Balancing Framing.

Framing is the last major rule I'll be talking about. When you think framing you probably think of an object which surrounds a photo. In photography it's a very similar concept, except the object is surrounding the subject.

Yes, the parachute can be a subject, and yes the lines of the parachute can

lead out towards the outer ring of the parachute. Does one of the lines lead

to a paratrooper? Sure, but I argue in this photo he's not the center of

interest, the parachute is, and the frame is the sky.

In the photo above an object [the parachute] is surrounding a subject [the paratrooper], this is essentially framing.

   But what if I told you our subject was the parachute and the frame was the sky?

 [Insert the Keanu Reeves "Whoa" here]

Here I've cropped and rotated our original photo to have the soldier in a

center of interest.

   I personally like that idea better. The paratrooper is now an after thought. The real question here is, which of the following did you think first? "Wow nice parachute, oh and look at the soldier!" or "Look at that soldier, wow he's surrounded by a parachute!"

   Is he still framed? Sure, but in my opinion if you accept the sky is the frame and the parachute is the subject, this photo works at lot better in my opinion as an example of framing. Also, as is customary, it ties in with last weeks rule of balance

You can see the Subject is clearly in at least one point of interest. We also

have leading lines. But for me, this not only cheating, but it's also just not

as good as the original. Let me emphasize, "for me," because it's all subjective.

   But what if we wanted the paratrooper as our subject? How could we make that our primary focus?

   Well, lets try it out, on our left is a crop. To me, this is a bad crop. Why? Because I've completely changed my center of interest. Practice how you play. If you stop worrying about what you're seeing the view finder because,

"Oh, I'll just crop it later,"

you're already on the bad habit path. Having bad habits very rarely leads to having good results.

   Back to the photo. Our subject is, in my opinion, clearly the paratrooper. But he's a little dark. And as we've already discussed, light is what draws our eyes.


   So lets look at the basics. Is our subject in a point of interest? Yes. Is he/she in Two points? No, but at least we got one. Rule of Thirds, Check. Do we have framing? Sure, the parachute frames our paratrooper well. Do we leading lines to our subject? Sure.

Ultimate question, is this CROP better than our PHOTO? I don't know. It's all subjective after all. If you where to ask me, no simply because I know it's a crop. But I honestly really like the balance of the original. Also, in the crop I really dislike that our soldier still isn't really that clear.

Balancing Act: Light v. Dark

There I was walking on a side walk and I saw this shadow. Instead of just taking any old photo I too the time to compose it. Is this going to win me an award? No. But it's certainly better than had I not taken any time to compose it. 

   It's Sunday, that means this weeks theme, balance is officially over. We talked about asymmetrical balance, finding balance, twisting balance, and almost balance.

   I found the photo above while walking along a sidewalk. I pulled out my cell phone and took the shot. It's not super fancy, it is after all just grass. But I took my time and composed it. It is, in my opinion, and pretty good photo considering it's not a particularly amazing subject. You can't always shoot pictures of things most people will never see at unique perspectives.

   I'm sure you've found yourself walking around and your eye caught something really amazing. So you pulled out your phone and pressed the button. Later you looked at it, found it unimpressive and thought, "Ugh, I'm not a good photographer," or "If only I had a really good camera."

Shadows of the grass are in my points of interest. check. This is about 50%

light 50% shade, so that's pretty well balanced. It's full of lines, I don't know

if I would consider them leading lines per say.

   Maybe the problem was that you just didn't think about what exactly you wanted to take a photo of.  Your subject, after all, is the most important consideration. With your subject in mind pick a rule and compose your photo.

Asymmetrical balance is still in fact balance, but I feel we lost our true

subject, the blades of grass, not just the shadow itself.

   So, lets take a look at this shot. what's my subject?

It's not just the shadow, it's the single blades of grass.

   It was important for me to make sure I didn't have just a big blob of shadow filling up my frame, I needed those single blades to stand out. You'll notice in the shot on the right, which was a quick crop, that my shot just isn't the same. I have shadow in my points of interest, but it's not as balanced. And in my opinion my true subject, the blades of grass, are lost.

Yes, this is just a shadow, but regardless of what you're taking a photo of, it's not excuse to not use composition.

Teetering. Almost Balanced.

Sgt. Salvador Rodriguez braces himself as a UH-60 Blackhawk prepares to land less than 20 yards away from him on Camp Liberty, Iraq on June 23, 2009. The leaflets will be dispersed over specific locations in Baghdad in order to capture a known insurgent. Rodriquez is the administrative non commissioned officer for the 315th Tactical Psychological Operations Company from Upland, Calif. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Felix R. Fimbres)

   So far this week, we had asymmetrical balance, symmetrical balance with tiny subjects, and balance with a twist. Today we're trying to balance two disparately sized objects.

   So the thing about helicopters is that when they land on a dirt and rock helipad, dirt and rocks fly everywhere.

Helicopter in a point of interest. check. soldier in two points of interest. 

check. Leading line? Maybe. Balanced? Pretty close.

   Obviously you want to turn away like the soldier in the photo and probably close your eyes. I didn't do either because I wanted to get this shot. Luckily I had a decent sized camera in front of my face, and eye protection so I didn't really get anything in my eyes.

