More light than right.

I just took this as part of my experiments with that f/1.8 50mm lens I mentioned.

I set this up in a dark room with my trusty desk lamp lighting system and the hot shoe flash pointed towards the ceiling.

(1/160, f/1.8, aperture priority, focal length - 50mm, ISO - 200, 17/10/07 19:47)

To my mind, it’s another one of ‘those’ pictures I take that is close but still just mweh. In this case I think the reflection of the flash on the top of the globe ruins it. But, having tried this a couple of times (OK 30, you know me….) I’m still not sure how to get enough light onto the subject to give it that ‘live’ feeling without ending up being able to see my kitchen in the reflections and a dubious great flash spot to boot.

I guess making use of a proper blacked out environment would help keep the reflections in the globe down, but how do you get direct light onto something for shadows without ending up with that sort of flash feedback effect?

Peeping Tigger

Bouncy bouncy bouncy bouncy

Fun fun fun fun fun

The most wonderful thing about Tigger is!!!!!!!!!!!

  I’m the only one!

I’ve been given the opportunity to play with a 50mm f/1.8 lens (this one), so expect some fun and games with it over the next few days.

Last night I only got 5 minutes with it, but while messing about I discovered I could peep into Tiggers house and see what he was up to. What did I find? Yup, he seems to be peeping on someone else.

Bad Tigger.

The image itself is quite noisy because the camera was on ISO 800. (Not because I’d planned it, but because I forgot to change it from some disastrous night shots I’d taken earlier in the week). That said, I thought it was an OK example of the crazy depth of field possible on this lens. More will follow!

And remember, it’s Tigger spealt…

 T, i, double g, errrrrrrr

If you go down to the woods today

You can be sure of a big surprise.

Yup, that’s right. I might be hiding in the trees with a camera….

erm….

anyway….

Not so much the woods, but the local park for this shot. I remember these trees as a kid. They were young and vigorous and the path between them was neatly mowed and just pretty. I decided a few weeks back I’d go and get a snap to see how they were doing now.

Boy, what a change. I kinda like the slightly more sinister look they’re going for these days.

(1/60, f/4.5, aperture priority, focal length - 18mm, ISO - 400, 05/10/07 17:49)

The only change from the original image was a slight bit of cloning to remove a set of goalposts and some bloke playing football. You’d probably need to see the original (full size) image to make him out, in the smaller (webbed up) versions it was just noise, so I deleted him. Yes, I am a cruel master.

A rose by any other name…

…would be called something else.

A good weekends snapping this weekend. I took maybe 80 - 100 pictures. I have maybe 3 I’ll post. Dear lord I’m glad I’m not paying for developing!

I spent Friday afternoon in the park with the nipper and got some nice shots of her and my missus on the swings (the child was on the swing, not the missus. She made me tell you that bit). These need a little post processing so expect them later in the week.

Yeah, post processing. How about that huh? Whats to say. I think it’s growing on me as much as the actual photo bit. Even slight changes to an image make amazing differences to the finished product. I’m still undecided if it’s cheating.

Anyway…

This rose bloomed in my back garden over the weekend, now anyone that’s seen my back garden will know that it’s probably as conductive to flowers as the central reactor in Chernobyl. Which just goes to prove that (to quote the guy from Jurassic Park) “Life will find a way”

The image has been cropped in to show just the flower and then I used a similar process of the dice to reduce the brightness of the background while keeping the rose bright.

(1/200, f/3.5, aperture priority, focal length - 24mm, ISO - 400, 07/10/07 13:10)

The only other change to the natural state of the rose (apart from some leaf pruning which doesn’t count, does it?) was some gratuitous effect modeling. Yup, that’s right, next stop Digital Light and Magic for me.

I used my latest toy (supplied by the repository of junk known as the cupboard under the sink) to add water to the flower. It was high tech as you’d expect…

Starting out in photography? I recommend a camera, a lens, a water spray.

Bring Out The Gimp…

What?! Oh come on, you mean to tell me that you didn’t see me sneaking that line in somewhere the first chance I got?

You people give me way too much credit.

At the end of my dice snapping frenzy I got to playing with the pictures in Gimp, particularly this one:

I’d intended to make the picture black and white to see if it looked pretty, but ended up playing with the ‘Colour Levels’ widget.  Now I’m sure there is a technical explanation for what the widget does, but to my eyes it makes dark areas darker, bright areas brighter and the bit in the middle brighter or darker as required. Hold on, a random website says this:

 ’The Level tool provides features similar to the Histogram tool but can also change the intensity range of the active layer or selection’

I ended up with this:

Now I like this. I think the background feels richer the colours a little more intense.

