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

[skitterbug]

Not sure how this will go but my idea came from my need to get totally back to basics and understand how different settings on my camera can affect the outcome of a photo. I'm going to start on chapter one in the new book just launched called "Understanding Photography" Volume 1 by Sean T. McHugh. My pictures will be boring to some but it is not my intent to show wonderful and beautiful stuff (chuckle) at the moment - just basics first!

Here's hoping I make it through the year! I can think of a saying that might fit - 'If you don't start somewhere, you're gonna go nowhere!' From Bob Marley (from Marley the movie). So the commitment is made! We will see where this takes me!
Happy New Year of 2017

[Manfred M]

Sandy - the best way to improve your photography is to practice (lots). If you can get one image you are proud of to post every week over the next year, you should be pleasantly surprised with your progress.

If you manage to do this, do me a favour and review the submissions you made from the first one to the last one and see what you have learned on each step of the way!

[skitterbug]

Thank you for your comments, Manfred.
It is my hope to see improvements but I must say that even doing this week's series only brings to light how much I don't know.

[skitterbug]

The first pages of the book I'm using discusses exposure and what dictates the results. Since I am generally trying to catch grandchildren in motion, it makes sense that I ought to understand what shutter speed means.

For this project my camera is mounted on a tripod on a 41 degree F day…(finally warmed up a bit)….. and pointed at the pond aeration system we use during winter months. I took several shots using shutter priority AE to see what happens when I change speed. This is the only setting of the three that I controlled for now. I left the rest to my camera.

.3 seconds (ISO100, 39mm, f/32) IMG_1454



1/30 second (ISO 100, 39mm, f/14) IMG_1450




1/100 second (ISO 100,39mm, F/8.0) IMG1448



1/250 seconds (ISO160, 39mm, f/5.6) IMG_1446



1/2500 seconds (ISO1600, 39mm f5.0) IMG_1443



And then I decided to try some post processing with IMG_1454. I don't especially like blurry looking photos since I like crisp and sharp so this is a departure for me. However, I rather like the results especially since the photo itself isn't out of focus, only the water aeration flow is allowed to be unfocused due to the shutter speed! Interesting!
I am open to any and all sharing of information and critique.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Sandy,

Very good technique with this series of shots; the camera stayed exactly on the subject (tripod, I guess?) and you had to use both ISO and aperture to attain the required shutter speed range to demonstrate the effect.

That doesn't leave much to say - well done.


However; if I may pick you up on a pedantic point of terminology, because in time, this may become a cause of confusion or mis-understanding in future posts.

only the water aeration flow is allowed to be unfocused due to the shutter speed

It is the word I have emboldened that I have an issue with; as you said previously, the shot isn't out of focus, the water is simply blurred by its movement and the slow shutter speed.

"Focus" means something quite specific, usually relating to the optical focus of the lens and how much of the image a viewer thinks is 'in focus', but I'm getting ahead of myself because this will be covered in future pages of the book.

Hope that helps, Dave

[skitterbug]

Your pedantic point of terminology does help! I was struggling about what term to use there and finally chose "unfocused". Not a good choice apparently. I won't use the word "unfocused" again unless it applies to the picture itself. <grin>

Yes, I used the tripod for all of these shots because I didn't want camera shake or change of distance affecting the outcome. That also added to my experience since I very seldom drag out the tripod. I found that I like using it as well as the remote camera switch.

I do appreciate the words of praise! Thank you!
Sandy

[Shadowman]

Nice efforts, your particular subject chosen to start out is far more difficult to capture/render then your intended subject.

[skitterbug]

Thank you for your comments, John. I have a lot to learn! We'll see what next week brings!

[Geoff F]

The speed for moving water shots is very much a matter of personal taste, Sandy. Some people get really enthusiastic about those very slow shutter speed images but I hate them. In most other things I'm easy going but I do like to see moving water to be crisply realistic.

So your fast shutter speed shot wins with me.

A lot of my early photographs, back in the film days, were rejects simply because I didn't fully understand the importance of correct speed for moving subjects. But some people like to see motion blur to indicate movement. For example moving vehicles or simply a bit of blur from a moving hand or foot, etc.

However, for me, I just delete those images after severely criticising myself for my sloppy shooting.

There are, as always, a few exceptions where carefully controlled blurring can work really well and there are a few exponents of that technique on CinC.