   Next problem, when helicopters land all the force they're generating to stay aloft is pushing you away from it. So I had to brace myself. Part of the reason this angle is a little low is that I my feet were pretty far apart of each other trying to get as solid of a base as possible. Luckily I'm not a small guy, so I had 230 pounds anchoring me too.

   I aimed my camera at my subject knowing he probably wasn't going to move too much and just waited for the helicopter to get in a point of interest. Timing is huge in a situation like this, and knowing what is about to happen is key, but luck is always helpful.

   Between leaning forward and my mass I was able to avoid getting thrown backwards.

   If you're a lighter person, I would recommend getting as low as possible so your center of gravity is low. You could lay down or try to find something to lean back against.

   So, is this balance? It's pretty close. Our soldier is a little bigger than the helicopter, so the balance could have been better, but it's not quite asymmetrical balance either. 

Balance, with a twist.

April Dudash, reporter with the Fayetteville Observer, interviews a paratrooper on Sicily Drop Zone during Operation Toy Drop, hosted by the U.S. Army Civil Affairs & Psychological Operations Command (Airborne) at Fort Bragg on December 11, 2011. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Felix R. Fimbres)

Almost, but not quite. I almost called this a great photograph. But it's missing just a couple elements. The sky was slightly overcast, that helped prevent harsh shadows, but a touch of flash or some reflector action would have been great. That's called fill light, adding light to fill in the shadows. It would have lit up our subjects a little more and allowed the sky to pop more, getting a more detail out of those wonderfully wispy clouds in the back. As it stands I fixed it up a little in post [Photoshop] by adding fill light digitally instead of with a flash or a reflector. I have a few friends who are Photoshop masters, but really that just adds more time playing with your photos.

If you want to spend a lot of time on one photograph in Photoshop by all means go ahead; but I like to shot and share more than I like to shot, edit, edit, edit some more, share.

Two subjects, very close to all four points of interest, that's simple balance.

Good. A couple leading lines? Also good. A distracting guy in the background? 

Bad. The reporter is a little dark, flash/reflector light would have been great.

   What else is wrong with this photograph? Well there's a paratrooper on the left hand side and he's chopped in half. I don't know personally if I would have rather had him all the way in or all the way out. I think either/or would have made me feel much better about this shot. But half way, that's just not cutting it for me. I went ahead and removed the distraction in the photo at the end of this post.

   So what went right with this photo? Well you can see I have two subjects in and very close to those 4 points of interest, unlike this photo. The subjects are balanced.

This is the easiest way to get balance, find two subjects, give them each two points. Done.

 

Same photo, without the dutch angle. You'll notice I lost the paratrooper

in the background as well. Maybe you like this better. Maybe you don't, this

only serves to highlight photography outside of the basic rules is subjective.

   If you've been following along, you'll notice I added a little of that Dutch angle I talked about here in fourth paragraph. The reporter is tiny, obviously since the paratrooper is kneeling and almost eye level with her. Adding the twist allows them to see eye to eye if you will. I wanted their eyes to be level with each other. So I twisted it.

   I also have a leading line from the paratrooper to the reporter, and another leading from the reporter down to her notes and maybe back to the paratrooper's hand, which kind of has lines to the his bag. Which kind of leads up to his leg and up his body back to his eyes.

   Okay, okay, all those lines are a stretch. But we at least have the two that are pointed out in the photo above.

    Below is a cropped photo which removes that guy in the background. For me, it's less distracting. Is this cheating? By my own personal rules, sure. But to me it's such a slight crop that it's okay. Like I said previously, I don't look down on any photographer who wants to edit his photograph until is perfect to him/her, it's just not my style. I like to edit as little as possible to keep things as real as possible. It is our imperfections which make us beautiful.

Hit me with your best shot.

The view from inside the newly renovated elementary school in Dire Dawa, Ethiopia on June 20, 2012. The school was recently renovated with the help of the 490th Civil Affairs team and Navy construction battalion sailors assigned to Combined Joint Task Force - Horn of Africa. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Felix R. Fimbres)

Not everyone can get honest feedback about the photos they've just taken. I was fortunate enough to have gone through a school where my images where ripped to shreds on a daily basis. This was good. I was then able to go to a public affairs shop were we had lots of new people show me their photographs and allowed me in turn to rip them to shreds. This too, was good.

You simply can't get better if you don't know what you're doing wrong. No one is perfect, even I make mistakes regularly.

So if you'd like someone other than your friends and family to discuss the merits of your work send them my way. Here's how.

Your photo will get it's own post, and hopefully we can get some others to add their own feedback as well.

Beach Balance

Pfc. Thomas J. Snyder takes a photo of Pfc. Christerpher F. Coleman on Omaha beach in Normandy France on June 7, 2010. Snyder and Coleman are PSYOP soldiers with the 325th Tactical PSYOP co. in Nashville, TN and are participating in Operation Air Drop Warrior 10 which commemorates the 66th Anniversary of the D-Day invasion. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Felix R. Fimbres)
 
   I started this weeks theme yesterday with "Leading to balance" so today's image will continue that trend.

