Break Down Your Own Photo -- why, what, how, etc.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

I got this idea from one of my own posts several months ago. Casey asked me to break down all of the details of a particular photo I took.

Breaking down photos does several things: one, it can serve as a tutorial for those who are viewing it. Two, it will likely increase the diligence and thoughtfulness that you put into your own pictures.

I'm pretty hard on myself when it comes to my pictures. If I can't explain the details of the shot (composition, exposure, etc.), I probably shouldn't publish the picture. If I do publish the picture, and didn't intend to shoot it a certain way, then it's just luck.

I've found that many photographers I've run across don't put very much thought into their pictures. They have one thing they're trying to do but they can't explain many of the elements that are present in their shot.

I think that, if you want to get good at anything (and especially photography), you should be thinking of every element in your photos before you click the button.

I've found that my pictures are more technically sound and they're better because I think about everything before I take the picture.

I'll use one of my older pictures to kick this thread off.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6109/6305147253_2af4b6f5aa_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zhpmafia/6305147253/)
Nikon 50mm f/1.4 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zhpmafia/6305147253/) by Marky Marcus (http://www.flickr.com/people/zhpmafia/), on Flickr

Camera: Nikon D700 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001BTCSI6/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=linhstuff-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B001BTCSI6)
Lens: Nikon 50mm f/1.4 (http://www.dpbolvw.net/click-4193730-10784043)
Editing software: Adobe Lightroom (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007BG9VLK/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=linhstuff-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B007BG9VLK)
Exposure: 0.005 sec (1/200)
Aperture: f/5.6
Focal Length: 165 mm
ISO Speed: 200

One of the things that I look for is patterns (I'm always looking for repeating patterns). Here, you can see that the rings in the fence give me that. Additionally, the gate itself provides a repeating pattern. Similarly, look at the bricks on the building. You have repeating patterns there on both the right side and left side of my picture (even though I've blown out the background).

Further, I have focused on a particular ring on the fence. That one is in focus, while the rest of the rings are out of focus. Those out of focus rings serve as a frame for my in-focus ring. Same goes with the brick wall again. It serves as a frame for that in-focus ring as well (though the ring is much closer to the left-side bricks). Notice also that the rings are surrounded (top and bottom) by two long rails. Those frame the circles and help lead the viewer to my in-focus ring. The long rails also lead the viewer to the bokeh payoff on the right-hand side of the picture. Your eyes naturally follow the rings down toward the wall -- and right to the bokeh balls.

Meanwhile, I used an f/2.2 stop because I wanted the viewer to get some detail in the background. Even though I was using an f/1.4 lens, there was no need to shoot wide open. In fact, I rarely shoot wide open. Since I am close enough to my subject (the gate), I am going to get a nice blown out look anyhow. There is no point in shooting at f/1.4 (which often invites chromatic aberration and blows out my background completely). I also would have lost the background detail I was trying to preserve. When I was setting up my shot, I knew that I could get everything I needed at f/2.2. What's more, I've practiced enough to realize what my shot will look like at f/2.2. This is why I tell people it's so important to practice, practice, practice. You practice enough and you have a good idea of what your shot will look like before you ever shoot it. Still, after I took the shot, I still confirmed that I had the look I wanted. (I also wanted to make sure that the ugly sign on the blue door was blown out enough. It was.)

In post processing I shore up any compositional issues that weren't quite perfect straight out of camera. In this particular case, I cut a little bit of stuff off the left side of the picture (it was unnecessary) and I cut off a little bit off the right side of the shot (there was a lot of light over there that was distracting to me. I figured it would be distracting to my viewer, too).

Straight out of the camera, the picture lacked the warmth I preferred for this shot. As a result, I turned up the temperature just a bit. That did two things. One, it gave the bricks a bit more play in the picture and it gave me a nice reflection on the gate from the bricks.

Finally, I turned up the contrast just a bit, too, because I wanted the gate and bricks to be clearly separated. Ditto for my wall, which I wanted to be much brighter against my right side of the picture, which has shadows and green in it.

