Sports Photography 101 Part IV - Image Stabilization Feature On Lenses

Welcome to Part IV in this series of posts on sports photography. I'll start by reminding you yet again that what I say in these posts is strictly my opinion based on personal experience - what I do and how I do it works for me. There are many out there who do things differently and it works for them. Regardless of which way you elect to shoot, make sure you test out anyone's advice (including mine) for yourself before you give it a go on game day.

Today, we'll discuss something simple - the image stabilizing feature that comes with many newer lenses. Nikon calls it "VR" for "vibration reduction". If I'm not mistaken, Canon calls it "IS" or "image stabilization". TURN IT OFF. Not tomorrow or the day after, if your equipment is going to be used for sports photography, go to your camera bag right now and flip the switch(es) to OFF so you don't forget.


When I read advice blogs, posts or discussions on photography forums by well intentioned folks advocating the need to use VR when shooting sports I have to shake my head. I reiterate, I am the furthest thing from God's gift to sports photography but I try to develop a fairly good understanding of what my equipment does and doesn't do. I also make it a point to get some hands on, personal experience with the various features incorporated into my camera bodies and lenses rather than take the word of a part time Best Buy sales associate who thinks that a 16 MP point and shoot camera will take better quality photos than a 12 MP DSLR because it has more MP.

Don't misunderstand, in my view, VR is a wonderful advancement that has its moments, just like a lens that is capable of going to f22 and beyond has its moments. In either case, sports photography ain't one of those moments. The purpose of VR is to minimize the effects of camera shake in sloooooooowwwwwww shutter speed conditions. When using the shutter speeds necessary for freezing action (beginning at 1/500th second), VR will do absolutely nothing, unless e.g., you're shooting at a dead run or are being jostled about on a plane with turbulence.

Depending on how steady you can hold your camera will dictate when you should activate VR. I can comfortably hold a camera body with a short to medium zoom fairly steady down to a shutter speed of 1/30th of a second; I can sometimes push the envelope down to 1/20th second; and sometimes I can go a bit slower if I have something on/with which to brace myself or the camera. In sports photography, if you're shooting at anything less than 1/500th second, you're seriously running the risk of blurred or soft images. More often than not, you're shooting at a minimum of 1/1000th second. Under these conditions, there is absolutely no reason to have VR or IS switched on.

Many people confuse image stabilization with subject stabilization. They mistakenly believe that with VR switched on, it will somehow help them freeze a moving subject. It won't. VR does nothing to freeze a moving subject. There are only two things that will keep a moving subject sharp - a shutter speed that is faster than the subject's movement, or when the shutter speed isn't faster than the subject, panning with the subject. 

Since VR is a needless feature for sports, that's what makes a used Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 D ED AF-S my choice for the budget conscious sports photographer as a viable alternative for the newer 70-200mm f2.8 that comes equipped with VR. You don't need it, or at least not enough to where you should drop hundreds of dollars more on a lens that has it.

Not only do you not need VR, VR can actually impede your sports shooting. When you have VR switched on, you'll hear some  whirring noises and the image may move a bit in your viewfinder as the VR feature stabilizes the lens. Admittedly, at fast shutter speeds, image stabilization is minimal if not imperceptible, but during this process the shutter will not fire. When it finally decides to fire, the peak moment may pass you by. I may be old school, but I never want a camera to tell me when it's good and ready to fire even if the shutter delay is imperceptibly small. I want to be the Master of this domain and have it fire when I tell it to.

Reason #2 to shut off the VR feature - it chews up battery power. Before you fire a shot, battery power has been used to drive a motor that focuses the lens. If you're shooting with one of the auto-tracking focus modes (strongly suggested and a topic for another day), battery power is keeping your focus locked in. Last but not least, battery power causes the shutter to fire and then record the image on your card. If you're like me, when you have some down time, you're reviewing your images on the back of the camera to see if you got a shot or shots and deleting images that are useless. Battery drain. A lot of time I'll zoom in on an image to make sure it's sharp. More battery drain. On top of all that, why chew up battery power (and if you're auto tracking, VR is working the entire time you're tracking the subject) by engaging a feature that is superfluous and/or counterproductive?

