Esther on New Year’s Eve

 We seem to have taken a lot of photos of Esther lately.  I suppose it’s because she keeps attending events and getting dressed up for them so we feel obliged to capture her in her pomp for posterity.

Esther on New Year's Eve

This was taken at home just before Esther went out with her friends. Taken with available (tungsten) light, colour corrected later in Lightroom. I didn’t dare take ISO beyond 400 due to noise concerns and, being limited to an aperture of f5.6, was faced with a shutter speed of 1/5th second. I jammed my back against a door for support and seem to have avoided camera shake.

The neutral background was easy enough, we have a plain wall in our hall. The shadows were cast by the tungsten light fitting on the ceiling. Nothing I could do about them. Nor about Esther’s slightly smirky smile.

Dress by Karen Millen, courtesy of the Boxing Day Sales.


googleplus-me

Leave a Comment

Filed under Photography, Portraits

Gladioli

 The light falling on these purple and yellow gladioli caught my eye.

Red and Yellow Gladioli

They were just in a vase in my lounge. The way the sunlight picked out the yellow ones in particular was spectacular. The effect cannot quite be captured in a photo because of the reduced contrast range but the result is not a complete failure.


googleplus-me

1 Comment

Filed under Photography

The Domain in Spain

 This website is on the .es domain, which is the domain for Spain. Obviously, it’s not actually a Spanish website.

I was looking for a suitable name for a photography blog and wanted it to be as concise as possible. “Exposures” appealed because it has obvious photographic connotations and by using the .es domain I could have a single word URL, albeit with a dot in the middle of it.

Just thinking, what if the Spanish government wanted to hold a national exhibition, an expo event if you like, but wanted separate sites for the north and south of the country? Would they want exponorte.es and exposur.es?

Nah…


googleplus-me

Leave a Comment

Filed under Photography

Pondering Portraits

 My wife took this portrait of our daughter dressed up for her school leaver’s party. And while it may have been my wife who wielded the camera and pressed the shutter, I think of the end result as more of a joint effort.

Esther Leaver's Ball #8

I rather went to town in Lightroom to deal with a host of exposure issues. The picture was taken late afternoon on a clear, sunny day, using available light only. No fill-in flash, no reflectors, no nothing. The light is coming from behind my daughter so her face is in shadow. The contrast levels were quite high and it was a bit of a job to rescue her features without blowing out the highlights.

The biggest remaining problem is noise. The ISO setting had been left at 400 from a previous shoot, so the base image was noisier than it need have been. The fiddling with exposure in Lightroom added to the noise, particular in the area of my daughter’s face. The fact that the final image is heavily cropped has made the noise even more noticeable.

I think the tight crop works best, but my wife had originally shot a full length portrait to show off the dress. This is the image before cropping:

Esther Leaver's Ball #7

The much improved noise reduction system in Lightroom 3 makes a big difference. The noise is visible but has not ruined the portrait.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Photographic technique, Photography, Portraits

Image stabilisation does not fix everything

One benefit of the Sony Alpha system compared to say Canon or Nikon is that the image stabilisation technology (Super Steady Shot) is built into the camera body as opposed to being incorporated into just some selected lenses. That means you have stabilisation available with every lens. Canon and Nikon users only get stabilisation with a limited number of the more expensive lenses, typically the longer lenses where camera shake is more of an issue.

With a Sony DSLR you can enjoy Super Steady Shot even on wide angle lenses and this can give rise to some odd effects. Bear in mind that the wider the lens, the slower the shutter speed you can get away with, even without image stabilisation, and still avoid camera shake. Add in Super Steady Shot and you can be taking camera shake free pictures at 1/15th or 1/8th of a second. Anything in shot which is stationary will come out sharp, but anything moving could be very blurred. Remember that image stabilisation only compensates for camera movement, not subject movement.

Take this picture, for example, from the family’s Nile cruise in the summer.

