micros a try? Perhaps. There is certainly enough information out there to have let me come to these conclusions without giving it a try. I guess I had to prove to myself that the micros were not going to give me what I was looking for. As I mentioned above, I do think a big part of their appeal is the 'hit' one gets from getting a download that keeps people coming back for more. But I do think that when one steps back they find that the laugh is on them.

For whom do I personally think the micros are a reasonable option. I think for those that are trying to make a substantial portion of their income from micro shooting and who are shooting topics specifically for micro (ie business people shaking hands, smiling families) and who are spending their work hours, not their private time hours, doing it the micros might be reasonable. But I don't personally want to spend my private time making these types of images. I would rather work on my more serious artistic images. And I don't mind selling them, but I would like the price to reflect the passion, time, and effort that I put into making them.

So what are my plans from here. I have decided to slowly leave the micros. I have either deleted or requested account closure from most of them (some require 90 days notice). I have left my Shutterstock, iStock, and Dreamstime accounts open for the moment and have just started to submit many of these images to Alamy after having been accepted there. As images hopefully slowly start to get accepted at Alamy and other macro-stock agencies I will delete them from these remaining accounts. Of course, the images that were sold in the micros will need to be sold in the macro stock agencies as royalty free and new images can be submitted as rights managed. Theoretically, one can, by the letter of the law, continue to sell Alamy royalty free images on micro sites as well (though PhotoShelter, which I also plan to apply to, forbids this). However, I plan to just remove them from the micros nonetheless, for all the reasons I noted above.

Though I did it as well, I find myself wondering what had come over me and why anyone would sell their images for such low prices? Well, at least I was smart enough to figure it out and do something about it.

One thing I do have to say, though. And that is that the quality of the images at the leading micros are very high with every image being carefully inspected...which does make me wonder why many buyers would stick with macro agencies unless it is for images that are rights managed, so they know where the images have been. Though I no longer want to participate, with, literally millions of images available on the micros, the horse is, as they say, out of the barn. And it doesn't look like it is going back any time soon. I can see why it is a difficult time to be a professional stock photographer.


So, for me, the microstock experiment has come to an end.

When Is It Done?

I would like to take another brief interlude from the rock images to mention an issue that I have been thinking about lately.

I have noticed something in my own work and am wondering if others have had the same experience (yikes, could it really be just me?). When I am in Lightroom going through my RAW files to choose ones that I want to work on further, I will frequently make some quick changes to exposure and saturation etc and perhaps even open them in Photoshop to add a quick curves layer. I do this to try to quickly see the potential of an image since the RAW files are, by definition, fairly flat looking.

Using this process, I pick out images that I want to continue working on in order to ‘perfect’ them. I might work on a chosen image for quite some time. Some of the work is general to the image. By that I mean that it would be needed no matter how else the image was processed. I am referring to spotting the photo as well as cloning out errant objects as well as objects that I noticed ahead of time but could do nothing about, such as small signs and the like. Getting the crop right would also fall into this category.

But then I start working on the aspects of the image that are changeable and dependent on the ‘feel’ I want to give the photograph. This includes things like local contrast, saturation, fine tuning the exposure etc. The funny thing is that while sometimes the result looks far, far better than the starting point after the quick Lightroom adjustments, there are other times (and though they are not the majority, they are still not at all infrequent) when I look back at the quick starting point that I had generated only to find that, even after all the manipulations and effort, I like the starting version of the image better.

I wonder if there is something in those first quick adjustments that allows one’s intent or pre-visualization of the image to come out. Frequently, I wonder if I am doing too much to an image, or if the many minor adjustments that I might spend time making are even noticeable. I think knowing when to stop is a big hurdle to overcome, at least for me.

Anyone have thoughts about this?

More TinEye Invites

I am going to interrupt the brief series on rock abstract images that I have been posting to mention that, since giving away the prior twenty TinEye pre-approved invitations, they have given me twenty more. See here for more information about TinEye and its new image search engine.

So if anyone wanted a TinEye invite but couldn't get one from the last batch, I have more. Just make a comment to this post with a name and e-mail address and I will send one on to you!

Making Rock Images: Pt. 2

If you haven't had the chance to read Part 1 of this series, that post can be found here.

Hurdle #2: Focus

The images I have been making involve isolating small areas of stone that have interesting abstract patterns. This obviously calls for using a macro lens, and I have been using a Canon 180mm macro with a 1.4 teleconvertor. Because the magnification is so great, the depth of field is quite shallow, and, in my opinion, the toughest part of making images like this (aside from finding a great composition) is assuring edge to edge sharpness across the photo. In this post I thought I would share some of the aspects of achieving sharpness that I have worked out thus far.

There are two planes that should optimally be perfectly parallel to each other. These are the plane of the rock slab surface and the film or sensor plane. In addition, while the surface of the sensor is, for all intents and purposes, perfectly flat, the plane of the rock surface will not be. So where does one start?

My first step has been to make the back of the camera itself perfectly level to the ground while the lens is pointed downwards. This must be done in both the north/south and east/west planes. I check the 'levelness' with a short bubble level by placing the bottom of the level flat on the lcd sensor screen in both the north/south and east/west orientations.

