ste © wrote:
> when taking photos, do you use the self timer at all to reduce camera shake? Or the remote
> control?
Self timer, 2 seconds. No remote with the 300D unfortunately, it's an optional extra. Never used it
much anyway, but it can be handier than the timer sometimes.
> I'd like to spend more time on my photos. ...I blame my girlfriend, it's all her fault for nagging
> at me to keep walking! ;-)
She needs to take an interest in something else while you're snapping away, sorry, taking photos.
;-) Why not try to get her interested in identifying wild flowers or something, buy her a book. Then
you'd be nagging her to stop looking at flowers all the time! (It's quite interesting actually, but
it interfered with my walking and photography too much.) Alternatively there's mushrooms, lichens,
grasses, trees, birds etc. Plenty of good field guides around.
> I've read in magazines about well known professional photographers saying similar things, that
> they never know they've got the photo until they've got the film developed; so it's not just
> snappers who say this, though the pro probably has more confidence in what they are going to get.
Well you can never be 100% sure with film, but you do get a lot more confident with experience.
> And I don't want to get too knit-picky about using the terms 'good,' 'great,' 'perfect,' because
> they're all vague terms.
Well I have my own definitions of the first two terms, that suit me as far as my own photos are
concerned. I don't use the term "perfect" though, there's no such thing. I prefer "classic".
> Interesting. Do you only go out in particular conditions at all? Or have you found certain
> conditions more problematic than others?
I go out in all sorts of conditions. I prefer clear sunshine, especially early morning, also
overcast dry days (cloudy bright) for waterfalls. Rain is a pain because of the problems of keeping
the cameras dry. Wind is exciting and gales can produce excellent shots, especially with crashing
waves on the coast. Even fog has a certain appeal if handled right, but that's challenging. Night
shots are a fascinating challenge. The worst weathers are hazy summer sunshine (pleasant enough but
terrible for photos - may as well just lay on the beach) and stormy weather (rain combined with
gales is a real swine to take photos in).
> My cameras have exposed the sky even when there's 4/5th's land in the photo or more, so I
> don't think they work exactly like this. But if you're just talking about the meters taking
> the light reading, then perhaps the blame lies with the camera's internal software for
> interpreting it wrong.
I don't see that you can really blame the camera for interpreting it wrong, the camera has no idea
what you're trying to photograph or how you want to render it, in spite of marketing hype to the
contrary. If yours have exposed the sky correctly even when there isn't much of it, it must be
because the land is quite bright, as it is on a sunny day, particularly if there are light things in
the scene, like light grey rocks. Underexposed skies are mainly a problem on cloudy days.
> I know that different things have different brightness levels, and you have to be aware of this to
> avoid under/over-exposing parts of it. But you can only take one shot of a scene using one set of
> aperture/shutter speed/exposure compensation. So this must allow for the brighest/mid-
> toned/darkest things within a scene.
Yes. Problem is, you can't always capture all the different brightness levels, so you have to choose
which ones to over or underexpose. Less of a problem with digital because of its wide dynamic range,
more of a problem with slide film.
> And the thing to watch out for is that the rest of the scene isn't too under-exposed. Out of
> interest, what do you do when the object is so bright that to expose it correctly makes the rest
> of the scene black? Not the sun, but something else? Do you just put up with some
> under/overexposure, use a filter, or just look for a different photo?
Sometimes I allow under/overexposure, sometime I use a grad filter (although these days I'll take
multiple exposures using exposure bracketing and blend them later), or I'll try to compose the photo
differently so as to use the over or underexposure to my advantage.
>> The camera can't think like a human because it doesn't know what it's looking at, in spite of the
>> hype to the contrary.
>
> What hype are you referring to?
The Canon marketing hype about the supposedly "intelligent" scene recognition software built into
the camera, based on 60 (I think) years experience of building cameras. However clever they claim AI
to be, it still can't out think me in a wargame and it still can't seem to recognise the scenes that
I point my camera at. Maybe my compositions are too unique! ;-)
> And thinking og 'grey,' with your G3, do you ever set a custom white balance using grey card or
> white paper? Or just use the preset ones?
No, I stick with daylight all the time, same as with film. Film has a fixed colour balance, so
that's what I'm used to. I like the fact that the colour is consistent, so I have a fixed baseline
from which to make changes. If you use Auto White Balance you get a different colour cast on every
shot, which can be a real mess in some situations. I tried it once in the snow and I ended up with
white snow, blue snow, orange snow, pink snow. It would look terrible if you showed all the photos
as a set. Fortunately you can fix that with raw images.
