The Frame - 1

Project: Looking through the viewfinder

Exercise: Fitting the frame to the subject

This is the first exercise in the course, after the introduction, and it has to do with "composition". So basically I had to place the subject in different parts of the frame.

First photo is supposed to represent the "conventional" viewpoint. I'm not very sure that what I have bellow is really the conventional point, but it is certainly done "without taking too much time to consider the composition", as the instructions require.

The "conventional" viewpoint

So the subject is placed in the center, with some surrounding elements present in the frame.

In the second photo, the subject has to fit the frame exactly. Unfortunately, my photo doesn't look good :( I presume the purpose of this photo has to do with "understanding" or "imposing" the subject; having it so tightly enclosed in the frame, you don't get to see anything that surrounds it, so naturally the attention is drawn only to the subject and nothing else.

Exactly fitting the frame - 1

And because I didn't like the photo above, I cropped it, to really fit the frame. Didn't get much of a difference, though...

Exactly fitting the frame - 2

Still, I like this version more.

Next photograph is a close up of the subject, just a part of it actually, very detailed.

The instructions say that none of it's edges should be visible. And taken this into consideration, I'm not sure the photo bellow really qualifies, but I liked this close up very much, probably because of the the implied symmetry. And I think the circles bellow the UFO-like "umbrella" wouldn't make much sense, without their edges.

Close up

The next four pictures present the subject within the surroundings. The first is the original, the next three are cropped versions of it.

The subject has to be rather small (1/4 or less of the frame) and has to stress the surroundings. In the case of my subject (the little observatory ... I think it is/was an observatory, but I'm not very sure, because access to it is denied...), the surroundings seem to be more water and sky, than buildings or other features, which are located at some distance from it. Having said that, I'm wondering if my subject was a good choice for this exercise. It does stress that the "surroundings" are far (if I can put it this way), and that IT is rather lonely in the middle of that water and under the blue sky.

Stressing the surroundings

Crop 1 is just a smaller version of the original image, which doesn't change the first impression.

Crop 1

Crop 2 changes the perspective, it makes the subject appear a little closer to the buildings in the back, so it doesn't look so alone anymore (the water body to the left can't be seen now).

Crop 2

In Crop 3, although the buildings are still far, the tree that can be seen in the left part of the frame suggests the subject is close to some greenery or something.

Crop 3

In the end I can say that this exercise made me think a lot more of the "surroundings" of the subject in a photograph. And also of the fact that I have to choose my subjects better, according to the requirements. As I want to make a future out of photography, I think this is important.

Technical day

Yesterday I bought Elements 8 (Adobe Photoshop Elements 8), installed it, and I'm very happy about it.

I was using Elements 7 for some retouching, on a Microsoft computer, but my husband wanted to switch to Mac, so...here we are now, using I Mac, and I needed some compatible software. And as I don't cope very well with change, I wanted something I was already familiar with, so I think Elements 8 was the best choice for me. I'm not so advanced as to need all the features in Photoshop CS, so Elements is more than enough for me, at least for the time being.

I want to use it for organizing my photos as well. Until now I relied on a Casio software for importing and organizing, but I just want to use the same software for both retouching and organizing. So here I am, about to import my first bunch of photos, taken today, through the "new" software :) Wish me luck :))

And I occupied my free time with reviewing some camera manual instructions too, as I realized I simply forgot some important features and how to set useful functions (like one touch white balance, the depth of filed preview setting), and how to use my new remote control ! I just hope I will really USE them!

I'll be back tomorrow if today's photos prove good enough for the next exercise.

Introduction - A way of seeing - 5

Project: Photographing movement

Exercise: Panning with different shutter speeds


Practicing, experimenting is always useful and ...fun. As it was this exercise, in which I had to pan the camera at different shutter speeds, while trying to follow my subject and keep it in the middle of the frame. I couldn't do it just by swinging the camera (couldn't focus properly), so I used my tripod, but I loosened the tripod head (as it was suggested in the course). Even so, it wasn't so easy to focus properly all the time.

