More Leading Lines

This post is just a quick follow on from the previous "Leading Lines" post. In all honesty I just really wanted to post this shot as I totally love it. In fact, it's already in a frame on the wall in the kitchen.


This is the Palacio Da Pena in the hills of Sintra in Portugal. It's an incredible place to visit and I totally recommend it. I could have spend weeks in this one spot taking pictures of the palace's crazy architecture. Also it's a real HDR-users paradise: interesting skies, wonderful foreground and complex structures. It's just awesome.

Anyway, the point of this post was to show how the wall leads the eye into the main part of the picture which is the palace itself. Another example of leading lines. What I have noticed though is that the lines seem to work better if they start in one of the lower corners of the picture instead of the middle.

Project: try taking a picture of some tram lines or rail way tracks and see if the end result is better with the lines in the middle of the picture or off to the side.

Flash antics

I'm told that the most important things in photography (apart from talent and skill) are...

1. The camera


2. The lenses


3. The lighting

At least that's what the counter monkey at a local camera shop told me when he was trying to get me to spend a voucher I had on a flash gun. I don't know that they necessarily go in that order but he was probably right although I'm sure I could think of a few other things that are more important like "Did I remember to bring a packed lunch with me?" and, "are there toilets near the shoot?"

Seriously though, flash guns are really worth looking into. They take a bit of getting used too and I'm still pretty poor at using mine. Have a look at the link to "The Strobist" on the side bar and see just how versatile and useful they can be.

What I suggest is the following --> Set up a wee studio like this...

One tripod is for the flash and the other is for the camera. On top of the table is some black paper and I've set up a little still life that contains some random coins and notes (which, alas, are now defunct thanks to the Euro!)

Have a bit of a think how you would like the ambient light to hit the scene. I've got this placed in such a way that the light from the window isn't really a factor in the picture. The reason for this is that I want the flash as the main source of light and I want control over that. If it was a ridiculously bright day outside I'd have it miles from the window, perhaps in another darker room for this experiment. Sadly, it's grey and raining outside.

So the next thing to do is start playing about with all the settings on both the camera and the flash and see what effects you can achieve. I also have a few attachments that I've built for the front of the flash like a diffuser (made from cardboard and a folded up opaque sandwich bag) and a grid-spot (made from cardboard and straws). There's plenty of websites that can show you how to make these for pennies.

Just a quick dig at the Canon users out there... Most of the Nikon DSLRs work as commander units for flash guns and can fire them remotely without the need for a cable - Canon can't unless you have the top end models. Just set the flash unit to "slave" and the camera's inbuilt flash to "commander" and you're laughing (although remember to also set the camera's own flash to the "--" position or you'll have 2 flashes going).

Here are a series of shots using various changes to the flash (although all taken at 1/16th power). The effects are subtle but if you were to translate these to shoot portraits etc then they can become quite dramatic.


This shot has no flash. The ambient light is diffuse and there are no harsh shadows but it lacks focus and makes the image quite poor. Also the wrinkles and folds in the black tissue paper I've used are very obvious and quite distracting especially in the background. You could probably rescue this by reducing the power of the flash but mine only goes down to 1/16th so I'm stuck. A bit of Photoshop work might also have helped here.


This shot has the flash pointing down from the left of camera at about 45 degrees. The flash has pretty much ruined the shot. The shadows are harsh and this is particularly noticeable on the tissue paper crinkles. Also the metallic nature of the coins means that they are reflecting a lot of the light in the form of glare.


Again the flash is pointing down from the left at about 45 degrees with the diffuser on. You can see that the shadows are less hard and also there is now less available light (due to the thickness of my sandwich bag) so the black paper is less "lit up" and now the focus of the picture is moving more to the money.


This shot is the same as the others but I've put the grid-spot on the flash. It makes a huge difference by narrowing the light that comes out of the flash and focusing it on the center of the picture. The black paper is almost completely black now and the eye is drawn to the object of interest instead of the rest of the frame.

