The apocalypse, regardless of how we perceive it as individuals, is something that we all fear. Whether it be the four horsemen, or a storm of ICBM’s falling like angels of death from the sky, the apocalypse is generally considered to be “a bad thing“. Recent developments in photography, however, mean that it is now possible to prepare oneself for the apocalypse, so that it’s not such a horrific sight when it arrives.

HDR photography is a relatively new technique within the field of photography. It consists of multiply-processing the crap out of one image to make it incredibly horrific; or combing a number of particularly crap pictures to create an unimaginably polished turd.

HDR stands for: “Hurts & Damages Retinas“.

To create an HDR image requires special software. Most people choose to steal whatever is available from the wide variety of Bittorrent sites on the internet, but it’s possible that you can get a pikey friend of yours to do you a knock-off copy of something they’ve already nicked if you’re not too tech-savvy. Here’s how it works:

Take an image that you’ve already taken. For the purposes of HDR, it helps if the image has no redeeming qualities and is at least 2 stops underexposed. Here is our tutorial image before we’ve done anything to hurt it:

As you can see, it’s dark, blurry and generally upsetting – All things that you’d associate with the end of the world.

The next step is to drag the image into your chosen HDR software, kicking and screaming if necessary. The actual technicalities of the processing are unimportant. The only thing to remember is that you absolutely MUST drag all adjustment sliders AS FAR AS IT IS POSSIBLE TO MOVE THEM. In fact move them further if you can:

Note the sliders enclosed within the red circle…

Finally, save the image, and import it into your chosen photo editor. It’s always a good idea to increase the saturation some more, whilst subtly increasing the contrast on the sky. Before you’re ready to save the image, don’t forget to oversharpen it several times to make it look it’s absolute best.

And voila! You’re own personal view of the apocalypse. I’m sure that you’ll agree, nothing that comes after this could ever frighten you more:

Bookmark This:

I’ve just found this incredible competition on Gill Taylor’s blog, where you can win an entire wedding photography package for free. Gill is an incredible wedding photographer based in Staffordshire and her work is well worth a look.

Bookmark This:

Firstly I realise that I’m a girl posting on a blog full of men and I’m about to tell you why female photographers are so much better for boudoir, I’m aware I might just get shot but hey I can take it.

OK, so if you don’t know what Boudoir photography is all about it’s been around for a while but lately it’s getting picked up everywhere.

Boudoir is about you, yes girls that’s you, it’s about being sexy, it’s about being fierce, it’s about celebrating the woman that you are!

So there are male photographers who do boudoir and I’ve seen some great stuff shot by men but can a man really get into the mind of a woman? You know the old adage that men are from Mars and women are from Venus, well I think that’s a pretty true statement.  As a woman I know when I photograph my clients how they want to look and feel and I also know that we women have hang-ups that men don’t even notice. A woman might be a size 8 and still hate her tummy and as I woman I thoroughly understand that, and I think women are more open with women than they are with men.

Hey, I have pretty much an all male group of friends but if I’m ever going to have a boudoir shoot I wouldn’t in a month of Sundays hire a guy.  I trust that women know how women want to look and it’s usually a whole lot different than the way men think they want to look. Essentially boudoir isn’t salacious, it’s not even in the slightest bit slutty and it’s only suggestive if the woman wants it to be.

I also have lumps and bumps (and more than most I hasten to add) and it’s posing by a woman for other women that ensures that my ladies end up with photographs that they love so much they want to share them with their partners and in some cases the entire world.

I truly believe that the male psyche cannot ever understand female body hang-ups because the average man doesn’t ever have them, when was the last time you spoke to a man who was worried about the way his tummy or boobs looked, hell men don’t even have boobs so how can they appreciate how we women feel about them, and believe me when I say that men have a different way of thinking about them than we females.

So I realise now that this posting may be slightly controversial but when I first approached the guys about guest blogging I was told to think of something thought provoking and I really hope this has been, I would love to hear your opinions (male and female) can men ever compete in the world of boudoir and do they understand the needs and wants of women seeking boudoir photography?

Bookmark This:

Horst P Horst said something to the effect that the quality of the image “…has to do with eye appeal”.

Eliot Erwit, in an interview with Australian photographer Peter Adams, said:
“Good photography is not about zone printing or any other Ansell Adams nonsense. It’s about seeing. You either see or you don’t see. The rest is academic. Photography is simply a function of noticing things. Nothing more”.

Okay…..I don’t fully agree with the Ansell Adams bit, but I do agree with the principle behind Erwit’s rather forceful statement.

