I was asked to take some photographs of model cars tonight.

It seems there is a big anniversary coming up for Mini (40 years?) and since I had a camera I was asked if I would take some shots of classic model minis.

Not being one to say no to an opportunity to play with the camera, I jumped at the chance.

I took two styles of shot over the evening. A sort of typical archive approach, car at 45 degrees shot and a more adventurous shot. I’ll post a few of these over the coming weeks I guess.

Here’s one as a starter anyway.

 

I’m asked to do this sort of thing occasionally. Most everyone who knows me or knows me through friends or family knows I’m a bit of a photo nut. When I’m asked, I always make it clear I’m very amateur and still very much learning, but if they’re willing to loan me their toys, kids, whatever I’ll see what I can do. I make sure they understand they may get nothing out of it, but if I manage to take anything they’re welcome to it. It’s a great way to learn and to keep stimulated.

I guess what I’m saying is, make sure you’re available to improve your photography. If you’re like me, you only truly learn by taking pictures. And taking new pictures is a great way to learn…

These days, most of the photos I put online or print out have had some form of post processing on them. I’ve nothing against unedited photographs, I just think that there are a few things you can do that make a difference, things that a film photographer would do in a darkroom as a matter of normal practice.

One of the most common adjustments I make to a photograph is the application of curves.

(OK, if you’re an experienced photographer or know all this already, switch off now…)

Curves adjustments allow you to tweak the tonal ranges in an image without changing the overall exposure. At its simplest level, you can brighten shadows (or make them darker) or do the same for the highlights. Getting more advanced, you can adjust individual channels (typically - red, green, blue) in an image to increase the contrast of specific colours. You can even use curves to correct white balance issues.

Curves adjustments are available in Photoshop and Lightroom, but if you don’t have access to these products, try something like GIMP for free desktop processing or flauntr for a free online tool.

Typically, the tonal range of an image is represented in a curves dialog by a straight line running bottom left (dark) to top right (bright). When you adjust the tonal range, you manipulate that line, essentially adding a curve (can you see how they named it?)

Here’s some examples of pictures I’ve taken before and after curves have been applied. (Note, none of the pictures are great, but hopefully they show how curves can help).

In all the following examples, the original image is the part on the left.

Increasing shadows

 

By pulling the lower portion of the line down, dark tones within the image are intensified. The line becomes steeper as the contrast in the picture is increased, but the highlights in this (already blown out) image aren’t increased.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Increasing highlights

 

 

The original image here is a little dark, but simply increasing the exposure would have ruined the look of the dark grey suit. By pulling up the upper portion of the tonal line, the part dealing with the highlights, the shirt gets brighter as well as the face whilst the suit retains most of its original dark formal tones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

S–Curve

 

 

By using both the adjustments mentioned above, it’s possible to take a flat or lifeless photograph and breath a little contrast and life back into it. As the curve here shows, a little is often enough – remember the steeper the line the more contrast the picture will have.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Increasing a specific channel

 

 

Using the curves tool, it’s often possible to define a separate curve for each colour channel in the image. In this example, the highlights of the green channel have been stripped back, whilst the reds and blues have been made darker and more intense to differing degrees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These are all pretty simple adjustments. It’s possible to have many points on the line and make lots of different adjustments all the way through the tonal range. But, typically a few minor modifications is all that’s needed.

Hopefully you can see the value of using curves to enhance an image. If your images are flat or dull, it’s easily the quickest way to bring some life into them.

My father was showing me a flower today in his garden. He has a bunch of yellow tulips (I think) and a single red one.

Annoyingly. it was close to a fence with really bad light for taking a picture – I know, I tried. There was lots of cross light and dense shadow because of a fence right behind the flower.

I was about to give up when I remembered I had my flash gun and off camera remotes with me and, never having used them outside the house before, it seemed like an opportunity to try some form of fill in flash.

OK, my understanding of “fill in flash” is that when you have a subject that’s back-lit or has a shadow on it, you can use a little “pop” of flash to compensate. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a compact or an SLR, if you can turn on your flash you can use it to help fill in the missing light. Using this, you can expose the image, front and back equally.

I guess I took it a little further, by using the flash off camera (with my father holding it) and deliberately under exposing the background I was able to mostly isolate the flower. A little photoshop later and I ended up with this.

 

I’m playing around with photoshop again, thanks to a book a friend (yes, the turd commenter) loaned me. I’ll discuss the book in more detail another time, for now I just want to show you the impact of some of its suggested workflow.

Original Image

Final Image

I’m kind of curious what people think. Does the final image work better than the original?

Whilst in Canada we had an opportunity to visit Elk Island National Park to look for Bison.

Sadly the Bison decided it was too damn cold and snowy to hang out near the places where humanity might catch a glimpse, though we did see them in the distance.*

Still, the other locals were happy to pose.

In an effort to be prepared when leaving the house, I’d lifted out my 10-22mm and my 55-250mm lenses from my camera bag. By habit, I’d mounted the wide angle lens. It was only as we entered the park and I looked at my friends camera I began to get a niggling feeling I’d made a mistake.

Yup, animals tend to be skittish, landscapes less so – so if you’re in the same situation, mount your zoom lens in case an animal pops up. They probably won’t hang around while you change lenses and reset the camera.

*I’m kind of glad they were in the distance. Having partook in the eating of some of their friends in the preceding days, I felt guilty enough without having to look one in the eye. Funny thing, I’ve never felt that way when encountering a cow or a pig.

Since I don't really post photographs of people very often, it can be hard to talk about portrait photography that I've tried.

A few hardy souls have volunteered to let me take their picture, but until I manage to get something organised the best I can do is the occasional animal.

 

 

One useful technique for taking photographs of people (or in this cases horses) is to try and capture light in their eyes. (Good light mind, not that horrible red eye that comes from flash in low light conditions. )

This light reflection in the eye can either be natural or as a result of some smart lighting techniques, but what it will do is lift the eye into the picture and draw attention to it. (Your eye will always get drawn to bright spots of a photograph).

