What?! Oh come on, you mean to tell me that you didn't see me sneaking that line in somewhere the first chance I got?

You people give me way too much credit.

At the end of my dice snapping frenzy I got to playing with the pictures in Gimp, particularly this one:



I'd intended to make the picture black and white to see if it looked pretty, but ended up playing with the 'Colour Levels' widget.  Now I'm sure there is a technical explanation for what the widget does, but to my eyes it makes dark areas darker, bright areas brighter and the bit in the middle brighter or darker as required. Hold on, a random website says this:

 'The Level tool provides features similar to the Histogram tool but can also change the intensity range of the active layer or selection'

I ended up with this:



Now I like this. I think the background feels richer the colours a little more intense.

It's still not black and white though.

So, out of desperation (where is the magic make my button black and white), I used Google and I ended up finding a tutorial to help me do this:



Now I really like this.

OK, the edging around the dice (OK die you pedant. No, not as in cease to live more as in singular of dice)  isn't as neat as it could b, but I was up against it time wise and this was less than 10 minutes work all in.

I could pretend like I spent hours working all this out in Gimp, or reproduce the tutorial and claim kudos for something I didn't do, but I'm not into that (and I might get caught), so here it is....

Selective Colorization

So, whatcha think?

OK, this was a bit quicker than I'd planned but last night saw me with some time on my hands and a sudden need to not be near my computer. So, inspired by the table lamp that I tripped over I decided to try the first of the projects I mentioned the other day.

First things first, I don't have a studio or any sort of fancy environment so I needed to do a lot of improvisation here. The background on the following shots is a black t-shirt draped over an old shower box. It kind of gave me the effect I wanted so yea me.

I think it was Stuart who wanted to see more pictures, and since last night was about learning I'm going to try and walk through the stages I went through while taking the snaps.

Oh, before we get into this. Given my history, I feel it's important to point out that none of these shots have been post processed in any way. No cropping, no contrast/brightness, no picasa. The only difference between these shots and the ones I have are to reduce the overall image size to make them more viewable on the web.

The Setup...

In one of my other lives I'm a role-player. Yes, the sort of person even nerds point at and snigger. Enough already. Get over it. Stop sniggering. No, I don't dress up as an elf or a gnome and no, I don't own a copy of the Necronomicon (anymore). What I do own is a bag of dice. Dice of many colours and shade, dice of doom some would say having seen my luck with them.

there were a bundle sitting below my monitor for a few weeks and I thought the colours looked quite nice. It was these that drove me to try this out.

So, using my improvised setup described above (this is going to be all over the place today isn't it?) I put the camera on the tripod and took this shot.



(1/60, f/4.5, aperture priority, focal length - 34mm, ISO - 400, 02/10/07 20:23)

Here the room lights were on, the camera was left on the settings I'd last used and I just pushed the button. The results are very bright, very boring and just mweh.

So, I moved on a little

The next shot I zoomed in a little on the dice and increased the aperture(probably cause the camera made me).



(1/60, f/5.6, aperture priority, focal length - 55mm, ISO - 400, 02/10/07 20:24)

Still crud. No really. No need to be nice. The background is a little better, the dice a little brighter maybe. But still crud.

I decided to try playing with the little desk light I'd found. I pointed it onto the dice from an angle of about 40 degrees to see what effect it had. I also turned off the house lights and dropped the ISO level (because I remembered it was set high) at this point



(2s, f/5.6, aperture priority, focal length - 55mm, ISO - 100, 02/10/07 20:25)

Getting better. the gem dice were beginning to take on a life of their own and the shadows looked cool.

I adjusted the light to see if I could pull the shadows further. In the next shot the desk light is at about 10 degrees, giving light across the dice.

(Oh, this ones a little blurred for some reason)



(5s, f/5.6, aperture priority, focal length - 55mm, ISO - 100, 02/10/07 20:27)

I played around with this position for a while, but was really uninspired by the output. the solid dice and the colours were just nothing great. I also didn't like that I was at full zoom(?) with my 18-55 lens and was still sitting quite far out. I didn't want to start moving the tripod, so...

I changed the lens.

Using my Tamron 55-200 I took the following shot.



(1.6s, f/5.0, aperture priority, focal length - 171mm, ISO - 100, 02/10/07 20:36)

I liked this a lot. The low depth of field on the dice and the reflections and shadows were impressive (or so I think).

So, pushing my luck...



(6s, f/10, aperture priority, focal length - 200mm, ISO - 100, 02/10/07 20:36)

Increasing the depth of field (big number = little hole (see I remembered!)) and suddenly it gets real pretty (at least to my eyes).

So, pushing my luck further....



(20s, f/18, aperture priority, focal length - 200mm, ISO - 100, 02/10/07 20:37)

I think this has gone off the boil. The background has started to get quite washed out again and the warmth of the previous image (which I pray I didn't touch up in Picasa - I'm sure of it. But I will double check tonight).

So, tell me what you think. And be gentle, I really like the penultimate image. I think it's one of the best I've taken to date.

One of the biggest challenges I seem to encounter when playing with my camera is finding a subject to snap. With the exception of Donegal where the picture is set up for you (and I mess it up), it's hard to find something to snap.

So, I've decided to try and identify some projects or challenges for the coming weeks. Ideally each project will allow me to try something different with the camera or look into a trick or technique a little more. Most importantly, it will allow me to keep practising and playing.

So, here's a couple of projects I'm considering.

Dice - I have a selection of many sided dice from my role-playing, some gems, some solid, most pretty. I'm going to try and get a few nice photos of them. The idea is to let me play with light using an inanimate object, solid backgrounds. That sort of thing.

Traffic - For a while now I've wanted to go and take some photos of traffic on my local motorway. I really like evening and night shots of car headlights and tail lights. The aim will be to play a little with shutter speed and low light exposures

Self Portrait - I have a tripod and remote and since nobody else ever wants published I may as well try this. I think I'll try something obscure here, but it's on my list.

Anyone any other ideas?

Oh, and I know a few people who read this are also photographers, so how about a bit of fun? We can pick a project and all try it for a week or two, then post up the results and see what we think. Kind of a fujimugs type game. Anyone interested?

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.