Category Archives: Technical

Taking the Canon 60D to Harrietville

11 Thursday Apr 2013

Posted by in Photography, Review, Technical

≈ 68 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Last week, I’m sure I mentioned that I was allowed to have the Canon EOS 60D for another few days so I could take it to Harrietville and try it out.  I did take it and I managed to get out a few times with it.  It went back on Tuesday so it is time to tell you what I thought.

Benalla 1On the way up we stopped at the Benalla Art Gallery for lunch and I saw this bridge close by and went for a quick walk underneath it.   With images like this I had no trouble using the camera, it did what I wanted and the images came out quite well.

Benalla 2The bridge from the side.  Again, the colours are good and it is a good representation of what I was seeing.

As I stated before, it is a nice camera to hold and to take photos with.  I found it easy to carry around with me and never though, I really want to put this away.  It would be  good to use all day if you are travelling.  Well, compared to my Nikon camera, it is much easier to continue carrying.

Coffee Break 1When we went across the road in Harrietville for coffee I just slung the camera over my shoulder and when opportunities came up to take photos, well I took them.  Again, it was easy to use and fun to use.

Coffee Break 2I managed to get really close with this image and got a great shot of the muffin.

It had been fun to use, but when I went out the next morning, well, let’s look at a photo.

Harrietville 1In the morning I thought I would go for a walk around town with the camera and just take some snaps.  It wasn’t very good light and I tried to change some of the settings, but they wouldn’t change the way I wanted them to.

Harrietville 2I got a couple of good shots, but I was actually disappointed with a lot of them.  They were out of focus, or just not quite in focus.  I don’t know if it was because I had been fiddling around with the metering, or the ISO was too low, or what.  I am positive that it isn’t a real problem with the camera, otherwise I wouldn’t have been able to get any photos in focus.

It is a great camera, there is no denying that, but I don’t think I would buy it.  I found it hard to work out and things that I thought would be so easy to work out, just weren’t.  It really is a camera that you need, need to read the manual for.  I didn’t have the manual with me, but if I owned the camera I would always have it with me.  I  would keep a copy of the manual on my phone.  You would need to I think.  Some cameras you can just pick up, use and work everything out, but I didn’t find that.

When I was lent the Canon EOS 600D last year, I can remember loving it, almost to the point of not wanting to give it back. I thought it was a great camera, but I didn’t fall in love with the 60D.  I wanted to and I kept trying it, it just didn’t happen.  I know a lot of you have this camera and love it, and I really wanted to feel the same.  I am sorry about that.  Interesting how different each camera can be.

About these ads

The Efex of Color

24 Thursday Jan 2013

Posted by in Photography, Technical, Tutorials

≈ 50 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Since I showed you Silver Efex by Nik Software last week, I thought today we could look at Color Efex Pro 4.  It is interesting software.  You can get some interesting effects from it, not always what you want, but that is going to be the same with any software you use.  I think this is similar to using Instagram with all its filters, but the main difference, and a big difference it is, is that you can change and make the filter work the way you want it to.  You have a lot more control over it.  That is something that I like a lot.

cep-1To use Color Efex, it is the same as Silver Efex, you have to open an image up in Photoshop, or the program that you have it as a plugin.  The website has information about what programs you can use.

cep-2To open it you go to Filters, Nik Software, then Color Efex Pro 4.

cep-3Here is what Color Efex looks like.  You can see a list of filters down the left side, over the on the right is a list of functions that you can do with the filter that is choosen.  The filter for this image has been circled in yellow.

cep-4I have changed the filter to Film Efex: Faded.  You can see on the right all the different things that you can change.   In the above image, nothing has been changed yet.

cep-5I have changed a few thing here, not much, but enough to make the image more to my liking.  I also changed the film type.  Again, like Silver Efex, when you have a drop down menu if you hover over the top you will see how each one changes the images.

If you play around with one filter and then decide you don’t like it, you can click on another one and it will change everything for that new filter.  What you did previously is erased, which also means if you go back to the original one, you will have to make all the changes and adjustments again.

cep-6There are also a heap of recipes that you can try out.  Or you can make your own and save them.  Again, just because someone has done one, doesn’t mean you can’t make some adjustments to it.

cep-7This is nice, it comes with a history, or rather you can see what you have done to the image as you went along.  That is a great feature.

cep-8When you are finished, you can just click OK and your image will be transformed in Photoshop.  You can also click Brush, and then in Photoshop you can brush the effect on the areas that want.  I haven’t really played with that very much.  Of course, if you don’t like it and don’t want it, you can simply press Cancel and go back to your original image.

I have a few images now, well the same image, but it has been processed with different filters in Color Efex.

