Creating atmosphere in your photography - taking it to the next level

<p>Hello everyone,<br>

I'm looking for some advice on creating 'atmosphere' in my photography. Vague, perhaps, but let me try and explain. I have been shooting quite seriously for a year or so now. I have a reasonable understanding of technical issues, a basic knowledge of Photoshop and I like to think a natural eye for good photography.<br>

However, I'm getting frustrated at what I perceive to be a lack of 'edge' to my photography. That atmospheric crispness, that I believe sets apart some photographers from good snappers.<br>

An example of the kind of work I mean can be seen here:<br>

http://somethingswedid.com/2010/03/02/photo-wednesday/<br>

http://somethingswedid.com/2010/01/26/ice-ice-baby/<br>

http://somethingswedid.com/2010/02/26/cattle-ranch/<br>

I realise using the phrase 'atmospheric crispness' is really vague, but it's really the only way I can describe it.<br>

So I'd love some advice - are these effects achieved by:<br>

- lighting and variables at the time of shooting alone<br>

- quality of camera and lens<br>

- post production techniques<br>

Or a mixture of all three? <br>

Any advice on how I can progress myself to the next step would be much appreciated. I generally shoot with a Canon 450d with kit lens at the moment. Is it the nature of digital that produces 'flat' images, and as long as the base is good it's all in the post production?<br>

Thanks in advance.</p>

<p> Summer, I am sort of a beginner at this as well, so maybe take what I say with a block of salt. <br>

First, in the first and third links you posted I saw only a few images that I thought were above average and even these didn't seem to have been adjusted very well for exposure, color balance, etc. In the second link there were a few that did catch my eye. <br>

Personally, I am partial to Galen Rowell's (and many, many others) philosophy of trying to follow the light. Or, if you work inside, learn how to set up and adjust lighting elements, or work with natural window lighting. Lately I have been getting up before first light to take photos at first light through dawn, and I also often go out before, during and after the sunset. So, for me, the first step is to capture a great composition with great light.<br>

As to quality of lens and camera, I have seen some great stuff posted on this site made with a huge range of equipment. So, as has been said a million times here, the photographer makes a HUGE difference. <br>

Finally, the post phase is where I personally am currently struggling and maybe that is something we share. It seems to me that if 80-90% of the image comes from the initial capture, another critical 10-20% comes from post processing--and this might be that extra snap you are looking for. I am currently extremely clumsy and amateurish at post and it is what I hope to really improve over the next year or so. At this point, I probably need a good Photoshop class with someone looking over my shoulder to criticize and help me modify my primitive workflow. <br>

BTW, one interesting thing to do is spend a few minutes looking at images in the random image generator on this site--the creativity you'll see is amazing and it might stimulate some ideas.<br>

Good luck--isn't this fun!</p>

<p>In my opinion there in no such thing as <strong>atmosphere</strong> in a photograph. Its just how a photographer perceives that, like, if a photograph is of lesser quality but gives a strong message then its still would be considered as something. Or other way round, it could be of very ordinary subject but worked in such a way that it became a piece of art.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4096989"><em>Summer Nolan</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Mar 08, 2010; 02:02 a.m.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Is it the nature of digital that produces 'flat' images, and as long as the base is good it's all in the post production?<br /></em>No.<br>

It is the nature of poor photography.<br>

What you're talking about is what Weegee called "character".<br>

Decide what it is that you love.<br>

Those subjects create passion inside of you.<br>

Study the masters of painting throughout history to learn how they rendered their passion.<br>

Then go out and photograph what you love.<br>

Take a look at the photos I have posted.<br>

You can see what I'm passionate about.<br>

As you can see, they're all unretouched.<br>

If you shoot my way, you won't need all that fancy software, just your craft and your passion.</p>

<p>Bill P.

<p><em></em><br>

<em></em></p>

</p>

<p>Lighting is important. Soft light is my favourite, but dramatic light is good too. Sunny days can be boring. The images need to reflect your vision, and your interpretation of the place, person or time. You also need a reasonable degree of technical ability. Success is what happens when all the factors come together.</p>

<p>I got lucky - Canon 4MP compact - nice light, nice shapes, nice reflections.<br>

<img src="http://www.john.macpherson.btinternet.co.uk/Resources/switzerlanda.jpeg" alt="" width="575" height="434" /></p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=20196"><em>John MacPherson</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"></a><em>, Mar 08, 2010; 08:05 a.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>Lighting is important. Soft light is my favourite, but dramatic light is good too. Sunny days can be boring. The images need to reflect your vision, and your interpretation of the place, person or time. You also need a reasonable degree of technical ability. Success is what happens when all the factors come together.</em></p>

 

<p><em>I got lucky - Canon 4MP compact - nice light, nice shapes, nice reflections.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, I see a lot more <strong><em>craft</em></strong> than luck here, great shot !</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

 

