Pentax K-5, Pentax DA 16-45mm f/4 lens @ 16mm, f/6.7, 1/350s, +1EV, ISO200, handheld.
Archive » March 2012
Friday, 30 March 2012
Photo Friday - Week 11
A bit late in the day, here's a shot I took at Bedfords Park in the fog a couple of weeks ago, with the RAW file processed into monochrome, with a contrast boost and vignette, all in-camera.
Pentax K-5, Pentax DA 16-45mm f/4 lens @ 16mm, f/6.7, 1/350s, +1EV, ISO200, handheld.
Pentax K-5, Pentax DA 16-45mm f/4 lens @ 16mm, f/6.7, 1/350s, +1EV, ISO200, handheld.
Friday, 23 March 2012
Photo Friday - Week 10
It's been a busy week, but no time really for taking photos, so this week's shot comes from September 2005, when I was in Snowdonia, and I had my first DSLR, the Pentax *istD.
At just 6 megapixels it might seem a bit lacking by today's standards, but it was this camera that very quickly made me realise I was done with film, and many of the shots I show in workshops and on the TV in Cameraworld, Chelmsford were taken with it.
This one I came across when I was sorting through photos in order to update the TV display in Cameraworld, and I was reminded how much I liked it. For me contrast is often the essential element in a shot, and here it's in the form of textural contrast - the soft yet spiky moss against the hard and smooth(ish) rock, with a striking colour difference too.
Pentax *istD, Pentax A 50mm f/1.7 lens + extension tubes @ f/13, 1s, ISO200, tripod.
At just 6 megapixels it might seem a bit lacking by today's standards, but it was this camera that very quickly made me realise I was done with film, and many of the shots I show in workshops and on the TV in Cameraworld, Chelmsford were taken with it.
This one I came across when I was sorting through photos in order to update the TV display in Cameraworld, and I was reminded how much I liked it. For me contrast is often the essential element in a shot, and here it's in the form of textural contrast - the soft yet spiky moss against the hard and smooth(ish) rock, with a striking colour difference too.
Pentax *istD, Pentax A 50mm f/1.7 lens + extension tubes @ f/13, 1s, ISO200, tripod.
Friday, 16 March 2012
Photo Friday - Week 9
I popped over to Tropical Wings in South Woodham Ferrers on Monday with the little 'un, didn't bother trying to take any photos in the butterfly house whilst juggling a small child, but I had a little more time with the birds when they were displaying, and although most of my one-handed shots didn't come out quite how I might like them, this one was fine.
Pentax K-5, Sigma EX 105mm f/2.8 macro lens @ f/4, 1/1000s, ISO800, handheld.
It's a lovely dark breasted Barn Owl, which came and perched on the fence right in front of us, but the display was great, with a Stork and a Raven also flying. It's a location worth a visit.
Pentax K-5, Sigma EX 105mm f/2.8 macro lens @ f/4, 1/1000s, ISO800, handheld.
It's a lovely dark breasted Barn Owl, which came and perched on the fence right in front of us, but the display was great, with a Stork and a Raven also flying. It's a location worth a visit.
Friday, 9 March 2012
Photo Friday - Week 8
Last Friday I popped over to RHS Hyde Hall as they had a free entry day, and I thought it would be nice to have a look about. It was a bit chilly, but I got a few pics, including these two.
The first (a Dogwood, in case you were wondering) is obviously lacking in some detail, but what drew me to the subject in the first place was the vibrant colour, so rather than show a tangle of coloured twigs, I decided to stand back, defocus the lens, shoot wide open and go for something with some oomph!
Pentax K-5, Sigma EX 105mm f/2.8 lens @ f/2.8, 1/180s, ISO200, handheld.
The second shot is all about the detail, a dead Gunnera leaf in the soft overcast light has masses of texture, and I liked the symmetry of this composition too. The muted colours are the polar opposite of the Dogwood photo, yet the two were taken just minutes, and feet, apart.
Pentax K-5, Sigma EX 105mm f/2.8 lens @ f/9.5, 1/10s, ISO80, tripod.
