Automation: Camera Effects

​

​

Introduction

Technological advancements allow anyone to be a portrait photographer. There are so many automatic features in digital cameras that one can take pictures without any technical training. More people are using cameras, whether it is their phone, a DSLR (digital single-lens reflex), or an older antique film camera. [“Digital cameras are the leading resources for the United States photographic products market,” recorded from Product Industry (10).] This means the use of digital cameras grow every day, and are everywhere: DSLR, phones, or toys. Digital cameras can be set to automatic or manual. People with no experience in taking portraits are introduced to automatic, which sets up the technical settings for them, so they won’t have to worry about a thing manually. Automation in photography distorts an image and can make it look better, or possibly, even worst. However, sometimes automation is needed. To experiment with this idea, I conducted two photoshoots with Winona state students by taking some images in automatic, and others in manual. The experiments include multiple settings such as indoor pictures, outdoor pictures, and some at the WSU underground tunnel. The pictures turned out incredibly different, and will be one of the subtopics discussed in this automation research. Technical automations such as automatic focus, exposure control, automatic flash, and automatic corrections effect results of portrait photography. However, these automations can either distort an image or help an aspiring photographer correct small features for an image.

​

Autofocus

One automation that has impacted portrait photography is autofocus. The book Your Automatic Camera said automatic focus “adjusts lens to bring the main subject into sharp focus” (Curtin, 5). While in manual, a camera user chooses where the focus goes on a camera, but in autofocus, the software chooses for you. This falls into auto-composition, where the photographer doesn’t have to think much on the framing. However, if manual was used, the shooter would not only have to think about how the subject looks, but also the image’s composition, timing, and lighting (ISO). These small factors are big enough to make or break a picture. The wrong place in composition can also ruin the content. For example, from my primary research: an experiment between automatic and manual, I realized after taking the pictures I put the subjects in a position where the tree is coming out of his head (Appendix, Image Eight). The wrong timing could force a picture to go blurry. The wrong ISO, or light sensitivity, can make an image too bright or too dark for a viewer to see. One software that tends to autofocus is the iPhone. Product Industry said the replacement for digital cameras by companies like Microsoft or Apple is one of the “biggest threats” (Products Industry, 12). Even just on a regular camera, a yellow square pops up, circling the spot a user tapped and assumes that’s where the user wants their image to focus on. Next to it, will be a sun icon, which allows camera adjusting lighting to an image. The phone automatically senses something is there and will put all the attention on that spot. It is useful and quick for something that easily blurs a background. Camera use applications, such as Snapchat, or Pay-Pal also have features that sense through its software. On Snapchat, there is facial autofocus. It takes pictures for yourself, known as selfies, remembering the shapes of your features and allowing anyone to put a color or animation-like filter on top. A user can take a picture of themselves surrounded by millions of heart emojis, when of course, those weren’t there in real life. Applications such as Pay-Pal can sense codes through its cameras. Cameras automatically recognize the scans, and the payments go through. Autofocus is important and saves a lot of energy by helping users in their works. Autofocus is suggested to inspiring photographers who are just learning to use a camera. Once a user is comfortable with autofocus, some look at the default settings and start playing around from there to learn manual. But autofocus has increased through the popular trend of selfies, and can also automatically recognize faces or codes.

​

Automatic Exposure Control

Automatic exposure control is another automation effecting portrait photography. Automatic exposure control is the “amount of light controlled by adjusted aperture or shutter speed” (Curtin, 4). Good exposures result from automatic use because of consistent light. However, there are many problems from automatic exposure control that can result in a bad photograph. Each problem causes a different problem like one half is too dark, or too much was in contrast. Some mistakes a camera user can make are synch speeds, hard shadows, overexposure, underexposure, or visible reflections (Curtin, 118). If synch speeds are wrong, one user may not even receive their final shot. Wrong synch speeds leaves films partially covered when the automatic flash goes off (Curtin and London, 82). Too much light (overexposure) will result in an image too bright for liking, while too dark of an image (underexposure), won’t be visible. Dark images usually also come with grain, which are specks of dust that make it harder for the viewer’s eye to read details and significant details. Shadows can send viewers the wrong message: an eerie tone. Visible reflections do the opposite of this, having an open interpretation for meaning, but may not look professional if done with automatic mode. Automatic exposure also controls the depth vision of a photograph. Without lighting, the space between figure and ground isn’t bright or dark enough to tell the focus depth. London and Curtin in What are you doing Wrong with Your Automatic Camera said, “if a subject lacks texture or volume, the entire image looks flat” (88). The best advice given to fix a problem like depth is to use a flash off camera, an increased angle between a flash and camera. A user could also flash bounce from one side of a room, or above (Curtin and London, 88). While getting the wrong auto exposure can dramatically affect the result of an image negatively, automatic flash can either save the image, or make it worst.

