Magic Tricks and how to use Them

Yesterday, I mentioned what I need to make sure I can take clear pictures of fast-moving objects. Today, I'm discussing the opposite. Unfortunately, the tricks I'm about to outline require a DSLR - unless someone can prove me wrong.

The easier one to explain is how to handle nighttime exposures. It's quite simple - use a long exposure. Example:



Here's a 30 second exposure taken at night. There were people milling around, but you wouldn't know it by looking at this. As I've mentioned before, the key to such a long exposure is to stabilize the camera.

So, how does this work during the day? A 30 second exposure will result in a picture that is completely blown out and unusable. I've used this trick a few times, but I don't have a recent example for you: Use a neutral density filter (I own one, but I don't use it as much as I could) and take several shots with relatively long exposures. Start at 1/4 second and go slower. This works best with cars, in my opinion. It's not so terrific when you're testing this out with humans.

So, how would it work with humans? Not very well, I'm afraid. There are options with Photoshop, but as some of you know, I don't like using Photoshop for technical editing. My solution is to make it work with the people in it (and obtain the appropriate releases, if applicable):



Or, show up very early, like here:



As you can see, there isn't a soul out here. That's because I walked over at 7:00 am. No one was awake!

Tomorrow - an interesting idea and another printing option.

My Printing Options

Yesterday, I mentioned a contest that I wanted to enter. I wasn't sure which pictures to use (and I'm still not, so please look at yesterday's post and give me your thoughts), but the bigger issue was what size was required. I found out that the entry only needed to be big enough to display in a slide deck. That takes care of that.

What about printing? I have a few options:

1) My friend Lele had a great idea about making a canvas picture of my work. That is best suited for abstract photography, I think - something "watercolory" and pretty. The following types of pictures would fit the bill (though I wouldn't enter either of these):



2) Standard mat and frame: An option for my more "precise work", I think. A few examples (none of which I'd enter in the contest, I don't think) are:



3) Metallic prints: I'd never heard of this concept before, but apparently it provides great saturation and depth of color. A few pictures I'd consider would be:



Now I feel like I have a lot to play with! I haven't decided which format to use, but I know I need to soon - the deadline is April 1. Tomorrow, I'll narrow my choices down to 15 pictures, and take it from there.

Contests - Please Lend me your Ears/Eyes

February is a short month, and I realized I forgot to do one thing I'd done consistently over the last few months - enter a contest. I'll forgive myself, because if this is all I've forgotten in my hectic life, then I'm in decent shape.

With that said, I considered entering two contests in February, but with later deadlines:

FotoDC's National Cherry Blossom Photo Contest: This brings me to one of my plans - I may brave the crowds and attend the kite festival. I love colors, and it would be a good experiment for me. I have cherry blossom pictures, but I think something original and fun would be better. We'll see if I actually do this.

This one isn't so much a contest as it is an auction: NCCF's 9th Annual Art and Soul Charity Auction: This would involve submitting a picture (or three) for consideration. If selected, then I would mat, frame, and donate the work. I love NCCF, and I think this would be great, but I'm a little afraid to enter, honestly. Some considerations:

1) What size photograph? I've honestly never seen my pictures blown up and magnified. I don't know what they would look like. I've emailed the organization to find out if there is a minimum size. If I can get away with an 8x10, I'll consider it.

2) What do I even want to enter? Something abstract like this?



Or something more precise/detailed?



Something ... unusual?



I don't know! Anyway, one step at a time. When I'll find out what the size requirements are, I'll make a decision. I'll also try not to let March run away from me. I will find a way to enter four contests - I hope.

A corollary to all of this is how I would print my work if it were accepted. I've researched some options, and will cover them tomorrow.

Tripods (Sigh)

I may have mentioned once (or twice or three times) that I detest using tripods. After all, I took shots like these without them:







But ... I'm starting to rethink this strategy.

I want to take pictures like the first one, without having to be dependent upon finding a flat space for my camera during the long exposures. To take that picture, I had to set down my camera on a boundary/ledge "thing". In fact, you can see it in the picture (I liked the perspective it created, so I incorporated into the shot). I won't have that luxury with other fountains I may come across.

