Just seen an interesting comment over at Darwin Wiggets blog - which is worth following, by the way.
He is doing a 'snap a day' - a shot taken with his G9 each day. Anyway, he has posted a shot of snow fall and comments that he took it at 125th of a second and that ths shutter speed 'records movement similar to the way the human eye sees movement'.
I have never heard this before and it intrigues me. What do you think? I will have to experiment as it is one of those useful bits of knowledge that if it is correct (and being Darwin, I am confident it is) could come in useful from time to time when shooting.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
What type of photographer am I?
I have found myself contemplating an answer to this question over the last couple of weeks.
You see, I have always described myself as primarily a landscape and nature photographer. Landscape photography is my first love, I would do it whether I got paid for it or not.
However, I also photograph people for portraits and weddings (as well as personal family images). I photograph things too. This year I have photographed, among other things, gas valves, cutlery, teapots and even wooden pallets - all for commercial customers. (If you want a challenge, try photographing pallets to make them look interesting!). All these things were photographed for customers, for money. If I hadn't been paid, I wouldn't have chosen to make images of them.
On Flickr I think I am known primarily as a landscape photographer. Most of my contacts have made me so because of my landscape images. Recently this had an effect on the interest shown on some of my uploads.
I had been preparing some macro images in readiness for a macro workshop I was conducting and so posted a few images of flowers. I wondered at that point if Flickr had broken down or if I had been sent to Coventry by my contacts. Comments dried up. Tumbleweed blew through my Flickrstream. The silence was deafening. I imagined people passing me in the street and looking back at me whispering to each other - 'that's him... he used to be a landscaper but now he takes pictures of...... flowers'.
I thought about this and realised it was because I was posting something different to what people usually saw from me. Some of the macro shots even had textures applied to them. Here I was, a landscaper, a man for goodness sake, posting flower pictures.... flower pictures with textures. Wasn' this just a bit 'girly'. Why was I betraying my roots in landscapes? What was wrong with me?
When I then posted a landscape again, I even got comments about it being good that 'normal service had been resumed'! As if the sickness had passed. That it was just an abberation, a phase.
This got me to thinking about what type of photographer we are. There are many contacts I have who I follow avidly on Flickr and most are landscapers. And that is my point. I have made them contacts because they are landscapers. They are superb photographers, yes. But they are landscapers and all they post, and I mean ALL they post are landscape images. Wider landscapers and intimate landscapes, but they only seem to use a camera out in the landscape. (they may well make other types of images, but they never post them).
It made me realise that although I have always described myself as a landscape photographer, in reality I am not. Most of my work is in the landscape but I take photographs of everything. People, places, machines, animals, plants, abstracts, landscapes. I photograph what catches my eye. I am trying to hone my ability to see light, rather than things or places and then to capture that light and its effect on what I am looking at.
I carry a G9 just for this purpose, so that I don't miss anything.
When I look at the work of other photographers I like to see photographs of anything. The key for me is, technical ability aside, for the image to move me in some way. To have an emotional impact, be that to admire a wonderful landscape in great light or to laugh at something humourous. To see age written into the wrinkles of a persons face or the textures in an old door. I like to see all types of photographs.
I don't think I could be devoted to just one form of photography, be it landscapes, black and white, abstracts, portraits or any other type. I wouldn't want to be devoted to making images of just one type myself either.
I know all the advice is, develop a style and reputation of your own and become known for it. The idea is to make your images stand out as different, so that when people look at your images they have a tell-tale signature look that screams out 'you'. I can see this point of view and it worries me a bit that I don't think I am going to achieve this. But on reflection I think it would worry me if I did get to this point.
I want to be able to hand hold my camera if I want to - not to be tied to the tripod as landscapers have to be. I want to use a Lensbaby to create abstract 'arty' images sometimes. I am toying with the idea of buying an old polaroid camera to play with that too. I want to shoot flowers and apply artistic textures. I want to have a bash at still life photography. I love working in mono and need to develop my skills in this area. I want to have a go at 'street photography' trying to capture Cartier Bressons 'decisive moment'. What I don't want is to be tied down to making just one type of image.I don't want to be known only for landscapes done in a certain style.
