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.

Ok, that was a mouthful.

During the summer I picked up a replacement zoom lens. I'd initially started out with a Tamron 55-200 which came as part of my camera kit and it was fine. Maybe a little soft, here and there and maybe not quite as fast as I might have liked.

But, having played with the Canon f/4-5.6 55-250 lens at a friends house I was really impressed and had to have one.

I'm only getting round to talking about it now because it's one of those things that just becomes an essential part of your kit without ever going through that awkward fumbling new stage where everything has to be done with it. If you use Canon lenses, then there is a lovely sense of familiarity with it - it works exactly how you'd want without any awkward moments. Kind of like when you fall in love as opposed to just go out for a date...

The lens itself is solidly constructed compared to rivals in the price range, though be warned you are buying plastic for the most part (not metal as some of the L series lenses might be). It's a decent weight, comfortable to hold, and feels well balanced both at 55 and 250 ends of the zoom.

As well as the standard auto and manual focus, it comes with 4 stop image stabilisation (IS) which Canon rate as 4 stop, though to me it seems closer to 2. (That said, I do have a shaky hand at times so your mileage may vary). If you've not used IS before, it's worth noting that you can hear it when using the camera but it is very quiet (just don't be surprised when you first pick it up!).

Out of the box, you get lens, manual, front and end caps. No hood is supplied and it is on my list of useful things to buy (or if Mr Canon would like to comp me one I won't complain).  It's also worth noting that this is an EF-S mount so is designed for APS-C sensors rather than the full frame sensors in more expensive Canon cameras.

If you're in the market for a zoom lens on a limited budget or if you're just starting out with camera and kit lens, you're not going to be disappointed with the Canon EF-S 55-250mm Zoom Lens

Oh, and those two birds...

(f/7.0, 194mm, 1/250sec, ISO-200)

Here are a few other shots that were taken with this lens.

(f/5.6, 250mm, 1/250sec, ISO-200)

(f/10, 250mm, 1/250sec, ISO-400)

I still don't have a real eye for what will work and what won't. I guess that's a lot to do with using a digital camera - you can always rely on click and hope since a picture is (essentially) free. It's a bad habit though, and one I'm going to have to keep working on.

Since I don't really post photographs of people very often, it can be hard to talk about portrait photography that I've tried.

A few hardy souls have volunteered to let me take their picture, but until I manage to get something organised the best I can do is the occasional animal.

One useful technique for taking photographs of people (or in this cases horses) is to try and capture light in their eyes. (Good light mind, not that horrible red eye that comes from flash in low light conditions. )

This light reflection in the eye can either be natural or as a result of some smart lighting techniques, but what it will do is lift the eye into the picture and draw attention to it. (Your eye will always get drawn to bright spots of a photograph).

Take a look at some photos of faces and see what I mean - eyes with catchlights are much more full of life than eyes without.

Again with the macro lens.

(f/4.5, 1/125sec, 100mm, ISO-400)

I haven't been seeking to improve my photography for a while now. I guess it's showing in the pictures I'm taking and posting. There's no reason for this really. I'm enjoying my photography and I'm taking the pictures that please me.

It's a useful lesson if you're like me. You're not getting paid for this, so do what you like and sod the world.

Oh, and another reason you should do what you want. Remember I talked about the water competition I'd entered and how the judges comments were very harsh? Well, the inter-club results are out and the picture of the dripping tap got a low score whilst the droplets on silk shot got a quite remarkable  joint 2nd place in the beginners set. It's not important. It's just a good example of how photography is subjective.