light

Art  /  Photography  /  studio nudes
Learning To Enjoy The Limits Of Light
August 21, 2016
charles i. letbetter - learning to enjoy the limits

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. —Albert Einstein

 

charles i. letbetter - learning to enjoy the limits

Limits that are placed on us can be frustrating but sometimes, when we relax, we find those limits are actually quite beautiful

We are one year away from an incredible experience. On this date in 2017, a total solar eclipse passes over the United States on a path from Oregon to North Carolina. The premium viewing point is in Southern Illinois. Here in Indianapolis, though, we might actually see something more spectacular. Instead of a complete blackout in the middle of the day, we will be left with just the tiniest sliver of light. Granted, it will still be pretty freaking dark and you do not want to look at that thing with bare naked eyes. Optometrists don’t need the business that badly. Still, I’m anxious to see the effect of that tiny sliver of light.

Mythologies surrounding a solar eclipse are many. Several ancient cultures believed the sun was being eaten by one animal or another. Others believed a god was decapitated and obscured the sun. Ancient Greeks were all about doom and gloom and were certain that horrible, horrible things were about to happen. They were right. They would have been right without the eclipse as well. Ancient Greece was just screwed no matter what.

While we must have light, and lots of it, to live, there are benefits to using limited light, especially when it comes to creative matters. Working within those limits can be challenging, especially when what light exists comes from the wrong direction or a very weak source. Yet, when we take that challenge and bend it to our will, the limits we work within can result in wonderful creativity.

The Limits Of Sanity

My friend Keith allows me to borrow his creative space from time to time. There are some concepts that really need the tools and effects of a studio, but shooting in any indoor environment comes with some inherent limits. The lights are a different temperature than natural light. There are walls and a limit to how the light will spread. Backgrounds don’t always match the concept as well as we might like. Ceilings, ugh, are never high enough. Yet, there are benefits to working within those limits.

Where we stretch the limits of sanity, and of my camera, are when we reduce that light down as low as reasonably possible. Keith always looks at me like I’m crazy when I ask him to turn off all the lights but one. When working with such a limited light source, it doesn’t take much to generate a misfire and a photo that is unusable. Getting it right takes some experience, some precision, and no small amount of luck.

It’s one thing to employ this tactic on a still object. Doing it with a live model is even more challenging. Every time she moves risks putting her outside the light’s premium arc. We’re looking for highlights we can exploit and her range of motion is bound by the limits of where we know the light is going to hit. Not every frame is going to be usable. Am I crazy to put someone through these limits? Probably, but I’m doing it anyway.

A Little Bit Of Light

The effectiveness of such limited lights depends on the camera one is using and the settings one chooses. Both the Nikon D750 and the Canon 5DS have insanely high ISO ranges which allow for settings near 3,000 without experiencing a lot of digital noise in the image. To take the pictures below at such a setting would defeat the purpose. The highlights would be totally blown out and the rest of the image would feel off, cold, and awkward. As it turns out, though, I don’t have one of those cameras so I don’t have to make those choices.

The images below were shot at a standard ISO 100 with an aperture of f2.8. Again, more limits. At that setting, only the brightest of light is getting through. Focus is challenging as hell. Composition becomes guess work. We might have ended up with a complete mess. Yet, despite all the limits, or perhaps because of them, we came up with a collection that I like very much.

I have to admit, these photos were taken three years ago and I’m just now processing them. There were others in the collection from the same studio session that were more important. I’m not so sure but what waiting serves the best interest of the photographs. The processing method we used on these wasn’t possible back then. Sometimes waiting is worth the frustration.

Below is the end result. After all the limits came to bear, we still ended up with a set of images I really like. I hope you enjoy them as well.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Continue Reading

Photography  /  PotD
Shooting For Exposure
June 9, 2015
charles i. letbetter

charles i. letbetter

Through Different Lenses (2011)

“If you follow the rules, it’s your own fault.” ― Marty Rubin

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Life is busy for everyone and it is quite nice that we have at our disposal now a variety of tools and applications to help ease just a little bit of the strain here and there so we can better focus on the truly important aspects of whatever it is we’re doing. One of the applications I have installed assists me with catching common grammar errors. More than just spell checking, it looks for proper subject/verb agreement, makes sure the verb conjugation is correct, and that I’m putting the most appropriate punctuation in place. When I’m typing quickly, and especially early in the morning when I’m still on my first cup of coffee, the tool saves me a lot of time going back and proofreading, especially since I’m really lousy at proofreading.