I want to be known as a photographer. I want to photograph what I want, when I want, in whatever style I want.
Maybe that will become my signature!
You see, I have always described myself as primarily a landscape and nature photographer. Landscape photography is my first love, I would do it whether I got paid for it or not.
However, I also photograph people for portraits and weddings (as well as personal family images). I photograph things too. This year I have photographed, among other things, gas valves, cutlery, teapots and even wooden pallets - all for commercial customers. (If you want a challenge, try photographing pallets to make them look interesting!). All these things were photographed for customers, for money. If I hadn't been paid, I wouldn't have chosen to make images of them.
On Flickr I think I am known primarily as a landscape photographer. Most of my contacts have made me so because of my landscape images. Recently this had an effect on the interest shown on some of my uploads.
I had been preparing some macro images in readiness for a macro workshop I was conducting and so posted a few images of flowers. I wondered at that point if Flickr had broken down or if I had been sent to Coventry by my contacts. Comments dried up. Tumbleweed blew through my Flickrstream. The silence was deafening. I imagined people passing me in the street and looking back at me whispering to each other - 'that's him... he used to be a landscaper but now he takes pictures of...... flowers'.
I thought about this and realised it was because I was posting something different to what people usually saw from me. Some of the macro shots even had textures applied to them. Here I was, a landscaper, a man for goodness sake, posting flower pictures.... flower pictures with textures. Wasn' this just a bit 'girly'. Why was I betraying my roots in landscapes? What was wrong with me?
When I then posted a landscape again, I even got comments about it being good that 'normal service had been resumed'! As if the sickness had passed. That it was just an abberation, a phase.
This got me to thinking about what type of photographer we are. There are many contacts I have who I follow avidly on Flickr and most are landscapers. And that is my point. I have made them contacts because they are landscapers. They are superb photographers, yes. But they are landscapers and all they post, and I mean ALL they post are landscape images. Wider landscapers and intimate landscapes, but they only seem to use a camera out in the landscape. (they may well make other types of images, but they never post them).
It made me realise that although I have always described myself as a landscape photographer, in reality I am not. Most of my work is in the landscape but I take photographs of everything. People, places, machines, animals, plants, abstracts, landscapes. I photograph what catches my eye. I am trying to hone my ability to see light, rather than things or places and then to capture that light and its effect on what I am looking at.
I carry a G9 just for this purpose, so that I don't miss anything.
When I look at the work of other photographers I like to see photographs of anything. The key for me is, technical ability aside, for the image to move me in some way. To have an emotional impact, be that to admire a wonderful landscape in great light or to laugh at something humourous. To see age written into the wrinkles of a persons face or the textures in an old door. I like to see all types of photographs.
I don't think I could be devoted to just one form of photography, be it landscapes, black and white, abstracts, portraits or any other type. I wouldn't want to be devoted to making images of just one type myself either.
I know all the advice is, develop a style and reputation of your own and become known for it. The idea is to make your images stand out as different, so that when people look at your images they have a tell-tale signature look that screams out 'you'. I can see this point of view and it worries me a bit that I don't think I am going to achieve this. But on reflection I think it would worry me if I did get to this point.
I want to be able to hand hold my camera if I want to - not to be tied to the tripod as landscapers have to be. I want to use a Lensbaby to create abstract 'arty' images sometimes. I am toying with the idea of buying an old polaroid camera to play with that too. I want to shoot flowers and apply artistic textures. I want to have a bash at still life photography. I love working in mono and need to develop my skills in this area. I want to have a go at 'street photography' trying to capture Cartier Bressons 'decisive moment'. What I don't want is to be tied down to making just one type of image.I don't want to be known only for landscapes done in a certain style.
