John H Maw - Photographer

New web now live

2011-04-07T19:47:00.003Z

My new website is up and running. Great relief to have it all working.

Image: Eaton bollard

Practical photography course - February/March 2010

2010-02-14T18:44:00.009Z

Short notice I know, but if anyone is interested there are a couple of places available on my course starting on February 20th (other dates are Feb 27th, March 13th and 20th - omitting March 6th is not an error - other commitments dictate). Four sessions of three hours each.

Apart from the first hour we will be outside for all of that time, photographing a variety of subjects, comprising landscape, modern and traditional architecture and moving subjects (sport of pastimes). The course is suitable for all levels and costs £38. Full details are on the "Announcements" page of my web site.

Image of frozen puddle near to Korda Lake, Harefield.

Shooting through the cold - some thoughts on staying warm

2010-01-11T20:05:00.008Z

The recent cold weather and particularly the extended period of snow has brought many wonderful photo opportunities. For me it coincided with discovering access to a new location, and I made the most of it. However, with the opportunities came challenges. None more so than how to stay warm for six to eight hours while still being able to take photos in these conditions. It isn't enough to be just tolerably warm. You need to be comfortable enough so as not to be distracted by the climate or the clothing. So here is a quick description of what has worked (and sometimes not) for me.

Let's work downwards (why not). At the start of the cold spell my choice of headgear was a thermal lined cap with a furry flap running from one side, around the back to the other side, which can be folded either up or down. It looks a bit like headgear that a Southpark kid might wear. Knowing that the flaps around the ears wouldn't be enough I also wore a snood (a sort of elongated hood without a jacket attached). The snood is made from a fleece which proved to be only slightly more windproof than chicken-wire. To remedy this I have been using a black silk balaclava more normally used by motorcyclists. Being silk it adds only little bulk, but does help retain heat. I'll be honest. I won't win any beauty or fashion contests looking like that, but I can live with the disappointment.

Now on to the main torso. Nothing special here. Mainly lots of layers. I do use a thermal cycling top, which certainly helps a lot. Most cycling clothing has longer arms and torso length to cope with the position in which cyclists ride. As well as its thermal properties it is also quite slippery on the outside surface. This is a help when there are more layers over it, as it allows layers to move more freely over each other and therefore movement is less restricted. I try to wear enough under my top layer so that I can open my jacket (to get at pockets for instance) without feeling the cold. Talking of jackets and moving freely, hoods are not ideal for photography as they inhibit turning the head to see what is around you. They encourage a rather blinked view (only optically of course).

And so to one of the most important parts - the hands. Last winter I got a pair of SealSkinz Ultra Grip gloves. They are insulating, though not enough for extreme conditions. They are also waterproof, breathable and dexterous and thanks to lot of little rubber dots on the fingers and palms have very good grip, even in the wet. To increase the retention of heat I use silk glove liners. As with the headgear the silk adds little in the way of bulk, but increases the warmth. I can operate all the controls on the camera with both of these pairs of gloves on. The only thing that requires their removal is changing a battery which isn't needed very often. On a seven hour trip the other day I didn't need to take them off once.

Trousers don't seem to be a problem for me. I just wear normal ones, but not jeans. Denim performs very poorly in cold weather and should be avoided.

Lastly to the feet. In fact I don't do much that is different because of the cold. I normally wear a pair of leather hiking boots with normal socks and then walking socks over. In summer the inner socks will be cotton and in winter they will be wool. The walking socks will also be wool. If you find that you are walking through a lot of snowy undergrowth then gaiters may be useful to stop water getting in around the top of the boot. I had some with me the other day but didn't use them.

Take from this what appeals and reject what does not. These things are very personal. Just don't stay inside when it's cold.

Image: Icy lake - Denham

Things that improve your photography (other than taking photos) - pt 1

2009-12-11T19:19:00.011Z

A few thoughts about improving your (and my) photography. The obvious one is to take more photos and try new approaches, but as the title says, that is not what this is about. It is also NOT about an excuse to buy more kit (sorry).

The point is to improve the way we see. To make us more visually aware. In this case, to make us more aware of shapes and lines within an image and therefore strengthen composition. And the secret, very simple. Draw. Yes, you read it right. Draw. Sketch. Scribble and doodle. Actually, it's a bit more directed than most doodling, but the process if very simple and very quick.