Take a look at some photos of faces and see what I mean - eyes with catchlights are much more full of life than eyes without.

I like to try things. Even when what I read makes sense. Even when the photographic evidence proves the point. I still like to try things.

Sometimes it can take me a month or two to get round to it. Sometimes it happens sooner. But inevitably, I'll try a thing just to prove it is so.

So, finding myself alone in a house filled with food, beer, hundreds of my favourite movies and the web...

I ignored all those and got out my new light stand and umbrella to see if using a reflector with an off camera strobe really did make a difference to the light...

OK, not owning a reflector was a bit of a bind, but I happened upon a fantastic piece of A2 glossy white card, and necessity being the mother of invention, suddenly I had a compromise.

 

I set an apple on a chopping board. Then I positioned a flash high to the left pointing at the apple through a translucent white umbrella. For the reflector shot, I then positioned my white card to the right of the apple - the size of the card meant it ran from the surface of the table to above the umbrella in height. (For reference the chopping board was on a black surface). since I was shooting freehand, the position of the apple is slightly different in the two frames, but the setup was the same.

 

Without a Reflector...

 

With a Reflector...

 

OK, neither of these is going to win photograph of the year, but it proved out the theory I'd read about.

Whilst there is still shadow in the reflector shot, it's a lot less sheer and looks more natural in keeping the apple and board detail.  I reckon moving the reflector closer again would have reduced the shadow further.

So, lesson for tonight. Reflectors do work in reducing the harshness of a shadow.

I have problems with backgrounds quite a lot. I tend to see the subject in the viewfinder, like what I'm getting and press "snap" without ever considering the background of an image.

Take a look at this picture to see what I mean.

(f/3.2, 1/200sec, 100mm, ISO-200, 09/10/2008)

 

The water droplet is nice and sharp. I quite like the colouring effect I put on the image. I even kinda like the fact the tap is quite grubby and out of focus.

But the shadow of the tap forms a dark stripe across the picture and it just annoys me when I look at it now. I've tried cropping the picture to remove the head of the tap, but I felt it lost context when I did that.

So, lesson for today. (and one I'm still trying to learn dammit) is don't just look at the subject, look at the background before you press 'snap'.

 

Oh, and I have no clue as to what the strange pear shape reflection is in the water either!

One of the things I've tried over the past few weeks is to capture a water splash frozen, sharp and in focus. I'd tried this last year and got some OK results, but they weren't fantastic and it was very hit and miss.

This time I wanted to be sure I understood the principles, and thanks to a few people I think I'm getting there, and I thought I'd share.

First some simple things to remember.

• Water is transparent. (No shit Sherlock...). No, this is really important and I didn't consider it with my first attempts. I was more concerned with a clean splash and it was only when I reviewed them that I realised the cloth under the water wasn't particularly photogenic
• Water is reflective.  (again, with the Sherlock remark). Seriously, take care of the background lights (and remember to wear some clothes if you think you'll be in the reflection)
• Water is wet. (OK, but still....). Make sure you don't have anything valuable sitting where it will get wet. If you're fiddling with positioning of lights and bowls and backgrounds, make sure your camera isn't around your neck and dangling in the water. It's obvious, but I found my camera remote (my new one) in a puddle after one session

 

And if you ever needed proof that water was transparent, the splash is lost in a poorly conceived background choice.

 

OK, here's what you'll need.

1. A clear bowl or some other water receptacle (preferably with water in it) - I used a shallow casserole dish
2. Something to go under the bowl if it's transparent - I used place mats, card of different colours, paper and a few other things while playing
3. Something to drip the water into the bowl - I used a syringe, but have read about people using plastic bags with pin holes, pipettes, basically anything that allows you to control the flow of water at drip level
4. Light
5. An empty memory card (you will take a lot of pictures)
6. Tripod
7. Camera remote (optional)

The first three are pretty straightforward and what you use is entirely up to you. Different containers and colours will have huge impacts on the final picture and you really should consider the background as it will make or break the image.

Light is important. Remember, the aim is to catch a splash. To freeze it in motion you'll need to use a pretty fast shutter speed and unless you happen to be shooting outdoors on a nice day, you're already climbing a lighting mountain. You have two options, either a fixed constant light source or a good flash gun. I'm not going to try and tell you to use one over the other, but remember a typical flash will have a maximum synchronisation speed of about 1/200 and that might limit you somewhat.

Right, so assuming you've all the bits above, you need to do the following...

1. Position your background on a solid stable location
2. Place the water (in the bowl) on top of the background and make sure there are no specs of dirt in it
3. Set up the camera on the tripod pointing at the water
4. Make sure your camera is in manual focus mode
5. Use the end of your dropper (or something thin like a pen) to pre-focus on the water roughly where your drop will hit
6. Try to get as narrow an aperture* as you can get away with without reducing the shutter speed too far. I found 1/200 was the absolute slowest I could get a sharp(ish) image at. (your mileage may vary)
7. Finalise the settings on the camera, set up your lighting solution (if you're using a flash a few test shots to make sure you have a decent exposure wouldn't go amiss). Put the camera on continuous/burst mode
8. Holding the dropper above the water, aim for your chosen spot
9. Fire the camera as you squeeze water droplets out of the dropper. I started by using the remote, but found it was as easy to just use one hand for the dropper and the other for the camera button
10. Refill, repeat until the card is full

*(Why the narrow aperture? Well, the likelihood of you hitting the right spot with every drop is slim. With a narrow aperture you get a bigger depth of field so are more likely to get a good sharp drop in another region of your picture, allowing you come latitude for post process cropping.)

 

It takes some patience, and a lot of trial and error. But hopefully you'll get a few decent splashes captured.

(This is also a decent example of the need for a small aperture as the splash is way off centre. The high spot in the splash is from the flash gun - and that was with a diffuser on it!)

