Photodigitary

Snow

In many areas of the country, snow is now becoming part of the winter landscape. Even in “sunny” California, we are getting snow up in the mountains. Snow can be a wonderful addition to a scene and can create some beautiful images.

Snow can be hard to deal with for exposure because it is white. Generally, you need to give at least one stop more exposure than the meter says. Now that will vary. If you are shooting snow that is mostly in the shade, but there are some sunlit highlights, then you want to expose for the highlights and not for the snow at all. Watch your histogram — you want to be sure that there is not a big gap on the right side, but also, no clipping of whites on that side either. It is very easy to underexpose snow badly which will crush the dark tones all together and make it very difficult to bring out a good tonal range in the image. However, it is also easy to overexpose small areas of snow in a larger scene of dark tones so that you lose detail and texture in that snow. Watch your highlight warnings and be careful of clipping of the whites on the right side of the histogram (clipping looks like a cliff at that side rather than a mountain slope that comes back to the bottom line of the histogram just before reaching the right side).

You will probably find your snow looks best shot with any of the daylight white balances. This is tricky because no matter what you do, you can get blue snow and that can be absolutely correct. If the sun is out, then shadows will be reflecting the usually very blue sky of winter. If you overcorrect for that blue, then the highlight areas can look too yellow or too amber. I find that a cloudy setting works well, sun or clouds, with snow, but this is going to depend, to a degree, on the camera model. With a scene mostly in shade, you may do okay with shade white balance, but you may find that that does not completely remove the blue, especially if you are shooting at altitude. You may have to go to your Kelvin settings (if the camera has them) and set something upwards of 9000K. You might also find it helpful to do a custom white balance (which can be done on clean snow as it is a good neutral tone).

And finally, sometimes snow just looks right with blue in it. This is especially true at dawn and dusk.

Posted in Digital camera techniques, landscape photography, nature photography | Comments Off

Camera Models

I sometimes forget that digital photography is a relatively new technology. One place you see that is when you photograph with different camera models from the same manufacturer. Even if you set everything identically, you often get slightly different results due to differences in sensors.

I had recently purchased an Olympus E-620 as a back-up camera. It is lightweight, small, but it still has a tilting LCD which I love (actually, I am so used to using such an LCD now, that when I pick up a camera without one, I feel much restricted). I did something with that camera that I highly recommend to everyone buying a new camera. I went out and shot with it over a few days … only with that camera. It is very hard to learn what a new model camera can and cannot do if you simply integrate it into the rest of your camera gear. By shooting with just that camera, you get to experience directly what that camera can and cannot do. You learn its idiosyncrasies, its quirks, its strengths and weaknesses.

By doing this, I learned how the 620 felt in my hands, how it balanced, how its controls functioned. While cameras from a specific manufacturer will have similar controls and functions, these controls will change from model to model. When you force yourself to work with the new camera, you learn these things. You also learn surprising new controls, and sometimes, you discover, as I did, a control on the new camera that you did not know was on your other cameras.

I also definitely learned that the 620 sees colors a little differently than my E-3. Again, this is typical for most camera models. I did not do any “tests” — I’ll be honest, I find a lot of the tests boring and not all that useful. I am more interested in what a camera will do in real-world situations than how well it photographs a test target. However, if you just shoot with one camera, the new one, and shoot a lot of different subjects, you will start to see differences. I found, for example, that the white balance settings were different enough to affect how I would shoot with white balance. By this I mean that Cloudy on my E-3 was not exactly the same as Cloudy on the E-620. This is simply a reflection of two things: the relative newness of digital photography technology and the fact that white balance does not have an international, agreed upon standard.

That doesn’t bother me. It is simply information to be used the next time I use the E-620. I know I have to work with white balance differently on that camera, and that’s fine. Such changes are consistent, so once you figure it out, you can use new settings with confidence. The photo is of a salt marsh at sunset near Los Osos, California, and was shot with the E-620 and HDR exposure technique.

Posted in Digital camera techniques, Equipment thoughts | Comments Off

Noise and Exposure

Noise, that annoying sand-like texture in a digital photo, has been seriously attacked by all major camera manufacturers. It is unwelcome in most photography, but especially nature photography. You can actually get away with more noise in certain types of photography because viewers accept it there, such as low-light photography of people and news. And some photography, such as travel and fashion, will use noise in creative ways. But most photography needs “cleaner” images, meaning less noise.

