This is an unashamed plug for an image I have entered in a photo competition.
I would REALLY appreciate it if you would click on the link below and vote for it, if you feel it is worthy.
http://myphoto.nationaltrust.org.uk/entries/show/445
Thank you in anticipation
Doug
Friday, July 10, 2009
UV Filters
Like most photographers I put a (ludicrously overpriced) UV filter on all my lenses the day I buy them as protection for the front element.
However, no matter how expensive the filter I am sure the glass is never going to be as good as the L glass in my Canon Pro lenses. So I pay many hundreds of pounds for L glass and then reduce the quality of my image sby shooting through a filter. The lens is only ever as good as the worst piece of glass in it.
So, for some time, I have been taking the filters off when I get on location along with the lens cap. I shoot away using pure L glass and then when I move on, back on goes the filter. In some very precarious positions - say, balanced on seaweed covered wet rocks with an incoming tide, I do keep the filter on, just in case.
I figure that the lens is at most risk when I am on the move. All my landscape work is done on a tripod. I know there is a risk the tripod will get knocked or blown over but I am prepared to take that risk. (All my gear is insured for accidental damage anyway - again, ludicrously expensive).
I have seen a difference in my image quality - sharpness and colour clarity. We are talking slight improvements - but I am looking to squeeze every ounce of quality out of my gear.
So, it is up to you. You decide whether to take the risk.
However, no matter how expensive the filter I am sure the glass is never going to be as good as the L glass in my Canon Pro lenses. So I pay many hundreds of pounds for L glass and then reduce the quality of my image sby shooting through a filter. The lens is only ever as good as the worst piece of glass in it.
So, for some time, I have been taking the filters off when I get on location along with the lens cap. I shoot away using pure L glass and then when I move on, back on goes the filter. In some very precarious positions - say, balanced on seaweed covered wet rocks with an incoming tide, I do keep the filter on, just in case.
I figure that the lens is at most risk when I am on the move. All my landscape work is done on a tripod. I know there is a risk the tripod will get knocked or blown over but I am prepared to take that risk. (All my gear is insured for accidental damage anyway - again, ludicrously expensive).
I have seen a difference in my image quality - sharpness and colour clarity. We are talking slight improvements - but I am looking to squeeze every ounce of quality out of my gear.
So, it is up to you. You decide whether to take the risk.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Has the World gone mad?
Now I have heard it all.
Listening to BBC radio recently I heard an interview with James Z. Wang, Associate Professor at the College of Information Sciences and Technology, Pennsylvania State University.
Along with is team he has developed a piece of software called ACQUINE. This stands for Aesthetic Quality Inference Engine.
The role of the software is to analyse a jpeg photograph and then decide on how aesthetically pleasing it is, producing a score as a percentage. You can upload your own images here - http://acquine.alipr.com/ - to see what a piece of software thinks about your favorite photos. If you care.
The software is programmed to look att he rule of thirds, fibonnachi spirals, contrast, colour, saturation, and so on to make it's 'mind' up.
Just take a look at some of the top rated images and soon you will see that, while some images are indeed good, most it likes are very mediocre and some are downright rubbish. But then, that is only mky opinion. Should my opinion as a human count any more than a cleverly programmed computers opinion?
I happen to think it should. I am one of those people who believe that photography is art. I believe that it takes a humans inate perception and ability to be moved by an image to make a decision on whether an image is 'good' or not. I do not want a steam of 1's and 0's to make my mind up for me.
So, while, no doubt, the software is very clever, I have no respect for it's findings. I am sure it could be put to good use - analysing images across the internet, maybe, to identify images that have been stolen and used without the copyright holders consent. Or, perhaps, to match faces found in images of paedophiles siezed in criminal cases and matching them to other images of the same people that may make it easier to identify these criminals. These kinds of uses would be very laudable.
But please don't get a piece of software to try and tell me what images are 'good' and which are 'bad'.
Listening to BBC radio recently I heard an interview with James Z. Wang, Associate Professor at the College of Information Sciences and Technology, Pennsylvania State University.
Along with is team he has developed a piece of software called ACQUINE. This stands for Aesthetic Quality Inference Engine.
The role of the software is to analyse a jpeg photograph and then decide on how aesthetically pleasing it is, producing a score as a percentage. You can upload your own images here - http://acquine.alipr.com/ - to see what a piece of software thinks about your favorite photos. If you care.