Now I've managed it with water, I'm planning on trying it with milk and a few other liquids. I'm also going to give it a god with a different lighting setup - possibly off camera to see how that impacts it.

Hopefully this has been of some use. There are a few of these guides on the web. The best I found was on Caz Photo.

Also, if you want a better understanding of why flashguns have a maximum synchronisation speed, you'd be well advised to read Paulo's explanation.

When I first subscribed to a photo magazine many moons ago, they supplied me with a filter holder as my "free gift". At the time I'd bought a handful of filters but never really used them.

Knowing that our trip into the Mournes was going to involve a lake or a reservoir or some other body of water (just hopefully not my body in water), I decided to take them along.

In the end, I only remembered I had them two minutes before we left a rest stop at the side of a lake. I quickly pulled an ND filter (not a grad) from my kit and put it on the camera, just to see what would happen.

(f/18, 0.6sec, 13mm, ISO-200, 27/09/08)

Looking back now, I wish I'd taken the same shot without the filter, just so I could compare the difference. It wasn't this dark and I have a feeling the camera doesn't measure exposure well with a filter in front of the lens. Possibly it translates it as an evening shot and I should have pushed the shutter time up further to see the difference.

Still, as an experiment goes, I quite like the result. It's pretty amazing the effect a polariser and a long(ish) exposure can have on a body of water.

Since I got the camera I've been fascinated by the concept of off camera flashes and using multiple lights to create effects.

There are a few good examples of this done well out there, try flickr or The Strobist as places to start.

One problem I did have was what kit (yes, more kit) would be needed to do it. In my reading I was constantly confused by terms like "pc to hotshoe" and "pocket wizard" and I've been reluctant to put a huge amount of time or money into something which, as an outsider, looked complicated.

However, never one to shy away from having a play I found a set of triggers (essentially wireless hot shoe mounts for the camera and the flash) on ebay for about £30. I had read that this sort of solution was definitely the budget option, but I figured what the heck.

For £30 you get a wireless transmitter and a wireless receiver. Each of these have a hot shoe attachment and slot onto your camera and flash respectively. One thing to note is your flash should really have manual controls on it.

What I discovered however was that when I plugged them onto my flash I had problems. Big problems...

The kit I bought consisted of an RF-04 transmitter and a PT-04 receiver. When connected to my 430EX flash all was ok until I fired the thing. The flash would then continuously fire as it recharged.

It took until today before I found the answer was as simple as setting the transmission signal to '1N'. If you look at the transmitter and the receiver, there are two little switches labelled - O-1 and N-2, just set these and the problem went away.

So, if you're using a 430EX and PT-04 receiver, hopefully this will solve your problem.

Edit: Forgot to say, as well as the 1N setting, the flash gun will need to be in MANUAL mode or it will just cycle and fire continuously.

Update (February 09) - If you're looking for solutions to this problem and have found this page, please note it wasn't as successful as I first thought. However, this post might offer you some hope - Ebay Triggers and the Canon 430EX

"Let there be snap..."

Dermots challenge turned into something a lot more interesting than I originally thought it would be.

In these days of digital cameras pictures are cheap, free really, if you don't print them. Why would you ever not take 100 pictures and then sift for the best shot or post process into oblivion to get what you wanted?

Looking at it now, I guess I'm guilty of the same sin as a lot of people. I take pictures without actually thinking what I wanted to capture and then only later look to see if it says something I want to say. Being able to take 100 pictures of a tree is different than being able to take a picture of showing some aspect of the tree. Thinking more about it, I'm actually guilty of taking the same picture two or three times - the EXACT SAME PICTURE, same settings, everything - there is no reason for this unless you think you're on the fringes of it being sharp or something.

So, what did taking a single picture of an object on a day actually do for me?

It made me stop and think. This is probably more obvious in the poor shots than in the good shots. If you look at day 1, not thinking about the background left me with a poor result. It made me realise that a picture isn't just an object or a view or whatever, it's a combination of things - foreground, background, subject, position, light, shadow, focus, etc etc etc. you need to make sure all of this is combining before you ever consider pressing the button.

OK, that's pretty fundamental. Maybe I should have realised this a year ago. I probably did, but it's taken me this long to articulate it.

So what else did Dermot's challenge teach me?

• Use manual - If you're taking a photo and have the time to set it up and work with it, use manual. It'll make you think about all aspects of the camera setup not just the comfy slippers setting you normally use. Sure, if it's a shot that's fleeting go for Av or Tv, but when you can use manual.
• Don't be afraid to 'garden' a little - If you're taking a photo of a pretty flower, you are allowed to pull the weeds that might detract. (If they aren't your weeds, please get permission)
• Give people a focus point for their eye - Something that draws them into the picture, a subject or a path for their eye to follow
• Never ever accept a challenge from Dermot - I mean, he is evil (and flirts far too much with overexposure in night shots)
• Don't be afraid to throw out rubbish - If the shot doesn't work it's no big deal. Unless you're getting paid for it, it's not a crime to get a shot wrong. And besides, you might be able to get the picture next time round
• Don't approach every object and every day looking for a photo, but be ready when one presents itself - It's OK to always have your camera with you and to always be looking for the photo, but when it becomes an obsession and you spend your day trying to find "that shot", then you're just going to stress yourself out. I had much more fun taking Day 7 than I ever could have when I was taking the Day 5 disaster

I think I got a fair bit out of this challenge.

I'm still not a great photographer, but the site isn't called "LearnedToSnap" so I guess that's OK.

Hopefully I'm getting better.

"Light at the end of the tunnel"

Day 7 took slightly longer than planned. A few different things came up and to be honest I was keen to make the last shot of the challenge as good as possible.

I'm not sure what dragged me back to those railway bridges. Maybe it was a sense of there being more or maybe I wanted better light, but I'm glad I returned on a sunny day. (If only for the pun above).