I want to be known as a photographer. I want to photograph what I want, when I want, in whatever style I want.
Maybe that will become my signature!
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
How do I create a watermark on my photos?
I was asked this on the macro workshop I was instructing yesterday and when I went to demonstrate to the students I couldn't remember one of the steps in the process (bit embarrassing!). So I thought I would put it in a blog post for all to use.
Watermarking your images is not a foolproof way to stop people using them without your permission. Some will ignore it and use it anyway. Others will spend a few minutes in Photoshop and remove it - with basic cloning skills it is usually not hard to do.
What watermarking your pictures does do is put off some who would steal your images and just emphasizes that it is against your wishes.
More effective is converting the image to 72ppi and reducing the size to say 1000 pixels on the longest side before uploading them. This makes the image unusable in any printed form. It will still display perfectly on a screen as these work at 72ppi - but printing will be useless.
Anyway, on with the tutorial. There are two ways of doing this - by creating an Action or by making a Copyright brush. I tend to use the brush method.
1. In Photoshop or Elements create a new blank document. (click file, new). This should put a blank white page in front of you.
2. Next create a new blank layer (click the create new layer icon at the bottom of the layers palette - I think it is at the top of the palette in Elements).
3. Select the Type tool to type your text - in my case I would then select a font and font size and type - Copyright 2010 © Doug Chinnery - (you can hold down the Alt key and type 0169 on the number keypad and this will inset the copyright symbol automatically)
4. When you are happy with it select the Rectangular Marquee tool by pressing the M key and drag a rectangle around your line of text.
5. Then go into the Edit menu and select 'define brush preset'. When the dialog box opens give your brush a name (not a name like 'Dave' or 'Debbie' but call it Copyright Brush for example.) Then click OK.
6. Now in your brush presets drop down box you will find your copyright brush at the bottom of the grid. It will looked all squashed up but don't worry, it will display correctly when you use it.
7. To use it, open a photo you want to copyright and add a new blank layer to it.
8. Select either white or black as your foreground colour - press D to set black and white as the foreground and background colours then press the X key to swap them if necessary. I use white mostly unless the image is very bright so white won't stand out, then I use black.
9. Press B to get the brush tool selected and up on the options bar drop down the brush toolbox and click on your copyright tool brush at the very end of the set.
10. Use the [ or ] keys to make the brush bigger or smaller
11. Click on your image where you want the copyright info to be.
12. The in the layers palette on the blank layer with your copyright brush info use the opacity slider to adjust how the strong the brush is - you can really fade it out so it isn't distracting or have it more prominent if you prefer.
13. When you are happy, flatten the image.
14. Remember to save the file with a different name so it doesn't overwrite your master file - otherwise your original file will have your copyright info plastered across it - not good if you want to print it and hand it on your wall!!
I hope this info is helpful?
If you prefer to use Actions then record the above being done but instead of creating a new document just put a blank layer on a photo, type your copyright info, and set the opacity, flatten the image and then stop the action recording. Then it is just a case of running the action on future images - the only problem with this is that it will put the copyright info in the same place and at the same opacity on every image and sometimes this doesn't look right., but the choice is yours.
Watermarking your images is not a foolproof way to stop people using them without your permission. Some will ignore it and use it anyway. Others will spend a few minutes in Photoshop and remove it - with basic cloning skills it is usually not hard to do.
What watermarking your pictures does do is put off some who would steal your images and just emphasizes that it is against your wishes.
More effective is converting the image to 72ppi and reducing the size to say 1000 pixels on the longest side before uploading them. This makes the image unusable in any printed form. It will still display perfectly on a screen as these work at 72ppi - but printing will be useless.
Anyway, on with the tutorial. There are two ways of doing this - by creating an Action or by making a Copyright brush. I tend to use the brush method.
1. In Photoshop or Elements create a new blank document. (click file, new). This should put a blank white page in front of you.
