Arthur Kingdon was our guest speaker and a very well received evening of his (mainly) underwater pictures. Our own Julie Kaye introduced us to this genre last year. Arthur took us around some of the worlds hotspots for underwater photography and took us back a few years too.
The equipment needs to keep a diver live aside, the hostile environment, and days when a diver cannot see their hand in front of their face, aside, pretty much most sorts of cameras can be used given a functioning housing. This is an equipment heavy branch of photography.
But all that equipment does, plus a heap of research and local knowledge, is get us to the photo opportunity. Then the photography begins. Less light to no light depending on depth, colour shifts also dependent on depth and things with big teeth and a bad attitude looming in the dark.
So among the other environmental factors and the need to master shooting close up using wide angle lenses (fish eye lenses are not uncommon but that is not where they got there tag from), there is also a need to shoot at high ISO’s. And high ISO’s mean noise in the image. So, something common to us all.
Our personal attitude to noise is the key to its perception and thereafter our attitude to an image that contains it. Noise in digital photography is caused by the action of electricity passing threw circuitry where it encounters impurities and as a result generates signals that are not part of the designed outcomes. It is just part of the physics of electrical circuits.
When we increase the ISO we boost the signal. When we boost the signal we boost the noise in that signal. At low ISO’s, that is around the base ISO that the sensor was designed for, usually 100, there is so little noise that we cannot or do not perceive it. Double the ISO to 200 and we double the amount of noise in the image. This maybe equally undetectable but eventually it does become obvious.
There are two sorts of noise we can detect in our images. Luminance, which manifest as little points of light and which we are likely to be far more tolerant of because their visual impact is less, and chromatic or colour noise, which can be hideous over fairly limited levels.
Luminance noise, as the name suggests, comes about under restricted light conditions. It can be caused by bumping up the signal via the ISO or through long exposures. Its source is the sensor heating up as it does its complex job very rapidly using very small channels which create resistance and therefore heat. It produces “Hot pixels”, little squares of white, which are usually quite easily dealt with in post.
Chromatic noise manifests itself as tiny worms of colour, especially in very dark or very light areas in an image. It comes across as tonal aberrations in an image. It can be lessened in post production through noise reduction software, but it comes at the price of a certain smudging of the image.
Whereas it is true that the newest sensors are a lot, lot better at handling noise than they were even five years ago it is still a by-product of boosting the signal and causing heating of the circuitry. It is also true that the situation of the photograph is also important to our perception of noise in an image from a sensor of pretty much any size or age.
Getting the focus spot on is probably the greatest distractor from noise that there is, especially when we fill the frame with it. It is also the easiest of the solutions to our perception of noise in any given image to enact. It doesn’t alter the amount of noise in a frame but it does fool our senses about the amount of it.
A correctly exposed image will draw less of our attention to high ISO image noise than an underexposed one – though there is lesser noise obvious in an overexposed exposed one.
So a frame filling, sharply focused, correctly exposed image will go a long way to positively influencing our perception of any photograph, a high grain one just as much lower, though, again, none actually reduce the physical amount of noise but does diminish our perception of it.
JPEG is also, because of the nature of its algorithms, not a good option for shooting in, especially when you further process it. Shooting in RAW is a better option if any post processing is going to be involved. The reason being JPEG applies noise reduction, giving that loss of fine detail we alluded to above, RAW comes with everything left in. That means we can apply noise reduction manually as we see fit. With JPEG we have to take what we are given.
Light is everything in photography, but to make a photograph we have to do something with it. Basically we have a frame, what the viewfinder shows us, and we move around or move what is in the frame around to make an image that shows us something interesting.
Arranging things in the frame, however we do it, is called composition. Composition is the second most important thing in photography after light. Every photograph ever taken, or ever will be taken, combine these two things. Consciously using these two things is the absolute basis of making better pictures and they have evolved over centuries.
Although they are usually referred to as “The Rules of Composition” that is not helpful, as rules imply something that is absolute. They are better thought of as the Tools of Composition. We select the appropriate tools to make a photograph, just as we would select a hammer not a screwdriver to drive a nail into a plank of wood.
There are many such tools, some get used more often than others, some in combination. We will revisit this several times, but at the moment get your camera out for 20 minutes every day over the next week and use these three tools: “Thirds”, “Frame within a frame” and “Leading lines” to make half a dozen images a day. It can be in doors or out, with your phone or another sort of camera, the important thing is to go looking for these opportunities, or making them.