   Quick sidebar: We don't normally associate beaches with soldiers in uniform, but during Operation Overlord (D-Day) the U.S. poured thousands of them onto beaches like this off the coast of Normandy, France. When I was with the U.S. Army Civil Affairs & Psychological Operations Command (Airborne) [we also dropped thousands of paratroopers behind enemy lines, thus why we as an airborne unit came to commemorate this historic series of battles] we took soldiers from across our command to remember and be inspired by the hurdles our predecessors had to overcome.

   When I went through my photography training with the Army, posing was frowned upon. With the exception of award ceremonies. Similar to the cries of, "Photoshopped! I can tell by the pixels," I'd often hear,

"Oh, that's posed." and instantly the photograph wouldn't be considered not worthy because it's essentially been faked.

Balance? Check. Leading Lines? Check. Rule of Thirds? Fail.

   So what does any of that have to do with this shot? Well, I didn't fake it for one. For two [yes grammatically incorrect] because of that my subjects, in my opinion, aren't as clear as I would have liked them to be. Is that an excuse? No, of course not, I still used at two elements of composition, so there.

   All joking aside. You'll notice right that my subjects aren't in any of the points of interest. But they are balanced. The sky, ocean, and beach are ALMOST balanced horizontally as well, but not enough that I would consider that balanced. Those two soldiers however are well balanced. Their heads/eyes also give us leading lines.

   So, back to the "observe and document, don't interfere" philosophy I was taught. I saw these two guys and started taking pictures because I had no idea how long they would be there taking this photo. Since I couldn't recreate the moment I had to get what I could. 

   I can tell you with this photo I was fairly far back. I carry two camera bodies with me when I shot uncontrolled action, a wide and a long lens. Because they were so far away I reached for my 70-200 lens. I zoomed in and took the shot.

   Because of the long focal length I was able to compress the distance, including more of that wavy low tide beach sand. Which was good, and I was able to make my subjects bigger, also good. But not big enough for my taste. So how would have made this shot better?

   Well I would have liked the two of them to have been closer together. I should have said, 

   "You should get closer and zoom out, you'll get just as much beach but have a better focus on your subject than by just stepping back." 

   To which he probably would have accepted my professional opinion and moved closer. Then they would have been closer to each other. At which point I too could have stepped closer and zoomed out to a wide angle. My subjects would have been clear because they'd be in points of interest, they would have been balanced, and they would have had leading lines. 

Leading to Balance

Sgt. Maj. Brian Card and Brig. Gen.Gary Beard take a moment to chat on Sicily Drop Zone on September 10, 2010. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Felix R. Fimbres)

   This might be a harder series for me to write about simply because I personally don't often see balance, except in in it's most basic forms. Balance in art and photography can refer to a number of different elements.

   However, if you haven't noticed I have a serious addiction to clearly defined subjects. And in my head when I'm looking for subjects I tend to single them out, this means that I have to deliberately seek out balance. The easiest way for me to add balance to my photos is to simply look for look for two subjects.

No, balance doesn't just mean having two subjects in your photographs. But it's probably the easiest way to understand balance.

   In the above picture there's an equal amount of ground and sky. That in and of itself is balance. A lot of times nature photography has at a minimum that balance.

Did I miss getting one of the soldiers fully in two points of interest? Yes. Are

there more than a few leading lines? Yes, from the sun to the invisible ones of 

eye contact. You could argue the horizon itself adds a line to our subjects as 

well.

   However, you notice my subject isn't, a soldier, but rather two soldiers. By virtue that it's two subjects the photo has balance. However not symmetrical balance. Had I put one soldier on the left point of interest and the other soldier on the right points of interest it would have been symmetrical.

   However, there is one more major element to this photograph  and that is the sun itself. It's tough to compete against the. Sun, it's a big ball of light with leading lines exploding from it. And as we discussed yesterday light naturally draws the eyes toward and away from it.

   Does it compete with our two soldiers? Yes. Does it add balance? Well, a big heavy object like the sun adds weight. Is it equal to our two soldiers? Not quite.

In many respects this photo has asymmetrical balance.

   What else does this photo have? Well invisible leading lines. The two soldiers are looking at each other, and the eyes naturally pull us to other parts of the frame, we want to see what those eyes are looking at.

So in one photo we've used balance, leading lines and paid attention to the rule of thirds. Does adding more elements make this photo better? Debatable. But when you're out and about the first things you should be thinking about are your subject and what element of composition your're going to pull out of your tool box.

Continue reading about balance in these posts:
"Balance with a twist"
"Beach Balance"
"Balancing Act: Light vs. Dark"

Leading Lines Part V: Night Vision

A UH-60 Blackhawk lands at Camp Liberty, Iraq on December 24, 2008. The Blackhawk and the 315th Tactical PSYOP Co. from Upland, Calif. will disseminate thousands of leaflets over specific areas of Baghdad, Iraq during the 4th Infantry Division's Operation Iron Blizzard. The leaflets are part of a greater effort to arrest and bring to trial suspected and known terrorists operating in Baghdad. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Felix R. Fimbres)

   If you're just joining us, we've covered blending leading lines with the rule of thirds, lines that add to your photo but were not necessarily intended, lines that lead us to our subject, and lines that, well, are the subject.