Click here to see a great blog post by QH Photography on how the grid-spot works and the amazing affect it can have on your pictures.

So was the guy at the camera shop correct? Probably. However, flashes are really tough to get to grips with. I would suggest that you probably shouldn't be using a flash gun until you understand the "manual" setting of your camera. Having said that you can always put it on the horse shoe and set everything to TTL (through-the-lens). That means that the camera will make most of the lighting decisions for you and won't let the flash over expose the image. Pretty nifty.

Project: buy/borrow a flash gun and try some stuff on a little home made studio like the one in the first picture. Once you've done that, hang a black sheet on a wall and get a willing volunteer to pose for some shots and see if you can get anywhere near the impressive quality of QH Photography or The Strobist.

Good luck!

Photomerge

So your back's against the wall and the lens you are using won't go any wider but you really want to capture more of the scene in front of you.

What are your options?

1. Buy a wider lens
2. Knock down the wall and take a few more steps back (probably not practical)

OR

3. Take more that one picture and join them together.

Please excuse the fact that I've used my cluttered kitchen but it's pouring outside today so it'll have to do... but here is a pic taken with the 35mm f1.8 lens.



As I'm sure you realise, this lens has no zoom function and is a "prime" lens so it is fixed at 35mm and can't give you a wider shot (unless I was to take a few more step backwards).

So instead I took 9 shots (3 top, 3 middle and 3 bottom) making sure each one over lapped with the next one. Then I went to Photoshop Elements 8 and did the following...

1. Goto "File" --> "New" --> "Photoshop Photomerge"


2. Click "Browse" and select your pictures. As I said, I used 9 here but you can use as mew or as many as you like. I saw a 57 image photomerge once!


3. Click "OK" and Photoshop should start trying to piece everything together.

Here is the result...



Instant wide angle! OK, so it's not instant and takes a wee bit of processing. Also you have to crop the result too as Photoshop will create weird shapes with each pic to try and keep the perspective correct. The whole thing works best if you have at least 20% overlap so bear that in mind when you're lining up your shots.

Anyway, give it a shot but just start with two or three pics before you start trying some crazy 100 image of the Himalayas.

Leading Lines

There's always some blurb in photo mags and web sites about this. Often you'll post a picture on flickr.com and someone will post "nice leading lines" but to start with I had no idea what they were on about.

Yes it's obvious that they are talking about a "line" or "lines" in the picture and that they "lead" somewhere, but what's the point of them? Well they really can add something to a picture. They provide depth and 3-dimensionality to a shot and should act to draw the eye into the picture. Often this is from the foreground to the background (or to the main object in the shot) and this makes the picture more interesting.



This picture of the Tomar aqueduct in Portugal shows how the foreground part of the picture catches your eye and then the line or the aqueduct leads into the picture and almost forces you to look deeper into the frame. It's one of those composition things that the people in the know go on about but to be honest I've noticed that loads of folk use this in their shots without even realizing. I guess that's testament to how much they can improve a photography.

Project: Try it with roads, fences, railings, logs, railway tracks, etc.

Enjoy.

Spray

This is just a quicky!

Sometimes you take a picture and the lights or the sun in the picture form a star like shape. How does that happen? Well my understanding of it is that if you use a very narrow aperture (f22 or higher) then the light "sprays" through the small gap caused by the blades of the lens. It's almost like the opposite of what you are trying to get with bokeh and a wide aperture (which gives you blurry round lights in the background of photos).



Anyway, this shot was taken at 15mm f20 1/125th sec. The high f-number causes a narrow aperture and the light from the sun sprays out like a star. It's quite a nice effect but bear in mind the following...

1. Narrow aperture requires bright light or a tripod (for slower shutter speeds)
2. Depth of field lost with high f-numbers
3. Looking through the view finder at the sun is just stupid. Use Live View instead.

You can see here I've used some of the dappling from the trees to reduce the light coming from the sun or else I would have ended up with completely silhouetted trees and hand.