Reason #3 to switch VR off is the strange artifacts you can get on your backgrounds when VR is engaged. One of the reasons sports photographers love f2.8 lenses is that they create a blurred, out of focus background setting for the tack sharp image of the subject. A blurred background not only makes the sharp subject stand out, it doesn't detract from the target of the image - the subject. When viewers look at a sports image, you want their gaze to immediately snap to the athlete in all his or her glory, not some fan in the stands or the official lurking in the background. VR can often times create some strange artifacts that can distract a viewer's attention as their mind attempts to interpret what that funny looking thing is in the background.

So there you have it. My take on the image stabilization feature on lenses in the world of sports photography. Look for Part V which will cover another topic.

Sports Photography 101 Part III - Noise, Flash and RAW/Jpeg

In Parts I and II of this series, we discussed what makes sports photographs special in terms of content. We also discussed equipment from the standpoint of a reasonable budget. In this segment, I will go through some thoughts on some topics that will hopefully help you lock in and nail those images.

Before I begin, I want to re-emphasize that the following is simply my personal opinion. I'm simply sharing what I do and how I do it based upon over 8 years of shooting sports with digital equipment (an many more with film). I do not pretend to be the Master of Photography such that anything I say should be etched in a stone tablet for posterity. It's simply an effort to share with you what has worked for me through the years and just because I do things a certain way doesn't mean that it's the best way to do it or that it's right.

ISO and Noise - If you are going to do any kind of shooting at night or indoors, you're going to pump your ISO to levels that would make most photographers shudder. I spend most of my life shooting at ISO 1600, a lot of times at ISO 2500-3200, I have pushed to ISO 6400 when needed

There's no doubt that these ISO levels will generate noise in your images and the higher the ISO the more noise you will see. First and foremost, resign yourself to the fact that there is nothing you can do to avoid noise altogether. Accept it and embrace it. Find peace with those images because noise is what it is.

Luckily, the only people who find a certain amount of noise abhorrent are photographers. We're obsessed with it (at least I must confess I am). We photographers are so conscious of it that it can drive us crazy. Here's some good news. Non-photographers don't even see it. They look at a great sports image and are in awe at the depiction of a frozen player flying through the air with outstretched arms while reaching for the ball. They don't see those globs we call noise, especially if it's not over the top. Having said that, there are ways to minimize noise and as with any kind of photography, we should strive to generate the highest quality images possible.

First and foremost is exposure. If you don't underexpose an image, you won't have to adjust it in Photoshop to make the shadows lighter. By bringing the shadows out of darkness, you necessarily add noise to those areas, more so than if the image had been properly exposed. A properly exposed image shot at ISO 6400 will have less objectionable noise than one that is underexposed at ISO 1600. If you don't believe me, take an underexposed test shot at ISO 1600 and then a properly exposed test shot at ISO 6400 and decide for yourself.

The other thing you can do to minimize noise is to resist the temptation to crop the image so as to drastically enlarge a subject in the final image. If you're cropping because you didn't shoot tight enough, it only means you weren't in position to get the shot or it was a shot beyond your equipment's capability. If you're on the 30 yard line shooting with a 200mm lens next to someone with a 600mm lens and the play is on the opposite 20 yard line, your subject is going to be very, very small in your frame. His subject will be large enough where he will not have to crop, or at worst, crop a little bit. You, on the other hand, will have to drastically crop. At ISO 1600, 3200 or 6400, when you crop and enlarge the subject, you will likewise be enlarging the inherent noise by whatever factor you have cropped  - 100%, 200%, 300% or more.

Had you been positioned on the opposite 30 yard line, you might have been able to properly shoot that play with your 200mm lens and capture the subject large enough to avoid meaningful cropping. So, if you don't have the means to have a 600mm lens on your camera, do what you can to avoid cropping high ISO images, i.e. positioning. You'll get noticeably less noise.

Flash - If you ever see or read anything by a well meaning photographer advocating the use of flash during sporting events to compensate for low light levels, stop watching or stop reading and run, do not walk, away from said source. Generally speaking, I can't imagine anyone who knows anything about sports photography advocating the use of a strobe to capture action (unless we're talking about arena strobes mounted in the rafters). There isn't a sporting event that I have attended where photographers were allowed to use camera mounted strobes to photograph a game and no one would dare do so. Anyone even thinking about using a strobe would be quickly escorted off the field or the court.