Egypt 3545

Our Egyptian guide, Ayman, telling us all about the Temple of Horus at Edfu, came out sharp thanks to Super Steady Shot even in low light at 1/8th of a second because he kept reasonably still. Except his right hand – he was waving his piece of paper around so it has turned semi-transparent. And the background is sharp; but some of the tour party were moving around and have become blurred or ghostly figures.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Photographic technique, Photography, Travel

Lightroom Sony lens profiles: Tamron to the rescue

I had all but given up on being able to use the Lightroom lens correction feature with my Sony 18-250 lens, finding myself a long way down the road to utter exifsperation.

Hardly any coverage of Sony lens profiles in Lightroom, no support in Lightroom for search of on-line profiles, and Photoshop CS5 (which does support on-line search) failed to recognise the lens identification EXIF tag because Sony use a proprietary tagging system. When the latter hurdle was finally overcome with the aid of a bespoke tagging utility, there was no on-line profile available anyway, and the only remaining option, DIY home lens profiling, is not really practical for the non-professional.

Thankfully, Tamron have come to the rescue. They have provided profiles for all their lenses and these come bundled with the latest release of Lightroom, version 3.2. So how does that help me when the lens I’m bothered about is a Sony lens? Well, my Sony DT 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 is optically identical to the Tamron 18-250 F3.5-6.3 Di II (Alpha Mount). Sony own a major share in Tamron and the Sony lens is essentially a rebrand of the Tamron with only minor changes such as more rounded aperture blades (for improved bokeh) and different focus screw gearing (for faster focusing).

I tried the Tamron lens profile with my Sony RAW images in Lightroom and it works perfectly. The distortion correction is indistinguishable from PTLens, to the naked eye at least, but with vastly greater convenience, flexibility, and automatic chromatic aberration/vignetting correction thrown in.

I now have a Lightroom user preset which applies the correction for me with one click.

Kudos to Tamron for saving the day. I know there must have been a marketing angle to their efforts but if they were looking for brownie points they have certainly won them, in my book at least.


googleplus-me

3 Comments

Filed under lenses, Photography, Workflow

Edfu portrait

There was a random Egyptian guide-cum-beggar just sitting around at the Temple of Horus at Edfu, Egypt, wearing the traditional jellaba. He was kind enough to let me take this portrait.

Egypt 3576

But he did come scurrying after for a coin. I gave him an Egyptian pound or whatever I could find in my pocket. I think that’s the first time I’ve ever paid a model for a portrait.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Photography, Travel

Why I don’t care if my next DSLR does not have video

The arrival of video on DSLRs seems to have got a lot of people very excited. We had some amazing videos shot by the likes of Vincent Laforet which showcased what the optical quality of DSLRs and interchangeable lenses could bring to the video world. Some of the footage, featuring the short depth of field which full frame DSLRs are capable of, was truly breathtaking.

And now everyone seems to be demanding video on their DSLRs. Sony, in particular, came in for a bit of flak for releasing some new mid-range cameras that lacked video capability.

So just who is asking for video on their DSLRs and what do they propose to do with it? The answer is that only professionals with an interest in video should remotely care. Video on a DSLR is not much use to amateurs. If they imagine they can dispense with a camcorder on their holidays, and use their DSLR for both video and stills, they are in for a nasty shock. Video on a DSLR is not a consumer feature and an attempt to use one as a regular camcorder will, most of the time, produce jerky, unwatchable results.

A DSLR with video works just fine for say a professional wedding photographer who is expected to produce high quality video along with stills. But to create video of the required quality they will need to invest considerable sums on a rig to stabilise the movement of the camera and allow them to pan it smoothly. They will also have to buy neutral density filters so that the technically correct shutter speed can be selected, and on audio recording gear because the camera’s on-board microphone is simply not going to be up to the job. The amount spent on accessories could well come to a lot more than the camera itself.

Conclusion: video on digital SLRs is a professional tool that is not readily usable by enthusiasts as a camcorder replacement. For professionals who want to add video to their range of services, the advent of video-capable DSLRs is a fantastic development because it gives them an affordable way in. Previously, the cost of professional video equipment of comparable quality might well have been out of their reach.

