Posts tagged Tips & Tricks

“The problem with most photographers is they make terrible business people, to begin with, so they became photographers. ”Oh, I’ll be the artist.” But this is a business, and you have to run the scenarios. You have to say, “Okay. Let me run the scenarios. Let me see. What am I getting out of this if I do it?” Don’t always say yes. Someone says, “I have this shoot of so-and-so. It’s going to be this. I have 300 bucks, which will only pay your assistant.” Run the numbers and figure it out, and see if having pictures of that person is worth anything to you. Then there might be a business reason to do it.”

Original Article

I have been often asked how to avoid the flash reflection when I am shooting an editorial portrait or headshot. While instinctively I knew the answer, I never thought about the scientific answer nor did I ever came across it, until I saw this video. This video illustrates the fact that if you know the reason why something happens, then you can easily implement solutions to the problem you are facing. It is awesome!!

Original Article

Tip #1: Good lighting. Why present your home in bad light and putting gloomy photos online? Have your photos taken during the day when there’s as much natural light as possible. Open your curtains, blinds and shades and turn on lights, if needed. Experiment with different angles to get the brightest view of a room possible. Use the flash when necessary.

Tip #2: No clutter! You don’t need to deep clean your house for the photos (unless you’re taking close-ups of bathroom tiles), but do your viewers a favor and clear off counters, tables, beds and floors of all clutter and personal items - especially the refrigerator. Not only is clutter a distraction in the photo, but personal items make it difficult for someone to imagine themselves in your home. If you’re tempted to add props in a photo or stage the room, add a few

at a time, three at most. Make sure to take a step back and assess the room so the details don’t overload the viewer.

Tip#3: Give the viewer what they want to see. If you’re only going to take a few photos, you have to hit the main spots: the home’s exterior, the kitchen, bathroom(s), living room and a bedroom or two. If you have time, think about the best qualities of your house: Is it the view outside your living room? Show it off! Do you have high ceilings, a new bathtub, or a great backyard? Emphasize the great aspects of your home while under-emphasizing any problem areas.

Tip #4: Match the photos to the listing’s description. If the listing describes your custom cabinets, or huge master suite closet, make sure that you include those amenities in the photos. While glowing descriptions of your home are helpful in an online listing, most people, 85 percent, enjoy seeing photos over a description.

Tip #5: More photos, more views. It’s simple math really. According to Zillow’s Internal analysis:

Listings with 5-10 photos receive 2x as many page views compared to listings with just one photo.

Listings with 15-20 photos receive 3x as many page views compared to listings with just one photo.

via 5 photography tips to boost your online home listing - San Jose Mercury News.

Original Article

This method of transferring photographs onto wooden boards is so seventies in nature but I still like to try it at least once for one of the shows I have in the future. It is simple enough but is also very original in looks. Something to keep in mind. Even if not for a show, having portraits of family members done in a series with this technique can work well!

DIY wooden picture - YouTube.

Original Article

[caption id=”” align=”aligncenter” width=”600” caption=”The Oak Street Beach During the Air & Water Show”][/caption]

There are so many places to take photos of here in Chicago. Now the Summer is over and the weather is going to pits, time is limited to get out and take photos without having to wear 12 layers of clothing.

I have been in most places listed below except the EL Station at 95th Street. It is now on the agenda.

1. Montrose Point
2. Lower Wacker/Michigan/Columbus network of streets
3. Wabash in the Loop
4. Millennium Park
5. Hancock Observatory
6. 95th St CTA stop/Dan Ryan and/or 18th Street in Pilsen
7. Outside Wrigley Field on Game Days
8. Planetarium - Looking Back at the City
9. Lincoln Park Zoo/Lagoon
10. Along the Chicago River Downtown

_____________________________________

To stand out from the rest in stacks of photos™ call
All American Headshots now at (866)701-FOTO

Original Article

[caption id=”” align=”aligncenter” width=”357” caption=”Red Is Bad… Green Is Good!”][/caption]

J. Southard Photoraphy has come up with an interesting illustration about places on a person where it is and it is not OK to crop when taking a portrait. I tend to agree with the suggestions made… Genius really! Of note is the consistent fact that if you are going to crop a limb, take out a good chunk to prevent your photo to look awkward or make the viewer think that you left out a foot or a hand by mistake. A good chunk will make the viewer not miss the limb at all!

Also, note that whatever you do, do not crop out the ears… that is just nasty!

_____________________________________

To stand out from the rest in stacks of photos™ call
All American Headshots now at (866)701-FOTO

Original Article

What they’re saying is that there’s a different compression strategy is used for a quality of 7 compared to 6. Holding the JPEG image quality constant, this change would normally drastically increase the file size of the photograph. However, not wanting to have a giant leap in file size between 6 and 7, Adobe actually reduces the image quality when going from 6 to 7 in order to compensate for the larger file size!

So basically, don’t ever use a quality of 7 when saving JPEGs with Photoshop. Either use 6, or something higher than 7 if you want to actually increase the quality of the photo.

via A Higher Quality Setting in Photoshop Sometimes Reduces JPEG Quality.

Original Article

I was surfing the net when I cam across this post on Model Mayhem by another user describing the difference between a RAW file and a JPEG file. It is a good comparison of the two formats and I have to admit that I agree with the author that if you have the option of using RAW, there are no reasons for you not to shoot in RAW and then manipulate the file into whatever other format you like to proceed under. A RAW file is the closest thing to a negative as you can get…

A Raw file is:

• not an image file per se:: it will require special software to view, though this software is easy to get;
• typically a proprietary format — with the exception of Adobe’s DNG format that isn’t widely used yet);
• at least 8 bits per color red, green, and blue (12-bits per X,Y location), though most DSLRs record 12-bit color (36-bits per location);
• uncompressed (an 8 megapixel camera will produce a 8 MB Raw file);
• the complete (loss-less) data from the camera’s sensor;
• higher in dynamic range (ability to display highlights and shadows);
• lower in contrast (flatter, washed out looking);
• not as sharp;
• not suitable for printing directly from the camera or without post processing;
• read only (all changes are saved in an XMP — sidecar file or to a JPEG or other image format);
• sometimes admissible in a court as evidence (as opposed to a changeable image format);
• waiting to be processed by your computer.

In comparison a JPEG is:

• a standard format readable by any image program on the market or available open source;
  exactly 8-bits per color (12-bits per location);
• compressed (by looking for redundancy in the data like a ZIP file or stripping out what human cannot perceive like a MP3);
• fairly small in file size (an 8 megapixel camera will produce JPEG between 1 and 3 MB in size);
• lower in dynamic range;
• higher in contrast;
• sharper;
• immediately suitable for printing, sharing, or posting on the Web;
• able to be manipulated, though not without losing data each time an edit is made even if it iss just to rotate the image (the opposite of loss-less);
• processed by your camera.

A camera can’t produce a noticeably better jpeg as a jpeg is simply a RAW with less information, you can achieve the same look and most times better using the RAW.

If RAW is an option, there is absolutely no viable reason to not shoot RAW, unless post-processing is not part of your work flow, which would be akin to a film developer saying they don’t develop their film as part of a work flow. Remember, mixing chemicals different ways in the darkroom led to a photographer’s signature during film days.

via ModelMayhem.com - Nikon or Canon.

Original Article