Lomography

Lomography - I just like to say it because I think it such a cool word. Lomography. Lomo... Graphy... Lomography.

What is it, exactly? Well, if I may quote Urban Dictionary (which by the way, has the most entertaining word definitions on the planet!!), lomography is:

"...the so called "art form” of taking really lousy pictures with an overrated, overpriced, overhyped poorly made piece of crap of a camera..."

In short, Lomo-style pics usually have intense vignetting, may be soft of focus, and perhaps have poor exposure due to specific camera's light leaks and low-quality plastic lens, etc.

Fortunately for me, there are many digital cameras these days with in-camera filters (including my K20, K7 and GF1), and of course there are tons of photo editing software programs which can be used to apply the effect as well. I utilized both of these alternatives in my capture of a spring storm and a subsequently flooded city park this week.

  

Someday however, I may have to regress and purchase a Holga or Diana plastic camera and see what results I get with the original lomo creators. Urban Dictionary warns:

"...This "art form” also includes the spending of $60-$70 on a poorly made camera, which probably has only a dollar or two worth of plastic in it. Although you could have bought a decent used 35mm SLR for the same amount of money..."

It sounds like it could be alot of fun, and no matter how crappy the pictures turn out, I'll be able to pass them off as 'lomography'!

Cheers!

Kickin' It, Old School!

Vintage. Antique. Retro. Aged. Old school. Whatever the effect is technically called, I am LOVING IT!!! Not that I don't love vibrant, crisp, full-colored shots... because I so do!!! It's just that I am finding there are some scenes which create much more drama and impact if they are subjected to some sort of filter.

These photos were all manipulated in PhotoShop CS5 by using various actions. It is simple to create actions (or even download pre-built ones off the web). Actions are like macros - you record a series of editing steps and save them so they can be used again and again. Actions are major timesavers and are wicked fun!

Yes I know, of course I need to be more diligent with my camera itself - I should be utilizing physical lens filters as well as the in-camera filter settings... tsk tsk... or perhaps some of you are thinking that I should even roll back to using a film SLR and learn some true developing techniques...?! Until that happens however, I'm having a blast with my digital photo editing software! Stay tuned for my next experiment... with 'Lomo'!

Cheers!

Miniature World

I really enjoy surfing through articles offering tips and tricks for photography post-processing. While I'm most interested in understanding apertures and shutter speeds and learning how to use my camera properly, to get the right exposure and contrast in-camera as opposed to relying on Photoshop to correct everything, I still think it's neat to do some obvious after-shoot editing.

Recently I was reading about using spot focus combined with lens blur to give a 'miniature' look to certain pictures. Miniature in the sense of - is it real? or is it a train set or something. It is supposed to work best on photos that have been taken looking downwards on the scene, so I scanned through my files and tried it on a few of them.

Basically (in Photoshop), you just select an area around the object, then 'inverse' the selection and apply a lens blur filter. You can play around with feathering the edges of the selection, as well as the shape of the lens blades, curvature, etc. in the filter set up.

Anyway, some pics end up looking more 'miniature' than others... and I can get a similar result using my Lensbaby... but it is still fun, none the less. Try it sometime!

Cheers.

The Lazy Photographer

Yep, that's me. L-A-Z-Y. Not as in the 'lay on the couch, eat bon-bons' kind of lazy (although I have those days, too!!)... because I definitely enjoy taking my camera on long, steep, sweat-inducing outings... I'm talking in the 'can't be bothered with filters, tripods, or setting my alarm for 4:30am' kind of way. Recently, a good friend - who is one of the best outdoor photographers I know - and I spent a stellar day, checking out ice crystals on partially frozen streams and groves of trees and small running waterfalls. She had filter stacked upon filter, and she took about three quarters of her photos using a tripod. The results: absolutely AWESOME pics!

The crispness of the rocks, ice, moss, and branches combined with the softness of the moving water... I can't describe how beautiful her pictures are! Now I, on the other hand, only took my fisheye lens and Lensbaby... and I handheld every shot:

I have to say however, that in their own way, my photographs turned out quite alright as well. It was kind of fun to see what I could get, with minimal effort. Playing around in full manual mode is always a good exercise for me; the flat, dull light allowed for the slower shutter speeds necessary to blur moving water. I was especially pleased with how the Lensbaby made my poplar photos so interesting, and how I was able to get a few unusual but cool pics that only a fisheye can make possible. Definitely two lenses that I will never be able to live without!