   Light, is a great leading line. This light emanates from our subject, [the most important part of the photograph] the helicopter, which pulls the viewers eye towards the landing zone; where our subject is heading. The viewers eye may follow the light back up to the helicopter, and might follow the natural line of the helicopter's fuselage back to the light on the helicopters tail.

The helicopter is clearly in a point of interest. The light starts

from a point of interest and  leads us towards another point

of interest. Also good. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Felix R. Fimbres)

   That's pretty much it for this photograph, it's a helicopter landing at night. I would have liked to have been much closer, with a much wider lens. At an 45 degree angle to give it some depth.

As it stands I feel this photo is just plain flat.

   The two things which makes this interesting, in my opinion at least, is that most people don't see helicopters landing too often; so there's the novelty factor. Also I used a night vision adapter which is another novelty.

   Regarding the night vision, it wasn't part of my kit until I arrived in Baghdad. Our team was doing an inventory of our Conex's and the Morovision Astroscope just so happened to pop up along with a Canon 5D. Unfortunately form me the Cannon only came with the body. Since I didn't have any Canon lenses with me the big beautiful full frame of the 5D had to sit in a box while I used my Nikon D200. Oh well.

   For the record, I don't particularly favor Canon or Nikon, they're both great companies and they make great products. I enjoy using both.

   So, with my new found toy my commander asked if I could take photos during night missions. Which is great because I had been spending 12-14 hours a day, 7 days a week doing graphics, so any opportunity to go out and shoot was a welcome one. The downside was that my days then increased to 14-16 hours since these night missions obviously happened after normal working hours. Oh well.

Ordinarily I would have liked to have gotten at least a part of the helicopter

in the photo to give the viewer a sense of  actually being there, but I just

couldn't get back far enough in the tight confines of the Blackhawk.
 (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Felix R. Fimbres)

   So, the Astroscope sits in between the camera body and the lens,

which turns even a stubby 5inch 35-70 into an very unwieldy 12 inch beast. 

Which, really was okay, but I found myself wishing I had a full frame body because I was constantly leaning back to adjust for those extra added inches.

This experience is why I dropped the 35-70mm from my list of preferred lenses. It just don't do anything well, certainly not on a camera body with a crop factor which makes it a 55mm to 105mm. Two bodies, one with a wide lens one with a long lens is the way to go in my opinion.

   Of course if I could find a 1.2 lens that had a range of 10mm to 300mm I would just take that, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
 

Pfc. Josephn Quakenboss poses with a UH-60 prior to a leaflet operation on December 24, 2008. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Felix R. Fimbres)

Part of a UH-60 Blackhawk as it flies over Baghdad, Iraq  during a leaflet operation on December 24, 2008. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Felix R. Fimbres)

Just the lines ma'am

Barbed wire along Utah Beach, Normandy, France. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Felix R. Fimbres)

   Today is going to be a short post because there's not a whole lot to say about these two photos. I saw the lines, put them in points of interest, I took the photo. Easy. I will point out, in the above example, the subject is the barbed wire, but specifically the sharp pointy part. [Yes, it's a little bit out of the point of interest for no apparent reason.] 

The line go from left to right and right to left and 

almost covers two points of interest. 

   So here we have two examples of leading lines themselves being subjects. If you've been following our discussions about leading lines here, here & here, you probably know that I like my lines to lead to a subject. If the line itself is the subject? I don't know, maybe? 

But lets not forget ultimately when you look in your viewfinder you should be asking yourself,

Road markings found on Lajes Air Field, Azores.

(U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Felix R. Fimbres) 

 "Is my subject clear?" and "Am I using one of the rules of composition?" 

   The answer to both of these questions should be Yes.

Did I get three points of interest? Yes...maybe, almost? Ish. 

Night Lines, no wait. Leading Lines.

Sgt. Zackary Davis, 431st Civil Affairs Bn., prepares a Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS) to transmit a 9-line medical evacuation report during the warrior task portion of the 352nds best warrior competition at Fort Meade, Md. on April 2, 2012. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Felix R. Fimbres)

I want to point out really quickly that this is what happens with you Mix light and set your flash to rear shutter. If you don't know what that is, don't worry I'll explain it.

So hopefully the first thing you saw was that green thing (the antenna) leading to the Soldier, my subject, and said, "Hey that's a leading line!" If you didn't that's okay too, we're still learning.

So this photo in my opinion is a better example of a leading line than yesterday's or the day before's. Weather or not this photo is better photo than the last two is completely subjective.

I do want to point out a few things before I talk about the lighting situation I promised to talk about.

First off, the eyes, I just missed the eyes being in a point of interest. Those pesky eyes are a boon when you get them right and a groan when you miss them.

   He's looking in a great direction, towards another point of interest. But the eyes themselves are just out of a point of interest. I think this would have been a stronger photo if I was able to get his eyes in a point of interest. As it stands now it's still a good shot in my estimation because it has leading lines. You don't need ALL the elements of composition in your photos, just one. Please, at least one, like the rule of thirds.

So maybe the first or second question you had was, "What's up with light Felix?"

Well a couple things actually. First I'm mixing colors [wiki link] because I have a few different light sources.

