When I look at a portrait I first see the expression on the subject’s face, and after a few moments of appreciation I find my gaze inevitably drawn to the eyes. The eyes reveal the personality of the subject, confirming the expression of the face or contradicting it. The eyes are the most important part of the portrait, yet the smallest. This is a pity because eyes contain beautiful details that are lost in most portraits.
This project consists of inside-out portraits. The intention is that after the first few moments regarding the eye, your gaze is inevitably drawn inwards to the subject’s face.
Normal depth of field tables list the depth of field for any combination of aperture and subject distance for a single focal length. I find this a pain in the ass for several reasons: firstly, I have to carry around several charts, secondly if I'm using a zoom lens I have to guess what focal length I'm using, and finally I generally find it easier to gauge the size of the subject rather than the distance to it.
Being a guide to portrait photography cleverly masquerading as a technical analysis
Like the topics we covered in the beginner’s guide last month, depth of field might initially seem complex, but behind it is some relatively simple logic and maths. Don’t worry if maths isn’t your strong point: long equations are the crutch of the inarticulate, and there’s nothing in this article more complicated than division.
This is a beginner’s guide for computer geeks who want to be digital artists. Specifically:
Roll over a section of the diagram
You are a beginner: you have little experience with photography beyond point-and-shoot cameras and mobile phones. If you are not a beginner then why are you reading this? Shoo! Go outside and play with your camera.
You want to be a digital artist: you intend to make a small number of photos or illustrations that are as close to perfection as you can get them.
If you want to take large numbers of shots to document weddings or sports events for example, then you won’t want to edit them all on a computer afterwards so you have to get everything perfect when you take the shot, just like in ye olden days of film photography. This guide may well help you, but ignore the section on digital manipulation. Then practice. A lot.
On the other hand if you don’t care about making each shot perfect then save yourself a lot of money and buy a point-and-shoot camera.
You have a computer and know how to use it. If you are reading this, I’m guessing that you do. If you are not reading this then something very strange is happening right now.
You are a geek: The fact that you’re reading this article already gave you a 90% chance of being a geek, and taking the time to roll over all these little bits guarantees it. If you think Venn diagrams are interesting, you’re a geek, end of story. I like to define a geek as someone who cares enough about something that they want to get good at it for their own sake, not to impress others or earn more (though being a geek helps you with those two goals too).
Moot point – all digital artists are computer geeks
You are a computer geek: you enjoy using computers and can learn a piece of software by playing with it for a day or two. If you are not a computer geek then it may be for the best to use a digital camera as if it was a film camera: forget digital retouching and just capture the best image you can when you shoot. This article will still be useful, but ignore the section on digital manipulation.
"Camino de Santiago" means "Way of St James". It is a network of paths through Europe that all lead to Santiago de Compostella. In June 2010 I set off with camera to walk the last 500 miles from St-Jean-pied-de-port in France. This is the book that I made along the way.
The book consists of 30 landscape photos presented with snapshots of the pilgrims and their lifestyle.
Continue reading Project: “Camino de Santiago” book
This case study describes my role in the creation of inamo: a restaurant quite unlike any other.
At inamo, customers sit at square white tables illuminated from above by a projector. The user interface presents an animated menu that customers use to place food and drink orders. These orders are sent directly to the kitchen, from where they will be delivered to the customer “in a moment” (Ha! get it? No, I didn’t come up with the name).
When the two company founders needed a software architect to turn their ideas into working software, they hired me. We developed prototypes, worked with hardware designers, designed production software, built the first restaurant installation and hired a team of developers to continue work on the product. Three years later the concept is receiving rave reviews and is being marketed around the world.
Just for fun, I decided to implement mixins for Java, then record a screencast demonstrating how it works whilst at the same time trying to say “Um” as little as possible (I succeeded on the first two counts and failed on the last).
When I built Animator.js, I got some flack for suggesting that inheritance is not a Good Thing. Keen to avoid a holy war I restated my position to ‘inheritance is often useful, but more often overused.’ Over the last few months I’ve been trying to figure out exactly when it should be used, and have concluded – at least for the kind of systems GUI developers build – never.