Shooting lots to get good pictures

Taken by a 4-year-old.

My granddaughter is only four but she knows her way around a simple point and shoot camera. She has been taking pictures with my Canon S90 since she was three.

Taken by a 4-year-old.

If you're giving a kid a camera, also give them some instruction to go along with the simple camera. Don't set the kid up to fail. And above all encourage them to shoots lots of pictures.

My Canon S90 is ideal for a 4-year-old. Set to wide angle, the 28mm lens is fast: f/2.0 fast. (The newer S120 is even better. It has an f.1.8 aperture at wide angle.) This means that even indoors the camera is able to shoot on automatic at shutter speeds fast enough to eliminate any camera movement. And trust me, when a child of four is taking the pictures, camera shake is a problem.

It also has a bright, large screen that encourages the kid to pay attention to what she is shooting. At least this is true indoors. Outside seeing the image in the rear screen can be a challenge.

Even with all the above going for her, my granddaughter still managed to cut off the top of my head in the best shot she captured of me holding her baby sister. Oh well, Isla and I are both bald. The viewer isn't missing much.

If you've got a kid who is interested in photography, give them a suitable camera, let them shoot lots and then pull the best images. Later, explain what impressed you and discuss briefly why certain images were worth keeping while others were not.

I'm keeping an eye open for a rough and tumble camera with a good fast, fixed lens to give my granddaughter as a gift. But until that camera comes along, I'll let her keep using my Canon. It seems to be a durable little beauty.

Taken by a 4-year-old.

Pushing the limits

I got my much needed picture of my granddaughter.

Attending the annual Christmas Irish dance show is a family must: My granddaughter, 4, takes part. I must get a picture. The problems are legion, or at least they feel numerous and immense. My camera is but a glorified point and shoot, the distance from the stage is so great I must use a long lens setting and therefore a small f/stop and the light level is quite low. It is a tough situation.

I set my Fujifilm HS10 to manual. I accept the f/stop that I must. It is wide open but when the lens is zoomed wide is not all that wide. And I set the shutter to 1/500th. Lastly, I kick up the ISO to 1600 or even 3200 if I feel lucky. I set the camera to shoot bursts of six exposures each time I depress the shutter and then I shoot lots and I shoot RAW.

The images were a little underexposed but using Photoshop I enhanced the RAW images before switching them to jpegs.

Are these images perfect? Of course not. There a little grainy thanks to the high ISO, the shadows are a little too dense thanks to the underexposure, but they are usable. They capture memories and that is what photography like this is about.

Don't let a little loss in quality stop you from capturing those important family moments.

Try and correct or just leave alone?

The older sister loves her little sister. She hugs the baby, snuggles the little girl, holds her hands and tries to involve the baby in play. In response the little baby laughs and seems to truly enjoy the attention from her older sister.

I saw this moment through the eyes of a grandfather and the moment was right. I also saw the moment through the eyes of a photographer and the light was wrong. The strong, warm light behind the two children was staining the kids with a strong blue cast.

I did what both a grandfather and photographer would do; I shot the picture. Granddad was happy and the photographer was ready for a challenge. The top image was my second kick at the colour correction can. Off to the right is the original image as it came from the camera.

Hint: The highlight in the baby's eye is among the brightest whites in this picture. Of course, it is tinted blue. In colour correcting, enlarge the baby's face until the pixels are clearly visible. Then colour correct used a white eyedropper and click on the brightest blue-tinted pixel in the baby's eyes. Done correctly, this will remove the bulk of the blue tint without blowing an extreme number of bright tones found throughout the image.

If I had the time to try colour correcting this image yet again. I would select the kids first and then colour correct. This would keep the background from being driven well into the bright yellow end of the spectrum as the kids were cleansed of their blue tint.

Putting a smile on a shooter's face

A Canon S90 proves it worth.                                                                    © Ken Wightman

I've enjoyed taking pictures all my life. I have a shot from my childhood showing me taking a picture with an old Kodak Brownie Autographic mounted securely to the top of a tripod.

In high school I bought my first SLR kit: A Pentax Spotmatic body with three prime lenses. My 300mm f/4.0 was my pride and joy. I used that stuff through art school and continued to use it at my first job as a photographer for a little, Northern Ontario daily.

