Another delayed reply Paul...
"Paul Saunders" <
[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:[email protected]...
| 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've not used my remote control much either, but plan to use
it when photographing birds in the garden of my new house.
I've recently tried photographing birds in my garden, but
with no luck. They are just too alert and fly off the second
I see them. I'd probably have to build some sort of hide to
get close enough, but I'm not doing that in my back garden,
and haven't got the patience to sit there at the moment (the
final shot just wouldn't be worth it, with a house in the
background and a tatty bird table). If I could afford a D-
SLR with a nice 300-400mm lens, it would be nice and easy,
but never mind....
| > 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.
Okay Paul, all of the above has just confirmed why you
must scare away all your women! ;-) Just kidding Paul. ;-)
But I still don't think any of it could interest her. I
just need to find her a new hobby (shopping with my credit
card springs to mind...), or buy her a warmer coat for
next winter!
<snip>
| > 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).
I know photographers say that the midday sun is the worse
time of day for taking photos, but surely there are still
some shots to be had, rather than sitting on the beach. I've
had some great shots in this kind of weather.
| > 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.
Oh well, it's that long since I had a proper walk and took
photos, I can barely remember what it's like now!
| > 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.
Okay, and there was me thinking you had some magic trick up
your sleeve that would always enable every brightness level
to be captured! You disappoint me Paul!
| > 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.
I've noticed you 'underexpose' in plenty of your photos,
where there are areas of black (say, of a moutain peak or
something). I've not noticed your overexpose much (if at
all) though, except for the odd sun shot?
| >> 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! ;-)
Yes, your photos are just too advanced for all this
technology, it'll be years before they catch up with you!
;-)
| > 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.
Although you can adjust white balance in RAW processing,
does it matter what baseline the photo was taken in? ie, is
the amount of adjustment variable around the in-shot
setting? Or is it 0-100, and whatever the in-shot setting is
doesn't affect how you can adjust it?
<snip>
| >> 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.
Ahhh, the big paragraph above has explained a lot to me
about expsure, thanks Paul!
I just need to figure out
what landscape objects are comparable to mid-grey!
<snip>
| > 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".
Nicely put.
<snip>
| >> 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.
I'll see if they are in the library next time I'm there.
As long as there are lots of pictures and not too many
words! :-D
| > 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.
Well it's been great interviewing you Paul, thanks for
coming on the show, and please drop back in again!
<snip>
| > 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.
Don't challenge me Paul, or I will dig out some shots, scan
them, and upload them. I don't want to have to make you eat
your words, but I'm warning you, I can! ;-)
<snip>
| > 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.
Oh well, maybe not the July one, but one day! ;-)
| > 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.
Not tried this yet, but will let you know when I do.
<snip>
|
| Paul
Ste
