I have a new film scanner, and I’m trying it out on some old stuff until I get more film in the mail to shoot. I recently found my long lost film camera, and I missed it dearly, so I expect to be shoot much more film in the future. Esp. of note is that this new one is flatbed, and thus I can scan around the edges of the frame, using roughly the methods described here. I haven’t exactly figured out how to completely eliminate Newton Rings, but they’re pretty small at this point, so they’re usually easy enough to clone out.

On an interesting side-note, I also found a post on a blog I read that suggests a good method for using Automator to import photos into Aperture when I scan them initially into Photoshop (since Aperture doesn’t allow for importing from a scanner). That helpful tip can be found here.

The process of selecting an image out of many that is the best is a topic that interests me very much, especially in terms of portraiture. I’m certainly not as advanced a landscape photographer as some, but in my experience selecting the best images out of a given set of landscape photos is somewhat simpler, as it tends to involve the more technical elements of photography (level horizons, accurate/intended exposure, etc.) and somewhat less subjective. This assumes though, that you’re working consistently within a given style, and if you’re selecting from a batch of photos of essentially one location or vista. Portraits, however, might involve a single lighting setup for an entire run, no significant variation in exposure, and nearly identical cropping of the subject, and yet the results can vary wildly.

Try to determine the best shot in these circumstances becomes very complicated. It is subjective, emotional, and fluid. It will differ from one day to the next. It may differ 40 times on the same day. What exactly drives me to select a given photo is something I am intrigued by, because honestly it is not something I understand very well, in spite of a great deal of effort to try, but, in effect, I’ll do my best to explore this topic fully right now.

While I don’t necessarily intend to cover the topic of work flow, as it has been addressed elsewhere already, the fact is that it also is somewhat important to consider, so I’ve included here a screen shot of what my (twin) monitors are showing when I’m selecting.

Thank you to Brett, for making this post possible.

For my particular photo organization, I use Aperture, which has served me well, and I’ve talked about it on this blog before. It’s a great tool for sorting/rating/organizing, and generally just not-losing thousands of photos. That being said, any program you have that will allow you to view multiple photos simultaneously should be sufficient.

Moving past the simple work flow issues, things get much more complicated. At this point the photos I select are largely hinged on the mood I’m in. Had a long day and feel exhausted? Sure, I’ll pick the photo where it looks like the subject was pushing rocks up a hill all day. Feeling a little goofy or hyper? Sure, I’ll probably pick this one:

But let’s assume for the time being that we’re straying away from gimmicky photos. If we’re really addressing the beauty of photos, then we are really confronting the complexity of the human form, especially via expression.

This is where things start to get quite personal, and I know a number of photographers will not agree with my opinions on portraiture. I believe that the more subtle an expression becomes, the more complex it becomes. A straight face often shows more of a person than a smile they choose to show for the sake of a photo. One is forced, a mask, and the other is not. While there are certainly many uses and applications for portraiture, I believe that generally a good rule is that the photo is not necessarily meant to make the subject appear “beautiful”, at least not in a superficial sense. Far better to appear a interesting, than to appear physically attractive. In my opinion, appearing interesting will make you attractive to the viewers, even if the subject wishes they had smiled, worn their hair differently, or otherwise.

This is one of the main variances in my shooting method between now and when I first began the 366 Portrait Project. When I first began, after I’d do a studio shoot I’d often upload the images immediately and showed them how they turned out. But what I most often found is that the shots I liked best (and, to viewers who did not know the subjects) were rarely well received (at least immediately) by the subject. Now when I shoot, I often tell subjects that nobody likes a straight-faced picture of themselves, but everyone else will.

Again, not to suggest that there is no place for smiles, warm feelings, or humor. If you browse the project, you will quickly see that I do not hold those traits against a photo. Merely I wish to suggest that if they are there, the dynamic must not always be simple. If a person is happy, the viewer should think about why. Thus generating interest.

The three photos shown above were from a very brief shoot I did of my boss earlier today. They are totally unprocessed and unedited, except to be bounced down to jpegs for upload here. All three images are expressions I find interesting; none would make for a particularly awful portrait. In many ways, this is where the photographer (or editor, photo director, client, etc.) gets to decide how to present a subject. If the photo is intended to stand alone, the selection will often (and should often) vary to a great degree from what you might select if it is to accompany text or a greater selection of photos.

For example, if you were selecting one of these portraits for use in an article about a sly young business owner, you would most likely select the first photo. However, an article discussing whether Mac users are overly-proud of their products, you might select the third.

However, in this context, I was selecting a photo to be used only for itself. And as such, I deliberately chose to go with the photo that was the least clear in its intent. This middle photo does not seem to have any predisposition in it. It is a complicated expression, although you have to look for it to see it. You can’t look at the photo and immediately identify what the subject is experiencing or feeling. You can’t immediately tell how his day, much less his year has gone. Difficult or easy? It’s a topic for discussion. I recently realized the profoundness of this sentiment when I was told recently by somebody close to me that when looking at my portraits, it is difficult to choose an emotion that is represented. In trying to decide, a viewer may scan through dozens of emotions to try to understand what is being said.

And often, every one of those emotions applies.

Happy viewing.

I have been pretty bad about updating this site. The mountain of Costa Rica photos is pretty big and daunting, ergo it’s taking longer than expected to even make time to sort through them. Additionally, life takes unexpected turns, and some of those can be quite a time drain, albeit a very positive time drain. The daily project is consuming the majority of my current shooting, and I have no complaints about that at all. I’m starting to book ahead with subjects so I won’t be scrambling to find someone to shoot at 10pm, with a midnight deadline to get the shot.

At any rate, I thought I’d just share a quick technique I’ve been using recently with some of my female portraiture. For as long as I’ve been doing studio work, I’ve been much more satisfied with my male portraits because I’m better at setting up dramatic lighting, which isn’t becoming to most women.

Recently though I re-remembered an old trick I’ve used long ago that essentially is a variation of underlighting. It simply involves one large softbox over and in front (and generally off to the side) of the subject, and having her hold a large reflective plane, which in my case is a big piece of foamcore backing. This creates a somewhat indistinct light source; there is still a strong light coming from a commonly seen direction, however with a close, strong soft light from below, which is much less common in nature. This creates a very glamorous lighting with a bit more subtlety than traditional underlighting. Plus, with only one light and a reflector, it’s a very quick setup when you’re tight for time.

Below are a couple examples of the technique. Give it a shot, and let me know how it works for you.