It was a firing offence.

When I worked as a photographer at a newspaper, we had a rule: If it couldn't have been done in the wet darkroom, we were not to do it in Photoshop. Messing too much with pictures was a firing offence.

Get it right when you're shooting it. Distracting backgrounds and off balance compositions have to be eliminated in the shooting and not in Photoshop. Get caught taking something out of the background and you might well find yourself being taken out of the newsroom.

That said, outright lies in photographs were quite another matter. The chain that owned the paper for which I worked saw nothing wrong with using models in news photos; The paper I worked for saw this as a travesty.

Which brings me to today. I am now shooting with a Fuji HS10. It's slow. The shutter lag can be a killer. It can be awfully hard to get the composition just so. Today's image had too little water at the bottom and was a little shy on the left, too.

I took the image and, using content aware in Photoshop, I added extra water on the bottom and left. The picture looks better but is it still an honest picture? Doing what I did is sorta creative but does that allow this to slip by under the umbrella defence of art? It is hard to take too much credit for the craft, that credit goes to the software writers at Adobe.

I know if I still worked at the paper, I would leave unbalanced swans alone. Is this still a good rule? My gut feeling is this question risks stirring up a lot of unbalanced critical comments.

It was a firing offence: Part Two

Newspaper photographers are not supposed to manipulate images. They are allowed to adjust the tonal range, make blacks black and whites white, but this is not seen as manipulating the image. This is just making a good quality print.

But the day could have been flat and the dull-toned image might be accurate. Still, it was O.K. to change contrast. In the wet darkroom it was as easy as changing the paper grade.

Please check out the following link to the well known Pulitzer Prize winning photo by John Filo showing a kneeling, young woman screaming over the body of a fallen student, one of four killed when National Guardsmen fired in to a crowd of demonstrators.

Note the missing fence post above the young woman in the image taken from Life magazine. It is stuff like this that my old editors were trying to prevent. But today, with the ease that Photoshop can alter an image, almost seamlessly, adding water to a picture, water that is in fact there but cropped out by the camera, can get oneself into the deepest of job-threatening, doo-doo.

Newspapers and news magazines like National Geographic don't need to be defending their images. The National G. knows first hand how yielding to the temptation of improving an image in Photoshop can lead to red-faced embarrassment than can't be as easily Photoshopped away.

The National G. once was caught moving the pyramids and another time was accused of adding water to an image in order to use a horizontal image in a vertical format on the magazine cover.

The technology has made the modifying of images very easy and very tempting. If you work at a newspaper, the Devil uses Photoshop. Take care.

Memory Colours

Took two shots, then wind blew away the yellow leaf.

When I worked at a daily paper, one of my responsibilities was preparing colour separations for publication. I learned that sky blue, grass or foliage green and some other colours such as tomato red are memory colours. Oddly enough, memory colours vary from culture to culture. For instance, I was taught that North Americans like their memory colours, especially sky blue and foliage green, more vibrant, more saturated than Europeans.

I don't know whether or not this is completely true but I do know that brightly coloured pictures in the paper were received better than dull ones — even though the dull ones might have more accurate. When I think of fall, I think of incredible colours. Impossible colours. Like the colours in today's photo.

This image was shot RAW and punched up before being converted to a jpeg. Then it was taken into Photoshop and posterized before being saved. (Image -> Adjustments -> Posterize...) When doing stuff like this to images, always keep a copy of the untouched original. The bold look you like this year, may simply look cheesy next year.

Point-and-shoot zooms have changed photography forever

When I got into photography my camera had a fixed lens. Then, in the '60s I discovered the single lens reflex camera and ordered a Pentax Spotmatic from Asia Photo Supply in Hong Kong. I can still recall the excitement when a large, wooden crate arrived with my new gear. I had a 28mm lens, a 135mm lens and a 300mm lens.

But because it took a crate to carry all that stuff, I often didn't have all that stuff with me. Often, I was back shooting with one lens.

Today, almost every point-and-shoot has a zoom lens and many have lenses capable of emulating my entire camera kit from the '60s. The pictures today were taken with an older Canon S90 but they could have been shot with any one of dozens of little cameras.

For the dandelion picking picture, I set the lens to wide angle. For the shot of Fiona enjoying a high-flying ride on a swing, I set the lens to its longest setting. For the picking dandelions shot, I wanted to see some context. I wanted to see the little girl surrounded by grass with the suburban neighbourhood in the distant background.

For the swing shot, I wanted to try and show the flying, mane of red hair and the child's reaction to being pushed hard, fast and high. The long lens setting allowed me to fill the frame.