RHS Hyde Hall is a great garden to visit, and I can't wait to get back there again later in the year.
The first (a Dogwood, in case you were wondering) is obviously lacking in some detail, but what drew me to the subject in the first place was the vibrant colour, so rather than show a tangle of coloured twigs, I decided to stand back, defocus the lens, shoot wide open and go for something with some oomph!
Pentax K-5, Sigma EX 105mm f/2.8 lens @ f/2.8, 1/180s, ISO200, handheld.
The second shot is all about the detail, a dead Gunnera leaf in the soft overcast light has masses of texture, and I liked the symmetry of this composition too. The muted colours are the polar opposite of the Dogwood photo, yet the two were taken just minutes, and feet, apart.
Pentax K-5, Sigma EX 105mm f/2.8 lens @ f/9.5, 1/10s, ISO80, tripod.
RHS Hyde Hall is a great garden to visit, and I can't wait to get back there again later in the year.
Sunday, 4 March 2012
UV, or not UV...?
...that is the question I'm frequently asked during workshops and tuition sessions, and it came up in discussion on Facebook the other day - "Do you use protective filters?"
An example of a good filter, the Hoya Pro1 Digital UV.
It's the one main area that I'm in disagreement with most camera shops, who will generally advise a customer to buy a UV, Skylight or protective filter to protect the lens they've just chosen. The theory goes that if you're going to damage anything, it's better to scratch or break a relatively cheap filter, than your expensive lens. However, I think there's a better way to protect your lens, which serves another valuable service, and has no chance of reducing image quality. Use a Lens Hood.
Why not use a filter? Well, for a start, the lenses themselves, including the coatings on the glass, are tougher than you might think, and even if they do get scratched, it's unlikely to have any noticeable effect on your images, although you may be a tad upset. To see how tough some lenses are, just have a look at this video...
Now imagine there had been a filter on that lens.
The second reason for not using a filter, or at least any old filter, is the potentially detrimental affect it may have on your photos. Luckily, LensTip.com have tested various UV filters to see how good they are, looking at flare, light transmission and vignetting. The worst filter loses you around 10% of the light coming into your lens, completely ruins any contrast that may have been there, and has very uneven transmission too.
The best filter 'only' loses 3% of the light, and has no obvious flare or vignetting. This is what you'd go for (hopefully) if you insist on using a filter for protection. I'd still only use this in hostile environments such as the beach (lots of sand blowing about). I'd still use the lens hood too.
It's sometimes argued that if you've only got a cheap 'kit' lens, then there's no point spending a fortune on a filter, so just a cheap one will do, but from the above, we can see how much that could degrade the image quality of what is probably already a fairly mediocre lens. I say forego the filter, and splash out £50 or so on a secondhand kit lens if the need arises, which it probably won't.
Now, camera shops may be a bit miffed at me saying you shouldn't automatically buy a filter - these extras all help with profits, and I wouldn't want to dent them. But note that I'm saying you should definitely use a lens hood, and these days it's rare for one to be included with kit lenses (Pentax are usually an exception to this, apart from their very budget DAL lenses), so instead of saying "...and now you need a filter...", they could say "I can thoroughly recommend getting a lens hood, not only does it shade the front of the lens reducing flare and giving better contrast, but it also protects the front of your lens from knocks and scrapes. Now, do you go to the beach often...?"
Agree? Disagree? Let me know!
An example of a good filter, the Hoya Pro1 Digital UV.
It's the one main area that I'm in disagreement with most camera shops, who will generally advise a customer to buy a UV, Skylight or protective filter to protect the lens they've just chosen. The theory goes that if you're going to damage anything, it's better to scratch or break a relatively cheap filter, than your expensive lens. However, I think there's a better way to protect your lens, which serves another valuable service, and has no chance of reducing image quality. Use a Lens Hood.
Why not use a filter? Well, for a start, the lenses themselves, including the coatings on the glass, are tougher than you might think, and even if they do get scratched, it's unlikely to have any noticeable effect on your images, although you may be a tad upset. To see how tough some lenses are, just have a look at this video...
Now imagine there had been a filter on that lens.