There’s a problem with this application, though: it doesn’t like the Oxford Comma. Personally, I quite like the Oxford Comma and find that the meaning of some word lists changes significantly depending on whether the comma is used. If I have a sentence, or thought, or fragment, or phrase such as this one then I am going to use the extra comma every time. Unfortunately, the application marks it wrong every time and attempts to correct the matter. I end up having to take extra steps, and time, to keep the comma in place and assure that the list is going to infer exactly what I intend.

Image processing software is no different. Applications such as Lightroom and Photoshop are full of little guides and measuring devices to provide photographers and graphic artists with multiple checks and balances so as to, hopefully, prevent errors that might result in bad print. However, none of those tools is accurate 100% of the time and relying on them too heavily can sometimes result in even larger errors than if they hadn’t been used at all. Certainly, the tools are helpful and are included with the best of intentions, but in the end there’s no substitution for pulling a hard print and going with what your eyes tell you is best.

Today’s image is a perfect example of the tools not always being the best judge. This is also an example of just how much the appearance of an image can change from one computer monitor to another. [/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]When I shot this image in 2011, I processed it using the most current version of Photoshop, but on a Frankenstein computer I had been carefully rubber-banding together since 2005 using a monitor that dated even older than that. While the monitor was calibrated to the best of its ability, I knew from experience that what I saw on the screen was not a true match when pulling a print. So, I tried making adjustments as best I could and most of the time I was at least within the ballpark.

The primary challenge of this image is one of exposure. The model’s hair is jet black, to the point that one has to dramatically open the shutter to even begin picking up any highlights. Without a high level of exposure, her hair would appear to be nothing more than a black mass sitting on her head. In a studio, that problem is easily resolved by putting a light specifically on her hair. We’re not in a studio, though. We’re using natural light and even with a reflector there wasn’t enough natural illumination to pull out the highlights in her hair without risking over-exposing the entire left side of the image. I made specific choices and was pleased with the result.

Then, a couple of years ago, I got a new computer and monitor and loaded newer software. Going through the archives to see what needed to be revised, I brought up this image and it instantly showed a warning that the left side was over exposed. I tried correcting the image to what the software said was appropriate, but doing so left the photo flat and dull. Finally, I had no choice but to pull a print and, wouldn’t you know it, the over-exposure was still within gamut (barely), and the image looked fine.

Exposure can be a very tricky thing at times and while generally running highlights out of gamut is a no-no, there are times, arguably including this one, where the risk is worth the effect. Are we going to make mistakes? Yes. Is everyone going to agree with our choices? No. But again, what matters is whether the image generates the emotion the photographer intended. At the end of the day, perhaps a little too much light is better than not enough.[/one_half_last]

Continue Reading

Photography  /  PotD
Of Highlights and Shadows
June 6, 2015
charles i. letbetter

charles i. letbetter

The Other Side (2010)

Light makes photography. Embrace light. Admire it. Love it. But above all, know light. Know it for all you are worth, and you will know the key to photography. – George Eastman

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]I chose today’s quote quite carefully and with deliberate intention. I’m not sure anyone has ever understood light in relationship to photography quite as thoroughly as did George Eastman. When a friend suggested he make a photographic record of a trip he was about to take, Eastman found the wet plate camera and equipment so bulky and difficult that he ended up never taking the trip! Born from that frustration, though, were innovations such as fixed-lens cameras, rolled film, and a chemical development process that was significantly less likely to kill the photographer. Eastman saw what photography could become and then took the steps to make sure it got there. The bulk of his contributions to our profession are unparalleled and quite likely will never be surpassed by any one person.

Eastman knew, among many other things, that photography needed to be accessible, that people needed to be able to capture all the moments of their lives, not just those for which people had time to sit and impatiently wait. When he introduced the Brownie camera in 1900, it sold for a mere one dollar and while a dollar was still of significant value at that time, Eastman’s invention put cameras in the hands of more people, and made it possible to capture more images, than anything or anyone had done prior. In his opinion, Eastman felt that there was absolutely nothing, no single aspect of the human existence, that was not worth photographing.

