Theme from Mission Impossible playing in the background. Cut to a pair of hands taking a cassette tape out of an envelope and placing it in a tape deck. (For those of you too young to remember  what a cassette tape is, it was the predecessor of the CD and DVD). Bring down the music and cut to reveal that we are in a photography studio. We see the photographer push the playback button. As the wheels on the cassette turn, we hear:

“Good morning, Photographer. Imagine a situation where you cannot control the placement, amount or intensity of the light, where you cannot add to or modify what is there. Imagine mixed light sources that are constantly changing colors — a white balance and capture nightmare. Imagine a very limited space from which to shoot — in a place so crowded you cannot move. And, imagine subjects that are moving quickly in a very dynamic situation; what you want to capture will happen once, and then, in a moment, it will be gone; there will be no retakes or do overs; get it right or go home. Imagine rigorous time limits enforced by troops known as Security. And, finally, imagine the ultimate restriction — do not interfere, in any way, with what is going on around you, or block anyone’s view or enjoyment of the proceedings.”

Cut Away to Tight Shot of Tape Recorder

“Your mission, Photographer, should you decide to accept it — is to capture a performance. As always, should you or any of your crew fail, you will be up S. Creek without a paddle. Good luck. This tape will self destruct in ten seconds.”

Cut Away to a Shot of the Tape Recorder Going Up in Smoke

Performance Photography — The Common Challenges

A while back, I set out to learn about “concert photography” — that magic blend of passion and energy that explodes when band meets photographer. I took some classes at Photoshop World from two of the genres best, Alan Hess and Scott Diussa, interviewed Alan personally, and watched their superb series of lessons on Kelby Training.

What did I learn? That the challenges they face are no different than those I face when I photograph sports, or when I did my daughter’s band and color guard performances. In fact, they are the same challenges many of us face in doing everyday events like dance, theater and weddings. In essence, we are capturing live performances — in venues that, though they may differ, share the same issues.

Of course, it’s those issues that get the adrenaline flowing, that get our hearts beating, that put us into “fight or flight mode” — that make this type of photography both exciting and rewarding. Doing it right is a rush, and that’s why most of us do it.

And, as Alan and Scott point out, most of the people doing it are in it for the “rush” for their love of music, for their passion for photography — because very few can make a living at it. The economics just don’t work. But, that’s an article for another time.

Drawing on my own experience and what I’ve learned from Alan and Scott, I thought I’d work through some of those challenges and write about strategies for dealing with them.

Getting In

When shooting performances, access is everything. Getting in. Getting the right to shoot. Getting the right to use our images. Those are the first challenges we face.

Although they differ by genre and venue, there are some common issues.

First, be it a concert, club, or athletic performance, to get to into the photo pit, or on the field, you need someone’s permission — usually in the form of a “pass”.

A. To get a concert pass, Alan and Scott tell us to look to the performers, the owners of the venue, and/or the publicists for both. With professional sports like football, I’ve gotten my passes through the teams. With auto racing, the teams and sanctioning bodies. With high school sports or performances, the passes, in my area, are controlled by the school districts — although the initial contacts are made through the schools teams or bands; getting to  know the coach, the band director, or someone on the staff is often the first step in getting a pass. Don’t know anyone? Make an appointment, introduce yourself, and show some of your images.

Some times, it’s easy to get a pass. Some performers and venues are flattered. Often, they will barter access for prints. The smaller the venue, the less known the performers, the greater the chance of getting our first chance to shoot.

B. Because “press pass” access is so cool, and so many people want it, with bigger events, it’s often much more difficult to get a pass. Big events have “press coordinators” who dole out a limited number of credentials to those who can prove they are “professional”. And, they don’t define professional by reference to the quality of our work. They want “working press”  – photographers whose images are being “published” in some recognized media — be it a newspaper, magazine, a stock photo house, or a strong online presence. Often, their applications for a pass require a letter from the media outlet for whom we are shooting.

It’s Catch 22. To shoot a concert or event, you need a publisher. And, you can’t get a publisher until you’ve shot enough concerts and events to prove your mettle.

PrairieFire Productions, Inc. © (2007)

I faced that challenge when I wanted to shoot The United States Men’s Clay Court Championships at a local tennis venue. The application for a pass was rigorous — I had to have a letter from the editor of a publication that was “commissioning” my work. Hmm. OK, the Houston Chronicle had a staff full of photographers; they wouldn’t need me. The tennis magazines used the same people tournament after tournament. So did the strong online tennis sites. None of them were going to sponsor me. I was having a hard time figuring out who was.

One night, the answer showed up on my front lawn — in the form of a “throw away” newspaper. You, know, the kind that deal with local stuff and a lot of advertising. The kind that we normally put on the recycling pile without first reading it. But, this time I opened it up and noticed that it had a sports page. Local school sports but sports none the less.

So, I called the sports editor and made him a deal he could not refuse. If he would sponsor me, I’d give him a license to use whatever images I shot — but I’d keep the copyright. It was a good deal for both of us; he got images he’d not normally get and I got in and got to keep my copyright. We met, I showed him a portfolio of tennis shots I had captured, over the years, as a “spectator”. (The access to practice sessions is often unlimited. Those times are great for capturing some portfolio shots.)

The sports editor signed on. With his support I filled out my application. The tournament sponsor demanded some “sample shots”, too. I guess mine were good enough. I got my pass. And, based upon my work at that tournament, I got a pass for the next one, too.

I got access to shoot for the Texans by working as an assistant to one of their regular free lancers. He generously told me to bring my camera and encouraged me to shoot with him. I gave him my images and he turned them over to the Texans. Why did I give him my images? Because, this was his job; I was not going to compete with him in any way; I was there and shooting because he was being generous. A year later, he could not make a game and suggested they use me; unfortunately, I had a scheduling conflict. But, they know who I am and where I am should they ever need me, again.

The bottom line is that for many of us, getting that first press pass is the toughest challenge we will face. Our photography is good. We just need the access to the events that will take us to the next level. Two things got me where I wanted to go: a portfolio of the types of images I wanted a credential to shoot; and, finding an “off the beaten path” sponsors willing to work with me to our mutual advantage.

Want to break in — get those first portfolio shots? Don’t forget small clubs, high school bands,  minor league or high school sporting events. They are a great place to develop skills and techniques.

I learned more about shooting performances by shooting under the Texas Friday Night Lights than I had shooting pro-football, big time auto racing, or the tennis tournaments. My access? My kid. For four years, Jen marched with the Memorial High School Band or performed with the Color Guard. They were thrilled to have me capturing their performances. Over those years, I shot thousands of images — learned to conquer the lighting issues, learned to cope with the speed with which things moved around me, and learned to hone my post production processing so as to do it right, quickly. And, there was something very special about being there. As good as the movie and TV series were — and they were very good — Friday Nights in Texas are bigger than life. You really have to experience it to understand it. And, if you can experience it, you should.

Staying In

So, now we’re in the door. How do we stay in? Three things — follow the rules, play nice, and use common sense.

Every pass comes with a set of rules. Depending on the venue and/or event, we are usually told where we can be, how long we can be there, what we can shoot, and how we can use the images.

A. It appears that the concert photographers like Scott and Alan are the most severely restricted. First, and foremost is the “3 song rule” — the rule that says “You can shoot the first three songs of the concert and then you must pack up and leave.” This rule is not always in effect — but it usually is. What it means is simple — you shoot the first three songs of the concert, pack up and leave. You do not try to stretch the time limit by one note. If you do, security will usually remove you and you will get a reputation that makes it difficult to get another pass.

Copyright: Alan Hess Photography (2011) -- Thanks Alan

When you are shooting a sports event, there are almost always strict “location” restrictions that keep you a set distance away from the playing field or, in auto racing, places on the track where you can and cannot be. Strict location rules are enforced for two reasons — first and foremost safety (yours and the players) and, second, protecting the audience’s view of the event. Similar rules apply in concert venues where photographers share a “pit” — a small area right in front of the stage.

B. Another strict rule — we can only shoot “available light”. No flash. No enhancement. Camera only. The reason is obvious — yet I’ve seen people using flashes shot directly at players’ eyes; fortunately, most are shot from distances so great that, with the “fall off” of light, they have no impact on the players (or the image). Mounting a flash on your camera usually sends the message “I don’t belong here” a message that will get one noticed and excluded. (That does not mean you should leave your flash at home — just don’t use it during the performance. If you get lucky enough to be invited back stage, or end up covering a press conference or interview, you may be able to use it.)

C. A “Gotcha”: We cannot assume that we own the images we shoot. Or, that we can do as we please with them. Alan and Scott make clear that to get access to shoot a concert, many photographers sign away all of their intellectual property rights to the images. And, sometimes the restrictions are more severe. It is possible to shoot a concert and walk away completely empty handed — without an image to post on one’s own website. So, it is essential to read all of the documents that are associated with getting the permit and to understand the promises you are making. Because, those promises are a binding contract.

Want to own the copyright and/or have images to use? Often, the smaller venues and less known performers do not have the more restrictive agreements. In those cases, we can use our own “releases” to create the relationships.

It is very important that we not confuse the right to “access” with the “releases” we need to use the images of people or places. The right to be there is different from the right to exploit the images. The person who controls the “pass” does not always control the performer, player, or audience members’ right to the exploitation of their person. Sometimes, the players/performers sign releases to the promoters who can assign them to us. Other times, they don’t. And, those crowd shots that we love? We may need releases to exploit them. Buying a ticket or attending a performance does not always constitute a release for our purposes.Finally, the club owners may have a right to control the exploitation of images of the venue. Actually, the right to privacy and to control the use of one’s image or property is a topic far beyond this post. But, I wanted to raise the topic. We all have to think about it and seek the proper advice before we start publishing our images shot at events.

D. So much for the formal rules. Perhaps, the greatest rule is Play Nice. Cooperate with the other people shooting the event. Scott and Alan make clear the concert ethic — work around people without interfering AND once you get your shot, move so that others can get the access and angle they need. One of the great things on their video is a segment where we see the almost dance like “choreography” as they photographers seamlessly work around each other — each moving to open a spot for another.

Nothing says “Amateur” more than someone who just grabs a spot and hogs it for the entire performance. One of my favorite Texas sayings: “Pigs get fat. Hogs get slaughtered.” This is a cooperative effort. If we are hogs, if we do not cooperate and play nice — we won’t get a chance to make the effort again.

Another part of “playing nice” is to make sure we do not become a part of, or interfere with, the event.

Inadvertently, I’ve stumbled a bit here. Jen’s band was in a district competition. I shot the “dress rehearsal” which was being recorded on audio tape. I tried to be as unobtrusive as I could. I found a spot that put me out of the line of sight of the kids and their teacher. I had my long lens — so I was an appropriate distance so as not to block the audience’ view. But, I didn’t look up. I should have. Because 5′ above my head was a one of the recording microphones. A chagrined Jenny told me during the break before their real performance: “Daddy, we can hear your shutter on the tape!” Ugh! My bad. Learned my lesson — whenever I’m shooting in an environment with recording equipment, I look for the microphones and stay away from them.

And, then there was the time that I was out on the field during the band and guard’s half time performance. Jenny told me that I got in the way of the drum line and made them break formation by a step to get around me. I did not make that mistake, again, either. How did I avoid it? Research.

Research and Preparation:

One of the strongest points that Alan and Scott make is that we have to do our homework.

They listen to the band they will be shooting — know the music, and how it is performed. They watch videos, read interviews, do whatever they can to totally understand how the songs will be played and how the stage will be used. One of the things I found most fascinating about their lessons was the detail to which they go to set themselves up to use those three songs productively. By knowing the music, they will know where a guitar player’s hands will be during a riff — which will often allow them to get a coveted “two hand” shot. The microphone is the enemy of most concert shooters. It blocks the face or casts ugly shadows. But, they’ve learned that some singers pull away from the mic when they hold long notes — a great time to get that close head shot; knowing when the long held notes will come, they are in position and ready to get the shot. How do they get so much done within the short time period delimited by the “three song rule”? Research and preparation. They know what they want and when they are likely to get it.

After my “Daddy! You made the drum line move!” event, I started doing the same thing. I had Jenny teach me the choreography — where people would be and when. From that point on, every time I stepped on that field with my camera I knew exactly what I wanted to get and where I could go to get it WITHOUT interfering with the performance. I got better shots and Jenny got to relax.

In a like manner, we have to prepare to shoot sports. It’s not by happenstance that the same photographers always seem to get the “money shots”. It’s preparation. They know their sports and the people who play them. On a tennis court, there are very limited places where we can sit or kneel to shoot. Knowing the players, whether they play a “net” or “baseline” game makes a huge difference. On most race tracks, there are very few places where cars can actually pass each other; to capture the excitement of that competition, one must be able to get those places in the frame. In football, knowing what a team is likely to do on a 3rd and 5 will improve the odds of getting a great shot. But, even with the best preparation, there is still a great bit of luck involved in being in the exact right place at the right time. Preparation narrows the risks but does not guarantee a result. But, I’ll go along with one of my trial lawyer friends who likes to say “Isn’t it funny that the people who prepare the most are always the “luckiest”.

Because this post is running long, I’m breaking it into two parts. Part II will focus on equipment and lighting issues. To get to Part II, click here.

(Copyright: PrairieFire Productions/Stephen J. Herzberg — 2011)

I was up early watching the Tour de France. I’m an addict. Smack dab in front of my big screen, one of my heroes, Lance Armstrong, had an accident that would take him out of contention for the Yellow Jersey.

And, then, I got the phone call. My studio had been broken into. Someone had kicked in a large display window and ransacked the place. Storage room doors had been pried open, drawers and boxes emptied on the floor — and things had been stolen. Lots of things.

Not the least of which was my sense of serenity — the peace I felt in my “creative place”.

Since then, I’ve been trying to put my studio and that part of my life back together. This isn’t the first time I’ve been a crime victim. I’ve been car jacked — with a gun to my head and almost shot. I’ve had other things stolen.

Each time, two things happened. I searched my mind to figure out what I could have done differently, better, to prevent the crimes. And, I dealt with insurance companies, trying to replace the physical, tangible things that I lost.

In this post, I’ll write about both journeys — the critical analysis of my attempts at crime prevention, and what I’ve learned from negotiating the obstacle course that often makes a trip down the path of the insurance process difficult and unpleasant.

My goal is simple: To give you the benefit of the lessons I’ve learned.

Lesson #1 — There Is No Way to Prevent a Crime: At Best We Can Make It More Difficult

If burglars want to break in, they will break in. It’s that simple. We cannot stop them.

