Posts tagged "photography":

Rethinking my lens setup

(All focal lengths in this blog post are for Micro Four Thirds, so to get equivalent Full Frame focal lengths, multiply by 2.)

My previous idea about using the 12-60, 14 and 20 was quite good, but when I have used the 12-60 or 12-32 zoom, I tend to shoot most often at 20 or 25. Sometimes I have also used 17, but much less frequently than 20 or 25. I much prefer the natural perspective of a standard lens unless I want to use exaggerated perspective or compression expressively. The first thing you learn in musical composition is not to over-use your expressive means, but save them for occasions where they actually mean something, and I think the same applies to photography.

One of my reasons to add the 12-60 to the 20 and 14 was that it is useful in bad weather. I also thought it would replace the Sigma 60 f/2.8 and Lumix G 42.5 f/1.7 for landscapes and close-up since f/4 is usually fast enough. I prefer using smaller and lighter primes to using a zoom, but if the weather is terrible, there are few weather-sealed primes in the MFT line-up except the M.Zuiko f/1.2 Pro lenses that I think are too big and heavy to make sense on MFT. Then I discovered that the mark II of the Panasonic Leica 25 mm f/1.4 is weather-sealed through one of Matti Sulanto's videos. It is not freeze-proof like the 12-60, but it is dust and splash-proof. I have owned the mark I in the past and liked it a lot. Since I gravitate towards a natural perspective and aesthetically prefer the 25 over the 20, I thought maybe I would go the other way and use the 25 in bad weather, with the exception of snow-storms and such where the 12-60 is obviously the better choice.

So this summer, I bought the Panasonic Leica 25 f/1.4 mark II. Unfortunately, I did not get it until December. I also bought the Yongnuo 17 f/1.7 and enjoyed using that a lot this summer. I have wanted to have a 35 full frame equivalent for a while and from previous experience with the Olympus M.Zuiko 17 mm f/1.8, I knew that it was not the lens I wanted. The Yongnuo has much nicer rendering, is twice as sharp and cost half the price. It is a bit larger, but not so much that it matters. As I said earlier, 17 is my third-most used focal length when shooting zooms. I can fit the Lumix 14, Yongnuo 17, Lumix 20 and Panasonic Leica 25 in my very small camera bag without any trouble. There is actually room for one more lens as well since the 14 and 20 are so miniscule. I think the last lens to complete the others would be the Lumix 42.5 f/1.7 since it is smaller, faster, stabilised and focuses closer than the Sigma 60 f/2.8. With cropping to 10 MP, the 42.5 can be a 60 as well and 10 MP is enough for the odd picture here and there even though 20 is better. I used to shoot with a 6 MP camera…

These days, I can afford to have lenses that I do not shoot constantly, even if I think there is no reason to own things unless they have a practical use or sentimental value. A set of primes at standard focal lengths definitely have practical value for me and so does the 12-60 for those cold winter-days, for close-up or for non-winter days where the weather is bad and I want another (or more than one) focal length than 25. Most days when I am going out to photograph, I will have my set of primes in the camera bag and one of them on the camera, usually the 25. Some days, I will bring my camera in a jacket pocket with the 20 mm just in case I see something worth photographing. And occasionally, I will fit the 12-60 on the camera. I don't have to be a minimalist that only owns three lenses.

What I have learned from the Panasonic Lumix GM1 and GM5

My first Micro Four Thirds camera was the Lumix GM5. It was a great improvement from my 1/2.3 inch sensor bridge camera. I was very enthusiastic when I started using it, and I got some nice pictures with markedly better image quality than on my previous camera. However, a rather large number of pictures came out a bit blurry. The great thing with the GM5 is that it is very small and light and easy to bring everywhere, but also a competent camera with one more dial than the GM1. The bad thing is that it is very small and light which means there is no room for image stabilisation in the camera and it is too small for my hands. I had trouble holding the camera still. So I ordered Panasonic's grip that screws on the bottom plate. It helped a bit, but I still got blurry pictures too often.