   First there's the [I'm guessing] florescent light (a cool color) inside the building in the background, then there is a soldier nearby who is shining a red light (a warm color) to assist the soldier messing with the radio, and then there is my flash without a gel, which is white.
 
   I also have my flash set to rear shutter. Setting my flash to rear shutter makes the flash fire during the the last possible fraction of a second before the shutter closes. This allows colors like red and green to collect on the sensor before the flash fires and captures the last bit of time.
 
   To the right of the soldier is a red ghosting effect, that's because when his head was over there my shutter had just opened, and the red light was bouncing off his head and onto my shutter. As time went on he tilted his head [about 4 or 5 inches I would guess] and a little bit of red light was caught bouncing off his hat to his left, then he moved his head about another inch or so. It was at that point at which point my flash fired. Then the shutter closed. So what you're seeing is 2.5 seconds [my shutter was set to 2.5] of light bouncing off this soldier. as he moved it from left to right.

   The reason why there is not much red on the soldiers face from the red light, is because my flash, for that last fraction of a second, far surpassed the brightness of red light, and "froze" my subject. Having your flash set to normal would have "frozen" his head so that it was tilted towards the right, and then you'd have light trails on his left.

   But if you look closely there is still some red tinge cast on his face. This is probably a result of not only there being some red light on his face in that last fraction of a second my light flashed, but also because as he moved his head, some red light was bouncing off his head and collecting on my sensor in the time before my flash went off.

   In the background the building didn't move, it just radiated it's light, over exposing that portion of my sensor, which is why the windows look white, while there is a greenish glow around the building. The flash didn't reach that far, so I didn't overpower the green light.

Leading lines lite. It's Story Time.

Chief Warrant Officer Five Tom Travis exits from a UH-60 Black Hawk over St. Mere Eglise at Fort Bragg, N.C. on July 13, 2011. Travis is jumping with the U.S. Army Civil Affairs Operations Command (Airborne) who are hosting the U.K.’s 4th Parachute Regiment in a Joint training mission. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Felix R. Fimbres)

   This is getting closer to what I would consider a good example of leading lines. But still not quite. The static line [the yellow cord] that connects from the helicopter to the paratroopers parachute is bright, yellow, in focus and certainly leading to the subject. But I can't honestly say I planned for it to be there. I just showed up on it's own, a product of the situation. The reason I'm pointing point this out is simply because I want to point out that leading lines are everywhere Sometimes those lines are invisible, but that's a post for another day.

   Today I want to get back into a little bit of story telling. I've spent a lot of time talking about composition and not so much time talking about the story behind those photos.

   You'll notice this is a similar perspective to my previous post (Yes, I'm afraid of heights) and in fact this shot was actually taken on the same day.

   I first want  to say that July 13th was one brutally hot day, everyone had beads of sweat rolling down thier faces. Especially  me, I'm practically a  snowman (the melting kind) I joke that I'm water cooled not air cooled because I sweat a lot during physical activity. Regardless the British had come all the way out from, well England, to conduct airborne operations so it was a great opportunity to get some joint operations photos.

   In fact, I was poised and ready to jump with them on this day. However, during final manifest [roll call] when I was asked to show my Military ID card [a required item for all airborne operations] I looked in my wallet and to my dismay found that I was missing my ID. I had left it in my card reader at home. I lived about 45 minutes away form the drop zone, so it wasn't really possible to go home and back and still be able to jump.

So, as they say in the Airborne community, I was scratched. 

   I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the biggest fan of jumping out of aircraft, and after seeing paratroopers dangling their feet from a Blackhawk prior to a jump, I can't say a helicopter would be my preferred method of insertion. A C-130 or a C-17 doesn't have nearly the view, but the skin of the aircraft acts like blinders on a horse. They help me focus on what's in front of me. Instead of, you know, thinking about my parachute not opening.

   People ask me how I can even jump out in the first place, I reply with, "It's easy, I'm supposed to be looking at the jump master until the very last second or two, by then I've got momentum and people behind me counting on me to follow through. So making those last few steps out of the door is probably the easiest part because I've already committed by then. It's those 4 second waiting for the canopy to open which are the most terrifying. Luckily for me, there isn't a whole lot I can do at that point but count."

   Anyway, back to this shot. So it's hot, I was supposed to be jumping, but I wasn't going to this day. Luckily I always keep my camera in my trunk. So, I called my supervisor to let him know I was just going to be taking pictures instead. He said great and I got to shooting.

   I had met CW5 Travis a few months earlier at Normandy and he liked my work, so when he saw me with my camera's he said, "Awesome you're taking photos today?"

   "Sure am Sir," I replied

   "Make sure you talk with the flight crew so you can go up and take pictures,"

   "Roger that Sir."

   So after a little bit of waiting the Blackhawk came in and I talked with the flight crew. They said I had one option, the crew seat. I said that would be fine. Then one of the Operations non comissioned officers came up to me as I was walking up to the Blackhawk and said,

   "Hey man, I heard you're going up?"

   "Yeah I'm in the gunner's seat"

   "Perfect, when you're strapped in you can lean way out, I've had my A** on the outside of the aircraft taking pictures, it was great!"

   "Okay, yeah, I'll try that," I replied, knowing there was no way my butt was getting anywhere near the outside of that helicopter. 