CEP - Film Efex: FadedThis image was processed with the filter Film Efex: Faded.  I actually like this one.  It gives it a very retro feel.

CEP - Paper TonerThis was using the filter Paper Toner.  You can get different tones or different coloured tones.  Remember in the days of black and white printing and we all tried different toners to give our images a slight tinge in colour.  I can remember using Tea, Coffee and, my favourite, beetroot.

CEP - Indian SummerThis is Indian Summer.  I can see this one being used a lot.  I like it.  I wanted to try Monday Morning, but it just didn’t work with this image.

CEP - SolarisationHere is the Solarisation Filter.  Pretty cool effect and a bit of fun.  Not really sure what you would use it for, though I used to know a guy that painted images that looked similar to this, they were pretty amazing.

There are many filters and some recipes.  It is fun to play with and I have used some of the filters to great effect, you have seen some.  For me it is just as important to have as Silver Efex.  Next week we might look at another Nik Software product, Dfine.  It is apparently very good at reducing noise in your images.  That is something I need to look at, since my camera can produce quite a bit when I go up the ISO.

I know that Topaz have some similar products, but they haven’t been great with allowing me to have extra time to try the stuff out.  I downloaded all the software before Christmas, and of course didn’t have enough time to try them out, now the trial time has run out and I can’t try them.  Oh well.  Perhaps if they read this, they might let me have an extended trial period, then again, I am enjoying the Nik Software products.

For those interested, todays image of the Thistle was taken in the Kitchen Garden at Heide last Saturday.

HDR or Not to HDR

20 Monday Feb 2012

Posted by in Landscapes, Photography, Technical

≈ 15 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

In yesterdays post I showed you some images that work better with HDR and you see more detail.  Today I have some images that I took last night at St Kilda and this time you can see whether or not the images are better for using HDR or not.

Same thing again, originally exposed image first then the HDR image with the bracketed shots I took.

This is St Kilda Baths, I think that is what it is called.  There are swimming pools, gyms inside and outside around it are restaurants.  It is a very popular place in summer.

This is the HDR image, it is not really that much different.  I don’t know about you, but I love the original one more, the colours seem richer some how.

I have taken images of this before, but from the other side and very early in the morning.    It was very dark or starting to get light.  It is nice to take some photos from this view and I must say if I go back early one morning this is a view I should try.

This is the HDR image, and I think when you compare it with the one above there isn’t much difference.  Is HDR necessary for this image? No, probably not, the image doesn’t have that contrast between light and dark and if you were just presenting the first image then it would probably be fine.  I don’t think HDR is necessary for this type of image.

It was unfortunate we didn’t get to see a really nice sunset, but again this is the original image.  This building is on the end of the pier.  It burnt down a few years ago and then they rebuilt it.  So glad they did.

This one is the HDR and there are elements that I like, but there is ghosting that I couldn’t get rid of it, so I’m stuck with it.  The sky around the building has also turned out weird.  I think perhaps the first image has worked better, but the reasons could also be that my camera went really weird.  More on that soon.

When to use HDR, good question.  I suppose when you have lots of contrast in an image and you don’t want those black spots, or areas that are blown out, then HDR is the way to go.  For these images here then I don’t think it was necessary.  It will always have to be a judgement call and will always depend on what look you are going for.

Now, for my camera.  I have some questions. Look at the following two images.

These is when the images started going wrong.  I have no idea what that black thing is across the lens.  It wasn’t the camera strap.  I have no idea what that white strip is as well.  It was in every image after this, but not the black bit.

This is the same image has above, but I cropped it for the images I showed you.  There is that white strip again.  My husband thought some moisture might have got into the camera, but I don’t know about that.  I have a Nikon D300s and every image after this had this.  Though when I got home and took some photos it wasn’t there.  It was very humid down at the beach.

So any ideas.  I thought maybe it was the memory card, but my husband didn’t think so.  I have no idea.

Different Types of Photographers

06 Friday Jan 2012

Posted by in Archives, Landscapes, Photography, Technical

≈ 17 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Of course, there are photographers that take different images in different genres, but this week, I’ve realised that many of us can be divided into two different types of photographers, the technical ones and the non-technical ones.  I am pretty sure I fall into the second category.

I met a woman while I was down in Geelong and she was into photography, has done photography all over the world and when we talked, she talked about technical aspects of photography.  She talked about her zoom lens and what they really were compared with her camera, she talked about the Calvin temperature scale for taking photos.  I understood most of what she was saying, but it has occurred to me, that I am a lot more ad-hoc when it comes to taking photos.

I know a lot of the technical stuff, you can’t really do photography without knowing some, but I enjoy more the element of surprise, of trying something weird and wonderful and hoping I will get the weird and wonderful.  I love it when I go out to take some photos and what I end up with is nothing like what I expected and it so much better.  Look at the following image.