After about a year, I bought a used Lumix GX8 which I still use today. It is large enough to be ergonomic and has good stabilisation. There was an issue with shutter shock which is why it was cheap on the used market, but a firmware update fixed the issue by using the electronic shutter when needed with certain lenses at shutter speeds where the mechanical shutter was problematic. Unfortunately, the issue affected the 14-140 f/3.5 - 5.6 lens the most and it was one of the lenses offered with the camera as a kit when it was new. I don't use that lens with the camera and I have applied the firmware update and switched on the automatic selection of electronic or mechanical shutter that takes care of the shutter shock problem. It's a great camera that even if many people say it is large, is still small enough with the right lens (the 20 mm f/1.7 pancake, the 14 mm f/2.5 pancake, the 12-32 f/3.5-5.6 zoom or the 14-42 f/3.5-5.6 Electronic Zoom) on to fit in my jacket pocket.

A while ago I could not resist to buy a used GM1 that came with both the 14 mm f/2.5 which I had sold some years earlier, but wanted again, and the 12-32 zoom. My thought was to sell it off again with the 12-32 and keep the 14 which I hoped would give me a very good price on that 14. Once I got the GM1, I felt it called out to me to try it a bit before selling it off. It was even lighter and smaller than the GM5, but it lacked any dial except the wheel on the back of the camera which made my usual M mode shooting from the GX8 very impractical. With it set to iA or P, it makes a lot of sense as an emergency camera that fits even smaller jacket pockets than the GX8 + 20 mm f/1.7. However, I soon discovered that for more than a few pictures, it is very uncomfortable to hold and I shake more than with my GX8 which leads to blurry pictures, especially with unstabalised lenses.

The GM5 and lately the GM1 has taught me once again how much I love my GX8. It is large enough to fit my hands, so I shake a lot less with it than with the smaller cameras. And it also supplies in body stabilisation which works with any prime and even Dual IS with any stabilised Panasonic Lumix or Leica lens. It is large enough to also have a great EVF which is another weak point on both of the small cameras. On the GM1 there isn't one and on the GM5 there is one that uses a technology that makes my eyes water. And with the larger size of the GX8, I also get room on the camera body for two well-placed dials, one around the shutter button and the other on the back for thumb use which makes it easy to shoot in A, S or M mode which I prefer. In addition, there is a third exposure compensation dial which I seldom use. The GX8 is small enough to be a daily carry camera in a jacket pocket with one of the smaller MFT lenses, but also competent enough to be the only camera I need. With the GX8, what holds my photography back is me, not my camera.

The ideal Micro Four Thirds lens setup

A few years ago, after buying my flat, I had very little money. I realised I could get some money in by selling off a few lenses. Since the lens I used the most was the 20 mm f/1.7 pancake, I sold off every other lens and got in enough money to get through the tight times. I had originally bought most of my lenses used, so I got back more or less what I invested in them in the first place.

The 20 mm served me well for the following two years as my only lens. The wide standard focal length is probably the most versatile focal length you can have if you only have one prime lens. In addition, the 20 mm pancake is small enough that my "large" Panasonic Lumix GX8 (which is still a lot thinner and lighter, but not smaller in width and height than any of the small full frame cameras) fits into jacket pockets which means I can bring a camera that is ergonomic enough to fit well in my hand and with good enough composition tools like the tilting EVF around as my daily carry camera. The f/1.7 aperture makes it a good lens for any lighting condition. The advantage of MFT when it comes to depth of field (since longer is almost always better) means that I can shoot at f/1.7 after sunset or indoors on low ISOs and still have the same depth of field as on a f/3.5 lens of an equivalent full frame focal length (40 mm). The disadvantage of more noise on higher ISOs on smaller sensors like APSC, MFT and 1 inch isn't a problem if you shoot fast enough lenses, but you get the advantage of the longer depth of field even in low light. The 20 mm has somewhat slow autofocus, so for video, I would use manual focus. I also experimented with manual focus for photography with it which also works well.

