This new capability will allow you to apply very targeted adjustments in Lightroom that you currently would have to apply with masks inside Photoshop.  And right on top of the panel is one you may overlook – color balance.

We’ve blogged before about the varying temperature of different light sources, and problems that can occur when you mix light sources in a single photo.  If this isn’t something you did purposely for an effect, it can be very difficult to balance the light sources.  Now you have a new tool to assist you.

When I was out in our one little snow earlier this year, I managed to create an example of two different color balances in one photo.

I was adjusting my settings on arrival at this gate and noticed how the headlights’ color cast was decidedly orange.  Since this was taken right before we went to Alaska, I never got around to processing all the photos from that shoot.  (That’s lucky because this would have gone straight into the bit bucket.)   You can easily see the clash of the orange (warm) headlights against the blue of the early morning (cool).

With the new brush, I can knock that orange right into submission, cooling it so the light looks like it fits into the scene better.  Most of your viewers would never question that the light might not match reality; it would just seem to fit better.

Here is another example where your viewers’ perceptions of what is correct might not match reality.

When I came back from Alaska this summer, I had some shots from the glaciers.  If you’ve ever seen glaciers, you’ll immediately notice their deep blue coloring.  Many people looking at this photo of gulls on an ice flow asked me about the blueness of the birds.  “Why are the birds blue? Did you tint them to match the ice?”  (Once co-workers know you dabble in the evil world of Photoshop, they’ll question everything you do – even if you didn’t use it.)

Of course, I could go into Photoshop and warm up the color balance on the gulls and mask the rest of the image.  It won’t take too much effort.  Just add a new layer; adjust the color balance; mask the base image to reveal the warmer gulls; save to file; and you’re done.  Or you can stay in Lightroom and make the changes with the new Adjustment Brush.

Doing all that is possible in a single program makes more sense.  And another big advantage to working in Lightroom is Adobe’s policy that all Lightroom adjustments are completely reversible.  If I decide I’ve gone too far with warming up the gulls, I can change it instantly with the slider or easily revert to the original.  All the original pixels are still there.

I find it funny that people who proclaim they don’t like it when I resort to Photoshop are happier with the warmer tones on the gulls (“Everyone knows seagulls don’t look that blue”).  In order to make them happy, I had to adjust the image away from the original pixels.  And now both parties know I didn’t use Photoshop. 

A phone camera discussion on a photoblog?!  Sure; why not?  Phone cameras are ubiquitous.  Everyone has one, and they are using them.  Probably including you.  I was a late-comer to using my camera phone and still don’t use it often.  However, I’d rather use a Droid camera than no camera.

For many folks, phone cameras are their only cameras.  Unfortunately, most of these photos never see the light of day.  People rarely download them and everything is lost the phone is damaged or when it’s time for a new phone.  Don’t let this happen to you – download your photos.  Then, you can put them into a photo-management program like Lightroom, Aperture, or whatever else you prefer.

Today’s phone cameras are actually pretty good.  They sport higher resolution than the first digital cameras of just a decade ago.  Hold them steady, in good light, and you have a camera that doesn’t require a separate bag; keeps you inconspicuous in a crowd; and you can keep in touch with the family at the same time.

Like all tools, you need to understand their limitations.  Their sensors are very small, which means you’re going to have some noise unless there is lots of light.  They have wide lenses, making images with a wide depth of field – not the best for portraits with blurred backgrounds.   Since they have fixed lenses, they can only zoom digitally, which reduces the image data.  And – oh, no! – they produce JPGs.

Experiment to learn your phone camera’s characteristics.  My Droid camera seems to be a little contrasty; noisy in low light; and always has a wide depth of field.  I adjust my shooting to minimize its disadvantages.

Since abstracts are more about shapes and colors, you can shoot without worrying too much about the disadvantages of your phone camera.  In this shot, there are windows from three different eras.  The wide depth of field keeps everything sharp, and the nice light just after sunrise gave me some interesting color.

The distortion of the wide angle lens and the digital noise keep me from shooting many portraits.  There are times, however, when the phone camera is all I have.  You have to take the shot.

I tend to shoot snapshots of things to come back to – you know, when I have a “real” camera.  I don’t have a real good track record, though, of always returning, and, even if you do go back to a previous scene, it will probably look different than what originally caught your eye.  Which means I may work on an image I’ve taken on the Droid to enhance it some.  Camera phone photos deserve post-processing, too, ya know.

Here’s an example of what I mean – this image is right out of the camera.  It’s in Boston, where the modern Hancock Building sits right next to an old church.  I like the way they designed the building.  It reflects the old, and the reflections reduce the impact of its size, so close to the much smaller church.

The wide angle lens distortion is visible in the slanted buildings.  I don’t like the fluorescent signs.  The building is in shadow, so it’s a little dark and a little too blue.

When I took it into Lightroom, I was able to crop out the splotch of light on the sidewalk and one of those signs.  That helps, but I had to lose the edge of the Hancock Building.  I warmed up the color balance and put some more light into the shadows.

In Photoshop, I cloned out the signs, so my new crop gives me back the edge of the building, giving more dimensionality and more reflections.  I adjusted the perspective to reduce the building lean.

I wouldn’t trade my Nikons for the Droid camera, but being caught with only the Droid is not a reason to despair.  You can do just fine with your camera phone.  Your post-processing skills can help enhance the results.  This last photo is a panoramic merge of three photos.  As we always say, learn your tools and go have fun.

A simple way to get a different look is to change your position to the subject.

The first flower is taken standing upright, the way most would take the picture.  The second is much closer to the level of the flowers.

The lower angle can make such a small difference, the viewer won’t even think about why your photo looks different.  Or you can make it obvious that you’ve taken the photo at an unusual angle.