Most cameras today have better sensors and noise-reduction algorithms built into cameras to keep noise low even at high ISO settings. With some of the newest cameras from Nikon and Canon using full-35mm-frame sensors, noise levels are extremely low, even at high ISO settings (low noise at high ISO is a good reason for a full-35mm-frame sensor). In addition, programs like Nik Software Dfine do a terrific job in reducing noise (it makes my smaller sensor Olympus E-3 perform much better at higher ISOs for example).

But one thing you don’t hear too much about is how exposure is still a limiting factor. In fact, exposure becomes more critical with higher ISO settings. Higher ISO settings are not changing the sensor — they amplify the signal coming from the sensor. Manufacturers start applying noise reduction right on the sensor itself, then to the signal being amplified and more to keep noise down. However, as you amplify any signal, noise increases. What happens, in a sense, is that noise is just waiting to be revealed.

So if you underexpose a high-ISO exposure, you are likely to make that noise visible. The more the underexposure, the more likely noise will be noticed. You have more latitude with exposure with low ISO settings because the noise is less to begin with and not so close to the final image.

This also shows up when shadows from high ISO shots are processed. Shadows are essentially “underexposed” compared to the rest of the scene, making them closer to the noise, as dark areas will always hold more noise than brighter areas. That’s not a problem as long as those shadows stay dark. But as soon as they are brightened in Lightroom, Photoshop, etc., noise will quickly become obvious no matter what camera you use. You have less flexibility in processing an image when it is shot with a high ISO.

The solution to all of this is, first, be sure you expose correctly for a scene without underexposing key tonalities in that scene. Second, if you need to get the most out of an image, from shadows to highlights, expose properly and use a lower ISO. You will start hearing people say that you can shoot all the time at higher ISO settings. That can be a benefit for some photography, but remember, that as the ISO goes up, the exposure latitude goes down and the ability to get clean, noise free shadows also goes down.

Posted in Digital Photo Techniques, Digital camera techniques, nature photography | Comments Off

Brown Photography

This is a time of year that many photographers put away their cameras. Landscapes look brown and drab nearly everywhere. There is little that is filled with color.

I can understand the disappointment in natural scenes for photography at this time of year. Yet, for some reason, I have always enjoyed photographing now. Even back when I lived in Minnesota, I loved getting out and photographing beyond the typical fall season, and before winter. Partly this is due to the seasonal conditions. I like the color temperatures and I enjoy the low light from a low sun. Plus, I often have the location to myself. Even at locations that are packed at other times of the year, I find that there is a gentle solitude that I quite like as I explore both with my eyes and my camera.

One of the biggest challenges at this time is brown. Brown can just be so very unattractive in a photograph. I think there are several things that can help you deal with brown:

1. Browns look terrible when overexposed, so be careful of that.
2. Light can make or break browns. Low light that skims across a brown so that its texture is revealed is a good way to work with light and browns.
3. Backlight is excellent with browns and can even make them glow.
4. Flat light that has no shadows or dimension is usually very difficult to work with for browns.
5. Look for different browns. Red-browns look very different than tan browns and you can use color differences in browns to create very rich images. Dull gray-browns are difficult to photograph so they look good.
6. Look for any contrasts. A dark tree trunk can anchor a composition, while backlit seed heads can create a glow to the image.
7. With landscapes, use the blue sky as a pictorial element (not simply sky) that contrasts with the browns.

Close ups are often quite good in the fall. So many seeds look quite interesting up close, offering stunning photo opps, and there are lots of seeds in the fall.

Posted in Nature, landscape photography, nature photography | 3 Comments »

Sharpness

Sort of following up on the tripod blog earlier, I was reminded about photographic sharpness from a question I got from a student who wanted to know if a “full-frame” camera would give sharper results than a smaller format. This is an interesting question and relates to a lot of misperceptions about sensor size, too.

Full-35mm-frame (I like to use that term because “full-frame” is very misleading — if the 35mm size cameras are full-frame, then what are larger format cameras?) has no effect on sharpness. I shoot mostly with Olympus gear which is a four-thirds size sensor, smaller than most digital SLRs, plus some with Canon APS-C cameras, and even a small, compact digital camera often called a “point-and-shoot”, and I have no problems with sharpness due to sensor size from any of those cameras. That said, it is important to note that megapixels will affect ultimate image size, and that small sensors with high-megapixel counts can have “mushy” looking small details because of the processing the camera does to handle noise from the sensor.