There comes a time when, like our speaker Ann Cook FRPS FRGS MBFP FBPPA, on a welcome return to Reflex, you have a considerable amount of work to reflect on. OK there is a considerable chance that yours won’t cover the extensive geography that Ann has been able to cover, but as that old Honda advert used to make the point about, to someone, your life is exotic.
What are the stories you can assemble from that work? In the term of the story, the narrative, we are often told – and it has been asserted here too – that a photograph can only tell one story or it becomes confused. That is the perspective of us as photographers, the makers of this story/image/narrative. From the point of the viewer we make our own story, of what lead to this, what this is and what happened next. As humans we are hard wired for stories, we make narratives if detailed ones aren’t provided to us and we will meld and fold the one’s we are given into new ones of our own. The stories are not necessarily complete, nor do they have to be.
The photograph is, in this instance, a pointer, a way post, but the destination is one of our own making and each and every one of us has a slightly different destination prompted into mind. That’s quite a lot from what is, essentially a subject, a fall of light and a background. Ann made a lot of taking the opportunities presented to us – those that fall to the prepared. As she said, again a recurring theme in the blog, you make your own luck. Ann illustrated that being shepherded on a bus, as long as you are sitting next to the window to control boarders (what’s in frame) and reflection, is no barrier to getting stunning vistas that go on to sell. Being aware and being prepared gives us a far better chance of being successful.
Even so, we still need an empathy with our subject (the imaginative assigning to an object feelings or attitudes present in oneself – being as one with, a part of, the atmosphere of what we are photographing). This because not everything that drives the narrative in a photograph is visual. We often hear talk of “Connection” and that, more often than not, is driven by composition. Back to that old thing again, for sure, however, the arrangements of objects within a frame is a very powerful driver of viewer connection with a photograph.
Lines, for instance, have different emotional qualities (at least in art theory), depending on their shape and direction. So: converge parallel lines to create a vanishing point (a concept that has been around since the Renaissance) to create depth and perspective; diagonals are dynamic, suggestive of movement and change; horizontals give a composition a sense of quiet and peace; vertical lines feel powerful, solid, permanent; straight lines feel formal, deliberate, man-made; curved lines, especially an S-shape, feel casual and add sophistication, nature, grace. Shape, similarly, has a profound impact on the feel and connection of an image, as does the use of space.
These are all tools, and there are many more and they are there for learning and there for using even there for ignoring but the thing these three attitudes have in common is deliberation. Being deliberate about the way we frame and organise objects for impact on our viewers. The fact is that to photograph that thing in our minds eye we need to become fixed on the essence of the thing we are looking at and then become a problem solver, just like Ann’s bus problem, which gives a different prospective on Kappa’s assertion that if it’s not good enough it’s because we aren’t close enough (in this case to a window to prevent reflections and stray elbows).
These last two paragraphs may look like separate and only vaguely related points, but they are not. In order to visualise those concepts of line, shape and space we have to be looking for them. Ann’s two pictures from Angkor Wat, one of the temples and one of the crowd that had gathered to look at the temples, were taken from different angles but from the same spot. One is quite serene the other very crowded and busy. They each have a different tempo. The one has a diagonal line of the rising sun behind the black mass of the unlit temple, the transition between night and day. The other, a huddle following the natural curve of the shore line several rows deep feels much more energised. The lines of people become a shape of its own. To get the crowd picture Ann had to wait for the crowds to thin, to keep the impression of the press of humanity but also to make it something that the eye can relate to. Incidental or otherwise the fact is the contrast between the two photographs made for a tension that one without the other simply did not have. OK the crowd scene was never going to be anything other than a throw away line, but it told a truth that the sunrise picture did not.
Ann had us look and decide which versions we preferred on many of the images she presented between a colour version and a black and white. The black and whites seemed to take on more from the interaction of shapes and of course there was a fair split in preferences. Basically the advice in these digital days is shoot in colour and process suitable images to black and white. The choice is a lot easier if we start with the idea that what we have is a black and white photograph. The conventional technical wisdom is shoot in colour and process in black and white, but in order to bring these two things together it is useful to know what are the effects of choosing monochrome.