It’s still not black and white though.

So, out of desperation (where is the magic make my button black and white), I used Google and I ended up finding a tutorial to help me do this:

Now I really like this.

OK, the edging around the dice (OK die you pedant. No, not as in cease to live more as in singular of dice)  isn’t as neat as it could b, but I was up against it time wise and this was less than 10 minutes work all in.

I could pretend like I spent hours working all this out in Gimp, or reproduce the tutorial and claim kudos for something I didn’t do, but I’m not into that (and I might get caught), so here it is….

Selective Colorization

So, whatcha think?

Dicing with, well dice actually.

OK, this was a bit quicker than I’d planned but last night saw me with some time on my hands and a sudden need to not be near my computer. So, inspired by the table lamp that I tripped over I decided to try the first of the projects I mentioned the other day.

First things first, I don’t have a studio or any sort of fancy environment so I needed to do a lot of improvisation here. The background on the following shots is a black t-shirt draped over an old shower box. It kind of gave me the effect I wanted so yea me.

I think it was Stuart who wanted to see more pictures, and since last night was about learning I’m going to try and walk through the stages I went through while taking the snaps.

Oh, before we get into this. Given my history, I feel it’s important to point out that none of these shots have been post processed in any way. No cropping, no contrast/brightness, no picasa. The only difference between these shots and the ones I have are to reduce the overall image size to make them more viewable on the web.

The Setup…

In one of my other lives I’m a role-player. Yes, the sort of person even nerds point at and snigger. Enough already. Get over it. Stop sniggering. No, I don’t dress up as an elf or a gnome and no, I don’t own a copy of the Necronomicon (anymore). What I do own is a bag of dice. Dice of many colours and shade, dice of doom some would say having seen my luck with them.

there were a bundle sitting below my monitor for a few weeks and I thought the colours looked quite nice. It was these that drove me to try this out.

So, using my improvised setup described above (this is going to be all over the place today isn’t it?) I put the camera on the tripod and took this shot.

(1/60, f/4.5, aperture priority, focal length - 34mm, ISO - 400, 02/10/07 20:23)

Here the room lights were on, the camera was left on the settings I’d last used and I just pushed the button. The results are very bright, very boring and just mweh.

So, I moved on a little

The next shot I zoomed in a little on the dice and increased the aperture(probably cause the camera made me).

(1/60, f/5.6, aperture priority, focal length - 55mm, ISO - 400, 02/10/07 20:24)

Still crud. No really. No need to be nice. The background is a little better, the dice a little brighter maybe. But still crud.

I decided to try playing with the little desk light I’d found. I pointed it onto the dice from an angle of about 40 degrees to see what effect it had. I also turned off the house lights and dropped the ISO level (because I remembered it was set high) at this point

(2s, f/5.6, aperture priority, focal length - 55mm, ISO - 100, 02/10/07 20:25)

Getting better. the gem dice were beginning to take on a life of their own and the shadows looked cool.

I adjusted the light to see if I could pull the shadows further. In the next shot the desk light is at about 10 degrees, giving light across the dice.

(Oh, this ones a little blurred for some reason)

(5s, f/5.6, aperture priority, focal length - 55mm, ISO - 100, 02/10/07 20:27)

I played around with this position for a while, but was really uninspired by the output. the solid dice and the colours were just nothing great. I also didn’t like that I was at full zoom(?) with my 18-55 lens and was still sitting quite far out. I didn’t want to start moving the tripod, so…

I changed the lens.

Using my Tamron 55-200 I took the following shot.

(1.6s, f/5.0, aperture priority, focal length - 171mm, ISO - 100, 02/10/07 20:36)

I liked this a lot. The low depth of field on the dice and the reflections and shadows were impressive (or so I think).

So, pushing my luck…

(6s, f/10, aperture priority, focal length - 200mm, ISO - 100, 02/10/07 20:36)

Increasing the depth of field (big number = little hole (see I remembered!)) and suddenly it gets real pretty (at least to my eyes).

So, pushing my luck further….

(20s, f/18, aperture priority, focal length - 200mm, ISO - 100, 02/10/07 20:37)

I think this has gone off the boil. The background has started to get quite washed out again and the warmth of the previous image (which I pray I didn’t touch up in Picasa - I’m sure of it. But I will double check tonight).

So, tell me what you think. And be gentle, I really like the penultimate image. I think it’s one of the best I’ve taken to date.

No flies on me…

So this weekend I discovered the joys of Auto Focus and Manual Focus.