<p>Summer, I'm a relatively unexperienced photographer too, so take it for what it's worth. Of those 3 links, I find quite a lot of pictures pretty good. But especially the 'Photo Wednesday' photos all seem a bit soft. Not so much a crispness of the environment missing, but more a crispness of the main subject. And while sharpness is not the end-all and be-all of photography, it can help define the subject better, in my view. Whether this is due to the quality of lens, or something else, I cannot really tell from these photos.<br>

In terms of colour, composition I find all of them really quite good.</p>

<p>Summer, all the photos I saw were someone else's. It's easier to receive some coaching if you post a photo.</p>

<p>The photos in the examples are free of clutter, compositionally. There are main areas which support the eye's travel to the subject. Those areas which are inactive, are also completely plain. So, there's a lot of compostional "efficiency" in the photographs.</p>

<p>In some amateur snaps, we'll see more shapes in the inactive areas which are recorded, but frequently ignored. Take light switches and outlets in the wall, for example. These will rarely be featured in professional photographs of interiors unless they're meant, or accepted, to be there. Blundering photographers include that kind of clutter all the time, and may not understand why their photo of ordinary places and things don't come out as well. The difference is not in the equipment or the setting or the paycheck; it's in how much attention was paid to the total surface area of the photo.</p>

<p>Every bit of the surface area of the photo contributes, whether we want it to or not, to the composition of the final image, as its seen by the viewer.</p>

<p>In a "clean" composition, one could draw a border around a large shape in the photo, and almost see right away if it contributes to the composition or not. That odd shape of large shadow area: does it draw a shape that leads the viewer's eye to the subject? Does it support the subject or support something that supports the subject somehow? Yes or no?</p>

<p>In a strong composition, the planes, the planar groups of the 2D shapes, will have function and utility. Even if they're silent, they'll often be silent in a supporting way.</p>

<p>Is that shape worth its place in the composition? Well, if you had to sit down and spend six weeks carefully drawing that photograph, would that shape be worth your time, or is it some clutter detail that you'd want to skip over to get the thing done today? In strong compositions, high percentages of the image's surface area will be there, and earn their keep, so to speak.</p>

<p>The equipment, the post-process, the lighting: those are the tools. Photography is a form of illustration. It's the illustration, the final photo, that gets viewed. How the photographer drew the picture: that's the mechanics of the photograph.</p>

<p>What shapes did he draw? Then, the photographer is leading our eye. Our eye travels across the photo. Sometimes it dwells. Sometimes it moves across the surface area rapidly. As our eye is dwelling and moving, we are receiving the info. We are thinking. It doesn't have to be high-intellect thinking, we could just be sitting there, receiving the photograph.</p>

<p>Did our eye even have a clear path across the photo? Was our eye dwelling on nick-nacks on the bookshelf out of focus in the background when those shapes didn't help? Or, did our eye move to the subject, and also move around the photo?</p>

<p>It's not a scientific formula, but intuitively, we sometimes feel like there's some visual clutter wasting our time. I think the absence of that visual clutter is part of what you're calling atmosphere here.</p>

<p>If you build a strong composition, you can tinker around with the flavor of the image a great deal. That tinkering around is often just a cosmetic gloss. It's often just a trend or by-product of the mechanics of how the image was made. Almost like a coat of varnish, it may not be that structurally important to the shapes in the image.</p>

<p>If Ansel Adams' landscapes of mountains were tinted with the latest photoshop effect, they'd still be strong pictures of mountains. Build a good strong composition first, and that cosmetic stuff will take care of itself. A huge amount of it is just the accumulation of choices. At the core, there needs to be a good, strong composition.</p>

<p>If the composition sucks, 95 layers of effects won't fix it. If the composition is strong, the photographer could add or subtract all or nothing and probably still have a fair chance of getting away with it.</p>

<p>Of the three tools listed in the OP: the lighting is the strongest. It's basically a controlled addition to the fundamentals of the same exposure and contrast schemes that a photographer has to use when he only has the camera alone. The function of lighting equipment is to install part of an exposure plan that might not be there on its own. That's it. If the photographer has no vision, no visualization, over what shapes are going to go where, at least in a very rough idea; well, then all the lighting equipment in the world isn't going to help the photo out.</p>

<p>Strong composition builds good photos. Style is just the accumulation of our disgusting everyday decisions, or lack thereof. [if you'll excuse me, I've got to go make or fail to make some more of those disgusting decisions.]</p>

