So this weekend I discovered the joys of Auto Focus and Manual Focus.

I'd noticed a spiders web outside on my trailer* and thought it looked quite pretty with the rain droplets thing.

So out I go with the camera and start trying to get a snap...



(No idea Pinky. I seem to have lost the settings. I'll get them later)

OK, just so we're all on the same page here. No you can't see a spiders web. Seems the AF on the camera decides the spiders web isn't worth focusing on and instead picks something behind it. In my case it's the junk mound that is my back garden.

So, in an attempt to correct this I discovered MF** or "manual focus".



(yes, there should be technobabble here too. My world has deserted me...)

OK, I know there are flies on it, and so technically the title of this blog entry isn't correct. I also know the manual focus isn't "technically" in focus, but I actually think that's more to do with the Aperture I was using than my inability to see.

The AF photo hasn't been toughed in any way save getting made a little smaller in file size. The MF photo has had the usual plethora of Picasa "I'm Feeling Lucky" done to it. I really need to work out what that crap is myself.

* Yes, I own a trailer. I bought it in a moment of madness in reaction to finding out I was going to be a Daddy. I needed to invest in a "man thing". There's something manly about reversing a trailer. Something that lets you look into the eyes of those big rig drivers and share the nuances, the skill, of backing up with a load on (so to speak). Course, I've only been told this - I have problems going forwards with the trailer on...

** Last night while uploading the photos and discovering they were out of focus or the focal range was too short, I discovered MF also stands for "Mother F***er"...

Anyone who's new to photography and has spoken to someone with experience has probably fallen foul of the "is that 18 - 55 digital or analogue" question.

Yeah, me too.

I politely replied that the lens was black like the camera because I felt it was nicer and would they stop looking at me funny.

Well, I've asked a few people what this meant and got a few different explanations.

Basically the focal ranges quoted on the lens will either be for a digital camera or a film (35mm) camera. The lens will work with both (assuming it says so on the box. I accept no responsibility for the broad implications of this statement) but since the two cameras do things in different ways, the actual values may vary. The factor seems to be about 1.5

Here, hold on. Dermot explains it better in a post he sent me earlier.

For film cameras the standard lens is the 50mm lens, this is because it matches the behavior of the eye but if you take photos with your old compact film camera, you'll have noticed that the photos don't always match what you remember seeing, this is partly to do with the quality of the camera/film/photographer but also because those cameras didn't have a 50mm lens. Instead to cater for all occasions they were given a 35mm lens to allow people to take loads of panoramic scenic shots. Mystery solved.

 

When the magic of digital arrived, there was a little problem. While with film cameras, the lens size determined what images fell on the negative/transparency, with digital it couldn't behave in the same way, the camera could only see a part of what the lens saw. So if you put the same 50mm lens on both a film and digital camera, you wouldn't get the same image, the digital would effectively have zoomed in by a factor.

 

This factor is multiplicative and it's value is 1.5, so the 50mm lens is really a 75mm. This is why the standard lens for digital is 18-55mm or 18-200mm, with the factor factored in, you really have a 27-82mm or 27-300mm.

 

There are some expensive digital SLRs which have solved this problem but the cheaper ones still use the 1.5 rule.

Hope that makes some sense.

So, if I could offer you one piece of advice  (and since that nice man already told you about the benefits of suncream), I would say "if you're buying a new lens for your camera, make sure the focal range is what you actually want"

I took this a while back when I was at my parents in law. The shot itself is (like most of the shots I take) nothing special and wasn't even going to get posted until I started playing with Gimp again.

Here's the original (or at least the post Picasa size reduced original)



(1/500, f/5, aperture priority, focal length - 39mm, 01/09/07 14:00, ISO - 100)

Just a picture of Sam, the wifes family dog. Nothing overly great about the picture, though I like the depth of field for the bushes in the background.

I loaded it into Gimp and was messing about with the clone tool to see if I could remove the pole (a washing line if you must know) and was quite impressed with the result. Then (because they mentioned it in a magazine) I found the burn tool and did some work on the rocks to make them a little darker.