What I wanted to achieve was the sense of distance and scale in the picture. I wasn't too sure what I wanted but was spending time holding the camera to my eye to try and see the shot. As it turned out, the AF actually focused on the bricks to the right and left the far trees and light out of focus without any real planning on my part. But, I liked the look in the viewfinder so took that as Day 7.

Hopefully it works.

(f7.1, 1/50sec, 25mm, ISO-100, 02/06/2008)

 

I'm still pulling together my thoughts on this challenge of Dermots. I'll try to sum them up in a future post.

"Messing about on the river"

OK, so there was no Day 5.

I was going to call today Day 5, after all I was away yesterday on business and I didn't have a huge amount of time for photography. But, I did manage to get a little time late last night and the result of my one shot challenge was abysmal. Let's not understate it, it was pretty woeful, even for me. It was blurred, out of focus and badly composed.

I was feeling pushed or time, so tried a shot of an ornament in the house. The object is quite nice, but I just didn't do the right things and I hurried it.

I guess if I was to learn anything about yesterdays shot, it would be that sometimes you have to accept it's not going to be worth the bother - if the shot isn't there, you're not going to get it.

 

Anyway, on with Day 6.

 

the weather's turned here and as a result the blue skies are grey and that miserable drippy rain is - well - miserable and drippy.

I tried to work around that a little and took a stroll down to a railway bridge close to home and shot this.

(F/14, 1/13sec, 18mm, ISO-200, 28/05/2008)

I tried to follow on from Dermot's comments the other day about lines heading into the distance, as well as give the horizon a bit more life than just the grey sky that was available. I also tried to get lower, both for perspective and to keep the tree I was hiding under out of the picture.

I feel the sky lets it down, and I'll go back here when it's a better day to see if it can be improved. A little more exposure might also help the dark areas under the tree in the right foreground.

Comments?

"It's a what now?"

It's actually the inside of one of those fabric play tent maze things my daughter has.

I'd spent pretty much all morning looking for today's shot. I'd considered going out somewhere, I'd considered some form of constructed insanity and then, while trying to chase her out of one of the tunnels I decided I liked the light in there.

Well, you may as well have fun.

 

 

(F/10, 1/60sec, 18mm, ISO-200, 25/05/08)

It's a complete departure from Day 1 and 2, given that there is no central subject. What I wanted more was the effect of colour and the feeling of depth, something that would draw the viewer in. Of the three shots in the insane challenge of Dermot's, this is my favourite to date. I'm not sure I achieved my aim here, but it felt pretty close.

Biggest issue for me is that rogue tie, hanging at the end of the blue tunnel section. The one further on is less annoying.

In terms of yesterdays mistakes - today I double checked all the settings on the camera. Maybe this could have done with a little more exposure, but as I've said before - I like dark.

"There be Dragons..."

Day 2 of this challenge and already I'm finding I'm spending hours thinking about the right shot before setting it up or doing anything about it. I guess that was the idea behind it.

Of course, today I think I fluffed it.

After Dermot's comments yesterday about backgrounds I spent a little more time considering what I wanted and made some adjustments. I also decided to get out my dragon so to speak.

 

(F/10, 1/160sec, 55mm, ISO-200, 24/05/08)

I'm not happy with this picture. I kind of knew as I pushed the button I wouldn't be and only afterwards realised my mistakes.

What I wanted was the head of the dragon with the sky in background. That was all.

But I got a few bits wrong that I can see.

1. the cropping is out. The little trace of the wing on the right and the dead space on the left. I think it would have been better in portrait.

2. ISO-200? Yeah, I forgot to change it back after yesterday.

3. The white balance was on flash. Somehow when I moved it from shade to daylight I got distracted and put it onto flash. I think this is what's left the odd fringing at the edges of the dragon, though that could be the excessive ambient lighting too (Damn you sun!)

4. The sky is blown out, possibly too over exposed

I like the depth of field in this, I wanted almost the entire head in focus, with the eye being sharpest. I also like the position, it gives a decent 3D perspective of the figure.

I guess if I was allowed two shots a day I might be able to correct a lot of this, but it's not anything I would typically have noticed until I was back at my pc (OK, ISO and flash white balance, maybe).

 

Right, I'm off out to see Satriani. Have a good one.

I've taken to carrying my camera when we go out at weekends. The little Slingshot bag I used (yep, papa's got -another- brand new bag. More on this later) was really handy for just tossing in the car or over the back of a pram.

Anyway, last weekend we were visiting some good friends for an impromptu BBQ and I noticed some excellent weathering on one of the patio chairs, so proceeded to snap.

Unusually, the original image from the camera was very constrasty and looked awful when I uploaded it (OK, it looking awful wasn't unusual but normally they look flat and awful). But I wanted to do something with the picture and felt it might look better in black and white. It's kind of ended up as something inbetween, but I do like the faded, weathered feel of it.

(f/4.0, 1/400sec, 50mm, ISO-100, 18/05/08)

For me, what's important about this image is the lines. I wanted to show the way the weather beaten lines are bracketed by the varnished areas - the back struts of the chair providing protection. I'm not entirely convinced I ended up with that.

I chose the angle for the shot to give it more of a 3 dimensional feel. The struts when shot stright on didn't seem 'interesting'. I also chose a small f-stop to try to keep the background out of focus as well as allow the struts to fall slightly into and out of focus.

What I'm trying to do at the minute is understand what I'm taking before I take it and to make a conscious decision about what I want to achieve. "ooh, pretty" isn't really getting me good pictures, so I need to get to "ooh, pretty... Because..." and that means thinking more I guess. Geoff's comment on the boat pictures a few days ago kind of brought this home and made me realise I was too busy playing with photoshop to actually ask what I wanted to show in the picture.

This picture is one of a few where I'd actually done that before pressing the button.

Just along the coast from The Giants Causeway is the Carrick-a-Rede rope bridge. Originally built by fishermen to allow them to check their Salmon nets, these days it's a good walk and 5 minutes of terror.