I quickly found out that making such adjustments in two planes with a ballhead while the camera is pointed straight down is quite difficult. This is because when the ballhead is loosened the camera can move freely in both planes and thus it is very hard to adjust the camera's position in one direction only. My solution (without buying any fancy new equipment) is to separate the two plane adjustments. I do this by dropping the camera (mounted on a focusing rail which ultimately makes life much, much simpler) as far down as it will go into one of the ballhead slots. As long as the camera is as far down into the slot as it can go, the 'levelness' of the north to south plane will not change. That plane can now be made level by putting some cardboard underneath a tripod leg (or legs) to make the back of the camera parallel to the ground. Now the ballhead lock can be loosened and the camera rotated in the east/west direction until it is level in that plane as well. You can recheck the position in the north/south direction, but as long as you maintained some gentle downward force on the camera so that it is down in the bottom of the ballhead slot while rotating it east/west, the north/south leveling should remain intact.

Stone Trees
Copyright Howard Grill

The next step is to level the rock slab. Find a heavy flat object that will serve as the surface on which the rock slab to be photographed will sit. This surface now needs to be leveled in the north/south and east/west directions using the same level as for the camera and adjusted as needed by putting some paper or cardboard under the ends that need to be raised or lowered (when you live in a very old house the floors tend to not be truly flat!)

Now comes the part that ruins the perfection. I find that the rock slabs themselves, even if cut nicely, rarely are perfectly flat. In addition, the edges of the rock slab frequently have a ridge or ledge that lifts it off the surface on which it rests in an uneven fashion. This can sometimes be remedied by using a level and slipping a few pieces of paper underneath an edge of the slab where needed. Also, if the ridge on one edge is particularly prominent, I may let that edge extend off the surface it is resting on. Ultimately this can be a bit of an exercise in futility because I end up moving the rock around to get different compositions. I simply do the best I can with a reasonable effort. Even with these uncontrollable imperfections in the rock slab, the better you have leveled your camera and the surface on which the rock slab to be photographed sits, the better off you will be.

If anyone has any further recommendations as to how to ensure that the plane of the rock and the plane of the sensor or film are parallel to each other, please chime in!

Making Rock Images: Pt. 1

As I mentioned in my last post, I have started to make some abstract rock images after seeing some of Mark Graf's abstract gallery. I have also bought Bill Atkinson's book Within the Stone, which is absolutely gorgeous. After several sessions of trying, I have learned several tricks that have worked for me without buying any new equipment and thought it might be of interest to share them in a few blog posts....if I have time to process some images more fully I will display some of them as well.

Hurdle #1: Finding Rock

This one is pretty easy. Log onto e-Bay and search for Jasper Rock, Agate, Flint or any other type of rock you would like to photograph and start bidding. Bid on pieces that have been cut so that the surface to be photographed is flat (so that the entire surface can be in focus at once). It doesn't matter if the surface has been polished or not. As a matter of fact it is probably better that it is not. The reason is that the polished pieces have typically been cut for jewelry....that means that they often are not flat and, in addition, the pieces are smaller. You want a flat surface and the largest piece possible in order to search around for and isolate different compositions.

Oh, and now that I shared that with you, do me a favor and don't bid against me on anything!

In the next post I will talk about focusing without buying a copy stand.

First Try

Ever since seeing Mark Graf's gorgeous rock and petrified wood macro abstracts, I have been wanting to give this type of work a try. After reading up on cross-polarization (along with some e-mail assistance from Mark) and buying a few specimens, I gave it a go. This is the first photo that I have fully processed and I plan to try more of these types of images, as I particularly enjoy finding abstracts and patterns in nature.

Stone Rainbow
Copyright Howard Grill

Out Of Focus

Last Spring, after experimenting with photographing some wildflowers, I had written a post about purposefully throwing an image totally out of focus and making the photograph an abstract of form and color with no clearly defined shape. These are the images I had taken at the time.

Columbine
Copyright Howard Grill

Buttercups
Copyright Howard Grill

Recently, I was again experimenting with this idea, but was trying to work with it a bit differently. Rather than throwing the image totally out of focus, I threw it out enough to make it clear that the image was not simply poorly focused, but yet not far enough to totally loose the sense of underlying shape. I found the results to be compelling and very dreamlike in appearance, akin to the 'shoot through' technique where one places petals or other colored objects very close to the front of the lens while focusing on something a bit further out.

Floral Dream
Copyright Howard Grill

I am not quite sure if I am totally there yet, but find that I do like experimenting with this sort of image making and think it holds potential for conveying what I want to express while going 'beyond' the idea of selective focus and shallow depth of field. Does anyone else see anything interesting emerging from this, or am I just kidding myself here?

Quick Quotes: Margaret Bourke-White

"If you want to photograph a man spinning, give some thought to why he spins. Understanding for a photographer is as important as the equipment he uses."

Margaret Bourke-White

This concept has been verbalized by many, many photographers. I am just not sure I have 'heard' anyone say it better than Margaret Bourke-White.