Nomadic Vision

Most photographs take the majority of their images using automatic or semi automatic exposure mode (aperture priority). Even those using manual exposure mode use the built in camera meter to get a base exposure. The problem with using any of these modes is that the camera averages the exposure for medium grey. In other words, if the scene was converted to black and white and completely blurred, it would look similar to the image above – perfectly between black and white.

This trend is made even more pronounced in post production where we try bring out as much detail as possible in an image, flattening out highlights and shadows.

Whilst the medium grey approach provides a good starting point for exposures – I recently discovered the value of moving away from medium grey. Compare the following two images:

I created the first image a year ago where I was under the impression that more detail is better. Notice how much brighter the foreground image in the top photo is in comparison the the bottom image. Although the top half of both images have roughly the same exposure value, the darker foreground of the bottom image helps bring out depth, contrast and colour, making it a far more appealing image. The top image is closer to the original exposure where I’ve deliberately darkened the foreground of the lower image – making the image “imperfect” in order to make it more visually pleasing.

We’re off to Iceland and Slovenia for a month – I’m going to be looking very carefully at the way I exposure and process the images.

By the way, I’ve joined 500px. If you’re keen on adding me as a contact, here is my profile.

HDR is a process by which multiple exposures are merged together to flatten out contrast and thereby extending the amount of detail that can be shown in a photograph. It is a process that has been used (and abused) by photographers to create images with a distinctive look. Part of the reason HDR is popular is that the general public is not used to seeing “HDR” type images and therefore the images create quite a stir.

This scene demonstrates a common problem. I could clearly see detail in the cliffs and in the water, but when I took the image, I had to choose between underexposing the cliffs and correctly exposing the water or over exposing the water and correctly exposing the cliffs. Our eyes see a lot more detail then a camera can.

Photographers have long been frustrated by the dynamic range captured by film and digital devices. In short, because our eyes are capable of seeing a far greater range of tones then a camera, the results from a camera can be disappointing. For example, a sunset scene can look amazing in person, but often a photograph will either a great sky and silhouetted subject matter or great subject matter but a completely white sky.

There are many tools available to photographers to help them “extend” the dynamic range of a scene. Here are some that I use regularly:

• I use graduated filters to make the brightness level of the sky similar to that of the foreground.
• I use lighting, like flash, to brighten the foreground to make it similar to the brightness of the sky.
• I use lightroom tools like fill light and recovery to bring back detail in shadows and highlights.
• I use Nik Viveza to selectively brighten and darken areas of an image.

When I took this image, the sky was alot brighter then the land. By using a graduated filter to darken then sky, I made the photograph look like what the scene looked like to the naked eye.

These techniques help to compress the dynamic range of a photograph in a way that represents what I saw when I took the image. If you had to return to the scene under similar lighting, you would see something very close to my photograph.

I’ve never enjoyed the HDR method of compressing dynamic range. To clarify, this method takes multiple exposures and blends them together using some algorithm, leaving you with an image that has detail in both the shadows and highlights. Popular HDR software titles include Photomatix and Nik Hdr Efex. If you would like a visual reference, go to google images and type Photomatix HDR.

Until a few moments ago, I’ve never understood why I don’t like the method. It gets plenty of attention from the general public and would be a great way to get my pictures noticed, yet I’ve never been tempted by the look. After analysing a few HDR image, I realised it was the very detail that HDR attempts to rescue that made me not enjoy the look.

Photography differs from painting in that a painter starts with a blank canvas and adds to the canvas. A photographer starts with a complex scene and takes away from the scene through careful framing and composition. A constant problem photographers encounter is trying to fit too much information in a scene. Photographers who have mastered their craft are excellent at simplifying a scene to just the essential components, leaving the viewer craving for more rather then overwhelmed.

A rare moment where I was able to simplify.

This is an image of mine that shows a lot of texture and detail. Compare the above two images, looking at only aesthetics, which would you rather hang on your wall?

HDR introduces detail and texture to almost all regions of a picture. Skies take on a dramatic, doomsday effect. Brickwork looks three dimensional and shiny. Branches glow against a dark sky. It is all very impressive and dramatic, but it is all a bit too much. Whilst HDR is massively popular on the Internet, it has never taken hold of the commercial and print world. In my opinion, it is because of all the artificial detail present in HDR images.

As a caveat to the above, I have seen HDR done realistically, without introducing artificial detail and textures. If the artist did not mention that HDR was used, I would have never known. Which leaves the question, what is the point of HDR if realism is the final goal?

Before we visit a new country, one item that we always buy is a guide book. In general, they cost between £10 and £15 which, if you follow the tips in the guidebook, you should save on your first day traveling. We’ve tried a few different brands and seem to have settled on Lonely Planet. They are packed with useful information and generally give great advice regarding places to stay and where to eat. Lonely Planet guidebooks do have two weaknesses though.

Firstly, there is a strong emphasis on museums, galleries and religious buildings as attractions. I have nothing against them, I just feel that most people don’t travel to see museums, galleries and religious buildings. There are times that they are genuine attractions, like Angkor in Cambodia, the Louvre in Paris and the British Museum in London – but generally, they are not the reason people travel to a country. I wish the guidebooks included more natural attractions or cultural experiences.

The second weakness is the lack of photographs. Lonely Planet guide books are packed with information. The drawback of all this information is that there is very little room left over for photographs.

As a photographer, I enjoy seeing photographs of a location before I visit as it helps me plan my day around the photo-genic attractions. As such, we have a section on this blog that serves as a photo guide to the different places that we’ve visit. The information behind where the photo was taken can be access by double clicking on the picture you are interested in. This page serves as an index to our country guides. Unfortunately, it only shows the places we have visited, but we aim to keep added to this index as we visit more places.

Over the last four years, Tina and I have written photography related articles for Pix magazine – South Africa’s most successful photography magazine. In doing so, we’ve collected over 20 articles related to travel photography. I’ve converted some of the articles into blog posts, but I’ve realized that a blog post is not the ideal vehicle for articles. Blog posts generally work best when they are short. As such, I am creating a section in this blog for articles. These will be the full Pix articles published here a few months after they are published in the magazine.

A have to apologise to friends and family in the design business – I’m responsible for the layout of these aticles (it is not how they appear in Pix) and I am a complete novice when it comes to magazine design and layout.

The articles section will be posted once I have a few articles ready, but for now, here is a taster (click on the show to view the full screen version)…

In August  2010 we opted to do a road trip through Croatia instead of the popular Sail Croatia option. We got to see most of the locations the sail trip stops at, but we also got to see Plitvice Lakes, deep in the interior of Croatia. Just for that reason, I would recommend a self drive trip over the sail trip. Plitvice Lakes is that good.

Whilst traveling through Iceland in the 2010 summer months, we shot a bit of video footage. The footage has been sitting on my hard drive, tempting me to learn about video. I spent the past week trying to figure it all out and feel like I’ve barely scratched the surface. That said, here is a glimpse of the Icelandic landscape:

Fog drifting in from the ocean covers the headland and nearby mountains

We feature places to visit on this blog because the place stood out to us and we know that readers would benefit from visiting the place too.

Occasionally, we feature a well known location, but most often, this section is reserved for lesser known spots that deserve more attention then what they’re getting. We love spots that are interesting, surprising, authentic and un-crowded.

Read the rest of this entry »

Pix magazine, a South African, award winning photography magazine has just published their February/March edition with our image on the cover. The picture comes with a story which I thought would be worth telling in this space.

Read the rest of this entry »