Last picture of the pier in Dungloe for the time being. It's yet another thing on my list of "to try again" shots. Next time, hopefully with the classic sunset (and just a little bit warmer please).

I've been using a product called Dynamic Photo HDR for all these shots. Whilst possibly not as complete as Photomatix, it's pretty simple to use, gives good results and isn't out of the question at $39. Both products have demo versions available, so give them a go.

Having played a fair bit with HDR over the past week, it's another of those techniques that generates tripe and treacle. I'm not overly happy with some of the pictures I've ended up with, but the taste is there and I'll be back for more.

This is another composite image, created from an HDR tone map.  It's also had some level alterations made to the pier itself to make it a little brighter.

 

Oh and Darrell, you're right. There is crud on my lens. It was in this picture as well, before I cloned it out. I'll look into cleaning the camera and kit over the weekend. Good spot!

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.

Another of the shots from Donegal over Easter. This time, taken at a fly fishing pier close to Burtonport. The weather spent the entire weekend trying to annoy me.

Yes, it was a personal vendetta.

 

(1/25, F/20, 10mm, ISO-100, 22/03/2008)

 

This image has had some tonal mapping, similar to the previous couple of posts. Mostly just to give the water and the sky a bit more life. Interestingly, it's not composed from multiple images like the HDR posts, instead just using one exposure as the basis.

I like the eerie quality to it, though I'm not sure about the corner of the quay in the bottom left of the picture.

Oh, I've also decided to increase image sizes a little on the blog. Typically I used 300*200 for thumbnails and 800*533 for the proper upscale. I've changed it to something like 400*267 and 900*600 respectively. The odd numbers for height are down to the aspect ratio of the raw picture.

 

Waiting...

... for his ship to come in?

Actually, just waiting to see if the clouds will clear and give me some sort of sunset or if the storms will get that little bit prettier before the rain starts to fall again.

This is another of those tone mapped images using the HDR tool that I found. To be honest, it's pretty much what I would have tried to do manually anyway as the original pictures were either to dark or had the sky blown out.

And yes. This is the first time a 'person' appears in a photo on this blog. It's also the first time 'I' appear on the blog (told you there was a self portrait coming Dermot).

The power of the shutter timer is a glorious thing.

Yes, I is giant. I also wear very baggy jeans for some reason...

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!

OK, it's a little late, but I've been away.

I spent the Easter break in Donegal with my wife and baba at her folks place. All in all, much relaxing and eating. God bless people who buy 2 year olds Easter Eggs, knowing full well it's daddy's responsibility to make sure they don't eat too much chocolate and that it doesn't go to waste...

More importantly, this trip was a great chance for me to plan some camera activities into my days. Whilst not all of them came off and most of the ones that did didn't work out, it was a valuable learning experience and I picked up or proved out some ideas. I'll post stuff over the next few days as I work through the 300 (yes, 300. That's 100 a day) photographs I took.

For now, Happy Easter.

 

(1/500, F2.2, 50mm, ISO-400, 22/3/2008)

 

(1/25, F1.8, 50mm, ISO-400, 22/3/2008)

 

(1/50, F2.8, 50mm, ISO-400, 22/3/2008)

 

The middle picture is a little soft, but I really liked the colour of the rose. I'm growing to like taking pictures of flowers, (flowers...growing... I crack me up, I really do). After spending an hour trying to photograph my daughter and her proving that the baby is quicker than the eye (or the camera), the lack of movement in the flower is a godsend.

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...

Did I mention I was in Tipp last weekend?

Well, on the way home we passed through Cashel. Now those of you with an Irish bent will know it for the big castle place on top of the rock. Those of you who don't will find out more here.

I wasn't able to stop for more than a few minutes, and it was the day after some big fireworks show so the place was chaos. It did, however, seem like a good opportunity to try out my new 10-22mm wide angle lens.

I didn't have a whole lot of time to set up or take pictures as I'd my wife in the car, and this (though not great) is the best I got.

 

However, what it does show is just how wide 10mm is. Even on the APS-C* sensor in the 400D it's still pretty impressive.

I'll try to do a more formal review of the lens itself after Easter, but my first impressions are it's well worth the money.

 

 

*I'm still getting to grips with this full frame versus APS-C stuff, but here's what I know so far. Digital SLR cameras can either be full frame or reduced frame. Basically, the sensor in them is smaller than the equivalent bit in a film camera. When it comes to my Canon, it uses an APS-C sensor, a full frame sensor is 1.6 times larger(?). As a result, when I talk about a lens at 10mm on my camera, the equivalent size on a full frame camera would be 16mm (10mm * 1.6). I believe the entry level Nikons are 1.5, but don't quote me on this.

Full frame digital SLR's are available, but are expensive right now. Of course if you're a camera company and you're reading this, I'm always available for sponsorship!

I'm just home from a few days in Thurles for a friends wedding. Well, actually a friend of my wife's from college would be more accurate (though possibly not grammatically correct - where does that apostrophe go anyway?).

Regardless, both of us had a lovely time. The folks down there are very hospitable and the day was great fun.

After much debating I decided to take a stripped down camera kit to the wedding and reception. I'd been a little concerned about turning up with my toys and being pointed out as a freak. I needed of worried. I counted five different dSLR kits in the church (not including the pro photographers). Lots of Canons.

Which was nice.

Anyway, like I said, I took a stripped out kit. Just my 18-55, 50mm and new swanky 10-22mm wide angle. I also left my external flash behind.