> Okay, so you're measuring the different brightness levels to decide which one to use. Can't you
> just expose it so the brightest object isn't over exposed?
Yes, but if the brightest object isn't very bright the whole photo would be too light. It's all
about compromises. In the case of digital it's about fitting the brightness values into the
histogram in the best possible way, avoiding the darkest areas if possible.
> Also, didn't your tests reveal that most image of the information/quality is held towards the
> brightness end of the spectrum on the histogram, so exposing just enough for the brightest thing
> should be okay?
No, 2/3rd of the way to the right. Detail dropped off on the far right, so it's best not to push the
detail too far right unless there's a lot of dark stuff in the picture too.
>> Knowing that trees are usually 2 stops below the correct exposure, I know that if I take an
>> exposure reading off the trees and base my settings on that, the photo will be two stops over
>> exposed, i.e. the trees will be two stops too bright.
>
> In this example, wouldn't your trees be exposed just right as you took the reading off them, but
> the rest of the photo would, on average (depending on what the scene is), be two stops
> overexposed?
No, if I exposed for the trees (dark green leaves) they'd be rendered as mid grey, so I'd have mid-
green leaves, which is too bright. Also the trunks would be light brown. If you exposed for coal
you'd end up with mid-grey coal, but coal isn't that colour, it's black, so you need to place it in
the correct part of the histogram, roughly 3 stops or so darker than mid-grey. If the entire photo
is of black coal you'd want the camera to warn you that it's 3 stops underexposed, then the exposure
will be correct. You have to remember that you are the one with the brain, not the camera. When you
set the exposure correctly for black coal and the camera tells you the exposure is wrong, it's the
camera that's wrong, not you. Don't be afraid to disagree with the camera, and don't be afraid to
tell it what a stupid ****** it is! I used to do that a lot, but now I just ignore it, it doesn't
know any better.
>> A correct exposure for the sky could well result in the land appearing too dark for example.
>
> What if the land is too dark? What do you do then? Rely on contrast masking?
Generally yes.
> What if it's even too dark for that?
Multiple exposures, blended later.
> Use a filter?
No, not any more.
>> The problem is that you're thinking of the brightness of a scene as a single value. It's easy to
>> do this because the exposure is a single value, but there are many different brightness values
>> within a scene. Take a look at Ansel Adams Zone System sometime.
>
> I know things have different brighness levels, but I'm just thinking about how to determine the
> single exposure for the photo, to cater for all the different brightnesses.
By considering what the different brightness levels should be, and where they should be relative to
the exposure you choose. Blue sky = mid grey, grass = -1 stop, clouds = +1/+2 stops, and so on.
>> but if I decided to let the sky over-expose I could make everything else quite bright, but still
>> making sure not to over-expose the brightest water.
>
> But I thought you'd never overexpose the sky in a proper shot?
Depends on the shot. I'd rarely ever do it, but there are certain exceptions, such as waterfall
shots where there's only a tiny bit of sky in the picture.
>> When the shutter speed and aperture are already set from the previous shot, it takes precisely
>> *zero* effort to calculate and set the exposure for the next shot.
>
> Just be careful that the conditions don't change slightly then! ;-)
Of course, you always have to keep your eye on the light. But there are certain conditions when the
light level stays constant for hours, and others where it changes quickly.
> This is a good idea to catch the quick photo opportunity, but as I said above, you have to be
> careful that the light isn't changing slowly without you noticing, or you settings could be
> slightly off.
So long as the weather is constant, the light level is usually constant, from 2 hours after sunrise
to 2 hours before sunset. Besides, the exposure meter in the camera will warn me if the light is
changing. I can still see the meter reading, even if I do choose to ignore it most of the time.
> Okay, but that's like saying 'the photo is ****, but at least it's important to Uncle Fred;' or
> it's saying 'it's ****, but it doesn't matter.' Either way, it's still ****!
Not to Uncle Fred.
>> Having said that, I've often camped up the mountains for days on end and got some excellent
>> results to show for it.
>
> That's some dedication Paul, to stay up there for days on end. I certainly don't take my
> photography that seriously!
But I like camping up the mountains, even if I come home with no good photographs. That probably
gives me an edge over photographers who just want the photos but who don't enjoy the camping.
>> I've always been a bit of a loner.
>
> Oh stop it Paul, you've got me in tears now! ;-)
I like being a loner. Being a loner doesn't mean that I'm lonely. People often confuse loneliness
with being alone, usually the ones who don't like being alone. I love solitude.