At best, we can try to deter them. We can make it more difficult. And, we can raise the risk that they will get caught.

But, if they are willing to break down whatever barriers we erect, and if they are willing to risk of arrest, there is nothing we can do.

However, that does not mean that we should not try. Many years ago, when my Pacific Palisades, California, neighborhood was facing a string of burglaries, we had a neighborhood meeting. The local police sent a representative. His message was clear — make it difficult, make it risky, and hope the burglars move on to another target.

Hide the “Given Objects”

Perhaps, the most important lesson I learned was “Don’t tempt them. Hide the ‘given objects’. Keep them out of easy view. Don’t let them know what’s behind the doors and locks.”

“Hide the given object.” Hmm. For many of us that’s kind of hard to do. We are photographers. We have signs on our studios. Pictures in our windows. Not  much of a secret about what’s inside. There’s a good chance there are cameras, computers, expensive things in there — whether they can be seen or not.

Actually, I had followed that advice — most of the time. My studio is in a Design Center — a place where there are showrooms full of expensive furniture and rugs. All of the tenant spaces share a common feature — our front walls are all glass, huge display windows that go from ground to ceiling. We live in a fishbowl. My front room is very plain and simple. Office furniture and computer equipment. Plain white walls — no prints (I know that’s weird but it’s me — I feel more creative in a blank space). All of the good stuff is in my camera room and a locked storage closet — neither of which can be seen from the outside.

But, on the night of the burglary, I left some “given objects” in plain view in the front room. On the previous day, my daughter Jenny was shooting some senior portfolios. When I shoot, I often wheel some of the lights and things I won’t be using out of the camera room and store them in the front room. That day, I put several lights on stands — replete with soft boxes, up front to get them out of the way. Since Jen was going to shoot the following day, I did not put them back. And, because I knew I’d be back the following morning, I left my MacBook Pro on my desk. (I usually take it down and home. Didn’t do it that night and I really kick myself, now. That day, while Jenny was shooting, I wrote two articles that I was going to post on this site, for the July “content”. I didn’t back them up. I’m unusually anal about backing up; but, that night, I let it slip. And, that’s why there has been a big gap in updating content.)

So, “given objects” in plain view. But, I don’t know. I’m not sure the stands, lights, and boxes were all that tempting. In fact they were not stolen. If anything “lured” them in, I think it was the computer. I’ll never leave one out, again. (Actually, that’s not quite right. I’ve got a collection of old Mac’s in the office — a virtual tour down Mac Memory Lane. I think they are funky looking. They are always in plain view. But, only the current and valuable model was stolen.)

Lock Things Up Tight

I did. And, it didn’t help.

The entry doors to my studio have a dead bolt. So, the burglars kicked in a display window. Why mess with a lock when one swift blow can create a huge entry way?

The door to my storage closet has a deadbolt. So, they pried it open.

One of the storage cabinets has one of those Kryptonite type bike locks on it; they didn’t try to break the lock; instead, they grabbed onto it, used it as a handle, and pulled the cabinet door off its hinges. (That’s the picture you see at the top of this article. I’ve diddled with the image; in its real form, the stark reality still upsets me.)

Yes, I could have used more dead bolts, stronger hinges, with better reinforcement — but I remain convinced that there is a way to break into most places, and the only thing we can do is make it so hard that they won’t take the time to do it.

And, that’s where the safe comes in. I have a large safe, bolted to my floor, in which I keep all of my most valuable gear. It has my Nikon cameras and lenses. They did not even try to get into it. What was bad could have been worse — but for the safe. If I could turn my entire studio into a safe, I would. But, I can’t.

Adding Insult to Injury

One of the things that upsets me most was also one of the hardest lessons to learn: the crooks used my camera bags and rollers to carry away my stuff.

First, they took my entire off-camera-flash kit that was thoughtfully and carefully organized in one large camera bag; 4 of my cherished, impossible to replace SB800′s, my supreme commander SB900 (not as loved but functional), dozens of batteries, several chargers and clamps, mounting hardware, and modifiers — all easily carried away because I had packed them in a bag. Frankly, I don’t think they knew what they were getting. It was just so easy to take that they did. More than anything, I’m going to miss that kit.

And, then, they took my Large Tenba Roadie, threw away the dividers and filled it. So, too several other bags.

Lesson Learned: I’m going to try to figure out a way to secure my bags so that they cannot be used against me. Maybe chain them up. Hang them from the ceiling? If you can think of a better way, let me know.

So, that’s the story of  Part 1 of the Journey — the burglary itself.

As painful as that was, more pain was to follow. I had to file and pursue an insurance claim. The burglars were in my studio for maybe 15 minutes; the insurance companies have been in my life for the last 6 weeks, and there is no end in sight.

Insurance: The Real Back Stop (?)

I think we all know that no matter what we do, we cannot stop a determined thief.

That’s why we buy insurance. We know bad things might happen. So, we get insurance to give us the peace of mind that should something happen we will be able to get back to where we were before the painful event.

Would that that were so. Although I’m sure that many of us have had very positive experiences with insurance companies, some of us have not.

Unfortunately, my experience with my carrier, so far, has not been pleasant. My claim has yet to be resolved. I am having a dispute with one of my companies as to the nature of the policy and the scope of its coverage. More on that later.

My goal in this section is to discuss insurance in broad terms — to raise some potential issues, to give you some things to think about as you insure your equipment.

Before I go further I want to make one thing clear:  Nothing in this article is to be construed as either legal or professional advice. Please, use what is written as the basis upon which you consult with your insurance agents and attorneys. Let them guide you. Each of us has different needs and only professional guidance will make sure they are met.

(And, therein lies my problem — and possibly yours, too, if you have a loss. I bought my policy through one of my professional organizations. I heard it described at a convention. I did not have an “agent” in the traditional sense of the word. I did not see the actual policy. I did not have a personal connection to the protection of my equipment.)

Before we start talking about the different kids of insurance policies, we need to talk about something that crosses over whatever type of insurance we get.

We Need to Keep An Up-To-Date Inventory of What We Are Insuring

Most insurance policies — be they special schedules or professional coverage — demand that we keep an accurate inventory of the equipment we want insured. And, they ask us to file that inventory with them on a set basis.

Most of us keep our receipts. I’ve gone one step farther. Several years ago, I created a database in Filemaker Pro that lists my equipment and keeps track of what it is, when I bought it, what I paid for it, and the serials numbers, when applicable.

Creating it took a couple of days. I carried my laptop around the studio and entered everything I thought should be insured. I did the same thing at home. It wasn’t fun, but it was essential.

Now, I have a ritual. Whenever I buy something, before I take it to the studio, before I start to use it, I enter it in the database.

Here’s a copy of the base form I use. This is the data entry layout:

To make entry easy, almost all of the categories have drop down menus so that I do not have to type in much data. Here’s an example of the drop down for the “Vendor” entry:

Most of the columns are self-explanatory. The “Total Replacement Cost” column keeps track of all of the items in the database. When I get rid of something, instead of taking it out of the database, I “retire it” from use and take it off the insurance policy. There are some things I do not insure or do so with another carrier — so I have a drop down “Yes” and “No” in the form.

Actually, my current database has more options. I have an entry that tells me what was stolen on July 11. And, to which insurer I am submitting the claim. I also added a column with a URL for the insurance company showing what the current cost of replacement is; all the claim adjustor has to do is click and the item and price pops up. The easier we make things for the claim adjustor the faster the claim will be adjusted.

Over the days following the burglary, I took a print out of the schedule to my studio and used colored markers to mark what was there and what was not. I then entered the data into the form and printed out the inventory of what was lost. That’s what I sent to the claim adjustor.

Whenever I want to update my insured inventory, I use a second Layout to send information to the insurer. Here’s what it looks like:

Without this database, I’m not sure how I’d have gone about proving my loss. I would have taken a lot of searching through old records — some of which are in storage.

For me, the maintenance of these records has been well worth the effort. I strongly suggest that you develop a system of your own.

One last point: Make sure to put everything on the schedule; if it is not listed, most companies will say it won’t be covered. I lost a hard drive and cable; the hard drive was listed; the cable was not; the cable was not covered. It’s a pain in the butt, but to be on the safe side we have to list every little thing that we want insured. And, that’s understandable. They need to know the nature of the risk they are covering. When filling out the inventory, pay attention to the details.

But Wait! There’s More!! Something Free!!!

To make it easier for those of you who don’t want to “program” a database, I posted a copy of my template for you to download. To use it, you’ll need Filemaker Pro which runs on both the Apple and Windows operating systems. From what I understand, but have not tried, you can import this template into other databases and spreadsheets. You can edit the drop down menus such as “Type”, “Manufacturer”, and “Vendor” by going to the bottom of the list and hitting “Edit”; you will be able to add or delete at will.

To get your free copy, click here. You will be asked for the password which is — FreeTemplate. Duh! Not too creative. But, it will work.

Choosing the Right Insurance Policy

Most of us have insurance on our equipment. But, do we have the right policies?

There is nothing worse than having an insurance policy only to find out, at a time of loss, that the policy we have is not the policy we thought it was. That’s where I’m caught right now. In “coverage hell”.

I bought a policy that I was told would pay for the “replacement” of lost or damaged equipment. In the world of insurance, “replacement” usually means that we will get something of “like kind and quality” — whatever the cost of doing so. My written policy was consistent with that representation.

But, when the claim was sent to an adjustor, the ground rules changed. I was told that I would be paid the “scheduled amount” of my loss or the cost of replacement — whichever was less. The scheduled amount was the amount I listed in the “cost” columns of my spreadsheet. When I told the adjustor that under that interpretation, one that I did not accept, I would not be able to replace all that was stolen, I was told something to the effect of “Well, you’ll just have to decide what you can do without.” In other words, the policy that had guaranteed that I would be able to replace whatever I lost had turned into a policy that would not.

With this type of policy interpretation, we, as photographers, face a scheduling dilemma. Our photography equipment often appreciates in value. That’s rare in the world of consumer spending; most of the stuff we buy goes down in value. However, for example, I paid about $100.00 less per SB800 than I will have to pay to replace them with SB900′s. Why the 900′s? Because I can’t get the 800′s anymore. Wish I could; in my eyes they are a far better unit. But, the 900 is considered the unit of “like kind and quality”. The same can be said about the prices of some Nikon lenses. They’ve gone up, not down, in value.

And, that’s why most of us want true “replacement value” insurance. If we buy a policies that pay the “scheduled amount”, we are forced, on a daily basis, to track the value of each piece of equipment to make sure it is listed at its current price on our database. In essence, our equipment becomes a commodity and we are tracking its value; it’s like following the stock commodities markets on a daily basis. And, with each move up and down, we have to file an amended schedule with the insurance company. We are in the photography business — not the scheduling business. With policies that demand daily updates, we are at risk because, most of us will not have the time to do it.

The “daily update policy” is a nightmare. And, one that both the professional organization that represents my plan, and the broker that sells it for the organization, claim is not what I bought.

But, today, as I write this column, that is how the adjustor is handling my claim.

To the credit of my professional organization, their officers are strongly and steadfastly working to clear up this coverage mess. I am confident they will do so. They want the best policy for all of us, the one that will give us true coverage, and I’m sure they will get it.

The Bottom Line Is: Most of us want to know that if we lose a camera or lens, we get it replaced by a camera or lens of like kind and quality. We want “replacement” coverage.

There are other types of policies. Some pay the “actual cash value” of the loss — which to most insurance companies means the market value of the lost item on the day it was lost; in most cases that’s a depreciated amount; we’d have to read the fine print, but I’m pretty sure the companies will not want to pay the “appreciated value” should that be the case.

One last note on “replacement policies”. Many pay you the actual cash value UNLESS  and UNTIL you replace the item. If you replace the item you get the replacement cost. Under this scenario: you lose a lens that will cost $1,000 to replace; it’s current value, depreciated, is $750; if you take the money, you get $750; if you buy a replacement lens and pay $1,000 for it, they give you the remaining $250.

I write this so that when you buy your policies, you will know to ask careful questions to make sure you are getting exactly what you want and need.

Important Lesson Learned: We have to do more than ask the right questions and listen carefully to the answers — WE HAVE TO READ A COPY OF THE POLICY BEFORE WE BUY IT. And, that’s not the way most of us buy insurance. Most of us talk to an agent and buy a policy without seeing the actual language of the policy we are buying. Later, we receive what is known as a “binder” or “dec page” — a summary page that commits the company to coverage and states the nature and limits of the policy; the “dec page” does not contain any of the fine print that sets the scope of the coverage. Later, we get the actual policy. In the best of all worlds, the policy we are told we are getting will be the policy we actually get. But, we don’t always live in the best of all worlds. Best Practice: Ask to see the actual policy before you sign the dotted line.

Here are some things to think about when you talk with your advisors and agents:

1. Household Insurance

Relying on your home owners or renters insurance carries some risks. Most policies will not cover “professional” equipment. I’m not sure how they define professional, but I do know that the more you have, and the better it is,  the more professional you look. For most of us this is not a safe insurance path. First, you run the risk that your loss will not be covered at all. And, second, even if it is covered under the general “personal property” coverage, you run the risk that the deductible will be so high that you will not be able to replace much of what is lost.

2. Business Policies

Most of us who rent space have liability policies that cover the premises and some of our belongings. However, once more, there are risks involved with relying on these policies to insure our equipment. These, too, are often limited to a percentage of the policy coverage. And, they, too, may exclude specific “tools of the trade”. But, most of these companies will insure our equipment if we “schedule” it.

3. Equipment Policies

Therefore, most of us will want policies specifically designed to cover photographic equipment. There’s nothing exotic about this coverage and many companies can do it. It’s simply a matter of finding an agent who knows what we have, understands it, and helps us get the right coverage. In almost all cases, a proper inventory will be essential to the process.

A Few Final Words About Insurance

We buy insurance to give us peace of mind. We buy it to know that if there is a loss, we have a partner standing beside us who will help us get back on our feet. Each year we go without a claim is a good year — for us and for the company. And, we think little about the relationship.

It is at the time of loss that we need that partnership to work. We need a company that takes our claims seriously and responds, promptly and diligently to perform the promises it has made to us. And, we need to do everything we can to facilitate the company’s handling of our claims.

The more prepared we are for a loss, the more we can give the claim adjustor, the more likely we will have a prompt and proper administration of the claim.