[UdubBadger]

fantastic

[UdubBadger]

also a lefty

[Marcus-SanDiego]

I was especially a lefty early in my shooting career. I'm working on getting more right-side orientation shots, though.

[johnrando]

also a lefty

Was going to say the same thing! lol

[Marcus-SanDiego]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7018/6723673923_3150560a85_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zhpmafia/6723673923/)
C. Withers Media Group posse (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zhpmafia/6723673923/) by Marky Marcus (http://www.flickr.com/people/zhpmafia/), on Flickr

Camera: Nikon D700 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001BTCSI6/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=linhstuff-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B001BTCSI6)
Lens: Nikon 50mm f/1.4 (http://www.dpbolvw.net/click-4193730-10784043)
Editing software: Adobe Lightroom (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007BG9VLK/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=linhstuff-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B007BG9VLK)
Exposure: 0.005 sec (1/160)
Aperture: f/3.5
Focal Length: 50mm
ISO Speed: 200

This picture was taken on Sunday morning (about an hour before we headed home). We wanted to get some Starbucks, so we headed down to Market St. in San Francisco. (As it turns out, the guy we were looking for at Starbucks wasn't there. He was likely in San Diego, the employees told us, waiting for some inspiration. No idea what they meant but whatever.)

Anyhow, because we were just running an errand, I could only take one lens. I chose the 50mm f/1.4. It's a versatile lens that lends itself nicely to street photography. On our way back from Starbucks (pumpkin spice latte, anyone?), I wanted to get a picture of the C. Withers Media Group boys. I don't recall why we stopped here but I saw the shot.

Originally, John was on the right side of the parking meter (his right, my left). I didn't like his location, so I moved him to the left side (my right) of the meter. That did three things. One, it brought him more into my frame (and closer to my MAIN subject). Two, it gave John a more relaxed look as he leaned on the meter. He was also situated closer to Albert, who looked very relaxed. Three, by putting John in that location, it allowed me to frame him in three different ways. The first is that it allowed me to frame Albert and John between the two poles. Second, you can see the framing above their heads. Three, I have the parking meter next to John and the wall next to Casey serving as yet another frame. Finally, the two boys are in the left third of the picture while Casey is in the right third of the picture. No one is center composed.

Casey, meanwhile, is my main subject (but just barely). I put him just a step closer than the boys. I also used him as my focus point. However, I shot this picture at f/3.5 so that it would not distort Albert and John, who likely would have been out of focus if I used a lower f stop. So, f/3.5 was a good choice. It was also a good choice because it still gave me the separation between my subjects and background (notice that the California sign is starting to blur a bit).

Casey is framed by the wall and the pole to his left. If I had decided to, I could have put Casey between the California sign and the "do not block intersection" sign. I was going for a more relaxed pose, though, so I decided to leave Casey leaning on the wall. I also needed Casey leaning on the wall because I had John leaning on the parking meter. I wanted that symmetry. (One nit that I do have with this picture is that the signal light above Casey's head is not separated enough. I probably should have edited it out or had Casey lean his head a little to his right. Doesn't matter, though, it's my small nit; it doesn't kill the picture.) I also liked that "do not block" sign because we'll block whatever we want to block. The picture should give you the feeling that we don't care about blocking anything. We owned that section of the street. You could just imagine us pulling up and blocking that location.

In the meantime, I initially started shooting this picture while I was standing up. I couldn't get the look I was going for, though. After a few shots, I told the boys to hold on! I can get this shot (the one I want) by kneeling down and getting at waist level. That also allowed me to get everyone's feet in the shot, which was important to me. I probably took five pictures from waist level. I chose this one because I was looking for a certain expression from each of the guys. In a few of them, the guys were smiling too much. In others, the guys were not posing the way I wanted. This shot, though, captured the look I was going for.

A few other things about this shot. One, I definitely wanted that Starbucks drink in Casey's hand. I also wanted Albert holding that Go Pro camera he has. The Starbucks drink serves as a reminder that you're just a click away from working at Starbucks if you don't keep your skills up. And the camera that Albert had served as a reminder that, even while we were relaxing, we were still working.