 
   So after strapping in, I thought I'd feel safe. Not really, the harnesses was tight but it's connected to a safety cable to allow for maximum mobility. The end effect is that I felt like I wasn't strapped in at all.

   I won't go too much over what I covered in Yes, I'm afraid of heights but this shot was about three things. One seeing it a few times before to get a feel for the timing and position of the subject. Two getting the widest angle I could [17mm on the lens, with crop factor a true 27mm] with my arm out as far as possible to give it a unique perspective. And three just being in a unique position to take this shot. I like to tell myself that I can make those most mundane things look amazing, but amazing things are amazing to look at.

   In retrospect this photo reminds me 1. Dummy, you forgot your ID card! 2. Sometimes when a door is closed another is opened. But most importantly 3. Always have your camera handy because you never know when a shot you take might get picked as one of the best DoD photos of the year [The main image isn't mine, it's the fourth one in the slideshow so you'll have to do some scrolling]

Bridging to leading lines.

I will be the first to admit that this pumpkin is over saturated. However, I couldn't find the raw file, so you'll just have to accept that. (Photo by Felix R. Fimbres)

   So by now you should have rule of thirds down. So lets move on to Leading lines. Leading lines, like rule of thirds is super simple but you might have trouble seeing them at first.

   I will also be the first to admit that this isn't the finest example of a leading line. Not by a long shot. But it is a good example of a rule of thirds. I thought it would be a good way to demonstrate that you can have more than one element of composition (rule of thirds, leading lines, balance, framing) in your photograph.

The red arrow is a leading line, barely, but it leads to your subject.

   So what is a leading line? Well quite simply it's anything that draws your eye from one part of the frame to another part of your frame.

   I like to have my leading lines lead the viewer to a specific subject.

   I want to emphasize that one more time. A leading line should lead to a subject. Subjects, still a big deal.

   But let's talk about this photo for a minute and why I don't think it's a great example of a leading line.

   Well to start, the line (the vine) is soft and out of focus. Then there's the subject. There isn't a whole lot to say about it other than it's well, orange. Super orange. Your eye is naturally drawn to it because it's unusually orange. Even without the vines or the unusual orangeness of it your eye would probably still be pulled in that direction simply because the subject is filling two points of interest.

   Someone could argue that those crisp white-ish lines on the pumpkin are also leading lines. And they do lead to the green center of the pumpkin. And to a degree I might accept that, but going back a few paragraphs, those lines should be leading to a subject.

"But they are leading to that green part of the pumpkin, you said so yourself!"

   Which is true, but if your subject is the green part of the pumpkin why isn't it in a point of interest? Quite frankly because when I eye in the view finder I too suffered from tunnel vision and only saw that big orange pumpkin. Leading lines was an afterthought, it was "oh look at that orange, OH look at those leading lines." The lines just so happened to be there, I didn't purposefully add them in or emphasize them. Sometimes you just have to be honest with yourself so that next time you do a better job.

   Regardless, this is a great example of a rule of thirds, and only a mediocre example of a leading line.

   Had I gone into this photo trying to get leading lines AND rule of thirds this could have been a great example of both.

Because how can you say no to those cheeks?!

Like I said, the first rule of photo club is to always use adorable subjects. (photo by Felix R. Fimbres)

   So if you've been following along you've probably already noticed a few things. First off we have one subject filling three points of interest. That's Good. Secondly we have a eyes which could be closed or looking down, but I feel the effect is that she's looking down at another point of interest not off the frame. Also Good.

   What's not so good? Well to be honest the lighting isn't so good. This little girl wasn't terrible enthusiastic about this wall, so it was a bit of a struggle to get her lit correctly. But hey, she's absolutely adorable so I'm pretty sure everyone can forgive that.

   With the way Photoshop is nowadays we could have lit her perfectly in post, but me, I don't like doing things in post.

   You could argue that the first point of interest (the top left at least to anyone who reads from right to left) is filled with bricks, which create lines leading directly to her face. This is also good. Lines are everywhere and are great ways to bring the viewers eyes to where you want them.

   Also, even though the lighting isn't optimal, I did use a reflector in this, and to be honest while the lighting isn't perfect this little girl liked it better to being flashed, which is always a good thing for little eyes.

This is award winning?

A paratrooper removes his reserve parachute after a successful jump on to Sicily drop zone during Operation Toy Drop XII on December 7, 2009. Each year since 1998 the Fort Bragg Soldiers and Community have collected and given toys to deserving children.  (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Felix R. Fimbres)

   I've been looking back through a lot of my photos and sometimes I look at something and say to myself, "Really dude? You shot this? Why didn't you use flash? Why didn't you change your angle just a bit?" in this case I say,

"Wait...I won an award for this?"

   There are a few things that could have gone very wrong with this shot. He could have been looking up and I could have gotten a great view of his nostrils. He could have been angled slightly more towards me and I could have gotten a crotch shot. Thankfully, neither of those happened. And if they did they've long been deleted.

