OK, I have a question and google has not provided me with an answer I understand yet, so I thought I’d ask here in case someone knows.

When choosing a shutter speed I’m told to beware of the reciprocal length of the lens as anything slower than that may introduce shake in the finished picture. Thus a 50mm lens has the reciprocal of 1/50 and so the ideal shutter speed for a shot should ideally be more than that.

But, and here’s my question.

What about on a digital camera? I mean, I assume the rule applies to a standard full frame digital, but since my Canon 400D has a magnification factor of 1.6 (that is a 50mm lens on my camera is effectively the same as an 80mm lens on a 35mm – full frame – body), does that mean I actually need 1.6 stops faster?

So, does a 50mm lens on my camera needs 1/80sec?

OK, I know my mileage will vary and some people have remarkably steady hands (not me) but does this make sense?

If it does, it would explain away a lot of disappointing shots I’ve taken that I blamed on me being Mr Shaky Hands man.

I have a feeling next weeks NIPA inter-club competition will be the worst one for me yet. It’s been hiding in my mind since September and no matter how I approach it, the subject just doesn’t do anything for me.

It’s funny in a way, since I’ve yet to find a type of photography I haven’t enjoyed apart from the sort of “Street Encounter” shot which I think the theme is hinting at.

Actually, while I’m talking about titles, if I could change one thing about the NIPA rounds it would be these two word titles. When you look at something like Fujimugs, this approach works well, but NIPA seem to have a habit of changing the rules right up until the closing date of a competition and when it’s decided that “Water” must be a certain percentage of water and you only find out on the night of judging, it can be a pain in the rumpus. I’m kind of dreading what rules they’ve decided on for “Street Life”

Anyway, I don’t think I’ve done myself justice this round, but I thought I’d share.

Ever since I read the post by Paulo about lighting the cocktail glass, I’ve wanted to try Dark Field Lighting.

I mean, even before we look at the science of it, it sounds like something sci-fi. I can just hear some alien captain telling his crew to fire up the “Dark Field Engine”.

Oh go on. You know you thought it too.

Anyway, when it comes to lighting, it’s a great technique for photographing glass. My understanding of it is that you need to light the object indirectly, providing a rim light only. To do this, you’ll need a few things.

• A flash gun you can trigger remotely
• Something white/light coloured to reflect the flash (I used a wall)
• A tripod and camera
• A black card or black background (I used a t-shirt and black card)
• A dark place to work

(It’s a good thing to try now when it’s dark early)

Basically, place the object you want to shoot in front of a black background. Make sure the background isn’t too big (bigger than the image you’re shooting is all you need). Now, behind the black background, place your flash gun. In my case I pointed it away from the black card and bounced the light off a wall but you might use a translucent sheet to shoot through if you wish (it’s just important to diffuse the light). Set the camera up for a 6 second exposure, focus it (and change the focus to manual) and then turn off the light. Open the shutter, fire the flash and hopefully…

My result is OK. If you want a good example of it, check Paulo’s picture.

There are a few lessons I learned while trying it.

1. In a dark room, shutter speed is irrelevant so you can’t use it to control exposure. Instead you need to use the power on the flash gun. But be warned, I think a higher power on the flash equates to a longer exposure so if you’re trying to capture movement you may well introduce blurring
2. Be sure where everything is before you turn off the lights…
3. Make sure the glass is clean. Very very clean. This lamp looked clean to the naked eye, but look at the dust on it and in it
4. Make sure the room is clear of clutter if possible or cover it out with black sheets in some way. If you look at the reflection in my image, you can see my dining room chairs off to one side

All in all, it’s a good thing to try. I believe it’s covered in the book Light Science and Magic and it’s on my Amazon Wish List so I can find out more.

There is a great article in the January Digital SLR Photography magazine, describing a technique to create reflection of an object in a studio (or in your dining room if you don’t have one).

The technique seems pretty simple so I thought I’d give it a go tonight.

(f/8, 3.2secs, 100mm, ISO-100, 08/01/2009)

In summary, the technique is to place the item on a piece of glass sitting on a black cloth or card then using a light source (in my case a desk lamp) angle the light until you get a decent reflection.

Key thing – The glass needs to be clean. Really clean.

I guess I wasn’t too successful with this one. I like the glass, it’s sharp and clear, but the reflection isn’t as defined as some of the examples in the magazine. I’m not sure if that’s because of my lighting, my glass not being clean enough or some other factor.

But I thought you’d like to see it anyway.

I’m back in the picture picking mode again. Now Christmas is over, the club competitions are coming thick and fast. Over the next few weeks there is an open round, a street scenes round, a photo essay round and the club exhibition.

Now I don’t expect to do well in any of these, I’ve been lucky so far to get what I’ve got, but I’ want to submit so I get feedback and can see where I’m improving and going wrong.