To be fair, it's probably less likely to collapse than any of the millennium foot bridges that do that horrible bouncy thing when people walk on them. That said, when you're in the middle of it, you tend to forget the giant steel pins and metal cables holding it in place.

And as it bounces, I dare you not to hum the Indiana Jones theme music.

(F5.6. 1/200, 55mm ISO-100, 12/04/08)

(Yes - another of those shutter speed shots....)

By the time I got taking this picture I'd once again fallen foul of dirt in the camera. This time, it was on the mirror rather than the lens. A good blast with the Rocket Air Blower sorted it out when I got home. I've been trying to work out a better way to change lenses. One which doesn't involve carrying a sterile tent. So far, best I can come up with is:

• Change lenses somewhere sheltered (no wind or rain or sea spray)
• Change them efficiently (not quickly - you risk dropping them, but don't stand chatting as you do it)
• Have the right lens caps to hand for the job (remember Canon cameras take both EF and EF-S lenses, one size might not fit all)
• Try to hold the body pointing down (dirt tends not to fall up)
• Accept that it's part of life and will happen sooner or later.

Failing that, you could always carry two or more bodies. I mean, if Canon are reading and want me to try that option all they have to do is ask..... Hello?....Hello, anybody there?

Ah well, worth a try.

During the trip up north I noticed Dermot was making a lot of use of his macro lens. I mean, I took him to see some of the best coast line in the island and he stands on a beach with a macro lens taking photos of rocks!

He did get me thinking though. Maybe there is something to looking at the little things, even when the big thing is so pretty.

Now, I've tried ad-hoc Macro stuff out and about before. Never with much success. The only macro lens I own is also my telephoto lens and at 200mm it's probably not the best option out there for this sort of thing. Certainly, every freehand shot I'd ever tried didn't work up until now.

While shooting in Carnlough, I noticed one of the old trailers had a lot of rust and some odd paint splashes so I decided to give a real close up on this stuff one more go. but this time I tried something a little different.

Instead of sticking to my trusty aperture priority, I switched to shutter priority and set it to 1/200. A lot of the books and websites I'd read talk about reciprocal values for focal length and shutter speed and use mumbo jumbo, but in English I figure it means...

 

To avoid shake, your shutter speed needs to be at least 1 over the focal length of the lens.

50mm needs at least 1/50

200mm needs at least 1/200

etc.

Yeah, I guess you all knew that. (And you probably all know what reciprocal means as well). I'm slightly embarrassed it took so long for me to realise an answer to my shaky hand syndrome was to change modes on the camera.

Anyway, on with the rust.

(1/200sec, F/5, 181mm, ISO-100, 12/04/08)

OK, so it’s been quiet all week after the flurry of photos from Easter. The plain and simple reason for this is that I spent several hours on Sunday trying to clean my camera.

Darrell noticed these odd spots in a photograph I’d published last week and correctly identified them as sensor dirt.



This sent me into a whole self loathing spiral.
I mean, I’m a good boy. I don’t fool around with other cameras, I don’t go into those sorts of shops, I always use protection and try to avoid exposing my sensitive bits in public…

But still, I’d picked something up.

Seems at some point when I’d been changing lenses a bit of pollutant had managed to sneak into the camera and that it was pretty well stuck as the sensor cleaning (some electro-static charge thing on my camera) wasn’t shifting it.

I asked Darrell some further questions about the issue and he pointed me here as well as providing me some good advice. It seems I could either clean it myself or pay someone to do it professionally.

Well, that sent me off to my local chain camera store to look for solutions. Whilst I’d prefer to have it done properly, the thought that it was something I could learn made me give it a go (that and I’m cheap. Hey! Nobody is sponsoring my camera madness and the amount I’ve spent recently…).

Firstly I purchased a Rocket Air Blower and tried that. The trick with using one of these is to set the sensor to manual clean then hold the camera upside down and blast air into the sensor area. This seemed to life a few little flecks which were sitting in the mount area – I’m guessing these had been kept of the lens by the electro-static sensor clean. But the artefacts on the lens lived on…

So, I resorted to a lens cleaning pen.

Now most photographers I spoke with went a bit green at this stage, you’ve been warned.

Basically you rub the lens pen around the sensor, making sure to get all the corners. Don’t rub too firmly, but at the same time make sure it’s not like getting touched by a rainbow. It’s best to make sure the camera is upside down to encourage the dirt to fall out.  Yep, that bit they say don't touch...

Well, it took a few attempts, but suffice to say I think I got the most of it. Do me a favour. If you disagree, don’t tell me!*

So, today’s lesson. To clean a camera.
1.    Hold or mount the camera upside down
2.    Set the camera to manual cleaning mode
3.    Realise the batteries are nearly flat and the camera will close the mirror before shutting down, so change the batteries and start again
4.    Try using an air blower first
5.    Try using a sensor pen, but be gentle!

Or

1.    Pay someone who knows what they're doing

I found the best way to test if the lens was clean was to take photographs of the white tiles in the bathroom. By looking closely I was able to track the marks and see when they were removed. Best bet is to set the camera to focus at infinity and make sure the picture is over exposed. A good uniform colour is what you need.

I’m almost frightened to post in case it’s not fixed. I'll post over the weekend and we can have a debate.

*Actually do tell me. Please.

I just received the first copy of my new subscription to Digital Photo.

The few times I’ve picked this magazine up I’ve been very impressed by the quality of the articles and the accompanying CD is brilliant for tips and tricks.Having already subscribed to Digital SLR Photography (which I’m really happy with), I was in two minds about paying out another £60 for a different magazine.Then Geoff turned up with some interesting information.

Did you know that you can subscribe to Digital Photo using Tesco Clubcard Vouchers? No, neither did I.

Well, it seems you can. What’s more, an annual subscription costs £16.22. Yes, sixteen pounds, not sixty. OK, you don’t get the Lowepro bag, but if you’re actually into photography you probably have a bag alreaddy.

Only issue I have with it thus far is that it took a while for the first issue to arrive.