I took this image in about 1997 or 1998.  I scanned the negative, which accounts for the graininess of the image.  I went out one morning in winter, I believe.  We, my friend Sandra and I, arrived at St Kilda at about 6am and it was raining.  I thought, well that’s it, but instead we went to find coffee and waited a while.  We came back at 6.30, and while not raining anymore, it was still very wet.  It was also still very dark.

I decided that I had to take some photos, so I set up the tripod and took a heap of images.  I had no idea what I was going to get, but when I picked up the images from the lab, I was presented with some of the most amazing photos.  I had no idea that I would end up with something like the above.  I was so happy.  I always remember going to pick up those photos.

So when I go out to take photos, I just have a go.  I sometimes plan, like I will try the neutral density filter, but I don’t get too technical about it.  Perhaps that is the artist coming out in me, letting things develop on their own.

I do like playing on the computer with the images as well.  I had a play with the above image.

I didn’t do a lot to it, but I have darkened some areas and lightened others.  I enjoy the technical side of Photoshop, though it doesn’t seem technical, I just play.

So what type of photographer do you think you are?

What ISO Do I Need To Use?

02 Friday Dec 2011

Posted by in Cycling, Landscapes, Lessons, Photography, Technical

≈ 12 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is a question I’ve been asked a bit lately, so I thought a post on it might be appropriate.  There is a lot of information out there about ISO and what it refers to, but I am going to give you my interpretation.  Maybe not be absolutely correct, but it works for me.

ISO is a term that comes from film, those of you who remember film will remember that when you went to buy film you also had to decide what speed film you wanted.  If you bought a 100 ISO film you were buying a slow film that was only good in good light and the grain of the film was very fine.  If you bought a 400 ISO film then you would have used it in overcast conditions, and well lit indoors.  If you bought a 3200 ISO film you would have been purchasing a film where the light conditions were very bad and you would have got very grainy images.

ISO in digital photography works on the same grounds.

This image was taken with a ISO of 100.  I was using a tripod and time was not a factor, meaning it didn’t matter if the exposure was 1/250 of a second or 25 seconds.   Therefore I could use a slow shutter speed and the best ISO to use was 100.

If I wasn’t using a tripod and I wanted to take photos of this, then I would have to use a shutter speed of, probably no slower than 1/60, that is the acceptable slowest shutter speed for hand held photography.  With the shutter speed determining your exposure, assuming your aperture is around f16, then you will have to adjust your ISO to get the correct exposure.  So you might have to put your ISO up to 400 or 800.

For most travel photography, you are outside and you can use 100 ISO, but what happens when the light gets bad and you don’t have your tripod and you want to capture other stuff?  I photograph a lot of cycling, and I can’t use a tripod, so changing the ISO is really important.  It is one of the changes I use the most, besides the shutter speed, but more on that another time.

I have to use my sports photos for the most of the examples.

This was taken at the Masters recently, the last day, it was raining and overcast.  I can hand hold a camera down to around 1/15 of  a second on occassion, but when you are photographing a moving target, you need a faster shutter speed.  I had to up the ISO to 500 here to get the shutter speed that I needed to be able to capture the cyclists on their bikes as they rode past.

This image was taken using a tripod, but because it was so dark and I didn’t have a remote shutter release with me, I couldn’t use the Bulb setting, so I was limited to an shutter speed of 30 seconds, so to be able to get the correct exposure I put the ISO onto 400.

This image of World Champion Madison rider Cameron Meyer was taken at the Bendigo Madison earlier this year.  The velodrome was outside and the Madison was at night, so light was limited.  So like the previous image of the cyclists, shutter speed was important and capturing movement was also important.  This was taken with a shutter speed of 1/30 of a second, and this was only possible by putting the ISO onto 1250.

When we go inside at stadiums there is little choice, you have to put the ISO up, especially with sport.  The above image was taken at a Vixens Netball game last year.  The light was bright, but to photograph something like netball, or basketball would be the same, you can’t use a flash, but you want to freeze the action in your images, so you need to have a fast shutter speed.  This image was taken with a shutter speed of 1/320, which isn’t really fast, and this was using a ISO rating of 3200.

I hope this is all helping, here is another image.

This image was taken at the same arena as the netball, unbelievable that a velodrome is around the netball court.  With this image I was using a flash, but still the shutter speed was important and to get the exposure I wanted I needed to use a ISO rating of 2000.

My advice would be to start with 100, once you have your aperture and shutter speed worked out, then look at your exposure.  If it is too dark then you should put your ISO up.  If you put it up too high then the image will be too bright.