On the getting up at 4:30am front... well, I may have to suck it up for a few days in August. This same friend and I are planning a photography / camping trip into the Lake O'Hara area, and I know she loves sunrises and sunsets... Who knows, maybe I'll even cave and take along my limited selection of filters and crappy tripod? I'm looking forward to the adventure!

Cheers!

Sunny Days

Ahhhhh, the elusive 'sunburst effect'... Well, it has been eluding me, anyhow. D'OH! I don't know how many times I've made an attempt to capture the sun or some other sparkling light... in hopes of it ending up as a nicely formed star-shape of luminance in my photo... only to be disappointed by the giant white blob which results. I've noticed that decreasing the aperture size (i.e. adjusting the f-stop as high as I can, with the available light) will contribute to the effect, however unless I have an object in the picture that somewhat blocks the light source (trees, a mountain, etc.) I don't get a real great shape. A polarizing filter helped out a bit when leaving the sun unobstructed... but I'm still not impressed. And I've tried every camera I own, thinking perhaps the diaphragm blading was a problem in one or the other. The only thing I learned by doing that was you can definitely tell how many blades make up the diaphragm in a camera, since that is how many sections you end up with in the sunburst.

At any rate, as you can see by the pics in this post, I'm continuing on in my quest for the perfect sunburst/starburst. Until I figure it out, I suppose I'll be reading as much as I can about the subject and supplementing my poor photography technique with Photoshop...!! Hee hee!!

If anybody has suggestions or tips, please feel free to share! It would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers!

Natural Light

I'm sure you are looking at this post - or more specifically, the images in this post - and you must be thinking that I am soooooo vain...!! Who pastes pictures of themselves all over their blog??!! Jeesh!! Well, before you X out of this window in disdain, let me explain myself.

I recently have become totally fascinated with natural light portrait photography. Not that I want to be a portrait photographer... but I do end up with people in many of my photos, and it's fun to change it up once in a while. Black and white is fairly standard and sepia doesn't flatter every picture... so I'd like to try something different. The look I find especially intriguing is the one where the photo almost looks overexposed, and the colors are washed out. The picture ends up looking a bit soft and dreamy, a bit old and worn. A friend of mine is a professional photographer and I have flat out asked what settings she shoots with to get these kinds of results. She has completely ignored my query. What's up with that?? Anyhow, since I couldn't get a straight answer, I was left with no choice but to experiment... on myself!!

My testing took place indoors, against a neutral colored wall, next to a window, on an overcast day. Quite frankly, I thought the light was stellar, and I think it would be difficult to replicate with a flash. By turning and either facing right into the light or slightly away from the light, I could adjust the angle of the shadows or even completely eliminate the shadows on my face. A smaller lens aperture obviously lent to a larger focal area and greater depth of field, but my 31mm wide open (f1.8) created some neat effects too, like only getting one of my eyes in focus out of my whole face. I tried many different shutter speeds, many different f-stops, all at ISO100... I reduced the saturation and increased the contrast... Sometimes, half of my features would be blown out and my hair looked like a solid black mass. Sometimes, the photo was sadly very normal. Booo.

In the end, I've decided that post processing is the only way to achieve what I am after. I can't figure out for the life of me how to get the results in-camera. And even using Photoshop CS3, I'm not 100% satisfied with what I've got. That being said, I'm not exactly Adobe literate so I could be completely missing something. Feel free to comment with your suggestions!!

At any rate, I followed up my disappointing test session with some further Google work. I think perhaps these guys have what I am looking for: http://www.autofx.com/products/mttc/detail.html. Auto FX Mystical Tint, Tone and Color 2.0 seems to have the solution to my particular problem, plus Auto FX offers a whole whack of other cool digital enhancement tools - the possibilities look endless! I am going to download a demo and give it a whirl. For my next experiment, I promise I will find a different test subject!

Cheers.