​

Automatic Flash

Automatic flash can save your portraits or destroy them. This is a built-in sensor for automatic exposure control (Dennis, 110) that can add light. An experiment conducted for this research was done by taking two photoshoots of Winona state students. One shoot was done indoors inside the Performing Arts Center building. One image incorporated flash in automatic (Appendix, Image 1), while the other was through manual (Appendix, Image 2). This photoshoot was indoors, and needed flash to capture the moment. On manual, my ISO was up to 1000, and because of the small focal point, I kept the aperture at 1.8 and a quick shutter speed of 1/160. On automatic, however, the camera did its own thing, using flash and decreasing the ISO to only 800. The shutter speed slowed to 1/60, however, the aperture increased to 2.0. Dennis Curtin said flash was good for indoor portraits, which the camera automatically did for me indoors on automatic mode (114). Taking flash portraits outside for huge amounts of sun was also recommended by Curtin (114). This is represented in the second photoshoot. The next image in the appendix focuses on two friends outdoors in the center of campus (Appendix, Image 3). Automatic mode took up flash by itself at an ISO of 320. The shutter was a quick 1/200 with a wider aperture of 3.2 to be able to focus on both boys in the picture. I preferred going with manual while shooting outdoors because I didn’t like how bright the picture appeared from automatic. The flash white-washed the subjects and highlights. The picture I took through manual (Appendix, Image 4) without flash I liked better. I kept the same ISO and aperture, but changed the shutter speed to 1/1600, which was the natural light I saw in the moment. Another location, which played between the idea of indoor and outdoor, was a tunnel. The lighting in the tunnel was the most fun to experiment with because I had no idea how the final results would look like. I decided to take the automatic pictures first just because I already knew I would want a higher ISO with fast shutter speed. The portrait of a Winona state student (Appendix, Image 5) had an aperture of 5.0 to show more of the background + flash + ISO of 1000. The shutter speed was 1/60, which became all elements to a bright picture. The picture is bright, but this time it didn’t wash out any features. Elements that were black behind him are visible because of the high aperture. The shutter speed was fast enough to create a stable picture with nothing blurred out. Two more of the same picture was taken in manual. The picture taken in manual that appeared darker (Appendix, Image 6) was taken with an aperture of 3.5, which doesn’t allow the background to be as visually clear as automatic’s. The difference between this image in manual vs. the brighter portrait in manual (Appendix, Image 7) is the shutter speed. This is what made or broke the picture. The image with the higher shutter speed was too dark even though the snap was fast and a user didn’t have to deal with any lagging. The picture that was taken with no use of flash manual (Appendix, Image 7) had a great light streak because of the tunnel’s outside light pouring in. Users can play with shutter speed to get how much of the streak they want by lowering the shutter a little at a time. There are many ways to distort a picture and it’s lighting by using flash.

​

Automatic Corrections

Finally, automatic corrections can distort or manipulate portraits completely. Automatic corrections are the technical edits that affect the images after. While Curtin was discussing film photography, it’s important to note many things still apply digitally. In his book, what are you Doing Wrong with Your Automatic Camera: and How to do it Right states color balance changes by works in the lab (126), but this can also be applied with digital cameras and editing applications such as Adobe Photoshop today. In Photoshop, you can practically make any changes to a picture. You can rotate an image’s size, distort the content, or transform the angles of composition (Bloom, 19). Curtin reminds researchers the feature burning and dodging, which can be done with film photography by leaving the work under the light longer, which selectively manipulates the exposure (Curtin and London, 130). However, in Photoshop, burning or dodging can be done with just one click of a button, forcing a selected area to be brighter. Through Photoshop, layers can also be added to fix colors, contrast or shadows (Bloom, 19). There are many different tools in Photoshop that can crop or get rid of distractions in the back that could cause a viewer’s eye to look away from the main subject. Simple edits color an entire picture a certain hue: filters. Susan Bloom, author of Digital Collage and Painting using Photoshop and Painter to Create Fine Art writes, “filters don’t make photos art” (438). Filters are a part of color corrections, which helps photographers create the scene of a portrait how they envisioned it. After taking the pictures in my experiment, I decided to look and edit it. I have found my personal style of editing in warm colors, which makes an image feel more inviting to a viewer. My edit changed the cool tone’s mood, and added a dreamier and summer feeling (Appendix, Image 8). Besides color corrections, users of cameras can even retouch an image. One possible factor in a picture that needs a correction is the red-eye effect. Red-eyes come from “flash reflecting from subject’s retina back to camera lens” (Curtin, 114). While this could be avoided in taking the picture, anyone can edit it out in Photoshop. There is a special button specifically for it, so that when you hold your cursor over the red-eye area in the image, it disappears little by little. The most important question to ask, however, is what do you want the final image to look after it’s edited: whether there’s little automatic corrections, or manually clearing distractions out. People will react to everything and one of those things are the manipulations of media products. It seems like there is a “battle to shape media coverage” (Dauber, 5). When thinking about automation technical aspects in portrait photography, it is easy to forget auto corrections count too because they’re the only automations made after the actual shoot itself.