I am not in the professional video business and I have no intention of taking holiday videos while wearing stabilisation rigs. All I want from my DSLR is a tool that will allow me to take good stills. As a Sony Alpha user I may well be interested in the new gear they will be announcing on 24 August, possibly including the long-awaited replacement for the A700. But I won’t care a damn if Sony continue to leave video off the feature list.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Photography

Exifsperated!

The release of Lightroom 3 was supposed to banish my barrel distortion blues. At last Adobe had plugged one of Lightroom’s most glaring omissions – the ability to correct for lens distortion – an area where it had been lagging behind competing software such as DxO Optics Pro. The reality has been far less straightforward.

As for why lens correction is important to me, when on my travels I mainly use my Sony Alpha 18-250 “do it all” lens because it is so handy not to have to keep changing lenses, and if used in the right way it produces excellent results.  But it does suffer from very noticeable barrel distortion at wide focal lengths.  Sometimes the effect is attractive, but sometimes not and I often find myself needing to correct for it. As a Lightroom user this has been something of a pain since until recently there was no lens correction feature.  I have had to use separate dedicated tools such as PTLens.  Not that there is anything wrong with PTLens, it works perfectly well; but having to hop between software tools makes for very clunky workflow.

The introduction of lens correction in Lightroom 3 (and in other Adobe tools such as Photoshop/Adobe Camera Raw) should have fixed all this at a stroke, but the half-baked implementation has left me exasperated and no closer to a solution in practice.

Colossi Memnon before distortion correctionColossi Memnon

The Colossi of Memnon, near Luxor: Amenhotep III before (left) and after (right) correction for barrel distortion. The difference is subtle but uncorrected version gives Pharaoh a squat head and oversized right leg. Corrected version is nobler and more kingly. The effect of the distortion is to bloat up a circular area in the centre, squishing the ring shaped area around it, and largely leaving the edges alone. Taken with Sony AF DT 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 at 18mm f8.

Incidentally, I did recently take a long hard look at the DxO raw conversion software but finally gave up on it because I did not like the gritty look it gave my images.  It does though have a wonderful lens correction facility.  It goes beyond that because it tailors the raw conversion process to a wide number of camera body and lens combinations and those tailored settings are easy to find and install.  It is all there on a plate, including profiles for my Sony DSLR and lenses.

Contrast Lightroom 3. There is a limited selection of lens correction profiles supplied with the software and Sony is particularly poorly represented. There is no profile provided for my 18-250. Rather than do the profiling for you, Adobe (modestly funded and resourced as they are) expect photographers to do the profiling themselves using a free downloadable tool.  This is fine if you have the time and skill to do it properly.  But no fear – anyone who uses the home profiling kit can then upload their lens profiles to Adobe so they can be shared with other users. The Sony 18-250 being such a common and popular lens, some kind soul must surely have already profiled it and uploaded the profile to Adobe. Problem solved. No?

No. Not even close.

Firstly, how do you find out which user-generated profiles are available on-line?  Are they all handily listed on a website somewhere? You’d think so, but no.  Apparently they are all on photoshop.com somewhere but not accessible to regular visitors to the site.  So you might expect to be able to get to them via Lightroom itself.  And again you’d be wrong.

The only way to access the user created profiles is through Photoshop CS5/Adobe Camera Raw. Quite why Adobe decided to provide access via Photoshop but not Lightroom is a complete mystery to me, but there it is.

Now I very rarely need to resort to Photoshop, Lightroom having come such a long way, and I do not have a copy, but I downloaded and installed the 30 day trial of CS5 because, as I understood it, if I could find the lens profile I wanted I could save it locally and it would then also work with Lightroom. And indeed, if you open one of your images in Photoshop CS5 and select Lens Correction from the Filter menu, you are presented with a button to search online for the relevant lens profile.  Except in my case the button was greyed out.

The problem, it seems, is with the EXIF data in the raw file produced by my Sony camera. Photoshop “saves you the trouble” of typing (or potentially mistyping) your lens details.  It gets them directly from the EXIF data to determine which lens profile to look for on-line.  Unfortunately there is no option to enter lens details manually. If your lens specification is not present in the EXIF data, the on-line profile search facility will remain resolutely inactive.  And guess what? Sony cameras write lens information to a proprietary section of the raw file, not the normal EXIF lens model tag.  Photoshop only looks in the expected place, finds nothing and refuses to do an on-line search.