The software is programmed to look att he rule of thirds, fibonnachi spirals, contrast, colour, saturation, and so on to make it's 'mind' up.
Just take a look at some of the top rated images and soon you will see that, while some images are indeed good, most it likes are very mediocre and some are downright rubbish. But then, that is only mky opinion. Should my opinion as a human count any more than a cleverly programmed computers opinion?
I happen to think it should. I am one of those people who believe that photography is art. I believe that it takes a humans inate perception and ability to be moved by an image to make a decision on whether an image is 'good' or not. I do not want a steam of 1's and 0's to make my mind up for me.
So, while, no doubt, the software is very clever, I have no respect for it's findings. I am sure it could be put to good use - analysing images across the internet, maybe, to identify images that have been stolen and used without the copyright holders consent. Or, perhaps, to match faces found in images of paedophiles siezed in criminal cases and matching them to other images of the same people that may make it easier to identify these criminals. These kinds of uses would be very laudable.
But please don't get a piece of software to try and tell me what images are 'good' and which are 'bad'.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Metering for Long Exposures
These long exposure images are becoming really popular amongst photographers and customers alike. This is seen by the massive increase in price suppliers are putting on the 10 stop filters. Warehouse Express six months ago were charging about £54 for B&W 10 stop ND filters (77mm). Recently they were up to £156!! How about that for ripping us off?
I have done a previous post on how to set up for these shots, which takes precision and patience but an issue that keeps arising is 'how do I meter for the long exposure?'
You have a couple of options. The easy brain dead way is to just guess it, and this becomes easier with experience. However, when you are talking about 2, 3 or 5 minute and longer exposures, if you are a little off, either over or under-exposing it can get very frustrating as you try various lengths of exposure in an effort to get the image you want.
If you really want to do it properly and consistentley the technique is, in fact, very similar to calculating any other exposure using grads. Here's how it's done.
1. Set the aperture you want - usually for these types of images somewhere between f11 and f22. F22 will give you a much longer exposure than f11 or f16. F16 to f22 will give you good depth of field and even in daylight with a 10 stop ND filter attached you will get a long exposure of 1 minute plus in most circumstances.
2. In Manual mode with the aperture set point the camera to fill your frame with the foreground (have the camera set to matrix metering). Centre the light meter guage by adjusting the shutter speed (do not alter the aperture to centre the guage). Note the shutter speed.
3. With the same aperture now point the camera at the sky (not at the sun or the brightest part of the sky, but an average brightness area) and again use the shutter speed dial to centre the light meter guage. Note the shutter speed.
4. If this shutter speed is 2 or more FULL stops brighter than the first reading you will need ND Grads - select the one or combination of grads you need to balance the exposure to your liking.
5. Focus the camera and frame the shot. Fit your ND Grad filter holder to the lens and compose the shot without the 10 stop filter attached - setting the ND grads to the right position for the horizon.
6. CAREFULLY remove the ND Grad filter holder without sliding the grads up or down and without moving the camera or changing the focus etc.
7. Set the camera to BULB mode and make sure the aperture is set to the setting you used for the metering in steps 2 and 3 above.
8. Fit your 10 stop ND filter - again without moving your camera or altering the focus etc.
9. Very carefully re-fit the ND Filter holder with the filters in place - this will ensure the ND Grads are set correctly to the horizon line - something it is very hard to do after you have fitted the 10 stop filter!
10. Now, remembering your shutter speed from step 2 above - you double the shutter speed for every stop of ND filter you added. So if you added a 10 stop filter and say the base exposure from step 2 was a quarter of a second this is how the calculation would go -
2 x 1/4 = 1/2 sec.
2 x 1/2 sec = 1 sec.
2 x 1 sec = 2 sec.
2 x 2 sec = 4 sec.
2 x 4 sec = 8 sec.
2 x 8 sec = 16 seconds.
2 x 16 secs =32 seconds.
2 x 16 seconds = 32 seconds.
2 x 32 seconds = 64 seconds.
2 x 64 seconds = 128 seconds (or just over 2 minutes).
So your exposure time would be just over 2 minutes. You can adjust this to over or under expose if you wish for artistic effect.
Just remember for every stop of ND filtration (you don't include the grads in the calculation) just double the exposure.
There you have it. I hope you have fun experimenting and if you want any help, drop me a line, or consider booking some one-to-one tuition time with me - you will be producing wonderful images in no time at all.
I have done a previous post on how to set up for these shots, which takes precision and patience but an issue that keeps arising is 'how do I meter for the long exposure?'