I want to take good fireworks pictures like the third one. So far, all of my subsequent fireworks experiments with DSLR have been a total bust. That's because a tripod is a must. I love fireworks.

I like the second picture as is, and I'm comfortable shooting macro shots that are more artistic and "painting-like" rather than precise. But what if I want to shoot other subjects? I'd probably need a tripod.

So, what am I going to do about all of this? More on that tomorrow!

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!

ISO - not the Classified Ads

The past few days, I've covered various technical basics. My goal is to explain how they can be useful for any camera, for any photographer. Today's topic is ISO.

A technical definition for ISO is "ISO sensitivity expresses the speed of photographic negative materials". I don't know about you, but I'd prefer the English explanation, which is:

Higher ISO -> better pictures in low light (because the image sensor is more sensitive)

Lower ISO -> higher image quality, but only in optimal light situations

ISO that is too high -> pictures with high amounts of noise, which may render them unusable

Examples:

Higher ISO speeds:



The first one was taken at ISO 800. I was using a macro lens, so this enabled me to take clean, precise pictures without worrying about camera shake. The second one, however, was taken with a wide-angle lens. The ISO was set at a very high 1600. The quality of this image is lower, but it's for effect - I wanted to show the drama of the storm that day.

Medium ISO speeds:

  

These were taken at ISO 400, with a wide-angle lens. In both cases, it was fairly dark inside, so I experimented with 800 and 400. I preferred these. I didn't want them to look artificially bright.

Low ISO speeds:



In both cases, I had good amounts of light and wanted the best pictures possible. They were taken at 100 and 200.

My advice:

1) Try different ISO settings so you can see the impact yourself

2) Do not go above 800, unless you're doing so for special effects

3) My default for a bright and sunny day is 100

I hope this helps! Till tomorrow!

Fun with Shutter Speed

Yesterday, I began this series with an explanation of aperture. I admit, it's not the easiest concept to explain, but applying it in practice is fairly straightforward. Shutter speed, however, is the opposite - easy to explain, a little more difficult to apply. What do I mean by that?

Well, let's start with what it is, and some examples. A technical definition is "the effective length of time a camera's shutter is open". It's expressed in seconds or fractions of a second.

Sounds reasonable. How do we apply this? I'll explain a few scenarios:

1) Fast shutter speed for definition and freezing moving objects (faster than 1/250 to 1/4000 and beyond):



This shutter speed (taken with a point-and-shoot) is 1/1000. If you look closely, the waves are highly defined - they're not blurred. It looks as though I froze time (or something like that). You would also use a similar speed for sports events or any situation where things are moving quickly and you want to capture everything.

2) Slow shutter speed for dramatic effect/strategic blurring (more than one second):



This is a 30 second shutter speed. The clouds and the reflections are very dramatic. At a faster shutter speed, the picture would have been frozen - like this:



The shutter speed here was a fraction of a second, so everything looks more crisp.

But wait, it gets more confusing:

3) On the slow side - better for low light (1/15 and slower):



It was dark out, and I was using my macro lens. I chose a setting of 1/15 to compensate for the low light. As I have mentioned in the past, I kept the ISO relatively high as well to avoid blurring.

4) On the fast side - good light for sharp landscape shots (1/80 to around 1/125):



I used 1/80. The light was good, and the detail is good, too.

And now, for the most confusing part:

Aperture and shutter speed are related to each other. If you select the wrong shutter speed, you can under- or over-expose your photos. I can only be so technical, so instead of addressing this manually (using the M setting), I decide what I want to control - one or the other - and I set my camera according to that. The camera adjusts based on my selection. This link provides a more technical treatment of the topic, but the best advice is:

1) Shoot with different settings to see for yourself, keeping the above guidelines in mind

or

2) Decide what you want to capture and how - and modify that setting. (lots of detail, fast shutter speed or high f-stop - blurring, low f-stop or slow speed, etc.) Use the above pictures as a general guide.

I'm in favor of 1), as it's really the best way to see this in action. Plus, multiple versions of the same shot can be equally interesting.

Tomorrow, I'll throw in another variable - ISO.