<p>Summer,<br>

Pay attention to all of the responders. They each have invaluable comments, especially John O'Keefe-Odom. One of my late mentors said, " Always try to visualize the image in your head first. Then take the necessary steps to put it on film. " The camera is merely a tool used to record what we see. Whatever means used to capture are not that important. The end result is the important factor. I suggest you study the light and composition of images that you enjoy viewing regardless of the medium used. Cinematographers use a small viewing device to view a scene before filming. You can do the same thing by either using the thumb and forefinger of both hands to form an " L " ( inverting one, of course ) to make a rectangular frame to isolate a view. When I first started doing this, I used a small piece of mat board with a rectangular hole cut out of the center. By squinting one eye and looking through the other I was able to isolate what I wanted to see. By moving the opening either closer to or further away from the eye, you now have a zoom lens. The real trick is to train your mind to do it without the aid of a viewer. Lastly, post images for critique. There is a wealth of knowledge and experience within the forum members. Together we know a lot more than each one of us individually. Not all of us agree from time to time, but that's just part of life and learning.<br>

Warmest regards,<br>

David R. Lewis </p>

<p>Summer,<br>

Pay attention to all of the responders. They each have invaluable comments, especially John O'Keefe-Odom. One of my late mentors said, " Always try to visualize the image in your head first. Then take the necessary steps to put it on film. " The camera is merely a tool used to record what we see. Whatever means used to capture are not that important. The end result is the important factor. I suggest you study the light and composition of images that you enjoy viewing regardless of the medium used. Cinematographers use a small viewing device to view a scene before filming. You can do the same thing by either using the thumb and forefinger of both hands to form an " L " ( inverting one, of course ) to make a rectangular frame to isolate a view. When I first started doing this, I used a small piece of mat board with a rectangular hole cut out of the center. By squinting one eye and looking through the other I was able to isolate what I wanted to see. By moving the opening either closer to or further away from the eye, you now have a zoom lens. The real trick is to train your mind to do it without the aid of a viewer. Lastly, post images for critique. There is a wealth of knowledge and experience within the forum members. Together we know a lot more than each one of us individually. Not all of us agree from time to time, but that's just part of life and learning.<br>

Warmest regards,<br>

David R. Lewis </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The photos in the examples are free of clutter.... etc, etc. etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very interesting post John. Compostion is, I think, a fascinating subject; I learned a lot from your words.<br>

Thanks, Dave D</p>

<p>Thank you all for your thoughtful and interesting responses. I certainly have an awful lot to learn! I appreciate the time people have invested in helping me. I'm going to post some photos elsewhere on this forum for critique and am going to read, read and practice, practice!<br>

Thanks again.</p>

<p>Step 1 - Take lots of photos in lots of different settings/lighting/time of day/time of year.</p>

<p>Step 2 - Compare your shots to work that you admire. What are the differences? Color? Contrast? Composition? Rendering of moving objects (frozen/blurred)? Softness/harshness of the lighting and shadows?</p>

<p>Step 3 - For every difference that you see, come up with a plan as to how to try to move closer to your ideal look. For instance, shoot in softer light or boost you camera's contrast setting. Note when your plan moves you toward your goals and when it moves you farther away.</p>

<p>Step 4 - Keep at it until you get the results that you want.</p>

<p>A couple more thoughts.</p>

<p>"Good composition" is rather subjective. In looking at the examples, I don't think there's anything noteworthy about the image of the vase on the table. It looks as though someone pointed the camera in a random direction and pressed the shutter. (Perhaps that was the photographer's intent.)</p>

<p>I don't like that the photographer cropped the foot off of the young woman on the floor. That's a no-no in my opinion. The outdoor images are better, but some are poorly composed. The crooked angles in the mailbox photo are annoying. The cows on a hillside look like the work of John Q. Snap-shooter. (Again, perhaps that was the artist's intent.) The extremely high-contrast photo of the woman in the leotard doesn't work for me.</p>

<p>The outdoor photos were all taken on days with some degree of overcast, usually thin and white but sometimes thicker. If this is the look that you want, shoot in that type of weather. The colors are subdued, so consider lowering your camera's saturation setting a little bit from the general setting (but not all the way).</p>

<p>It looks as though most of the photos were taken with a "normal" lens.</p>

<p>The equipment you have is more than capable of taking excellent images. It comes down to you--what, when, and how you shoot. Post processing can add that extra pop that I think you're looking for, but you need to work on an eye for the colors and shapes--perhaps try to pre-visualize what a scene will look like as a 2-D image. The images that come out of a DSLR tend to be a little on the neutral side, ready for you to tweak color, contrast, etc.</p>

<p>Oh my, I read the original posting really too fast. I thought these were your pictures :-) Time to feel dumb...! Does not change much to my earlier response, but <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4296659">John O'Keefe-Odom</a>'s answer is a worthwhile read for all people here... Thanks a lot!</p>

<p>I think the common threads to most of the pictures you linked are: a limited palette of mostly desaturated and light colours, strong uncluttered compositions, and in at least the cattle ranch and Iceland series, beautiful natural light conditions. I guess if I'd have to give some sort of a recipe, it would be 'remove clutter, especially colourful clutter, and wait for nice light', but then again, that probably goes for all photography anyway.</p>