Do 20 second sketches of things or people that you observe in your day-to-day life. Give yourself only 20 seconds for each one (precision is not too important here) in order to sketch a scene that in in front of you. Think of it as a sort of cartoon if you like. The point is to try to express a lot in very few lines and in 20 seconds you don't have time to get caught up in the detail. Why do this? Simply to improve your awareness of lines within what you see in front of you. To translate complexity into simplicity. You don't have to be great at drawing, although after a short period you will almost certainly become better at that too.

Do it during the commute to and from work (not if you are driving, silly), during lunch breaks on a paper napkin or even while you are at work - just don't blame me if you get into trouble with your boss. And do it regularly.

Image: Mist on the lake, Harefield

The Direct Print button. Is there a place for it?

2009-10-07T12:44:00.004Z

Just the other day I read yet another comment from a respected reviewer indicating that the direct print button on some Canon DSLRs is just a waste of space and function and that it has no place in the world of professional photographers. There have been many such comments. But I disagree (well, you knew I would).

Travel back in time with me, back to the days when most working photographers used film. Often the client would be present at the shoot (that bit hasn't necessarily changed). It was usual to shoot polaroids and show them to the client so that he or she could assess and approve (or otherwise) the shot. OK. Back in the time machine to today when we have the instant gratification of digital cameras and seeing the image almost immediately on the back of the camera. But which would you rather show to the client. A polaroid print (for them to take away) or hand them the camera to peer at - or even worse, get them to stoop down to see the screen as the camera is still on the tripod. Even if you show the image on a laptop the client doesn't have anything to take away as a reminder of what had been agreed.

Direct Print button to the rescue, along with one of the small portable printers that are designed to go with them. Now you can give the client a print to approve, something that can be taken away for future reference. Next question: Is the use of this button enough to justify a prominent position in preference to some other function (mirror lockup perhaps)? You decide.

Image: Thistle - Turville

Is 10% of the market not enough? - why no left handed digital cameras

2009-09-27T10:00:00.007Z

Making a digital camera is an expensive business. Why would a manufacturer intentionally restrict likely market appeal to around 10% when compared to any other camera. But wait just a minute. If I come out with a camera for right handed people it is in competition with hundreds of other cameras and will never get anywhere near 10%. In fact a tenth of that would be remarkable. If I were to come up with a left handed digital camera now, in a market without any others, I might well attract more than 1% and my product would be a hot seller compared to anything else. In addition to this, most of the components would likely be the same, so apart from a new body/chassis it would be sharing component and development costs with an existing right handed camera.

Of course, once other manufacturers saw the potential market possibilities, I'm sure there would be competition. But in the early days I would have the market to myself and could be raking it in. If I was smart, I might even manage to establish myself as the brand that people associated with left handed cameras. A John Maw camera might even become the accepted name for left handed cams, just as iPod has become the term people use when referring to MP3 players. I am no economist (a quick glance at my bank statement proves that) but I am sure that this is a winner for a company with some foresight.

What a shame that digital camera manufacture isn't really possible as a cottage industry, or I might be burning the midnight oil in my garage catering for this niche market. By the way, I would need a tester, as I am a member of the other 90%.

Image taken on Uxbridge Common

Did Leica miss an opportunity with the S2?

2009-09-17T18:14:00.005Z

So Leica has joined the otherwise diminishing number of makers of medium format cameras (along with, more recently, Hartblei). What marks the S2 out from the rest of the digital medium format brigade, other than the fact that this system has the smallest image area of any camera to be dubbed medium format, is the aspect ratio of the chip. Leica have opted to use a 2:3 format just like 35mm style cameras, whereas most other of the larger chips offer something around 3:4 or 4:5.

Why does this matter? Well, only in the sense that the majority of published images are not reproduced at 2:3. If you look at the average proportions of images being reproduced in print the ratio is much nearer 3:4. That means that some of the resolution is lost in cropping, leading to an almost routine reduction in pixel count in the final image.

Of course 35mm cameras managed with this format for many years, but it should be remembered that the choice of format was, in the first place, one of convenience for historical reasons (and of course Leica was the company responsible for that decision too). Then along came digital SLRs and most (at first all) followed the same pattern, wasting the opportunity to change to a better format. Medium format digital took a more flexible approach and opted, in most cases, for something better suited to the needs of the market, until now. Thanks Leica.