Black and white is a bit of a misnomer as what we are truly looking at is pretty much everything in between. Absolute black is one end of the theoretical scale and absolute white its opposite. We render the images through the tonal contrast that colour produces when converted to shades of grey. There are a lot more than 50. You can desaturate your colour image and adjust the contrast accordingly, you can play with colour channels (subtle rather than huge effects usually) or you can go through the camera’s black and white options, they pretty much all have them, but they will all be jpeg. Some may be DNG or TIFF files, but that is a function of your camera. There is the HER route, or the filter routes that you can apply through apps like Snap seed, photofunia, funny.pho.to/ etc etc. Above all monochrome tends to make more of shape and line by taking information out about colour, but as with everything else it is a matter of personal taste. Black and white will not overcome bad composition or lighting.
So, a lot to think about, Ann Cook, thank you for another interesting and stimulating evening.
Here’s something or nothing. Did you realise that we, as photographers, take images in additive (Red, Green, Blue or RGB) and print in subtractive (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black or CMYK, the K stands for Key) colours? Explains, partially, why we have printer profiles I suppose, but as the last session was about editing and the previous was about composition and we have talked about colour space before, which impacts on what we will be talking about here, it seems proper that we talk about colour in a little more depth.
It matters way beyond photography though. In a much quoted survey, “92.6 percent said that they put most importance on visual factors when purchasing products. Only 5.6 percent said that the physical feel via the sense of touch was most important. Hearing and smell each drew 0.9 percent.
When asked to approximate the importance of color (sic) when buying products, 84.7 percent of the total respondents think that color (sic) accounts for more than half among the various factors important for choosing products”.
Source: Secretariat of the Seoul International Color Expo 2004
“92% Believe color (sic) presents an image of impressive quality
90% Feel color (sic) can assist in attracting new customers
90% Believe customers remember presentations and documents better when color (sic) is used
83% Believe color (sic) makes them appear more successful
81% Think color (sic) gives them a competitive edge
76% Believe that the use of color (sic) makes their business appear larger to clients”
Source: Conducted by Xerox Corporation and International Communications Research from February 19, 2003 to March 7, 2003, margin of error of +/- 3.1%.
Colour perceptions and the way that colour works is vastly important, yet most photographers, even the ones who know about the colour wheel and might even know some colour theory, don’t always use it to the maximum advantage probably because we take the environment that we are capturing as outside of our control. Studio work excepted, where control is, can be, total. It will help us to be aware of why colour and shape attract us in the first place and a little understanding of colour theory, including the psychological and emotional effects of colour, can be made to go a long way.
Using colours effectively can have a big impact. we can use it to draw the eye, tell a story or change the mood. HDR often suffers from being what I call beige, that is the colours are muted and squashed together in spectrum which certainly gives them a look, but not necessarily a pleasant one. Shooting in RAW really helps here because if you desaturate to black and white and get a very grey image then it is telling you something. Altering the sliders for individual colours has an effect, even in black and white, and can help balance things more to your taste. Why RAW? Because RAW gives you more. More data to affect the final outcome. JPEG isn’t terminal here it is just limiting.
Whilst we are on the subject of sliders, saturation is more often than not the guilty party. Saturation is the intensity of a colour. Value, which is related is the brightness or darkness of a colour, gives you the same saturation but it effects the visibility of that colour on screen. Between them you can get a range of shades. Highly saturated colours are very shouty. A whole image made up of saturated colours can be overwhelming unless very skilfully applied.
The idea that certain colours complement each other is as old as the ideas of colour and art go and nature cottoned on the signal properties of colour long before humanity came along. What follows is a jaunt around the colour wheel from a solo trip to several in company. The simplest colour harmony is one where a single colour predominates. Monochrome. Best for single subjects and striking effects, How photographic in principle can you get? It can be a wash of sepia or a cyanotype, the striking light of the rising or setting sun, or a single colour like a red, a pink, a green a yellow or any other colour that works. The next circuit is one in the company of near neighbours, analogous harmonies. These are the colours that are adjacent to each other on the wheel, the ones either side of the primary colour we are looking at. It tends to create feelings of comfort in the viewer, no jarring opposites to clash with our senses. Any landscaper or natural photographer will tell you it is most often found in nature.
Things start to get a little bit more complicated with the triadic. Think of a clock with hour, minute and second hands permanently at a 120 degree separation, so pointing, for instance at 12 4 and 8 on the dial or 1,5 and 9, 2,6 and 10 etc. It can be quite difficult to pull off but it is very striking. The one we have all probably heard of is the complementary, opposite sides of the colour wheel through the full 360 degrees (well, logically 180 degrees as you have then covered everything in the full circle but that might be being picky). They really are the two colours that go best with each other but rarely, very rarely, do they work when in equal amounts. There needs to be an imbalance, probably in favour of the less strident of the two colours (green, if red and green, blue if yellow and blue for instance) because the other way round throws the whole scene out of balance because of where the eye is drawn.