I entered wedding and portrait photography when Monte (Zucker – website here) and the other wonderful guys from America were trying to educate us Aussie clods about posing and lighting. And they did a terrific job of it too. Most quality Aussie photographers owe a lot to Monte, Leon Kennamer and the like.

And quite so. Wonderfully simple lighting concepts (most of the time) and effective, elegant posing (all of the time) and above all else – animation and life in the subjects (something many photographers have forgotten in the search for perfect pose and perfect light!)

Here’s where my quote comes in: “Good Wedding photography is not about complicated posing, painted backdrops, sumptuous backgrounds or five lights used brilliantly. It is about expression, interaction and life! The rest is secondary”.

Elliot Erwit also said: ‘All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for an inability to notice’.

(If I seem to quote lots of other photographers, it’s not me showing off, it’s simply a reflection of the richness of information already dispersed to us…we just don’t always remember. Or study. It’s also often easier to pin our hopes of greatness on a new lens, or another light)

But the most blindingly simple thing anyone ever said to me about Wedding photography, was also this simplest: “Weddings are a social ritual. What makes a Wedding different from all the other social rituals? How do you show someone a Wedding who has no idea what this event involves, or how it progresses”?
(Tony Whincup Anthropologist, New Zealand Master of Photography and educator in photography.)

You see I’d been led to believe that Wedding photography was all about the right pose, the right light and a written-down series of manufactured images.

And it truly is. But that is the beginning, not the pinnacle.

For me, the most important aspect in photographing a Wedding is involving yourself with the event and the people. It’s about the vivacity, the interactions and sheer life force that is bought to the surface. (I just love it when people think I’m a friend of the couple they just haven’t met yet, which happens to do photography!)

If you’ve studied and practised posing, observing lighting, and learned to assess an environment you’re halfway there. But how good are the images going to be if your priorities are with the technical, and not with the activity happening before you?

A beautifully posed and lit image of a subject who has gone dead-behind-the-eyes is exactly that. The subject has no FEELING in, or for the image. They may agree they look good, and in the absence of an alternative – they will accept the image.

There is nothing wrong with an image construction. Advertising photographers deal with it everyday. But still we come back to the essential of a people picture that goes far beyond technique. And that is the photographer giving life to the creation they have assembled. Otherwise, why would so many people say, so often, and with such conviction that they like “caught” images of themselves rather than the posed?

I challenge you to think of the eyes and entire body language of a person. You know when an attractive person is REALLY relating to you?…and you also know when that same attractive person is suffering from “The lights are on but no-ones at home”.

People go “dead-behind-the-eyes”. And it is the mark of the true Master photographer that you can see the life within – even in a solemn or reserved portrait.

Great looking people still have to be animated in a positive way to look great. The pose is a contributing factor to the success of the image – not the be-all and end-all.

We only have to look at the brilliant portraits made for such magazines as “Vanity Fair” to understand the importance of interaction and communication between photographer and subject.

Lastly,

The most distressing thing to hear from any photographer is that they’ve “Seen it all before”. Sad, because that means there’s nothing left to see. It’s something I try to never say, although I might well suggest great familiarity with it all. Every wedding has a skeletal resemblance, but the musculature is always different. Saying you’ve seen it all before removes your ability to react to, and respond to wonderful interactions. It makes you cynical. Cynicism is one of the greatest contributors to a lack of creativity. And if you cannot be creative – then how can you gain satisfaction and enjoyment from an occupation based on creativity?

In this day and age it surprises me that so many photographers believe there is only one attitude, one way of doing something, and one acceptable result. Take digital for example. The number of well-educated and experienced photographers who say, “The only way to get quality is on film” is unbelievable. They have obviously distanced themselves from the information and education surrounding digital. Or is it clinging to the known out of fear of the unknown? Are we afraid of having to learn new things and of being the “new boy again?”. I think the answer, for many of us, (sadly) is yes.

Bookmark This:

James Burns

Name: James Burns. AKA: Monty, Montgomery, Burns and a variety of other names not really appropriate to use here.

Occupation: Owner of contemporary lifestyle photography studio, Flawless Photo. Resident IT geek. Object of ridicule.

Best Points: Chiseled good looks, erudite wit, wonderful sense of humour.

Worst Points: Utterly delusional.

Likes: Daft hats, smiling, continental lager and curry.

Dislikes: Mornings, oily fish.

Is here because…: It was all my idea.

Bookmark This: