Pictures of Food (pt1)

Photographing food is difficult.

It isn't that the food won't hold still, or that you suddenly contract palsy, or that it doesn't smile when you tell it to - though I suppose those would also cause food to be difficult to photograph, I won't be covering those situations. You're on your own.

Food is difficult to capture on (digital) film mostly because everyone knows what it should look like. Thanks to modern advertising, many times this preconceived ideal isn't even physically possible. The images of cereal with milk splashing perfectly around the flakes are often created using various types of glue. Hamburgers in photographs are front-loaded with plastic and other artificial additives that would make it the most disgusting fast food meal you've ever experienced, and likely toxic. Even fruit, something you would think would be difficult to fake, is splashed with varnish and then spritzed with alcohol in order to make sure it has that perfect sheen and crisp, fresh look we all want.

Until you are prepared to go through the effort of making these sorts of 'larger than life' adjustments, and ruining a lot of food, I'll point out some ways to share with friends and family how good your food really looks.

In this part, being part one, we'll mention the zombie-effect that flash can have on anything. You know the photographs of people, where the flash went off a bit stronger than necessary, and right in their face. This is where you see the expression 'the camera adds five pounds' come true. It's because the flash has caused artificial shadows, and obliterated the shadows we're accustomed to seeing. The sudden shift in color, too, gives skin a pallid and washed out appearance. You've effectively turned your subject into an overweight cadaver. You can also abuse food in this way, using a strong flash that often comes on a digital camera.

Here is the camera I used to demonstrate the effect. You may recall it from previous comparisons with the d60.


The handy-dandy CW330 digicam from Kodak. Please note where the flash is. It's right above the lens.

Originally, I had intended to set a digicam on a small stand, place a blind or block of some sort over the flash, and take a picture of a bowl of apples. By blocking the flash, I can reduce the glare and washout effect caused by all that sudden, direct light. Seeing the dilemma, I decided to take the shot with the full flash and just see what the result would be. After all, digicams are very smart, these days, and I had all the lights on in the kitchen. Maybe the CW330 would register that there was enough available light and wouldn't overcompensate with -

Zombie fruit.

Hm. Thankfully, the dark table and attractive decorations mean that the picture is not a complete wash. It is feasable that this is a satisfactory image for what you're wanting to do. Just a bowl of apples, a digicam, and the kitchen table.

But if you look closely, you may notice some things that you don't like in the image. The shadows cast by the apples are now directly behind them. There is no visible shadow actually inside the bowl, which makes it look flat, and gives the illusion that the apples are floating above it. The reflective glare on the apples is on the forefront, as it is on the jar in the back, making it obvious that you're flashing your fruit. Not to mention, the warm colors of the antique table, the soft cool blue of the placemats, and the hand-painted house holding the napkins are all lost to the artificial fluorescent look of a bright, direct, beam of light.

The logical next step is to block the flash. Turning off the flash altogether isn't an option, because the camera would try to compensate for the lack of bright light and may keep the shutter open longer. That would cause blur, because I was standing without support and would inevitably move slightly during that time. So, I took my index finger and placed it over the flash, above the extended lens, and took another shot from the same position. Remember, all the lights in the kitchen are on, so it shouldn't be -


Don't cover your flash. Your kitchen lights are designed to give you a nice, homey atmosphere and plenty of light to see. They do not give you the clinically bright lights of a hospital, or a photography studio, unless you do your cooking with a live studio audience and a couple oversized television cameras. Your kitchen is dark. Chalk this up to another example of how amazing your eyes are. They adjust quickly and easily to 'comfortably dim' lighting. Your digicam does not. If you are wondering why the image has a red hue, I will give you a hint - cover the bulb of a flashlight with your palm. That is effectively what I did, but with a much brighter flashlight.

So what could be the solution? The flash is too bright, and too direct, but covering it entirely means the photograph is too dark. You can't go out and purchase a professional photographer's softbox flash, or one of those giant umbrella diffusers. However, we need to accomplish the same thing. I needed to soften, and redirect my flash. Preferrably, I wanted the light to come from above so that the shadows were where they should be, and the reflections were more to the top of the apples and the jar.