PS. The Hartblei's isn't a digital camera system specifically, as it can take film backs, and also Hartblei might already consider themselves a medium format camera maker as they have, for some years, supplied modified Kiev cameras.

Image: illuminated path, Turville

My Twitter page

2009-08-05T22:19:00.007Z

Just a little note to say that I have a Twitter page. The address is http://twitter.com/photo_uk/

Image from Norway trip in 2005

Move over Paul Simon. Momma just took your Kodachrome

2009-06-22T18:19:00.004Z

Thirty six years after Paul Simon wrote the words “Momma, Don’t Take My Kodachrome Away”, Momma (Kodak) has finally done just that by announcing the end of production of Kodachrome slide film, which it has been making for a remarkable 74 years. Existing stock is likely to run out in the autumn of this year. Only one lab in Kansas still processes this film and has said that it will continue to offer the service through 2010. Truly the end of an era.

Photo of the pergola at Hampstead (taken using a Mamiya 645 AFDII and ZD back - no Kodachrome involved)

Does image stabilisation re-write the rules on tripod selection?

2009-06-19T07:14:00.002Z

You decide to go out and buy a tripod. You have money in your hot little hand. You know that to get sharp shots you need a tripod capable of holding steady the most demanding camera and lens combination in your bag (normally the camera with the lens on that overhangs most). Let's say that you are prepared to lug around a substantial weight in order to get those sharp shots. You buy a well made all metal or metal and carbon fibre tripod at significant expense. But are you sure you really needed to?

Here's a thought. Many photographers who have bought lenses in the last few years will have several with image stabilisation (IS). Later model image stabilisation is tripod detecting, and can be left active while on a tripod (don't try this with the earlier type IS). In fact, with that in mind is it possible that the role of the tripod could have changed? If the tripod should happen to have a degree of flexibility, would the IS cut in and compensate?

What I am suggesting is this. If all but your very widest lenses have the later version of IS (or if it exists within the camera body as it does with some makes) the role of the tripod changes from something that should hold the camera and lens completely still, to a device to restrict the movement of the camera and lens to limits within which the IS can compensate for any remaining movement. In that situation you may be able to produce sharp shots with the aid of a tripod that is not capable of keeping the camera fully still in all conditions.

Now I think it is very important to clarify that I am not suggeting that this is the ideal situation, or that you should trade in your lovely beefy three-legger for a lesser model. My point is that maybe you can now take a smaller lighter tripod with you where before you would not have been prepared to carry a more solid (and heavy) one. All the other precautions of weighting the tripod, using mirror lockup and self timer/remote release still apply of course.

The tripod that I have been using in just these situations is one from the Benro Travel Angel range, and my comparison tests have shown that with all but very long exposures of several seconds the combination of light tripod and IS gets the results. Do your own tests to see what works for you.

Image: Overlooking Turkdean on the edge of the Chiltern Hills

My new web site now on line

2009-06-16T13:56:00.009Z

Just a little note to say that my new web site is now up and running. Both www.jhmaw.co.uk and www.jhmaw.com now link to the same site and content.

The site covers architectural, still life/product shots, landscapes and seascapes and some dance images. Categories still to go up are transport/haulage and a general people gallery. Please feel free to have a look.

Image of the Thames at Richmond.

IR Big Time - Infrared from medium format digital

2008-08-17T22:24:00.018Z

A number of alternatives are available if you want to shoot infrared digital photography. Most, however, involve the use of compact cameras or DSLRs (cameras based on the old 35mm film format). Until recently there has (as far as I am aware) been no easy way to take infrared photos on anything larger than a 36mm x 24mm (full frame) sensor. Medium format digital backs were not available with IR capability, and because of their high price, most people were not interested in having them permanently converted for infrared use. For normal colour photography it is desirable to cut out as much infrared light as possible to get images that look as we expect to see them, but this makes most cameras unusable for infrared photography without modification.

There is one digital back with a feature that sets it apart from most others. The Mamiya ZD back (and the all-in-one ZD camera) has a user replaceable IR blocking filter over the sensor. At the end of last year, Mamiya announced that they were going to make available an infrared passing filter that could be used in place of the standard infrared cut (blocking) filter to enable IR photography.