So why leave it there, why not complicate it by using split complimentary colours? Well why not. Similar to the basic complimentary, what it does is split the range of one end of the opposites between two analogous colours, it’s an hour earlier than the triadic on our imaginary colour watch, so 12 is complimented by colours at 5 and 7 o’clock (red by blue and green for example) 1 by 6 and 8, 2 by 7 and 9. But, I know, that is not complicated enough for you, well, sir, madam, out the back and for very special customers only, we have the tetrad. Now this comes in two flavours. The rectangle and the square. Basically four corners arranged around the wheel or two sets of complimentary colours. Again the application should be in favour of the weaker colours or you will get a mess. And if that doesn’t produce something close enough to a dog’s dinner then you can try the adjacent tetrad, same principle but the complementaries are immediately next to each other on the wheel. Multi colour schemes are extremely difficult to control but might be found in the built environment. For those you have to trust your eye or make it the story of the image.
So, in your studio, light tent, bokeh creations or in the wild, but MOST particularly in post production, don’t over-do the saturation; use high contrast values to get the viewing eye’s attention; use colour harmonies (there others in addition to the ones we have looked at) to maximise impact.
One very good resource you want to look at if you want to take this forward is the remarkably informative and flexible Adobe colour (OK Color) wheel.
N E X T M E E T I N G
Portrait Evening: Photographing a couple of models with studio lights and backdrops.
Sid Jones, a member of the Dorchester Camera Club took us through a compact history of photography last meeting, which was well received by club members. Sid’s approach was to look at the key moments through technical advances in the chemical medium from Nicéphore Niépce and his associate Louis Daguerre, Fox Talbot and the gradual increase in the speed of exposure from 8 hours to, eventually, fractions of a second. He then explored some of the key figures behind the lens before giving us a selection of his most influential Twentieth Century Photographers: Ansel Adams, Eliot Erwit, Henri Cartier-Bresson to name but three. There are of course thousands of photographs that could make it onto anyone’s shortlist. So this weeks blog is a more leisurely look at the time line of the development of photographic processing from chemical to digital mainly with the help of the George Eastman House Foundation YouTube Channel.
Photography as we know it starts with the fixing of a photograph to give it a lifespan beyond the immediate. That was Niépce’s achievement, though light had been used to paint for centuries before that. So, although our hobby as we know it is barely 150 years old, it origins go back to ancient Greece and Aristotle (384 BC to 322 BC). Dageurre, though, was the person who produced the first useable, mass production method for producing photographs. Henry Fox-Talbot produced the first paper negative and then developed the negative positive process so many of us started out with, around the same time (calotype). Photography as a sharable medium over time was born in 1839. But it wouldn’t have got far without Sir John Herschel who not only invented hypo (“fix” for the image so that it didn’t immediately start to fade) but also came up with an iron salt based system with a predominantly blue tint known as a cyanotype. You probably know it in its engineering form, the blueprint.
The Albumen print came about in 1850 and is a version of Fox Talbot’s paper based process using egg whites, the invention of Louis Désiré Blanquart-Evrard, a Lille Cloth merchant it was probably the most popular form of print in the Nineteenth Century, not least because of the rise of the “Carte de Visit” which we looked at consequent to this seasons Chair’s Evening. Fredrick Scott Archer, butcher, silversmith, sculptor, inventor and photographer is next up with the invention of the Collodion in 1851, more precisely the Wet Plate Collodion. More viable than the Dageurreotype but it necessitated a portable dark room, the wet plate being the clue here, when the photographer was out and about. It was the process Roger Fenton recorded his Crimean War images on. As the Albumen print democratised photograph so the Platinum print, invented in 1873 by Willis and Clements and perfected over the next seven years, platinum printing, or the Platinotype, was an attempt to promote photography as a fine art. Platinum has never been a cheap way to do anything.
