Adventures with Tripods

Some of you know that I strongly dislike tripods. I have always considered them huge and unwieldy.

Ever since I dipped a toe into the world of stock photography, I've been much more concerned about ensuring my work is suitable for actual licensing and use. The higher the resolution and the larger the file, the better. However, because of motion blur issues, the larger the picture, the less likely that it would be usable in such a context. The slightest blur is totally magnified when blown up to 100%.

So, for the work I like (butterflies), I've decided to break out my tripod and see if I could really see an improvement. I went on a shoot last week, and here are some good examples:





Observations:

1) Get to know the tripod before taking it anywhere. I had to wrestle with it a few times, even after I'd worked with it at home.

2) Butterflies move. A tripod won't solve that problem. However, there's no denying that all of these pictures are far more crisp, clear, and pretty than most that I took as recently as last month. The results do speak for themselves.

3) Tripods are not permitted everywhere. I had to use mine as a monopod, but I still got great results.

Settings and general advice: Auto white balance, ISO 200-400, and lots of experimentation with f-stops, ranging from 3.x to around 6.x. Keep in mind that the higher the f-stop, the more vulnerable you can be to motion blur. It's for this reason that the tripod helped me the most. Play with angles and move around - that's especially important here. Create shapes - the above are good examples. Above all, be patient. Keep trying.

Speaking of which, my next photo shoot will be at a place where I probably won't be able to use my tripod. I'm going back to Hillwood!.

Next time - today's butterfly photo shoot - I had to go back!

Butterflies!

Ten days ago, I bought a season pass to Brookside Gardens. I knew I'd need it. Sure enough, I went out there twice during Labor Day weekend. The first time was my dress rehearsal. I hadn't shot butterflies in around nine months, and frankly, I felt out of practice. I took around 100 pictures, but only six made the cut.

I went back the next day, and took 900 pictures. 66 made the cut. Here are my favorite ones:





So why such a low success rate? A few reasons:

1) I experimented with various depths of field - and took multiple takes per group of shots. This is because I wanted to increase the odds that at least ONE picture would turn out well. The highest f-stop I used, by the way, was right around 6. Any higher made me too vulnerable to camera shake.

2) Some of these butterflies moved around a LOT, especially the ones that were mating, or almost mating. Those required a great deal of trial and error.

3) Experimentation with angles. If you click on one of these, you'll see the other pictures on my Flickr page. I definitely tried as many angles and views as I could.

Some tips that worked for me:

1) Don't use the lowest ISO. I set mine to around 400.

2) Play with both shutter speeds and f-stops. Don't be afraid to make mistakes. The butterflies will still be there.

3) If you can, go when the sun isn't too strong. Two benefits: You won't melt (it's hot in these environments), and you won't have to deal with strange exposures, like with this picture:



This is okay and all, but the ones I took this time around are much, much better.

Also, try for a background that isn't too busy. Simple is best.

It was a highly successful shoot. Next time, when I go, I'm going to try for even more monochromatic backgrounds. I may also bump up the ISO to 800 and see if that helps me.

Next time - the NCCF charity auction and the work I saw. How did mine compare?

Part 3 - My Stock Photography Options

It's a new day, and a new stock photography site to evaluate. Today's choice? iStockphoto.com.

When I started reading the terms and conditions, I admit I was a little frightened. They are pages and pages (and pages and pages) long, or so it seemed. After calming down and taking a closer look, I realized that this site was simply more thorough than some of the other sites. This is not a bad thing.

On to the content:

1) Keyword "orchid": While most of the backgrounds are black or white, there are several multicolored backgrounds. There's potential here, but some of these arrangements are very "editorial", if that makes sense. Also, there isn't much experimentation regarding depth of field (where some flowers would appear sharp and in the foreground, while others are more blurred and in the background). I would likely prefer to go out and shoot new content before submitting any orchid shots to this website, except for:



2) Butterfly - Many of these shots are what I would classify as "cutesy". Some of my newer pictures could work here, including:



3) Abstract - not a fit at all.

4) Nature - I think my work is a little too "soft" for this category. So, I tried "flowers". Yeah, not so much, either.

5) Travel - Most definitely not.

Not willing to give up so easily, I flipped through some of the other categories. Architecture abstract? Maybe. Churches? Quite possible, something like this:



I didn't see any pictures like this at all. So, there's a chance there.