The announcement went on to say that the filter would be available in mid January. Small camera manufacturers like Mamiya have a habit of announcing optimistic release dates, and so in keeping with that tradition, the first filter (yes, apparently they sent just one) landed here in the UK in late July.

I have been shooting with an IR modified EOS Rebel XT (350D) for a few years. This camera has given some very pleasing results and I have been very happy with it. When the Mamiya filter arrived I was keen to see how the images from the ZD back would compare with those from the Canon (apart from the obvious difference in size between an 8 million pixel image from an APS size sensor and a 22 million pixel image from the 36mm x 48mm sensor of the ZD back).

To make a comparison between shooting IR film and IR digital, I had been pleasantly surprised that the EOS was very sensitive to IR and I was able to use quite fast shutter speeds even with a filter that completely blocked out visible light (Lee 87). The other difference was that I had always shot with infrared mono (black & white) film, and the digital images showed subtle colour differences once the strong magenta cast had been neutralised.

Well, I am please to say that the Mamiya back, once freed from the constraints of its IR cut filter is even more sensitive to IR and appears sensitive to an even wider range of wave lengths. Some time ago I mentioned a technique for achieving strong false colour images from digital infrared files. The range of colour in the Mamiya IR images is so wide that this technique is no longer needed to achieve strong multi-coloured results. In fact some are so vibrant that I feel that they need to be toned down a little. For those who are interested, the images shown were converted from RAW using Bibble Pro (my previous favourite converter, DXO, will not convert Mamiya RAW files, so I have made the switch to Bibble Pro). More on that another time.

Images shot in or around Denham using a Mamiya 645 AFD II and Mamiya ZD back with a Lee 87 filter over the lens, processed with Bibble Pro.

New Links

2007-08-10T06:50:00.000Z

The more observant among you may have noticed that I have added some links to this blog, near the top on the right hand side. Many of them will likely be familiar to you. DPNow and DPReview (who hasn't visited DPReview when considering a camera purchase?) are long established sites. The Luminous Landscape is one that I visit regularly and link to often. I have mentioned SLR Gear and The Digital Picture before, and Strobist is a fantastic site to inspire you to get wonderful results with inexpensive flash. One site has not been mentioned before. I discovered "Cambridge in Colour" quite recently and I was instantly impressed by the thoroughness and depth of the information on the site. I strongly recommend that you devote some time to it. If you come across a site that you think deserves a mention or a link - it could be your site or someone else's - please let me know.

Image: Detail of the interior of St Mary's church, Turville, taken during the last group session that I led. August 2007

The Hartblei 45mm Super-Rotator (Part 3)

2007-07-18T15:52:00.000Z

Nearly there. This is the third and final part of a piece that I have put up here about the modification and use of my Hartblei 45mm Super-Rotator. This last part is primarily concerned with identifying and combating problems of flare. As I said previously the lens itself doesn't seem to have a particular problem with flare. It seems very good in quite challenging situations. But there were times when I saw unusual and pronounced flare, and I felt that this was caused not by the optics of the lens, but by light hitting the camera sensor and then reflecting back towards the lens and hitting a surface that bounced that same light back towards the sensor again (still with me). I also felt that the culprit was the shift adaptor, not the lens. The result in very high contrast situations was patches of fogging (as seen over the roof the first of the church images just below).

I wasn't sure what measures would be needed to cure the problem, never having had to deal with this issue before. All I could do was to make every surface that was parallel to the sensor as non-reflective as possible. I spoke to Ian Broomhead at SRB and he made a few suggestions. One was the application of a flock material, but I also followed his advice on the sort of paint to use to cut down the reflections. His suggestion was a paint intended for builders of models (cars, trains, that sort of thing) and sold in very small tins (Humbrol Matt Black 33). As the adaptor had to go back to SRB for adjustment they also applied some flock to the area inside the lens mount. Although not parallel to the sensor, flock on this area couldn't hurt. Most of the other surfaces of the adaptor had to be painted.

One of the problems that dogs users of digital cameras is dust on the sensor (in fact not really on the sensor itself, but we have dealt with that one before). What I didn't want to do was add to the problem. If I was going to put paint inside the lens I had to make sure that it was properly keyed in, so that the paint would stay put and not flake off with time. The last thing that I wanted was to have specks of paint travelling at will around the area of the mirror box. The key (pun intended) was the primer. I chose an acid-etch primer that would slightly eat into surfaces onto which it was applied, and so form a good bond. Primer like this is available from auto accessory shops, although a friend happened to have some, so that was rather convenient.