My claim has been delayed for other reasons. There is a dispute as to what coverage my association was selling and the nature of my policy. As soon as that conflict is resolved, I’ll update this article, name names, and give a bit more insight as to what I perceive the value of the policy to be. I will say that at this time, I’m investigating other policies. I’ll share what I’ve learned, soon.

In the mean time, it might serve all of you well to take a good look at your own policies and discuss them with your agents. If you want “replacement” insurance, make sure you have it. And, make sure what responsibilities you have in terms of tracking and updating the values of your equipment.

But, Wait! There’s More!! A Word About Alarm Systems!!!

I know it’s a little late. The cameras are out of the corral. But, I’ve installed an alarm system at my studio.

I did it with mixed feelings. Truth be told, I’m not sure how much it will help.

The idea is that if someone breaks in, an alarm sounds, and a call goes out to the police. The police come and arrest the bad guys.

In theory, that’s great. But, it’s all dependent on one thing — the response time of the local police, how quickly they get to the studio after the alarm goes off.

If they can get there in less than 5 minutes, the chances are that they will catch someone.

But, in most cities, response times are much slower — and burglars know that. I’ve been told that most burglars count on being in and out in less than 10 minutes and know, if they are that quick, they will most likely get away.

So why did I put in the alarm? To raise the risk of getting caught AND to give myself peace of mind (even if it is a bit “false”).

The burglars cannot count on a response time. They will not know if there is a car in the vicinity of my studio that will get there in a couple of minutes. When that siren goes off, they will either leave or rush their survey of my stuff, both of which are good for me.

I did a lot of research on alarm systems and have chosen one that I think best meets many of our needs. I’m in the process of testing it. If it works well, I’ll write about it. I’ve also negotiated a discount program for my readers. So, if I think it’s worth installing, I’ll do a complete article on my research, why I chose this system, and offer a discount code for all of you.

More on this later.

(Copyright: PrairieFire Productions/Stephen J. Herzberg — 2010)

Some have had easy installations. Some have not. Unfortunately, I am in both camps. I had an easy installation. And, I lived through the installation from hell. I trust that most of you will travel the “easy path”. The software is solid and, in most cases, it is installing and running perfectly.

But, in some cases, idiosyncrasies on our hard drives create installation problems. So, for those of us who will or have had issues, I decided to create a post to share what I learned while solving those I encountered. If your installation of CS5 went perfectly, like one of mine did, you may want to skip this post. However, if you’ve run into problems, take a look; if they are the same issues I ran into, this article may help.

Today, my installations are rock solid. CS5 is a giant step on the creative path — one well worth taking. Here’s how I got there:

The Easy Installation: MacBook Pro Laptop

Nothing could have been easier. It took less than 2 hours to install my CS5 Master Collection (almost all of the software Adobe makes — save Lightroom); it was seamless and painless. It took another hour or so to follow the protocol I set forth in the original feature article. So, within 2.5 hours I had a bullet proof installation of CS5 on my laptop. And, to back it up, I had my original, fully functional, installation of CS4.

So, where’s the story?

The Installation from Hell: Mac Pro Desktop

I spent the better part of two days trying to get a rock solid installation of CS5 on my desktop computer. A good part of that time was spent on the phone waiting for and talking with an “outsourced” and somewhat underwhelming Adobe Support Center. In fact, in the end, with the help of a handful of friends, including NAPP’s incredible Peter Bauer, and perhaps the nation’s best Mac consultant, Benjamin G. Levy of Los Angeles, I solved the problems in spite of the advice I was given by Adobe.

During the struggle, I did extensive online research and determined that the issues I faced were not unique to my installation. Because others had similar experiences, I decided to update this post.

Two Basic Problems

Problem #1: Although the installer indicated that it had, in fact, installed all 11 programs in the Suite, only Photoshop, Bridge and Dreamweaver appeared in my applications folder. Photoshop and Bridge opened and ran, somewhat normally (see problem #2 below). Dreamweaver opened, without the splash screen. And, when open it had no menu bar. It was totally inoperable. The other programs were missing in action. (There are messages from people on the ‘net who are installing various CS5 Suites who are having the same problems.)

So, I decided to run the installer, again. I opened it up and it indicated that all of the programs were installed on my Mac and that there was nothing left to install. But, it did allow me to run the installer again. I checked off all of the “missing programs” and ran it. Same result. They remained lost.

Interestingly enough, when I did a “Spotlight” search on my hard drive, I found that the installer had created folders in HD>Library>Application Support>Adobe for some of the missing Suite programs. So, I had support folders but not the programs themselves.

That’s when I made my first call to Adobe. The rep told me to download the Adobe Support Advisor program. Support Advisor reads the Installation Log file created by the most recent installation of an Adobe product or Suite. It was supposed to determine what went wrong with my installation. But, it didn’t. It told me that there were no issues with the installation. Hmm.

Even so, if you are having troubles with your installation, I suggest you start with the Adobe Support Advisor. If you are lucky, it will give you the feedback to solve your problems.

But, I had to go further. I decided to “uninstall” the Adobe CS5 applications. I wanted to do so in a way that did not disturb my CS4 installation; more than ever, I needed that application to be functional; it was my safety net.

I suggested to the Adobe rep that I use the Adobe Uninstaller for the Suite. He adamantly told me not to do so because it would also uninstall CS4. So, I dragged and dropped all of my CS5 stuff in the applications folder to the trash. I did a Spotlight search on CS5 and threw away all of that stuff, too.

I then did another clean install. Another failure. And, another “no problem” message from the Support Advisor program. Here’s the screen I got back (you can click on the images for larger versions):

At that point, I decided that Adobe Support was not the answer and contacted Peter Bauer. I’ve written about Peter several times before. He’s the guy who runs the NAPP Help Desk. Having access to Peter is worth the entire cost of the NAPP membership. He’s that good. It was after 11 PM; having wasted an entire day, I was frustrated and cranky; I figured I’d send an email to Peter and await a response the following day. The response came back in less than half an hour. And, Peter lives in the Eastern Time Zone — so he was responding after midnight. I followed my hunch and his advice and resolved issue #1.

When you install a Suite, Adobe gives you a program to Uninstall it. On a Mac, it’s found in the Utilities Folder. [HD>Applications>Utilities>Adobe Installers>Adobe Creative Suite 5 Master Collection. Note, this Installer/Uninstaller is specific to CS5. I also have one in the same folder for CS4 and I will use it when I decide that I can live without CS4 on my machine (most likely when all of the plugins I use are 64 bit compliant.)

CAVEAT: I do not run uninstallers  unless I have my hard drive backed up; I had several redundant back ups of this drive and also a Time Machine backup. So, I knew that if things went wrong, I would not suffer irreparable loss.

Here’s a picture of the Uninstaller. Note that it is set to erase the Preference files and to Deactivate the program. Deactivation clears the license with Adobe so that you can install and use the program again.

I ran the uninstaller and all of the Adobe applications from CS5 were gone.

But, I wasn’t done. I knew that there were hidden bits and pieces of CS5 code on my hard drive that had to be removed. So, I ran the Adobe CS5 Clean Script application that I downloaded from here. Here’s what the program window looked like (Note the option to clean up remnants of CS3 and CS4, too):

I hit “Clean All CS5″ and, for the first time, was confident that CS5 was officially eradicated from my computer.

Now, it was time to start over with a new, clean install.

Interestingly, Peter suggested a protocol similar to the one that I use whenever I install new system software on my Macs. (I added two steps of my own).

1. My Steps: In Disk Utility,  I repaired my Permissions. After that, I ran Disk Warrior to create a new directory. This was being super cautious, but I wanted to eliminate all possible problems. I was on my second day of this installation and did not look forward to a third.

2. Here’s where Peter and I agreed: I shut the computer down and disconnected all of my external hard drives. I restarted the computer in my Administrator account. I inserted the Master Collection CS5 DVD and ran a “default” installation.

Voila! A couple of hours later, I was celebrating the complete installation of the Master collection.

But, I was celebrating too soon.

Problem #2: Although all of the programs could be found in my applications folder, with the exception of Photoshop and Bridge, none of them would start up. Most crashed before showing a flash screen. Dreamweaver was its same old self — simple the name in the menu and nothing else. And, to add a new wrinkle, I kept getting this same message when trying to save and change my preferences in Photoshop:

I won’t bore you with the steps I took to make sure I had the proper privileges to save the preferences. Suffice it to say, those steps did not work. I also “zapped my parameter RAM” on my Mac; still no help.

I was totally frustrated, again, so I fell back on a procedure I often follow when fighting software battles — I shut down the computer and rebooted into another Administrative Account that I created, long ago, for just this situation. It is a “pure” or clean account; I call it “Test” and only use it for troubleshooting. I’ve done nothing to change it from the day it was opened.

The theory is that if the software runs properly in this pure account, the problem is in my User account, not the software. Now that it was all loaded correctly, I had a base line installation to test. So I did.

And, Voila2, it worked perfectly in this account.

So, now I knew that I had a solid software installation. The problem was in my User’s account.

(For those of you Mac people who may be a bit confused by “User” and/or “Administrative” accounts, here’s the deal. Our Mac’s allow us to have multiple “user” accounts so that different people can use the machine. Each user can be assigned different privileges on the machine. The ultimate privilege, the power to do everything — including altering key settings and the way the computer runs — is called the Administrator’s privilege. If you have but one user, you, you are also the Administrator. It’s that easy.)

Many Mac people would advise someone in my position to simply create a new User’s account. But, the consequences of doing that are significant; I had a lot invested in this account and identity and did not want to have to recreate years of links and uses including the way my computer related to my iPhone, MobileMe and my laptop..

Here’s where Ben Levy — the consummate MacMan, saved the day. Instead of telling me to open an new identity Ben told me to:

1. Go into User>Application Support>Adobe and to move the “Adobe” folder to the trash. (I did, sort of. I took it out of the Application Support folder and stored in on my Desktop — just in case I needed it, later; I think I may be a “hoarder”.) and,

2. He told me to go into User>Preferences and remove EVERYTHING Adobe, including the “com.adobe …” stuff. (Once more, I sort of complied. I put that stuff in the “hoarder file” too.)

(For those slightly confused by the above, basically what you see is a road map that takes you from your drive into the specific folders holding the material to be removed. The “>” sign is a “go here” sign. So, in “1.”, above,  I started on my hard drive. Opened my User account. Within it I found the Application Support folder. Opened it and found the Adobe folder that I removed to the desktop.)

Ben told me that those steps would be the equivalent of creating a new “User” account as far as the Adobe products were concerned. What about the stuff I had thrown away? Like a lizard growing a new tail, the Adobe programs would create new, untainted files to replace them on the next start up.

And, when I started up, everything worked perfectly — and it still does.

Some Final Thoughts on the Struggle

OK, why was the installation on my laptop so successful and the installation on my desktop such a battle?

Here’s my theory, and it is only a theory:

As an NAPP member, I downloaded and Beta-tested CS5. I was extremely cautious when I did so. I used an external hard drive with its own operating system. When I wanted to test, I booted from and worked on that drive. Why? The word prophylactic comes to mind. I didn’t want any problems with my test software to move to my main hard drive.

But, Duh!!!, in moments of passion I forgot to use my safeguards. Instead of booting from the external disk, I booted from my computer and reached out to the external disk to run CS5. Somehow, I think this infected my user account.

To make matters worse, when CS5 hit the market, I placed my order. But, the software was not shipping. So I downloaded a trial version to another external drive and used that version until my DVD’s arrived. Again, too much passion and too little caution. I think the free trial also messed things up on my main drive.

Why did the laptop not suffer these discomforts? Because I never ran either version of CS5 on it.

Lesson Learned: From now on, if I ever run Adobe Beta software or use a trial version, I will run the Uninstaller and Script Cleaner BEFORE attempting to load my purchased version. And, I will go through my Mac folder to clean out the stuff mentioned above, too.

Unlike the Adobe rep on the help line, I have total confidence in the Adobe Uninstallers and Script Cleaners. They are edition specific. They did not alter my CS4 because I did not ask them to. They did exactly what they were supposed to do in the way they were supposed to do it. I will not hesitate to use them again.

Will I load test or free trial software again? I don’t know. As I sit here, today, having gone through this mess, I’d say not. But, who knows where my passion will drive me when the next versions come out. My guess is that, after the memory of the struggle fades, I’ll jump in to testing whatever new stuff comes out. But, I’ll make sure to practice safe testing. And, I’ll use the Adobe software to clean up before loading the final versions.

Of course, we all have to learn our own lessons. I post these not as a foolproof guide but only as a suggestion as to how to approach problems. Because installation issues are so idiosyncratic, I can’t tell you to do what I did or tell you that it will work. If you choose to try my steps, PLEASE minimize the inherent risks by backing up your drives BEFORE you try any of them (or any steps you read about or are recommended to follow — even by the Adobe rep’s).

My guess is that, because CS5 is so solid and installs easily on most computers, very few of you read this article. However, for those who did, I hope it helps. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to contact me using the contact function on the home page.

(Copyright: PrairieFire Productions/Stephen J. Herzberg — 2010)

A month or so ago, I was able to download and Beta-test the new Photoshop release. There are some incredible new features — things like:

• “Content-Aware Fill”  – you know that odd shape you get when you stitch together a panorama? This tool will fill the gaps and make the image rectangular WITHOUT cropping away stuff we want to keep; I also think it will help with facial retouching in those tight areas where other tools often pick up dark spots or lines;
• a beefed up HDR section — which, for some users, may obviate the need for third party programs;
• a beefed up Refine Edge tool — which will make complex extractions a lot easier;
• an improved brush tool and interface — so those of us with Wacom tablets can change the way the brush interacts with the image by tilting the brush or applying differing pressures to it;
• “painting” tools — the ability to alter brushes and use color mixing to replicate painting styles — not a replacement for Painter, but an interesting alternative;
• A “Mini-Bridge” that minimizes the need to back and forth between two programs, Ps and Br; and,
• the new “Puppet Warp” tool — which, through some amazing magic, will let us correct posing flaws by simply bending the body; I think it will also be useful in doing some of the things we used to do with liquify in a much more controllable format.

Perhaps most important for Mac users is that CS5 will allow us to take advantage of the full power of our Intel processors — it will run in 64 bit mode. Posts on those features will come in due time.

But, before we get to use all these new tools and exploit all that horsepower, those of us who have an older version of Photoshop, like CS4, will have to successfully upgrade to the new version. Doing that is the topic of this post.

