So, its been a little quiet over the last few days/weeks.

There is a reason for this. I don't want this place to turn into one of those "waffle" stops that are so common in bloggerville. I decided when I started this journey that "if I'd nothing to say, I'd just say nothing".

So.

I'm just saying you know.


Oh, and on an unrelated note and the real reason for this post. I'm planning to get out over the weekend with the camera and take some photos using shutter priority to try to get "artistic" blurring effects.

Rather than just turn up next week with some shots, I thought I'd offer up the idea to everyone else. See who wants to give it a go too?

On a related note, I've started thinking about another 'trip/event' thing. Anyone interested?

I've finally managed to get the gallery part of the main site up and running.

It's making use of iWebAlbum which is a good, free, web album generator. Thanks to Shereen for pointing it out!

Go, take a look.


Go. Go now.

Run, don't stop.


Go!!!!


Oh, the link?

Oh alright then, here!

This is the last of the pictures of Belfast I took from the night shooting trip.

I've mentioned before that my camera can take both jpeg and raw pictures at the same time. To date I've been relying on the jpegs for posts here. There's never been a coherent reason for  this, just one of those things.

But, after the discussions about colour warmth I decided to take a look at the raw files generated and see if you really could do the whole white balance thing after the fact.

OK, so here's what I've found so far...

Most dSLR's have the ability to change the white balance of the shot as it's being taken. this is to allow you to compensate for the lighting conditions of the scene. For example, an indoor scenes can have a different cast from different artificial lighting setups. Equally, outside can have different lighting shades depending on the time of day/year.

...So they tell me...

Fortunately most cameras have the ability to handle white balance automatically. So I've ignored it.

However, if you use your raw files, your camera editing software and packages like Lightroom allow you to make some post processing changes. On eof these is the White Balance.

Here's some examples of this:

Automatic White Balance




Shade




Tungsten



Fluorescent



All these shots used the following settings:
(15secs, f/9, aperture priority, focal length - 28mm, ISO - 100, 24/10/07 18:51)


You can get some really nice effects playing with this.

If it was me, I'd leave the camera on Auto and leave any editing to the post processing stage.

I've been reading The Digital Photography Handbook by Doug Harman recently.



Working from the very basics, (What's a digital camera then Bob?), through so some of the more advanced shooting techniques including motion blur etc, it gives a good basic overview of the world of Digital Cameras. Once the basics are covered, there are a series of good sections covering post processing, these include simple things like getting your pictures from your camera right up into cloning and special effects.

All in all I found it a good little read. Maybe a little patronising at times, but given it's aimed at the likes of me who knows nothing maybe I shouldn't complain about the few times it told me stuff I already knew...

The pictures in the book are all in keeping with the theme and for the most part you left feeling as if you will be able to achieve them as well (unlike some of the other books I've seen).

My only complaint is that the tutorials all appear to be for Photoshop Elements, which is a pain if you're just getting into the hobby and don't want to splash out for it on top of the camera, lenses, batteries, bags, memory cards... For such a cheap and friendly little book, they would have done well to use something like GIMP as the basis for tutorials.

Still, when all is said and done. It's a good little read for beginners and at under a fiver it's good value too...

Just got an interesting comment from Gordon submitted against a post from a few weeks back when this site went live:

"Ok - Let's see if Paul is up to the challenge...

I'd like to get a new desktop image - I'm currently using Ascent but something more personable would be good. So here is the challenge to the man with the new site.

For my Christmas present I'd like a new image to replace Ascent as my desktop.
Key requirement: soothing on the eye and not garish apart from that it's up to you.
It can be manipulated / polarised or whatever I don't care about that.

I'm hard to please so it'll be interesting to see what you come up with.
A variety to choose from would be good.
Consider it your first commissioned piece."

This does seem like to good an opportunity to miss, and I like a challenge.

So, what do people think?

"Soothing to the eye and not too garish" is the key. That would make me think of landscapes or water or something quite abstract. I guess the danger with a landscape is making it seasonal (who wants to look at frost in June?). Water and sunsets or sunrises might work quite well I guess.