The 20 mm is in my opinion the most versatile and practical lens in the whole MFT system. I have used it for landscape, street, indoor events including video, close-up (with Ex.tele-conv, it becomes a 28 mm with a relatively larger reproduction ratio or you can crop when shooting RAW), environmental portraits, head shots and upper body portraits. I just wish it was weather sealed so I could confidently leave it on my camera during a blizzard. In other words, the 20 mm pancake will usually be the main lens in any lens set for me. Now that I have a bit more money again, I have felt that occasionally, it would be nice to have something wider or something longer. For a confirmation ceremony in a large hall, I bought the Sigma 60 f/2.8. I was very tempted by the Olympus 75 f/1.8, but it is a lot more expensive, larger and even though f/1.8 would be nice, f/2.8 is still fast enough to make decent images in low light. The Sigma is also small enough that I could keep it in my suit pocket when I used the 20 mm before and after the ceremony and easily switch over once inside. The 20 mm has taught me the value of small and light lenses.

I also missed the Lumix G 42.5 f/1.7 which is the best portrait and close up lens in the medium telephoto range unless you need one of the f/1.2 pro lenses. It also isn't larger than it needs to be like the otherwise great Sigma 56 f/1.4 which is an APSC lens and therefore larger than necessary for the focal length and aperture on MFT. The combination of built-in stabilisation, better sharpness and close focus abilities makes it a better choice than the Olympus 45 f/1.8 in my opinion. I have used it a lot for close-up in the past and also for the occasional portrait. I also missed having something wider occasionally, so when I saw a GM1 with a Lumix G 14 mm f/2.5 and a 12-32 for a decent price, that was a no brainer. I like the idea of the GM1 and my first MFT camera was the GM5, but both of those cameras are too unergonomic and fiddly in practical use for me. The lack of stabilisation is also a major drawback. The GX8 is so much more comfortable, and again, with the 20 mm or the 14 mm, it is small enough to fit in a jacket pocket which means the GM1's only advantage is lighter weight. I will sell the GM1 with its 12-32 and keep the 14 mm pancake.

I also bought the TTartisan 23 mm f/1.4 manual focus prime on a whim. My idea was that the slightly longer focal length would produce more winners for me since it would force me to think more about my composition. I owned the Panasonic Leica 25 f/1.4 in the past and even if it often felt too narrow, it also produced more winners than the zooms and primes I had owned before it. I actually came to it from the 20 mm pancake which at that time annoyed me because of it slightly slow auto-focus. This was also earlier in my photography journey. This time around, the 23 felt a bit restrictive coming from the 20 mm, but it did not actually help me produce anything I couldn't make with the 20. Even if it is rather small, it also surprised me by feeling heavy. Maybe the balance is towards the front of the lens or something, because on paper, it really isn't heavy at all. What the lens brings to the table is better manual focusing than the 20 mm, ideal for hyperfocal focusing for street or landscape. It is nice, but I don't really need it.

I still haven't written anything about the ideal setup. Up to this point, I did not really think in terms of a set of lenses, more in terms of what did I feel I wanted, needed or missed. I started thinking more about a versatile set for my uses at this point. There are many lenses I am curious about, but which focal lengths, apertures and features do I actually need? I am a hobby photographer that mainly shoot land/city/seascapes, (rural) street, travel and the occasional portrait. I live in southern Norway, close to the coast, which means wind, rain, snow, wave splashes, cold or a combination of these often occur. My GX8 camera is weather-sealed, but unfortunately, most of the small and light primes in the MFT system are not. On the other hand, most of the time, even in light rain or snow, being a bit careful and maybe keeping a hand on top of the lens is enough to keep the smaller 14 and 20 pancakes and the 42.5 safe. I have used these lenses a lot in all kinds of weather without any trouble, but I would feel more comfortable if they were weather-sealed.