At this point I came close to giving up and creating my own profile, despite not having a decent tripod or any lighting gear.  For the profiling to work you are supposed to ensure consistent, homogeneous lighting while taking multiple exp0sures of a test target at different focal lengths and in different areas of the field of view.  But that was still a last resort.

I tried a piece of software called exiftool.  Not surprisingly it allows you to inspect and modify EXIF tags on your photos.  I reckoned I might be able to use it to manually insert the appropriate lens tag. Annoyingly, exiftool is a command line program with a horribly complicated syntax to learn.  There is a GUI program available to make it easier to use, but the latter does not cover all the functionality and in particular does not support writing to the lens tag.  Well it wouldn’t would it? That would be good news, something this sorry tale is decidedly short on.

I had a good go using exiftool and did learn how to use it in command line mode. Essentially it involved commands of the form:

exiftool “-lensmodel=Sony AF DT 18-250mm F3.5-5.6″ *.ARW

In practice I did get exiftool to update the lens tag (as verified using the exiftoolGUI program) but had best results with DNG files previously converted from Sony raw (.ARW) files.  It didn’t help though – Photoshop still couldn’t recognise the lens info.

It turns out that I was using the wrong kind of tag.  Apparently I should have been putting the lens model data into the auxiliary XMP area of the file, but before I could figure out how to do that in exiftool I came across another home grown program called alphalensinfo which does exactly the right thing for image files created with Sony DSLRs.

Indeed, with alphalensinfo I was able to create a .DNG which opened up in Photoshop’s Lens Correction filter and correctly displayed the lens model.  And yes, the online search button was finally mouth-wateringly clickable.

So I clicked it … waited with baited breath …. and was informed that no online profiles had been found for my lens.

I shouldn’t have been surprised.  Adobe’s software seems to be so Sony-unfriendly it is hardly a wonder that no Sony user has been bothered to create and upload a profile for that lens.  It could be a while before anyone does.  Looks like I am after all going to have to profile my own damn lens.  But when I do I will at least upload it and also make it available for direct download, to save others the Photoshop exifsperation I had to contend with.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

3 Comments

Filed under lenses, Photography

What’s my style?

The photography pundits keep urging enthusiasts to discover their own style. We are supposed to look at lots of great pictures by great photographers and learn from them, but not just copy them. We are supposed to express our own individual personalities in our photography.

Well how the hell do you do that? How is everyone supposed to be different enough from everyone else to make their photos recognisably theirs?

Maybe if you are prepared to develop a very stylised or eccentric approach to your photography, or if you are OK with limiting your subject matter to, say, laser-lit drum kits, then you can establish a portfolio that no-one would confuse with anyone else’s. But what if (as I do) you mostly just take travel photos or pictures at sporting events? It makes it very hard to create an unequivocally unique brand.

Nile Sunset

Nile riverbank near Luxor

So I’m not going to try that hard, but I do feel I need some guiding principles. Some idea of the way I should be going about taking pictures to ensure I end up with worthwhile images that communicate something in a consistent way. I don’t want my pictures to just be so many holiday snaps.

So here goes my first draft at a statement of my “style”:

My target is well executed, interesting travel, landscape and sports photos. I am not going all out for the “wow” factor on every shot (even if I had the skill to achieve that). Understated and natural is fine, so long as my pictures are well composed, well exposed and have a basic modicum of visual interest.

After all, I am not a professional photographer. My pictures are not in general for sale. They are for myself, my family and friends and anyone else who cares to look at them online.

If I can get a stunning shot of something I will, but I am not a glory hunter. I don’t have the time or patience to set up a “mega” shot. I want good pictures but photography is secondary to my travel or watching my daughter compete in an equestrian competition, or wherever it is that I am out and about with my camera.  If I am on holiday I want to be able to come back with some good pictures to document it – but I am not on a professional location shoot and want to be able to enjoy my holiday.

Insofar as that defines a style, well that’s my style.

1 Comment

Filed under Photography