2017 Project 52 - 1st QTR - Sandy(Skitterbug)

[skitterbug]

Thank you for your reply Geoff. I agree that a picture like #2 is a better choice and would be the one that I'd pick as a goal - as far as depth of field is concerned. These two aren't the best sort to use but currently it was all I could think of for examples! Sad, huh?

Okay - on to my second question then. You are saying that the Depth of Field calculator was a tool for film use rather than our digital photos since we do have instant feedback by looking at our pics either on our computers or even in field on our cameras? So as long as I understand about what Depth of Field is, I can move along in my studies?

[Geoff F]

Yes, I wouldn't get too 'bogged down' at the moment by worrying about having to physically measure every scene, as long as you are aware that a narrower aperture gives a greater depth of focus area but using a narrow aperture can cause undesirable side effects such as too slow a shutter speed or too high an Iso. It is all about compromise.

By all means play around with that depth of field calculator to see what the difference will be by setting different alternatives. However, never lose sight of the fact that in some circumstances, such as subject movement, the shutter speed may be more important than your focus depth.

Sometimes, such as close studio work or macro photography etc, where you have a very shallow focus depth you have to be very careful about your distances but with lot of other general photography the tolerances are more forgiving.

[skitterbug]

Week 3 - Next topic - Metering.
Time to see how it works for me. Even before using the metering tool is considered, there are several choices to make. What aperture, ISO and shutter speed to use - whether to set the meter for spot, center weight, partial, etc. I used my tripod again since rocks don’t move about. I also chose to use center weight metering for these pictures.

I picked the M setting on my camera but left my lens to auto focus. My subjects are sparkly rocks that my hubby found in the nearby fields. They are sitting on my computer desk by a window facing south so there is sunshine available for light (when the sun is shining that is).

I chose to set ISO and Aperture but found when I depressed my shutter button half way, I could look at the exposure level on “live view” and then I could bring the meter level back to center by adjusting the shutter speed. I hadn’t realized I could set the shutter speed “on the fly”. (learning slowly here)
What this tells me is that the exposure meter level is a really useful indicator! (Laughing is allowed cause I know I am amusing.)

So here are a few results that I liked. And I did do a bit of adjusting to the pics this time. OH, and I also watched the histogram more than I've ever done in the past. Interesting tool too! Lots of usual information in the book I'm using! Now I just have to learn how to apply it!

I want to get a decent material for background but haven't been to the market place yet. Black velvet? Is that the usual choice?

Of course once again, all help and comments are appreciated!

#1 1596 - 1/400 sec – f/5.0 – 40mm – ISO 200


#2 1600 - 1/800 sec – f/5.6 – 40mm – ISO 200


#3 1604 – 1/200 sec – f/5.6 – 55mm – ISO 200


#4 1616 – 1/100 sec – f/11 – 55mm – ISO 400


#5 1625 – 1/80 sec – f/11 – 55mm – ISO 200


#6 1627 – 1/80 sec – f/11 – 55mm – ISO 200

[Geoff F]

You have managed to avoid over exposure on all these, Sandy. Maybe slightly on the bright side with #1. So that is a good start.

I would select Iso 400 and a faster shutter speed if handheld; but switch to 200 when on a tripod, even 100 could be used.

F11 is giving plenty of focus depth and good detail.

If required, you could allow the shutter speed to drop to something slower on a tripod, although I would be thinking about using cable release if it became excessively slow.

[skitterbug]

I had a difficult time trying to pick out the ones I thought were meeting my goal. I do agree that #1 is bright. I think the sun popped out more just about the time I snapped the pic. I probably should have left that one out of the selection for display.

You mentioned a cable release and actually, that was the way I was doing these. Dialing up the shutter speed based on the exposure meter and then snapping the pic using the cable with my camera mounted on the tripod. These techniques are new to me so it was an interesting exercise!

Thank you Geoff for taking the time to comment!

