OK, so I'm forever looking at the pictures of my favorite photographers and wondering how on earth they do what they do. Admittedly, they likely know how to use their cameras a bajillion times better than I do, but I realized today that there just might be hope for those of us who don't know much about our cameras. Actions. And in my case, Totally Rad Actions. I bit the bullet and bought a set today and I am SOOOO excited about it. I re-edited the pictures from my last post just so you can see how awesome these actions really are. I realize we all have our own style/taste in photography so these might not necessarily be your cup of tea, but they are still pretty cool. And the best part is, you don't really have to be that good of a photographer to get some pretty darn good shots. (My brother is probably appalled right now because he knows how to get amazing shots straight out of the camera and doesn't need to doctor them up....but for the rest of us, there are actions!) So here, take a look at what a set of actions will do for ya. I have listed which particular action I used in the after picture, just in case you are interested.
Original:
after "Oh Snap"
Original:
after "Green with Envy"
Original:
after "Technicolor Dream World"
Original:
after "Oh Snap"
So there you have it. A few quick little actions that will add some pizazz to your ho-hum pictures. Go get some people (those of you who have Photoshop)...you won't regret it!
6 comments:
um...yeah. I really wanna know how to do that!!!
So cool. They were amazing before....but now they have the WOW!! LOL! Great job, Jen.
Ha! I was about to post a comment before seeing your note at the top. :-) My initial response was something like, "But don't you want to preserve the 'realism' of a scene?" Second response was, "At the same time this is largely just a bit of lighting enhancement and doesn't fundamentally alter what is depicted."
Image alteration is a matter of degree, and we've always had ways to adjust contrast and lighting in photography. It's actually not true that what I end up with is straight out of the camera, as my images are very often cropped - and I almost always make lighting adjustments. One of my standard practices is to intentionally underexpose images and "add back the light" later; it's easier to "add light" than to remove it, as you lose detail that cannot be easily recovered in overexposed images. And if you know what you're doing with your camera, you can increase contrast or adjust colors right on the camera itself. While my images are not free of alteration, I'm finicky about color; unless I'm doing something obvious like turning an image into a faded B&W, I rarely adjust it. That said, I do adjust the white balance setting to reflect different lighting conditions (which effectively alters the colors depicted).
Here's something else: I often use a polarizer, which is the old-fashioned way of eliminating reflections and giving clouds and skies a bit more drama. While I don't add blue to a sky after-the-fact, I might do so with a physical filter attached to my lens as I snap a pic. (This is a technique Ansel Adams used extensively and perfected.) What, really, is the difference? I "embed" more drama in the sky at the time I take the shot. Not sure it's that different to do something similar later. Your first alteration is quite similar to the effect you'd get with some of those snazzy light reflectors professionals use. While it might be "lazier" to use the "Oh Snap" filter, I'm not sure it's all that different from sticking a reflector in front of your subject to lighten shadows!
Photography has never been entirely truthful. Even at the time you frame a scene, what you choose *not to include* is altering reality. So as I said before, it's all a matter of degree.
I'm not worried about you adding a little flare to your family pics. Yet I do have two concerns related to image alteration. First, I have a problem with the alteration of images which are documentary in nature. News photographers, for example, have a special duty to show "the truth." Our ability to get at the truth these days is hampered by the ease of digital manipulation. My other concern is that enhancement really can go too far. How many of the women on the magazine covers these days are significantly retouched? I'd say between 95% and 99%. The skin is softened, blemishes removed, waists reduced, busts enhanced, etc. Such "perfection" leads to unrealistic expectations and (I'd say) a shallow perception of beauty. It's not a black-and-white issue, but at some point it can go too far. When people dramatically alter images and then present them as depictions of reality, I just get a little nervous. That's been possible since photography was invented, but it's a whole lot easier (and widespread) given today's technology.
Personally, were they my images, I'd be fine with the alterations to the first and (maybe) third images. The color alterations in the second are too much for me, as they alter the reality of the natural setting Silas is in. The fourth? A bit much for me. Too much shifting of reds. But it's your art – and the images look fantastic - so go ahead and "Oh Snap" away!
(And seriously, I do image adjustment too – I just try to do as much as I can with my camera itself and keep the adjustments as realistic as possible.)
I'm a fan, Jen! Of you and of your photography. Girls just wanna have fun, right? xo
how fun! they were amazing to begin with though-you are so talented!
Dude, give up the goods, where did you buy these actions and how much did they cost. I'm totally sold. Love em.
Post a Comment