I like the result. I'm not sure I like it more than the original (minus the pole* obviously) . What do you think?



Yes, I've noticed it too. The land seems to be sloping from left to right. Honestly I can't remember if the ground did this but I have a feeling its me still not holding the camera straight and level.

* For the record I have nothing against poles. I know some nice poles. I also like pillars, stacks and columns. In fact, you could say I'm a fan of all vertical based structural implements.

Soemthing odd just happened and I appear to have lost my title background image.

Same for everyone else?

I've mentioned I own a polarizing lens.

Someone mentioned it was good for taking the glare out of water as well as giving the sky a funky colour and I want to try this, but here's my question.

Are you ready for it?

My lens has a little white line which (I assume) is for me to aim at the sun to get best results. So what way do I point it when taking pictures of water? At the sun or at the water?

Colour me confused.

I've always had a thing for dragons. not those poncy "I can talk and I can do magic" nonsense dragons, but for the flame spouting, knight chomping, damsel distressing dragons certain patron saints got off having a go at.

So, needless to say the 20" high dragon that has prize of place on my window ledge at home was always going to get a look in here.



(1/25, f/5, metering - matrix, focal length - 171mm, 13/09/07 18:43, ISO - 400)

This picture was taken using the external flash gun thing that came with my camera kit. The flash was adjusted to bounce off the (white) ceiling and diffused slightly. The colour range of the photo was then tweaked in GIMP (I'd tell you the exact changes, but to be honest I was messing about and suddenly stopped and went "Woah!"*)

When you look at the picture you'll probably see a lot of shadow or something (Shake?) to the right side of the dragon. Not sure what caused it. To be honest only noticed it as I was putting the picture up.

I'll try to find out what I changed in GIMP. I'll also be back to take more photo's of the beast.

One other thing of note with this shot. In order to try to get more light through the camera I upped the ISO from it's default 100 to a rather sturdy 400. This helped reduce a lot of shake that I was getting (course, I could have just got out the tripod).

*Whilst many people have noted that Keanu Reeves and myself have a lot in common in terms of looks and snazzy 'Point Break' style lingo, I prefer to consider myself more in keeping with his "Ted" days. That and we look, sound and probably weigh nothing alike.

First. Sorry for the long radio silence. I took a few weeks off work, and spent them doing duck all. No, really. I demolished some stuff, I played some games I even slept a little. But the one thing I wanted to do was snap and the one thing I didn't do was snap.

Except for one day in Donegal (Nope, still not being sponsored by the Donegal Tourist Board!).

It was kind of a family weekend, so a lot of family shots, which means you won't see 'em here - sorry.

That said.....

I own a polarizing lens. So I took it out to take this shot. Here's kind of a before and after (or my attempt at one).







Ignore the digger. It was a picture I took for my mother in law as she's about to lose this view in favour of someones house. (Remember what I said about over population in Donegal?).

I don't think I was using the polarizing lens quite right. The left hand side of the sky looks great, but it fades out as you move right.  If you've an idea where I'm going wrong, let me know!

Yeah, I been busy.

Ironically I took some time off work to  do some stuff, including camera things....

And the one thing I haven't done? Yup, the camera things....

That said, I was away at the weekend and did get it out (so to speak) so I'll try to post something tomorrow.

Geoff asked me a question the other day and I thought I should share the answer.

What'd he ask I hear you cry.

He asked why there were no pictures of people on this blog.

 Well....

 The simple answer is I don't want to put pictures of people online without their explicit permission. To date the only people I've even tried to take a proper photograph of have been my wife and baba, and to be honest they appear in most of the E550 pictures I've taken of people as well. Anyway, given the nature of the web and the fact that once a picture is online it's in the public domain forever we're both reluctant to put pictures of the baba online where anyone can find them. So, that leaves the missus or me....

 She said no. I didn't argue.

That leaves me.  Maybe VanGough(?) did self portraits, but not me. No siree.

 So, until one of you lot volunteer or I convince the wife that paying for a model is all about photography and not being a letch, all you're likely to see here is pictures of things and places.

Hope you all understand.