From many years of classes and also from judging a lot of photo contests over the years, I can definitely say that the biggest impact on sharpness is from camera movement during exposure. This can be a big issue with less-expensive lenses, not because they are bad lenses, but because they are “slow” lenses (referring to aperture) and often mean shooting at slower shutter speeds that increase the possibility of unsharpness due to camera movement.

The only way to see how much this affects your work with your camera and lenses is to do some tests. Shoot a scene handheld at a variety of shutter speeds, then shoot that same scene with the camera on a tripod. Compare the shots. Most photographers are surprised at how quickly sharpness degrades with slower shutter speeds that aren’t necessarily that slow. Telephotos and close ups increase the problem with camera movement during exposure. Some photographers are capable of shooting at very slow shutter speeds — and I am jealous of them because I am not. It is really good to know what shutter speeds start causing you problems with sharpness.

A solid tripod can make more of a difference in sharpness than anything else. I will take on anyone who shoots with the most expensive lenses and camera possible, with me taking the least expensive camera with its kit lenses, but I will shoot on a solid tripod and they will shoot handheld. I will guarantee most of my photos will be as sharp or sharper than theirs.

There is one other thing to consider about sharpness and sensor size that affects how you deal with what is sharp or not sharp in the image. Full-35mm-frame does affect how a sensor sees what a lens sees. I have a new class at BetterPhoto.com about f-stops that looks a bit at how selective focus affects images. Selective focus is definitely affected by sensor size as it relates to focal length. Larger sensors will show less apparent depth of field with a given angle of view because they require a longer focal length to get it compared to a smaller sensor (e.g., a 100mm lens on a Four Thirds camera acts like a 200mm lens on a full-35mm-frame camera in angle of view, but gives more apparent depth of field than the 200mm).

The photo here is of prairie clover in a Crow-Hassan Park prairie west of Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Posted in Digital Photo Techniques, Digital camera techniques, nature photography | Comments Off

Telephoto Macro and Close-Ups

I recently had a superb question from a reader about using a telephoto lens for close ups. First, telephotos can be outstanding for close-up and macro work (there is a difference between the two, one is closer than the other, but for purposes of this blog, I am going to lump them together as the ideas for using telephotos are the same). Several things are really great with the telephoto up close:

1. You gain a lot of control over your background. Because of perspective changes, you are enlarging your background, which means a slight movement of the camera will usually give a big change in background color and tone.
2. You can gain a very nice blended background because it is much out of focus (your camera position relative to the subject and background has a lot to do with this).
3. You gain some great selective focus effects that can really set off a subject.
4. You can step back from a wary or sensitive subject, or you can work farther away from a “dangerous” subject that could bite or sting.

There is a disadvantage to using a telephoto for close-ups and that is the limited depth of field (which is also an advantage when used right). You have to be very careful about your focus point.

How do you get a telephoto or telephoto zoom to focus closer? While many zooms have close focus settings, and a few standard telephotos do, most do not focus close enough. Extension tubes, achromatic close-up lenses and tele-extenders all work to help you get better close ups. Extension tubes are probably the most useful. They are relatively inexpensive and are simply an empty tube (with connections to the lens electronics) that fit between the lens and camera body, allowing the lens to focus much closer. How much closer depends on the focal length and the length of the tube. You will find, for example, that the same extension tube will make your zoom focus at different distances when set to different focal lengths. Extension tubes add no optics, so image quality is generally very high, but this is going to depend on the original lens. Some lenses do great up close, some do not (and this is not necessarily about the price of the lens — some high-end pro lenses are so geared toward focusing at moderate to longer distances that they do not do well up close). The only way to know this is to try the lens. One advantage of extension tubes is that they will work with every telephoto lens or zoom you have. They will reduce light some to the sensor.

Achromatic close-up lenses such as those from Canon (250D and 500D, which work on all lenses — you just need the right filter size), Hoya, Century Optics and some others, screw into the front of your lens and work great. They don’t always let you get as close as extension tubes (especially if you buy a set of three tubes for a lot of extension), but they do work well. Again, results will vary depending on the lens. And they only fit one lens filter size, so you may have to use filter ring adapters.