2. Next create a new blank layer (click the create new layer icon at the bottom of the layers palette - I think it is at the top of the palette in Elements).
3. Select the Type tool to type your text - in my case I would then select a font and font size and type - Copyright 2010 © Doug Chinnery - (you can hold down the Alt key and type 0169 on the number keypad and this will inset the copyright symbol automatically)
4. When you are happy with it select the Rectangular Marquee tool by pressing the M key and drag a rectangle around your line of text.
5. Then go into the Edit menu and select 'define brush preset'. When the dialog box opens give your brush a name (not a name like 'Dave' or 'Debbie' but call it Copyright Brush for example.) Then click OK.
6. Now in your brush presets drop down box you will find your copyright brush at the bottom of the grid. It will looked all squashed up but don't worry, it will display correctly when you use it.
7. To use it, open a photo you want to copyright and add a new blank layer to it.
8. Select either white or black as your foreground colour - press D to set black and white as the foreground and background colours then press the X key to swap them if necessary. I use white mostly unless the image is very bright so white won't stand out, then I use black.
9. Press B to get the brush tool selected and up on the options bar drop down the brush toolbox and click on your copyright tool brush at the very end of the set.
10. Use the [ or ] keys to make the brush bigger or smaller
11. Click on your image where you want the copyright info to be.
12. The in the layers palette on the blank layer with your copyright brush info use the opacity slider to adjust how the strong the brush is - you can really fade it out so it isn't distracting or have it more prominent if you prefer.
13. When you are happy, flatten the image.
14. Remember to save the file with a different name so it doesn't overwrite your master file - otherwise your original file will have your copyright info plastered across it - not good if you want to print it and hand it on your wall!!
I hope this info is helpful?
If you prefer to use Actions then record the above being done but instead of creating a new document just put a blank layer on a photo, type your copyright info, and set the opacity, flatten the image and then stop the action recording. Then it is just a case of running the action on future images - the only problem with this is that it will put the copyright info in the same place and at the same opacity on every image and sometimes this doesn't look right., but the choice is yours.
Friday, November 27, 2009
New photography workshop dates soon to be announced
Just a quick 'heads up' that I am soon to announce a set of new dates for various photography workshops.
Themes will include
Workshops are then announced at my workshops website at http://www.dougchinnery.wordpress.com/ and at my website at http://www.dougchinnery.co.uk/
My aim is for my workshops to be enjoyable and informative. I aim to answer your questions at a level and pace that suits you, no matter what your level of photography experience. I want the workshops to be fun, relaxing and for people of all ages and abilities. I also want them to be very affordable.
I hope you can join me on one soon.
Themes will include
- Landscapes - in the Peak District
- Landscapes - Clumber Park, Nottinghamshire
- Seascapes - North Yorkshire coast followed by some landscape work on the North Yorkshire Moors
- Basic Photoshop and Lightroom skills
- Macro Photography masterclass
- Possibly a macro/wildlife workshop at a Butterfly farm
- Workflow Workshop
- How to start making money from your photography workshop
Workshops are then announced at my workshops website at http://www.dougchinnery.wordpress.com/ and at my website at http://www.dougchinnery.co.uk/
My aim is for my workshops to be enjoyable and informative. I aim to answer your questions at a level and pace that suits you, no matter what your level of photography experience. I want the workshops to be fun, relaxing and for people of all ages and abilities. I also want them to be very affordable.
I aim for you to go home having learned things that will take your photography to another level and that you will have some images from the day to be truly proud of.
I hope you can join me on one soon.
Update on the big focus issue
If you have read my blog post from earlier today (see below) you may be interested in Tim Parkins comment to the post.
There he gives a link to a Wikipedia article describing what David Noton was on about - it has a name - 'Parfocal Lenses' - lenses that hold their focus on a point even though they are then zoomed to change the framing. I recommend you have a read.
He also gives a link to a page that lists the Canon lenses that have this ability. I am chuffed to say that all of my 'L' range lenses are on the list of those which are Parfocal.