Go and have a shot just now. Try it on some spot lights first at f 5.6 and then f20 and see the difference.

Nice day for a... wet wedding!

So I was shooting a wedding last weekend and number of issues came up that are worth mentioning and what I did for each of those situations. To set the scene, it was supposed to be a fully outdoor wedding in a large open space which really is a dream come true for the photographer - loads of room to move around in, reportage-style, candids etc would have worked amazingly for the whole shoot. However, by 4pm the heavens opened and everyone ended up indoors in a narrow converted barn which posed a few photographic challenges...

Problem: Rain

This is the photographer's worst enemy as it can not only ruin your equipment but can also spoil the shots. First you can get water on the lens and this needs to be moved post production in PS etc. But worse for the wedding party/guests, their outfits/mood/patience etc can be hampered and it makes the shots difficult to create.

Solutions:

I always have an umbrella in the car. An assistant sometimes helps with this although I can wedge it into my backpack and it keeps me and the camera dry (plastic bags and elastic bands help with this too). Use your lens hood which may stop a few drops hitting the lens. Always point the camera down when not using it. Use the cap in between shots. Do the portraits etc quickly and slickly (but at the same time try not to look rushed). Have your shot program to hand to facilitate the speed of the shots. Finally you might have to accept that things need to be moved in doors so have a backup shot plan if that happens.

Problem: Poor Indoor Lighting

This is always an issue so you have to be aware of your camera's limitations and what you can do to get the most out of it and what you can and can't fix in post production. High ISO, large apertures and slow shutter speeds all generate further problems.

Solutions:

TRIPOD!!! This is a must. It keeps everything steady and reduces shake at slower shutter speeds. I also use a remote to activate the camera without having to touch it. I try never to go about ISO 1600 as I know that the noise the camera generates above this becomes difficult to remove in post production. Large apertures are worth trying but can cause "soft" images and aren't as sharp wide open so try not to open them fully and accept that the shutter speed has to be slower to counter this - which may result in blurry pictures from moving/animated subjects. To get around this pay close attention to your subject and wait till you think they are about to hold still then fire off a burst of shots. It's not an exact science but you should get one or two usable images each time.

Using a Flash Gun is also worth thinking about. However, don't buy today and shoot tomorrow (as with all equipment) as you'll just get frustrated when you realise you don't how to work it. I personally hate flash images but I reckon that's because I'm not very good at them. I do have one setting that works well...

35mm (prime) at 1/60th sec f4 and ISO 400 with 1/8th power on the flash. Seems to give good shots each time. But remember to "bounce" the flash off a white wall or ceiling or use a diffuser to try and stop harsh shadows. Also a tripod is not really possible as you need to be mobile so remember to "tripod" yourself on a wall or knee to steady the shot.

Problem : Distance to Subject

Sometimes you can end up so far from the people you are photographing that you have to be quite inventive to get anything worth using. At one point at this wedding I was about 40ft from the top table and there was no way to get closer due to the other tables. Being so far away requires long focal lengths and the amount of shake is mental. The distance is not the only problem here but also the lighting because you can't use flash beyond certain distances.

Solutions:

See my points about having a tripod and then scrap the one you were going to buy and buy the best one you can afford. It's probably going to last longer than any other bit of kit you have so it's worth investing. I shot quite a few pics at 200mm and it took a good few seconds for the shake/vibrations to settle down each time I moved the camera. Also bear in mind that loud speakers/amplifiers will cause vibrations and shake will take place in your pictures so try to take your shots in between rounds of applause etc. Again use a remote.

Also scout the location in advance so you at least have an idea about where you will and won't be able to get to with the camera. If needs be, get set up way before the speeches and wait it out until they start so you can get the interesting shots.

On this particular occasion I shot most of the speeches at 150-200mm with ISO 800-1600 and 1/40 - 1/30th and just had to accept the limitations of the equipment and resort to post production "fixes" which, although not ideal, seemed to work out OK. Beware again how noise reduction software can make your pictures "soft" and they lose sharpness.