   Okay, so lets look at this photo technically.  The subject is the paratrooper. Is he in a point of interest? Yes, but it's his leg. What else is in a point of interest? Well his parachute covers two. Is that good? Sure, why not, it's not exactly pulling away from the subject because it's not entirely in focus, and it kind of pulls your eyes towards him. If only because it's attached to him and there are some very subtle lines you can see if you look close enough. And his elbow is in the last one. His eyes provide a leading line to his action [He's removing a safety pin which will allow him to remove his parachute harness]

What else? Oh, there's a dutch angle.

   "What's a dutch angle?"

   Basically you tilt the camera. I still suggest putting your subject in two diagonal points of interest when you do this.

   The Germans and the artists say it depicts madness, unrest, exoticism, and disorientation. I'm sure someone could argue a number of points as to why this does/doesn't work for this photo. But I certainly won't. I'm not one to argue subjectivity because it's...subjective. Rules. I like to talk about rules.

   To me he looks happy.

I know for a fact he's happy because he just earned foreign jump wings and gave a child a toy for Christmas. [www.optoydrop.net]

   What in my opinion would have made this better? Well, his face could have been in the top left point of interest. Of course, how exactly that could have been accomplished is another matter altogether, moving down and to the left would have put his head higher and to the right, but then his leg and reserve parachute would have obstructed his face. [That little green thing is in fact his back up parachute. Yes, you land on your back. A friend of mine had to pull his reserve once. He hurt his back pretty bad. Luckily he's still walking around.] 

"So, could this have been shot any better?"

   I don't know, after writing this whole post about why it works technically I guess it's a pretty good shot. Maybe if you added a sunset and a whole division of paratroopers in the skies behind him with anti-aircraft going off I would have been wow'd. I guess you can't always have everything you want. Sometimes you just have to take the shot you're given.

Nitpick: The eye's have it

This subject can't move her head, which is a shame because her eyes keep pulling me off this frame when they could have been pulling in around it instead. Photo by Felix R. Fimbres

   Okay, so just yesterday I said you can put your subject in two points if interests and make great shots each and every time. Well, there's an interesting caveat to that rule, and it has to do with your subjects eyes.

   You'll notice the angel, the photo is clearly about her. She's filling two, almost three points of interest. (her head is a smidgen off for my liking, but close.) That's good clearly we have established this photo uses the "rule of thirds."

   The background is controlled with Bokeh (Bokeh is a completely separate subject but, basically it's the "fuzzy" quality of the objects behind her, people love that.)

   What makes this photo hurt my eyes is her eyes. In the image below you'll notice how I marked out that her eyes are basically pointing off the photo. The effect of her eyes pulling us to another part of the frame is called a leading line. We as humans have a tendency to want to look where other people are looking.

   I'm well aware this object doesn't count as "people" but the eyes lead regardless.

   Not only that but we westerners look from right to left, top to bottom like reading a book. So the very first point of interest we are drawn to is her head.
 
   Ordinarily that's exactly what we want. But in this case, we see her head, and her eyes pull us in the wrong direction. Maybe you stopped and saw that big chunky bokeh, (it was a Christmas light if you're wondering) and maybe that helped bring you back to the photo. Maybe it didn't. Could be you thought it was fine.

   Which brings me to a very important point, Art is subjective. You might like this. That's fine. That's great since I took it and I want you to like it! But, technically it is flawed. That makes me sad.

   "When you have the rules mastered you can break them all you want," you might be saying.

   I don't really have a problem with breaking rules, or trying to break them, but there should be either a clear reason to break them or it should have been simply not possible to follow them.

   In this case, I could have taken my time and analyzed the subject completely before moving on and taking another shot. I could have taken three or four shots and then moved on. I could have moved my feet and re-composed the shot.

   I'm of the opinion that if her head could have pointed down or to the right or even down and to the right, [here is an example of eyes leading to another point of interest] it would have kept your eyes in the frame longer. You might have a different opinion.

   What I would hope you take away from this however is that when you are composing there a myriad of little things can pop up and detract from your image from a technical aspect. I also want you to realize that eyes are a powerful tool for leading your audience from one part of the frame to another part of the frame.

   So as a general rule, do your best to keep your subject looking either straight at you or at your other points of interest if at all possible.

The three rules of photo club...

The first rule of photo club is to always shoot beautiful subjects. The second rule of photo club is to always shoot beautiful subjects. The third rule of photo club is that if your friend shoots a photograph "dead center" he better have a damn good reason for it. (Photo by Felix R. Fimbres)  Photographers Note: The light on the side of her face is a little "hot" or white, this could have been exposed a little better.

Lots of things come in three's. It just so happens to be my lucky number. But more importantly as it relates to photography there is the rule of thirds. Okay so it's not quite a three, but it's close enough.

So what is the rule of thirds? Basically, you divide the frame into thirds. Those thirds then create 4 intersecting points. Those points are the points of interest. Your eye naturally gravitates to them like pooh bears to honey. And what happens when a pooh bear finds his bee hive has no honey? He gets sad.

And what happens when I see a photograph without a subject in a point of interest? I get sad. Me and pooh bears, basically one in the same.

Here on the left is a visual representation of what I mean.

Those circles (bee hives) are the points of interest. All you need to do is put your subject (honey) into the bee hives. Presto good chance you just took a good photo.  You also saved some bear tears.

"Is it really that easy? Yes. Yes it is. You can stop here and start taking better photos each and every time.