In the last quarter of the C19th, the so called pigment processes (Carbon Print Process, Gum Bichromate) where gelatine coatings to a paper base allowed for images to be reproduced in continuous tones with the excess being washed away to create highlights and the darker, hardened gelatine that remained formed the dark areas, came to wide use among the art school photographers still burdened by the doubts cast by their painterly cousins on the artistic value of a photograph. 1864 saw the invention of the Woodburytype, remarkable for the fact that it was a relief image that covered with pigmented gelatine could yield a mould that many thousands of copies could be run from. They look like photographs but they were actually made on a press, the gelatin covering hardening in relation to the amount of light it received.
The real mass market, the one that stands both sides of the camera, came fully into life with the Gelatin Silver Process. A late C19th century process, it was the first that didn’t really require you to carry your darkroom with you. It dominated C20th photography, it was the motor of George Eastman’s Kodak company, “You press the button and we do the rest” (1892). Colour, as we have seen elsewhere, had a long gestation. It all really changed around 2004 when the sales of digital cameras first exceeded the sales of film cameras. The digital age was truly upon us and Kodak didn’t move with the times quick enough. In 2012 they filed for bankruptcy.
It is all about the image in the end and the stories we attach to them – more of that next meeting. For the first time in Human history a true likeness could be taken of an individual, place or thing and, given the right process mass produced. Or put on the wall and treasured. Or left in the back of a draw to be discovered. We have had several conversations on the blog about notions of truth and photography and it is a continuing and evolving argument.
N E X T M E E T I N G
Critiquing your images – Ian Gearing.
Getting things straight for the competition rounds was the subject of our last meeting, covering Resizing (large file) images for Reflex Open Competitions, colour space and getting images printed and framing the results (there is more than one way). The club, being members of the WCPF, follows the template for competitions laid down by the PAGB. This standardises competition rules across member federations across the country.
As we have covered this before I will leave you with the links above, before moving on to an argument that we have touched on, but still bares closer scrutiny as it is fundamental to photography in general and to certain types of photography in particular. It is prompted by two events, one referred to in last week’s blog, that of Reuters announcing a shot-in-jpeg-only policy and an interview in the Guardian of Don McCullin published Friday (27 Nov 2015).
The issue is of the veracity of the photograph, how “true” is it? McCullin talks about the difference between digital and film and his issue is the ease of manipulation the digital allows in comparison to film. He is a man of the black and white, an aesthetic both elegant and brutal in its pairing down to form and shape and shade. His point about being left alone in the dark with his images on film I thought quite poignant, especially given the subject matter he is best known for. This flexibility is the same issue that Reuters have, if expressed from different perspectives, of producer and market broker, but the issue is of trust. Trust is a marketable quality, by which I mean it is a quality that buyers and consumers look for in an organisation. Reuters need to be confident that the photographs they are peddling are truthful representations.
The Art/Science Truth/Fiction debates have been with us since the beginning of the medium and it will go on as long as the medium persists, that is to say there will always be dissenters. That isn’t the thrust of this post, nor McCullin’s point, neither is the truth/fiction argument one that Reuters are trying to conclude – they never will because they cannot because the capacity to manipulate, i.e. post production, will always be there and the photographer’s choice of angles, setting, subject will necessarily be a selective truth concreted in the raw image data.
Trust not truth, then. It isn’t an either or, one does not exclude the other, and Reuters and McCullin, whilst making different points, are talking of the same or similar problem. Truth, in essence, is a statement of fact. Trust is an emotional response that dictates the truth for each of the people involved in an interaction. That means multiple and often conflicting truths. That which is true and that which we believe to be true. Reuters want and need their clients to believe in the integrity of the photographs and in McCullin’s field, photojournalism, that is an absolute. It is one that has been fraught from the off, Roger Fenton‘s photograph of the “Valley of the Shadow of Death” as it has come to be known after Tennyson’s famous poem on the Charge of the Light Brigade, is thought to have been staged for the emotional feel rather than battlefield veracity. In 1854 any real-time action photograph would have been pretty impossible due to exposure times. Not so 1938 and the fallen Spanish soldier we talked of (Robert Capra) back in September; lack of veracity got Brian Walski fired from the LA Times and Piers Morgan from the Daily Mirror.