The Risk of Going First — And Some Safety Nets

I know a lot of people who won’t load software until at least two or three updates have been issued. I am not one of them. I ordered the Adobe Master Collection the first moment I could, and I will install it the day it arrives. Will there be issues? Probably. But, I’ve found that Adobe software, when released, is usually stable. However, sometimes there are issues not of Adobe’s making.  Once you’ve decided to go forward, here are some things to think about:

1. If you are cautious and risk averse — if you are the kind of person who does not want to take any chance that there will be hiccups in your installation — the cleanest path is to uninstall the old version and all of your add-ins and add-ons, and re-install everything from its original source discs. I know people who do it that way. However, doing so takes a lot of time. I’ve never done it that way and have yet to be punished for taking the route described below. But, I’m aware that there is always a first time.

2. More likely than not, when moving to the Mac 64 bit platform, we will have 3rd party software, usually plugins, that will have to be upgraded. As I write this article, I know that many of the plugins I use, on a daily basis, are not 64 bit compliant. Most of them should be by the time I receive my Master Collection.

However, if they are not, there are a couple of “work-arounds” I plan to follow:

1. I will leave my copies of CS4 installed on my computers until EVERYTHING in the new installation, including the new plugins, is working perfectly. I did the same thing when I moved from CS3 to CS4. I figured that if something failed, the older, stable version, was my safety net;

2. If my plugins are not updated by the time I’m using CS5, I will still be able to use them in CS4. I’ll start in CS5 and work there until I need the plugins. I’ll then save the file as a .psd, and both EXIT and SHUT DOWN CS5. I’ll then re-open the .psd in CS4 — where my plugins will be available and finish off there. Following this route, it is critical to shut down CS5. Both versions should not be running at the same time; and,

3. Another way to handle the plugin problem is suggested by NAPP’s Peter Bauer (more on Peter in a moment.) The “older versions” of the plugins, which are 32 bit, can run CS5 in 32 bit mode. To set that up, right click on the program icon, select Get Info, and activate “Open in 32 Bit Mode”. Of course, this will be like running a V12 Ferrari with 6 spark plugs disconnected, but it is a solution.

More likely than not, by the time most of us get our copies of CS5, the plugins will have been updated. But for those of us who will jump in early, no matter what, the work-arounds should keep us productive.

The Protocol I’m Going to Follow

A couple of years ago, before I started this blog/site, I wrote a newsletter and distributed it by email. One of the articles I wrote set forth a protocol for upgrading from CS3 to CS4. At the time, I had both versions, in hand, and could do the screen shots necessary to illustrate the article.

Unfortunately, as I write this,  I don’t have CS5 in hand. Knowing that most of us will be upgrading before I post the next round of content, I’ve decided to use that old newsletter article as the basis for this post. The screen shots may be different (or they may not), but the concepts and techniques are the same.

How do I know they will work with CS5? I asked Peter Bauer, that’s how.

Who’s Peter Bauer? The guy who knows the best way to do everything Photoshop.

Actually, until I met Peter Bauer at Photoshop World a couple of years ago, I didn’t think he was a real person.  I thought he was a computer. Peter is NAPP’s “answer man” – the guy who responds to all the tough support questions. The fact that he answered them so completely and quickly led me to believe he was a “virtual person”, not a human being. But, then I met him in the flesh. Peter is both knowledgeable and generous with his time.

So, when it was time to upgrade to CS4,  I wrote Peter to get his preferred protocol. I followed it and everything worked perfectly, from Day 1. In fact, it worked so well that, within a week, I deactivated and uninstalled CS3.

Note the “deactivate” part of that sentence. If you want to give your previous version away, or sell it, you have to “deactivate it” before uninstalling it. Adobe keeps track of he number of computers running a product on one serial number. Without a special license, I’m pretty sure the limit is 2 computers. If all one does is “uninstall” Adobe does not know that you aren’t using it. Only “Deactivation” sends the message that the license is not being used. On a Mac, the path to deactivation from within CS4 is: Menus>Help>Deactivate.

Step 1. Preserving 3rd Party Plugins, Actions, Custom Brushes and Textures

The upgrade process is as easy as putting in the new discs and letting them run. However, there are a couple of preliminary steps one must take to preserve and reinstall 3rd party plug-ins, and special things like custom actions, brushes and textures so that you can move them from CS4 to CS5.

Once more, if you are totally risk averse, the preferred procedure is probably to re-install all 3rd party stuff from the original discs or downloads. As anal as I am, that’s still a cumbersome process I avoid.

Before starting, we need to make sure we have the most current versions of all of the non-Adobe stuff – the stuff that will not be installed by CS5. And, we need to note which of those versions are CS5 compliant and which are not.

Non-Adobe Actions:

In saving and re-loading Actions, we work with “Action Sets”, not individual actions. So, it’s wise to put loose actions in a set.

Then, from the Actions Panel drop down menu, select “Save Actions”:

I’ll create a new folder on my desktop, “Saved Actions”, in which they will be saved. Follow the same procedure for all non-Adobe actions. The action sets will be saved with an “.atn” file extension.

Custom Brushes, Styles and Things Like That

One uses Edit>Preset Manager to create sets and save them in a manner similar to the one set forth above.

Here’s a picture of the Preset Manager. A couple of things to note: It, too, saves “sets”. When you first open it, the “Save Set button is likely to be grayed out. By selecting my custom brushes (more than one brush) I got the option to save them as a set. From that point on, the process is similar to the one that saved the actions. Just save them to a clearly labeled file on your desktop. The “Preset Type” drop down menu let’s you save other custom things. Here are your choices:

Just to be clear, by going through this process, we are trying to save all of the 3rd party or custom things that are not a part of CS5 and will not show up in CS5 unless we save them from CS4 and load them on our own.

When we’ve gone through all of the things in the Preset Manager and saved what is non-Adobe, we can Quit CS4. We’re done there.

Step 2. Installing CS5 and Loading the Non-Adobe Things We’ve Saved

Now, it’s time to install CS5 from the original DVD.

Peter reminds us to disable any anti-virus software (I’m a Mac, what is that?) and/or automated programs we might have. When I’m doing an upgrade like this, I turn every other program on my computer off.

After loading CS5, it’s time to upgrade it to make sure it has all of the current components. I use the Adobe Updater which, on the Mac, is under the Help Menu.

Peter also reminds us to get the latest Camera Raw plug-ins,by clicking here.

It’s now time to re-load your custom actions, using the LOAD ACTIONS button in the actions menu. And, in a like manner, it’s time to load the custom things you saved with the Preset Manager using the LOAD function there.

We are not done, yet. We still have one task left, we’ve got to install all of the 3rd party plug-ins, things like our onOne, Imagenomic, and Nik software.

For this task, Peter recommends something I’ve been doing since CS2 – something that has made my upgrades to CS3 and CS4 a lot easier.

Peter tells us to install those plugins to a new folder on our desktops. I’ve been calling mine “3rd Party Photoshop Plugins”. (I’ve also made similar folders for my 3rd party Actions and Presets.)

Once the plugins are loaded, we put them in the Photoshop CS5 folder. Then, we create an “alias” of those new folders and place the alias in the official CS5 plugins folder. The alias tells Photoshop that there are more plugins available and sends the program to the actual 3rd party folders, where it finds and loads them. Here’s my folder set up:

Notice the “3rd Party” folders. I’ve made an alias for each and put it in the appropriate “stock” Photoshop folders.

Here’s what the Plug-ins alias looks like in the Plug-ins folder:

I have a similar “alias folder” in the Presets file.

For the move from CS3 to CS4 all I had to do was move that folder from the CS3 file to the CS4 file and make and place a new alias. I’ll do the same thing when I move to CS5.

There is another advantage to segregating the 3rd party stuff from that which comes from Adobe. If ever you run into quirky program behavior, you can remove the aliases; that will bring the program back to its “native state”. If the problem goes away, you will know it is in the external folder. If it does not, you will know that the things in that folder are OK.

Either way, the “3rd party folder path” is really the way to go.

After the installation is complete, I open a file and run through all of the plugins. If they work, great. If not, I’d do a clean install from their original media. So far, I’ve never had to do a clean install. Everything has worked.

From what I’ve seen, we will want to make some changes in Adobe’s preferences file. I’ll write about them, later.

That’s it. That’s all there is to it. Not very hard to get right.

Once more, I want to thank Peter Bauer of NAPP for generously allowing me to share this protocol with you. As I’ve said before, my NAPP dues are probably the best investment I’ve made in my photography. I get the fabulous Photoshop User Magazine, a web site filled with tips, tutorials and forums, product discounts AND Peter Bauer. Can’t beat that for $99.

(Copyright: PrairieFire Productions/Stephen J. Herzberg — 2010)

That’s where “batch processing” comes in.

There are lots of ways to batch process a mark. One of the most common is to create an action. However, doing so is a bit complex because we need to create an action that will resize and place the mark where we want it on images of different sizes and orientations. I’ve been down that path. It works, but it’s a lot of work.

Fortunately, others have done the heavy lifting for us. In this tutorial, I’m going to write about the two Photoshop plugins I use to batch mark my images.

But, before we get to the plugins — a few preliminary points — one philosophical and the others technical.

First, the philosophical: I still have difficulty “defacing” my photos with a watermark. I work hard to perfect my artistic vision. I find it tough to plop something on it that will make it more difficult for the viewer to suspend disbelief and truly engage the image. So, when I choose to mark them, I try to do something subtle, like putting my name and either the word “copyright” or the “©” symbol in a lower corner. This will let printers know it is a copyrighted image; but it won’t protect us from those who will scan our images at home and crop them to take the mark off. For the greatest protection, we have to put the mark right across the center or on a face — someplace essential and difficult to clone out. Yuk!

Second, the technical: You will need a “mark” for the plugin to place. All you have to do is follow the steps set out in Part I on this site — until you get to Step 5. Instead of “defining a brush”, you simply Save your work. I actually save my work in several formats and sizes. For starters, I make them big — at least 3×6″s so that on large pictures they’ll show up. Then, to give myself the flexibility to use the different approaches below, I save them as .psd’s and .pngs. I use the .pngs in PhotoFrame Professional and the .psds in Watermark Creator. I know people who also maker them in both horizontal and vertical formats. This is all easier to do than to write about. You create your mark and then save and rotate it in all formats until you have your bases covered.

Finally, you need a folder of files to process. Since most of my “proofs” are circulated for viewing on a computer, whenever I finish an image, I run an action that saves it in three forms — a .psd, a Hi-Res .jpeg for printing, and a Lo-Res .jpeg with sRGB resolution(for the web). I use a script from on of my favorite Photoshop Guru/Personalites, Russell Brown, to do this — Dr. Brown’s 1-2-3 Process. Dr. Brown’s site has a lot of free stuff and some great tutorials.

So, with a file full of images designated for marking, it’s time to batch.

Technique 1: onOne Software’s PhotoFrame Professional 4.5 Batch Processor

One of my favorite programs in the onOne Suite is PhotoFrame Professional 4.5; I use it, often, to add frames and textures to my images. It’s one of my favorite differentiation tools. With it, I can do things that many of my competitors cannot.

If that were all it did, it would be an incredible tool. But, it does more. Whether you are adding a frame or not, in its Batch mode, it will add watermarks.

Here’s how:

When you open PhotoFrame Professional 4.5 Batch Edition, you get this window:

1. Frames — if you are going to add a frame to the files, you choose it here. If you are simply adding a watermark, you can skip this step;

2. Source  – Here is where we tell the plugin the folder that holds the files we are going to mark. If you have all of the files open in Photoshop, the drop down menu allows you to choose “Open Files”;

3. Destination — let’s you tell the software where to put the finished files when it is done;

4. File Naming — is exactly what it says;

5. File Type — is also very straight forward;

What’s very cool is that the program allows us to make multiple copies with multiple resolutions. So, if you are going to both print and put marked images on line, you can do both high and low resolution .jpegs here. (If you know you are going to end up in onOne’s Batch processor, you can skip the step I take in Dr. Browns 19-2-3, and make your multiple files during the batch process); and,

6. Watermark — OK, now it’s time to get to work — but we’ll find it really isn’t “work” at all. It’s really pretty easy.

First, we have to enable “Watermarking” because the software has to know we’re not just here to add a frame.

Then, we get to decide where we want to put the mark. The drop down menu gives us a variety of choices. I usually use the least obtrusive placement which, for most of the things I shoot, is the lower right corner. But on the “trumpets” image, the corner was so dark that placing it there would have made it easily cloned out. So, I centered it.

Then we use the “Choose” button to tell the software where to find the mark we want to use.

7. Hit “Apply” and sit back while the plugin marks all of the files in the folder. Depending on how many are there, it can take a while. I’ve done hundreds at once. I simply walked away and watched an episode of Burn Notice. (Actually, it was a lot faster than that; because I was not making image copies at the time, 30 Low Res images took less than a minute.) When I came back, everything was done and I had a message on my screen telling me that all 29 images had been successfully marked.

Using PhotoFrames 4.5 Professional, you can easily mark a lot of images with very little effort.

onOne Software has graciously extended a substantial discount on their products to my students and readers. Until Mar 1, the price for the Suite is $299.99. After Mar 1, it will go up to $379.00 which is probably the lowest price in the country. To learn more about the discount, please go here.

Back Story — The Making of This Image

I’ve been asked to write about how I capture some of the images used in my posts. So, here’s the Back Story of Trumpet Silhouettes.

I have to confess. I’m a Friday Night Lights junkie — not the TV show, but the real thing. For the past four years, I’ve been one of the “official” unofficial photographers for the Houston Memorial High School Mustang Marching Band. Why? Because my daughter Jenny has been in it since her freshman year. She marched her first year and has been in the Color and Winter Guards ever since. No images have been more fun to create than the thousands I’ve done at the football games and Band and Guard competitions.

So, how did I get the trumpet silhouettes? This is an example of using very strong backlight to one’s advantage. I spot metered on the sky, knowing the players would go dark. Had I used any form of dynamic metering, the camera would have struggled to average things out and I would have gotten a blown out sky and mousy picture of the kids — a really mediocre picture. I wanted a silhouette. And, by metering for the sky and deliberately underexposing the players, I got one.

But, that was just the capture. From there, I still had a little work to do in post production.

First, I used Nik Software’s Viveza to darken the trumpet players a little more — to take out the bit of detail that had been captured in the original image.

Second, I used a Levels layer adjustment to darken the sky. I made a “global adjustment” which darkened the kids a bit more, too.

At that point, I had a great looking image with a blue/gray sky, which I saved.