Anyway, I hope that's useful. It's certainly worth considering all of this in advance of an important shoot as you often only get one chance to get the "must have" shots.

Colour Selection

This is something I get asked about a fair amount. It actually is really quite easy and only takes a couple of minutes to do. There are several ways but here is the easiest (I think). Here's how...

1. Open your picture in any photoshop program
2. Right click on the layer in the right hand palate and select "duplicate layer"
3. There should now be 2 layers in the palate.
4. Make the top layer Black and White
5. Use the eraser tool to "rub out" any bits that you want the colour to show through.
6. Goto "layer" and flatten image then save your work

Easy!

ND10 Trickery

So you know how much I love my ND10 filter. Well I've discovered another thing it does brilliantly - it makes things disappear!

Confused? I'll explain. The next shot shows a shot of the Bass Rock off the Coast of Scotland (click on the images for a larger version).


Nice enough eh? I mean, I guess some of the charm of the Bass Rock is all those seagulls and gannets swirling around it and it's lovely white colour from all the guano! Well what would it look like without the birds? Have a look...


Voila! They've all gone. The second shot is a 30 second exposure with the ND10 filter. Everything that's moving doesn't stay in one place long enough to create an image on the sensor. "Ghosts" can be created by slow moving things or things that stop for a bit before moving on but these are easily removed by the clone or heal tool in any processing software.

Neat trick though!

Adobe Lightroom 3.2 beta

Adobe has released it's latest version of Lightroom in beta test format which is free to download until the full commercial version is available... and it's brilliant! It has all the usual RAW editing stuff but one of the things that I personally think is awesome is the gradient facility.

Bright sky is usually about 2 stops of light brighter than foreground and that makes it difficult to expose for both in the same shot. One of the best ways is using a graduated filter stuck to the front of the lens. What that does is block out some of the light from the upper portion of the picture and brings sky's exposure to that of the foreground. Therefore when you take the shot you can retain a lot of detail in the sky that would normally be washed out (or "blown out highlights" as those in the know call it). If you have a look at some of your previous pictures with sky in it (where the sky is not the major feature) you'll see that often that portion of the picture is completely white and over exposed.

So what do you do if you haven't got these filters?

Personally, I under-expose the shot slightly and then in Lightroom drag down the gradient filter effect. This means I can pull back some of the details that would have been previously lost. This shot is prior to using the gradient.



After application of the filter...



Makes quite a difference doesn't it? The icon is on the right hand side of the "Develop" module underneath the histogram and I hope you get the chance to try it out.

ISO and Noise

ISO in a nutshell is how sensitive your sensor is. In days gone by it was a measure of how sensitive your film was. ISO 100 was for shooting in bright light and ISO 800 or 1600 was for shooting in darker conditions. Point-and-shoot cameras often don't let you play with this and the camera chooses for you but it is an integral part of DSLR settings.

The main purpose for increasing ISO is usually to do with camera-shake. If conditions are getting darker then increasing the ISO makes the film (or sensor) more sensitive and therefore it picks up more light at a faster rate and therefore the shutter speed can be reduced - which helps prevent camera-shake.

Sounds great? Well yes, but there is a trade off as always and that's "noise".

Noise is something people don't really notice until it's pointed out to them... certainly, I didn't. After reading this go and have a look at some pics you've taken in low light conditions and you'll see it when you zoom in. In some cases it can be quite obvious.



Here is an example. These pictures were taken in a restaurant under relatively low light without a flash. The first picture was taken at ISO 200 with f3.5 and a resultant shutter speed of 1/10th of a second. The picture below that was shot at ISO 3200 and f3.5 and allowed a shutter speed of 1/250th of a second.