Another option would be to follow up Gordon's interests and see if there is anything he does which would make good picture?

Anyone any thoughts?

I think most everyone has thrown some pictures into the gallery at this point. I'm hoping Sean will share the film shots at some point in the future.

Some lovely photographs.

One interesting observation is the difference on colour warmth between Louises bridge picture and mine. Both were taken at roughly the same place and roughly the same time but the difference in colours are clearly visibile.

So, todays question. Why?

OK, we have different cameras (a Canon versus a Nikon) and I posted based on a jpeg whilst Louise used a raw, but surely the colours should still be close?



(I hope you don't mind me linking directly to your picture Louise!)

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.

Last night saw half a dozen intrepid explorers brave the cold cold streets of Belfast in an attempt to look knowledgeable with a camera and try to take some decent shots of parts of the city.

As a concept, the idea interested me. In reality, the idea terrified me. I was frightened people would stand around looking at each other, would expect me to know something, would get mugged and blame me. Fortunately none of these things happened and I had a great night! Reports from others suggest they feel the same.

Which is good.

The plan was very simple, we'd meet at the "Big Fish" (As you'll no doubt notice - I have no idea what half the landmarks in Belfast are actually called) around 6.30 and then let the fates pick a direction.

As it turned out we got a good mix of friends and experience, ranging from the novice - me, to the professional - Matt. We even managed to get someone who's sole job seemed to be to carry Louise's kit around (though Stuart did borrow a camera in the end...).

So, with the sun setting on the other side of Belfast (ooops!), we headed away from the fish and into the night.

Two hours later we reached the city hall (a walk of some 10 minutes normally).

Some highlights along the way...

(1.6secs, f/9, aperture priority, focal length - 28mm, ISO - 100, 24/10/07 18:52)

 

(0.6secs, f/4, aperture priority, focal length - 25mm, ISO - 100, 24/10/07 19:06)

 

(4secs, f/8, aperture priority, focal length - 31mm, ISO - 100, 24/10/07 19:30)

 

(1/2secs, f/8, aperture priority, focal length - 27mm, ISO - 100, 24/10/07 19:57)

Stuart (yes, the one who borrowed a camera) has set up a google album for everyone who was out to share their pictures. you can find it here (I hope!).

I'm not going to get into the drama of the lessons I learned in this post. I'll save that for later if you don't mind.

But, if you've stumbled across this and are new to cameras (hell, even if you've been around forever), I can't recommend this sort of trip enough. It was a fun, safe way to get out into a city after dark and to take some fantastic photographs (at least in my opinion and ability) and a great way to make new friends.

Next time I post, I'll talk about the lessons learned, and why you should never stand behind a man with a tripod...

 

Not a long update, just a quick note to say thanks to everyone who came out tonight. I hope your photos turned out as good as mine and I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.

I'll review the shots I took in more detail tomorrow and maybe do some playing with Gimp then, but for now...


(20secs, f/9, aperture priority, focal length - 18mm, ISO - 100, 24/10/07 18:53)

The angel of Belfast? No image manipulation, just a slight crop to make it fit 10*15. And yes, I like the flare in the picture.

Edit: I've been reliably informed that this statue is in fact called "The Beacon of Hope"... and not "The Belle with the Ball" or "Nuala with the Hula"

OK, so I mentioned last week about laying my hands on a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens, well I'd heard a lot of stuff about "quality glass" and "better than the kit lens" before I used it, so I decided to have a play and see....

Let's be honest. If you're looking for a 50mm lens and you have the full studio Monty you're going to want to buy the F/1.2 or F/1.4 variant.

So I guess the questions I wanted to ask were....

1. Is the lens any good.

2. Is it better than the kit lens under similar circumstances

 

Is it any good?

My first impression of it was probably the same as a lot of people. It feels light and plasticy. Now I'm hardly a lens guru, but I expected some sort of weight from it - it is glass after all....

That said, it doesn't feel fragile or fiddly. The focus mechanism is pretty solid and all the bits for mounting to the camera all seem pretty robust.