Once all of this was done I was impatient to retest the lens. So far all tests have proved successful. I re-shot the interior of the church and as you see there were no signs of flare (St George's church, Lower Brailes - see above). The two shots were done at a similar time of day and with similar weather conditions outside (both shots are a "comp" of four frames). Other tests have proved similarly successful. With familiarity, high resolution shots can be achieved with minimal fuss and effort.

One final point is the issue of shielding the lens. I am a great advocate of lens hoods, particularly rigid ones or bellows hoods. Because of the wide image circle most lens hoods are out of the question. The one intended for the lens is so shallow that it looks more like a small plate with a hole in. I think that the answer is to flag the lens and I am working on a solution that will attach either to the tripod or the camera hot shoe - more on this another time.

So there you have it. If the project sounds interesting why not give it a go. I think you will enjoy the result. The image of the Ruark speaker at the top was taken with the plane of sharp focus angled to follow the front of the wooden cabinet.

Part 1
Part 2

Have your say - Adobe Photoshop survey

2007-07-17T13:26:00.000Z

Let Adobe know what you would like in Photoshop and Bridge. The survey only takes a few minutes.

The Hartblei 45mm Super-Rotator (Part 2)

2007-07-15T18:38:00.001Z

Following my first piece about this lens and how it came to be, I thought it would be a good idea to describe the situations in which you would use a lens like this and something about what it is like in use. Those who have previously used large format cameras will be well aware of the application of camera movements, but for those who are unfamiliar, this may help. The lens is able to shift (that is to move the lens axis either up or down or to one side or the other) and/or tilt (change the angle of the axis of the lens). More about camera/lens movements can be found here.

Tilt movements change the angle of the lens axis. This in turn changes the angle of the plane of sharp focus (as well as the planes defining the limits of depth of field). This can be used to keep objects that are at varied distances in focus, or as is common in much contemporary commercial photography, to throw parts of an image out of focus. This approach can also be seen in the image of the church interior near the bottom of this piece. The roof is completely out of focus. The tops of the pews are sharp from near to far. The floor at the bottom of the frame is un-sharp. Even on such a small reproduction the impact of this treatment is quite clear. It shows up much better in larger images. The same technique was also applied to the shot of Denham Village used in an earlier piece.

The shift movements would often be used to overcome problems of converging lines, as might be found when photographing tall buildings from ground level. Aim the camera up and the sides of the building taper in towards the top. Shift the lens up while keeping the camera level (pointing horizontally) and the sides of the building stay parallel.

Shift movements can also be used for stitching purposes (no sewing skills required). If you have sufficiently large shift movements you can capture several frames whilst keeping the camera facing in one direction. Unlike panoramic photography where the camera is rotated, these images don't require special software to combine them. Any image editing program that supports the use of layers (layer masks are also useful, but not essential) will do the job. Shift and tilt movements can easily be used together, but where stitching is concerned it is probably wise to avoid using tilt unless you really need it. Having said that, it could produce some interesting results. I will have to experiment. The result is often very large images and equally large files.

Main controls for shift and tilt movements

The first thing that you notice about this lens is that it is quite big and heavy. There is no plastic used in the making of this lens - well, none that I could see anyway. Metal rules here (heavy metal at that). The next thing that you notice is that it has a lot of knobs and levers. Working from the filter thread back to the lens mount, these are the controls (see image just above): Large focussing ring, aperture ring with two little "tabs" attached - makes finding the aperture ring by feel very easy. A ring marked in millimetres for the lens shift. A tab that unlocks the rotation of the shift movement. A knob sticking out that applies tilt. A locking slider to release the rotation of the tilt movement. Behind that on my lens is the adaptor, which has a knob that is rotated for the extra 11mm of shift. The rotation of this movement is not locked, but clicks into a number of pre-set positions.