I didn't have somebody available to ride a bike, or simply run back and forth in font of my camera. So I deposited myself and my photo gear in front of the building complex where I live, and started taking photos of the cars passing by. Not too far there is a hump on the road, placed there on purpose, so the drivers don't speed too much. But even so, the cars are pretty fast. And for the ones that weren't ... I got different results...

In the course it is said that a shutter speed of 1/60 or 1/30 should give a fairly sharp image of the subject, which I found true. But I tried other speeds as well, so I can compare the results.

The first photo is taken at a shutter speed of 1/20 and while it is fairly clear that a car is the subject, it is kind of blurred and uncomfortable for the eye to look at.

1/20, f16

Starting with 1/30 the image of the subject is sharper, almost sharp enough to look good.

1/30, f14

I don't see a big difference between 1/30 and 1/40, if I look at the whole image. What I do see, is that (probably because of the difference in design as well) the wheels of the car in the 1/40 photo, give the sense of movement much better than those of the bus in the 1/30 photo, while the car itself seems sharper in the 1/40 than in the 1/30 photograph. Do I make any sense ... ?!

1/40, f10

The photo taken at 1/50 seems a little sharper than the one taken at 1/40.

1/50, f5.6

And as it was expected, the 1/60 looks even sharper. And it is the one one that I like the most. The contrast with the seemingly faster moving car in the background makes it more interesting. Even if the blue car doesn't give the viewer the impression of speed, I think the whole picture does and I find this nice. And I think the colors, especially the deep blue, contribute to the whole impression.

1/60, f5.6

1/100, f5

I think the photo taken at 1/100 shutter speed didn't come out as sharp as it should have. Or I simply can't notice the difference between this one and the 1/60 photograph.

1/250, f3.5

The car above was photographed at 1/250 and it looks almost static, except the wheels which give it a sense of moving. The background is not sharp, but it's not streaked either so I don't think it helps in giving a sense of motion anymore.

1/250, f3.5 (car passing at a lower speed than the one above)

I put this photo in my learning log, because it shows the difference between two photos taken with the same shutter speed, but passing at different speeds themselves, so the results are different. The second car was passing at a lower speed, so it's image looks sharper.

1/400, f3.5

With a shutter speed of 1/400 things look already sharp, both subject and background seem static, only the placement of the subject (car in the middle of the road) sends the message: "the car must be moving". Same for 1/1000.

1/1000, f3.5

In the end, trying to decide if I like the sharpest versions or the blurred ones most, I think it depends on the situation. When it comes to cars, or people riding bikes, motorbikes or just running, skating etc, I think I like the blurred versions more (either blurred backgrounds, as a result of panning or blurred subjects, as a result of using a slow shutter speed, but keeping the background sharp). They give a better sense of motion, than the sharp, frozen images. I also like "frozen in time" images, but I think they're more suitable for showing concentration, skill or beauty, than speed and motion.

Introduction - A way of seeing - 4

Project: Photographing movement

Exercise: Shutter speeds

This was a very useful exercise for me. After doing it, I feel more confident in "playing" with the shutter speed. It became easier to make a decision regarding the choice of shutter speed according to the movement of the subject (the speed of movement, the direction).

As the exercise instructed, I took a set of photos of a moving subject (in this case water flowing over an artificial construction), using different shutter speeds, from 1/2000 to 1 second. I had a bit of a problem with the exposure, because the setting was a little dark , so the aperture remained 2.0 from 1/2000 to 1/200. Only when I reached a shutter speed of 1/100 the aperture started to go smaller. The result was that the first photos (with the highest shutter speeds used), are kind of dark. But the subject (water) is clear and visible.

Here are the photos:

1/2000, f2

At such a fast shutter speed, the movement is frozen in time, every droplet's shape is visible.

1/1000, f2

I cannot see the difference between 1/2000 and 1/1000. For my little trained eye at least, the movement seems to be frozen in the same way. I see very clearly, every shape created by the flowing water, as in the 1/2000 version.