It was fairly dark on Sunday morning (complete cloud cover) and we were next to tall buildings, which didn't allow a lot of light into the picture anyhow. But I resisted the temptation to up my ISO, drop my f stop, or slow down my shutter speed. I wanted this picture to be a little darker, so I under exposed it just a tad. It was all part of the look I was going for.

In the end, this was one of my favorite shots of the trip. It makes me smile because the boys are posing like gangsters at the end of a fruitful trip to San Francisco.

[imola red zhp]

Great Marcus, I like this pic a lot too, and because I had just met you guys a day earlier this pic makes me feel like I was there for your trip, hope you all make a trip like that again here in the future ...

sent from Dennis' Droid using tapatalk

[Ryans323i]

C. Withers Media Group posse:
Really great read. Learned a thing about framing. One aspect of the picture that you didn't mention, and that stood out to me, was the "do not block intersection" sign. When I first viewed the picture, I noticed it right off and thought it was very symbolic of C. Withers Media. I took it as, "Do not block C. Withers Media intersections", they can't be blocked, or restrained from intersection/junctions/crossroads. All avenues will be dominated by C. Withers Media.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

C. Withers Media Group posse:
Really great read. Learned a thing about framing. One aspect of the picture that you didn't mention, and that stood out to me, was the "do not block intersection" sign. When I first viewed the picture, I noticed it right off and thought it was very symbolic of C. Withers Media. I took it as, "Do not block C. Withers Media intersections", they can't be blocked, or restrained from intersection/junctions/crossroads. All avenues will be dominated by C. Withers Media.

Ryan, I did mention that aspect. From the write up:

"I also liked that "do not block" sign because we'll block whatever we want to block. The picture should give you the feeling that we don't care about blocking anything. We owned that section of the street. You could just imagine us pulling up and blocking that location."

I think I may have been editing when you first read it. Definitely in the write up, though. Glad you mentioned it.

[Ryans323i]

Yep, you must have been editing. Anyways, the picture has so many little and major details, it's neat to hear how each one was thought of and how you composed the picture to create an eye soothing yet theatrical picture.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Nice to hear that you like it, Ryan. Much appreciated feedback, too.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7151/6774662671_4939698943_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zhpmafia/6774662671/)
Downtown San Francisco (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zhpmafia/6774662671/) by Marky Marcus (http://www.flickr.com/people/zhpmafia/), on Flickr

Camera: Nikon D700 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001BTCSI6/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=linhstuff-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B001BTCSI6)
Lens: Nikon 50mm f/1.4 (http://www.dpbolvw.net/click-4193730-10784043)
Editing software: Adobe Lightroom (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007BG9VLK/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=linhstuff-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B007BG9VLK)
Exposure: 1/400
Aperture: f/3.5
Focal Length: 50 mm
ISO Speed: 320

I captured this shot during the last hour of our trip in San Francisco. It was getting ready to rain and it was pretty dark in downtown (because of the tall buildings, which hide light). The sky, though, was gray (and someone bright). As a result of the sky's condition, I decided to underexpose the shot. It would give the shot the illusion that there was actually a bluer sky (it was gray but I suspect that the sensor picked up some blue that I could not detect with my eyes) and I'd be able to use that illusion to make viewers think that the light toward the top of the right building was actually sunlight (it wasn't).

By my count, I see at least ten different shades of light in that shot. I'm constantly on the prowl for pictures where I can show repeating patterns (both buildings have them: floors, windows, lines that are horizontal and vertical, rivets that run all the way down the building on the left), a diversity of light (this shot gives me that), a focal point for viewers (center of picture here, where light is most prominent and funnels from the top of the picture down), cool angles (both buildings leaning toward one another, with clouds serving as break), and a host of other things.