Meanwhile Jim Mooreland was at the club last night presenting images from submissions to the Royal Photographic Society. Some of the stuff was inspirational, but two sets of prints displayed were just out of this world. (I’ll post details of them as I get more information).

So, where does that leave me?

Well, I’m left wishing I was as good as the guys I saw last night and hoping that maybe just maybe I’ll get there in the future.

On the other hand. I could just continue to take curious photographs of plastic glasses.

As mentioned in the last post, as well as taking pictures of the Slinky(s) on a white background, I also tried it on a black background. In this case, a spare T-Shirt.

The black background and the strobe/flash light really helped the colours in the slinky comes alive.

The problem with these sort of pictures is that they can look very samey to some and utterly different to others. Sadly, I fall into the later camp and it’s been a challenge to pick 6 (3 white, 3 black) which I liked to show here.

If I’d to do it again, I guess I’d diffuse the flash a little more to try and negate the highlights on the coils. And as mentioned, I’d try to use an additional strobe as well.

What walks down stairs, Alone or in pairs, And makes a slinkity sound?

A spring! A spring! A marvellous thing! Everyone knows it’s Slinky!

I am reliably informed that ‘slinkity’ is indeed the sound they make.

My nephew and niece each adopted a slinky as part of their Christmas presents  and since I was in that post dinner, pre going to the pub part of the night I got to wondering if it was possible to take some abstract pictures of them.

These pictures are all taken using a 100mm lens freehand with my 440EX flash gun held by a voice activated light stand (also known as a niece). The slinkys (or is it slinkies or slinkii?) were placed on the back of a 2009 calendar. The V.A.L.S. held the strobe between 15 and 20 inches from the slink… subject at different angles.

The difference between these shots is almost purely the position of the light source. In the first shot, the shadows show it’s above and behind/right of the subject, whilst in the second shot it’s closer and more directly overhead. As a result, the shadows aren’t as visible (apart from under the slinky itself).

Looking at them now, I’m kicking myself for not trying to find an improvised reflector to reduce some of the shadows a little, especially in the first and last shot. I’m also now in the market for a cheap manual strobe that would give me a second light source – cause photographing using off camera strobes is just cool.

I have about 30 of the shots on the white background and I quite liked the cropping on these for some reason. I also have a bunch on a black background and they look really weird – and will follow later…

*And if you really need to hear that song again…

ps: PC is once more in the land of the living. A backup strategy now copies every file in my user accounts folder to a second drive every time the pc starts. I’ve also agreed a new strategy with my brother to keep off site backups on matched external drives – I keep his, he keeps mine. If I don’t mention this again in the near future, someone hit me and make sure I did it.

Merry Christmas folks.

Hopefully Christmas was good for you and whatever God, or red suited white bearded fellow, you believe in fulfilled his promises for this time of year?

Now, can I ask you to stop and check you are backing up your important elements of your pc? No, don’t just nod sagely and say “I always backup”, actually check you’ve done it. And if it’s automated, actually check it’s running and has been working.

Maybe, do a fresh  backup now. Consider it a Christmas present for me.

I’ve talked about backup plans for photographs since I started this blog. 18 months or so. I’ve taken 8500 photographs on my Canon alone so backups should be pretty important. Indeed, given my line of work, it’s a pretty standard approach.

So, it’s a bit gutting to be sitting her typing on my old pc about the fact that my new pc had a hard drive failure just before Christmas and as a result I’ve lost something in the region of the last 4 months worth of photographs.

I can recover some. Others are crap and won’t be missed, but some that I liked are gone and some of my family are gone.

I know I’m an idiot. All the “I told you so’s” in the world aren’t going to change that. I’d expect it’ll take me a few weeks to put things right and get the machine back.

Right now, I’m just kinda sad about the whole thing.

I was lucky enough to get the chance to take a walk through Carrickfergus recently. To be truthful, I spent most of my time photographing the castle.

It’s interesting to approach an object and try to photograph it from different angles rather  than just do the tourist walk up, shoot a picture, walk away thing.

I guess this is the traditional view of the castle.

It’s certainly the one that appears on most of the postcards. I guess I could have cloned out the van and cars, but if Carrickfergus see fit to let cars park there then it’s not up to me to doctor them. Besides, I’m not actually that happy with the shot anyway.

Walking along the harbour wall a bit and you get this view.

I much prefer this view of it. OK, the positioning i a little extreme on the left of frame, but it gives it more context and I like the harbour wall in the foreground as well.

Alternatively walking out the promenade (if you can call it that) you get a nice panorama. (Or at least you would have if I had of had more time and patience. (I was passing the castle again later in the day and the sunset was looking good – I only had a minute to stop the car and take the picture free hand (hence the lack of sharpness) and couldn’t really shift my viewpoint far (hence the signpost), but still….)

Oh, and if you want to know more about the Castle try here or here.