I’d noticed a spiders web outside on my trailer* and thought it looked quite pretty with the rain droplets thing.

So out I go with the camera and start trying to get a snap…

(No idea Pinky. I seem to have lost the settings. I’ll get them later)

OK, just so we’re all on the same page here. No you can’t see a spiders web. Seems the AF on the camera decides the spiders web isn’t worth focusing on and instead picks something behind it. In my case it’s the junk mound that is my back garden.

So, in an attempt to correct this I discovered MF** or “manual focus”.

(yes, there should be technobabble here too. My world has deserted me…)

OK, I know there are flies on it, and so technically the title of this blog entry isn’t correct. I also know the manual focus isn’t “technically” in focus, but I actually think that’s more to do with the Aperture I was using than my inability to see.

The AF photo hasn’t been toughed in any way save getting made a little smaller in file size. The MF photo has had the usual plethora of Picasa “I’m Feeling Lucky” done to it. I really need to work out what that crap is myself.

* Yes, I own a trailer. I bought it in a moment of madness in reaction to finding out I was going to be a Daddy. I needed to invest in a “man thing”. There’s something manly about reversing a trailer. Something that lets you look into the eyes of those big rig drivers and share the nuances, the skill, of backing up with a load on (so to speak). Course, I’ve only been told this - I have problems going forwards with the trailer on…

** Last night while uploading the photos and discovering they were out of focus or the focal range was too short, I discovered MF also stands for “Mother F***er”…

There be dragons…

I’ve always had a thing for dragons. not those poncy “I can talk and I can do magic” nonsense dragons, but for the flame spouting, knight chomping, damsel distressing dragons certain patron saints got off having a go at.

So, needless to say the 20″ high dragon that has prize of place on my window ledge at home was always going to get a look in here.

(1/25, f/5, metering - matrix, focal length - 171mm, 13/09/07 18:43, ISO - 400)

This picture was taken using the external flash gun thing that came with my camera kit. The flash was adjusted to bounce off the (white) ceiling and diffused slightly. The colour range of the photo was then tweaked in GIMP (I’d tell you the exact changes, but to be honest I was messing about and suddenly stopped and went “Woah!”*)

When you look at the picture you’ll probably see a lot of shadow or something (Shake?) to the right side of the dragon. Not sure what caused it. To be honest only noticed it as I was putting the picture up.

I’ll try to find out what I changed in GIMP. I’ll also be back to take more photo’s of the beast.

One other thing of note with this shot. In order to try to get more light through the camera I upped the ISO from it’s default 100 to a rather sturdy 400. This helped reduce a lot of shake that I was getting (course, I could have just got out the tripod).

*Whilst many people have noted that Keanu Reeves and myself have a lot in common in terms of looks and snazzy ‘Point Break’ style lingo, I prefer to consider myself more in keeping with his “Ted” days. That and we look, sound and probably weigh nothing alike.

Polarizing lenses…. I’m undecided

First. Sorry for the long radio silence. I took a few weeks off work, and spent them doing duck all. No, really. I demolished some stuff, I played some games I even slept a little. But the one thing I wanted to do was snap and the one thing I didn’t do was snap.

Except for one day in Donegal (Nope, still not being sponsored by the Donegal Tourist Board!).

It was kind of a family weekend, so a lot of family shots, which means you won’t see ‘em here - sorry.

That said…..

I own a polarizing lens. So I took it out to take this shot. Here’s kind of a before and after (or my attempt at one).

Ignore the digger. It was a picture I took for my mother in law as she’s about to lose this view in favour of someones house. (Remember what I said about over population in Donegal?).

I don’t think I was using the polarizing lens quite right. The left hand side of the sky looks great, but it fades out as you move right.  If you’ve an idea where I’m going wrong, let me know!

… On a jet plane…

“I’m leaving,

    on a jet plane…”

Actually more like they’re arriving on a jet plane, but still…

(1/320, f/11, metering - matrix, focal length - 55.0mm, 19/08/07 13:03)

This turned out much more sinister than I’d planned. I liked the sight of the plane escaping the clouds, the silhouette was just an added bonus.

I’d thrown the camera in the boot of the car because we were out with the “new shoes” and ended up at my brothers house. He’s a fantastic view from his back garden and I’d snuck out to take a few shots. The airplane shot turned out much better than any of the landscape ones.

The original was a lot more wishy washy than this, but I felt this looked much better. Comments, as always, are welcome!

The plane is on final approach to Belfast International.

Welcome to Northern Ireland.