The brightest part of the buildings (center) is my focal point. The focal point is balanced by several frames that lead to the center of the picture. I see ten layers in this picture (three on the right and seven on the left). The logo on the bottom right seems better balanced on that side of the picture, so I slapped it there. Also notice that the building on the right lays on the building to the left. It's the closest building to me. As such, I see a LOT of Vs in this picture -- starting at the very top of the picture.

The first V is created by the sky. The second one is created by the top of buildings. The next one is created by the light sliver on the building to the right (way at the top). The next one is created by the first layer of the left building and the third layer of the right building (layers move right to left in my picture). Additionally, there are Vs all the way down the building. They're created by the concrete spaces between the windows. Finally, there is another set of Vs on the next layer to the left (in the shadows created by the two layers of left building) that isn't as obvious. Each layer on the left building, meanwhile, creates another V (ignore the concrete floors; pay attention to building layers themselves). Also, if you want to take it a step further, look at the building to the right. You can imagine a V there too (though we're looking at the backside of it in this picture. It looks like a spine of a book).

Anyhow, these are the things I look for on a regular basis.

[kayger12]

This is great stuff.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7011/6801725323_1ef2622c94_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zhpmafia/6801725323/)
Dani Ramelli in downtown San Diego (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zhpmafia/6801725323/) by Marky Marcus (http://www.flickr.com/people/zhpmafia/), on Flickr

Camera: Nikon D700 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001BTCSI6/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=linhstuff-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B001BTCSI6)
Lens: Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002JCSV8U/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=linhstuff-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B002JCSV8U)
Editing software: Adobe Lightroom (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007BG9VLK/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=linhstuff-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B007BG9VLK)
Exposure: 0.006 sec (1/160)
Aperture: f/2.8
Focal Length: 160 mm
ISO Speed: 200

One of the best shots I took of Dani Ramelli. I'm probably more happy with the post processing, though (we'll get to that in a moment).

It was 5 o'clock in the evening when I took this shot. The light was absolutely perfect. Prior to taking this shot, I was mostly practicing (shooting butterflies and buildings). :biggrin However, when the light was right, I jumped in and grabbed some shots. The location was absolutely perfect. The glass in the surrounding buildings gave the entire area a wonderful glow (from the reflections).

Anyhow, as always, I look to frame all of my subjects correctly. No exception here. You can see a few leading lines in this picture. You can also see a few lines that frame my subject. The line from the top of the picture serves as a line on our left and runs nearly all the way to rail. That creates a square that our subject is sitting in. Dani is also framed by the diagonal rail on the left -- but it's parallel to her body, which is tilted to the left as well. Makes for a nice, symmetrical look. The other leading line runs from right to left -- right to the top of her shoulder (and leading to her face).

Clearly, Dani is my subject. To make that point emphatically, I blow out the front rail and the background. I was shooting at f/2.8 (wide open) so that I could get this look. In the meantime, see those three bokeh elements in the shot? They are shaped like an upside down triangle. There are actually three upside down triangles in that shot. There is the rail and the building below (white roof). There is the line on the street and the rail on the left. And there are the three bokeh. They all work together. I saw the car below when I was taking that shot and was fortunate to catch it that way. I was only working for the two upside down triangles. The third one was simply a bonus.

Finally, I chose to process the picture this way because I wanted to give it a really feminine and dreamy look. There is a lot of pink in the processing. I also darkened the upper right corner of the picture, so that I had a well-defined square in that area. The left side of the picture was cropped toward the right because it didn't add anything more to the picture.

[UdubBadger]

If you see any of my photos the breakdown is right above my signature...

[UdubBadger]

another good write up Marcus. You know I love the shot (and model) as well ;)

[GSEN820]

Marcus,

Hard to imagine that you have not been shooting all that long. I the explanation really brings the picture to life. I always wonder what pictures mean to the people that are taking them.

Great work

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Been shooting for a little more than five months, Gary.

Glad you enjoyed the break down of the picture.

[johnrando]

Well done, you deserve a pumpkin spiced latte.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

:starbucks

[johnrando]

:starbucks

Forgot about that one! :)

[C Withers Media]

Great stuff Mark, I love this thread.

