Curves- An adjustment in Photoshop that represents the image as a relationship of input to output values displayed as a diagonal line, creating arcs in the line changes the relationship of input to output. So you could adjust, for instance, making the light values lighter and the dark values darker (creating more contrast) by changing the straight diagonal line into mild "S" curve.

Blown highlights- picture a shiny white marble lit by a single light bulb. A properly exposed image will show the light bulb's refection as a small white dot on the marble. An over exposed image will show the reflection as a glowing orb with fuzzy edges, this is a "blown" highlight. Because RAW files contain the data recorded on the camera's sensor, without interpretation, RAW processing software can, essentially, re-interpret the data is if it had been shot 1-2 stops lower, by applying a curve function, where the highest value (white) is kept but the next lightest value is darkend, and the next one is darkend even more. So the "blown" highlight will appear to shrink back to a white dot with defined edges.

Unsharp Mask- A poorly named Photoshop filter that actually increases the apparent sharpness of an image by increasing edge contrast.

White Balance- The spectral profile of the light you've set your camera to shoot in. So if you set your camera to shoot in sunlight and then go shoot indoors, with incandescent lights, your images will appear very yellow (more than the same scene did to your eye), if you set it for incandescent it will appear roughly as it does to your eye. In film cameras you can only do this by changing film, so you'd get Tungsten film to shoot under Tungsten photo lights or normal film for shooting in natural light.

I'll translate:

"Blah blah blah, I'm sooo great, I connect with people through my camera, to hide my pathological shyness!"

I'm kidding. I love DaShiv, although I've never met him.

LOL @ muddgirl.

Thanks for the translation, doc. I guess being a digital photographer genius ain't gonna happen unless you're also a Photoshop genius.

I guess being a digital photographer genius ain't gonna happen unless you're also a Photoshop genius.

No, being a really good photographer means you don't need to do anything in Photoshop. You do need to know your way around a camera though, there's really no replacing that. For a lot of photography, it's more about the eye of the photographer and their ability to find unique and interesting subject matter. The technical merits of his pictures aside, I think DaShiv's real skill is capturing people in interesting moments with expressions that seem to reveal something about them. This is a much harder skill to learn then being a competent Photoshop hack, there are lots of books that can teach you that. I think that when you consider that DaShiv was working with less then optimal lighting, that the pictures are technically quite good but if his subject matter weren't interesting, no amount of Photoshopping would make them into good pictures.

If it helps your feelings of being an inferior photographer, bear in mind that you probably have an inferior lens at the root of it.

DaShiv shoots with a lens that must be 4" in diameter; the light-gathering abilities of such a beast means that he's got soooo much more to work with than me and my puny point-n-shoot. My camera may have been praised for its low-light performance and ISO 2400, but a 0.25" diameter lens simply cannot compete.

(See? by focusing on something I could hypothetically remedy with money, I don't feel so bad about not having the mountain of technique and talent that DaShiv shares so generously)

Triode the 50mm f/1.8 on my nikon is a $100 plastic lens that can manage low light phenomenally well - if i'm tricky i can eke out as high as 1/125 in dark bars, which is perfectly fine for shooting handheld w/o flash. also keep in mind DaShiv is also at times using careful and judicious fill flash with some kind of softener / diffuser / bounce.

he concentrates on getting a dynamite dynamic capture of a personality, and fixing any niggly technical stuff (ugly lighting details and soforth) in post, which is absolutely correct assuming the limitations of the venue he had. when you're shooting people, you don't often have *time* to get every last little f-stop parameter right, and that's the glory of shooting raw digi with a dSLR - you don't have to, at least not so much. that was a wonderful post he made to mefi about How To Shoot Candid Portraits.

his ability to shoot amazing portraits is something i'm definitely way envious of and going to school on. for now i'll just stick to sneaking up on my subjects and shooting candids; it's the only way i can keep them looking natural.

Thanks, doc. Thanks, folks. LOL, mg.

On rereading: Brilliant, doc. How 'bout I just send my photos to you?
;-)

Do you adjust color in your photos? My cheap digital cam takes a lot of dingy photos that really need more vibrance in the colors.

I actually have a pretty decent eye for an amateur, so yeah, I think a lot of my problem is my camera (3.1 MP). That and just plain laziness - I could (and should) take a class or two. I'm really envious at how much matildaben's photo skills have really come along in the last year or two.

I'd like to get a digital SLR at some point, but they are rather spendy. I have several (not sure how many, some were my grandmothers) SLR film cameras but I hate the hassle (and cost) of film. Maybe when I get a new camera, I'll take a class.