​

Conclusion

In conclusion, portrait taking with autofocus, automatic exposure controls, automatic flash, and auto-corrections can dramatically change a picture, not only physically, but also visually. Autofocus is truly everywhere today—not just through cameras, but scans, or even security cameras with auto sensors that respond through the infra-red (Grosvenor, 2). A good picture won’t appear unless there is a balance between lighting, shutter, and depth. For more light, an automatic flash is the best suggestion. However, auto-corrections are just as important as the job itself.

​

Lit Works Cited

         One of the first sources that was used for the research paper on automatic effects was the online e-book called “Digital Collage and Painting Using Photoshop and Painter to Create Fine Art” by Susan Bloom. The 2006 book highlighted on digital art. This was a benefit because camera use itself is a digital art, however, it did not contain more information on cameras or camera after-edits, but painting and design uses. The article depicted information from editing applications such as Adobe Photoshop and Corel Painter and how digital drawings or animations could still count as art. Bloom said art defines art, not the “form” or what is used (p. 438). I liked that this source, however, did have some technical editing vocabulary that is involved when editing digital photography or taking the picture. Some of these examples include noise, grain, and transforming sizes. The article also enlisted tips for cropping and editing within layers. The most important question this article can answer for a researcher is if digital art is still ‘art.’

         Another source used for the research paper was the book, “Your Automatic Camera” by Dennis Curtin. While this source was the most useful source I have found in research, the publication in 1941 was a setback, and while reading, I had to constantly remind myself that everything in the book was for film cameras, which meant I could only apply information that is suitable for cameras today. The value in the source was within the content because it hit on topics, such as automatic exposure, which I didn’t think about myself. The source gave tips on how to take specifically portraits, which was another value in the book. Not many of my other sources specifically discussed portraits, so reading the difference between outdoor and indoor portraits was perfect for my research.

         The next resource my paper got information from was another book by Dennis Curtin written with co-writer, Barbara London. The book is called “What are you Doing Wrong with Your Automatic Camera: and How to do it Right.” The limitation was the time of the publication again. Although not as bad as 1941, this book was published in 1980. I enjoyed some of the content, I could read and apply to the research paper. I loved the tips to naturally find good lighting or apply color corrections to photographs. Another big point this resource gave to my research were red-eye facts. Red-eye effects from automatic shooting is huge still in digital photography. Although, this book did have more information on film cameras.

One source for the research paper that wasn’t as helpful was the book called “YouTube War: Fighting in a World of Cameras” by Cori Dauber. I thought it was incredibly valued on its publication year at 2009, which is still recent enough to give researchers background information on its most relevant topics. The limitation in this book was the content because there wasn’t enough applicable information to my research. The content in this book was more directed to manipulating media outlets in cases of terrorisms or causes of war. I could get a few sentences out of it, however, more involved with the manipulation of media, and this reates to automation because automatic effects itself can manipulate an image.

David Grosvenor, author of article “Automatic Photography” was another source that lacked useful content for the research. Also, published in 2009, this primary patent source gave more content on the use of sound controlled cameras. The article was filled with sentences on cameras that could take pictures with voice overs, which wasn’t what I was looking for in my research. This adds another thing to the paper that I didn’t even think about, but could be its own thing. If this content were to be added to the technical automation camera effects, it would be too much unneeded information. The most important thing I could took away from reading the patent were security cameras, which are motion censored, and could be valuable in the autofocus section of the paper.

         The final source I drew for the research paper was an article online on camera statistics. The article displayed charts and graphs on popular camera products specifically in the United States. The experiment was conducted by Industry Profile. One of the best statistics I drew was that digital photography revenue was increasing, a good thing for the photography market. This article is also recent—from 2003, leaving enough room for background information and updates, but not being from too far in the past where the statistics aren’t useful no more.

         For this research paper, I have conducted about five hours of research in total to receive six useful sources. I found it difficult, however, to find resources on automation because it can be misinterpreted for design, or engineering. Overall, I have found variety of sources on similar topics but I have combined the parts that are related to my paper’s topic, and I did my research through it.