More importantly perhaps, this paragraph of David Notons has made me realise the benefit in the quest for ultimate image sharpness of paying attention to and using the Hyperfocal distance to my advantage - namely, to be able to use a wider aperture than f16 for landscapes to improve sharpness while still achieving maximum front to back depth of field.
There he gives a link to a Wikipedia article describing what David Noton was on about - it has a name - 'Parfocal Lenses' - lenses that hold their focus on a point even though they are then zoomed to change the framing. I recommend you have a read.
He also gives a link to a page that lists the Canon lenses that have this ability. I am chuffed to say that all of my 'L' range lenses are on the list of those which are Parfocal.
More importantly perhaps, this paragraph of David Notons has made me realise the benefit in the quest for ultimate image sharpness of paying attention to and using the Hyperfocal distance to my advantage - namely, to be able to use a wider aperture than f16 for landscapes to improve sharpness while still achieving maximum front to back depth of field.
Focusing revelation
I have just read David Notons latest posting on his website (www.davidnoton.com). It has put me in a right state, I can tell you.
He has a chat about focusing and in particular, using the hyperfocal distance.
Basically, and simply put, if you focus your lens a certain distance away from you at a given aperture and focal lenght then everything from half that distance from you to infinity will be in sharp focus - very handy for landscapers.
It all gets a bit tricky as you need to know the hyperfocal distance for your lens at a given focal length and aperture to use it - meaning you need a wad of tables with all the info on or, as used to be the case on prime lenses, a hyperfocal scale on the lens itself. Modern zoom lenses don't have these scales, nor do Canon primes (although I think Nikon primes stoll do).
Now, as a basic rule of thumb, I set my landscape lens to f16 for good depth of field and focus a third of the way into the scene and this roughly equates to the hyperfocal distance. However, I know that my wide angle lens is actually sharper at f11 than f16, but I use f16 just to give me a greater margin for error. If I could tell for certain where the hyperfocal distance was at f11 easily in the field, I could get perfect depth of field and greater sharpness by using f11. (I shy away from f22 because the lens gets even softer at that end of the aperture scale.
Now, Mr. Noton, knows a lot more about the hyperfocal distance of his lenses than I do and in the image he was talking about he knew it for the focal length (28mm from memory) at f11 on his lens and it met his needs - it kept a foreground fallen tree trunk in sharp focus right up to infinity (the mountains in Canada he was shooting. So he got the nest of both worlds - perfect depth of field and the extra sharpness of using f11 over f16.
Then came the bombshell (you wondered when I was going to get to it, didn't you?).
He says he zoomed in to the scene to a branch on the tree trunk at the hyperfocal distance (just under two meters from him) and manually focused on it...... then...... wait for it........ zoomed back out to frame the shot without touching the focus wheel and took the shot.
Freeze. No body move.
He zoomed in and focused, then zoomed out and didn't re-focus - he just took the shot.
This is something I have never heard of before... and trust me I have read thousands of magazine articles, dozens of books and heaps of blogs by superb photographers and no one has even hinted at this technique.
Here I am, stuck indoors working and how am I supposed to concentrate?
So does anyone know, does this work? Am I the only photographer who doesn't know about it? Is it such a basic thing to all of you out there that writers don't even bother to mention it when writing about technique? Is everyone laughing at me as I stand behnd my tripod as they use this technique and giggle away because I am the only one on the planet who doesn't know about it?
I have always assumed that if you focus, then adjust the framing of the shot by zooming in or out that you have to then re-focus? I have read Davids words carefully and he certainly seems to be saying this isn't the case. That if you zoom in on an object at the hyperfocal distance from the camera at your aperture so you can see it large in your zoom lens and focus on it carefully, you can then zoom out to frame the shot as you want it and take it without re-focusing and the focus will be correct. Much the same as someone with live view on a camera can zoom in on their rear screen to check focus - buut in this case actually zooming the lens.