When I started thinking more in terms of a set of lenses, I did a lot of thinking about what I actually need. I usually need a wide standard lens like the 20 mm. It is an ideal focal length as a walk-around lens. For travelling, maybe a medium wide angle like the Olympus or Youngnuo 17 would be better for large buildings and getting more context, but for most other things, a wide standard is better. I am not a fan of the exaggerated perspective a wider wide-angle lens produces unless it is used deliberately as an expressive means. I did use the Sigma 19 mm f/2.8 for a while as my walk-around lens some years ago and it was a very good lens, but I often felt that it exaggerated the perspective just a bit more than I like. That sensation disappeared when I went back to the 20 mm again. So even if the 20 mm can sometimes feel a bit narrow in very narrow streets when travelling, I think it is the main lens for me in any lens setup. When I could have only one lens, the 20 mm f/1.7 was that lens. Even when I can have more lenses, I keep the 20 on the camera and only occasionally use other lenses. It isn't perfect, but it is the best walk-around lens for me and after spending a lot of time with it, I know it well.

Occasionally, I want to exaggerate perspective or I am in a very tight place like an alley or in a small room where the 20 mm is just too tight. Then something wider would be useful. I already own the 14 mm f/2.5 which is a good lens. Robin Wong complained about auto-focus speed, but maybe that was a problem with the mark I on Olympus cameras. I have owned both the mark I and the mark II and I have never experienced slow autofocus with the GX8 (unlike the 20 mm pancake which is more like a full frame DSLR lens than a fast MFT lens in auto focus speed). It is also small and light which means it fits well into any lens set. It is sharp enough and it is faster than most zooms although the 15 f/1.7 is even faster and maybe with a bit nicer rendering, but that lens is also larger, heavier and more expensive. The 14 is much better than its reputation and extremely practical since it is the smallest and lightest autofocusing lens in the MFT system. (It can also become an 11 mm with the wide angle conversion lens and there is also a close-up attachment for it that can make it better at close focusing (which it already is quite good at). For my purposes, I think buying those are not really worth it since I seldom need anything wider than 14 and I have other lenses for close-up.)

For landscapes, the occasional animal, bird photo or portrait I sometimes need a longer lens. The 20 is good for portraits, but for closer head shots or upper body shots, you get a bit too close to the subject which makes the proportions of the face seem strange. I usually shoot environmental portraits which the 20 mm is good at, so for me, a longer lens is actually less about portraits and more about landscapes, birds or animals. I don't shoot any sport, but when Tour of Norway cycled by a few years ago, I made an attempt with the Sigma 56 f/1.4 that I owned at the time and got some decent shots. I don't usually shoot events either, but occasionally, I am at an outdoor concert or the Norwegian National Day celebrations or a confirmation or wedding and it is nice to have a lens that could work in such a situation.

For landscapes, weather is a factor. Ideally, I would have a lens I could use during a blizzard in -20 Celsius by the coast with a lot of humidity. Even though I own the 42.5 f/1.7, I don't use it that much because it feels a bit on the short side for telephoto landscapes, animals at a distance and events and I seldom shoot portraits that aren't environmental. The Sigma 60 f/2.8 is more ideal for those scenarios, except that it isn't weather sealed. I don't often shoot in low light at events or outdoors for landscapes. When I bought the Sigma 60, I also thought about the 12-60 f/2.8-4, but felt that f/4 was a bit too slow for the event I bought the Sigma for. The Olympus 75 has a better focal length and faster aperture than the other alternatives and back when I owned the Sigma 56, I sometimes used it for landscapes. I don't shoot birds or animals often enough that I need a dedicated telephoto zoom like the 35-100 f/2.8 or the Olympus 40 - 150 f/2.8. These lenses feel too large and expensive for something I only occasionally do and 60 is long enough for my needs.