One of the challenges Eastman faced, though, was the fact that many of the people buying these new cameras of his had absolutely no concept of what photography was, how it worked, or how to take a good picture. Those early Brownie users had no idea that a subject sitting fully in the sun was likely to be over-exposed, while those sitting in the shade were going to be quite in the dark. A very high number of unrecognizable pictures could have very easily caused the new inventions to fail in the market. One of the most under-recognized aspects of Eastman Kodak amateur film was its ability to balance out some of those lights and shadows so that errors of ignorance would be less severe.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Over time, we’ve come to understand more about highlights and shadows and how to manipulate the two so as to achieve different styles and tones and ranges of depth in our photographs. We are able to meter with relative position the best camera settings for images such as today’s photo. Our highlights are high enough to be bright, but not out of gamut. Our shadows have nice, measured gradients that gently define curves and muscles. Eastman would have unquestionably been amazed by the ability of contemporary cameras to translate and manipulate highlights and shadows to such accurate levels.

Highlights and shadows are not only part of photography, though. They are part of business and they are part of life. Eastman Kodak has struggled to adapt and find its way in a digital world. The company that once defined photography for a large number of people around the world is now but an afterthought and many younger photographers don’t even recognize. George Eastman had his own shadows as well. Faced with increasing pain from a spinal disease that made it difficult to walk, on March 24, 1932, Eastman penned a short note:

Dear friends —

My work is done.
Why wait?
GE

He then shot himself through the heart, ending an era of some of the greatest innovation photography has ever seen.

Natural light is an amazing tool and certainly the more we understand light better able we are to create stunning photographs. We do well, though, to mind the highlights and shadows, to use them effectively and be careful to keep them in balance, both on camera and off.[/one_half_last]

 

Continue Reading

Photography  /  PotD
In Defense of Color
June 1, 2015
charles i. letbetter

charles i. letbetter

A Splash Of Yellow (2010)

And if a day goes by without my doing something related to photography, it’s as though I’ve neglected something essential to my existence, as though I had forgotten to wake up. I know that the accident of my being a photographer has made my life possible. – Richard Avedon – 1970

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Color has been the Rodney Dangerfield of photography, struggling for respect from the moment the folks at Eastman Kodak labs tried selling it to the general public. Before then, it was considered highly experimental, one of those things that couldn’t be trusted, was hardly useful in a practical manner, and hardly worth the time it took to make it a reality. Black and white was where it was at, especially if one wanted a crisp, clear photograph. Anything else was just wasting your time.

I should probably clarify that when we talk about color photography now, more often than not what we are referencing is color process photography similar to what is achieved using negative film processing during the 1940s. Prior to that, there were plenty of experiments going all the way back to 1861 when physicist James Clerk Maxwell achieved a form of color reproduction by shooting three black and white frames using a different color filter, red, green, and blue, for each one and then superimposing them together. Through World War II, that stacking method dramatically improved but still lacked accuracy and refinement necessary to be effective on a large commercial scale.

When color negative film was first developed, the critical issue was the relationship between the negative and the dark room solution known as fixer. It was up to the fixer to accurately translate the negative and produce the correct color onto the specially coated paper. Results varied dramatically from one fixer to the next and even from one person to the next. Color labs began popping up with their reputations lying on their ability to accurately reproduce color negatives. Color reversal film, or slide film, finally came along in the 50s with dramatically more accurate results, but to achieve a print they still had to be translated back to negatives where the process was still less than accurate.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Given all the problems surrounding color film, it really is no wonder that the people who made their living in photography wanted little to do with the mess and uncertainty. Even museums and galleries refused to show color photography any respect for the longest time. The first gallery showing of color photography didn’t occur until 1976! When the Museum of Modern Art in New York showed William Egleston’s Guide response was still based more in curiosity with the medium than acknowledging it as a medium that had finally come into its own.  For the best photo possible, photographers still turned to black and white film.

Digital photography has actually helped change color’s reputation. Unlike film, digital cameras capture a color image right from the start, even if the camera has a black and white setting. Digital imagery removes some of the guess-work, so images are more likely to come out looking closer to what our minds remember our eyes saw. Digital imagery using natural light may be the most accurate translation of color achieved on a regular basis to date. While everything can be manipulated and corrected during post processing, natural light and color photography are the best buddies that have been looking for years to find each other.

Yes, there are still plenty of challenges, not the least of which is the fact that most computer monitors are not accurately balanced to produce true colors. Yet, can you imagine how incredibly boring today’s picture would be if it were in black and white? Color conveys emotion, warmth, and contrast. We look at the picture and can wonder why in the world I would put powdered cheese dust over half the model’s body, and be intrigued by the effect it has on our eyes. In natural light, color photography finally begins earning the respect it deserves.[/one_half_last]

Continue Reading