That doesn't mean strobes do not have a use. Pre-game and post game shots are often times photographed with strobes, using them as fill light or as the primary light source to better illuminate a scene (such as coaches' pre-game handshake, etc.).  I always have a strobe in my case or in a pouch on my waist belt for just such occasions, but once the action begins and until it's over, it doesn't see the light of day.

RAW Versus JPEG - A lot of photographers will tell you to shoot in Jpeg. The reason is simple - Jpeg files aren't as large as a RAW file and you can fit more of them on a card before having to change cards. Another reason is that because Jpeg files are smaller, when shooting a burst of images, you can shoot more images continuously before the buffer will fill up (once the buffer fills up your shutter won't continue to operate until the card has recorded the images shot).

Shoot in RAW. Here's my reasons.

First, cards are cheap. I carry plenty of spares. To me, having to swap a card seems to be a lazy, poor excuse for not trying to record an optimal image and there's no denying that a RAW image is superior to a compressed Jpeg.

Admittedly, there may have been a time when cards were limited to 1 GB (or less) capacity, making card swapping a much more frequent issue. But for quite some time, cards have been available with huge capacities, virtually eliminating the need to swap cards in the middle of a game. Me, I can't fathom filling up a 32GB card during a game. If I ever did, I'd quickly pop the camera open, pull out the card, pop another one in and I'm good to go.

As for filling the buffer, In over 8 years of shooting sports digitally, I think I have filled my buffer once, maybe twice, and only because I was screwing around. Now, I am not one of those guys who presses the shutter as the receiver starts his route and keeps firing until he's getting back up, and maybe as a result, I've missed some special moments. But, by firing in 5-10 image bursts, and more often than not in 3-5 image bursts, my RAW images of the peak action will be of a much better quality, and much more conducive to post-processing adjustments, than the other guy's Jpeg images.

There's a reason why any photographer who shoots for quality (landscape, macro, portrait come to mind) shoots in RAW. I see no difference between other genres and sports and I choose not to sacrifice recording the best, most versatile image possible so I don't have to swap out a card once in a while or so I can shoot 40 bazillion frames of a player getting up off the turf.

There's lots more to cover - autofocus, manual versus aperture priority, shooting vertical versus horizontal, etc. etc. We're getting there so stay tuned.

Sports Photography 101 Part II - Gearing Up On A Budget

Yesterday's segment discussed some basic concepts of sports photography, i.e. what elevates a sports photograph from good to great and how to maximize your chances of getting them. One of the keys to getting those shots is equipment, and that's what we'll be diving into today.

There's no doubt that you can be that blind hog that finds an acorn and manages to score a great photo with a 10MP point and shoot camera during a daytime event. It's clean, sharp, and nails the athlete at the pinnacle of his leap over the top of the line, ball extended just beyond the goal line. His face is perfectly lit by a beam of sunshine and there's a fire in his eyes as he reaches deep inside for one more ounce of energy that will propel him over the goal line.

Everyone gets lucky. The trick is to consistently get those shots, and you won't do it with a 10MP point and shoot camera. Believe me, if it were possible, I wouldn't have invested over $40,000 into equipment when a $200 point and shoot would do the job. I certainly don't enjoy lugging two camera bodies around my neck with lenses attached, a third body on a monopod with a 15 pound lens attached to it, and a bunch of pouches stuffed with more lenses strapped around my waist as I run up and down the sidelines to get in position.

Does all that stuff really help? Yep. It won't guarantee that I'll get the shots but it certainly improves the odds. Is it absolutely essential? Yes and no. As I said yesterday, as long as your expectations are reasonable and you stay within your equipment’s limitations, you can shoot sports on a reasonable budget.

Here's proof that you can nail a good sports image with a modest investment in gear. Taken with a Nikon D2H and an inexpensive 35-70mm f2.8 Nikon lens.

If you limit yourself to sporting events that take place outdoors during the daytime, you can give a lot of sports photographers a run for their money with some basic gear that should set you back as little as $1,000. Increasing your investment to $3,000 and you open new doors. You'll be able to shoot indoors and at night and still capture images of reasonable quality. Just remember to keep your expectations in check. At a nightime football game, you're not going to get every shot that the guy next to you will get with his Nikon D4 and a 400mm f2.8 lens but by moving up and down the field as the action dictates, you will get your share of images. 

OK, let's get into gear in more detail. Some overviews are in order.