[L0veZHP]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7018/6723673923_3150560a85_b.jpg

Cali is so clean compared to NYC

[ryankokesh]

Pretty much anywhere is so clean compared to NYC! :ninja

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Definitely clean in SF -- in that area of town. We were in the financial district.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Earlier this week, I posted a picture of my wife and baby. Someone on Facebook said that it was the best picture I've ever taken. I didn't acknowledge his assessment of the picture but I did thank him for the comment.

I'll break that photo down here and tell you why it's NOT the best picture I've taken.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7039/6868148319_04413b5132_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zhpmafia/6868148319/)
Mom and son (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zhpmafia/6868148319/) by Marky Marcus (http://www.flickr.com/people/zhpmafia/), on Flickr

Camera: Nikon D700 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001BTCSI6/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=linhstuff-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B001BTCSI6)
Lens: Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002JCSV8U/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=linhstuff-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B002JCSV8U)
Editing software: Adobe Lightroom (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007BG9VLK/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=linhstuff-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B007BG9VLK)
Exposure: 0.005 sec (1/200)
Aperture: f/5.6
Focal Length: 165 mm
ISO Speed: 200

First and foremost, this is a snapshot. I did not post this picture on the main Facebook fan page of C. Withers Media Group. Why? Because, while the subjects are terrific (to me, at least), this doesn't rise to the level of what I would consider portfolio material.

At the outset, my wife is wearing a backpack. If I cared to make this a top-notch portrait, I would have had her remove the pack from her shoulders. I left it there, which tells you that it's not a picture that I gave a lot of attention to. That's not the only telltale sign.

I also posed them with the sun coming over their right shoulders. As a result, you can see sunlight on parts of their head. Had I really decided to do this picture justice, I would have put them directly between me and the sun, so that there was a nice back light (rim light). The picture would have been better exposed to the right side of the picture, too. This picture is just a bit too underexposed on the right side for my tastes.

In addition, notice my wife's pinky finger. Oops. Didn't quite get all of it into the picture. A more thoughtful composition would have included more of their bodies. I had that option available to me. I could have put the two of them on a bench, had them stand, and eliminated the clutter that was right below their waists in this picture (which you don't see).

That said, there are some nice things in the picture. First, I do believe that I captured their happiness. Probably the best job I've done in this regard since first picking up a camera back in August. Second, the lines that are visible in this photo do lead you to my subjects (I didn't abandon all of fundamentals). Third, I'm quite pleased with the post processing. There is a certain look to this that I do like. The next time I'm down in this area of San Diego, I may take this shot again and apply the processing. I'll also do the picture justice by adhering to all of principles most of my photographs follow.

Finally, I took this picture at f/5.6 with a 200mm lens (shot at 165mm). Unlike some photographers who think you must shoot wide open to blow out the background, I know that it's unnecessary. I can get the same look by getting closer to my subject. I think that some photographers forget that they can actually move their feet to zoom in on their subjects. For those who are interested, the background is the U.S.S. Midway. It's a behemoth but you can't even tell what it is in this shot. I used the ship's hull for lines. The bottom third of the background, meanwhile, is water.

Anyhow, this is not the best picture I've ever taken. In fact, the C. Withers Media Group watermark isn't even present on any of the Facebook pictures that I posted. It's only included in this particular picture because it's on my Flickr page and I care about branding. Otherwise, I would not have included it at all.

[danewilson77]

Great writeup Boss. Helps a lot.

[C Withers Media]

Not going to lie, I like the sidelight on this shot. Gives a great kick to that giant smile. Nice breakdown Mark.

[UdubBadger]

its really hard on zippys head almost like a snoot light. but I agree, adds to the photo for sure

[ryankokesh]

The zipster is one ridiculously cute kid. you two should be super-proud parents (as I'm sure you are :D )

[Marcus-SanDiego]

I'm not saying it's a bad picture; I know I could have done it better, though. It's a nice shot. Definitely not by best shot ever.