I am still not 100% certain about the telephoto side, but I did buy the 12-60 f/2.8-4 since it is a useful occasional telephoto, superish zoom and bad weather lens. Since it covers the whole focal range I need, I can confidently go out in bad weather during winter with it on my camera. I can also use it as the second lens together with the 20 mm when travelling. Especially when travelling with other people and not knowing what to expect, a superish zoom can be useful. The 12-60 is super enough to cover all my needs with enough speed, but not so super that it looses its optical excellence or aperture speed like the 14-140 f/3.5-5.6. Maybe I will invest in the Olympus 75 f/1.8 if I find myself shooting a lot of low light events or landscapes, but as an occasional telephoto, the 12-60 at f/4 on the long end is good enough. It is larger and heavier which is the disadvantage of a zoom over primes and it is slower, but I can use it during winter or bad weather without worrying and it has a versatile zoom range. An advantage of the 12-60 is that it focuses closely and even though the spec sheet says 0.3 x magnification and the 42.5 f/1.7 spec sheet says 0.4 x, in reality, I get more magnification with the 12-60. Maybe 0.3x is at the wide end and they forgot to write the magnification at the long end?

My ideals are to have as few lenses as possible and as small and light as possible, but at the same time have all the lenses I need. I will sell the TTartisans 23 mm even if it is a good lens since I already have the 20 mm. I will also sell the 60 f/2.8 since I seldom shoot indoor events which is the main advantage of this f/2.8 over the 12-60 f/2.8 - 4. I am more hesitant to sell the 42.5 f/1.7 since it makes an excellent three prime set with the 14 and 20 pancakes even though I do not actually use it very much. The low light capabilities of f/1.7 can be useful when the 12-60 f/2.8-4 is too slow and weather sealing isn't needed. If I continue to not use it much over time, it will go, but for now, I hold onto it as a fourth lens.

I have been thinking about and trying out a lot of different MFT lenses over the years. In the past I was more concerned with getting the very best lenses, but over time, I have come to appreciate the value of compromising on some aspects, like auto-focus speed with the 20 mm or aperture size on the long side of the 12-60 or slightly on the 14 to gain practical advantages like small size and light weight, weather sealing or a practical zoom range. A camera and lens combination that you can keep in a jacket pocket like the GX8 + 20 mm pancake is more valuable than something like the GX8 + the OM System 20 mm f/1.4 which technically is a better lens and even brings weather sealing to the table, but is too large and heavy to be kept on the camera in a jacket pocket. On the days where weather sealing matters, I can bring the camera in a small camera bag with the 12-60 mounted so I don't have to mount it in bad weather, or I can carry the camera in my hand with a wrist wrap with the 12-60 on from the moment I leave home or wherever I stay.

Another advantage of having few, small and light lenses are that there is space in my small camera bag insert for my charger, extra batteries, ND filter, mini-tripod etc. as well as the lenses. When I travel, I can travel with any shoulder bag or backpack and use the insert from my camera bag to keep my whole camera system. Or I can keep the camera with the 20 mm in my jacket pocket ready for action and have the rest of the equipment in the camera bag insert in a suitcase.

Separation

A few weeks ago, I took a picture of a tree at the town square in Farsund. I had wanted to take that picture for a while, but couldn't because the light came from the wrong angle every time I had visited the location. I came maybe three minutes too late at that time and were in a bit of a hurry to take the picture before the light disappeared from my subject, but I was able to take almost the picture I had envisioned. (Maybe I will go back a bit earlier and have time to get it right at some point.)

I tried to separate the tree by not overlapping the houses or the mountains in the background. It's not entirely successful as even more space between the lowest part of the leaves of the tree and the mountain would have been better, but it was what I was able to make while the sun was fast disappearing as you can see on the left side of the tree. I also got separation by only the tree being illuminated in the foreground.

Anyway, this picture got me thinking about separation and how we can achieve it, mainly because I had a bit of trouble with getting the needed separation for this picture. As you can see, the tree is a bit too close to the houses and the hill in the background. If I had more time to think when taking it, I would have been able to make this picture better by separating the subject better from the background. In case it is still unclear, separation is when you want your subject to stand out from the rest of the image. I think there are a few different ways and I have listed them below.