Much better. The reflection is still a bit in the wrong place, and the shadows in the bowl are weak, but the colors come through more strongly in the set pieces and the whole image seems softer and more like a kitchen should feel. Progress! And not too bad for folding a napkin and holding it above my lens.

The napkin was still too thin to truly keep most of the flash from going through, so I probably should have used an envelope or thin book (a music book from the organ, perhaps) to keep the flash from shining through. However the ridged surface, slight though it is, helped diffuse the light to a more ambient direction. Being white, it was able to reflect a bit in the direction I wanted - up. Now, were we outside, this would have done nothing but shoot my flash uselessly into space. However, I have a white ceiling in my kitchen. Bouncing the flash like this recreates the effect of the umbrella diffuser in a professional studio, and can be used on any surface to give you an indirect off-light. I have seen creative photographers have a friend in a light-colored shirt stand to the side, then they tilted their camera and redirected their flash towards their friend. The flash is bright enough, and the angles were right, that it allowed a nice side-glow to their subject, aided by direct light from overhead.

When photographing food, the last thing you want is something like zombie brownies. Redirecting your flash using common household elements and a bit of forethought in terms of where you're bouncing your protons, will give you some softer, but effective, alternative lighting options.

Long Exposure Photography

Long exposure photography can lend itself to a lot of fun effects. Images of traffic zooming by, leaving neon trails from headlights and brakelights, as well as those neat images of people drawing on the wall with a laser pointer, are all made possible by forcing the camera to keep its shutter open for an extended period.

As with any style, long exposure photography requires you to know what you're doing, and have an image in your mind of what kind of photograph you are looking to create. Photography rarely allows for the free-form style of artwork that sketching or doodling can create. The medium has a tendency to be unforgiving. In the days of film, you can imagine that experimentation was difficult and expensive. Using today's technology, being the digital camera and the computer, not only do you have unlimited 'film', but you can immediately preview your work. If your computer is nearby, you can even see the full image, and then get back to shooting, in very little time. With such quick turnaround, many photographers find they are able to see what they like or dislike about a shoot, and still have time to get another shot or two of the subject before the shot is lost: either the subject has moved, left, or the sun has set.

Images like this are possible with experimenting through long exposure photography. At first glance, it may not seem interesting, and the size constraints of this page may make the details hard to see. Using a 5-second shutter speed, this sunset shot of a forest makes the day seem brighter and the light more ambient than it truly was. Another effect is that, while the tree trunks and the groundcover remain crisp and sharp, many of the leaves visible, especially those in the foreground, are blurred because of motion. The wind was blowing the leaves, moving them slightly, but obviously not affecting the trees themselves. This gives the picture a sense of motion, with a few solid, vertical lines.

By taking advantage of the long exposure, I was able to get this very dramatic shot. All I did was zoom in as the shutter was open. Woosh!

And this is what happens when you are standing on the same plank of wood that the tripod is standing on, and decide to move during a 10second shot.

While the shutter is open, it is absorbing more and more light. The evening was dim, but not dim enough for a 10-second shot of some clouds passing over. What you can see are the shadowy portions of the trees. Everything else is blown out by overexposure.

This is one of my favorites. It is subtle, but I like the effect. The focus is on the two trees in the distance, through the leaves of the tree in the foreground. I wanted the trees in the back to really stand out, and to make the foreground fade a bit, so I put the exposure to 10 seconds. Not only do I get a soft-focus effect from the foreground being simply out of focus range, but the movement of the smaller limbs and leaves makes the focal point stand out all the more for being so clear. You can almost imagine someone peeking out from behind that – wait, did you see that?

The Long and the Short of It

Preparations continue for the National Novel Writing Month. If you’re curious to watch my progress or learn more about the event, here is the link to my NaNoWriMo page.

http://www.nanowrimo.org/eng/user/404901

For this novel project (that was a pun), I plan on using photographs I’ll be taking through the month of October as inspiration and illustrations for different sections. I’ll probably do quite a bit of photomanipulation to them, adding increasingly less subtle adjustments to them in order to express the ‘fantasy’ side of the genre I’ve picked for the novel. I still have no outline, no plans, and barely a setting. That means that I will be discovering this story as I write it.