> No, I'm implying that anyone can get a good photo, anyone can get a bad photo. Reputations or
> status count for nothing, though of course, statistically it means something. But statistically,
> Joe Bloggs down the road shouldn't have won the lottery last week because he hadn't done it 16.7
> million times yet.
Different kind of luck. Galen Rowell's written a whole chapter about it. Winning the lottery is
random luck, taking "lucky" photos is not, it's all about persistence, dedication, planning,
opportunism. You don't get lucky photos of wonderful sunrises sitting at home in front of the TV. I
heard an excellent description of this non-random type of luck as regards motor racing - "Luck is
when preparation meets opportunity".
> Didn't you descibe a check-list above for taking a photo? Where you look at the scene, look left,
> right, up, down, etc.
Yeah, but it's intuitive, I don't actually check things off a list. I just do whatever is
appropriate for a given situation. I had to think about it in the early days, but now it's
just second nature, I don't even realise I'm doing it most of the time, a bit like breathing
and blinking.
>> A few years ago though, two books woke me up and showed me that I wasn't really thinking about my
>> photography anymore, and that kick started me into taking a fresh approach, forcing myself to
>> look at familiar areas with a new eye,
> What book where it that woke you up?
Three Corners of Gower - Peter R Douglas Jones
D. W. Jones Limited - ISBN 0-9532038-0-8
Wales : The Lie of the Land - Jeremy Moore & Nigel Jenkins Gomer - ISBN 1 85902 537 4
Check them out if you get the chance, particularly the second one.
> And if you weren't interested at the time, what made you find them and read them?
Just noticed them strolling through a bookshop. I always pick up books like this and browse through
them, just on the off chance they might be interesting. They usually aren't, but these two were.
> What are your challenges at the moment? Make money from your work? Or do you seek to take photos
> of different places? Or do a book? Or what?
Yes, and more. I really want to master night and very low light photography, there's a lot of
potential there. Also to experiment more with blended exposures - I'm keen to represent reality in
unusual ways, so many things have already been done, I don't just want to repeat the same old stuff.
Also panoramas, not the obvious ones (views from hilltops) but closer more artistic panos, unusual
compositions in an unusual format.
> Okay, you're taking me a little bit literally here. I was just using an example to make a point,
> not because it's true to life. But saying that, if it's a nice sunny day, then a disposable camera
> wouldn't do that bad a job,
Yes it would. **** lens. ;-)
> I used a disposable camera in Egypt when my Fuji died, and it did a good job considering!
Considering they were ****? ;-)
> I've also had good results from the waterproof disposable cameras too. Nothing amazing, but
> good enough.
For what? Don't get me started. You can spend a hundred pounds on certain SLR lenses which are
complete ****, so please don't try to convince me of the quality of a throwaway lens.
> I understand this completely. All my walks are with my girlfriend, and it's always a distraction
> to have her there,
Give her a different reason for being there. Encourage her to take up some compatible interests.
> Anyway, the point is, if I ever go on an uk.rec.walking expedition in the future, having you and
> others there next to me might distract my true photographic genius from coming out! ;-)
Expeditions are not photo trips, only snaps expected.
> One piece of digital manipulation that I'm thinking of doing is to add the moon to photos. I've
> started taking various photos of the moon, in daylight, evening, and night. I plan to put these
> into the sky of photos to give them an added something. I think it will work well and should look
> perfectly natural too, even though it isn't. I don't mind digitally altered photos as such, but
> they must at least look real.
Might be harder than you think. My attempts so far have been dismal. Blending the edge is the
tricky bit.
> I had an idea of taking close-up facial shots of my little brother and sister doing a sad look,
> and making in black and white. I reckon such an image would be great for the NSPCC or similar, and
> might be a seller on picture library websites like Alamy etc...?
Sounds good, just get them to sign a model release form...
> Also, I've seen plenty of photos on Alamy of litter on streets and things like this, so you should
> take all kinds of images. Like Mark did with his motorway shot, they're all sellers! ;-)
I have some ideas, and now I have the camera!
7 meg a shot though, only 69 shots on a
512 meg card.
> Oh well, got another one of these long posts out the way, I feel better now!
It should be
> coming to an end soon as we're more or less agreeing on most things, and agreeing to disagree on
> the rest!
Heavily snipped, 46k was way too big!
> Hope you've had a happy 2003, and have a great 2004 with your photography and walking.
Yep, you too.
Paul
--
Calendars for 2004
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/cal/cal.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