• Negative space and distance to other objects
• Contrasting colours or complementary colours
• Depth of field
• Exaggerated perspective
• Types of shapes and lines
• Light and shadow
• Blurred and not blurred
• Framing the subject

These techniques could be used individually or in combination to create the desired separation between the subject and the rest of the content of the image.

Negative space and distance to other objects

The easiest way to separate the subject of a picture from the surrounding and let it stand out is to put it somewhere where there is negative space or empty space in the background and a bit of distance to other objects. Often objects or people have space in the background that is more cluttered, but by adjusting the composition, you might be able to put negative space in the background instead. Often this involves moving up and down to put the sky behind something instead of a more cluttered landscape or city scene, or maybe to put a calm fjord, sea or lake behind the subject.

To isolate the subject further, maybe you would have to move closer to it so other objects seem further away. (Be careful not to move too close if you shoot a portrait. If you get really close, the body part closest to the lens will be larger and further body parts will be smaller, especially if you also use a wide angle lens. To be able to be at a working distance that is far enough away to not give perspective distortion of people's body parts is why people use short telephoto lenses for close up portraits.)

You may also find that you can create more distance by simply looking at the subject from another angle. Say if there are close-by things on the left or the right, but not on the close – far axes, simply move close to the thing on the left and shoot with the previous close-far axes as the new left-right axes in your photo and try to hide the thing now behind the subject (previously on the right) with the subject or by using a shallow depth of field.

Contrasting colours or complementary colours

Another way to create separation is to have your subject in one colour that contrasts to its surroundings. If everything else in the scene is in pale autumn colours, having a subject in a springy green will set it apart. This would also be a complementary colour to red which makes even the contrasting colour fit in to the rest of the colour scheme.

Maybe the easiest is to choose a subject in a stronger or more vibrant colour than the rest of the frame, but it is also possible to do the opposite and have the subject be paler. The good old black and white photo with a person or object in colour is also a variation on this concept. In the olden days, black and white portraits were sometimes coloured by hand and then you could really play with these kinds of effects.

Depth of field

This seems to be the most popular form of separation these days, especially for portraits. People buy an expensive lens with a fast aperture and want to show it off. It is a nice effect, but it is one of those tools in the toolbox that you should take care not to use just because it is there. Have a look at the pictures of great photographers and think about how many of their iconic shots use a shallow depth of field and why they do or do not. To create shallow depth of field is easy (even on MFT and APSC), but it doesn't make a picture good by itself.

On the other hand, shallow depth of field can look really nice and it is a nice way of creating separation, but there are a couple of pitfalls to avoid, like not having the whole face of the person in focus (or the whole object) by going for the fastest aperture available without any thought and thus rendering the picture less of a portrait or macro and more of a picture of boke, or not thinking about your background and having clutter or strong colours in the blurred out bits that are still somewhat distracting even when blurred out.

To create shallow depth of field, you have to be close to your subject (but beware of perspective distortion if you shoot people), have a large distance from the subject to the background, use a long focal length and use a wide aperture. The longer the focal length, the less wide an aperture or the less close you need to be to your subject to get the same width of your depth of field. A 50 mm f/1.4 gives you half the depth of field of a 25 mm f/1.4 at the same distance from your subject.

Even if it is possible to get a slightly narrow depth of field with a wide angle lens if it has a wide aperture, longer lenses are better for shallow depth of field. For portraits, standard lenses or short telephoto lenses are generally used to get a long enough working distance to not make the closest parts of people's bodies unproportionally large. They also make shallow depth of field easier because of their longer focal lengths. If you are unable to get the effect you are after, get closer to your subject or use a lens with a wider aperture or longer focal length.