Try going out this weekend, put your camera onto maual, put your shutter speed at 1/60 of a second and your aperture on f8 and keep changing the ISO until you get the right exposure.  You can even let me know how you go.

If you want to read more on this, I found this website, just in case I confused you too much.

ISO Settings in Digital Photography

Have a great weekend with your camera.

Day 11 – Black and White Conversions

11 Friday Nov 2011

Posted by in Challenge, Landscapes, Lessons, Mallee, Photography, Technical

≈ 26 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

Black and White is a very popular way to show your images.  When you look at other photography blogs, I don’t know how many times I see images that have been converted into black and white.  Sometimes they work as an image, sometimes they don’t.  There seems to be this general impression, convert it to black and white and you will have a great image.  Not true.

The other thing I see is many black and white images, well, they are meant to be black and white, but the truth is they are more gray than black and white.  Many photographers out there converting their images don’t comprehend the basics of what makes a good image this way, or know how to do it.  Just for fun I often copy the black and white image from someone’s blog and then edit it to make it better, always helps me.

The main rule for black and white images:

There should always be a black and there should always be a white.

When your computer converts an image it makes everything grey, or as much as possible.  It doesn’t put in the contrast for you.  You can’t just go convert to greyscale and leave it at that.

Here is a image I did that too:

I used GIMP for this image, more on that later.  I opened the image and just converted it to greyscale.  I have done nothing else to it.  Does it look alright?  Yeah, it looks ok, but to me it is washout, too grey, I would like to see more contrast.

I put in more contrast, now there are more tones, more blacks and more whites.  I think this works so much better and all I did was change the contrast.  Simple.  Took me about another minute after converting it.

Using Photoshop is a little more complicated, but you get to do a whole lot more to your images.  I now prefer it over GIMP, but GIMP is great for someone starting out who doesn’t know a lot and doesn’t have the time to learn Photoshop.  The other thing that is fantastic about GIMP is that it is free and you can download it from the website, go here and take a look.

This next image you have seen before:

A colour version is my header for this blog.  It is one of my favourite photos taken this year and will be in my exhibition next year.  The above image is a straight conversion, I opened the image in Photoshop and then pressed the layer for black and white.  This is what I got.

Again, it is an OK image, but it has lost of the appeal that was there in the colour image, the late afternoon glow.  It is a very flat image now.  It needs more work,

The clouds have more detail, you can see the glow on the station.  All I really did here was change the tonal values for each colour.  I was able to change what I wanted to get the image I was after.  I think you would have to admit that this is a far better image.  I still think it is much better in colour, but I don’t mind this too much.

So if you are converting your images into black and white ask yourself if it can be make better.  I used to have a lecturer at art school that used to say “to learn and make better artwork you have to be prepared to f*** it up”.  I think that is true, try stuff, you can always delete stuff if you have to.  Make a copy of the image you are going to play with so you never lose the original.

If you have an image that you would like to see if it can be improved, then send me an email at leanne@leannecole.com.au and I will see if I can help.

Off to the Mornington Peninsula this afternoon.  Looking forward to getting away.  Hopefully will be able to post some images while I am there.  I hope you all have a good weekend clicking away.  Let me know what you get .

New Stuff

06 Tuesday Sep 2011

Posted by in Photography, Technical

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , ,

Well, not really new, in any sense, but I did get to try out a lens on the weekend.  I was up in Shepparton for the 2011 Junior Road National Championships.  You can see the photos here.  It was a disappointing weekend in many ways, a lot of fun in other ways and I got to try this lens.

I decided to hire it from michaels Camera Video & Digital for a week at $35 dollars a day.  The lens was a 80 to 400mm Nikon lens.  It retails for around $1500, so it isn’t an expensive lens, but still a lot of money and I wanted to make sure it would be worth buying.

The lens is slower, at f5.6 but I didn’t think that would matter with photographing cycling.  It was going to be outdoors, so light wasn’t going to be a problem.  However, when they say it is a slow lens, it means that in many ways.  The auto focus is very slow and very clunky.  To photograph what I wanted I needed the auto focus to be fast and I got very frustrated with how slow it could be.  On some occasions it just couldn’t focus at all, and I had to work fast to get the shot I wanted.  On a couple of occasions I missed it completely.

I did like the photos.  I enjoyed being able to blur out the background and I liked the way the lens flattened the image.  It had a quality that I did like, but is that enough?  Here are some of the photos.

I like the top two, but the other two are fairly average.

Another thing I found hard was the zoom mechanism, it was stiff and didn’t zoom in and out as nicely as my other lenses.

So my conclusion is that I wouldn’t buy the lens.  I don’t think it would be worth it.  There are too many faults with it and I am used to working with far better lenses.  I think if I bought it, it would frustrate me too much.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 16,434 other followers