Overall, though, this was about a below average fit for me. I'd have to think about it.

Tomorrow - Shutterstock - did I save the best for last?

Dress Rehearsals

Today, I was thinking about spring and all of my plans - butterfly shots, the National Arboretum, and anything else that might be outside. Then I thought, gosh, I should stop off at the Natural History Museum again for some practice.

A practice shoot? Why would I want to do that?

Let's back up a few years. I went to Syria in 2007 and in 2010. Here are some great 2010 shots:







Compare them to these 2007 shots:



Clearly, the first set is much nicer. After I thought about it, it's because the 2007 trip was practice.

So, with that in mind, I need to practice my butterfly shots. The Natural History Museum has an indoor exhibit where I can do that. That way, when Brookside Gardens opens, I can take pictures that are even better than these pictures (from there) that I took last year:



What practice do I need?

1) Composition

2) Focus/clarity

3) Color

The Wings of Fancy exhibit doesn't open until the end of April. I'll need to practice at least once (or twice), but then I'll be ready. I can't wait! Till Monday!

Statistics - Do They Lie?

One of my favorite books is How to Lie with Statistics. It goes into specific examples on how statistics can be displayed and interpreted in many different ways, depending on the message that a person wants to convey.

Common sense, right? But, this is a photography blog. Why am I discussing statistics? Can't I come up with something less nerdy?

Because I can't make any sense of the ones I've encountered lately.

Consider the following:

1) According to an organization called PMAI, an organization which supports the imaging industry (among other things), "30% of photo enthusiasts spend less than one hour a week on photo sites such as Flickr". "5% spend about ten hours a week." So, am I not marketing properly? I think I am - my Facebook statistics are actually pretty healthy. I spend around 30 minutes daily.

2) My Facebook page stats are even more confusing to me. They're terrific, but they don't correlate to my blog post views, which is linked to my page. It's sad that I had to go to YouTube to understand what my page statistics even meant. It shouldn't be this complicated.

If I were to take these two points literally, it would have sad implications for my blog. I love my blog. It makes me happy!

Now, this is a huge leap, but this reminds me of a conversation I had with a coworker today. Our jobs are very numbers driven (revenue, etc.). My coworker and I were brainstorming about ideas that would allow us to continue to focus on our main jobs - delivering revenue - but in a way that is more meaningful and fulfilling. I had a few ideas. I headed home, feeling energized and happy.

I need to take my own advice! Lately, the blog and Facebook and Flickr have been about numbers, numbers, numbers for me. This is fine, but I have been so busy at work and my volunteer job that I haven't been able to do what I love - take pictures and document my experiences. I NEED to get back to photography - next weekend, when my volunteer obligations will have ended. I miss the photo sessions I did in early December and early January. And I miss the thrill of "the shot", such as these examples:





One more weekend before I'm out of the woods. I can't wait!

Till tomorrow!

Aperture - it's not just a Product

I was watching GMA in bed this morning (I've been sick), and a photographer came on. He talked about holiday photos and getting great shots. One key point he mentioned was "know your camera".

I struggled with this initially (years ago) - I'm not technical, and those details aren't really all that interesting to me. However, for the sake of my photography, I really did need to understand several key concepts. Therefore, I will be discussing the following over the next few days:

1) Aperture

2) Shutter speed

3) ISO

4) White balance

If you know how to adjust these on your camera (whether it be point-and-shoot, or otherwise), then you'll be in good shape.

I'll start with Aperture. A technical definition for it is "the diameter of the lens opening. The larger the diameter of the aperture, the more light reaches the film / image sensor. Aperture is expressed as F-stop, e.g. F2.8 or f/2.8. The smaller the F-stop number (or f/value), the larger the lens opening (aperture)."

Huh? I'm sure my engineering-educated customers could jump in and help us, but for the rest of us:

The smaller the aperture, the higher the F-stop. In English, this means that your picture will have more elements that are sharp and clear. Example:



This is a relatively high F-stop - around 10 and 11, respectively. I chose this picture to 1) Keep my mind off of this cold weather and 2) Because of the leaves. You'll notice that all of the elements are in equal focus, regardless of the distance. Compare this with other equally colorful pictures:



Notice that the butterfly and its surrounding flowers are in sharp focus. Everything else (especially the leaves) is strategically blurred. This is a relatively low F-stop of 2.8. The same points are valid for the second picture - the left side is in focus, to draw attention to the colorful details. The right side is blurred.