Exaggerated perspective

Another way to create separation is to use an exaggerated perspective with a wide angle lens (19 mm or less on MFT) to create the illusion of a larger space between the subject and the background. With wide angle lenses, the background becomes smaller than when using longer lenses and this creates the feeling in the viewer that there is more distance between the subject and what is in the background. The shorter the focal length, the more exaggerated the perspective.

Street photographers often use wide lenses this way. With a person as their main subject quite close to the camera and other people, houses and other objects in the background. If they are really close to their subjects, the subject's faces will look strange and unnatural, but sometimes a flattering or natural looking portrait is not the effect the photographer wants. In narrow streets, you get more of the scene into the frame while also making everything except the foreground look further away with a wide angle lens.

Films also often use close-ups with (mild) wide angle lenses to get separation through the exaggerated perspective. Maybe that's the reason why half of Hollywood has nose jobs. (The nose, as the protruding part, is the one body part most often looking unnaturally large when shot close-up with a wide angle lens while the rest of the face, because of the exaggerated perspective, looks unnaturally small and distant in comparison with the nose.)

Types of shapes and lines

It is also possible to create separation by the types of shapes and lines used. What I mean by this is that some lines and shapes are hard, squared and use 45 degree angles or factors of it frequently, while other lines and shapes are soft and rounded. If the subject of a photograph has soft shapes and lines and the rest of the scene has hard shapes and lines, then that contrast will separate the subject from the rest of the scene.

There are many pictures of hard shaped fences and gates with soft shaped landscapes in the background. In urban exploration, abandoned factories or warehouses might have old machines that have round wheels for hand-cranks, gears or power transmission while the surroundings are buildings with hard, squared shapes and sharp corners.

I don't think people think so much about the contrast in shapes and lines as they think about colours and shallow depth of field. Or maybe that is just me not being very aware of this before thinking more about it now.

Light and shadow

Separation through use of light and shadow is an old technique used a lot in baroque era paintings. Often the light would illuminate the subject while most of the background lay in shadow. You can achieve the same effect by lighting your subject with a flash like in the painting of Marais where the light source is on the left side of the subject at approximately a 45 degree angle, lighting him down from above and use an aperture that renders little of the available light in the background visible in the shot. In a studio, if you use separate background lighting, you would usually illuminate the background less than the subject to make the subject stand out.

Today, many people lighten up areas within their image they want the viewer to focus on in post-processing, especially for images shot with only available light. If you do not overdo it, it can look quite natural even if the lighting is a bit uneven. This is basically the same concept as "dodging and burning" that people do in the darkroom to expose different parts of their image differently when developing film.

The use of a kicker light or hair light (or the sun if outdoors) to illuminate the hair from behind in addition to a key light in front or slightly to the side is another variation of separation by light and shadow where the idea is that the hair (especially if dark) should not blend into the background, but rather stand out by being more illuminated than the background.

Blurred and not blurred

It is also possible to create separation by having everything in a picture blurred by motion blur except the subject. If you shoot something or someone still while the rest of the scene moves with a slightly long exposure, like a statue on a busy street, you get this effect. The night photograph of blurred out lights and dark surroundings made by a long exposure by night is sort of the same idea, but in reverse.

Many landscape and cityscape photographers use long exposures of the sky or the sea, especially on windy days, to create an otherworldly blurred out cloud where only the still bits of the scene sticks out, like stones in the sea or the top of tall buildings in front of a blurred out sky. This is usually achieved by using ND filters to not overexpose the image.

You can also get the effect of one relatively unblurred subject with a blurry background if you pan with the same speed as your subject while it is in motion. Sport photographers are often good at this technique and it is used a lot for shooting cyclists, formula one and other fast moving sports.

Framing the subject

Another way to create separation is to use some kind of "frame" around the subject. The "frame" could be either something in front or around the subject that blocks the rest of the view further back or it could be something behind the subject that puts it within a frame. Arnold Newman used this technique in his famous photo of the the Nazi war criminal Alfred Krupp where there is a square "frame" where we see the factory of Krupp's behind him and walls to either side of him that put him within that frame.