The lens is a fully manual lens in every way. There are no connections with the camera beyond the lens mount itself. Most lenses allow you to set the aperture you want to use for the shot but leave the lens open while framing the shot for a brighter viewfinder image. Not this one. Open the aperture wide to compose and (manual) focus, and then close it down as required for the exposure and depth-of-field. In use the lens is a dream to use. When I first started using it I was struck by how much I felt in control of the image in a way that I had not experienced since I stopped using a 5"x 4" camera. Being able to control perspective and focus (as in Scheimpflug) is something that users of rigid-bodied cameras don't normally experience to the full. But one solution leads to another problem. Critical focussing on a focussing screen designed for auto-focus isn't easy. I decided I needed to magnify the viewfinder image. I already had an angle finder, but bought one with a built-in magnifier (as seen on the first image in this piece). The magnified image doesn't give full frame coverage, but is useful just at the time of focussing. This worked well enough outside in good light, but I then found that the magnified image was significantly darker, and in the studio I needed a tungsten focussing light, as the modelling lights on the flash were not bright enough. It is not uncommon to do this, but I had never found the need before.

How you approach each shot will depend on the subject matter, but I will run through how the office building shot that accompanies part 1 of this piece was taken. Taking several frames to get one image may seem tedious, but it can be achieved very quickly. When shooting the office building I was standing in the road (there was no footpath on that side) and was keen to get out of the way as soon as possible. I had set up the camera and taken the four shots required in less time that it would have taken to get the Sinar 5x4 out of it's case.

The tripod was set up, and the head levelled. The camera was set in portrait format (RRS or Kirk "L" brackets are a nice refinement here). As already mentioned, the lens has no connection with the camera, so aperture settings are made on the lens (nor is any EXIF data recorded for this lens). The camera doesn't even know that there is a lens attached. It only knows how much light is recorded by the meter. The aperture was opened up for focussing and to give a brighter image in the viewfinder. The exposure mode was set to "manual" which is where it normally is anyway on my camera.

Full upward shift of 11mm was applied to the adaptor (lets call it "back shift") Then full shift of 12mm was also applied to the lens (for the purposes now called "front shift"). All movements on the lens are independently rotatable, so the front shift direction could be changed to give four different images (top left, top right, bottom right and bottom left) that together would make one larger image. Before taking the shot I checked that at the four rotation positions I wanted to use I could see all of the building that I wanted to include. The aperture was then set as required for the correct exposure and depth of field and four shots taken (using an electronic shutter release - but self timer would do). The resulting image is similar to one taken with a much wider angle lens with a much higher resolution camera with 11mm of upward shift applied.

That's it. I got off the road and packed away. The images were converted from RAW in DXO (with any auto settings being overridden) and put together in Photoshop. I tried Photomerge in Photoshop CS3 (under the "File - Automate" menu) and although it is now much better than previous versions, I still found some inaccuracies. It was easier to do it myself. Some of the bottom of the image was then cropped off as I didn't feel the need to see so much tarmac.

Limitations: Limited to stationary subjects - beware trees on windy days. Best with full frame cameras, as you can get access to more of the lens' image circle. Also, judging tilt movements on smaller viewfinders is not easy. Even with the reasonably large and bright finder on an EOS 5D critical focusing and application of tilt movements is hard to judge (I once worked with a photographer who shot on 10"x 8" rather than 5"x 4" purely because he preferred using the larger ground glass screen). Canon's cropped frame cameras are not noted for bright viewfinders. I'm not sure how Nikon viewfinders compare, but I gather that they may be a bit brighter.

Non-limitations: Surprisingly, the lens works quite well hand-held. Using tilt hand-held is good fun, rather like (and at the same time totally different from) using a Lensbaby 3G. Try doing multi-frame stitching with a Lensbaby.

A separate piece will be put up soon dealing with overcoming the problems of internal reflections. There will be a before and after example to show the extent of the initial problem of light reflecting between the sensor and the adaptor.

Part 1
Part 3

The Hartblei 45mm Super (duper) Rotator (Part 1)

2007-07-12T17:38:00.000Z

The HARTBLEI 45mm Super-Rotator shift and tilt lens is a unique and remarkable lens, even among shift/tilt lenses. This is a short story of the modification of this lens to create something even more interesting for users of digital SLRs. I first read about this lens on Luminous-Landscape quite some time ago (and I recommend that you do the same if you are interested). When I read the article by Michael Reichmann I was sure I would get one of these lenses. Although they were originally designed for use on medium format (645) cameras, more recently they have also been available for popular 35mm SLR mounts. For those who are not familiar with the specification, the lens offers 12mm of shift in any direction, and 8 degrees of tilt, also in any direction, independent of the shift direction. But time went by and one expense led to another and it never seemed pressing, so it was a considerable while later when I saw a used one on eBay. New lenses ship from the Ukraine, but this one was already in the UK and looked to be gaining little interest. Sure enough I got it for just over £100. It turned out to have a mount for a Contax 645 medium format camera (now discontinued), but at the price I wasn't too bothered because I thought I could get it modified and still make a saving.