Obviously the shutter speed of the second picture in much faster and so it's less likely to show camera shake as the chances of you moving the camera much in 1/250th of a second is highly unlikely. However if you compare the 2 close-ups of each picture you will see a grainy artifact on the ISO 3200 picture. That is noise.

Personally, I try to shoot in the lowest ISO possible. Normally, I have the camera locked at ISO 100 or 200 but I never let it go above 800 as the noise on the D90 is quite noticeable above this. There is software to remove noise but the results vary. Therefore my advice would be use as low an ISO as you can and add a flashgun if need be.

Or carry a tripod/monopod with you everywhere to prevent camera shake!!!

35mm f1.8 vs 50mm f1.8

So I love my 50mm lens. I've told you before why it's a great purchase but essentially here are the reasons in a nutshell...

1. Cheap
2. Wide aperture and great bokeh
3. Good in low light
4. Weighs nothing
5. Superb for portraits

However, the problem with the crop sensor is that it magnifies the 50mm to 75mm which really is quite zoomed in and I found that at parties and nights out (where this lens should come into it's own) the pictures were too close and I was having to stand miles away which can be an issues in a busy restaurant etc. Also, in properly low light the lens would struggle unless the ISO was boosted - sometimes to unusable levels e.g. 3200.

What were the choices (aside from buying a flashgun)?

Well I decided that the 50mm f1.4 was prohibitive from a cost point of view (>£300) and it still didn't solve the problem of being too close. So I had a rethink and decided to go for the Nikon 35mm f1.8 for about £160.

This didn't solve the low light problem as the aperture was still only f1.8 max (or so I thought) but it did mean I would have a wider amount included in each picture. With the cropped sensor it still equated to 52.5mm but that was greatly improved on the adjusted focal length of the original 50mm.

That was reason enough but I'd also read some reviews saying that it had better colour and contrast than the 50mm so after it arrived (today) I decided to put it to the test.

Here is a series of pictures taken at different apertures in low light. I fixed the ISO at 200 and let the camera choose the speed (not much of a difference there).



I think the most immediate thing that stands out is in fact the contrast and the colour like that review said (and how consistent the 35mm is). At f4 there isn't much of a difference but at either extremes there is huge differences. Although the shutter speed is much the same for both lenses and probably won't help much in low light conditions there is a massive difference in how "usable" the pictures are.

I also noted (although it's hard to see on this blog) that the bokeh with the 35mm (especially at f1.8) is far superior and much more aesthetically pleasing. The 50mm blur is super soft at that aperture and, blown up, looks terrible.

A final point is that the 50mm needed a 35cm minimum distance from the subject to take the picture whereas I could still focus at 20cm with the 35mm which just gives a bit more flexibility.

So all in all I think it was a good purchase and I don't think I'll be using the 50mm again. Having said that, the 35mm is for DX sensors and the 50mm can be used with both a cropped and full-frame sensor so if I ever get round to buying a Nikon D3x or something insane like that then at least I'll have one lens I can use!

Circular Polariser

I'll not go into the optics of these and telling you how they work is a bit pointless - except that they work best at 90 degrees to the sun and reduce the light coming into your camera by about 2 stops.

What you need is to actually see the difference between a picture taken with the filter and one without. Both of the following pictures have been taken as JPEGs in camera with no post processing.



This is the original without the filter. It's OK but the sky is boring and the sea has a lot of glare.



This is with the polariser on. You can immediately see that the sky has changed to a more contrasty blue and the clouds are more interesting. The sea has lost it's glare and again becomes a deeper blue. The overall image is more pleasing and it's one of the very few effects that Photoshop has trouble replicating. If you are ever going to buy a filter this is the one.

One thing I would say is not to buy a cheap one as they don't work that well and it's a total waste.

Crop Factor

It's taken me a while to figure out what the difference between a full frame sensor and a cropped sensor is. There is loads of detail on line about these 2 types of sensor but I think what mattered most to me was to do with wide angle shots and zoom lenses.