1/800, f2

I think the 1/800 version starts to show some differences. The shapes created by the water look more elongated, they started to loose the roundness and the clarity.

1/500, f2

A bit surprising for me is that between the 1/800 and 1/500 versions, there's no difference. At least not one that I could see. Being able to see a difference between 1/1000 and 1/800, I was sure the same would happen with 1/800 and 1/500. It didn't ... (?!)

1/320,f2

Again, between 1/500 and 1/320 I can see a clear difference. The droplets in 1/320 lost their shape completely, now they look more like some short, thick lines.

1/250, f2

Though even longer and fuzzier, the water shapes in the 1/250 version, still look rather sharp, compared to the 1/100 version, bellow. I thin the 1/250 version is the last which shows a clear picture of the water. The water shapes slowly become more and more blurred, with every decrease in shutter speed.

1/100, f2.5

1/60, f4

1/30, f5

1/10, f9

1/2, f22

When the shutter speed reaches half a second, the water already looks more like steam or mist, and the photo is brighter, as the aperture can't go smaller than 22, for my camera.

I still have problems with exposure, every time I take pictures; I think it's related to the way (or more exactly the area on which) I focus, depending on how bright it is in the first place, and with the metering mode. I really need to get some feedback on this.

1 sec, f22

I cannot see a clear difference between half a second and one second shutter speed, although I expected it to be quite obvious.
I took a photo with a 5 sec shutter speed as well, but it turned out so bright, that I couldn't use it.

As I was saying in the beginning of this post, I learned and reviewed very useful information regarding shutter speeds. I realized I still have problems with exposure, so my next goal is to learn how to compensate the exposure and how to use the metering mode in a better way.

But aside from the technical results, there is the issue of "what I like best". And in this respect I have two things to say. One is that I like the water to look "frozen" in time when I have people in the picture, in the water especially. I think it gives the feeling that the scene is alive, better than if the water looks blurred.
And I like the blurred, fuzzy, steamy looking water, given by a slow shutter speed when I photograph just water flowing (either in this artificial setting or in a natural one, like a waterfall). So in this case I think I like the 1/2 sec or 1 sec version, where the water looks the way I just described.

Introduction - A way of seeing - 3

Project: Focus

Exercise: Focus at different apertures

At first, this exercise seemed easy, although I never experimented enough with different apertures. But when I started taking the photos, I realized I had to work harder than expected. I took about six or seven sets of pictures, and even the final result was not as good as I hoped. I photographed trees, letters in a row, fences, bridge pillars etc. I couldn't see the difference in depth of field size, clear enough. I was using a wide lens (11mm focal length). So finally I decided to switch for a 50mm lens, with which I could see some results.

First photo bellow is taken at an aperture of 2.0. The area that is in sharp focus is rather small, just around the focus point. I traced some limits, in dark gray, and I marked the focus point.

Focus at different apertures - f 2

The second photo is taken at an aperture of 7.1, and the area in focus in bigger, maybe about twice as big as in the first photo.

Focus at different apertures - f 7.1

And the last photo is taken at an aperture of 22, and the area in focus is large, encompassing almost the entire picture.

Focus at different apertures - f 22

I think this was a very useful exercise for me. I have a much clear picture in my mind now. And I think I'll be more successful in the future, when taking photographs of landscapes or groups of people. It feels good to have more control over the area that you want to be in focus.

I remember now what I learned in the past about the depth of field, being twice as large behind the subject than in front of it. And I think the photos above can show this rule pretty well.

"TIGERS - A Celebration of Life" - Andy Rouse exhibition, at the National Geographic Store, Vivo City Mall, Singapore

Yesterday I saw the exhibition of Andy Rouse, "TIGERS - A Celebration of Life". Just wonderful !!
I love nature photography, and I admire these brave photographers who endure so much, so that we could see and appreciate the beauty of nature and the dangers that are upon it.

The exhibition features the best tiger images in his collection, to celebrate the Chinese Year of the Tiger. (It's MY Chinese sign, as well - I AM A TIGER !!)

But aside from that, it has a more important purpose. That of raising awareness of the rapidly decreasing number of tigers in the wild.