You can also get good sports shots with variable aperture lenses. Nikon D300 and an 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 lens.

Full frame (fx) or cropped frame (dx) camera bodies. Your first equipment decision is whether to go full frame or cropped frame, or in camera-speak, an fx-sensored body or a dx-sensored body. Each has its advantages, but if you will only be shooting during the daytime, a dx sensored camera body will rival anything that you will get from an fx sensored body.

Dx-sensored bodies are less expensive. They also enjoy one huge advantage over the fx bodies – the crop factor. Every dx sensored camera body acts as if you have a built in teleconverter (Nikon bodies have a 1.5X crop factor) that effectively lengthens the focal length of any lens attached. That means that with a Nikon dx body, a 70-200mm lens is the equivalent of a 105-300mm lens on an fx sensored body (without any of the disadvantages of a teleconverter such as an increase in the wide open aperture and slight loss of sharpness). The tradeoff is that fx sensored cousins produce noticeably better images at the higher ISO levels (less noise, better clarity).

Tight football shots with an 80-200mm f2.8 lens? No problem if you're in the right position. Nikon D300 and a Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 lens

Frames per second. Next, you will need to consider the frames per second (or fps) capability of the camera body. For sports, a body that will shoot 5 frames per second is the minimum needed to shoot sports. The more fps capability of the camera body, the better your chances will be of getting the shot at peak action moments.

New or used?  Most every camera body and lens I own was bought in used condition for approximately half as much as new gear. Since I only buy from reputable dealers that service the equipment before a sale and have a money back guarantee if the equipment fails to perform, I have only had positive experiences. 

Off brand lenses. With all due respect to Tamron, Tokina and Sigma, my personal experience is that they can’t take the rigors of sports photography. On the other hand, Nikon (and Canon) lenses are built like tanks, will perform through thick and thin, and will outlast any off brand lens.

Indoor shooting with a Nikon D3, Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 lens. ISO 1600

I also believe that Nikon and Canon lenses use the best optical glass available which translates into sharper, better quality images. Last but not least, Nikon and Canon lenses have much faster focusing motors which snap into focus at the touch of a button. The other manufacturer’s lenses are slower to focus. In sports photography, a slow focusing lens can make the difference between getting or not getting the shot.

Thus, I will not include any off brand lenses in the discussion below. If you decide to go with off brand lenses, you will definitely cut your equipment costs. Just remember that you don't always get what you pay for when you do, but you always get what you pay for when you don't.

Nikon D3, Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 lens. ISO 1600

Suggested Outfits. The following are suggested outfits that will equip you for the settings described. These suggestions are based upon my personal use of the equipment listed, having provided me with images that meet my expectations of quality.

• Lean and mean – Strictly for daytime use in good light at ISO levels between 200-400. Start with a used Nikon D2H camera body ($300-$400), a 4.1 MP, 8 fps pro body that I used until four or five years ago. Add a used Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 lens ($300 used, $600 new) and you’re in business for less than $1,000 with an outfit that will reach out to the equivalent of a 105mm-450mm lens on a full frame body. 
• Upping the ante – Still a daytime only outfit, but because of the better camera body you can push the ISO comfortably to 1600 when necessary as light wanes so long as you use some noise reduction software. Substitute a used Nikon D300 ($500-$600) for the D2H and you’re still getting 7 fps in a 12.2MP, tough as nails camera body. Still under $1,000 if you go with a used lens and you’re still reaching out to 450mm at f5.6. 
• Getting jiggy with it – Any daytime conditions are no problem with this outfit, and if you don’t mind some noise in the images (even with noise reduction software), you can try your hand at events played in indoor gyms and at high school football stadiums. Stick with the used D300 but add a $100 used battery grip to goose your fps to 9 fps. Substitute a used Nikon 80-200mm D ED AF-S f2.8 lens ($800-$900) for the lens and you’re right at $1,500. Yes, you’ve decreased your effective focal range to 300mm but you’ve now got a faster focusing, sharper lens that will allow you to shoot in lower light. 
• Doubling down - If you want to press a bit further, pick up a used 1.4X Nikon teleconverter ($250-$275) for daytime use with the outfit above and you’ve extended your lens’ focal length to 420mm at f4. You’re still well under $2,000.
• Best bang for the buck – All of the above, except swap a used Nikon D3 ($2,000) for the D300. The D3 is a full frame, 12.2 MP, 9 fps pro body that rocked the world with its low noise levels at high ISO’s when it came out and still rivals most camera bodies out there. For just a bit over $3,000, with noise reduction software, you can shoot up to ISO 6400 which you will need for acceptable images in high school gyms and at high school football fields. With a full frame body, your high ISO images will look better but your focal range will top out at 200mm without the TC and 280mm with it.