But, never content, I did what I usually do with an image I think is finished, I went into onOne’s PhotoTools Pro and Nik’s Color Efex Pro 3.0 and started to fiddle around. I usually just run down the menu of effects to see if something hits my spot. And, one did —  Nik’s Burnt Sienna — which changed my sky to fire.

By metering correctly at the time of capture, and by adding some flair in post-production, I got exactly what I wanted, and more.

Technique 2: NAPP’s Watermark Creator

OK. I know I’ve written this before,  over and over but — the best investment I’ve made in my photography is my National Association of Photoshop Professionals membership. By far and away the best investment. I get so much for so little — the great Photoshop User magazine, Photoshop User TV,  access to a great website replete with advice and tutorials, and access to a help desk run by the amazing Peter Bauer and my favorite professional conference, Photoshop World. With all of that help, I’ve gotten better at Photoshop and my post production.

If you are a member, there is another benefit. You can download NAPP’s Watermark Creator — and extension panel for Photoshop that offers another way to mark our images, either individually or in batches. (Once you’ve downloaded and installed it, you will find it under Window>Extensions>Watermark.) Start it up and you get this:

Many of the concepts are similar to those used in PhotoFrames Pro; so, I’ll not go through each step. But, there are some significant differences and those are what I’ll explore.

1. Select the watermark file.

2. Select the images to mark.

3. Select folder for marked images.

So far, nothing exciting. But in the next few steps, the features of this program start to shine.

4. Select Watermark Position and Style

What’s cool here is that we are given choices of where to put the mark, top, center bottom, and an option with each to go to the left or right. To get a more exact placement, we can set the horizontal and vertical offsets.

How do we know how much offset to use? We use the preview button, below and adjust the placement until it is perfect.

Note that WM Creator also lets us adjust the size and opacity of the mark. In the example, below, I used the center at 100% scale and 50% opacity.

5. Select JPEG Export Settings

Once more, we are given a lot of control over our marked images. I’m particularly impressed with the settings for “Save as a JPEG for the Web”. If we use this function, we get an image in sRGB color space and with 72 pixels/inch resolution.

6. Preview, tweak and run. That’s it. Simple and effective.

Here’s an example of a file marked with WM Creator:

Watermark Creator, while very easy to use, brings the power of precise placement to the task.

Both programs provide fast and simple paths towards protecting our work.

Back Story: Why this image?

Simple. That’s my daughter, Jenny. Need I say more?

But Wait! There’s More!

Update:

Jack Reznicki just dropped me a note to remind us all that, as he notes, watermarking is at best “a 1% solution” — the other 99% is registration at the copyright office.

I’ve written about this before. We can hope for the best — that people will respect our rights and that watermarking will remind them to do so. But, we must prepare for the worst — we have to take legal action to register and enforce our rights.

As I’ve written before, I am in the middle of a lawsuit in which I am suing someone for violating my creative rights. Fortunately, I had registered my images. Had I not, my cause of action — though morally and legally correct — would have been difficult, if not impossible to pursue. Most lawyers will not take a case to enforce a violation unless the image has been registered.

Register. It’s easy. It’s fast. It’s cheap. And, it’s essential.

(Copyright: PrairieFire Productions/Stephen J. Herzberg — 2010)

But, in some ways, the placement is appropriate;  it shows the quandary in which we find ourselves when we take desperate measures to protect our work against unauthorized use and copying.

We spend all this time creating the “perfect image”, the image in which the viewer can get lost, and then we plop a big distraction on it. Hai has great eyes. I worked hard to present them correctly. What did most of you focus on first? My bet? The watermark.

At a time when most of our clients have access to the technology to copy and reproduce our work, without our permission, we are grasping for ways to protect ourselves.

But, there is also copying that people know is wrong. They do it because they think they can get away with it. And, sometimes, they can.

In this post, and one to follow, I’ll show you how to make it more difficult for those who don’t want to respect your rights:

Using a Watermark Brush

The simplest way I’ve found to make clear that the work is copyrighted is to use a “signature brush” to put a mark somewhere on the image. I like the brush because I can easily choose where to put the mark, and vary its size, color and opacity. I try to get away with the least intrusive mark — I really don’t want to make the image look bad, I just want to remind people it is copyrighted.

I usually put it in a lower corner. It will let people know the image is protected without too deeply offending my artistic sensitivities. Yes, it is possible to crop the warning off, but that’s a risk I’ll normally run. However, if you want more protection, you can stamp the image anywhere you want. And, you can make it as big as you want. However, were I to want to make copying more difficult, I’d place it somewhere where it could not be cropped off or easily retouched out — and that’s usually somewhere in the middle and over skin.

More often than not, I use my least aggressive “message brush” and put the copyright info either in a corner or across the bottom. I don’t want to offend people or be in their face — I just want to remind them that the image is protected.

The mark on this image is subtle — a simple statement “Copyright: PrairieFire Productions (2010)”. I have brushes that are more aggressive, like “Please Do Not Copy” and the oft used giant copyright sign “©” (option g on my Mac — I think it’s a bit more difficult in Windows.)

Putting on the mark is the last step in my post-production work flow. After I have finished processing the image,  I place a blank layer, atop the stack of my layers in Photoshop, and use the brush to “stamp” my message.  One of the advantages of the “brush method” is that the brush is easily resizable. You can choose the size before you stamp the message by using the bracket keys, or after by using the Free Transform tool; with the latter, you can also orient and place it exactly where you want it. And, because it is a brush, you can choose an appropriate color. Often, I select a contrasting color from within the image, itself, as I did here choosing to sample the color from her lips.

Making a Brush

At the beginning of the year, I make a brush like the one I used on Hai’s image. It usually takes me about 5 minutes.

There are lots of ways to make a brush — just Google “photoshop signature brush” and you’ll find dozens of sites giving you different ways to get it done.

My process is really simple.

Step 1. I open up a New File in Photoshop. For a long signature I work in a 3×6 window, but smaller will work well, too. I only watermark images that I use online so my brush, here, uses a resolution of 72 pixels/inch; were I to make one for print, I’d use a higher resolution.  I use a white background because, as we will see in Step 2, it helps me see the type and effects as I apply them.

Step 2. Using the Text Tool: I add a new blank layer above the white background layer. That will be the type layer upon which I create the signature/message. For this example, I am showing you one of my more aggressive brushes — on two layers it says “Copyright: Prairieifire Productions (2010)/Please — Do Not Copy”. There’s really nothing to this, just type in and space what you want — in black type. When you are done, you will have block, black letters. This screen shot gives you both the image and the Layers Panel. (Note: the text layer is actually transparent. However, because the Background layer is still on, it appears to be white.)

Step 3. Making it “See Through”: For a pure “signature” brush, some people go directly to Step 5 to create their brush. But, for purposes of watermarking, most of us want a somewhat “see through” mark. Here’s where we turn our block letters into a mark. We do so by adding some Layer Styles to the upper, text layer. So, making sure we are working on the text layer, we click on the “fx” button at the bottom of the Layers Panel and go to Blending Options. Within the Blending options window, go to Advanced Blending>Fill Opacity. Drag the slider to the left. As you do, the inside of the lettering becomes more transparent. I usually slide down to 10% or so. The lettering will get very faint with the white layer turned on. It will almost disappear working on the transparent layer, alone. That’s why I use the white background layer. Here’s what you’ll see:

(For the moment, please disregard the check marks in the Bevel and Emboss boxes. They come next and I took these screen shots while switching between my options. Bad me. I couldn’t go slowly enough to capture each step separately.)

Step 4. Giving the Brush Some Style and Shape: In the same panel, choose the Bevel and Emboss section. Here’s where you add the 3D look. Go wild. Slide the sliders. Have some fun. Here are the settings I used:

You may want to add a few more effects — like drop shadows or glows. Knock yourself out. They are easy to add and delete.

When you have what you think will work, turn off the Background layer (click on the eyeball to the left of the layer) to see your signature/message on the transparent layer only.

Some people would save this image as a “file”. To use it, they would open it up and drop it over the image they wanted to protect. They’d use the Free Transform command to size and place it.

That’s way too many steps for me. So, I turn my “messages” into brushes. Doing so is incredibly easy.

Step: 5 Making a Brush: Now, the easy part. With the Background layer turned off, working on the transparent layer, make a selection of the text.

In the menus, go to Edit>Define Brush Preset. Name your brush and click “OK”. That’s it.

You’ll find your brush in with all of your other brushes, usually at the bottom of the stack.  Try it out. If you don’t like it, you can go back into the original .psd file and make some adjustments.

A few final tips: Work on a transparent layer at the top of your layers stack. You can change the size, location, opacity and color while working on that layer. And, by putting the message on its own layer, and not flattening the image, you retain the ability to turn off the layer, and the message so as to print or deliver a clean version of the image.

But Wait — There Will Be More!!!

The “brush” approach works great when you are working one image at a time. However, it’s not really helpful when you want to protect a large bunch of images.

Fortunately, there are ways to apply the message in batches.

In Part II. of this article I’ll show you two solutions I use, NAPP’s Watermark Creator, and onOne Software’s PhotoFrames Pro 4.5.

I’ll try to get Part II up, soon.

(Copyright: PrairieFire Productions/Stephen J. Herzberg — 2010)

No matter how I set the white balance in my Nikon cameras — be it preset or custom — when I opened my images in either Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) or Lightroom (which are, in essence, the same thing) the White Balance number would be way off. The image didn’t look bad, but the Kelvin number wasn’t right. For example, with the flash setting used on my D3 — which Nikon tells me is set at 5400 — ACR would open the image at 6150 Kelvin.

"As Shot" Kelvin Reading in ACR

So, I began to wonder — If ACR was wrong on this fundamental setting, what else was it missing?

Followed by — Why was this happening?

And, finally — What am I going to do about it?

At the same time, the proponents of Nikon’s own software, NX and then NX2 were proclaiming that no one could render a .nef (Nikon’s RAW format) image more accurately than Nikon could. And, they were right.

Out of the camera, NX2 gave me a better starting point than the Adobe software. But, with a bit of adjustment, I was able to get good results with either of the Adobe programs. But, let’s not denigrate the importance of an accurate starting point.

If the idea is to get it as close to “right” in the camera as possible, then the idea should be to get it into the our post production software as close to right as is possible — and for my Nikon images, until recently, that meant using NX2. Said another way, what good is it to work hard to get a perfect exposure in the camera if the post processing software ignores the effort and opens the image to its own specifications?

For Nikon users, the solution might be to use NX2. I am a big fan of NX2; when appropriate I use it. But, because I often go beyond its scope , most of my work is done in the Adobe programs.

And, that’s where the ColorChecker Passport comes in. For the first time, I think I can do that.

The ColorChecker Passport allows me to use the Adobe programs confident that my starting point will be dead on accurate — not just for Nikon cameras in general, but for my individual Nikon cameras. And, not for generic lighting situations but for the actual lighting conditions under which the images were shot. Said another way, Passport makes sure that the image as captured in the camera is the starting point in my Adobe post production software.

Camera Profiles Control the Software’s Starting Point

There is nothing sinister here. No matter the camera, Adobe (and all other post production software developers) want us to have an accurate starting point.

So, the developers create individual “profiles” so as to read the data from each camera manufacturer in the most accurate way possible. For all of us, no matter what camera we shoot, the key is how good that profile is — how accurately it reads and depicts the image as it imports it.

Their task is challenging, especially in a world without a standard RAW format and one in which some camera manufacturers want to compete with Adobe on the software front; in those cases, there have been allegations that the manufacturers have held back information making it impossible for Adobe to get a profile 100% right.

Finally, no matter how bright the software engineers — there are factors for which they cannot account. All cameras are, to some extent, different. A “standard” profile cannot account for the idiosyncrasies in my particular D3 or your Canon. And, my D3 will be different from my friend’s.

Despite the difficulty, the profiles are really pretty good. A tweak here and a tweak there and we can take our properly captured image and get it looking pretty good — the starting points are close enough that it does not take much work to get things right.

But, there is an insidious problem with a profile that is very good but not perfect. We end up making the small adjustments with no standard of reference — we proceed by eye and, therefore, can miss the mark.

Adobe’s Built In Profiles

Most of us have probably not spent much time thinking about the built in profiles. In fact, had I not wanted to know why the WB was off on my .nefs, I would have never done the research that ultimately led to this article.

For a long time, I never knew the profiles existed. They are tucked away behind a tab in ACR, in an area I never really used, called “Camera Calibration” — the one shown here with the camera icon. Duh! So, that’s what that was for. Here’s a copy showing, in red, the icon to push to get to the section; notice it shows the standard Adobe profile, also in red; in the second image is the drop down list, itself.

Most of us probably have ACR 4.4 and Adobe Standard. The “D2x” and “Camera … ” profiles were downloaded and installed, a while back, from an Adobe site. They are attempts to more specifically replicate the output of Nikon cameras — with the latter set corresponding to the Nikon “picture control” modes that one can pre-set in the camera.

What you say, only Nikon profiles? No, but this is what you see on a .nef. If I had opened a .CR2, a Canon RAW image I would have seen different options.

The profiles in the dark blue frames are those that I created using the Passport; we will get to them, later.

The bottom line is that the Camera Profile is the starting point for all of our post-production work. The more accurate it is, the better our outcome will be.

So, the question is: How do we get accurate profiles.

For me, the answer is X-rite’s ColorChecker Passport.

Creating Our Own Profiles with Xrite’s ColorChecker Passport

In a sea filled with gimmick devices and promises of color correction panaceas, the X-rite ColorChecker Passport is the real deal. It is an easy to use, fairly priced hardware/software solution that allows us create and load custom camera profiles into ACR and Lightroom.

It’s elegance is in its simplicity.

It proves one of my core philosophical underpinnings “Less is more”.

With the Passport, anyone — no matter how unschooled in color theory or unsophisticated in the intricacies of ACR — can quickly create a profile/starting point that will make post-production adjustments easy and accurate.

What’s in the Box?

A small, unobtrusive, carry it in your pocket or around your neck, device containing three targets and a software disk. That’s it. The elegance is in the integration of the two components.

There are three “targets”.

The one on the bottom left is the 24 patch “Color Classic”. It’s used by the software to create the profile.

The one above it is the “Color Enhancement” target; it can be used to induce creative color shifts; for example there are several shades of gray that can be used to warm or cool white balance. It can also be used to make sure we are not losing shadow details or clipping highlights.

To the right of the double target image, we see the Passport opened to show a gray card that can be used as a target to custom set one’s white balance.