[mknittle]

I had a difficult time trying to pick out the ones I thought were meeting my goal. I do agree that #1 is bright. I think the sun popped out more just about the time I snapped the pic. I probably should have left that one out of the selection for display.

You mentioned a cable release and actually, that was the way I was doing these. Dialing up the shutter speed based on the exposure meter and then snapping the pic using the cable with my camera mounted on the tripod. These techniques are new to me so it was an interesting exercise!

Thank you Geoff for taking the time to comment!

I had the same problem with the sun this afternoon

+1 to Geoffs comment.

[skitterbug]

Hi Mark ~ There is absolutely no sunshine today.... Rain, gloomy, cold are the descriptive words! Or maybe simply YUCK! and Uninspiring!
Thanks for checking out my efforts!

[mknittle]

Hi Mark ~ There is absolutely no sunshine today.... Rain, gloomy, cold are the descriptive words! Or maybe simply YUCK! and Uninspiring!
Thanks for checking out my efforts!

We just have fog but not heavy enough for any interesting images.

[joebranko]

Nice work Sandy! My favorite of the set is #2. It seems to capture the texture and sparkle best to my eye. #5 also does that.
On my camera I tend to take most of my shots around f8 unless the image demands otherwise: eg lighting too low, or too high; needs a shorter or longer depth of field.

[skitterbug]

Nice work Sandy! My favorite of the set is #2. It seems to capture the texture and sparkle best to my eye. #5 also does that.
On my camera I tend to take most of my shots around f8 unless the image demands otherwise: eg lighting too low, or too high; needs a shorter or longer depth of field.

Thank you for your comments Joe! There hasn't been any sunshine since I took those shots so not much sparkle going on around them currently! <chuckle>

I'm interested that you use f8 as a starting point. What are the rest of the settings that you begin with? SS and ISO? I'm just curious about how you approach the start of a project?

Hope your day is a good one!

[Geoff F]

Like Joe, F8 to F11 and Iso 400 are my 'default positions'. Change to something else if the scene obviously needs something different or after reviewing the first shot.

With most lenses, F8/11 will give the best quality but sometimes there is a need to open up and blur the background etc. Also, after the first trial shot, or beforehand if there is time, I consider the shutter speed. If possible, I then reduce the Iso, providing that doesn't result in too slow a shutter speed.

Iso 400 is usually a good average starting point which is suitable for most situations. It should allow for mid range shutter speed and aperture without giving excessive noise. Which is ideal for those quick action shots where waiting for some 'thinking time' would miss the action. 'Look at that!' Point camera and click, then start thinking.

[skitterbug]

Going from "point and shoot" and then next using creative modes, it is a challenge figuring out decent settings to start from in manual mode. I imagine this will be something that I am going to have to become comfortable with as I practice and see the results of my pics. This suggestion of f8 - f11 does help though so thank you and Joe for replying and giving suggestions!

Geoff - I did chuckle about your 'Look at that' point camera and click, then start thinking.... it is exactly how I feel when the grand kids are here and playing hard! (chuckle)

[skitterbug]

I have a Tokina AT-X 116Pro CX11 Wide Angle Lens that I don't have any experience using so I thought I'd give it a try especially since it was a topic in the book I'm using. I am not sure that any of these are representative of what this lens should do. I'll display results though to see what C&C will be. I'm early posting because the temperature here finally made it to 50 degrees F so after an inside attempt, I headed to town and tried some church pics.
#1 - 1653 - ss1/15 – f/2.8 – ISO400 – 16mm




#2 - 1655 – ss1/800 – f/9 – ISO400 – 11mm





#3 - 1664 – ss 1/320 – f/9 – ISO100 – 16mm




#4 - 1666 – ss1/8 – f/2.8 – ISO400 – 16mm - Flashed used
I think the two whitish spots happened because my camera was fogging. I'm not sure why it decided to do this but I've had it happen before when it is very cold outside. I didn't think I'd have that problem today but apparently, I did. (sigh) I still posted this one because I like the way it turned out.