There's a lot more to discuss when diving into sports photography. Hopefully Parts I and II have given you some things to think about. I'm not sure where we will go from here but look for more thoughts on the subject as I ponder what to cover in Part III.

Sports Photography 101 Part I - Great Sports Images And How To Get Them

Sports photography is one of the most exciting, challenging endeavors one can undertake. It involves the creation of images that freeze a split second of action in time without the luxuries that most other photographers enjoy. Sports photographers can’t pose their subject; they can’t re-shoot the image if the exposure or composition isn’t right the first time; nor can they move to a different vantage point for a better perspective once the moment passes.

In order to create a good sports image, three things have to come together for one split second – skill, luck, and the right equipment in hand. Skill and equipment are within our control; luck is not. Fortunately, there are things you can do to have Lady Luck on your side as much as possible, such as having familiarity with the sport you intend to shoot. Knowing the sport makes it easier to anticipate where the peak action will likely take place. With that insight, you are more likely to be in the right place at the right time when a payer leaps to make a catch or dives for a ball.

So where do we begin once you’ve decided to take the leap into sports photography? Let’s start by identifying what makes a sports photograph a great one. Before addressing this topic I want to throw out some overviews. First and foremost, the following is nothing but my personal opinion. Opinions are like elbows - everybody has a couple of them. If you disagree with what I'm about to say, no worries. You're entitled to your opinion as am I. My opinion is based only on my personal experience, nothing more, nothing less.

In addition, the images included in the blog post are images I consider to be some of my better shots. In no way am I elevating them to the category of "great" sports images. They are simply some of the best I've managed to capture with my limited skills and technique.

With that said, let's get into the topic.

What Makes A Sports Photograph A Great Sports Photograph? 

Good sports photographs tell a story within the four corners of the image. A viewer of the image can tell what is happening at a glance. A great sports image takes it one step further. It takes sports fans into the very heart of the game and captures elements that are not visible to them in the bleachers. Accomplishing this task is your mission and you can do so by following a few general rules of thumb.

- Get the face and the ball in the frame. The eyes are the window to the soul. What sets a great sports image apart from a good sports image is being able to see the face and the eyes of the athlete in the image. An image that captures the back of an athlete’s head may have an artistic use but it will be outdone by the same image depicting the athlete’s face and emotional expression. The icing on the cake is having the ball in the frame – in the glove, in the hands, or in the net. Capture these two elements and you’re golden.

- Shoot as tight as you possibly can. Fans in the stands have a wide angle view of the game. They don’t see the grimace on a player’s face when the bat makes contact with the ball or when going airborne to head the ball into the net. You, and only you, can provide a viewer that intensity by shooting as tight as you can.

- Freeze the action. Blurred or “soft” images are no better than if you had missed the shot altogether. There may be some parts of the image that won’t be perfectly sharp due to depth of field considerations but it’s critical that the key aspects of an image are sharp. That’s typically the face of the athlete, but many times it will extend to the hands and feet, depending on the sport.

Now that you have an idea of what makes an image a great one, let’s identify how to you can maximize the opportunities to get those great shots.

- Shoot from the lowest possible position. Shooting “up” at athletes creates images that have a distinctively superior look than those that are taken at eye level. Kneeling along the sidelines or sitting along the baseline allows you to shoot with this ideal perspective. That’s why you see the good pro sports photographers wearing kneepads or sitting under the basket when they shoot. It’s not because they’re trying to rest weary bones, it’s because shooting from the lowest vantage point yields the best images.

- Position yourself where the play will be, not where it begins. Long before the play begins, put yourself in the best possible location for getting that face and ball in the frame. When I’m shooting a specific team or a specific player, I always position myself downfield so that the plays are coming in my direction. If you’re positioned behind the play, you’re far less likely to get both elements in the image. Another reason to position yourself well ahead of the play is that the players will be coming towards you instead of away from you and thus they will become larger in your frame. The larger they become, the tighter you will be shooting.