Shooting at F/1.8 is a blasphemy to God. I can only imagine what its big brothers are like. I found with decent house lighting you could almost get away without flash (certainly if you were willing to chuck up the ISO a bit). The test pictures I've taken have all been the right side of clear (unless I've been messing...).

Here's a decent example of this from the great globe re-shoot of 2007!

(1/60, f/1.8, aperture priority, focal length - 50mm, ISO - 200, 17/10/07 19:44)

So, when all is said and done, it's a smart little lens for 70 notes.

 

Is it any better than the kit lens?

Right, lets get realistic. It's naive to assume that the kit lens is a top of the line lens. But, Canon probably won't ship a camera with a piece of crap - it'll hardly do their business model any good. Therefore, I think it's safe to assume the kit lens is OK. Certainly, my experience of it suggests it does what it says on the tin.

Indubitably, the fact it ranges from 18mm to 55mm is a nice advantage over the fixed 50mm lens as well. It's probably safe to assume most people buying the 400D are new to dSLR or trying to manage pennies and get the most bang for their buck.

So, is the 50mm fixed any better than the kit lens?

I set up one of babas teddies for a quick test (and it was quick, she wanted it to go for bed...). I also used house lighting and a standard hot shoe mounted flash (trust me, just buy one) since anyone in the market for this lens is unlikely to use studio lighting that much!

The first image is a composite of the 50mm and the 18-55. I'll be honest, I got the setting slightly out on the 18-55 so the focal distance is 45mm not 50mm. In both cases they were taken at F/11 from a tripod. There should be little or no difference in lighting or camera position between the shots. (The only image change is a little cropping to find Eyeore)

Oh, and I used the jpegs for this...

(Edit: The 50mm fixed lens is left, the kit lens is right - Thanks Geoff!)

 My initial impressions for this was that the kit lens produced better results, but looking again I've started to change my mind. The 50mm seems to be a darker colour, but there is less burn out around the nose as a result.

Zooming in on the old fellas ear....

(Edit: The 50mm fixed lens is left, the kit lens is right - Thanks Geoff!)

In this case I used the raw's because the loss in detail was a little obvious in the jpegs.

To my mind there isn't a lot of difference here. Certainly nothing I can pick up on.

 

Summary

So, I guess the question is if I had it all to do again, would I buy the 50mm instead of the kit lens?

I think the answer has to be a reserved no.

Why?

Because quite simply the kit lens has a better range of zoom and is more versatile as a result. Whilst it probably loses a little in terms of quality, as a starter lens it does its job just fine. 

So why not a definitive no?

Quite simply, two photos of Eyeore do not a professional test make. I'm new to the hobby, I can only see what I see. If someone I respected told me I was wrong, I would probably listen to them. Sure, I'd want to see their evidence now, but...

Would you kit bag it?

Oh dear sweet lord yes. for portrait shots and for low light and for family stuff and candid's and all the things I said I'd rarely post here it's just blooming lovely. It teaches you to move instead of just changing the zoom on the camera, it gives good photo, it does exactly what it says on the tin (erm cardboard box). And for £60 - £70 it's a bargain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Point to note. The images I've uploaded are tiny compared to the originals - web space and load times you know. If you want the original images to take a look yourself, drop me an email and I'll sort you out.)

Firstly, thanks to Geoff for all the work put in to getting this site and blog ready.

Moving to my own website was something I'd intended on doing at some point over the next year. I've nothing against wordpress (indeed I'd recommend them to a new blogger), but I was keen to get a total solution which would allow me to (slowly) make changes the way I wanted things done. Those of you who know me will know IT is not my thing (I'm a Software Consultant after all), so without Geoff and Jon none of this would ever have happened!

OK, so there you have it. I know nothing about photography and nothing about IT. Next time on learningtosnap, my admission to knowing nothing about cars, football, nuclear physics and the works of Elvis Presley...

On a slightly different note, the "Only Go Out at Night" post has generated some interest and a gang of us are going to brave the October evening tomorrow night. So if you're in Belfast and see a gang of hopelessly confused people with cameras, come and say hi!