And that was my biggest mistake. I'm uploading the photo's at the minute and filtering them into usable and crap. Sadly there is more crap than usable because of shake and suspect shadows. I'd a feeling this was going to be the case when reviewing them on the night I often found I was upping the ISO to try and reduce exposure times. I guess the little flash just isn't good enough for me when using the manual settings.

Have you had any better experiences from yours?

Still, I guess I'll see what I've got and if there are any I can share. I will.

I finally got the chance to play with my new tripod tonight.

I'd purchased the tripod based upon a few reviews I'd read and the head because I wanted an economical, easy to use, ball head.

 

Manfrotto 190XPROB

The tripod is exactly what I was told to expect from anything Manfrotto. Solid, simple to use and pretty well featured. It's not too heavy at a little under 2kg's and height ranges from 8.5cm to 146cm (according to the specs!), though that excludes the head dimensions.

Leg adjustment is managed via pressure locks on the leg, and the vertical column via a small thumb screw device. The legs themselves have a range of preset angles from 25 degrees through to just under 90. The vertical column can be extended and flipped out horizontally for shooting at 90 degrees (or if you're into weird positions).

You can find the full technical specification here.

I really like the thing. It's easy to use, it's a good weight and it offers all the little gadgets my original cheapo tripod didn't. Things like a little spirit level bubble and a hook for hanging your camera bag (useful on a windy day to as as ballast). It feels solid. I've used that word a lot. Well, it is.

I'm expecting many many nights of fun with this.

 

484RC2 Ball Head

I'd set out looking for a ball head for a number of simple reasons.

1. I didn't like the 3 bolt pan and tilt operation of my original tripo - I could never get it to quite line up and still be happy the thing was secure

2. I'm kind of lazy and liked the thought of a simple one lock operation

Whilst I'm still happy a ball head is what I want, I kind of wish I'd spent a little more on something a bit more 'user friendly'.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great head and has a really good feel to it. It's well put together and things like the locking plate are an excellent size and do feel secure. The one lock nut does exactly what you'd expect and keeps the head and camera secure (so much so that I had the thing pointing vertically downwards at full tripod elevation with my heaviest lens on and still felt happy to go make a cuppa).

But, the failing for me is the position of the lock nut. Twice now I've opened it without thinking (not accidentally by brushing it or anything, just while setting up for a shot) and the camera has fallen to one side or the another with a 'thunk'. Yep, a 'thunk'. I've been telling myself that it's just the noise as the head stops moving and not the camera getting a 'thunk'. And I'm pretty sure I'm right.  It's just a little unnerving. It's all OK if you hold said camera in one hand and release the nut with the other, then it's all just peachy. But, still, things did go 'thunk'...

Dusty Branch, that sounds like a porn star name. Not that I'd know of course, not that I'd know.

... Anyway...

I got some offline feedback on yesterdays picture of the branch. Interestingly a number of people commented that they felt it was over exposed. Whilst I'm not sure I agree with them, I thought I'd reduce the exposure a little and see if it had any effect.

So, here goes.

For reference, Version 1. The photograph from yesterday.

Version 2. Exposure reduced by 2/3 stop.

 

The problem I had with this is that whilst the branch itself is quite nice, the background is very tinted.

In an effort to fix this, I've played with the Tone Curve and increased the intensity of the light tones. This is the result. Version 3.

 

I think version 3 might be the best of the bunch. I guess version 4 would involve loading this into Gimp or Photoshop and creating some sort of mask to fix out any residual colour in the background. I'll try to find a tutorial to that effect for the weekend. (If you know of one, please tell!)

Since I read about an improvised technique for lighting in Digital Photo (I think), I'd been meaning to give it a go.

Maybe I should take a step back?

Whilst I'd dearly love to kit out a studio, I've neither the money nor the space for one in the house. And since I'm unlikely to get much of either from photography, I'm always looking for new and unique ways to provide subjects, environments and ambience (look at that. What great word use. I could have just said lighting!)...

In the past, I've used T-Shirts and a dressing gown to provide black back drops. I've even used a baking tray at one point to try out some stuff. I've also made use of little desk lights before to give some side lighting.

It keeps you thinking if nothing else.

So, anyway...

A month or so ago I read an article in Digital Photo (I still think) about using a security light and a projector screen to create some nice back lighting. It drove me to B&Q (other hardware stores are available) and I bought a cheapo security light and a plug.

...And then I did nothing with them...

...And to be honest, I still haven't.

But today I decided to try some of the lighting techniques I'd read about and I resurrected my desk lamp and his buddy. I also got a sheet of A3 white paper and tacked it to the back of a chair to provide a background. My little studio looked like this:

 

(apologies for the blurred photos. I honestly didn't think I'd ever publish these...)

 

Now, not having the magazine at hand what followed was more guess work than planned. I initially started with both lights pointing at the paper and trying to shoot the entire branch but the effects of working freehand and the low power of the back lighting left me with an uneven background and frequently blurred shots. I remember the magazine mentioning this could be a problem.

So I zoomed in on one of the branches and tried again. This worked better and  I ended up using one desk light pointing up from the ground and the other held above the branch to get the shots I was happiest with.

The branches were still quite dark, but adjusting the camera to over-expose by two stops (Not a word Dermot, not a single word...) cured that problem. A bit of clipping, cropping and sharpening left me with this.

I'm normally quite pessimistic about photos I've listed, but I actually really like this. What do you think?

(0.5secs, f/8, 55mm, ISO-100, 02/03/2008)

So, tell me what you think?

 

Oh, almost forgot. This has been flipped. I thought the branch running left to right worked better.