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!

I just took this as part of my experiments with that f/1.8 50mm lens I mentioned.

I set this up in a dark room with my trusty desk lamp lighting system and the hot shoe flash pointed towards the ceiling.



(1/160, f/1.8, aperture priority, focal length - 50mm, ISO - 200, 17/10/07 19:47)

To my mind, it's another one of 'those' pictures I take that is close but still just mweh. In this case I think the reflection of the flash on the top of the globe ruins it. But, having tried this a couple of times (OK 30, you know me....) I'm still not sure how to get enough light onto the subject to give it that 'live' feeling without ending up being able to see my kitchen in the reflections and a dubious great flash spot to boot.

I guess making use of a proper blacked out environment would help keep the reflections in the globe down, but how do you get direct light onto something for shadows without ending up with that sort of flash feedback effect?

Bouncy bouncy bouncy bouncy

Fun fun fun fun fun

The most wonderful thing about Tigger is!!!!!!!!!!!

  I'm the only one!

I've been given the opportunity to play with a 50mm f/1.8 lens (this one), so expect some fun and games with it over the next few days.

Last night I only got 5 minutes with it, but while messing about I discovered I could peep into Tiggers house and see what he was up to. What did I find? Yup, he seems to be peeping on someone else.

Bad Tigger.



The image itself is quite noisy because the camera was on ISO 800. (Not because I'd planned it, but because I forgot to change it from some disastrous night shots I'd taken earlier in the week). That said, I thought it was an OK example of the crazy depth of field possible on this lens. More will follow!

And remember, it's Tigger spealt...

 T, i, double g, errrrrrrr

I was out last night for dinner with a friend from England I'd never met before. After the meal I got talking with Darrell (not the fried from England I'd never met before, he was someone else) about the projects idea. We then got chatting about night pictures and my lack of luck with some I'd taken earlier in the week. That led us onto the all important public safety aspect of walking round a city at night with £500+ of camera gear and how we'd love to do it, but well, you know..... the whole rob, murder, death, kill, thing might get in the way*

Well, suffice to say that gave birth to the "Night Project". So, who's interested in a group of us meeting in the evening for a couple of hours in the centre of Belfast to go take photos of some of the nice things there are round there? I'd suggest waiting a few weeks yet until the early evening is properly night like (where do I find out sunset times for the next few weeks people!?). The plan would be we go take photos for an hour or two, then head to a local pub/coffee shop/pizza place and have some beer/coffee/pizza and upload some photos onto a handy laptop thingy for a squizz.

Film people could of course come along and grumble about technology and the importance of a good dark room and such.

Hell, given my ability with my dSLR I reckon people with disposable cameras will get as much out of it as me, but it could be a giggle!

So, you interested?

*Note, for perspective tourists Belfast is a lovely city (seriously) and it's quite safe. Certainly safer than a lot of other major cities in the world. After all we tend not to annoy foreigners, being too busy having a go at the people from the estate across the road.

Nope no pictures, but Darrel mentioned wanting to take a photo of a specific brand/breed/species/thingmabobber of mushroom in a comment recently, so when I saw this I thought of him.

The Ulster Wildlife Trust are having a Marvelous Mushroom Meander at Slievenacloy Nature Reserve in Belfast on the 27th October from 12 until 2.30

Event details are here.

More information on the Ulster Wildlife Trust can be found here.

I took these the other night as part of my continuing adventures with light and f-stops.

I think they're eggcellent...

(sorry, couldn't resist)



(3.2secs, f/5.6, aperture priority, focal length - 55mm, ISO - 100, 09/10/07 19:19)



(1 sec, f/5.6, aperture priority, focal length - 55mm, ISO - 100, 09/10/07 19:22)



(0.8secs, f/5.6, aperture priority, focal length - 55mm, ISO - 100, 09/10/07 19:24)



(5secs, f/11, aperture priority, focal length - 121mm, ISO - 100, 09/10/07 19:29)



(5secs, f/11, aperture priority, focal length - 121mm, ISO - 100, 09/10/07 19:31)



Once again, this makes use of the same approach I took with the dice. I set up using a black silk dressing gown as background this time, as I felt the sheen might work well. My little desk light off to the right, set at different angles (or turned off) depending on the shot and then the camera on a tripod and messing about with aperture a little (as the shot data should show).

I'm fascinated by light when working like this. The shadows and the changes in colour just using things as simple as a sheer piece of cloth opposed to cotton or moving the lights about even a little. If I had the money I'd go out tomorrow and buy the tables you can get for this sort of photography, but the more I consider it the more I actually think they might leave things quite predictable and formulaic. As things stand I find myself wandering the house looking for spare lights, things to set them on and things to use for backgrounds etc.

All these shots were taken in Aperture Priority mode and the shutter times vary incredibly as a result. Interestingly (and something I didn't realise when I started) this seems to have had a fun effect on the actual egg itself, with some of the shots looking quite sinister whilst others look like little Oscars for Martians. aprt from cropping there hasn't been anything else done....yet...

I haven't decided which is my favourite, but I figured this one is in the running.



(13 secs, f/11, aperture priority, focal length - 55mm, ISO - 100, 09/10/07 19:27)

I've a growing list of things I want to try and photograph. Oddities we've picked up traveling or ornaments etc. I may well make it a periodic thing on to try. In this case, we picked up the egg in Austria a few years back in a little rock shop (I kid you not!).

Warning. Geological information follows...

The egg is actually a piece of Iron Pyrite or Fool's Gold that has been ground down to the shape of an egg. I'm told the closer to a perfect egg the artist gets the more valuable they become, but I actually quite like the crevasses on this - they do fantastic things with the light.

The crystals inside the egg actually come up really well in the uncompressed versions of the pictures and make some interesting and unusual pictures in themselves.

OK, since Stuart asked about it and it turned out to be a widget option thing, you should now find an RSS widget doofer thingmabob on the little pane to one side.

Sorry to get all technical there.

Yup, I had spent last night taking some photos of another odd object from around the house and I had spent hours trying to decide which I preferred. In the end I decided to montage them all and let people decide for themselves.

Course, that would all be great if I'd actually put the right images online wouldn't it?

You can be sure of a big surprise.

Yup, that's right. I might be hiding in the trees with a camera....

erm....

anyway....

Not so much the woods, but the local park for this shot. I remember these trees as a kid. They were young and vigorous and the path between them was neatly mowed and just pretty. I decided a few weeks back I'd go and get a snap to see how they were doing now.

Boy, what a change. I kinda like the slightly more sinister look they're going for these days.



(1/60, f/4.5, aperture priority, focal length - 18mm, ISO - 400, 05/10/07 17:49)

The only change from the original image was a slight bit of cloning to remove a set of goalposts and some bloke playing football. You'd probably need to see the original (full size) image to make him out, in the smaller (webbed up) versions it was just noise, so I deleted him. Yes, I am a cruel master.

...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.

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"...