It's not art, it's science. I've never considered myself much of an artist. The rules of composition are pretty simple and this one of them.

What about those other two points of interest on the left? Sure, go crazy and use them too. Even crazier? You can even use the top left AND the bottom right points, or the bottom left and the top right, diagonals are fun. You can use the bottom two or the top two. It's a very mix and match system.

You can also just use one of them, but in my opinion using just one doesn't help you clearly identify the subject.

In a previous post about subjects I said the subject is the most important thing to a photograph. The subject has to be clear. Those trees, that sunlight, the farm behind, they all add to this photograph, but the subject is what drives the photograph. So I put her in two points of interest. She dominates this photo, not just with her beauty but with her relative size as well.

I could have stepped back about 20 feet and she would have been the same cute little girl. But the things around here would have dwarfed her. The eyes, face and hair just wouldn't have popped nearly as much.

Also, I want you to notice that the subject has golden light on her. No, I didn't use a reflector only because I was trying to manage the subject and my camera at the same time. I used a flash with a colored gel. More expensive? Yes. Would a reflector had accomplished the same thing for cheaper? Of course, but I didn't have an assistant to aim the reflector.

Point being, putting light where it isn't naturally is important. Bending and capturing light is what a photographer does.

Learn more about the rule of thirds in "Nit pick: The eyes have it," "This is award winning?" and "Because how can you say not to those cheeks."

On the subject of Subjects.

I'm actually not sure what kind of plant this is, but it's part of a field. Yes, the specific stalk in question is dead center. No, don't shoot dead center. Ever. It's bad. Well, okay fine, some photos you can get away with dead center, if you frame it, or the subject fills the frame such that it's not really dead center. This photo illustrates a point, so I went for it. One could argue this counts as "Framing" because the rest of the plants create a frame around the stalk in question.  

   Probably the most important aspect of a photograph is having a clearly defined subject. All too often when I see a photo that's not as good as it could be I ask the photographer,

   "What is this a picture of?"

   "Um, well, it's...," and the person stumbles for a minute, "You know... I just I just wanted to get the whole scene, that's Pvt. Snuffy..."

   That really tiny spec?" I'll point out

   "Yeah! And that's a hanger and the sky was beautiful and..."

   You get the idea.

   Now, I'm not saying all those elements aren't important or can't make for a good photograph but it's important to understand that when you click the shutter, you should have a clear idea of what exactly it is you're taking a picture of.  Because if you don't know what you're looking at how is the person looking at it supposed to know?

You shouldn't have to explain a photograph. The photo should speak it's thousand words all by itself. 

   In the picture above, I think it's fairly clear the plant(s) is (are) the subject. I would be willing to bet, when most people come upon a big open field they probably notice something other then the actual stalks of wheat/barley/etc.  This was my attempt and not only picking an usual subject, but also isolating it as much of my subject as possible.

   Mind you, I don't think is a great photograph, but it illustrates that you need to have a very clear idea of what you're taking a picture of.

   Maybe there's a beautiful plant in your front yard that you tried to take a picture of. So you went outside looked at it and said, "Wow, this is going to be a great picture!" then you took the photo from say 5 feet back while standing up and looked at it and said,
 
   "Huh, it looks so fantastic, why does it look so blah in this photo?"

   So what's happening? Your eye naturally gravitated toward a specific element, probably the flowering portion, and within that probably the stigma inside the flower. What you didn't notice was that your eye was filtering out everything else. Kind of like when you're looking for your keys that are sitting on top of your desk, but you just can't see them because your eye is looking at the clutter, maybe an overdue bill or a photograph of your kids.

   Unfortunately your lens doesn't do the same thing. There's even a good chance with your eye firmly planted in the viewfinder, you where still looking at just the inside of the flower, and not paying attention to the entire frame.  All you where thinking was "wow, what a beautiful flower, I can't wait to show mom," without taking the time to think what made the flower beautiful to you in the first place. You probably even got distracted by those pesky settings, adjusting your exposure and getting your focus just right. But you forgot about your subject.

   Then when you showed your mom she said, "oh, that's nice dear." because that's what she's supposed to do. Then maybe you looked at the picture and said to yourself, "It looks much better in person, I guess I'm just not a good picture taker."

   Odds are there where other elements like the rest of the plant, the dirt underneath, the steps, the hose, the porch if you stood really far back, that where included in your photo. All those other elements took away from the subject you had seen so beautifully, that Stigma back dropped by the colorful petals.

   Auto Focus, Shutter and Aperture priority are friendly little tools that help you focus in on your subject. The camera can figure out what your settings should be (most of the time) but it can't figure out how to compose a photo.

   Composition is where you come in. I'll discuss more about composition in future posts. But for now when you go out and take a picture, I want you to ask yourself, "What exactly am I seeing? What exactly am I taking a picture of?" [Hint: it should be a single noun. i.e. "the clock" not "the clock tower and the city"]

   As your eye gets better at figuring out what exactly makes something pop, you'll be incorporate other elements into your photo without taking away what made something awesome to begin with.

Take your time, ask yourself "what is my subject" and focus in on that like a laser. A clear subject is essential for a good photograph. (Photo by Sgt. Felix R. Fimbres)