Putting it to Work

Photoshop, Bridge and Elements

Step 1: Load the software. Depending on which Adobe programs you have and how you invoke ACR, the installer will do one or both of the following:

For Photoshop, Bridge, and Elements — all of which use versions of ACR, X-rite installs a stand alone application. Whereas Lightroom is a one stop  shop, these other programs invoke another step, the use of the ColorChecker Passport application. It’s one more step but still magic.

For Lightroom, it installs a plug-in/preset that will find the target in an image and create a profile. It works behind the scenes and is absolutely amazing.

Step 2: Take a reference image with the target in it. This is pretty simple. If taking a picture of a person, have them hold it. If it’s a product shot, I use the built in easel function to put the targets in the picture.

A couple of things to watch for: Make sure the light hits the target in the same way that it is lighting the subject and that the target is evenly lit. And, make sure the target image is around 10% of the picture. If it gets much smaller than that, the software may have a hard time finding it.

Step 3: Open the image. As I mentioned, there are two ways to do this depending on whether you start in Lightroom or Bridge/CS4. Whichever way you create the profile, it will be stored in the same place and work in all Adobe programs that process RAW images. I’ll do it both ways for you.

I’ll start with the independent application route — the route I take because I’ve pretty much abandoned Lightroom and usually start in Bridge.

First, I opened the image in ACR — AND DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO IT — NO ADJUSTMENTS, NOTHING.

Angy Torres and the Target

Here’s the reference shot I took during a session with Page Parkes model Angy Torres. Angy’s make up was done by MUA Tree Vaello.

(I’ll have a lot more on these two later and in future articles. Both are superb at what they do and were kind enough to help me get the images for this review. Unfortunately, these images are dumbed down for use on the web; the lower resolution does not do justice to Angy’s beauty and Tree’s fine make up.)

The next step was to save the image as a .dng file. This is Adobe’s universal RAW file — a format into which we can convert all of our RAW images, without regard to our camera brand. The advantage of .dng is that Adobe guarantees that all of it’s future products will be able to process .dng images. There are no guarantees that the same can be said for their ability to support the .nef’s I took years ago. It is a good, safe format and I should use it more.

Having done nothing to process this image, I hit the “Save Image” button in the lower left corner of the window (circled in red). The “Save Options” dialogue box opens.

Nothing hard here — the critical thing is to make sure to save it as a .dng — in the File Extension drop down menu. I gave it a distinct name and put it on my desktop because I was going to immediately use it in the stand alone application.

Step 4: Create the profile in the ColorChecker Passport application. I opened the application and got the following warning screen. Bad me. I hadn’t calibrated my monitors within 30 days.

So, I stopped, pulled out the colorMunki, and made sure the monitors were just right.

This warning is beneficial. What’s the use of being so careful with the camera and creating spot on profiles if the monitor is off? A strong starting point demands an accurate monitor.

Here’s the working window of the application:

Nothing could be easier to use. The full instruction set is on the left. I dragged my .dng to the center and clicked create a profile

And, here I had a lucky moment — at least lucky for teaching purposes. I got the following window telling me that the target was not taking up 10% of the image and that I’d have to help the software find it.

(Now that I’ve got the hang of this, I make sure my target takes up more of the image space. But, the cure is simple, as seen here.)

To help the software find the target, you take the crop tool and put a green dot at each corner of the Classic  target — which in this case is the upper target. Line up the corners so that the little green boxes are inside each of the color patches.

Don’t make the mistake I did the first time I tried this. Use only the Color Classic target, not both.

Having isolated the target, push the “Create Profile button. You’ll get a dialogue box asking you to name the profile. The default is “Nikon D3.dcp” for a D3. I don’t use that name. I change it to something much more specific with a date and lighting scheme involved. If not, every profile would have the same name and I’d not know which to use or how to manage them. Hit save and the profile will be created and stored.

One final thing  – if the application within which you are going to use the profile is open, you must close and re-open it. When you re-launch the program, be it Photoshop, Bridge, Lightroom, or Elements, the profile will be in the list shown above.

Don’t be put off by the length of the step by step, written description of the process.

I made this profile in a couple of minutes. It is fast and very easy.

Lightroom

Using the passport in Lightroom is equally easy and a bit faster. The advantage here is that you never leave Lightroom.

Step 1: Open your image in Lightroom’s “Develop” module. And, then the magic begins. Without us having to do a thing, the Passport software finds the target and creates a profile.

Step 2: Go to File>Export in the menu bar. The following window will come up:

Name the profile, hit the “Export” button and you’re done. The profile is created and stored with all of the other profiles.

Once more, you have to remember to close Lightroom and then reopen it so that it can load the new profile.

Using the Custom Profile and Target Shot

OK, so we’ve created a profile. Now what?

Well, lots of things.

I take the target shot right back into ACR and use it create the baseline set of color corrections I will use for all of the shots taken that session with that camera and lighting pattern. Once I have things the way I want them, I will batch process all of the shots to my chosen standard.

1. Select the Custom Profile

2. Correct the White Balance:

Important Point: The custom profile we created with the Passport does not change our WB value. We have to do that on our own — for good reason. There is some creative judgment to be exercised here and the Color Enhancement target gives us the tool needed to experiment and dial in our preferred, fine tuned White Balance.

Shame on me. I don’t custom white balance before each shoot UNLESS I am in some very odd mixed light situation — like a church or football stadium. And, in those cases, I don’t shoot a target, I use my Sekonic C500R color meter and dial in a specific Kelvin number — which, unfortunately,  Adobe will partially ignore. Most of the time I use a preset — for Angy’s shoot, I used the Nikon flash setting. Outdoors, I prefer Cloudy.

How does the Passport help here? On the Enhancement target, It gives me a series of gray patches one neutral, some warmer and  some cooler to use in setting the proper White Balance.

Take a look at this shot from ACR.

Notice I’ve taken the WB tool from the top and placed it on one of the gray patches(bottom target, 3rd in from the left, upper/middle row). Now, look at the Kelvin degrees on the right. An image that was imported at 6150 has been corrected to a proper 5400. All with one click.

Why am I so cavalier about White Balance? Because I shoot RAW. When I shoot RAW the camera captures all of the data to hit the sensor — it throws nothing out. In post-production I can change anything and everything to get the exposure and color where I want it to be. All I need is an accurate starting point in ACR and I’m good to go. The Passport gives me that starting point.

If you shoot .jpegs, you will probably want to use the Passport’s white balance target to set the camera before the shoot. And, there are several other things you will want to do with the targets before you get going. For example, you might want to use the target to check your exposure to ensure that you are not clipping the highlights or losing detail in the shadows. Why? Because, once you start shooting .jpegs, the camera is throwing out information in order to compress the images. With that information gone, you ability to make corrections in post-production is limited.

(For more on the advantages of shooting RAW, you might want to read part of this article I wrote a while back.)

3. Batch Process: I batch process all of the images taken in that session with that camera and same lighting pattern to set the exposure and color profile. Note I said in that session. If I change the lighting, I shoot a new target. On the same set, that’s probably a little anal. But, I did take Angy onto another set, one in which I used my Profoto 600BR and a Ringflash in a mixed lighting situation and shot new targets.

4. Did all of this make a difference? Yes, definitely. But, the difference was subtle as one would hope it would be. The Adobe profiles were close. But, as they say, “Close only counts in horse shoes.” I definitely got a better starting point using the custom profile. Clicking between Adobe’s and mine, I could see a clear shift in color and tone. Said another way, slight color casts were removed and Angy looked like Angy. I could ask for nothing more.

Some Final Thoughts on the ColorChecker Passport:

There are other functions the Passport will help us:

One that I’ve not tried is the “Dual Illuminant Profile”. The idea is to combine two targets from different light sources to create one more general target. For example, if you are moving from rooms with tungsten lighting to outdoor daylight, you take a target shot in each area and the software will allow you to combine them into one profile. I’m a bit skeptical about the value of this and until I try it I won’t recommend it. In that situation, I’d take individual target shots and make individual profiles. In post-production I’d sort my shots and process all of those shot in daylight with my custom daylight profile and those shot under tungsten with that profile. But, to be fair to the Passport, until I try the Dual Illuminant I can’t really say anything about its value.

The main targets in the Passport are “consumable” and require careful treatment. These are better protected, more rugged versions of our old Greytag Macbeth cards — those expensive bigger versions of the Classic that required very special care. In order to get the right colors and surfaces, they are printed on special paper. Put an oily fingerprint on them and the color and reflectivity change. That’s why it’s important to handle them by their plastic edges and store them closed, safe in their plastic clam shell. The way the Passport is engineered, it’s easy to protect the targets.

There is one thing in the software I’d like changed — and from what I understand, a change is on its way. I’d like to be able to manage the profiles — discard the older ones after I’ve used them — so as not to clog or confuse the drop down menu. To do that, today, on a Mac I have to go to User>Library>Application Support>Adobe>CameraRaw>Camera Profiles and manually remove the profiles I no longer need. Until the profiles are easy deleted, I think it’s wise to give them very distinct names and to date them. That way, there will be no confusion as to which to use.

These quibbles aside, I really like the Passport and will use it on all of my shoots wherever they may take place. It’s nice to actually get something that works the way it is supposed to work — a product that helps us get the most out of our images. And, one that does not require and advanced degree to understand and use.

I like it so much I’m going to get another one so I can leave one in the studio and have one with my everyday “carry camera”.

A Few Words About the Shoot

The creative team was model Angy Torres, MUA Tree Vaello, and assistant Tom Folger. Tree’s participation was made possible by her sponsor – La Mer skin products.

The mission was simple — get some shots for use in this article. In addition, we decided to get a few head shots for both Angy and Tree to use on their websites and in their books.

It was easy to work with Angy. She’s got a great sense of humor and “go with the flow” attitude — but, when needed, she could be fierce. She’s definitely on my A list. She can be reached  by contacting her agent Erik Bechtol.

We used two lighting set ups; the glamour lighting pattern described here and a Profoto Ringflash shot onto a metal door background. I shot a reference shot for each set up.

Here’s one of the head shots. After using the custom profile, there were no color corrections of any kind made.

But Wait There’s There Will Be More!!!

I’ve been looking to add a make up artist to my team for quite a while. In Tree Vaello, I think I’ve found the perfect collaborator.

My first rule, no “high maintenance” people. Can’t deal with that. Tree is, as we’d say in California”mellow”. But that calm and cooperative demeanor hides the passion and fire of a true artist. Her work is amazing.

Truth be told, I’ve never worked that much with MUA’s.

So, I thought a cool article would be an interview with Tree as to what we, as photographers, need to do to get the most out of an MUA’s talents.

I’ll do it soon. Have some questions you want me to ask her? Send them in.

(Copyright: PrairieFire Productions/Stephen J. Herzberg — 2009)

A couple of weeks ago, my good friend Hanson Fong, fresh off an appearance at the Houston stop on the Beauty and Beast tour, took a day off and hung out with me. So, how did we spend our holiday? Go fishing? Visit one of Houston’s great museums? Take a hike? No. We spent the day in my studio lighting and shooting with a great model, an up and coming MUA, and my new Profoto D1 500 Airs.

Hanson is no stranger to Houston or my studio. He’s taught several of my Hands on Seminars.

Known around the world for his ability to make ordinary people look great — either during weddings or family sessions, Hanson has spent years mastering the art and science of lighting and posing us normal folks, the people who never get on magazine covers or do fashion spreads. No one can bring elegance to the ordinary like Hanson Fong. That’s what he knows, that’s what he does and that’s what he teaches.

So, how did I lure him into the studio on his day off?

I promised him something different — something he rarely gets to do. I promised him we’d do a fashion/glamour shoot. My goal was for both of us to stretch our horizons. Hanson would get a chance to shoot model Stephanie Vostry. I’d get a chance to turn the tables — to light for the man who taught me so much about lighting. But, this time things would be different. I was going to throw out the tried and true and go to the other side — the side where there are no rules or established lighting patterns, the side where in the words of one of my heroes, Joe McNally you try things just to “… see what happens.”

And, I was going to do it with my new lights — lights I had used just a few times before. With a master like Hanson behind the camera I knew that both my D1′s and I would be tested.

The Profoto D1 500 Airs

I did not part with my Profoto ComPact 600′s easily. They were, and are, outstanding lights — true, consistent and rugged.

But, because I try to stay on the cutting edge for both my writing and studio work, I felt it necessary to make the change. And, with Hanson, one of the world’s best shooters in my studio, I would test whether I had made the right decision. I am pleased to report — the D1′s more than passed the test.

Rather than simply parrot back to you technical specifications, I thought I’d discuss some of the D1 Air’s main features and let you know how I think they help us become better photographers.

Why I Chose the 500 ws Version: Less Is Often More

The D1′s come in 250, 500 and 1000ws versions. I’ve written a lot about how I think the important thing, when choosing lights, is not the maximum output but, rather, the power range — or the number of f/stop adjustments available. My main point: we often buy too much power, use the lights in spaces so small that even when dialed down to their minimum output the lights don’t allow us to shoot at the lower f/stops, like 2.8 or 4, that we want to use to throw our background out of focus. An 800ws light, with but 4 stops of range, will go no lower than 100 ws. That’s a lot of light, especially in a small space.

When buying lights — less is often more. That’s why I look at minimum output more than I look at maximum output.

All of the D1 lights have a range of 7 stops. The 500 best fit my needs, offering: 500, 250, 125, 62.5, 31.25, 15.62, and 7.8ws. The 7.8 is what grabbed me most. My ComPact 600′s had a respectable 5 stop range which bottomed out at 37.5. For my use, in a studio that is 34×22, that’s a significant difference.

One other thing, a feature I wrote about here: The D1′s have 300w modeling lights. That’s a lot of power and will be increasingly important to us as our DSLR’s morph into “video” cameras.

The Digital Read Out

I’ve never felt the need for digital read outs — but, if you do, you’ll be pleased to know that the D1′s have a nice, big, clear digital read out on the back of the light.

Once we understand the way the digital read out works, it can be a very useful tool. Some think that if you dial your light to 5.6, the output at your subject is 5.6. Said another way, they think the readout is “absolute” or “the reality”. It is not and cannot be. Why?  Because, we all know that, because of the “fall off” of light, the distance of the light from the subject controls the quantity of light on the subject. Let’s assume that you meter your subject and that, by luck, when the digital read out is 5.6 the meter reads 5.6. So far, so good. But, if you move the light forward the amount of light on the subject will increase; if you move it back, the amount of light on the subject will decrease. That’s a law of physics that no digital light can overcome. But, the digital readout will stay the same — it will say 5.6 although the quantity of light on the subject is either more or less.