In the meantime, let me show you some neat effects that can be done with a camera before you need to take the photograph to post-production. As a segue, here is the image I’ve chosen to use as the cover to this upcoming novel.

Obviously there have been some touchups, like the text and the blur around it, and there is even a soft blur and glow to the whole image. We’ll cover how to do that at some other time. The original photograph has its own magical appeal, however, and isn’t something that can easily be done with a typical point-and-shoot camera.

Long-exposure photography is something I would like to get into more, in the future, and so I have invested in a digital remote for my d60. This will allow me to release the shutter without touching the camera, further minimizing the amount of shake that may blur or smear the image. For this waterfall, however, I was lucky enough that a steady rock and holding my breath were sufficient to keep the stones and grasses crisp and clear while the water blurred into a silk sheet.

This style of photography is used a lot for scenic waterfalls, or shots of old houses (to let the moving clouds in the background blur into obscurity), but it takes a lot of work. You have to know the spot, you have to know the time of day, and you have to be able to hold still for multiple seconds while the shutter is open. The reason that the time of day is important is because, while your shutter is open, it is absorbing more and more light. If it is a nice, sunny day, and you leave your shutter open for up to a second, then you will see nothing but glare. The image will be almost entirely white. The best times for images like this are early morning, late evening, or just before/after/during a rain shower. Obviously the rain can be dangerous to your equipment, and potentially uncomfortable, so the gloaming times of the day are perfect for photographers looking to get the long exposure image like this.

On the other hand, a dark day is very poor if you are trying to take a photograph of something in movement. To freeze the image, and reduce the amount of smearing (the opposite of what we wanted with the waterfall), you need to have a fast shutter speed. The faster the shutter speed, the less movement you will see. The best examples of this are hummingbirds and bumblebees in flight – but frozen. It looks as though they simply stopped moving in midair. For this image, I believe I may have gotten lucky and the bee actually stopped for the millisecond my shutter was open. Perhaps it was posing for me? Or just too busy eating.

A dark day would have given me a dim, greyed out image. With the shutter only open for a split part of a second, there isn’t much time for light to hit the sensor. If the day is bright, and the sun is direct, then the image will be perfectly fine, and the color will be vibrant and the details sharp. A cloud overhead will destroy the effect. A setting sun will force you to consider taking the image to post production and lightening it up, but you can never fully recover an image that is soaked in shadows.

Next week, I’ll show you some examples of how badly things can go with both a long exposure and a very short exposure. It always seems easy until you see that only one out of two dozen photographs were acceptable.

Thank goodness for an 8gb memory card.

Make them Smile

Last week we skipped the pictures to talk about a different part of the palette. Prior to that, I promised we would go over smiles.

Smiles are very important in an image. They're not always necessary, but always important. Maybe I should say that people's expressions are always important. The presence, or absence, of a smile can tell a lot about a situation. Sometimes a smile would seem horribly out of place - or even horrific. Other times, the absence of a smile makes the image look bland, or dull, just as you would feel if you were in that situation with the subjects and no smiles were to be found.

Photographers, in order to get the right smile from their subject, often have to resort to tactics used by other professions that thrive on smiles. A photographer can suddenly morph into a clown, or a comedian, or a suave politician trying to talk someone into reluctantly smiling despite themselves. Sometimes, though, this transformation is not an option. In candid images, for example, you don't want the people's attention on you. Also, in crowds, it may simply not be possible to get everyone in the frame to smile.

Nevertheless, if you're showing a portrait of people at an event, you'd like to capture a moment where they are having fun.


Here is an example of some people watching a parade. You have a few different expressions, here. The man in the foreground seems to be smiling almost reluctantly. He's having fun, almost like something has unexpectedly amused him despite the frown lines and wrinkles that may belie a somewhat dour attitude. The woman beside him has the tight-lipped smile of someone uncomfortable with the expression. Maybe she's self-conscious about her teeth, or maybe she just really hates the photographer. Behind them are more grins of people watching the parade, and even the fellow walking by seems to be chuckling to himself. The picture is full of life, and of different stories, but the sum of the parts is that people are having fun. This is a place you would want to be, and it is an even that can make anyone grin.