All these were “War” photographs, I use the inverted commas because, whereas they are indeed photographs of war and its collateral damages, war is just the situation they were taken in, moments of humanity glimpsed through the blink of a shutter in a situation stripped of it. What has that to do with club photography? I mean, the club “battles” I have been at haven’t really got beyond the “Canons to the left of them Nikons to the right” level of drama, though all the judges we have had have had stories of metaphorical battle scars from less than impressed entrants and manipulations are deliberate and for effect. Well McCullin also touched on this in the Guardian interview, not camera clubs, you understand, when he talked about the colour reproduction and how it has, in some cases, become garish, certainly unreal. Landscapes, his preferred subject do seem to be going this way. There is one in a current photographic publication, held up as a tour de force to be, I assume, emulated and inspirational. It popped straight back into mind when I read McCullin’s comment: “These extraordinary pictures in colour, it looks as if someone has tried to redesign a chocolate box”. That is a matter of taste, though.
All this could be the influence of the Art World, of which there are many and not always complimentary opinions (in both directions), and comes back to the Art/Science and Mere Mechanics debate, at least in part. The fact is that fashion is an important driving force in setting trends. Changes in technology have democratised photography, and has greatly enabled what the average citizen can do. It doesn’t mean that the average citizen is any better a photographer or producer of images, but the potential is there. How much, then, should the producer of an image be able to say they created to make it theirs? The internet has made a vast and perpetually growing well of images available to an web connected individual. Social media makes sharing very easy. Sometimes people’s idea of sharing goes a little too far. What we enter into competitions we assert that the work we enter is our own. Local photographic clubs don’t often make national newspapers but one did over the summer and the whole club was thrown out of the PAGB competition over the claims of one member to the intellectual property rights of his entry. Trust, plays a part even at the micro level we operate within our clubs. Which is where we came in ….
N E X T M E E T I N G
Skies and how to improve them ….
Colour space and gamut. Sounds like a poor man’s crime fighting duo, but as Rich Price showed us it is a surprisingly powerful way to subtly (or not so) expand the presentation of colour in an image. Concentrating on derivatives of RGB, Red, Green, Blue, from which all other colours can be made and moving towards white, there are a number of different models – the basic physics of how we end up seeing the rendering – all existing to do the same job: Turn 1’s and 0’s into recognisable colours on screen or in print ( the model is the printer’s map, the image the contour lines). CMYK mixes cyan, magenta, yellow and black (the K stands for Key ), on the page and is popular with magazines and similar publications, and works by subtracting light from white as the start point. Then things start to get complicated with other models, such as CIELAB and CIE XYZ that approximate human vision in constructing colours and are used converting RGB images to CMYK. In itself all fascinating but not something that we need particularly concern ourselves with in depth. It gets very technical but is interesting.
So much for the models but we were concentrating on the work spaces. There are a number of them: sRGB – the most common found in display screens and cameras, PhotoRGB, the aforementioned CIELAB and Adobe RGB are a few. Rich concentrated on sRGB, and Adobe with a brief excursion through ProPhoto which Adobe use between LightroomTM and PhotoshopTM. Prophoto has a very large gamut, in fact 15% of it cannot be seen with the human eye. More is not always better, as with everything else, more is only useful when you have a need for it. If your image is looking muddy it is far, far more likely that you are viewing the narrower sRGB profile in an image that was modelled in the more defined Adobe RBG than the straight forward “fault” of the more limited spectrum. Most people cannot tell the difference most of the time. The gamut of any two profiles will have colours in common but when comparing sRGB and Adobe RBG the number of shades that can be represented between two points of saturation. What the smaller gamut will produce is an approximation of the colour defined in the larger one and necessarily, it will be different. The basis is in the degree of colour gradation that can be shown, that is the number of steps (shades) you can produce in the transition between two (complimentary) colours on the colour wheel. Just for the record the “small” sRGB colour space has 16,777,216 (256 for each of the RGB channels) colours in it.
The most likely time you will see the difference is when you print a digital image. Printer manufacturers have their own profiles and these are usually pretty easy to get hold of – unlike the Linux version of Adobe which seems to have disappeared from their website. These can then be loaded into your editor, the internet will show you how for your programme if you don’t know. Paper manufacturers also have different profiles for their papers and the respective manufacturers web sites are the best places to start with this. What this means is that if you are sending off your treasured image to be printed then you get a heads up on what the final thing will look like through your editing programme. It can change quite a bit, for example, an early morning mist shot I took yesterday, an almost golden light, when reviewed via a Fuji printer ICC profile downloaded from the print shop, showed some of the shadows moving from an almost dark chocolate to cyan – the valley opposite had oxidised! It also saves you time and money when printing at home, and quality inkjet ink is not cheap and cheap inkjet ink can quite often look it, especially on a quality photo paper.