In essence, the digital read out is “relative”. Its sole function is to help you move from one stop to another.

So, once one understands the nature of that relativity, the digital read out is an advantage.

Let’s say you take a meter reading at f/8. The dial on the light may say 4. Why? Because the reading is “relative”.  The light simply knows its output. It does not know how far away from the subject it is.

Now, let’s say you want to shoot at f/11 — so you need one more stop of light. All you have to do is turn the dial from 4 to 5. One stop — the difference between f/8 and f/11.

The key to “relativity”? The numbers on the digital read out are not the equivalent of f/stops. They are power range numbers. Going from 4 to 5 is the equivalent of one f/stop (doubling the light).

Once we understand this, we can take full advantage of the digital read out. Up one stop, push in the knob and turn it one click and the read out will go up 10/10ths. Or, click your way up 1/10 of a time by just turning the knob without pushing it in.

To their credit, the D1′s are dead on in their incremental adjustments. If I went from 4.2 to 5.2, I got a full stop. From 6.3 to 7.3, a full stop. They were so accurate that I stopped metering between changes. I trusted the digital readout and it did not fail me.

And, to make things better, as you will see next, I never had to go to the lights to adjust them — I did it wirelessly.

The “Air” System: Wireless Control — A Big Advantage

Simply stated, the Profoto “Air” system allows us to wirelessly control and trigger our Air equipped lights through a camera mounted “Profoto Air Remote” transmitter. You never have to touch the lights — all you have to do is touch the remote. Sort of like sitting in a comfy chair in a media room.

As the owner of a Profoto D4 generator I am addicted to the “remote control” of my lights. On the D4, I accomplish this by tethering to my Mac (written about, here.) Once I started tethering, I never wanted to go back. Walking over to the generator or to each head to adjust it, while good for my fitness, often took me out of my creative flow.

With the Air system, I have the wireless equivalent of “tethering”. I can turn on my lights and adjust them, either individually or in groups, from the transmitter. That is a huge savings in time, focus and energy. And, to be honest, I find myself much more willing to make changes in order to seek perfection — because the changes are so easy to make.

A couple of notes: The D1′s are fairly light and compact and will work well mounted out of reach (like up on the ceiling as a hair light.) Being able to change their output without climbing a ladder to reach them is a big advantage. Apparently, the early production models did not allow one to turn them on remotely; but, once on, they were infinitely adjustable. From what I understand, there is a firmware upgrade that deals with this. New models can be turned on from the remote. Older ones, like mine, can be upgraded, for free, by the factory to meet this new spec.

Triggering and Metering — Dual Option

Profoto has given us the freedom to choose between two options for triggering our D1 Airs.

First, is the Air system itself.

And, second, is through the use of a Pocket Wizard.

I’ve set mine up to do both. I have a lot of Pocket Wizards — I use them both in the studio and to control my off camera flash units. So, when I switched from my ComPacts to the D1′s, I simply left a Wizard attached to each light stand. All I had to do was get a new cable to go from the Wizard to the D1. So, any time I want to use the Wizards, I can.

I thought I would use them a lot. But, truth be told, I haven’t used them at all. I’m not saying I never will — there may be situations where they will do something I can’t do with the Air system, but I haven’t run into that situation yet.

I mention this because when the D1′s first came out, there were wails of angst from many on the ‘net claiming that Profoto had abandoned the Wizard group and that the Wizards could not be used with the D1′s. That statement is categorically false and no one who had ever seen a D1 Air would have ever said such a dumb thing.

(BTW — if you are totally convinced that you will never use the Air system, you can buy the D1′s without it. But, I truly think the wireless remote system is worth the extra cost.)

The second false rumor was that you could not use a Sekonic meter with the D1 Airs. Again, not true.

Here’s the deal: You can meter using your Sekonic meter but you cannot use a built in Pocket Wizard transmitter to do so. Instead, you put your Sekonic meter into the “flash receive” mode, fire the lights with the Air transmitter, and read the setting on the meter.

Ambient/"Lonely"/Corded/Transmitter

Step 1: Put your meter in the receiving mode  ( I call it the Lonely mode because it is unattached to anything and not hooked up) — it’s the lightning bolt without an initial and not  the lightning bolt with the “c” (which is for a cord connection) or the “t” (which is the transmitter mode).  (In this image, the box is around the PW transmitter mode. When over the Lonely lightning bolt, it looks the same.)

Step 4: Push the “Test” button on the Air transmitter. The lights fire. Voila! A reading.

I’ll admit that this is not as easy as it is to meter a pure Wizard based system in which you only need push one button on the meter. But, once used to it, I had no trouble doing it.

And, the payoff for the extra button push is significant: We don’t have to move to adjust the light we just measured; we can adjust it from that very same transmitter, stay in our spot and meter again.

(For those who just want to push one button, you can connect the Air Remote to the meter, use the “C” setting and, when you push the button, you’ll get a reading on the meter.)

Integrating My Non-/Air D4 Generator

One of the reasons I thought I’d use the Wizards on the D1 heads was that my D4 generator was triggered by a built in Wizard. I figured that during the times I used lights from both systems, I’d use the PW’s to trigger them all. But, I haven’t. Instead, I got a Profoto Air Sync, plugged it into the generator and used it to trigger the lights. To be clear, the Air Sync will not allow me to control the lights from the Air Remote. To control the lights, I use my Mac running Profoto Studio Software (which is free and flawless). I hook my D4 to the Mac using a USB cable. If I want to work without the cable, I can use the Profoto Air USB, a dongle that replaces the cord and establishes a wireless connection.

Some General Impressions

Like all Profoto lights, the D1′s are consistent — both in color temperature and flash duration. I’ve measured the output of every Profoto head in my studio (4 D1′s, 4 Acute heads for the D4 generator, 1 Acute head for the 600BR, and one Ringflash) and they are all within 30-50 Kelvin degrees of each other. (I measured without any modifiers on the head. Often, different diffusion materials can affect the Kelvin output of a light — and if you are having color mismatch problems, that might be the place to look first.)

I like the new “build” of the D1′s. They are lighter and have a convenient, built-in handle. They are built to reflect at 77 Degrees without the addition of a reflector — one less thing to carry around. And, though light, they feel rugged.

But, what I like most is that they are wickedly fast — they recycle quickly and match the times of my D4 generator. For anyone who has used other mono-light systems, this speed bump serves us well when trying to capture fluid movements in things like fashion/glamour sessions. (I have the “beeps” set on all of my lights to let the model know not to move until he or she gets the audible signal that the lights are ready for the next pose. With these lights, that beep comes in within a second or so.)

OK, so much for the lights — it’s on to the Busman’s Holiday.

Hanson Fong In the House

The basic plan was to try some new things — lighting patterns I had thought about but never really used. Here are a few of the things we did.

High Key Head Shot

I almost never shoot high key — I’m a moody, low key kind of guy. But, with high key in such great demand, I figured I ought to shoot some. And, inspired by a post on Scott Kelby’s blog, I decided to try a new lighting pattern.

Simply stated, instead of using white paper as a back drop and lighting it carefully to avoid shadows from the subject, I used a Photoflex 7′ OctoDome and a D1 head. The dome became the backdrop. I metered it to f/6.3.

To light Stephanie’s face, I chose a Paramount or Butterfly “glamour” pattern.

The main light was a D1 with a Profoto Softlight Reflector on it. Instead of using a reflector for the fill, I used another D1 head, this time in a CreativeLight soft box. Both lights were mounted on the same Matthews Magic Stand — the Softlight Reflector on the built in boom and the Creative Light on the first riser of the stand. (This set up is the subject of my post here.)

Why the two lights on the same stand? Because, I’m used to working alone. I don’t have someone to hold a reflector, I have reflector stands. But, because the light placement in  Paramount lighting requires precise placement — miss by an inch and it won’t look good — every time the model moves the lights have to be moved. By putting everything on one stand, I can easily make the adjustments by simply pushing the wheeled stand to its new position.

The main light was set to f/11 and the “fill” to f/4.

One thing about this lighting pattern: As Scott points out, because the light from the OctoDome wraps around the face from behind, out of the camera, the image will look faded or wiped out. Don’t worry. The solution is easy. In your post production, you simply use the “Blacks” slider to bring back in the full range of facial color.

I fired off a couple of test shots. This headshot is one of them. From that point on, I put down my camera and became a grip. All of the remaining images in this post are Hanson’s.

Derivations On A Theme: Using the Light As a Structural Element

(You can double click the image to enlarge it.)

With Hanson shooting, we decided to get one more use out of the OctoDome before putting it away. We decided to use it as an element  in the image itself.

To do so, we lowered the light to floor level, moved Stephanie forward, and adjusted the lights, accordingly. We used the same main light on the Magic Stand and, to add some sparkle on the floor and fill in Stephanie’s face and eyes used a 6′ Profoto strip box as a fill, placed well behind the stand and angled up at 45 Degrees. One of the things I like best about this image is the is the reflection on my cement floors and the shadow it throws forward.

I’m going to try this pattern again and, to capture more of the reflection, I’ll shoot with a wider lens.

This short, down and dirty video,show the set up. (I’ve been either doing videos or making drawings of set ups to cover for my “grey moments”.  I keep them all on my computers in an interactive NoteBook from Circus Ponies Software.)

A Couple More Images

We didn’t stay on the odd side of lighting for the entire shoot.

The last part of the shoot focused on what I would call “fusion posing” — Hanson mixing his traditional, elegant portrait and wedding poses with the world of high fashion. We continued to use the Profoto Softlight Reflector and Creative Light soft-box set up discussed earlier. For the low key shots, we added a hair light (indirect lighting from a strip box 14′ up and with the sides parallel to the floor). And, for the “Blue Dress” shot, we added a purple gel and allowed it to spill over a bit onto Stephanie.

All in all, a perfect Busman’s Holiday.

Contact Information:

Hanson Fong

Stephanie Vostry

Christina Duran

(Copyright: PrairieFire Productions/Stephen J. Herzberg — 2009)

As I’ve mentioned before, I learned my lighting on film and television studio sets — which, for obvious reasons, used hot or continuous lights, exclusively. When I reentered the world of still photography, I set out to master the use of strobes and flash units.

Today, I use both — so I thought I might best answer this question by comparing the strengths that each brings to the table and the contexts in which each might best be used.

First, let’s make sure we don’t get hung up in terminology.

Traditionally, the term “strobe” has been used to describe the device that creates a “flash of light from an electrical discharge”. In the old days, strobes were also referred to as “studio lights”; however, that label no longer fits as there are now outstanding portable strobe units for use both in and out of doors — like the Profoto 600BR I’ve written about and use. And, don’t forget our hot shoe flash units which, too, can be used in and out of doors also fit the definition.

In the old days, “continuous” lights were called “hot lights”. For good reason. They generated a lot of heat, quickly making the space in which they were being used, tropical. And, they were very hot to the touch. So hot, that I’ve got a pair of asbestos grip gloves that I wear when I’m using the old lights in my studio. These were the lights used by my photography heroes, Clarence Bull, Yousuf Karsh and George Hurrell -- the pioneers of the Hollywood glamour photo movement. I bought a set of four so that I can try to emulate their work.

Things have changed. the new “hot lights” aren’t hot. And, they’re being called “continuous lights” so as to distinguish them from the hot tempered, power consuming beasts of the past. Actually, any light that stays on is a continuous light — and videographers and photographers with varying budgets are using everything from regular household light bulbs — be they tungsten or fluorescent — to those halogen construction lights you can get at Home Depot or Lowes. Want a more “dedicated light”? There is a new generation of top end, continuous lights for photography and videography priced in ways that don’t put deep dents in our budgets.

Now the Practical Stuff

So much for the history and theory — let’s talk about the important stuff:

Shooting Video: By definition, hot lights, or continuous lights have to be used for shooting video? Why? Because of the continuous action the camera is capturing. No way a strobe can do that. And, this is probably the only area in which there is a clear, inherent advantage between the types of lights we are discussing. In almost all other areas, one can use either continuous lights or strobes. There are some differences in how one uses them but both will get the job done.

Metering: Continuous lights are like “ambient” lights; they are always on; so we meter them using the “Ambient” setting on our meter (On Sekonic meters, that’s the mode represented by the “sun”).

Ambient/"Lonely"/Corded/Transmitter

We meter our strobes using the “Flash” settings (on the Sekonic one of the lightning bolts). To measure our flash units, they have to be triggered — either by the meter or some other device. The Sekonic meters have three modes for flash metering: (1) the lighting bolt with the “T” — indicates that the meter contains a transmitter that will fire any light that contains or is connected to a Pocket Wizard; (2) the lightning bolt with the “C” is for use when we use a cable connection between our meter and our lights; when we push the metering button, the light fires; and, (3) the lonely lightning bolt, the one without an initial, is used when one triggers the lights by some external means not connected to or caused by the meter; perhaps the best example is the way I fire my D1′s with Profoto’s new “Air” technology; I set my meter in the receiving mode, push the Air button to trigger the lights, and the meter grabs a reading.

White Balance: Most flash units are balanced to be close to “daylight” settings, which is usually somewhere between 5400-5600 Degrees Kelvin. The WB “Flash” setting on most cameras is in that range. In the old days, the hot lights all contained Tungsten (Incandescent) bulbs with a rough range between 2800-3200 Degrees Kelvin, often represented on camera WB screens as a light bulb. Today, we can get continuous lights balanced to most color temperatures and we set our cameras accordingly.

The Role of the Shutter Speed and the Aperture Setting: The general rule is that the shutter speed controls the ambient light to reach the sensor and the aperture controls how much of the flash is recorded. Let’s apply the general rule to our current discussion of the differences between lighting with continuous lights or strobes.

Let’s go into the studio first — and let’s assume we are lighting with strobes. In this situation, the speed of the shutter is almost irrelevant. Why? Because the flash duration, which will be the source of light on the subject, is so fast, and it is on and off so quickly, that it really does not matter how long the shutter stays open; there will be no meaningful difference between an exposure shot at 1/30 or 1/250. Think about it this way. Let’s assume we are in a completely dark room and that the only light that will hit the subject will be from the strobe. If the room is, indeed, light tight, we can set a 2 minute shutter speed; if the only light during that 2 minutes is from the strobe, the only light to hit the sensor will be from that strobe — no matter how long we hold he shutter open. OK, so most studios are not light tight; and sometimes, we use our overhead (tungsten) lights while we are shooting. My experiments have shown that the overhead lights have no impact on exposure in reasonable shutter speed ranges, like down to 1/15 second.