You have a couple of options. The easy brain dead way is to just guess it, and this becomes easier with experience. However, when you are talking about 2, 3 or 5 minute and longer exposures, if you are a little off, either over or under-exposing it can get very frustrating as you try various lengths of exposure in an effort to get the image you want.
If you really want to do it properly and consistentley the technique is, in fact, very similar to calculating any other exposure using grads. Here's how it's done.
1. Set the aperture you want - usually for these types of images somewhere between f11 and f22. F22 will give you a much longer exposure than f11 or f16. F16 to f22 will give you good depth of field and even in daylight with a 10 stop ND filter attached you will get a long exposure of 1 minute plus in most circumstances.
2. In Manual mode with the aperture set point the camera to fill your frame with the foreground (have the camera set to matrix metering). Centre the light meter guage by adjusting the shutter speed (do not alter the aperture to centre the guage). Note the shutter speed.
3. With the same aperture now point the camera at the sky (not at the sun or the brightest part of the sky, but an average brightness area) and again use the shutter speed dial to centre the light meter guage. Note the shutter speed.
4. If this shutter speed is 2 or more FULL stops brighter than the first reading you will need ND Grads - select the one or combination of grads you need to balance the exposure to your liking.
5. Focus the camera and frame the shot. Fit your ND Grad filter holder to the lens and compose the shot without the 10 stop filter attached - setting the ND grads to the right position for the horizon.
6. CAREFULLY remove the ND Grad filter holder without sliding the grads up or down and without moving the camera or changing the focus etc.
7. Set the camera to BULB mode and make sure the aperture is set to the setting you used for the metering in steps 2 and 3 above.
8. Fit your 10 stop ND filter - again without moving your camera or altering the focus etc.
9. Very carefully re-fit the ND Filter holder with the filters in place - this will ensure the ND Grads are set correctly to the horizon line - something it is very hard to do after you have fitted the 10 stop filter!
10. Now, remembering your shutter speed from step 2 above - you double the shutter speed for every stop of ND filter you added. So if you added a 10 stop filter and say the base exposure from step 2 was a quarter of a second this is how the calculation would go -
2 x 1/4 = 1/2 sec.
2 x 1/2 sec = 1 sec.
2 x 1 sec = 2 sec.
2 x 2 sec = 4 sec.
2 x 4 sec = 8 sec.
2 x 8 sec = 16 seconds.
2 x 16 secs =32 seconds.
2 x 16 seconds = 32 seconds.
2 x 32 seconds = 64 seconds.
2 x 64 seconds = 128 seconds (or just over 2 minutes).
So your exposure time would be just over 2 minutes. You can adjust this to over or under expose if you wish for artistic effect.
Just remember for every stop of ND filtration (you don't include the grads in the calculation) just double the exposure.
There you have it. I hope you have fun experimenting and if you want any help, drop me a line, or consider booking some one-to-one tuition time with me - you will be producing wonderful images in no time at all.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Long Exposure Effects
Just a quick blog post today. I know they have been few and far between lately and I apologise to my regular readers. The arrival of my mother in law to stay with us (so far for 9 weeks!!!!) coincided with us getting a Cocker Spaniel puppy (Stan). To say things have been hectic, chaotic and stressful would be to way understate things. Anyway...
The effect in this image has been created using two techniques, one in camera and then one in Photoshop.
Firstly I took a four minute exposure up at Lindisfarne at sunset using the 10 stop ND filter (I have written a recent blog about the technique for using these filters, if you are interested - http://dougchinnery.blogspot.com/2009/03/long-exposures-for-fine-art-image.html).
Then I took the image into CS3 and used the blur filter (there are several to play with) and exagerated the long exposure effect. Simple really, but I like the effect.
A great benefit I am finding from the 10 stop ND filter is the way it extends my shooting time each day. Because it creates fine art images, which I often convert to black and white, they are less effect by the light. In fact, strong, contraty daylight can produce some of the best effects.
I am finding they are taking a lot of practise. I delete loads of images. Composition has to be very strong. But this is a challenge and I am really enjoying it. I wish I lived closer to the sea as long exposure images taken on the coast work brilliantly.
Anyway, if you have time, please check out my website at http://www.dougchinnery.co.uk/
The effect in this image has been created using two techniques, one in camera and then one in Photoshop.