I await any views/intelligence/information you have on the subject because if it is right, I need to start doing it right now!
Okay, so where did I put those hyperfocal distance tables.....
He has a chat about focusing and in particular, using the hyperfocal distance.
Basically, and simply put, if you focus your lens a certain distance away from you at a given aperture and focal lenght then everything from half that distance from you to infinity will be in sharp focus - very handy for landscapers.
It all gets a bit tricky as you need to know the hyperfocal distance for your lens at a given focal length and aperture to use it - meaning you need a wad of tables with all the info on or, as used to be the case on prime lenses, a hyperfocal scale on the lens itself. Modern zoom lenses don't have these scales, nor do Canon primes (although I think Nikon primes stoll do).
Now, as a basic rule of thumb, I set my landscape lens to f16 for good depth of field and focus a third of the way into the scene and this roughly equates to the hyperfocal distance. However, I know that my wide angle lens is actually sharper at f11 than f16, but I use f16 just to give me a greater margin for error. If I could tell for certain where the hyperfocal distance was at f11 easily in the field, I could get perfect depth of field and greater sharpness by using f11. (I shy away from f22 because the lens gets even softer at that end of the aperture scale.
Now, Mr. Noton, knows a lot more about the hyperfocal distance of his lenses than I do and in the image he was talking about he knew it for the focal length (28mm from memory) at f11 on his lens and it met his needs - it kept a foreground fallen tree trunk in sharp focus right up to infinity (the mountains in Canada he was shooting. So he got the nest of both worlds - perfect depth of field and the extra sharpness of using f11 over f16.
Then came the bombshell (you wondered when I was going to get to it, didn't you?).
He says he zoomed in to the scene to a branch on the tree trunk at the hyperfocal distance (just under two meters from him) and manually focused on it...... then...... wait for it........ zoomed back out to frame the shot without touching the focus wheel and took the shot.
Freeze. No body move.
He zoomed in and focused, then zoomed out and didn't re-focus - he just took the shot.
This is something I have never heard of before... and trust me I have read thousands of magazine articles, dozens of books and heaps of blogs by superb photographers and no one has even hinted at this technique.
Here I am, stuck indoors working and how am I supposed to concentrate?
So does anyone know, does this work? Am I the only photographer who doesn't know about it? Is it such a basic thing to all of you out there that writers don't even bother to mention it when writing about technique? Is everyone laughing at me as I stand behnd my tripod as they use this technique and giggle away because I am the only one on the planet who doesn't know about it?
I have always assumed that if you focus, then adjust the framing of the shot by zooming in or out that you have to then re-focus? I have read Davids words carefully and he certainly seems to be saying this isn't the case. That if you zoom in on an object at the hyperfocal distance from the camera at your aperture so you can see it large in your zoom lens and focus on it carefully, you can then zoom out to frame the shot as you want it and take it without re-focusing and the focus will be correct. Much the same as someone with live view on a camera can zoom in on their rear screen to check focus - buut in this case actually zooming the lens.
I await any views/intelligence/information you have on the subject because if it is right, I need to start doing it right now!
Okay, so where did I put those hyperfocal distance tables.....
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Burnham Lighthouse
Well, this is the result of my early start this morning - please read my post lower down the page.
This was one of those times it was worth getting up early and driving through the night - probably the pinkest dawn I have ever witnessed.
Stan enjoyed running with all the dogs on the beach too, especially as it was blowing a gale - the wind excites him.
If you would like to join one of my landscape workshops please take a look at the schedule and prices at http://www.dougchinnery.wordpress.com/
This was one of those times it was worth getting up early and driving through the night - probably the pinkest dawn I have ever witnessed.
Stan enjoyed running with all the dogs on the beach too, especially as it was blowing a gale - the wind excites him.
If you would like to join one of my landscape workshops please take a look at the schedule and prices at http://www.dougchinnery.wordpress.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