Over the years I went through a Nikon stage, doesn't everyone, and finished my career deep in my Canon-shooter period. My 200mm f/1.8 was the last love of my professional life. When I left the paper, I left my camera gear behind. The paper owned my photo kit.

Today I shoot with a Canon S90, a small point-and-shoot, teamed with a Fuji FinePix HS10, a super-zoom amateur camera.

Do I miss my top-end Canon stuff? You betcha. Am I happy with my present camera kit? You betcha again. My heart is poor, my back is weak, my ability to carry a large, heavy camera bag is but a memory. If I had to shoot with my old stuff, I wouldn't be shooting. Period.

My picture of the Kestrel falcon displayed by a birder at Hawk Cliff before its release to continue its migration south is only possible because I am shooting with a small, light, take-anywhere camera.

Purists may shutter at the photographic image quality. I don't. I'm pleased to have the image and the memory-reinforcing photo. If you can handle a big DSLR, go for it. The results will put a grin on your face. If you can't, get a good point-and-shoot. The results will still put a smile on your face.

Minimal photography

Some would argue this image is too complex. Too much is going on for some minimalists.

Recently I joined a Facebook group, Abiotic Minimal Photography. I'd encourage you to join and contribute images but unfortunately the site has been closed. I believe it is now only open for viewing. Being a member, even for a brief time, exposed me to the minimal photography concept. Without knowing it, I've been shooting minimal images for years.

The AMP site had a few rules. One was that images based on flowers or other vegetation were off limits. I expect this was because it is simply too easy to shoot great minimal photos with a flower as the subject.

That said, a colourful wall featuring a colourfully painted window is a pretty obvious subject as well. I see no reason to declare vegetation an unsuitable subject for minimal photography. If it works, for it.

Now, in the spirit of minimalism I am going to keep my writing for this post to a minimum. I'm simply going to supply a good link: 8 Tips to Become Excellent at Minimalist Photography.

If this concept interests you, google 'minimal photography.' There's a lot posted on this movement. Now, get out there and enjoy.

Experimenting with RAW

I tried my first shot with my Canon S90 set to RAW. There are clear advantages to using RAW but there are also clear disadvantages -- especially if the jpeg artifacts don't both you.

This RAW image was not print ready in the least. The highlights were light and the colours lacked density. The image was soft but then it hadn't been given any automatic sharpening in the camera.

If I'm asked, I'll post some of the intermediate images. There are two. The original as it came from the camera and the one showing the result of the conversion from RAW to jpeg. The above image is the third whack at correcting the image.

Here is where the embarrassment comes in and the reason I took a couple of day to post the intermediate images. There was a woman in the background off to the side of the engineer. I removed her. I found her distracting and removed her. This was a firing offence at the newspaper where I once worked. I felt, and still feel, like I have sinned.

But, this isn't journalism as has been pointed out to me by those who have read this post and looked at the picture. So, here are the two intermediate images.

This is the way the original RAW image appeared when I first opened it in Photoshop. The major problem was that it was incredibly burned out. In Photoshop I darkened the highlights of the RAW image, deepened its shadows, sharpened it overall and adjusted its colour. When I was done, I saved the corrected image as a JPEG which can be seen below.

Next I yielded to temptation and removed the woman using Photoshop tools. I thought the woman, seen here off to the side of the engineer, was a distraction. Then I darkened the image a bit -- maybe a bit too much.

The result of the experiment was that, using my simple, amateur equipment, the RAW image has the potential to make a better quality image than the JPEG. With expensive high end DSLRs, this experiment is not valid. Those cameras can make fine images while using the JPEG format. Almost all newsphotographers, whom I know, use JPEG for its ease and speed.

Shooting jpeg? You must be a little generous.

I have been shooting jpegs with my Canon S90 and RAW with my Fuji FinePix HS10. This has made me acutely aware of the in-camera affects that can muddy an image. Shooting RAW circumvents all this automatic image enhancement. Unfortunately, the bigger RAW files take longer for the camera to process and save.

If you are going to shoot jpegs, you are going to have to be a little generous with the image quality that you are willing to accept. Just note the hair in the little girl intently colouring. The hair is smudged in some areas and exhibits overly powerful highlights in other areas.

If you cannot accept the software enhancement flaws in your images, do not shoot jpeg -- consider shooting RAW. Discover whether you are more comfortable with images produced using that approach.

I have excused the processed look by hiding behind the it's-artistic-excuse. The excuse is growing thin.