The second reason for not using a filter, or at least any old filter, is the potentially detrimental affect it may have on your photos. Luckily, LensTip.com have tested various UV filters to see how good they are, looking at flare, light transmission and vignetting. The worst filter loses you around 10% of the light coming into your lens, completely ruins any contrast that may have been there, and has very uneven transmission too.
The best filter 'only' loses 3% of the light, and has no obvious flare or vignetting. This is what you'd go for (hopefully) if you insist on using a filter for protection. I'd still only use this in hostile environments such as the beach (lots of sand blowing about). I'd still use the lens hood too.
It's sometimes argued that if you've only got a cheap 'kit' lens, then there's no point spending a fortune on a filter, so just a cheap one will do, but from the above, we can see how much that could degrade the image quality of what is probably already a fairly mediocre lens. I say forego the filter, and splash out £50 or so on a secondhand kit lens if the need arises, which it probably won't.
Now, camera shops may be a bit miffed at me saying you shouldn't automatically buy a filter - these extras all help with profits, and I wouldn't want to dent them. But note that I'm saying you should definitely use a lens hood, and these days it's rare for one to be included with kit lenses (Pentax are usually an exception to this, apart from their very budget DAL lenses), so instead of saying "...and now you need a filter...", they could say "I can thoroughly recommend getting a lens hood, not only does it shade the front of the lens reducing flare and giving better contrast, but it also protects the front of your lens from knocks and scrapes. Now, do you go to the beach often...?"
Agree? Disagree? Let me know!
Friday, 2 March 2012
Photo Friday - Week 7
Last Saturday I was giving some Private Tuition to a lady named Sarah at Hylands Park in Chelmsford, and she was particularly interested in macro photography, as she'd just bought herself a Nikon D5100 and a Nikon 105mm Macro Lens, so we were exploring the gardens there, which are a huge source of subjects.
We came to a nice patch of Snowdrops, and after a few variations with composition Sarah decided to try shooting upwards into the flower, making use of Liveview and the articulated screen on the D5100. I liked the image that she'd made, and suggested we could also tackle it slightly differently by using a wide angle lens and an extension tube, and the photo below is one of my results. This gives a different perspective to the longer focal length of the macro lens, but you do end up just millimetres from the subject, so not so good for insects!
Pentax K-5, Pentax DA*16-45mm f/4 lens + 13mm extension tube @ f/6.7, 1/45s, +1.5EV, ISO80, handheld.
Whilst looking through my photos to pick ones out for my upcoming 'Know The Basics' workshops, I came across this one, taken in the summer, which nicely illustrates how a high ISO can result in a faster shutter speed, which can then freeze the movement of your subject, in this case, the fountain in the Scout's Garden at Hylands. The newer cameras handle high ISOs much better than previous models (my last camera didn't even go to ISO 3200), so poorer image quality isn't such an issue these days.
Pentax K-5, Sigma EX 105mm f/2.8 Macro lens @ f/5.6, 1/3000s, ISO3200, tripod.
We came to a nice patch of Snowdrops, and after a few variations with composition Sarah decided to try shooting upwards into the flower, making use of Liveview and the articulated screen on the D5100. I liked the image that she'd made, and suggested we could also tackle it slightly differently by using a wide angle lens and an extension tube, and the photo below is one of my results. This gives a different perspective to the longer focal length of the macro lens, but you do end up just millimetres from the subject, so not so good for insects!
Pentax K-5, Pentax DA*16-45mm f/4 lens + 13mm extension tube @ f/6.7, 1/45s, +1.5EV, ISO80, handheld.
Whilst looking through my photos to pick ones out for my upcoming 'Know The Basics' workshops, I came across this one, taken in the summer, which nicely illustrates how a high ISO can result in a faster shutter speed, which can then freeze the movement of your subject, in this case, the fountain in the Scout's Garden at Hylands. The newer cameras handle high ISOs much better than previous models (my last camera didn't even go to ISO 3200), so poorer image quality isn't such an issue these days.
Pentax K-5, Sigma EX 105mm f/2.8 Macro lens @ f/5.6, 1/3000s, ISO3200, tripod.