What is important here is to capture the moment just after she has reached the highest point and is beginning her return. Stopping action with point-and-shoots can be difficult. If you nail the shot at the instant the little girl is changing direction, you will have a tack sharp picture but the flying hair won't be flying. But, if you wait too long to shoot , she will very difficult to frame properly. Set your zoom to a long lens setting, I used 105mm, and be sure to shoot lots.

A shot in the dark

I shot today's photos with my Canon S90, a model that has now been superseded by the Canon S95.

The little point-and-shoot had two features that attracted my attention. One, it had an f/2.0 aperture available when emulating a 28mm lens on an SLR. This f/stop lets in twice as much light as the more common maximum aperture of f/2.8.

Two, it has a little trick up its sleeve that allows it in dark, picture-taking situations to treat two adjacent pixels as one. This ups the light sensitivity of the camera while cutting the photo file size in half. If all you want are snap shots, this is a good trade-off. When set to low-light, the camera also turns to a brute strength strategy and ups the ISO rating in use.

When I saw my granddaughter, Fiona, sitting with her grandmother, both engrossed in a television program, I thought picture. The light was poor; It was night. But with the camera steadied against the television stand, I squeezed off some shots. I should take Judy into Photoshop and brighten her face a little but overall I'm happy.

Later, I caught the little girl running up and down a "stone" path she had constructed through our kitchen using place-mats. Again, I grabbed my Canon S90, set it to low-light level photography, braced the it against a chair, and shot away.

Personally, I like the low-light level shots better than the ones illuminated by the little camera flash. The colour in the picture may be off a bit and there might be more grain or noise marring the image but it has the feeling of the moment. I have a personal hatred for direct, harsh, on-camera flash. Deciding to shoot available is not a difficult decision for me.

Don't let low light levels stop you from taking pictures. Make sure you have a camera eager to take a shot in the dark.

One example of enhancement correction

In my last post, No tripod? No problem, I mentioned that the images were posted without colour correction. I believed that a little time spent in Photoshop might improve the flesh tones of the little girl and remove the overall blue colour cast in some of the images.

Here is an example of what I was referring to.

Enhanced.

Not enhanced.

The enhanced image has had the colour warmed in Photoshop using Curves to add yellow and remove a bit of cyan. The contrast was pumped up a little using Levels. The picture has not been saturated.

No tripod? No problem.

It is dark in our living room for available light photography. My little Canon PowerShot S90 needs every bit of help it can get. One easy way to make pictures in these situations better is to use a tripod to steady the camera; This removes camera shake from the picture-taking equation.

To steady a camera, one may immediately think tripod or monopod. But often something a lot less official will not only do but do wonderfully. For shooting these photos of my granddaughter, Fiona, I steadied my point-and-shoot on the front of Fiona's yellow, toy bus.

This had the advantage of providing quick sideways movement to frame the picture. The little, toy bus has wheels, a tripod or monopod doesn't.

To show what is possible, I posted these pictures without any enhancement other than cropping plus sizing and sharpening for Web display.

The creativity involved in taking a picture doesn't stop with the camera.

A better camera would capture a better picture

I loved the look of my niece's dog taking a break from all the company. The light seemed right: Soft with a hint of direction resulting in nice highlights and there were subtle catchlights in both eyes. What could go wrong.

It is times like this that a DLSR looks good. The better quality lenses on DSLRs would make this picture snap in a way that my simple Fuji FinePix HS10 can't.

On the other hand, I can't afford a DLSR accompanied by a small case stuffed with interchangeable lenses. Also, with my failing health, carrying a bulky and weighty bundle of camera gear with me all the time is out of the question. The HS10 with its super zoom answers my needs.

So, I find myself grabbing my Fuji bridge camera, lying flat on the floor, bracing the camera and my hands against the carpet and squeezing off a couple of shots before the mutt decides he's not a model and stops posing.

When I was shooting pictures for my living, this quality would have been questionable but still acceptable; Hey, I worked for a newspaper. I'm no longer shooting pictures for money but for fun and simple cameras supply fun at a price I can afford.

When buying a camera buying one you can afford is always a good idea. Remember, if you shoot a lot, it is just a matter of time until you drop your photo buddy. I've dropped my HS10 a number of times. I'm getting old and clumsy. If I were to break my HS10, I would shed fewer tears than if I dropped an expensive lens or a pricey DSLR. Replacing my HS10 would hurt, but it wouldn't break me.

No matter what camera you use, always try and capture that that attracted your eye in the first place. If your lens isn't long enough to crop the image in the camera, crop the picture afterwards. The only caveat is to make sure the new, cropped shot is still a large enough file to make a good image when printed or displayed on the Web. (Images for making prints require from 150 dpi up, check with your printer; While images for Web display can get by with 72 dpi. And smaller files load quicker; Another reason for keeping Web files small.)