Some of your point-and-shoots give you the ability to adjust your aperture settings. You might not be able to by much, but even the smallest bit can make a difference for you. If you can, you'll want to take the same picture using different settings. This way, YOU can see the difference - and you won't have to just take my word for it. :)

So, to summarize - the higher the F-stop number on your camera, the more focused objects in your pictures.

Till tomorrow!

What I'm Packing

I'm going on a trip tomorrow! More on that later, but since I'm driving, I'm taking all of my gear. As promised, here's my list of what I own and use:

MacBook Pro - the 17 inch version, and the best machine in the entire universe. My photography-related software that I've installed is:

Photoshop Elements - I rarely use it these days, but it's useful for image editing, and applying my watermarks (copyright info).

Aperture - I spend all of my time here, post-processing. I use Aperture to store and catalog my photos, as well as apply enhancements (if needed). Example include modifying the hue/saturation, changing the exposure, using the horizon tool (to adjust my picture if it's more tilted than it should be), and making other related adjustments.

Flick Uploadr - to upload my photos to Flickr, my photo-sharing website of choice. I love it, because you can post your photos to different groups, and it's very interactive.

As far as my camera and accessories, I am part of the Canon camp, not Nikon. I have the Digital Rebel XTi. I bought it a few years ago, and it does everything that I need it to do.

I have several lenses, and here are the generic descriptions, so that I don't have to engage in the philosophical discussion of Canon vs. Nikon. I like my Canon, but you don't have to. :)

Macro with lens hood (to block the harsh sun, when desired) - for close-up shots of birds, butterflies, and flowers.

Wide-angle with polarizing filter - for wide shots. Have you ever tried to take a picture, but couldn't get enough of it in your frame? A wide-angle lens can help solve this problem. Here's an example:



Had I only brought a regular lens/camera, I wouldn't have been able to capture this entire building in the frame while standing so close. This was a busy area, so I didn't have the luxury of backing up or moving around.

Telephoto - I rarely use this lens, which is sad, because it's so expensive (around $1,000, but I paid $500). It's great if you're trying to shoot anything that is far off in the distance. Here's a shot:



I was on a mountain, and I can assure you that I was nowhere near the houses in the foreground. Without this lens, I wouldn't have been able to capture any of this detail.

Kit lens - it came with my camera. I don't use it much, but I take it with me just in case I need a basic picture (not common with me).

Tripod - I almost never use it, because I'm not particularly interested in being forced to stay still in order to take a non-blurry picture. I tend to avoid the type of photography that would require a tripod, anyway.

I have two camera bags, but all of this will go in the larger of the two bags.

So, where am I going? I'll give you a clue tomorrow. :)

Is it the Camera or the Photographer? Part Two

In my previous post, I introduced the concept of not needing to go out and buy an SLR and ten lenses (an exaggeration, perhaps), without taking the time to determine if you actually need one. After all, SLRs and their kits are heavy, unwieldy, and depending on where you travel, not even allowed. So, here are a few more examples for you to consider:



This is one of my favorite shots of all time. The level of detail would have been very difficult to capture in an ordinary camera. I had to play with multiple settings simultaneously, in order for this one to work. In general, interior shots such as these benefit from a wide-angle lens, and a camera with a manual setting.



I took this picture at sunrise with a regular camera. I don't know what it would have looked like with all my gear, but I was traveling from city and city and wasn't able to take more than a compact. I think this looks fine. Had it been one hour later, I would have needed a polarizing filter, and Photoshop for post-processing - not to mention a way to shoot in RAW. (More later)
Finally, an example of my favorite type of photography:



Getting this level of detail in low light and with this precision requires a fast macro lens and a good camera body. I can't do any macro shots with my compact. If there were ever a case for good camera equipment, this would be it.

So, to summarize, if you're shooting objects in the near distance in good (not too sunny) weather without any marked precision requirements, a compact camera (in the $250 range) will do.

Otherwise, go out and look at some SLRs so you can control your environment. If nothing else, you'll be able to shoot in RAW, my favorite format (with a few exceptions). What does that mean? I"ll cover that tomorrow. :)