I started looking round for converters and also contacted SRB in Luton, who are known for their engineering work on photographic equipment. It turned out that Contax 645 to Canon EOS (my camera of choice) converters were few and far between, but Pentacon 6 to EOS converters were readily available. In fact there were converters that had their own shift movements. An idea started to form. To allow shift movements without vignetting (dark areas near the corners), the lens must have a bigger than normal image circle. Imagine moving a rectangle within a circle. The rectangle must not go outside the circle. If you want to move the rectangle more you will need a bigger circle. This lens has an image circle large enough for movements on a 645 camera, so on a 35mm camera (or equivalent digital) it is not possible to make use of much of the image area that the lens forms. In other words the same movements but with a smaller rectangle will not get as near the edge of the circle. Therefore, much of the lenses huge image circle would be wasted. An extra shift adapter (with 11mm of shift) would be a way of harvesting some of the extra image circle.

Following conversations with Ian Broomhead of SRB, I purchase a Pentacon 6 to EOS adaptor and sent the lens and the adaptor off to Luton for modifications. Unfortunately for me, its arrival at SRB coincided with a large order from another customer, and so there was quite a delay before the lens was returned to me (I gather that it is large volume jobs like this that allow SRB to make one-off adaptors for people like me at reasonable prices). As you can imagine I was eager to try the new contraption. But my very first shots showed a problem. I took a couple of shots inside the house, and saw pronounced flare. But this wasn't normal lens flare. It was fogging, but only in patches. Not what I was used to seeing. The review of the lens on Luminous Landscape had quite specifically mentioned that it handled flare well. Could mine be so different? My guess was that the problem was caused by internal reflections between the digital sensor and some of the flat surfaces of the adaptor. Not too surprising really. The adaptor was designed in the days of film, when such things were not so much of a problem. Digital camera sensors are much more reflective than film and so light can be reflected back towards the lens. If it finds a parallel reflective surface it is bounced back again towards the sensor where it shows up as a foggy patch.

Surprisingly the problem didn't show up all that often (as in the image above, which is made from four shots). Many outdoor subjects were captured without apparent problems, and I was able to become familiar with the use of the lens in a variety of situations. A combination of black flock material, acid etch primer and matt black paint and the lens was ready for another test. So far, despite my best attempts to provoke it, I have not seen the same problem.

So, what benefits come from extending the shift from 12mm to 23mm? Well, of course the lens can be used just as you would any shift/tilt lens, but now there is also a greater potential for stitching a number of frames together to form very large images, and all without the need for any special software as the images will all align perfectly - they are in fact just pieces of the same image from the same lens. I have already made several images well in excess of 40 million pixels from this lens used with a 12 million pixel camera (EOS 5D). Currently the highest resolution digital back is 39 million pixels. Of course that doesn't make the images as good as from these digital backs. Other factors come into play, but for stationary subjects the combination offers a significant resolution boost. One possible limitation that had occurred to me was that of internal vignetting due to the camera lens throat cutting off part of the image. Well, this does occur, but it happens only on parts of the image that tend to overlapp and the darkened edges can be lost in the process of putting the final image together.

Anyone wanting to get one of these lenses only has to purchase one in Mamiya or Pentacon 6 fit and buy the appropriate shift adaptor from eBay. Mine only needed more extensive work because there were no Contax to EOS shift adaptors. Be prepared to have to do a bit of work to cure reflections caused by the adaptor, but if you don't mind doing so you will probably have a very useful lens.

In part 2 I will look at the circumstances in which you would use a lens like this and how to use it (and to some degree why).

Part 2
Part 3

Summer photography sessions

2007-07-12T00:08:00.000Z

For those who don't already know and might be interested I am organising a few photography sessions during the summer period. There will be two studio sessions and three or maybe four sessions on location. I shan't give details here, but anyone who is interested in further information should contact me via e-mail (please use the link at the bottom of the page).