This is the portrait you would like to hand the event organizer, or someone possibly interested in hosting a similar event. The image could be what convinces them that a parade is just the thing they need to bring some life to their town. It is good advertising,and it tells a good story.

Like most advertising, this image is a lie. I used the same techniques we've been talking about: blur, smudge clone-stamp, and even some copy-pasting. I took more time, about 20 minutes, and worked in closer detail. It is my hope that you cannot immediately tell what artwork I did to the image. Comparing a before-and-after, though, would show what things required my attention.



Here is the original photograph of these people as they watch the parade.


A photographer, a comedian, and even a politician can convince people to smile.

Me? I can make them smile.

Editing digicam images (continued)

The art of editing a digicam picture requires the proper tools, a bit of patience, and some clue what you’d like to see as the final product. These things actually help with any digital photograph, but most professional photographers want to get as perfect a picture as possible with the original snap of the shutter. For us regular folks, we’re more likely to have a digicam and all the troubles that come with it.

With a dSLR, you start with a massive image, lots of detail, and a resolution high enough that real artwork can be done down to the size of a pixel. Wrinkles vanish, hairlines are filled in, blemishes fade away, and pounds can melt into a trim waistline. While possible with what a digicam offers, the artwork is much more difficult and often impossible to fully hide.

Instead of such detailed artwork, we’re going to look at a couple of things that can be quickly and easily done with a digicam’s output. Since I no longer live near a beach, I’m going to have to borrow this image I found on the internet of Trinidad. A quick google search of “beach” landed me this beautiful shot. While I don’t know for certain what camera was used, the compressed jpeg image is the equivalent of a digicam’s shot.

The tool I’ll use is paint.net (found here), I have a little bit of patience, and what I’d like to see for my final product is a beach with those swimmers out in the water. The young lady on the cell phone is not important to me, so she has to go. Since I can not pluck her out of the image and expect to see the beach that is in front of her, we have to use a bit of digital magic. With a two dimensional image like this, it’s important to remember that, as far as we’re concerned here, there IS no beach directly in front of her. The sand stops at her hip, and starts again on the other side of her hand. Erasing her is worthless, because we’d be left with a vacant area. How, then, would we remove her from the image? To be technically accurate, we cannot. However, we can cover her up.

Sand is wonderful for this, because the very nature of its randomness suits it to be picked up and moved around from one place to another without being obvious. We see the chaotic texture and just accept it without paying too much attention to duplicated ripples. However, the human eye is designed to see patterns, so if you are not careful, it will suddenly become very obvious that something has been done to your image. Water, too, has enough randomness that you can copy its texture across a field and keep it believable.

The key is to make it believable. Not perfect. Ideally, you simply want your viewer to not pay attention to that area, thinking there is nothing important there. If you make it too obvious that artwork has been done, then it will become such a distraction that it may have been better to have left well enough alone. If you are able to mask your work well enough, the illusion will be sufficient for your viewer to simply accept what you are showing them as a straightforward image, revealing only the story you want to tell.

To cover this woman up, I’m going to use the most basic tool available. I’m going to select a square of sand, copy it, then paste it over her. Then I’ll select more sand from a different area, and past that over an edge. I continued doing this, attempting to capture textures (like the streaks of wet sand) that will flow from one block to another and create the illusion of continuity. I’ll take a bit of water, include the sliver of a wave, and do the same for the portion of the woman that is protruding out into the ocean. I’m taking big lumps of pixels and covering her up, just like you would with paint.

And this is the result. The woman is gone, hidden behind big squares of sand and water. Except it is very obvious that there are big squares of sand and water, now. It’s probably worse than when we started, because instead of my viewers simply dismissing the woman as a distracting but unimportant part of the image, they are now focused on that spot and wondering what is wrong with the image. Or their eyes.

