How I Shot It: Unassuming Socks

I'm thrilled to announce that my new pattern, Unassuming Socks, is now available for free in the May 2018 edition of Knotions Magazine! Although not my best photos ever (they were taken many months ago, and I'm still learning!), I thought it might be fun--and possibly educational--to write a post explaining how I shot the main pattern photos.

Unassuming Socks by Shannon Donald
50mm (80mm equivalent); 1/60 @ f/4.5, ISO 800 + bounced external flash.



The Location

The photos were taken in my rather messy basement, on a February evening. Not much natural light happening there!


The Equipment

To get these shots, I used the following gear:
  • Canon EOS 80D DSLR camera
  • Canon EF50mm f/1.8 II lens
  • AmazonBasics 60-inch Lightweight Tripod
  • Neewer TT560 Flash Speedlite for Canon
  • Neewer 9.8 feet/3 m Off Camera Flash Speedlite Cord
  • a generic (i.e., I cannot remember the brand) camera remote control
  • an old red tablecloth
  • an old dresser (more on that in a minute)

The Setup

This is an impressively professional and well-thought-out studio setup. Not.

I tucked an edge of the tablecloth into the top drawer of an old dresser that was sitting in the basement. Voila! A plain red backdrop is born.

I located the tripod several feet away from the backdrop, on its lowest setting.  I placed the flash on the tripod, with the flash head pointed up and towards the white wall to the side of my backdrop (assuming I recall correctly, and that I am reading the light in my photos correctly).

The flash was connected to my camera via the Speedlite cord, which allowed it to be triggered off-camera. I situated the camera itself far enough away from my backdrop that I could shoot wide and crop later; this gave me a little more leeway in terms of where I could position myself and still be in the shot. The most professional part of all? I set the camera on a Wii Fit board with a rolled-up sock under the lens to prop it up just a little bit. Pro tips, y'all. Keep it classy.

50mm (80mm equivalent); 1/60 @ f/4.5, ISO 800 + bounced external flash.


The Process

The first step was to get the exposure right. Because my (cheap) flash is manual only (as opposed to TTL), it's a little trickier. I could have used actual math (metering, and then adjusting the settings appropriately based on the reading) but instead I used an educated guess and trial and error, because that's how I roll. My histogram helped me to quickly find acceptable settings. Once I'd established a baseline correct exposure, it was easy enough to vary my settings by keeping track of which direction and what number of stops I changed, and compensating through my other settings. I left my camera on full manual mode; otherwise my exposure would have been wrong due to the presence of the Speedlite, which would be unaccounted for by the camera's metering (additionally, I wanted a consistent exposure, and manual was the best way to achieve that goal).

Next I positioned myself in front of the backdrop. I used my remote control to take a few test shots, checked them on the LCD of my camera, and returned to take more. Because the background had little contrast, the autofocusing would only be successful when the camera locked onto my socks; this meant I didn't have to manually adjust and lock focus, making my life significantly easier (I could autofocus using the remote instead).

Because I was using a cheap flash, it would not fire if I had live view activated; therefore, I had no assistance in positioning myself. Basically, I shot a few frames, checked them on playback, and repeated, occasionally adjusting my aperture to get a different depth of field, and either ISO speed or flash power to keep my exposure the same.

Once I had a lot of shots in a variety of poses, I was done, except for a small amount of post-processing work (mainly tweaking white balance and cropping).

50mm (80mm equivalent); 1/60 @ f 5.6, ISO 400 + bounced external flash.


What I Wish I'd Done Differently
  • put my flash on my camera and my camera on the tripod (because I bounced the flash anyway, it would have made very little difference in lighting)
  • increased my shutter speed to maximum sync speed (1/250) to block out any ambient light
  • stopped down my aperture for a deeper depth of field
  • increased flash power (even though it would take longer for the flash to cycle)
  • chosen a more interesting background
Hope that was at least a bit interesting to you! If you have any questions, feel free to drop them in the comment box below.

And remember to check out Unassuming Socks, available now! It's a perfectly unisex vanilla-plus pattern for the beginner sock knitter, or the advanced sock knitter who just wants some good TV knitting.

When is it a Lie? The Philosophy and Ethics of Photographic Post-Processing

Photographic editing is a hot topic. When magazines set impossible beauty standards through extensive post-processing, the inevitable debate about the ethics of editing begins. What are the implications for fibre artists?