#5 - Artistic license used in post processing…… to see if I could "make it better".
ps: I didn't focus on the Bible which was a mistake I think.

[Geoff F]

With the first one, Sandy, you are attempting to 'squeeze too much focus depth out of F2.8'.

You have focused sharply on the middle distance but that leaves the closest area a bit soft and in this particular case having all of that ribbon in focus was an important part of the composition.

But no easy alternative; except for using a tripod with a really slow shutter speed and narrower aperture or doing a merge of two focus points, if you have suitable software. Maybe physically moving back a bit might help with focus depth. I know, you already had your back against the wall.

#2 and 3 have good focus and exposure has been well constrained under potentially difficult conditions. There is distortion on the verticals, but that is part of what happens when you go to wide angle lenses.

#4 is nicely square and well composed but those two lighter spots on the wall possibly look like flash rebound to me, although a bit of lens fogging is also possible. The lens usually clears itself quite quickly as temperature differences equalise.

When I first went over to a modern self thinking flash unit I was shooting in the same manner as the old fixed output flashes and getting nowhere. Finally I realised that the camera was attempting to set itself one way (open aperture and low Iso) while the auto flash unit was attempting to set itself with different options. So the two were fighting against each other.

Now, when using flash, I set the camera with manual settings to suit the scene and let the flash find its own self adjusted level; with a bit of flash output compensation when required. This does initially take a bit of experimentation before you get the hang of it; but this will allow you to be fully in charge of your settings and enable the best results. This could have enabled you to shoot with a narrower aperture for better focus depth.

Flash rebound or hotspots etc can be difficult to avoid though, even with careful camera adjustment. Being square to a subject is often problematic which is why many flash photographers mount their flash away from the camera, or try a variety of other special tricks. However, this soon gets rather complicated with studio photography jargon and special equipment.

[skitterbug]

With the first one, Sandy, you are attempting to 'squeeze too much focus depth out of F2.8'.

You have focused sharply on the middle distance but that leaves the closest area a bit soft and in this particular case having all of that ribbon in focus was an important part of the composition.

You are right. I was sitting at my computer desk wondering what would happen if...... I've fussed with this shot all day today and still I am not pleased. The "trash can/rubbish bin" is full of discards.

But no easy alternative; except for using a tripod with a really slow shutter speed and narrower aperture or doing a merge of two focus points, if you have suitable software. Maybe physically moving back a bit might help with focus depth. I know, you already had your back against the wall.

It is too high to use the tripod for it. So I've given up the idea entirely - for now.

#2 and 3 have good focus and exposure has been well constrained under potentially difficult conditions. There is distortion on the verticals, but that is part of what happens when you go to wide angle lenses.

Yes, even the church is "wopperjawed" and the windows in the landscape are not the proper width. Kind of how I am feeling now that I am looking at these again. <sigh>

#4 is nicely square and well composed but those two lighter spots on the wall possibly look like flash rebound to me, although a bit of lens fogging is also possible. The lens usually clears itself quite quickly as temperature differences equalise.

Instead of paying attention in church today (gasp), I was looking at my setup from a few days ago and realized that the sun was coming in some tiny windows that run along side of the alter. I think that is where those bright spots came from. The sun wasn't out totally but it was enough to cause problems.

When I first went over to a modern self thinking flash unit I was shooting in the same manner as the old fixed output flashes and getting nowhere. Finally I realised that the camera was attempting to set itself one way (open aperture and low Iso) while the auto flash unit was attempting to set itself with different options. So the two were fighting against each other.

I firmly believe that even though I'm in "creative mode" the camera is still trying to rule on all of my settings..... It is a battle of wits!