While I could go back in and, taking much smaller squares of sand and try to break up the obvious lines, that would be far too much work. Also, any viewer looking close enough would still see the regularity of lines and differences in shade and the effect would be the same.

Let’s start over with a different tool. This one does the same thing that I had been doing, picking up pixels and copying them into another area, but it uses a softer approach more likely to blend and fade into the surrounding textures. This is the tool I’d use in Photoshop as well, but paint.NET is free! While not quite as particular or adjustable as the Photoshop tool, this one will do perfectly fine for our digicam-based masterpiece. This tool is called the Clone Stamp.

I’m going to open the original image up again, and I’m going to select the Clone Stamp tool. Bumping my brush size up to a whopping 8, I’ll then ‘anchor’ the tool over beside her in the sand. Hold the control key and click some sand beside her leg to ‘stamp’ the tool, or anchor it, and then release the control key and begin painting over her legs to ‘paste’ the pixels. You’ll see the small circle of your anchor moving in relation to where you are painting, showing you what pixels you are picking up and copying. Just like painting, you’ll have to pick up more ‘paint’ every once in a while to make sure you’re not making your work too obvious. You’ll have to select a new patch of sand and copy it across, making sure to carry the textures over as believably as possible. A lot of control-click, then paint a few pixels, and then select more pixels, and paint with them.

The portion of her that protrudes into the water (mostly her head) requires even closer detail. You’ll have to zoom in rather close in order to make sure your lines match. You want to make sure to especially capture that section where sand meets water and continue that line from one side of her head to the other.

At this point you may be noticing that the colors are very different from one side of her to the other. The left is a bit brighter than the right. Trying to bring them together makes the difference even more obvious. While paint.NET does not have a ‘smudge’ or ‘blend’ tool as other programs might, it still allows you to use these effects up in the ‘effects’ toolbar. Select a small area where the colors are very different, but the texture is the same. For instance, the area in the water between the two waves. The water is the same blue (if lighter/darker), but the waves are an obvious white that you want to remain crisp. When you have the proper area selected, choose a blur effect. I used the ‘motion blur’ effect in order to sweep the light and dark water together. Zoomed in this close, it looks messy, but when you zoom out, the effect is minimal enough that the viewer’s eye will likely be fooled into thinking the water fades from light to dark in an even way.

This picture is a result of these steps. Looking at that area, you can still see the places I cloned, and possibly a few places where I blurred two areas together. To get a better effect will require more time, especially zoomed in very closely to see the details you want to make less obvious.


This image was taken with the digicam I previously used for the comparison of pink roses. This is an older image, taken during a summer that allowed for more vibrant roses. You can see that the digicam has no trouble focusing on the big, vibrant blooms, and leaving the house and fence to blur into the background. However, it does not give the narrow depth of field that we saw from the D60. To mimic that effect, we’ll use one of the tools we used for the beach image above. We are going to blur some of the pixels to make them look more out of focus. There are two ways to do this.

One way is to select the roses in the foreground (don’t forget the leaves that are at the same distance), copy them into a new layer, and then blur the entire image behind them. Select the roses using the Magic Wand tool (set at 40% tolerance) and use the ctrl-key to select additional patches of pixels. Use your Undo option if you accidentally select more than the subject you want to keep in focus. The other way, the one I chose, is to select the roses (again using the Magic Wand tool), and then reverse our selection (Edit-Reverse Selection) and copy everything except the roses into a new layer. Putting that layer on top of the roses, I deselected it, and used Gaussian Blur set to 10. This allows a little bit of overlap for the blurred pixels to cover the edges of the roses. Doing it the other way would cause a rather sharp edge that makes it look like the roses were cut outs from a different image and out of place in this scene.

This is the result. It isn’t exactly what a dSLR would give you, but it is closer. Just like with the beach image, more effort and more time spent perfecting the edges and making sure the selections were exact would allow for an even more effective illusion of a narrow focus. Nevertheless, 10 minutes and knowing what you are aiming for, and you have the soft, dreamy look with a specific subject that is still crisp but now stands out more from its background.

Somehow, crisp roses look a lot better than they sound.