We're very proud to be his parents, Ryno. He's a great kid. Anyone who is going to Virginia in May will meet him.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7061/6773389390_6a141e5f4a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zhpmafia/6773389390/)
BMW M3 Ruel De Leon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zhpmafia/6773389390/) by Marky Marcus (http://www.flickr.com/people/zhpmafia/), on Flickr


Camera: Nikon D700 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001BTCSI6/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=linhstuff-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B001BTCSI6)
Lens: Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002JCSV8U/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=linhstuff-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B002JCSV8U)
Editing software: Adobe Lightroom (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007BG9VLK/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=linhstuff-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B007BG9VLK)
Exposure: 0.001 sec (1/800)
Aperture: f/3.5
Focal Length: 200 mm
ISO Speed: 200

I think there are a lot of reasons to like this picture. I'm pleased with the finished photo.

The first thing that stands out is the framing around the car. Notice the tree and how it hugs the M3. It starts from the trunk near the left tire (our left) and works all the way around the vehicle. It looks as though the tree is hugging the car. I touched up the trees in the background just slightly, so that the golden branches in front of them would stand out as a more obvious frame. I couldn't be more pleased with that composition.

What's more, the buildings on left and right work in concert with the car. Starting from the right side you can see that the lines lead you right to the car. Same goes for the building on the left. It leads you to the M3 as well. Similarly, the lines on the foreground (the street) lead you to the vehicle, too.

I was on the right side of the car (our right), so I had Ruel turn his wheels to the right (the wheels on the right side are viewable to us). It would have been a mistake to have them turned the other direction.

There isn't a whole lot more to this picture. The fundamentals were in order and the shot is a simple one.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7062/6954755383_e122422f1b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zhpmafia/6954755383/)
Casey Withers on location (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zhpmafia/6954755383/) by Marky Marcus (http://www.flickr.com/people/zhpmafia/), on Flickr

Camera: Nikon D700 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001BTCSI6/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=linhstuff-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B001BTCSI6)
Lens: Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002JCSV8U/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=linhstuff-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B002JCSV8U)
Editing software: Adobe Lightroom (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007BG9VLK/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=linhstuff-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B007BG9VLK)
Exposure: 0.008 sec (1/125)
Aperture: f/2.8
Focal Length: 180 mm
ISO Speed: 200

This was a dual purpose shot. First, it was a marketing piece. Second, the client's vehicle is still a big part of the shot.

You can't see Casey's camera, but you assume that he has one. He does.

Notice that I got pretty close to Casey when I shot this. I wanted him to fill up most of the frame (from top to bottom). He is the focal point and he is in focus. The car is not. I could have cropped the top part of the frame more, so that Casey consumed even more of the frame, but I thought that this perspective was more pleasing. I also didn't want it to get too cramped near the top of the photo.

I used the lights from the car for rim lighting on the bottom half of Casey. I also have the light on the ground leading your eyes back to the car. I used the building on the left and the bush on the right to frame the car. I made sure that Casey did not get in the way of the front of the car, though I didn't mind if he obscured the passenger side of it.

I also liked that Casey was located in this location because it created several layers: foreground, Casey, car, background.

Finally, I knocked down the brightness (using Lightroom) just a tad so that I could bring some of the sky's color into the picture. I added a little bit of saturation and vibrance as well.

[johnrando]

Nice!

[Marcus-SanDiego]

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6214/7016057163_bb5f79ecc0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zhpmafia/7016057163/)
Concrete Waterfall (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zhpmafia/7016057163/) by Marky Marcus (http://www.flickr.com/people/zhpmafia/), on Flickr

Camera: Nikon D7000 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0042X9LC4/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=zhpcom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0042X9LC4)
Lens: Nikon 85mm f/1.4 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003ZSHNE0/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=zhpcom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B003ZSHNE0)
Editing software: Adobe Lightroom (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007BG9VLK/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=zhpcom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B007BG9VLK)
Exposure: 0.4 sec.
Aperture: f/16
Focal Length: 85 mm
ISO Speed: 100

I've been shooting for seven months. I took this shot when I had less than two months under my belt. I think it serves as a reminder that we're all capable of taking excellent shots when we have a solid grasp of the fundamentals.