Now, when using flash, I set the camera with manual settings to suit the scene and let the flash find its own self adjusted level; with a bit of flash output compensation when required. This does initially take a bit of experimentation before you get the hang of it; but this will allow you to be fully in charge of your settings and enable the best results. This could have enabled you to shoot with a narrower aperture for better focus depth.

Flash rebound or hotspots etc can be difficult to avoid though, even with careful camera adjustment. Being square to a subject is often problematic which is why many flash photographers mount their flash away from the camera, or try a variety of other special tricks. However, this soon gets rather complicated with studio photography jargon and special equipment.

So to sum up my attempt for this week, I'd give myself a poor grade on results but effort was there, just not apparent. One thing I did figure out is that I believe that wide angle lens is going back into the camera bag until sometime next summer when I can take it out for an attempt at some landscape shots. <sigh> Enough of it for now.

I haven't a clue what I'll try next. I'm a bit frustrated..... so I'll think about it.

Thank you Geoff for taking time to offer the information that you have. I appreciate it very much!

[Geoff F]

Learning is all about experimentation, Sandy. Sometimes things work well while other times it is simply gaining experience.

For example, today was one of those bright clear winter afternoons so I took a long walk to a couple of beers in the pub; lugging my 7D and 70-200 lens as I walked beside views of the harbour. No scenes really grabbed my attention but I tried a few shots of likely scenes anyway. As soon as I saw the results, after returning home, I knew that none of them were going to work - so all deleted!

And several other possible scenes were discounted without even attempting a shot because I could recognise too many inherent problems.

[joebranko]

Thank you for your comments Joe! There hasn't been any sunshine since I took those shots so not much sparkle going on around them currently! <chuckle>

I'm interested that you use f8 as a starting point.!

F8 is not a defaulsetting, but you always have a choice between exposure, aperture and ISO to get enough light for the image. If I can get enough light at say 4 different F settings around f8 I will usually select f8 u less I want a shallow bepth of field or a deeper dof.if there is a lot of movement and you are trying to freeze movement you may select t a very short exposure time and may have to use a larger aperture. ISO I try to keep as low as possible because with my camera going above ISO 800 usual?Y gives me a noisy pic. Having said that I have seen ISO way above 800 by other photographers on this site without perseptable noise.

[Craigie]

There is no advice I could give that would come near what Geoff and Joe have passed on to you, Sandy.
All I can advise, don't give up or be disheartened .

[skitterbug]

Learning is all about experimentation, Sandy. Sometimes things work well while other times it is simply gaining experience.

For example, today was one of those bright clear winter afternoons so I took a long walk to a couple of beers in the pub

I chuckled as I visualized me with a beer...... talk about diminished abilities ..... while I like the taste, I can't tolerate it very well! LOL But yes, I understand what you are explaining. In my words, I want to run but I can't even walk straight yet! I'll keep at it! Thank you for your posts!

[skitterbug]

F8 is not a defaulsetting, but you always have a choice between exposure, aperture and ISO to get enough light for the image. If I can get enough light at say 4 different F settings around f8 I will usually select f8 u less I want a shallow bepth of field or a deeper dof.if there is a lot of movement and you are trying to freeze movement you may select t a very short exposure time and may have to use a larger aperture. ISO I try to keep as low as possible because with my camera going above ISO 800 usual?Y gives me a noisy pic. Having said that I have seen ISO way above 800 by other photographers on this site without perseptable noise.

It really does comes down to what I want to show in a photo and that will dictate the settings that I choose. Got it! When I take pics of Mr. Bullfrog, I know exactly what I want to capture.

Trying to use the wide angle lens and making it work is definitely going to be a challenge. At least I have a tiny bit better idea of where I might want to give it a try but this effort will have to wait now until the weather is better. I'm not near anything very interesting.

I admit that I do have a better understanding about the "Exposure Triangle" and that knowledge probably wouldn't have sunk into my brain if I hadn't taken on this P52 challenge.

Thank you! I appreciate you insight!