Firstly I took a four minute exposure up at Lindisfarne at sunset using the 10 stop ND filter (I have written a recent blog about the technique for using these filters, if you are interested - http://dougchinnery.blogspot.com/2009/03/long-exposures-for-fine-art-image.html).
Then I took the image into CS3 and used the blur filter (there are several to play with) and exagerated the long exposure effect. Simple really, but I like the effect.
A great benefit I am finding from the 10 stop ND filter is the way it extends my shooting time each day. Because it creates fine art images, which I often convert to black and white, they are less effect by the light. In fact, strong, contraty daylight can produce some of the best effects.
I am finding they are taking a lot of practise. I delete loads of images. Composition has to be very strong. But this is a challenge and I am really enjoying it. I wish I lived closer to the sea as long exposure images taken on the coast work brilliantly.
Anyway, if you have time, please check out my website at http://www.dougchinnery.co.uk/
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Use Your Legs
I think of it as 'Lochan a Achalaise Syndrome'. This loch is in a stunning location beside the main road that runs towards Fort William just before you get to Glencoe. You can literally pull up at the side of the road, set your tripod up beside the car and shoot the lochan with the mountains beyond. Wonderful images, easy to get.
The same applies to many other iconic landscapes we see duplicated endlessly - even in my portfolio, I have to admit. Stob Dearg. Bamburgh Castle. Glen Etive.
Let's be clear. These landscape views are fabulous, wonderful views. But why do so many landscape photographers only take views that are within a few feet of the car park or roadside? And I am not talking about photographers with disability or the limitations of old age who can't get away from the car - certainly not. This rant is aimed at those of us who still can walk a bit.
Have we become so lazy that we try and convince ourselves that the only views worth shooting have a road running beside them?
Please, please, get some mud on your boots. Make your legs ache. Get out of breath. Take a walk into the hills, around the loch, along the beach and over the dunes, stride off into the woodland.
What you discover is that wonderful iconic views exist beyond the cars reach, and not only in the national parks but in the area where we live.
I have just got a dog. In the last month since getting him I have been taking him for longer and longer walks from our home and have discovered several really lovely scenes I am now waiting for the right light to capture. Just yesterday taking a path new to me through a woodland just a mile and a half from home I came across a winding path through a mass of crystal white wild garlic - breathtaking. I never would have found it from a car.
The image at the top of this page took an hours walk to find, through soaking wet woodland after a nights rain, on getting back to the car I was up to my knees in mud, panting for breath with aching legs but, boy, were the images worth it. The whole woodland to myself and the most stunning bluebell display of my life. I wouldn't have got it if I hadn't been prepared to lose sight of the car.
So, like me, by all means grab images of Stob Dearg and Bamburgh Castle - no landscape portfolio should be without those images. But I urge you to take a leap of faith and strike out with an Ordnance Survey map and discover views of your own. You never know, they may become iconic when others see what you have discovered. But even if they don't, you will have fresh images in your portfolio which draw people to your work as it stands out from the car bound photographers who can't bear to stagger more than a few feet from the tin box.
The same applies to many other iconic landscapes we see duplicated endlessly - even in my portfolio, I have to admit. Stob Dearg. Bamburgh Castle. Glen Etive.
Let's be clear. These landscape views are fabulous, wonderful views. But why do so many landscape photographers only take views that are within a few feet of the car park or roadside? And I am not talking about photographers with disability or the limitations of old age who can't get away from the car - certainly not. This rant is aimed at those of us who still can walk a bit.
Have we become so lazy that we try and convince ourselves that the only views worth shooting have a road running beside them?
Please, please, get some mud on your boots. Make your legs ache. Get out of breath. Take a walk into the hills, around the loch, along the beach and over the dunes, stride off into the woodland.
What you discover is that wonderful iconic views exist beyond the cars reach, and not only in the national parks but in the area where we live.
I have just got a dog. In the last month since getting him I have been taking him for longer and longer walks from our home and have discovered several really lovely scenes I am now waiting for the right light to capture. Just yesterday taking a path new to me through a woodland just a mile and a half from home I came across a winding path through a mass of crystal white wild garlic - breathtaking. I never would have found it from a car.
The image at the top of this page took an hours walk to find, through soaking wet woodland after a nights rain, on getting back to the car I was up to my knees in mud, panting for breath with aching legs but, boy, were the images worth it. The whole woodland to myself and the most stunning bluebell display of my life. I wouldn't have got it if I hadn't been prepared to lose sight of the car.