In the studio, with strobes, it is the aperture setting that determines how much of that fast burst of light will hit the sensor. The bigger the hole, the more of the flash that gets in. It’s that simple. That is why when we measure and set our strobes, we are always measuring aperture values and setting our cameras’ apertures accordingly.

The general rule does not apply when we are using ambient light AND continuous lights are ambient lights. So, in this case, both the shutter speed and the aperture are used, in conjunction, to control the light to the sensor. Longer exposure: more light. Bigger aperture opening: more light.

Shutter Speed Revisited — Lens Movement: With strobes, lens movement is not a problem — even when hand holding a long lens at a slower shutter speed. Once again, the light influencing the sensor is so quick that it is like shooting at a very fast shutter speed. However, just as it is outdoors in daylight (continuous or ambient light), shutter speed is important when hand holding lenses using hot lights. Is this a problem or reason to choose one form of lighting over the other? Absolutely not. Just adjust accordingly. Shots that might be hand held with strobes can be achieved with hot lights by using a tripod or upping the shutter speed.

Shutter Speed Revisited — Stopping Subject Motion: A corollary applies when we try to stop subject movement in a frame. Let’s say we have a model on a trampoline and we want to capture the “freedom moment” of flight. With strobes, we can use slow shutter speeds confident that the flash will freeze the subject, in air, at the moment we fire it. In fact, some strobes are so fast that they can stop bullets mid air. With continuous lighting, we have to use a fast shutter speed to stop the motion without blur.

Shutter Speed Summarized: The key is to simply be aware of when shutter speed matters and when it does not. In my shooting, I move back and forth between using strobes and continuous lights. It took a few gray moments — slow shutter speeds with continuous lights — before it sunk in: I have to make conscious choices and changes when I move from one light source to the other. Do I favor one light source because of this? No. Each has its place. Each brings a different artistic dynamic. I just have to adjust my head as well as my camera to get the most out of either.

Controlling the Quantity of Light: Most strobes allow finite adjustments of the quantity of light over a range of f/stops. The better the lights, the more precise the adjustments. And, the better the lights, the more range of adjustments. The range is often discussed in terms of how many f/stops of adjustment the light provides. For example, my new D1 500′s offer 7 ranges of stops. On a 500 watt light, that is: 500, 250, 125, 62, 31, 16 and 8 watts — and all places in between. I’ve written before that the greatest mistake most of us make is to buy lights with too much power and too little adjustment downward. An 800w light with 3 stop range gives us: 800, 400 and 200 watts. Why do we care? Because, with too much light, we cannot use the lower apertures like 2.8 or 4 to get the limited depth of field and out of focus backgrounds we often desire. More often than not, less is more.

To adjust the early hot lights, and some of the current version, you have a couple of choices. First, you can change the bulb to one with less or more power. And, second, you can throw a screen in front of the light as I wrote about in my article on the RoadRags. Some of the newer generation of continuous lights have included rheostats to dial the lights up or down. And, some use multi-bulb heads; pull a bulb out of a 3 light fixture and you’ve reduced the power by 1/3.

WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) — A Big Advantage of Continuous Lights: With continuous lights, the camera sees what you see. Well, almost. The human eye is so much more sophisticated than the best lens and sensor that it can see gradations that the camera cannot. But, by and large, you see where your light and shadows will fall. Yes, studio lights have “modeling lights” but even the best are not as accurate in terms of output predictability than is the continuous light. And, lest we forget, the modeling lights in most strobes are tungsten bulbs — a different WB temperature than the strobe itself; so if you are shooting live view, the modeling light will throw a color cast that will not reflect what the actual image will look like.

Most of the still life or product shooters I know use continuous lights most of the time. So do I when doing those kinds of shoots. However, as I will discuss, later, that does not mean that you cannot do this type of shooting with strobes — you simply use your strobes as continuous lights by shooting using the modeling lights. A strobe, with its modeling light on, is a continuous light so long as you don’t fire it. More on this, later.

Another question I get alot is: “Why don’t I just get a bunch of speedlights and use them as studio lights?” I’ve got 4 Nikon SB800′s and I’m about to buy an SB900. They can be used as “studio lights”, but there are a couple of caveats to consider. First, they don’t have the power of studio strobes or most continuous lights. And, when compared to most studio strobes, they do not recycle very quickly. But, the biggest disadvantage most of us face when using these lights is that they are the farthest thing we can get from WYSIWYG. Why? Because “hot shoe” flashes not have actual modeling lights; at best, my Nikons will throw a fizzle of light to let me know where they are aimed. How important is WYSISYG? To someone like Joe McNally, probably not very important. He can “see” with a bigger eye than most of us and will not miss the modeling light. Most of us will. But this, too, can be overcome by learning and experimentation.

Conclusion:

OK, you’re probably thinking “Almost 2,000 words — are you going to tell us which is best?” Yes I am. Strobes are best for some things and continuous lights for others. It’s that simple. And, that’s why I have both in my collection of lights.

What Do I Use and Why?

Profoto Strobes: All of my strobes are from the Profoto line.

I have a D4 Power Generator, 4 heads, and a Profoto Ringlight (which must be powered by a generator or battery pack.)  I’ve reviewed this set up, before. Main advantage — the heads are light, can be hung out of reach and turned on or adjusted from the pack or my laptop. This is a workhorse generator. It recycles quickly. It is the backbone of my lighting system. I’ve also got a Profoto 600BR — a battery  pack that will power both the Ringflash and the heads.

D1 Air

The new kids on the block are my 4 D1 500w Airs. These are “monoblocks” — each light is a self contained unit, power, controls and fan in one package. These units are truly portable; in fact, I bought them in a kit that includes stands, umbrellas and a rolling case. Some say the advantage of monoblock’s are that if one breaks, you still have the remainder working. If my generator breaks, I cannot use any of those lights. Fortunately, the D4 is a solid unit. I’ll be doing some in depth reviews of the D1′s as soon as I have more experience with them. Having shot with them twice, I am very impressed.

Why do I like my Profoto lights? Because they are consistent — across the lines — their color temperatures are all within 30 Degrees Kelvin. They are consistent in duration. Although the power pack recycles a little quicker than the mono’s, it isn’t that much quicker — the mono’s are fast.

I didn’t start out with these lights. Like most of us, I started out with less expensive lights. Good lights from a major manufacturer, but less expensive. Here are the mistakes I made. First, they were not consistent — the white balance for each head differed significantly from the others. And, they had a very narrow range of adjustment — not one was more than 3 stops. I had trouble mastering them from day one. Could I use them now? Sure. With all I’ve learned and all of my experience I am now almost good enough to work around their flaws. But, I was pretty frustrated when I first started out.

That’s why, in class, I recommend that the students start out with fewer very good lights instead of more average lights. There is a lot we can do with one or two lights and a reflector. I think it better to have 2 high quality lights than 4 moderate quality lights. The idea is to add more quality lights when we can afford them.

I made this same mistake with lenses, too. Bought more of the wrong ones only to sell them to get fewer of the right ones. But, that’s a story for another day.

Continuous Lights: I’ve got three different types of continuous lights in my collection.

Mole

My Homage to the Old Days: When I found a place in Burbank that was “restoring” the studio lights of yesteryear, I bought 4 of them — one Mole/Richardson 412 and 3 Strands. All are adjustable Fresnel lights. What that means is that I can dial in the size of the beam from one that is tightly contained to one that has a lot of spread. With the availability of the modern continuous lights, why did I buy them? Romance. Pure romance. And, a bit of nostalgia. I think they are cool. The Mole came from Disney studios. The Strands from a rental house. Just think of what they’ve probably seen. And, they are very functional. I’ve used them in many ways — from hard light portrait shots to background lights. They bring a very special energy to a shoot.

My Recognition of the New: Recently I’ve gone a bit more modern — I got a Photoflex Starlite QL OctoDome Kit. Much lighter, totally mobile, easier to use, less heat — the right way to do continuous lights. The kit comes with two bulbs, a 1000w and a 500 w, both of which screw in like regular light bulbs. I’ll do a full review of  these lights, soon.

My Third Set of Continuous Lights? My Profoto strobes. My strobes? Yes, my strobes. I just use the modeling lamps — continuous tungsten light. One smart thing Profoto did with the new D1′s was to include 300w modeling lamps. That’s a lot of light. And, I can use all of my Profoto LightShapers — soft boxes, grids, reflectors, snoots, barn doors, with them. No duplication needed. I’ve used my Profoto’s to light most of the video I’ve shot in my studio for the last couple of years.

The nice thing about having these choices is that because they are all different forms of the same tungsten light, I can mix and match them at will. And, I do.

(In fact, by using gels to correct for color temperature, I can mix and match the strobes, used as strobes, with the continuous lights — but that’s a story for another day.)

The Bottom Line: Light is light. Be it the sun, a hot light or a strobe, we can accomplish our goals if we understand the differences between the sources and how to control for them.

But Wait. There’s more!

Think you need a lot of lights to do a portrait? Here’s a video from Tony Corbell that shows us how to shoot  with one light.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDbRaBXsXco

Want to learn how to use continuous lights? Photoflex has a bunch of free lessons in their online Photoflex Lighting School. Try these out:

http://www.photoflexlightingschool.com/Equipment_Lessons/Starlite/Dramatic_Portrait_with_the_Starlite_OctoDome_nxt_Kit/index.html

http://www.photoflexlightingschool.com/Equipment_Lessons/Starlite/Basic_Portrait_with_Two_OctoDomes/index.html

(Copyright: PrairieFire Productions/Stephen J. Herzberg — 2009)

Confused? Read on.

With all of the attention properly being paid to color management, I’ve been asked whether it matters which color space one uses in the camera — and if so, which one to use. Without going into an in depth discussion of the concept of “color space”, I’ll try to clear up some of the confusion in this post.

D3 Color Space Menus

Most modern cameras allow us to choose a “color space”. The most common choices are Adobe RGB 1998 and sRGB; the Adobe space is “larger” but whether it makes a difference, as we will see, depends on how we are going to use our image. Most modern cameras come with a default selection — so whether we choose or not, we have in fact designated a color space. My Nikon D3 comes from the factory set at the narrower sRGB space. As you can see, I’ve reset my camera to Adobe RGB 1998.

Will my selection make a difference? It depends:

Yes.

If I am shooting .jpegs. When we shoot .jpegs, the camera takes the data the sensor captures and “compresses” it. The goal is to create a smaller image file size. In essence, the computer within the camera “edits” the RAW data — deciding what to keep and what to throw out. The color space selection is part of the instruction set the camera uses when making it’s “keep it” or “lose it” decisions.

If we are shooting .jpegs, only, those decisions are irrevocable. That is why .jpegs are called a “lossy format”.

I don’t know too many people who shoot .jpegs only. Most of the people I know, who have cameras capable of shooting RAW, shoot either RAW exclusively, or RAW and .jpeg, concurrently. With the decreased cost of storage — both in the camera and on computers — and the increase in speed of camera buffers, there’s not much reason to forgo the many benefits of shooting RAW, but that’s a rant for another time.

Suffice it to say, Color Space does matter in the in camera conversion to .jpeg.

No.

If I am shooting RAW, exclusively, the color space selection does not matter. Simply stated, a RAW image represents all of the data to hit the sensor. The camera does not sift, winnow and throw away data. So, no matter which color space is selected, there is no instruction followed that says “bring the image down to the specifications of this space”.

With a RAW image, the color space decision only becomes important when we “output” from our post production software. At that time, we take our RAW image and choose a color space which will best suit our output needs — whether it be for the web, computer screen, inkjet printer, or press. Since the conversion of a RAW image does not affect pixels but, rather, is simply creating an instruction set — we will always have that RAW image to work with and can use it in multiple color spaces (so long as we don’t delete it in favor of the .psd, .jpeg, or .tif we may have created from it.) Most people seem to agree that for monitors and web use, sRGB is the space of choice. However, for regular printing both Adobe RGB and sRGB have proponents — and the decision is often made by which profile is used by a lab rather than which better suits the image. For press, the most common space is CMYK.

All we need to know is that when shooting RAW, the color space decision in the camera is not critical.

Well, sort of. There are some exceptions.

Maybe.

You didn’t really expect a simple clear cut answer from me, did you? I’m an academic. We don’t see the world in clear cut terms.

There are situations in which the color space choice in the camera WILL MATTER, even when shooting RAW exclusively.

First, and foremost, it will affect the image we see on our LCD’s. Why? Because that image is a .jpeg, created by the camera from the RAW data. Even if we are shooting RAW only, the camera has to create a .jpeg to show on the LCD and to be the basis of the image’s histogram.  For more on this, see the work of the late Bruce Fraser, a man whose book, Real World Camera RAW, was one of the finest and clearest of all of the photography books I’ve read.

(For those of you who have wondered why, when you shoot RAW and set the camera to Black and White — you get a B&W image on the LCD but a full color image when you go to process the RAW — the answer is that the B&W image on the LCD is the camera created .jpeg but, since the image was shot RAW and nothing was thrown out, all of the color data remains for use in post-production.)

And, second, some RAW processors are capable of using the camera’s color space selection as a starting point for adjusting the RAW images. For example, Nikon’s NX2, when opening my RAW .nef images, will start with the color space selected in the camera. (It will also use the “picture control” settings from the camera — things like sharpening, tone compensation, and saturation — as starting points.) The key here is that although the in camera choices are being respected ALL of the RAW data remains which allows us to process the image in any way we want. Nothing has been or will be thrown away. Once more, all we are creating is an “instruction set”; we are not changing pixels.

I don’t know about Canon’s software, or the other independent RAW processors, but I do know that neither Adobe Camera Raw nor Lightroom can read the .nef’s in the same way that Nikon’s own software can; neither strictly “honors” the camera’s color space setting in the same way that NX2 does. Is this a big deal? No, not really. First, Adobe has created camera profiles for use in both programs that come very close to replicating Nikon’s starting points. And, second, I don’t find the discrepancy in color space to make a difference in the ultimate RAW processing decisions I make.

So, does it matter which color space you choose? Maybe. Which one do I choose? The larger Adobe RGB space.

But Wait, There’s More: Warning — Geek Alert

To make sure I understood these concepts before writing about them, I went to the Guru of Color Space — Eddie Tapp. Our email chain is attached here for anyone who wants to see how Geeky we both can be. Thanks, Eddie for  the help and for letting me publish the emails.

(Copyright: PrairieFire Productions/Stephen J. Herzberg — 2009)