- Shoot with the sun at your back. When you arrive at a venue, always ascertain where the sun will be during the course of the game. Once you determine this, position yourself so that the sun will be at your back. When shooting with the sun at your back, the players and the field will be lit much better than if you shoot into the sun. When shooting into the sun, players will be backlit which will only serve to create an exposure nightmare for you. If you set your exposure for the available light, the players will likely be underexposed; conversely, if you expose for the players faces, the background behind them will be overexposed. Neither of these scenarios makes for good images.

- Use the right equipment. Let’s say you don’t have any ambitions to shoot for Sports Illustrated or aren’t looking to join the photo staff of your local NFL or NBA team, at least not today. You simply want to get some really good shots of your kids playing on their youth soccer team, or maybe you want to start making some extra cash by taking photos during local Little League games and selling them to the parents. Can you do this without breaking the bank?

You betcha. So long as your expectations are reasonable and you stay within your equipment’s limitations, you can shoot sports on a reasonable budget, especially if you limit yourself to sporting events that take place outdoors during the daytime. In the next segment, we'll take a look at equipment.

One Blue Angel, Two Blue Angels...Six Blue Angels

As I went through the last batch of images from my shoot at the Valiant Air Command's Warbird Museum, I was hoping to do something special with the images I shot of an F/A-18 Hornet on display within one of the museum's hangars. The F/A-18 Hornet is the Big Dog of the Blue Angels' aircraft, the latest, greatest aircraft they are (or at least were) flying in air shows. Somehow, a static image in a hangar, cluttered up by other planes and paraphernalia, just didn't feel right to me. If there ever was a time to push the envelope and tap into what little creativity I have, this was it.

This is the base image I had with which to work. I shot numerous images of the jet after shooting this one by walking around and triggering a flash remotely, and one option I had for a final image was to layer some of those exposures over the top of this one and brushing in the flash highlights to augment the lighting. But, this was something I had already done on a couple of other aircraft images so I didn't want to reprise something I'd already done. Cutting the the F/A-18 out of it's background and dropping it into a different background was my next thought, but I'd already been there, done that with an F86 Sabre so that seemed lame. Then a thought crossed my mind - why not do that but create an entire squadron of F/A-18's on a separate background? That was the ticket.

I found a background that I thought would work and ran it through Perfect Effects to adjust the way it looked. Using the Transform feature in Photoshop after enlarging and stretching the canvas, I adjusted the perspective and cropped the background with enough room to fit a squadron of planes and keep the horizon on the upper third of the image (Rule of Thirds, don't-cha know).

Next came the process of selecting the F/A-18 and creating a New Layer With Mask. Bippity, boppety, boop, Quick Select here, Refine Edge there, Brush in/Brush out and the selection was ready for Perfect Effects. In Perfect Effects, I added Clarity, Tonal Contrast and HDR Exaggerated Edges & Tone.

I dropped the F/A-18 into the background, duplicated the layer five times to create a total of six aircraft and began moving them around as I tried to decide which way to position them. After deciding where to position them, I adjusted each F/A-18 layer with the Transform feature's Perspective, Skew, Distort, Rotate and Scale tools to hopefully make the squadron appear to be parked in the desert landscape. With the Burn tool, I burned in some shadows beneath each plane to further the illusion.

Bingo. A squadron of F/A-18 Blue Angel jets waiting to take off and do their thing. Now if only we could see them fly again....

Camelia Dareheart - Creating A Composite From Two Images Shot Months Apart

Creating composite images are an endless source of joy for me. After discovering the work of +Joel Grimes, a whole new world opened up for me. I do not pretend to possess the photography talent or Photoshop skills of Joel so my images don't compare to those that Joel creates but I try to get better with every image and with every concept I dream up.

My latest composite (above) is the product of two photo shoots several months apart. While at Photoshop World in Orlando, the Westcott booth conveniently provided me with the chance to shoot a model dressed in a period aviation outfit standing in front of a vintage aircraft backdrop (L). When I had a chance to pose her, I asked her to try a few things for me and got 60-70 images of her in various poses. The last thing I expected was to use any of the images in a composite and the image on the left was one that I never thought I would use at all,  but that's one of the beauties of photography - you never know when an image that has never seen the light of day suddenly becomes the perfect image for a project.

