In my most recent additions to the Women With Icons series, you may or may not have noticed that Sofia Plagakis' portrait was a little different. It was "dramatic" or "artsy," as some of my friends called it--more so than some of the other images I've done.

Here's my secret: Sofia Plagakis' portrait was my first foray into high dynamic range imaging. I didn't intend to shoot the image that way; it happened long after-the fact.

Here's why.

For Sofia's portrait (and others I've done), I bracketed widely--capturing various exposures--because the sunset, bright sky, and dim surroundings created a very high-contrast environment. Both digital CCDs and film (especially slide film) have difficulty capturing as broad a range of value as what the eye can see, and so by bracketing I hoped that I could make up for it.

I walked away with scads of RAW files to go through. Carefully examining all the portraits (in Adobe Bridge), I chose the shot I wanted to work with out of all the possibilities, and pulled it into the Camera Raw editor.

Here came the struggle. With the single exposure I had chosen, all the adjusting of the image's brightness, contrast, histogram, and levels, couldn't result in a satisfying image.

As you can see, there wasn't enough interesting information in the sky to warrant having so much of it in the picture. And the ground was a deeply unsatisfying, flat texture. Overall, the image was very "blah."

So I tried something new. I pulled two more shots into my RAW editor--one overexposed (making the ground appear "normal"), and one underexposed (making the sky appear "normal").

The underexposed image--you can see the sky has a great deal of detail, but Sofia's face is too dark.

The overexposed image--the sky is completely blown out, but the bottom half of the image is just about right.

Each of these images on their own, of course, would be just as unsatisfying to me as the first. But here's the trick: for each image, I adjusted the settings in the RAW editor to create similar ranges of value in the areas of the images I was concerned with (sky versus ground).

Then, I took the two images and combined them into a single file, layering the file properly exposed for the sky underneath the file that was properly exposed for the ground. With a little masking, I was in business:

Of course, I'm never completely satisfied with an image until I've tweaked and blended all its parts. A few layers of isolated curve & level-adjustment, and I'm a happy camper:

Now some of you may be thinking, Jocelyn, isn't this whole "high dynamic range" imaging thing a whole buttload of digital cheating? Good question. No, in my opinion, It's not.

My reasoning goes like this: much of the photo manipulation you can achieve in Photoshop is similar to what you encounter in a wet darkroom. Terms like "dodging," "burning," and "masking," were invented in the darkroom, and you'll find them awaiting you in your tools palette. Retouching, combining two images as one, and other sophisticated tricks were also invented in the darkroom. The fact is, manipulating the supposed "reality" of an image is nothing new.

That is not to say that Photoshop doesn't offer any advantages. The number one advantage of Photoshop, in my mind, is that it is FAST.* No darkroom setup, waiting for paper to develop or for prints to wash--it's wonderful to have greater ease of experimentation. And yes, Photoshop itself can go far beyond what one can do in a wet darkroom. But I find that I rarely use more than the basic tools for editing images. Rather, I reserve those tools for illustrative and design purposes, like this image below (one of the square illustrations I did):

So there you have it, folks: a successful foray into high dynamic range imaging and Photoshop geekery.

*Notice that I didn't say "cheap," as well as "fast." The fact of the matter is that Photoshop is a very expensive program, not to mention all of the other tools required to go start-to-finish with digital photography (camera & accessories, computer, and perhaps a printer, maybe more!). In my opinion, digital photography offers a limited (but still significant) cost advantage over traditional photography, but triumphs by way of ease-of-use, rapidity, and portability. More on this in later articles.

So I recently developed the film from Jeremy & Vanessa's photo shoot, and I'm actually more pleased with these photos than the others. What is it with me? Am I just completely wedded to film, forever destined to be better at this than digital? Am I hallucinating here? What do y'all think?

taken with my Nikon FM10


taken with a HOLGA

I particularly love the vingetting with the HOLGA--it's so perfect for a willow tree and a couple photo.

Today I had the honor of photographing many lovely women in Pittsburgh for my Women with Icons project. Among them were Mary and Lydia Halkias. Mary contacted me through the internet, and since she happened to be located near to Nathan & Liana's house, we made a special trip to visit our friends and take the opportunity to visit with Mary and a few of her friends.

It was a gorgeous sunny afternoon; fortunate, because the forecast had called for thunderstorms. Mary talked with me between shots about how important it was to her that she choose a saint's name for her daughter that she would use everyday, and that she would grow up connected to that story and to her faith. And she herself expressed her feeling of honor for being named after "such a powerful intercessor" as the Mother of God.

Mary & Lydia Halkias

Out of all the portraits I took with Mary, the ones with Lydia struck me as being the most touching. The tenderness that exuded from Mary for Lydia I found so striking that I thought that it would be important to convey that in the portrait I chose for her.

Lydia Halkias

As for Lydia, she struck me as a very self-confident and friendly child. She was very openly curious and intelligent, but with a lot going on behind the surface. I wanted to place her in a confident stance that emphasized how strong she was for one so young--small in relation to her surroundings, but proud, forward, and young.

Reflections on other photos taken on this day to come.

In yesterday's photographic session, Mary's mother-in-law, Carol Halkias, volunteered to be photographed. She was a quietly peaceful soul, but her eyes exuded quiet, almost electric energy. Placing her in the center of a quiet garden seemed deeply appropriate; she seemed like the kind of person who was like a mountain spring--providing refreshment and energy to those around her by her presence.

Carol Halkias

The session continued with the Livanos ladies. The four girls trailed after their mother, shaking my hands in turn. I learned that they were four of seven--all children named after saints from all around the world. Dianthe, their mother, spoke of how important the faith was to their family; they celebrated the feast days of their saints in lieu of their birthdays, and emphasized how the stories of their saints connected them with a global Christianity, not one that's just based in ethnicity or family.

Top row (left to right): Estolia (St. Estolia), Kassiani (St. Kassiani)
Bottom row (left to right): Polina (St. Apollinaria), Mariam (The Thetokos), Dianthe (The Theotokos / Flower of God).

To me, this family portrait emphasizes among the best that is in Christianity.