The tele-extender fits between camera and lens and magnifies the focal length. It doesn’t actually let you focus closer, but magnifies the subject from the old close-focusing distance of the lens, so you do get more of a close up. They do cut light significantly and often look best when the lens is stopped down from the maximum aperture. Some lenses work great with extenders, some do terribly.

With my Olympus gear, I have used the 50-200mm extensively for close-up work, including with the Olympus extension tube and also with the 1.4x extender. I think it is fantastic for that purpose. It does a wonderful job. The biggest problem for sharpness with it is not the lens itself as I think it is wonderfully sharp, but camera movement.

Camera movement during exposure is a problem for using all telephoto lenses up close. When you are using a telephoto up close, you are focusing on a small area with magnification so camera movement is intensified. How can you know that camera movement can be the problem? When you see two photos, the same basic composition and settings, one is sharp, one is less sharp, you have a big clue. Then when you look closely, look at the specular highlights (bright spots from the sun or other bright light). If you see specular highlights that are tiny lines (from the movement) rather than spots, that is camera movement.

Posted in Digital Photo Techniques, Digital camera techniques, Equipment thoughts, nature photography | Comments Off

Tripods

Many photographers skimp on tripods and I think that is a mistake. I see this when traveling all the time, and sometimes in my classes. You see an expensive camera and lens on a low-priced tripod. Many photographers think nothing of spending hundreds of dollars for a lens, but complain about spending the same for a tripod. Yet a good tripod can make or break the sharpness of any lens. In my Olympus gear, I have lenses that cost anywhere from $500 to $2000. To me, the cost of my tripod and head, about $1000, was a very important investment and worth every dollar. You can get good tripods for less, but the really low priced tripods are not worth the price. A cheap tripod that does not do its job well is too expensive.

I recommend a carbon fiber tripod for its light weight and a lightweight magnesium alloy head. In addition, carbon fiber is not as hard on the fingers when it is cold — metal tripods will sap the warmth and energy from your fingers. A quick release head helps make using a tripod easier.

Manfrotto and Gitzo are always good brands, both imported by Bogen. Manfrotto tripods are solid units that are a good value for their money. Gitzo tripods are expensive, but their fine construction is a pleasure to work with. Both manufacturers also make good tripod heads.

I use a Gitzo Mountaineer GT1540 tripod plus a BH-40 Really Right Stuff head. What is more important than the specific models are the reasons that I use this combination. I think you should look carefully at your needs for a tripod as this will affect which ones you use. I got this tripod for its compact size and light weight for travel — it easily collapses to suitcase size. Plus, the Really Right Stuff head is quite light, too. So in the field, I am not carrying more than a very few pounds of tripod and head. I also like the Really Right Stuff tripod mounting plates which allow for secure, quick-release of camera/lens. That said, there are some new heads from Manfrotto and Gitzo that have come out in the past couple of years that I quite like and would easily consider them a challenge to the Really Right Stuff head. The Gitzo heads are very finely manufactured and a true pleasure to work with, while the Manfrotto heads offer a solid, great value for the budget-limited photographer.

If I did less travel, I would probably opt for a three-section leg tripod (mine is four), as they are just slightly sturdier and faster to set up (though my four-section legs are very sturdy) and a slightly heavier head. One thing that is quite nice for carbon-fiber tripods now is that you can tighten and loosen the knurled locking rings all at once and open and close legs, which is not possible with older styles (and some tripods on the market now — this is not a quality issue, but a convenience feature).

Bottom line for my tripod and head is that it is lightweight, compact and easily taken anywhere. You can have the sturdiest, most wonderful tripod in the world, but if you hate taking it with you, it is worthless. I have no problem making sure my tripod is always with me.

The photo seen here was taken in the Ancient Bristlecone National Forest near Big Pine, California, nearly 20 minutes after sunset, which meant a long exposure of many seconds. A tripod was a necessity. However, this tree requires a hike of about half a mile uphill from the parking lot. No big deal, except that this is at 11,000 feet and I live at about 100 feet above sea level. I exercise daily, but still, I felt the altitude and I was very happy to not feel burdened by my tripod.

Posted in Digital camera techniques, Equipment thoughts | 4 Comments »