Andy Rouse is an award winning wildlife professional photographer and conservationist based in Cardiff. His tiger photographs that are part of this exhibition, became part of a book as well, bearing the same title "Tigers, a Celebration of Life", that was formally launched on February 6th, at the National Geographic Store on Regents Street, in London. 25% of the sales funds will be donated to tiger conservation organizations.

Andy Rouse says “The tiger is a worldwide and instantly-recognisable icon that signifies power, good luck and courage. In the worlds of fashion, entertainment and education, the image of the tiger is used more than any other animal on this planet today. From an early age we learn about the tiger and we are exposed to it in different ways throughout our lives. So how we could have let such an iconic emblem of nature get to such a sorry state of affairs, where the very future of the species hangs in the balance?

There are now fewer than 4,500 tigers left in the wild and with each non-natural death we are losing the fight to save the tiger. It is time to do something about this situation. Tigers need our help and I cannot just sit back and watch these magnificent animals fade into the night. Tigers are special to me and have given me some of the most rewarding wildlife encounters of my life. Seeing a wild tiger always takes my breath away; afterwards I feel vibrant and alive.

An image of a tiger was my first commercial sale and my company emblem is an Amur tiger. Yes, I admit it, I love tigers. And that is my hope for this exhibition and book that we can connect the general public to the tiger, to appreciate its awesome power, its timeless beauty and value to us in society. I want to get more people to love tigers and to realise what we can do for their conservation". (information from www.photoanswers.co.uk/News - the PhotoAnswers website).

Some of the images can be seen at:

http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/collections_specific.asp?IDcollection=29&timestamp=2022010123500

Although I cannot display any of the images here, I'll still try to talk about a few of them, those which impressed me the most.

Among them ... "Room with a view" - an image of an Indian tiger in Ranthambore National Park. The tiger is resting in front of one of the three visible windows of an ancient, ruined temple. He's like the king of the palace. It's a magnificent image. When I saw it, I had the impression of being in one of those episodes from "Life after people", on History channel. And when I came back to reality, I remembered the tiger is, unfortunately, the endangered one ...

Another beautiful photograph, with the tiger dominating the place (though small in the image), was "Tiger of the Lake". It's such a clear shot, so sharp, of a tiger on the edge of the water, that at first I had the impression that it's not real, it's a drawing. Only the reflection of it in the water and that of the trees surrounding the place, make the image look "alive". And the colors are spectacular.

And the photograph that I liked probably the most, was "Tiger Moods" - an image that shows only half the face of a tiger and his body curves and colors. Only that half face is in sharp focus (especially his eye), the rest of his body is blurred, to the extent that 90% of the photo is just a warm, brownish orange background, formed by the tiger's blurred stripes. The very idea of this photograph is truly remarkable. And I simply love the title (just don't look it up on the web, cause google will ask you "Did you mean Tiger Woods ?").

Overall it was a beautiful experience, and an emotional one, for me.

Introduction - A way of seeing - 2

Project: Focus

Exercise: Focus with a set aperture

The following photographs were taken with a 50mm lens, at an aperture of 2.0. I think they are not meant to be wright or wrong, from the technical point of view, but to show the difference between images of the same place, having different areas in focus. It's nice too see how the eye is drawn to the area that is in sharp focus (it's the healthy thing to do I suppose...; if I try to look for too long to the area that is out of focus, my eyes get tired and feel uncomfortable).

In the first photo the focus is on the trees that are further away in the view, almost reaching the gazebo.

In the second photo the focus is on the front lower side (not the extreme low, which is out of focus), targeting the fallen branch, nuts, leaves, and the grass carpet around these elements.

I think the first photo is nice, but pretty common. I like the second one more because it brings out details that people usually overlook. In a scene like this we normally look at the bigger picture (the trees, the gazebo, the people around - exactly the things that are in focus in the first photo). By focusing on the nuts, the leaves, the grass, I think the second photo is more powerful but delicate at the same time.