So, like me, by all means grab images of Stob Dearg and Bamburgh Castle - no landscape portfolio should be without those images. But I urge you to take a leap of faith and strike out with an Ordnance Survey map and discover views of your own. You never know, they may become iconic when others see what you have discovered. But even if they don't, you will have fresh images in your portfolio which draw people to your work as it stands out from the car bound photographers who can't bear to stagger more than a few feet from the tin box.
Friday, April 17, 2009
To delete or not to delete?
We all know the temptation... to rush home from the shoot and download those images to see if all the effort was worthwhile... have we got that killer image we hoped for?
As we look through what we have in the back of our mind is all we went through to get the shots. The rise before dawn, that long drive in the dark, the back breaking walk up the hill with all that kit that cost so much, the sweat and toil. At that moment so many images seem to have cost us so much that it is hard to delete any... so they linger on our hard drive.
The bracketed exposures, the power wound images rattled off at 7 frames a second all virtually identical. While the pain and effort in getting them is so fresh in our mind it is hard to delete any because of the personal cost.
Maybe in the days of film it was good that it took a week of two for our prints to come back from the developers. Those passing days allowed the effort and pain to diminish in our minds, the fog of time clouding our memories. So when we opened the folder and did that first flick through the prints or transparencies we had distance between us and the event. The stand out images did just that - STOOD OUT. The rubbish, the mediocre was more easily discarded.
The same is true with our digital images. I sometimes think it is best to edit our images some days or even weeks after the shoot when the distance between us and the event is sufficient for us to judge the merits of our work more dispassionately. To dump all the rubbish and the almost identical shots.
Of course, I can't do it. I know it makes sense, but I have to get on and process my favorite images as soon as I return. But what I do, do, is go back over my images about once a month and be a bit more discerning with what I actually keep and a bit more ruthless with what I delete.
What is the point of keeping hundreds of images a month no one will ever look at, that even we will never look at? The wise photographer only ever shows the world his very best.
Sure, some images have sentimental value. They may be of no real artistic merit, but the expression on our child's face that was captured, the funny moment, the antics of a pet or whatever do mean much to us (perhaps even more than that masterful landscape, in the big scheme of things) and so they must be kept because they record our lives and families.
I am talking about all the other stuff that is nearly good, but not quite, the stuff where the tripod head wasn't moved but we took several shots with varying exposures just to be sure - why keep it all?
Ikea said a few years ago - 'Chuck out the chintz'... perhaps we should apply the principle to our digital files... once the pain has subsided and the early start is just a distant memory.
As we look through what we have in the back of our mind is all we went through to get the shots. The rise before dawn, that long drive in the dark, the back breaking walk up the hill with all that kit that cost so much, the sweat and toil. At that moment so many images seem to have cost us so much that it is hard to delete any... so they linger on our hard drive.
The bracketed exposures, the power wound images rattled off at 7 frames a second all virtually identical. While the pain and effort in getting them is so fresh in our mind it is hard to delete any because of the personal cost.
Maybe in the days of film it was good that it took a week of two for our prints to come back from the developers. Those passing days allowed the effort and pain to diminish in our minds, the fog of time clouding our memories. So when we opened the folder and did that first flick through the prints or transparencies we had distance between us and the event. The stand out images did just that - STOOD OUT. The rubbish, the mediocre was more easily discarded.
The same is true with our digital images. I sometimes think it is best to edit our images some days or even weeks after the shoot when the distance between us and the event is sufficient for us to judge the merits of our work more dispassionately. To dump all the rubbish and the almost identical shots.
Of course, I can't do it. I know it makes sense, but I have to get on and process my favorite images as soon as I return. But what I do, do, is go back over my images about once a month and be a bit more discerning with what I actually keep and a bit more ruthless with what I delete.
What is the point of keeping hundreds of images a month no one will ever look at, that even we will never look at? The wise photographer only ever shows the world his very best.
Sure, some images have sentimental value. They may be of no real artistic merit, but the expression on our child's face that was captured, the funny moment, the antics of a pet or whatever do mean much to us (perhaps even more than that masterful landscape, in the big scheme of things) and so they must be kept because they record our lives and families.
I am talking about all the other stuff that is nearly good, but not quite, the stuff where the tripod head wasn't moved but we took several shots with varying exposures just to be sure - why keep it all?
Ikea said a few years ago - 'Chuck out the chintz'... perhaps we should apply the principle to our digital files... once the pain has subsided and the early start is just a distant memory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