One other thing to watch out for is over exposure causing a lack of detail in the highlights, which has happened on your first example. With the others, you have blur over the sharpness but the texture is still clearly visible.

[skitterbug]

One other thing to watch out for is over exposure causing a lack of detail in the highlights, which has happened on your first example. With the others, you have blur over the sharpness but the texture is still clearly visible.

Help! I'm afraid I don't understand what you are trying to explain? <smile> Can you give it another go so maybe it will sink into my brain better?
Thanks!

ps: I agree about water looking like .... well "water" - with plenty of bubbles, waves, or currents. I like the crisp shots much better but I was trying to do a study of different shutter speeds so I ended up with these shots.

[joebranko]

Nice series of shots. I like your idea of working through Volume 1 on this forum. You will get lots of help and encouragement from many experts in CiC.

[skitterbug]

Nice series of shots. I like your idea of working through Volume 1 on this forum. You will get lots of help and encouragement from many experts in CiC.

Hi Joe ~ I'll appreciate all the help that can be given! Sometimes even the simplest instruction can be complicated to me! And I certainly agree with your tag line - C&C always welcome!

[Geoff F]

Lets put it another way, Sandy. If you look carefully at the base of the water in the first shot, also part of the area above that, you will see areas which lack any texture. Over exposure has 'burnt out' all the fine detail in these particular areas so they just look blank. All the other shots have some detail in these areas, although they may be blurred by using too slow a shutter speed but at least the exposure is correct.

[skitterbug]

I'm thinking I might understand now what you are explaining although I'm not sure how it can be corrected using that slow of shutter speed? The water right around the aerator will have motion so isn't it bound to be affected by the slow speed?

[Dave Humphries]

I'm thinking I might understand now what you are explaining although I'm not sure how it can be corrected using that slow of shutter speed? The water right around the aerator will have motion so isn't it bound to be affected by the slow speed?

I agree Sandy.

To my mind Geoff, the first shot (with longest exposure at 0.3 seconds) is bound to have more 'averaging' (during the exposure) of white foam, also blurred by motion, so the lack of detail there isn't really something we can really investigate here.

You may be right about some over exposure, but that's a topic for a later chapter; which no doubt Sean will have covered with more relevant example shots where multiple factors aren't in play.

On the whole, I agree with you about shutter speed (ss) choice with water Geoff, often seen too slow for my taste, although as you note, there will always be exceptions.

[Wavelength]

very nice set of images

[mknittle]

Great subject to experiment with shutter speeds Sandy. All else being mostly the same you can see the effects easily. good job.

[skitterbug]

Thank you Mark and Nandakumar! I was lucky that the weather warmed enough to allow outside shots! No sign of Mr. Bullfrog or the koi though. They sink to the bottom of the pond and hide. Can't say that I blame them one bit!
Now to think up next week's series! Wish me luck!

[skitterbug]

2nd week's attempt: Depth of Field

So it is known, I didn't do any adjustments of these two pics. They are what they are.
I used a tripod since I was taking them in late evening. Unfortunately, it isn't exactly "outside weather". I would rather be outside trying to illustrate what I'm trying to learn.

Settings: f/5.6, ISO 400, 55mm


#1 - I focused on "kitty" and of course found that Santa is not as sharp since depth of field is involved. At least I think I have that assumption correct?





#2 - And then I focused on Santa realizing that "kitty" is not as crisp and clear.



After trying these, I went back to the manual that also points to the Depth of Field tutorial offered in this forum as well as the Depth of Field calculator. I know that my camera has a CF of 1.6x and I understand selection of aperture which is from f/5.6 to f/36 on my equipment.
But for the next two entries - Focal Length and Distance, what actually is entered? The article talks about viewing distance of the photo or does it mean the lens focal length and distance?
And then once whatever information is yielded, what do I do with it?
Yep, I'm confused and this is definitely "deep" with the technical stuff involved. (At least for me....)

So explanations, ideas, critiquing, etc are all welcome! And thank you for a place to learn!

[Geoff F]

When there is a focus depth issue, Sandy, keep the closest area sharp and let the far distance fade into softness. It looks more natural that way.

Your only other option, if using a narrower aperture has been ruled out, is to arrange the scene, or your shooting position, differently. Alternatively take 2 or more shots with different focus points and do a focus stack merge; if you have suitable software.

One of the advantages with digital photography is the ability to get an instant review and check on any potential focus depth issues. With the old film days it was a case of making careful measurements and hoping for the best.