So, if you’re looking to expand your reading, and you have clubcard vouchers going spare, this might be the deal for you.

Oh, and on a related note. What’s the cover story on this months magazine? Landscapes and HDR. If only I’d had that handy over Easter. Still, every little helps… (do you see what I did there?)

I just recieved an interesting post from Stuart. He took the image of the posts in the water and changed the crop in it to remove the quay/pier thing, but at the same time he adjusted the aspect ratio.

Here, let me show you....





and the new cut




As he points out, he's moved the horizon to the lower third of the picture, rather than the middle. This gives more emphasis to the sky. The width of the picture also gives it a more 'landscape' feel - you know wide open spaces etc. His post has reminded me that I need to be a bit more planned in composition. I have a tendancy to always put the horizon about halfway, but that's not always the best is it?

From what I've been picking up, there are probably a few rules I should try to apply more often in landscape shots.

1. Always have something to give interest, draw your eye in and give a sense of scale.

2. Make use of the rule of thirds in the composition, placing things a third of the way horizontally and vertically in the picture will give it a sense of proportion and balance

3. Give your eye something to follow - a line of rocks, a path  - leading you into the picture

4. Consider what you're presenting in the image. If it's the sky, it probably needs the majority of the picture


I'm sure there are other rules or tricks. I know someone mentioned trying to include a bit of red...


In terms of cropping, I've always used roughly the aspect ratio of the camera for shots I've posted. Stuart has different opinions (as can be seen here in some examples). I'll have to try this out a little more myself.

Like I said yesterday, I went out over Easter with the attitude that I would try some new things and experiment with some stuff I'd heard of over the past few months.

One of the things I did was to set my camera to do some auto exposure bracketing (AEB)*. For those that don't know, or got bored before that part of the manual (and who can blame you), AEB on your camera sets it up to take three photographs. The first is at the exposure you select, the second is under exposed and the third is over exposed. The amount of over and under exposure is up to you.

It's a useful facility for shooting landscapes and other static scenes and allows you to do things in post processing like tweak some levels or replace an over exposed sky (kind of the same way you might use an ND filter I guess). Whilst not a great example, the picture I took of the Rock of Cashel used the effect - basically the sky was cloned from an under-exposed version of the shot.

Anyhow, I took a range of pictures of a life buoy on Dungloe pier as I really liked the colour against the stormy sky.

The image I got was OK.

(1/15, F/4.5, 22mm, ISO - 100, 23/03/2008)

In itself, I guess the image isn't bad. It's probably better than stuff I took 6 months ago, and I'm happy enough with it. But as usual, I got to playing around and remembered a technique a bluegrass loving bloke I work with told me about called HDR.

HDR, or High Dynamic Range, is a process which allows more tones in an image than would be usual. Essentially shadows are reduced and highlights less blown out... or something like that... Essentially it takes a range of exposures of the same image and mixes them up to produce an interesting composite. Here, let wikipedia explain....

Well, I pushed my three exposures of the life buoy through an HDR engine and got what I think is an interesting result. I'm actually kind of taken with it, so expect more HDR type images soon!

 

 

*For those of you with Canon 400D's and who can't be bothered reading the manual, the AEB setting is on the second menu tab. It's worth noting it resets every time you power off the camera, change a lens, etc etc etc... Also, it behaves differently when using remote or timed release of the shutter. It is worth playing with though...

 

Oh, and the astute will notice that the HDR image is number 1 and the original number 2. Nothing sneaky, just the sequence number that was added when I exported the pictures for upload..... Honest!

If you've read this months Digital SLR Photography, you'll have seen the challenge is for water pictures. Now I'm not generally into entering competitions where I have to "be creative", but I liked some of the pictures of the water drops. So, being off work and having camera, flash, lights, tripods and a kitchen sink (yes, finally I can say I used everything including the kitchen sink!) I gave it a go.

(1/200, F/11. ISO-400, 21/03/08)

This image is still a little shallow (water, shallow! Geddit?), though I think it's probably due to it being shot at F/11 on the macro end of a 200mm lens, instead of something more F/16 or F/22. I'm also not totally convinced I like the yellowish highlights caused by the flash and the spotlight I was using.

 

(1/200, F/11, ISO-100, 21/03/08)

This second shot also has the same shallow depth of field issue, but it's a lot more noticeable due to the size of the splash. Looking back over the magazine article I see it does say that the aperture needs to be pretty wide due to the macro aspect of the shots.

Both pictures have had some tweaks made, most noticeably the second one which had the exposure increased to kill of some of the shadow problems I was having. It's left it a little flat.

 

As an experiment, it was useful. It's shown me a couple of things I either didn't know or did know but wasn't paying attention to.

1. At the macro end of a zoom lens, you need a really small aperture (big number, little hole)

2. you need to find a way to manage flash reflections

3. Don't pack up all your kit before reviewing the photo's on a big screen. Seeing the shallow depth of field, it would have been the work of seconds to try again if I hadn't already put the camera stuff away

Ah well, we live and learn...

I'm not the sort of person who learns things by reading them in a book or magazine. It doesn't matter how many times you tell me something or I read about other peoples experiences. I just need to go and do it myself. It seems this applies both to learning how to do something and to learning how NOT to do something...

Which is why today I found myself out in Donegal with only my ice cold fingers bluer than the language I was using as I discovered I hadn't cleared my now full memory card after my last picture frenzy. Of course, I carry 4 memory cards don't I. Well, no. it seems I don't. I'd left those in the car along with some other kit I deemed to heavy to bother with for the 20 minutes I was out and about.

So, todays lessons?

1. When you're finished uploading photographs from the memory card. Remember to reformat it!

2. Buy a pair of gloves!

It was 6 months ago today that I bought my digital SLR. In that time I've taken over 1800 photographs and tried a number of different techniques and tools.
I guess some have worked better than others.

So, what have I learned?