Until this morning, I hadn't even processed the image and it remained stored in the bowels of my external hard drives in RAW format. Last night, I came up with the idea of creating a composite with one of the 1940's Stearman biplane images I took this past weekend at the Valiant Air Command's Warbird Museum and remembered the shoot with the model I have renamed "Camelia Dareheart". She was perfect for a composite involving the Stearman so I searched through the hard drives and found the folder with her images. After going through the various poses and images, I decided to use the 3/4 shot of her in the pose you see above left, which is straight out of the camera before any processing.

After running her through Photoshop with some basic processing, I used the Quick Selection tool to roughly create a selection of just her followed by some fine tuning with the Refine Edge feature (Right). I saved the image as a New Layer With Mask so I could further refine the edges and bring back any bits of detail inadvertently omitted and take out any bits of detail that didn't belong by using the brush on the mask. I couldn't resist following this up by running her through Perfect Portrait to smooth her skin a bit.

Next came the background. While at the Warbird Museum, the owner of the Stearman towed the plane out onto the tarmac for some engine maintenance and while I was setting up to shoot a B-25J Mitchell, I heard the Stearman's engine fire up. I grabbed my tripod mounted camera and ran outside the hangar, set up the camera (which fortunately already had a 17-35mm lens attached), composed the image quickly, and fired the shutter. When I realized the engine was going to run for a bit, I took multiple exposures at 3-stop intervals under and over the metered exposure. The mechanic working on the engine was leaning on the right wing of the plane the whole time but I remembered +Moose Peterson's words of wisdom - don't sweat people getting in your frame as Photoshop's "Fill - Content Aware" will remove them. It did - sort of. I had to also spend some time with the clone tool to clean up what Fill didn't get or didn't get right but no big deal. But I'm getting ahead of myself because first I had to open the series of images in Photomatix Pro and create an HDR image from the various exposures. Opening up five of the exposures in Photomatix Pro and using the "Creative" preset yielded the image above. I removed the mechanic and moved on to the next step - removing the hangar and nose of a jet on the right side of the background and then resizing/cropping the background for insertion of Camelia.

In order to make it as easy as possible to eliminate the unwanted portions of the background, I enlarged the canvas (above) and selected the right part of the image (starting with a full height vertical line halfway between the hangar and the spinning prop and then drawing the rectangle box to the right just beyond the vertical edge of the image). Using the Transform tool's "Scale" adjustment, I stretched the image to the right until the hangar was outside the canvas. I then used the Rectangle Marquee tool to do the same thing on the left side of the image as I needed room to drop Camelia in. I started the vertical edge of the left side selection to the left of the left wingtip and extended the rectangle to the left until I was just outside the left vertical edge of the background. I then repeated the stretching process I used on the right side.

Because I wanted to position the plane lower in the final image from a composition standpoint, I used the Free Transform feature to enlarge the image upward and fill the remaining part of the blank canvas. Last but not least, I cropped the image to remove some of the bottom area from the background which effectively moved the plane downward in the image.

Now that the background was sized the way I wanted and with both image layers  opened in Photoshop (Camelia & the background), I used the Move tool to grab Camelia and drop her into the background (above). Then I had a decision to make - was I happy with the final image in color, would I go with Black & White, would I desaturate the background and leave her in fully saturated color, or would I try something else? I knew I had to do something else with her as the background had an HDR effect and she was clean. My gut told me that the image screamed for a vintage look/feel so I decided to run her layer through my Perfect Black & White plug-in to give her a sepia-ish tone. Then I ran her through Perfect Effects and applied an HDR effect along with tonal contrast and the Grunge Goddess preset (Left image above). I had to be careful with these effects as with women, adding a lot of "grunge" can make them look pretty nasty and that is not what I wanted. I did, however, want a sharp, edgy look so I adjusted the opacity of each effect downward to various degrees. The last step (Above, Right) was to add the "Amazing Detail" preset to the mix. That gave her crisp edges that dovetailed nicely with the crispness of the HDR background.

Now that she had a sepia tone, I had to go back to the background layer and do the same to it. Sending the background to Perfect B&W and then into Perfect Effects for some minor adjustments yielded the final image which leads off this post and is re-posted below. My Camelia Dareheart composite. Not a Joel Grimes worthy image but not too shabby.