A few months ago I bought the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 and a mate of mine stated that actually it was 105-300mm on my camera. It took me ages to understand what he was going on about and it wasn't until I stumbled onto a picture like the one below that it finally made sense.



This piture was taken in Puerto Banus in Spain and shows the famous "La Concha" mountain. If you imagine that the full picture is what a 35mm film camera would take. It's also what a full frame sensor would take. Cropped sensors are smaller so the area of light falling on the sensor is less. The red rectangle is the 1.5 crop of Nikon's cropped DX sensors and the green rectangle demonstrates the 1.6 crop factor of Canons smaller sensors. As I said before the 200mm becomes 300mm on the Nikon DX sensors (this would be 320mm on the Canon - since 1.6 x 200 = 320).

You can now see how a cropped sensor artificially increases your zoom since if you were to print all three pictures at 6 x 4 inches they would all contain slighty different amounts of the view. This is great from a zoom point of view but at the other end of the spectrum it can be a problem.

When you have a wide angle lens you like the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 and you are using it on a cropped sensor it actually becomes 16-24mm which means you don't get as much width as you would on a full frame. It can be frustrating but I guess it's something you have to put up with.

Comments and critisisms always welcome.

ND10

Filters are a useful aid to photographers. They come in many forms and essentially sit infront of your lens to either colour, darken or enhance your photograph.

The ND10 is a bit of a speciality filter and really takes a while to master - which I'm nowhere near yet. ND stands for Neutral Density and it blocks light without changing the colour that comes through the lens onto the sensor. The ND10 blocks ten stops of light which there for only lets in 0.1% of the light.

What's the point of this? Well it means that in broad day light you can keep the shutter open for ages. Normally this would make your shot completely white but with the filter in front you can easily do a 30 second shot without this happening. This has two significant effects.

First, clouds will move in that space of time creating some interesting skies. Secondly, water smooths out to give surreal textures. If you compare this shot with the first one you will see how different they are. This one was taken WITHOUT the ND10 filter and its more of a snapshot in time where as the upper picture really demonstrates the crazy effects you can pull off with this filter.

It's a nifty bit of kit but there are a few issues you should be aware of. It is so black that almost no light goes through and the camera really struggles to focus in autofocus mode. Sometimes, if it's bright enough and your camera has it, you can use Live View mode to focus but realistically you have to compose your shot first then put the filter on and take the shot. REMEMBER to turn off you auto focus after setting up the shot or else the camera will start trying to focus which you press the shutter and most likely it won't take the shot.

Another problem is that due to the super-dark nature of this filter it can't really be used long after sunset without having to leave the shutter open for minutes or longer. That presents another issue as you may then require a remote to lock the shutter open for more than 30 seconds - the tech and gadgetry of photography never ends I'm afraid. There are weaker filters that you can use, but alas I don't have any of those yet, but as soon as I do I'll post the results.

PS - A circular polariser can block 1 - 2 stops of light and can come in useful when the light is getting too low for the ND10 if you don't have any other filters.

Bokeh

This term is used a lot in photography and it refers to out of focus background of blur. It's tied quite closely to depth of field but is more interested in the quality of the blur. In fact, some people would say that you get "good" bokeh and "bad" bokeh. I've never been to good at telling the difference as it really comes down to personal preference.

The easiest way to see an example of bokeh is to take a shot of someone at night time with street lights in the back ground as bokeh appears really easily from blurred highlights and distant lights. You'll see it all the time on TV as movie
cameras seem to be excellent at producing this.

The ideal bokeh should be perfect circles but this is very difficult with lower end lenses. Often the blades of the aperture cause pentagons and hexagons - you can see how my 50mm f1.8 has created decent blur but on closer inspection the would-be circles are actually heptagons by the seven blades of the lens.

It's also worth noting that too small or too large an aperture will cause bad bokeh. I'm not going to tell you why quite yet. Try experimenting with f4, f10 and f22 and see the difference for yourself. Remember, you are aiming for as perfect a circle as possible.