Steadying your Point-and-Shoot

The D60 came in and it is looking quite pretty. Functionality is good, and the results have been … satisfactory. More on that when I run out of other things.

Last time, I talked about how to trick a point-and-shoot camera into focusing on the right element in view. This time I’m going to give you a few pointers on how to get the best clarity from that shot.

When a picture is not well focused, there are a few reasons why this might be the case. It could be that the camera itself was focused on the wrong thing; ie: that leaf in the foreground as opposed to your real subject further on. It could also be that the subject was in motion, smearing the image across a clear background. It may even be that the image was too dark, and the camera kept the shutter open too long in an attempt to get enough light. Finally, YOU might have moved.

We’ve already covered a few ways you can trick a camera out of doing the first hiccup. The second is not something that is easily controlled. If we are talking about a car going by, then the solution is to somehow move your camera with the vehicle so that it is the background that blurs but the car stays crisp. But if you’re taking pictures of a group of children and they are not, as children never seem to, holding completely still, then you will get smear-blur. There’s no single element for you to move your camera with in order to clarify it, and you’d never be able to keep up with the randomness anyway.

The second, third, and fourth hiccup are actually the same problem. The shutter is open for a set length of time, letting the sensor ‘see’ the image, and then the shutter closes again when enough light has passed through. Sometimes there is plenty of light, but the shutter is simply too slow to completely avoid smear-blur. From the time it opens to the time it closes, your subject has moved, even when the shutter is moving as fast as it can. In dark settings, the automatic camera will keep the shutter open longer in order to keep you from having a flat, black image, maybe with a spot of light from a street lamp or something. You are more likely to get a blur during dark times than any other, because the camera is attempting to adjust for this no matter what is moving. When the camera itself moves during the time where the shutter is open, EVERYTHING will smear. Unless you are moving the camera WITH your subject, I mean. But that technique is difficult and it takes a lot of practice to freeze a moving element by moving your camera exactly as it does.

There is not much you can do about your point-and-shoot camera’s shutter speed. You could slow it down, for artsy trick shots (or things in the dark that you know will suddenly get bright, like fireworks). The best you can do is select the automated settings designed for specific situations, like the fireworks setting, sports (for the fastest shutter speed), and various portrait or landscape options.

Since you can’t do very much with the shutter, and you can’t control the movement of your subject, the last thing you can do is reduce the amount of moving that your camera does.

The obvious solution is a tripod. Tripods can be expensive and, really, a point-and-shoot camera looks silly on a 4+ foot set of legs. Many of them have the attachment placement, or a bracket to put the tripod’s grips, but it still looks ridiculous. Smaller tripods are available, around the six inch height, but these are almost always designed specifically for the self-portrait types of shots. If you had a brace that was convenient to set the camera on, you wouldn’t need a tripod.

Which brings us to the next solution: a brace. A park bench, a tree, a wall, a lamp post. Anything that will not move can become a steadying support. Place the side or bottom of the camera directly against the object and then frame your picture. Don’t make the mistake of setting a corner of the camera against the object, or taking up an awkward and uncomfortable pose when using it, or you’ll be back to the same problem. You’ll be wobbling and tottering, even just a little, while thinking you were braced. What you want to do is reduce the amount that your muscles are supporting the camera – muscles are designed as a compensation mechanism. If you were to stand up straight, completely still, you could feel your muscles at the front and back of your ankles working to keep you steady, alternating pulls to compensate for slight motion and winds gravity and whatever else is trying to get you into a prone position. Your bones do not have this problem, so if there is nothing else available for a brace, use your own skeleton. That is to say, if worst comes to worst, sit on your butt and set the camera on your bent knee. Your foot and your butt are working as two legs of a tripod, and your musculature isn’t involved in any way (except to keep your skeleton together, I guess). Instant tripod – sort of. Bi-pod? There IS such a thing as a monopod…