Aperture Priority.
Probably the first thing I learned when I turned the camera from its seductive automatic mode was the aperture setting. Controlling the amount of light that gets through the lens it has a major effect on the length of time needed for the exposure and the depth of field in focus in the image. I also learned photographing a washing line in the rain will get you some strange looks from your wife...

Shutter Priority
If aperture controls the amount of light, then shutter priority controls the shutter time. Useful when taking pictures of fast moving objects or for intentional blurring effects and maybe something to remember when taking pictures of remote control racing cars (my brothers one comment on 100 photos I took one Sunday - "Why are they all so blurred?")

Shutter Priority versus Aperture Priority
These work together. The smaller the aperture, the longer the exposure time needed. Simple as that. Except it's not is it? Basically you seem to trade these off against each other to get the effect you want. Want a large depth of field (for some panoramic stuff), then you'll need a long exposure. When working in one of these modes, the camera will always manipulate the other setting. you can use a little under exposure or over exposure to help get the effect you want.

When in manual mode, you're on your own kid...

ISO Speeds
Basically how sensitive the sensor will be to the light presented. The higher the ISO, the less light needed. But, the higher the ISO the more potential for noisey pictures (unwanted grain). Mostly I learned it's important to reset it to 100 after you've been using it on a higher setting or you can end up in a pickle.

Tripods
The value of a good tripod is becoming more and more apparent. something sturdy, quick to erect and stable is essential for all but the most simple of snaps. And something you can trust is good too. The tripod I have is fit for purpose, but will probably be the first piece of kit I change as I find it impossible to get level.

Post Processing
When I started out on this, I'd feared I would be a purest in terms of post processing, demanding all photos were as is out of the camera. But image manipulation is a seductive mistress. (I'll try to show you in the next post I make).
It starts simple a little cropping, maybe some straightening and then before you know it you're in there burning shadows, cloning out annoying artefacts and generally making all manner of changes. Fair enough I say. Go for it.

I'm sure there are other technical things I've picked up over the past 6 months but what’s amazed me is the emotional or artistic side to it.

I don't want to come across like one of those "no one understands my pain, here's a poem" people*, but...

I’ve also started to appreciate the impact of properly framing a picture. Using things like the rule of thirds and perspective (which I’ll try to explain when I understand it a bit better myself) to make a landscape jump out at you. Or making sure a persons eyes are in focus to improve a portrait.

The thought process that goes into a single photograph amazes me. When I'd looked at a finished picture in a magazine I'd never considered that the photographer had maybe spent hours waiting for the perfect light, moving around to get the perfect line and spent hours puzzling out the perfect settings. Even one of those things wrong and a great photo ends up just a good one. (and if I could even get a good one I'd be delighted).

These days I've a habit of finding myself walking along framing things in my head, spotting abstracts and pictures and wondering if they'd work. I also find I never quite manage to capture what I thought I was capturing, either emotionally or artistically. Still, it's a learning experience.

Hopefully I'm improving. I guess as long as I'm having fun, that's all that matters.


*I have nothing against artistic people or poets. I quite like a good poem. I just can’t handle teenage angst very well. Oh, and Goths. I tried to be a Goth once, but it was so depressing…. And being ginger meant I could never quite pull off the look…

I mentioned Dermot's tirade on the evils of post processing last night. Well in an effort to appease him during the Dublin walkabout I started playing with white balance a little. I've shown some of this before back during the Belfast walk around, but I don't think I ever got beyond the 'Look - Post Processing...cool' part.

Now, what I know about white balance would probably fit on a postage stamp, but since I don't have one handy I'll put it all here (and use a font you can read...(bot not comic sans, Geoff gets cross about that)) (look double closing brackets - I used to be able to program computers once!).

Anyway, white balance....

White Balance dates back to the days of film and it's something most of us never encountered as we bought rolls of film from petrol stations, newsagents and the like. The reason being, like ISO, it was the preserve of the 'proper' photographer and people like me who had a point and click camera were given by default (and probably rightly so) a generic white balance mode. 'Proper' photographers would buy rolls for indoor shooting, studio shooting, outdoors etc or use filters and such to change the cast (shade to us Neanderthals) of the light.

It's all to do with physics and different temperatures having different light emission properties...insert physics text here cunningly disguised as a link to wikipedia...

So, as you can see from the wikipedia link a candle would have quite an orange cast (because its not that hot), while a tungsten light will be much more blue (because in light terms its roasting).

... OK, physics (or my attempt at it) over. Basically the film guys had it tough and people like me with digital cameras have it easier. The camera sensor (CCD?) allows the user to decide in advance of each shot what sort of light it is and then make a decision. Fortunately for total amateurs like me, the camera also has an auto setting which looks at the conditions and picks a non-offensive white balance to use.

As Geoff pointed out in the response to some of the Belfast photography stuff the formula the camera uses may be different than another camera or a post processing package. And I guess, that's what Dermot was showing me as well. Sometimes changing it at the point of shooting will give you the best chance of getting the colour and emotion you desire.

Here, take a look at these two pictures of nubile young women* to see what I mean. They're both unedited from the original captures.

First the auto white balance...

Now with the camera set to shade...

(1/4sec, f/8, focal length - 31mm, ISO - 100, 11/12/07 21:45)

In the first picture the camera set the white balance, but in the second I chose shade (which according to my Canon is around a colour temperature of 7000K). Now, the first picture probably gives a much cleaner whiter feel, but the second picture helps (at least to my mind) add a seductive (ooooh look at you) charm and warmth to the images. It depends what you're after I guess.

My point (oh lord there was a point! Physics and a point in the same post, lord help us), is that sometimes its fun to play with camera settings and that things light white balance can be as much fun to play with when taking the photo as in graphics packages later.

If you're into this sort of stuff, it's probably worth reading Geoff's comment as he does give some good insights into it. Hell, I could have just re-posted his stuff here, but I needed to phrase it in my own words to let it sink in.

 

 

 

*Bet that generates a few hits from Google....