I had thought about this location for most of the day. I knew that I would shoot at sunset. Still, there was some tension that I knew I'd have to grapple with. I wanted to do a long exposure but without filters. This particular shot was taken at 5:44 PM, which left me with about 15 minutes of nice light.

Before we get to the photo, understand that it took me quite a while to find this particular shot. I took a variety a shots before I found this angle. It's not an overstatement to say that I really worked this location. In fact, I probably shot at this location for about 90 minutes. While I was getting the desired effect that I was looking for at other places on the property, I just wasn't getting the money shot. They were decent but they were not money. The takeaway is that you should be patient and move around your location until you find the right photograph.

Let's get to the photo. I wanted to do a long exposure so that I could give the water a nice, misty appearance. That presented a challenge. In order to get this effect, I had to leave my shutter open for a half second. As a result, quite a bit of light collected on the sensor. Of course, that's also why the aperture was at f/16. I needed the shutter to remain open for a bit, which would give me the exaggerated look on the water, but I didn't want too much light to hit the sensor (otherwise I'd have an overexposed shot). I knew that my shot would present itself right before the sun disappeared. One other factor at work is that the waterfall could get turned off at any time. The waterfall is located at an office building. I figured that it could get turned off right around closing time, which is right around 5 PM. As it turned out, the waterfall got shut down at 6 PM, 15 minutes after I took my shot.

Anyhow, let me cut to the chase on what my subject is: the flowers.

While there are a lot of geometrical elements in this shot, the lines and paths should lead your eyes, ultimately, to the flowers at the top of the hill. If you are not led there, then I have failed in my job. The clearest path to the flowers, of course, is the bluish steps. But there are other ways to get there as well. You can get there from the right, middle of the picture (the perimeter of the waterfall). You can get there from the top of the waterfall, moving from left to right. You can see the flowers in the frame that is created by the sky. You can get there by the color of the grass and flowers, which stand out from most of the picture (which is mostly golden, yellow, and white). You can also get there by using the "hangman," which is created by the wall on the left (with flowing water) and the glass building up top, which inevitably drops you back down to the top ledge of the waterfall -- and (hopefully) to the flowers on the right.

Meanwhile, there are lots of repeating elements, from glass squares on the buildings to steps all along the waterfall.

[danewilson77]

Thanks Boss. Learn more everytime I read one.

HTC Thunderbolt+TT

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Glad you got something from it, DW. My pleasure.

[johnrando]

Great info, love the breakdowns, and that shot.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7038/6990388375_909e251002_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zhpmafia/6990388375/)
La Jolla, California (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zhpmafia/6990388375/) by Marky Marcus (http://www.flickr.com/people/zhpmafia/), on Flickr

Camera: Nikon D700 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001BTCSI6/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=linhstuff-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B001BTCSI6)
Lens: Nikon 50mm f/1.4 (http://www.dpbolvw.net/click-4193730-10784043)
Editing software: Adobe Lightroom (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007BG9VLK/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=linhstuff-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B007BG9VLK)
Exposure: 0.025 sec (1/40)
Aperture: f/1.4
Focal Length: 50mm
ISO Speed: 200

Casey considers this the best shot I've ever taken. I know it's one of my best; simply not sure if I can place it at number one. Definitely up there.

I think it was one of the toughest shots I've taken, though. At least from a technical standpoint. I was dealing with the sun and shade, which competed for the attention of my lens. Leave the shutter open too long, and I'm blowing the picture out. Don't leave it open enough and I'm losing detail and underexposing it.

As a result of the competing factors, I decided to take this shot from the right side of my location. There, I could allow a little sunlight into my shot without having to worry too much about the sunlight overtaking my picture. Still, I moved just enough (to the left), though, so that I could get enough sun to light up the rail on the right and the rails on the left. I also have enough sun so that the rails on the right cast nice shadows that I think add a lot to this photo.