Till tomorrow!

Travel AND Photography?

I love my macro photography, and my pictures of butterflies, flowers, and other small objects. I have always wondered, though, if it would be worth it to explore other avenues. In my earlier What's Your Niche post, I described what I considered my strengths: macro photography, interiors, and abstracts.

What's interesting, though, is that I "fell into" macro photography. A few years ago, I only thought I was capable of landscape photography. I didn't even know what macro photography was. So, I wonder, what else am I missing?

I was looking over some of my favorite albums, and stumbled across this picture of a hotel:



One person said that the picture was probably nicer than the ones on the hotel website. I thought about this yesterday, and asked myself, hmmm ... really?

I think my hotel photography skills need some work.

Then I remembered these:



I mean, who wouldn't want to be at this hotel? I sent these to the general manager, and he thought they were really nice, too. So there's some hope ...

And then I realized what I'd been missing with some of my other shots (not shown here). The straight lines, the angles, they're all here. What is not here is my command of the sun and harsh lighting. I simply am not good (yet) at overcoming adverse lighting conditions.

So, I took one of those pictures and submitted it to one of my Flickr groups. I'm hoping for some feedback as to 1) If it's really a big deal and 2) How I can avoid it in the future.

Once I figure that out, I'll go back out and see if this idea has legs. What do you think?

Till tomorrow!

Twilight - When the Best of Intentions goes Awry

I mentioned in yesterday's post that I'd had some misadventures while trying to shoot in twilight. Let me explain what I mean:

I don't like nighttime photography, but I LOVE twilight shots. Here's one from years ago:



The picture of the building itself isn't perfect, but I fell in love with the deep blue sky. I was hooked.

So, I planned my trip to Hershey on Friday, at the last possible minute. On Sunday morning, I decided that I would try to take twilight pictures. A few minor issues:

1) Twilight isn't special (or really even noticeable) when it's cloudy outside. Example:



Was this twilight? Maybe ... maybe not. I certainly couldn't tell. Maybe this one?



See what I mean? About ten minutes later, it was so dark outside that all I got was something like this:



Mind you, these pictures actually turned out great - I was thrilled with the way they looked. A few positives from this shoot:

1) I figured out a way to use long exposures (30 seconds, in this case) without a tripod. I found several places where I could set down my camera such that it was stable.

2) Playing with the shutter speeds and the water was something I hadn't done in a long time. Tip: Very fast shutter speeds "freeze" the droplets. Slow shutter speeds provide the effect you see in these pictures.

3) Clouds are always beautiful, no matter what.

4) Sometimes, you just have to roll with it.

5) Perhaps nighttime photography isn't such a disaster. Maybe I should embrace it. THERE'S a thought. :)

I'm hoping to head down into the city at some point this month to take real pictures in twilight. Maybe my results will be better. Or, maybe I'll learn something else about myself and my work.

Until tomorrow!

Lessons Learned in Hershey

I had a great time on my little getaway, and was happy I took all of my gear. This is my favorite picture of the trip:



I learned quite a few things (regarding my photography - I'll spare you the other details of the trip, especially the roads). Here's a summary:

1. I still don't like nighttime photography, but practice never hurt anyone.

2. My telephoto lens (that I hardly ever use) actually did come in handy.

3. Twilight is a lot shorter, when you're trying to take pictures in it.

4. I think I've taken enough pictures of Hershey to last a lifetime. Time to try something else!

I'll start with comment 2, because I have the least to say about it. I was on the roof of the Hotel Hershey with my camera body and wide-angle lens. I quickly realized that the rides' lights were on in the distance. I ran back into my hotel room, grabbed my telephoto lens, and began taking pictures. Unfortunately, the ferris wheel lights went off five minutes later. But, I did manage to get a few civilized shots. This one made the cut:



Lesson learned - I was so far away from the park that without my telephoto lens, I wouldn't have been able to get a picture of the ferris wheel that was bigger than a speck. As a corollary, if you've packed everything, you may as well lug it around. I lost precious time during my frantic trip to my room to grab the right lens.

Tomorrow, I'll talk about my (mis)adventures in twilight.