The Camera Never Lies... Right?

It's commonly said that the camera never lies, but that itself is a lie. A photo is never going to look exactly the same as the original scene. If you have 20/20 vision, and I can only see a foot in front of my face, which represents reality--the perfectly sharp image, or the blur of colour?

What about the innate limitations of the camera? No matter how good its dynamic range, it simply can't capture the same variation in light as the human eye. We can see details in deep shadows and bright highlights that the camera sensor will not be able to capture.

This is how the camera saw it.

And then there are the changes in perspective wrought by different lenses and focal lengths, the different renditions of colour depending on the camera's white balance and other factors (not to mention black and white photographic conversions!), the pixels, the depth of field, and any number of other factors that influence the appearance of the final photograph. Perhaps the camera doesn't lie, exactly, but we can hardly say it only tells the truth.

The Role of Image Editing

The truth is, in digital photography, all images are edited. The JPEG you see straight out of the camera has already had automatic edits applied to the raw data initially captured by the camera. There is no such thing as an unedited digital image.

I would argue that raw data, as processed by the photographer rather than the camera, can actually do a better job in representing reality than the data as processed by the camera. The photographer was there, after all. The photographer knew what the original scene looked like, and felt like, and what he or she intended by the photograph. The camera can, at best, guess at these through an automated process. How many photographs have we seen with wildly inaccurate colours? How many time has the camera seemingly added ten pounds to the model? And what about all of those photos of tourists holding up the Leaning Tower of Pisa?!

Image editing, when done thoughtfully, can convey the photographer's perception of reality.

This is how I saw it and felt it--green and gold.
23mm (37mm equivalent); 1/60 @ f/5.0, ISO 100.

Some Considerations

The guideline I use when processing my own images is simple: tell the truth. The truth, though, in the context of a photograph, is a nebulous thing. If I enhance the colours in my image to express how I remember seeing them, is this true, even if I get it wrong? If I erase skin blemishes--generally transient rather than permanent aspects of physical appearance--am I lying, or am I better telling the truth of the individual's typical appearance? I can only answer these for myself.

But fibre artists do have particular responsibilities, I think.

The designer owes it to the potential customer to accurately and honestly show the fit, construction, size, and details of the garment or other item. Editing in long sleeves when a pattern provides instructions for short sleeves would be a violation of the customer's trust, as would be editing away 30 pounds from the model's waist.

The yarn or fibre dyer owes it to the potential customer to represent the colours of the yarn or fleece as accurately as possible. Editing can (and probably) should be used if the colours in the image are not true to life, but a deep red should not be transformed into a bright pink through the magic of Photoshop. Tell the truth!

Ultimately, the decision of whether to further edit your images is up to you, the individual. I personally believe that thoughtful editing can bring the image closer to reality, make it more appealing, and better express my vision. But whatever you choose, choose it with careful intentionality and a clear understanding of your personal ethics.

Quick Tip: Instantly Improve Your Cell Phone Photo Quality

Do you use your cell phone camera, either for quick snaps, or as your primary camera? If so, we need to talk about zoom.

One thing most dedicated cameras have that cell phone cameras lack is optical zoom. Optical zoom uses--you guessed it--optics to zoom in or out of your scene. In other words, the lens itself adjusts the zoom.

A photo from my cheap cell phone camera. No zoom used. Click to enlarge.

Digital zoom, on the other hand, is essentially a simulation. Digital zoom enlarges the central portion of the image and cuts away the rest. Basically, it's doing in-camera editing--cropping and enlarging the photograph as you take it, without actually magnifying the scene.

Optical zoom will not result in a loss of quality in your image (or if it does, it will generally not be a significant loss of quality, and any loss in quality will be related to the quality of the lens itself). Digital zoom, on the other hand, will irreparably degrade the quality of your photograph.

Similar photo, same cheap camera. This time, I used digital zoom. Click to enlarge. Yikes!

So what should you do? Avoid zooming in with your cell phone camera! If possible, get closer to your subject. If you can't get closer, consider cropping in post-processing--at least you'll have more control over the final result.

If you've ever wondered why your cell phone pictures just don't look very good, digital zoom may be the culprit.