Nope, not the latest instalment of 'Vampire the SomethingorOther', but the next set of pictures I'll try to post over the weekend.

I'm in Dublin a lot at the moment and managed to get out last night with Camera and (more wonky than I realised) tripod. I was lucky enough to be joined by Dermot Greene, a mate, work colleague and general photography nice bloke who's just joined the digital dark side with a Nikon D80.

Dermot's been taking photo's for many years at this point and, as well as being a Dubliner by choice, was on hand to take me on a tour of Grafton Street, The Liffey and keep me safe from the odd little drunks who wanted us to "Hey mate, take our picture". You can see Dermot's work in both his website and his blog and all I ask is that you make 'ooooh' and 'aaaaah' noises, then remember that I'm still learning.

I picked up some good tips last night and it's definitely secured the social aspect of photography in my mind. I'll work through some of what I saw and learned in the next few posts. Suffice to say, Dermot's mantra of "Over expose by 2 stops" and "Post processing is work of the devil"* will feature heavily.

Anyway, like I said, photo will follow. For now, have come Grattan, wife says he was some political bloke she used words and dates... but I just take photos.

(15 secs, f/8, focal length - 18mm, ISO - 100, 11/12/07 20:59)

 

* Dermot probably didn't phrase it quite like this, probably more along the lines of "I prefer to get the picture right using the camera, not post processing software", but I felt some artistic license was allowed. And besides, I heard words like devil would up my google search results!

"Shoot for the moon and if you miss you'll be among the stars" - Les Brown

"Poetic, the stuff of romance and mystery. A bugger to capture on picture" - Learningtosnap

During the night shooting trip a few weeks back, one of the things I tried and failed to do was to include the moon in a picture. Now, you’d think a big, reasonably static lump of “space stuff” wouldn’t be that hard to picture, but damned if I could get it.

I tried again last night.

 

I still couldn’t get it.

 

In despair I used google and found an interesting web site talking about how to shoot the moon. Seems I’d been making a few simple mistakes.

1. Autofocus doesn’t. Because the moon is bright and the sky is dark the camera will over compensate and you’ll get that shiny nonsense.
2. Actually trying to zoom in on the moon using a lens is much better than trying to pull the detail out with crops later

 Sounds simple doesn’t it?

 

Well, I went outside and tried again. The results this time were much better.

The first shot is of an un-cropped, un-tampered moon and the second is post manipulation to tweak the crop and the colour thresholds etc.

 

(1/100, f/16, manual, focal length - 200mm, ISO - 100, 25/11/07 23:50)

 

 (1/100, f/16, manual, focal length - 200mm, ISO - 100, 25/11/07 23:50)

 
There are still a few issues with this, mostly because I couldn’t get the tripod to the angle I needed for the shot and so wasn’t stable as I would have liked. The image is also a little on the soft side I think (which might be down to the lens being at its outer end). I’ll try this again in weeks to come.

 

Anyone else tried this or have suggestions?

As well as being great fun, I did pick up a few really useful tips. Allow me to share...

Oh go on....

1. Tripod bags are great.... Except when you're using the tripod, then they're a pain in the bum. If you're planning a night of tripod dancing, then leave its bag at home or find a way of packing it out of harms way (I used Stuart for this. Louise can hire him out at a reasonable fee)

2. Remotes rock. Much better to line up the shot and press the remote button when it's ready than to hit the timer button on the camera mount.... and watch the bus appear just as the shutter opened (OK, so once is an accident, but how many buses Louise? How many buses????)

3. Never walk behind a man with a fully extended tripod. I have leg prong things and I don't know how to use em...

4. F/8 is your friend when using the kit lens. Actually this is a serious one. I'd been tending towards either the upper or lower extreme with the kit lens and Darrell pointed out that the sharpest pictures come from the F/8 or F/9 settings

5. Always be careful of unusually bright things in the shot (take a look at the learningtosnap google gallery and check out my Big Wheel shots to see what I mean - in some the wheel is great but the city hall sucks, in others the wheel is blinding and the city hall ok)

5. Remember, your camera probably has the ability to under expose or over expose by a couple of stops automatically. Try it out - mine made a lot of difference

6.  Use your camera lens cap to help shield annoying lights on the fringes of the shot.

7. Look around, sometimes the most fun snaps turn up in the weirdest places

I'm sure I learned much more than just this.

One other thing which happened on Wednesday night was finally passing the 1000 photos mark with the EOS 400D. By my reckoning thats 1000 photos in 3 months. Lets hope I learn as much from the next 1000.

...would be called something else.

A good weekends snapping this weekend. I took maybe 80 - 100 pictures. I have maybe 3 I'll post. Dear lord I'm glad I'm not paying for developing!

I spent Friday afternoon in the park with the nipper and got some nice shots of her and my missus on the swings (the child was on the swing, not the missus. She made me tell you that bit). These need a little post processing so expect them later in the week.

Yeah, post processing. How about that huh? Whats to say. I think it's growing on me as much as the actual photo bit. Even slight changes to an image make amazing differences to the finished product. I'm still undecided if it's cheating.

Anyway...

This rose bloomed in my back garden over the weekend, now anyone that's seen my back garden will know that it's probably as conductive to flowers as the central reactor in Chernobyl. Which just goes to prove that (to quote the guy from Jurassic Park) "Life will find a way"

The image has been cropped in to show just the flower and then I used a similar process of the dice to reduce the brightness of the background while keeping the rose bright.



(1/200, f/3.5, aperture priority, focal length - 24mm, ISO - 400, 07/10/07 13:10)

The only other change to the natural state of the rose (apart from some leaf pruning which doesn't count, does it?) was some gratuitous effect modeling. Yup, that's right, next stop Digital Light and Magic for me.

I used my latest toy (supplied by the repository of junk known as the cupboard under the sink) to add water to the flower. It was high tech as you'd expect...



Starting out in photography? I recommend a camera, a lens, a water spray.