Rich, when he started his presentation, stated that there is an important factor to be taken into consideration when we are talking about colour space, which can easily be overlooked and comes to us from the familiar colour wheel. Colour space is three dimensional, whereas the colour wheel as most of us remember it is two dimensional. The three dimensions are hue, saturation and lightness aka HSL aka HSV (v – value) and they form the backbone of all image editing software. What we are doing when we edit is navigating our way around this space, forwards, backwards, side to side and up and down and in a combination of these three. That gives us a clue that there are work flow questions to be answered here. Work flow in itself is a whole separate blog and we will return to that sometime in the future, but essentially it is all the production, administration and physical actions it takes to complete a process. There are many different forms of workflow, probably as many as there are photographers practising, but, when it comes to colour space there are some basics worth heeding – not least the effect your monitor is having on the images you are viewing and the accuracy and compatibility of colours when your image meets other devices. The club has a device for calibrating monitors which is available to borrow to club members. Ask about it at a meeting if you want to know more.
The second half of the meeting was a practical and members were busily engaged in the delights of LightroomTM and PhotoshopTM and there were more than a few “Aha!” moments. So, our thanks to Rich for his time and energy in putting this together. Next meeting is our own Adrian Cooke who will be talking us through a selection of his images.
Next meeting is also the deadline for Deadline for “Dear Reflex…” questions “Dear Reflex…” is a question and answer session where club members can ask any photography-related questions of the club. These will later be presented to members who will have the opportunity to volunteer to answer them, and given time to present their answer.
See you Thursday!
Final blog from me, pretty much, until such times as I have opened the Reflex CC Overseas Branch. It will be a short post, you will be glad to hear. Meg is going to take over though there won’t be a post next week as we are both away. Last evening we went to Bath, which was warm and pleasant as any bath should be and dry which is the standout difference from the tub next to your toilet. That and a capital letter wherever it appears in a sentence, of course. Next week’s peripatetic club meeting is at Clevedon Pier, 7:30 pm.
It cannot be denied that a soft sun and Bath stone are pretty much made for each other. I have occasionally watched the Rugby and marvelled as the sun goes down over the city on an Autumn day at just how spectacular it can be. It is the interplay of tones and colours, the angles of the light and its temperature, the degree to which the air is clear or hazed that makes any photograph. It is a basic law of physics that all objects, saving a black hole, reflect right. You don’t hear a great deal about colour theory in photography, it tends to be dealt with as an incidental and a quick reference to a colour wheel and certainly there is more to it than the space I am going to give it, but a little understanding can help when working out how a photograph does or doesn’t work – or indeed might or might not.
Hue is probably the easiest one to discuss for photography because of that much used but frequently misunderstood tool the colour dropper. Hue is measured in degrees (from 0-359) and relates directly to the colour wheel. Not by accident is there a relationship between hue and circularity. The values you see next to the colour dialog relate to the position on the colour wheel. If you want to find a complimentary colour just add 180 to the value (0-179) or subtract 180 (180-359) shown in the box. There are other factors but the principle holds generally good.
Adobe take this further with their free tool Kuler. Now I am assuming that this is the word colour (more likely color) that crawled out of the wreckage of a creative meeting of thirty-somethings’ who just realised that “Kool” had passed to the twenty-somethings’ and their consequent desperate need to prove they still had it (high five), run by a vampire (currently very cool) wearing Google Glasses ™ and loafers who was really a two-hundred-and-twenty-something psychopath with an odd sense of humour who had, in fact, suggested “Culler”. However it is a really useful tool. Dumb spelling, but a really useful tool. This takes you through the primary, secondary and tertiary colours and half a dozen colour/color/kuler/culler rules (analogous, monochromatic, triad, complementary, compound aka composite and shades) as well as having a custom option.
Colour, no doubt, has a psychological impact. If you ever find yourself in a bar where the lighting is getting progressively more blue the closer to closing time, it’s because blue has an end of day effect on us psychologically (note the blue hour) and people are prompted to leave (reddish hues pump up the atmosphere and are used to encourage buying). It can make or break a photograph, there are many times when taking the colour out of a photograph and leaving just tones, textures and lines makes (or saves) an image. There can be some spectacular effects and, of course, in the early days of photography there was no realistic, certainly mass market, alternative to hand colouring. We may not always get to choose the colours we work with in an image but we select the content of each image and colour will have a strong pull on us. If that improvement thing is to work then we need to make it more a conscious part of our photography.