Another example - though not exactly following the course instructions (meaning it's not an image with depth, because it's actually a very close shot) is the photograph of a dragonfly. Why am I displaying it here? Because something struck me, when I focused just 10cm behind the main subject (which for a close shot is a lot). The thing is the dragonfly practically disappeared, it became invisible (second photo bellow). Many other subjects/objects just become very blurred, but they don't disappear completely, when they're out of focus. In this case though, the dragonfly's wings being so transparent, they practically turned invisible. And it's body is just a trace of orange. I guarantee it's in the same place, as it is in the first photo.

Dragonfly

"Invisible" dragonfly

In this case, obviously I like the first photo, where the dragonfly is visible and beautiful :)

Introduction - A way of seeing - 1

Project: getting to know my camera

I like to be organized, so even though I'm familiar with some of the technical terms, I'll still write them down, so whenever I need to, I can come back to this part of my learning log, and review them. So I'll go through the exercises in the course, one by one.

But before that, I'd like to use an image, from an older course that I took some time ago (Fundamentals of Digital Photography). I found the image very useful in explaining what an SLR actually is and how it works basically.

Here it is:

The diagram represents a cross section of a basic SLR. The lens is composed of several elements. In this image, the mirror is at a 45-degree angle, causing the light to reflect upward into the camera’s prism which allows the viewer to see the image. When the shutter is pressed, the mirror flips up, out of the way, and the focused image is recorded on the light-sensitive chip.

My camera:
Olympus E-510 – 4/3 system

My lenses:
- Olympus Digital 14 – 42mm 1:3.5 – 5.6
- Olympus Digital 40 – 150mm 1:4 – 5.6
- Olympus Digital 50mm 1:2 MACRO
- Olympus Digital 11 – 22mm 1:2.8 – 3.5

Basics:
1. what the f-stop numbers stand for
(The f-stop number stands for the size of the aperture. The full f-stop numbers are as follows:
f/1 f/1.4 f/2 f/2.8 f/4 f/5.6 f/8 f/11 f/16 f/22 f/32 f/44 f/64)

2. how the lens aperture controls the light
(The aperture refers basically to the amount of light passing through the camera’s lens. The aperture can be adjusted, and that’s done by the diaphragm. If opened wide, it lets in a large stream of light. If opened narrow it lets in a smaller amount of light. Going back to the f-stop numbers, opening up one full f-stop doubles the amount of light entering the camera; closing down one full f-stop cuts the light in half)

3. how the shutter speed controls the light
(The diaphragm can close faster or slower, thus the speed can control the amount of light entering the camera. If a fast shutter speed is used, the exposure time is short, if a slow shutter speed is used, the exposure time is longer, and a larger amount of light will enter the camera.)

Observation: standard focal length for a 4/3 camera – 20–25mm


Exercise: three photos, using three different focal lengths - in my case:

11mm, 50mm, 150mm

(The distance from the eye, at which I have to keep the first photo - taken with the lens at 11mm and printed on an A4 paper (for a comfortable viewing) - is about 30 cm; for the second image is about 60-70 cm, and for the last one, well....about 1.7 m; it seems MY comfortable viewing distance is a bit "further a way" than it should be, guess I'm going "farsighted" :). So...the exercise was good for something :))

(OCA) Photography 1 - The Art of Photography

Ok ... this is awkward :)

It's my first blog, so... I believe it's normal (!?). Anyway, let's get started.

Why am I doing this? Because I have to and because I'm beginning to like it already :)

I have to do it because this is going to be my learning log for a new photography course that I enrolled in, a few weeks ago (Jan 26 2010). It's Photography 1 - The Art of Photography, from OCA (Open College of the Arts).

And I'm starting to like it because I'm going to write about what I like most at the moment, and that's taking pictures.

And as with many new beginnings, this brings a lot of happiness and great hope.

Then why "through the rainbow"? Because, metaphorically, this is what photography represents to me. A transformation, a change for the better, from the dark colors of the storm to the breath-taking colors of the rainbow. Or at least, this is what I hope to become able to express in my photographs: beauty, peace, joy.