
Sorry there hasn’t been any post in such a long time, but I was busy getting maried… (that, plus pre– and post-paring it).
Anyway, let’s get back to discussing photos. This one here I took a couple of weeks back when I was wandering around campus to take some pictures for an assignment I got. I noticed this motiv a while back already but never got around actually photographing it. As you can see, it shows from underneath a back lit staircase inside a building (that’s why I wasn’t in a particular hurry to take it, it’s there every day).
What fascinated me was the play of light and shadow. In fact, the regular shadow patterns produced by staircases or ladders are a quite common photographic subject, but this one I thought was particularly interesting because of the shape of the steps and the resulting criss-cross pattern of light and shadow.
The colours are all natural, all I did was pump up the black level (again) and add a fairly strong vignette (again). Also note the diagonal composition (again) to add some dynamics to the otherwise quite static picture.
PS: Thanks to the sensor-based image-stabilisation of my camera I could take this photo handheld even at 70mm at 1/5 s exposure!
| Focal length: | 70 mm |
| Aperture: | ƒ/5.6 |
| Exposure: | 1/5 s |
|
|
Posted at 14:43

After the rather extensive last post, here’s a slightly shorter one. At least with a shorter morale: “Be ready”.
Well, to be ready to photograph any interesting things you might come accross in your daily routine, you’ll need a camera to capture it. Unless you have a semi-decent camera in your cellphone /mobile /handy, you’ll thus need to bring one along everywhere you go, since you never know what’s going to happen.
Ever since I got the small FujiFilm Z20 I try to keep it in my jacket — of course with it’s battery charged and with at least some space left on the memory card. That way, whenever I see something curious, beautiful, ugly, puzzling or whatever, I can take a photo.
What you see above is a lonely plant in the middle of a parking lot, fighting to survive (I guess) or just hanging out. I tried to go low again to give some perspective and background information on where the photo was taken, intentionally including a few the road marking. A bit of vignette, desaturated colours and there you go. An impression of the “concrete jungle” of modern days.
| Focal length: | 18.9 mm (≈105 mm) |
| Aperture: | ƒ/4.2 |
| Exposure: | 1/340 s |
|
|
Posted at 17:02

Here’s some really basic (and quite important) info that’ll help you take better pictures, trust me. It’s a long post, but worth your while reading it (at least I hope).
Ever wondered what the little +/-button (or menu entry) on your camera does? It when you access it your camera will usually display a scale like so: [ -2 … -1 … 0 … +1 … +2 EV ] and might mention something along the lines of exposure compensation or adjustment.
Well this functionality is quite an important one and worthwhile understanding. Let me start by (loosely) explaining how your camera determines how to set the exposure in the first place (that is, how much light it’ll have to capture so that the scene looks “correctly” exposed, not too dark, not too bright, but “just right”). Science has shown that your average, correctly exposed picture will have a certain average brightness of around some value x (on a certain scale). In other words, if you calculate the average brightness of each pixe in the image, you should get a value around that certain value x. Hence, to get a “normal” picture, your camera adjusts aperture, shutter speed and ISO so that the resulting image will have an average brightness of x. Got that? Right.
Here’s a problem: not every situation you will photograph will be “average”. Two extreme examples would be 1) a white bunny sitting in the snow — a picture where your average pixel will be much brigther than “normal” — or 2) an actor dressed in black on a theatre stage with a black backdrop — here the average pixel brightness will clearly be darker than normal. Well in both cases, your camera doesn’t know that it’s looking at “extreme” scenes and thus will try to do what it always does: expose such that the average pixel brightness will be x. The result: bunny and snow will be grey, instead of white — and the theatre background will be grey, instead of black.
The solution: In those extreme cases, you tell the camera that it’s confronted with an extreme situation, that is a scene that is either brighter or darker than average. And, you guess right … this is what the exposure compensation function is for: Negative values on that scale tell the camera the scene is darker, and positive values stand for brighter than average. Easy enough, right?
Here are some more situation where you might want to try using this adjustment: Evening scenes and sunsets (set negative values), bright days and summer beaches (try a positive value). The photo above was taken late-ish in the evening. Without any compensation the picture taken by the camera was way to bright, the sky was almost white and it looked like it was taken in the middle of the day. But with a –2 EV compensation the picture then reflected much more what the world looked like when I was there.
| Focal length: | 9.3 mm (≈52 mm) |
| Aperture: | ƒ/4.0 |
| Exposure: | 1/15 s |
|
|
Posted at 18:29

Here’s another practical tip for you all. When you take photos of a child, get all the way down to their eye level! This will give you some amazing perspectives plus you’ll have a fun time dodging greasy, gooey fingers that are trying to touch the magically attractive front element of your lens :-)
I’m sure you can image that when you take a photo of a small child from your adult’s perspective, you’ll end up getting a picture that a) makes the small child look even smaller, b) usually doesn’t properly show its face, c) instead provides you with ample vistas of the ground (and not the actual surrounding) and d) is just plain boring because that’s how you perceive the world anyway, every day.
So next time you’re photographing the little ones, down at least to their eye level, if not lower — even if this means laying flat on the ground.
PS: The kid on the photo is the lovely and completely adorable son of a colleague of mine.
| Focal length: | 70 mm (≈105 mm) |
| Aperture: | ƒ/2.8 |
| Exposure: | 1/60 s |
|
|
Posted at 20:25

And here’s to fine wine. This is anotherone of the shots I had submitted to the “More Than Words” photo competition. This was one of the first photos taken with my (at the time) new macro lens, a 100mm ƒ/2.8 lens, that I had just gotten a few weeks earlier. It shows one of the more “resident” internationals students in Maynooth having a nice glas of white wine in the Caulfield’s pub.
Macro lenses classically come in several focal length, typically around 50mm, 100mm and 200mm. In particular the 100mm ones are quite often used as portrait lenses too as they can give quite flattering perspectives in terms of a just-right amount of perspective compression when taking head-shots or a bit further out. Here’s for instance a very nice portrait of Barak Obama taken with a 105mm lens (thanks to the EXIF data left intact ;-)).
So if you happen to own a macro lens of around 100mm, don’t just use it for macros, give it a go with portraits or other non-macro-y subjects too!
| Focal length: | 100 mm (≈150 mm) |
| Aperture: | ƒ/2.8 |
| Exposure: | 1/40 s |
|
|
Posted at 9:34

Here’s some more about your everyday, cheapo point-and-shoot camera, rather than expensive D-SLRs: Macro shots.
With their short focal lenghts and their small sensors (and the resulting rather large depth-of-field, that is the “depth” of the in-focus parts of the image) they’re really good for taking close-up shots. Most of those little buggers have a dedicated macro mode (have a look for a small flower-symbol somewhere on it) that allows you to get the camera really close to your subject, so that you get a good magnification. While you can achieve similar effects with a dedicated macro lens on an SLR, they easily costs 5 times as much as whole point-and-shoot camera, and you usually have a hard time getting an extensive depth-of-field. In fact, most of the time you’ll find yourself stopping down to ƒ/22 or less, and still not having enough depth-of-field. But then, stopping down the lens that much means that you also need loads of light to take the shot, and you will also get refraction problems from the small aperture… All in all, not nice.
The shot above shows the cappucino I just had a few minutes ago, snapped hand-held on my office desk, with no special lighting or anything. The camera: a 100 EUR (or less) FujiFilm Z20.
| Focal length: | 6.3 mm (≈35 mm) |
| Aperture: | ƒ/3.7 |
| Exposure: | 1/56 s |
|
|
Posted at 17:34
|