Likewise, I chose this spot so that I could look directly down the rail on the right. It was critical to me that I get this shot from that vantage point. I focused on the right rail and specifically on the part that undulates about half way down. The shallow depth of field gives me a nice blur on the foreground on both rails. Overall, I think I get a pretty nice film-like picture here.

As for the light on the left, I used that to maximum effect. I really enjoyed the contrast of the orange glow and the dark recesses of the cave. Gave the shot a really nice feel. Reminds me of the glow you'd see in a volcano shot. The top of the cave appears to have stalactites but those are really spider webs (or something similar). If I didn't tell you that, though, you'd probably be inclined to think stalactites first. That was my goal.

Finally, as far as I'm concerned, I think this is the best way to shoot this cave. I love shooting toward the light. It's a more risky shot for most people but I have been taught well. I actually embrace these kinds of shots. Had I shot the other way, it would have been a very boring shot. It would have been darker and it would not have been all that exciting.

One final comment. I shot this at ISO 200 -- even though it was dark in this cave. Rather than up my ISO, and introduce any noise, I decided to shoot wide open (f/1.4) and use a shutter speed of 1/40th of a second. Despite shooting at a shutter speed of 1/40th, using a 50mm lens, I decided to go handheld rather than use a tripod. Had I shot this at 1/15th or 1/20th of a second, I may have opted for a tripod, though. Because my shutter speed was close enough to the focal length of the lens, I figured I could stave off any kind of camera shake. Mission accomplished.

[danewilson77]

Damn. That's one of those shawts I get lost in. Really nice work Boss.

[HokieZHP]

I really like that shot, Boss. Nicely done!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Thanks, Dane and Chris.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5114/6932997882_ff1f61af90_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zhpmafia/6932997882/)
San Diego Sunset (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zhpmafia/6932997882/) by Marky Marcus (http://www.flickr.com/people/zhpmafia/), on Flickr

Camera: Nikon D700 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001BTCSI6/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=linhstuff-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B001BTCSI6)
Lens: Nikon 14-24mm (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000VDCTCI/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=kingjames23-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B000VDCTCI)
Editing software: Adobe Lightroom (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007BG9VLK/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=linhstuff-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B007BG9VLK)
Exposure: 1 second
Aperture: f/22
Focal Length: 24mm
ISO Speed: 160

I scouted out this area about ten days ago. I figured that the best shot would be taken at sunset, when there was plenty of cloud cover in the sky. My belief was that I would get sun reflecting off the clouds, which would look dramatic with a long exposure. Saturday was my day. It was raining on and off and I knew that the clouds were going to look ominous at sunset -- especially because there were some huge thunder clouds in the sky.

Anyhow, I got to my destination late. I was running out of light when I got to my spot, so I set up quickly and methodically. I had to set up my tripod, get my filter out, grab the remote, change batteries (fail on my part), level out my tripod, take a couple of shots to dial in my exposure, and find the right composition. I had five minutes to do all of this and grab my winning shot. Why five minutes? Because it started raining five minutes into my session. I knew rain was coming; didn't realize it was moving so quickly. In all, I got 10 shots. I liked this one the best.

Instead of just capturing the the landscape, I wanted to include the road on the mountain (seen on right). I think I did a good job of tying it into the freeways below but ultimately only my viewers can tell me if I succeeded there.

My favorite part of the shot, meanwhile, is the sun. It's looks disproportionately large. It was glowing like a fireball and its glow reached out through the valleys on the right side of the photo. The left side of the picture, though, looks totally different. It's raining down there and visibility is low. Still, you can see downtown San Diego on the left third of the picture (about one third of the way up).

Something about this shot just works for me. It's one of those shots that may not work for everyone but it's pleasing to me because I've never seen a shot of my city like this.

[danewilson77]

Again. Smarter in my photography now. Thanks Boss.

My favorite part of the pic...is the road......poles......stone wall. The sun is cool as well.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Good to hear, DW. Good to hear.

[danewilson77]

Bump. Other Photogs feel free to contribute in here as well.

I loved reading these.