Let’s create a monopod for those people uninterested in sitting on cold, wet grass. Or gravel. Or in the middle of a forest, or at a sporting event. There are plenty of reasons you may not want to put your skeleton to use. Rather than go out and purchase a 4 foot monopod, we’ll instead make use of that screw-hole for another item. A screw. Attach a long thread, maybe of yarn or some other string that will not stretch, to the neck of a screw that will fit into that aperture. Make sure the string is long enough to tie, and then have enough length left over to have about half a foot on the ground. Then screw it into the tripod receptacle and let the string hang from your camera to the ground. Now step on the dangling end of the string. Remember how we mentioned your musculature was a compensation mechanism? Well we are going to force it to compensate for a force that will not move, hopefully keeping your muscles as still as possible. Pull upwards on the camera until there is no slack in the string (keep your foot solid), and now compose your picture with a steady camera, held aloft by your arms which are fighting a consistent pressure of a string pulling down. Instant poor-man’s portable monopod!

As always, do your best to make sure there is plenty of light so the camera is not having to compensate with a slower shutter speed. Don’t rely entirely on the flash, as even at it’s best, flash imagery can look garish. There is no better way to add 5 pounds to a person, while still making them look like a cadaver, than to have a straight-on flash be your only light source.

But at least that picture won’t have any motion blur.

Photography Tricks

There is a wall, when it comes to photography. It’s when your equipment can not perform what you’re trying to ask of it.

Some will say, even with a non-pro soccer ball, Beckham would beat out the average player on the field. However, even Beckham may admit he’s not having much fun on the field if the ball is flat. A child could make do, maybe have some fun, but no one can really accomplish much with it.

So my first step into dSLR is the Nikon D60 and a couple of lenses that came in a kit – hopefully that will get me over the wall, and I can start to expand my knowledge of the craft.

In the meantime, remember that other soccer ball? Can’t do much with it, but it can be a little fun. You have to learn some tricks, too, to get it to do what you want. You have to get creative.

Point-and-shoot cameras have evolved to take a lot of the effort out of photography. They have been given auto focus, light sensors, internal image compression, automatic flash, and more. These tools make it easy for anyone to pick up a camera, point it at the subject, and capture the moment with ease. The picture comes out clear enough and bright enough to email back home to mom.

But sometimes the autofocus will latch onto something you aren’t interested in. Sometimes the light sensor gets confused by shadows. Sometimes the flash is a bit too much. And sometimes that image compression winds up just crushing your image. That’s when you have to start learning some tricks.

Until the new camera comes in, I’ll share some of the tricks I’ve learned from using a 4.1mp Kodak Easyshare digital camera.


First of all, defeating the autofocus.

I’ve enjoyed taking shots of various forested areas nearby. It allows me to discover and share the treasures that are hidden out amongst the trees. In an old town that saw a boom and bust over 50 years ago, there are a lot of treasures tucked down in the shadows. Point-and-shoot cameras, though, were designed for a clear shot of the family or house, and will automatically try to focus on the most obvious element in view. Often, this means your camera is struggling to focus on the tree branch or twig that is dangling down in front of you. You may not even see it, because your attention is on the decrepit house in the woods. But when you get home, load all your images, and inspect your hard day’s work, you’re definitely going to see that twig. In high relief. Maybe there’s a blur in the background that was a house – maybe not even that.

To combat this autofocus feature, you have to know what it’s doing and play along. Depressing the shutter release button half way causes the camera to focus and take a light reading. If you’re lucky enough to be on a shaded road, you can turn to the side and point your camera down the lane to approximately the distance between yourself and the subject you’re actually going to shoot. Let’s say the house is 20 yards into the woods. Let the camera focus on the road about 20 yards away. Keeping the shutter release halfway down, turn back to the house and snap the picture. Voila, the camera should ignore the limb, twig, leaf, or anything else that may be in the way. After all, it’s already focused in and set to take the picture.

Pro-tip. Remember that, while autofocusing, it is also taking a light reading. If your road is well-lit, and the house in the woods is shaded, your camera will be trying to adjust for the bright road and you will lose the house in darkness. You may try shielding the light sensor on your camera with your hand to reduce the amount of light hitting it, but suddenly you’re changing this trick from “Not an exact science” to “A shot in the dark.”

And those pictures rarely come out right.