Break a rule of thirds, and put a subject in the dead center of the frame.  It helps if the subject is symmetrical and strong enough to catch the viewer’s eye.  What could be more powerful than a battleship?

Put some kind of framing element around the edges.  This can be almost anything to direct your viewer’s eye into the key element of the photo.  It doesn’t have to be a complete frame; a partial frame will still direct your viewer’s eyes.   I like to find something that seems natural to whatever scene your shooting – stage lights in a concert; buildings in an urban scene; or rocks in a park to frame the distant glacier.

Instead of trying to capture the whole subject, focus on just a portion of it.  Bring in enough of the subject, and your viewer will create the rest of the image with his imagination.   It’s a subconscious reaction for most folks.  I very rarely get questioned about why I didn’t shoot the whole flower or car.

We’ve talked in other blogs about the joys of abstract photos.  Concentrate on shapes and patterns.  Again, you may want to just take part of the whole subject.  You can leave viewers guessing as to the identity of the real object.  A carefully placed interruption to the patterns can also make an interesting shot.

So, get out there and change your approach.  It can help you take more compelling shots that look different than most.  The more you practice with your photos, the more automatic it becomes.  And, you’ll have more fun making them.

Street photography has a long and storied history.  Many photographers have made it their primary effort.  They captured little slices of everyday life, making great photos from seemingly mundane settings.

There are many great examples of street photography for you to discover, and I urge you to look at them.  Find the photographs that talk to you, and try to figure out what you like about them.  This is a great way to learn, and the price is right.  Many are presented in black and white.  Since, historically, you had to load film, you made that choice at the beginning of your photo session.  (And, of course, the farther back you go, that was your only choice.)

Today, we have the choice.  There are lots of reasons to stick with traditional black and white.  Colors can distract your viewer’s attention away from your subject.  Maybe you just want to make your images in the style of the old street photographers.  You can hit the topic cloud at the bottom of the current blogs to find black and white topics from our earlier entries.

I usually expand the definition beyond just images of people on a street since I don’t live in a crowded, urban area.  I make my “street” images wherever I happen to be.  It might be in Fairbanks, Alaska, with a street musician (they’re always happy to let you snap some shots).

Street performers are another group that will gladly cooperate with your efforts.  You don’t have to worry about asking them if you’re a shy person.  They are out there to be seen.

But there really is no reason to be shy.  I have rarely been refused when I asked for permission to take a quick photo.  I found the next photo in Alexandria, Virginia.  There we were, in one of the historical parts of our state, with a big flag on the building behind this New Age tea vendor.  How could you pass this one up?  As soon as he saw what I wanted, he happily posed for several shots.

Last weekend, I was up in Boston, walking downtown, and we stopped into the open air market.  The vendors completely ignored my camera.  They were trying to get a few more sales while the weather was nice.

For someone who likes making images of people, it’s just another fun way to practice your craft with spontaneity, shooting without all the reflectors and lights. You get to meet lots of new people and share interesting stories.  While we were out, we ran into Kevin McBride.

You don’t know Kevin?  Well, Kevin is an Irishman who currently resides in Boston.  He was a heavy weight boxer, and, in June 2005, he beat Mike Tyson in a 6th round TKO.  We met Kevin near Harvard Square.  He talked with us for a while and had no problems with me shooting some up-close shots, including this typical boxing pose.

So get out there and make some images of new acquaintances and people just enjoying themselves.  You’ll have fun, too.

Using big glass is a different experience.  It takes a little practice getting used to it.  You have to know where you’re aiming that thing because the field of view is so narrow.  Your subject can rapidly move in and out of your viewfinder with just minor camera movement.  Proper holding techniques and the fastest shutter speeds possible are important to get a sharply focused image.

This wolf was moving towards us at a leisurely pace, but I still had trouble keeping him in the viewfinder.  I like this shot, but I cut off the wolf’s paws at 380mm.  Also, notice that his tail is not sharp because I had the aperture wide open at F4.  Regardless of the shallow depth of field, the most important thing in wildlife photography is to get the eyes in sharp focus.  Happily, I did manage to do that.

The wolf got so close to the bus, I had to dial down the zoom to 200.  Even then, I could only get part of him into the viewfinder.  This dude was close.  Everyone was very silent on the bus.

Besides getting used to the narrow field of view, the weight of this lens can also be contentious.  Hand-holding is not easy, so you should use a monopod or, ideally, a tripod.  I had both, but, when I was out on the boat in Kenai Fjords, the rolling of the boat rendered them useless.  In Denali National Park, we were on a bus with no room for tripod or monopod.  In both cases, I had to hand-hold the camera, braced against the boat cabin or using the bus window for support.  I guess I could have put the lens away, but I didn’t carry that thing all the way to Alaska to have it sit in the case.

I spent two days on the boat, so I used the 200-400 on the first day when the seas were relatively calm.  The next day was overcast and windy, and I switched back to the 70-200.  There was just too much motion for me to use the big lens.

On the way to Anchorage, we came across mountain goats on the cliffs.  We pulled into a wide spot in the road and ran along the Cook Inlet drop-off to get a closer view.  With stable ground, the monopod was a blessing.  These goats were on the cliffs about 1,000 feet above the highway.  The 200-400 was made for this kind of photo.

All in all, I loved the lens, and anyone looking for a nice Christmas present should feel free to buy it for me.  (I’ve seen it priced as low as $6,400.)  I wanted more than the two weeks I had it to get more proficient with it, even though I shot it almost every day.  Although I don’t often go after wildlife, I will rent it again if the occasion arises.  If you are going somewhere where big glass would help you bring in a distant subject  – like wild animals – consider renting some big glass for your camera.  This lens really enhanced my photographic fun.