Image taken at Woburn Safari Park, June 2007

Article alert - Apparent Light Size

2007-07-09T22:20:00.000Z

The Strobist carries an interesting article entitled "Apparent Light Size". I think that it is well worth a read for anyone interested in small scale still life photography. If you find that piece interesting you might want to look at other articles on the same site. The most valuable part of it is that he is not using highly expensive and specialised equipment, but the sort of kit that many people can easily afford and may already have. Take a look.

Photo: Blue Door - Duke of Yorks Theatre, London 08/07/07 - Taken while sitting outside a cafe with friends, eating a piece of chocolate cake. For some reason that last bit of information gives me great pleasure.

Don't have a tripod? Have a bottle instead

2007-06-18T21:52:00.000Z

No. It's not April, but what deranged (or probably inebriated) mind came up with this. A tripod head that screws to a bottle - instead of the more obvious tripod. If you can't wait to get your hands on this invaluable addition to your photographic tool kit you can buy one here for a mere £2. Just don't try mounting your SLR with 1200mm lens to it.

Image: Lulworth Cove, April 2007

Infrared false colour conversion

2007-06-17T21:32:00.000Z

Some time ago I saw an interesting technique for getting enhanced colour into infrared images, detailed on the Khromagery web site. I had used other methods that I had just stumbled on by myself, but I liked the results shown on the site. I intended to try it out, but somehow didn't get round to it. Well, today I did. Here is a first test on an image that I shot yesterday while taking a class. The image was shot on a modified Canon EOS Rebel XT (350D in the UK market) that I wrote about some time ago. The filter used was a Lee 87. Now according to the instructions on the site this technique is only suitable for images shot with a R72 type filter and I was using the more restrictive 87 type, but I had a go anyway and the result is what you see here. The RAW image was first processed in DXO Optics Pro, which is better than many converters at neutralising the very red cast of the original image. Saturation was increased to make the most of the very limited range of wavelengths recorded through the 87 filter. The image was converted as a 16bit TIFF, and the rest or the colour conversion done in Photoshop. The method is detailed here.

Image: Buckinghamshire Golf Club, June 2007

Vignetting - Friend or foe

2007-05-28T14:24:00.000Z

What is vignetting? Wikipedia defines it as "a reduction in image brightness in the image periphery compared to the image centre" - read more here. In other words it is seen in images that show darkening around the edges. It can occur for many reasons. It may be due to limitations in the lens (optical vignetting) or it may be caused by something getting in the way of the light, such as a lens hood or filter (mechanical vignetting). Wedding photographers sometimes use masks attached to the lens hood to intentionally produce more pronounced vignetting.

Now I have made reference to my favourite RAW converter in the past (DXO Optics Pro, in case you had forgotten). It has many very clever tools and tricks to improve an image, including the ability to correct failings in various lenses (in supported lens/body combinations). One of its controls which is set on by default it the anti-vignetting option. Adobe's Camera RAW converter (that comes as part of Photoshop and Lightroom) also has a tool for reducing vignetting, although it is not as sophisticated as it is not tailored to each specific lens.

So, is it a good thing (as some wedding photographers obviously think) or a bad thing? After all, lens designers try to reduce it, software manufacturers (like DXO and Adobe) come up with ways of eliminating it.

Well, frankly I think it depends. In many images that I have converted recently I have turned the vignetting correction off (as can be seen in the image accompanying this piece). I liked the look of the darker edges and particularly darker corners, yet when I found that one of my filters was causing somewhat abrupt vignetting right in the extreme corners I bought a replacement to cure the "problem". When I used to print in a darkroom it was considered quite normal practice to use "edge burning", an additional exposure (darkening) around the edges of the print of maybe 10%. It was felt that this encouraged the viewer to scan the image for longer, instead of moving on. Now this is not the same thing, The edge burning was along each straight edge of the print, and so was rectangular in nature, rather than circular. But maybe, in the right circumstances a bit of vignetting can perform a similar visual function.

But what function is it performing anyway? Lets look at a couple of factors that can change how we look at images. Firstly, there seems to be a general tendency for people viewing images to be attracted to the lighter parts of the image. The eye naturally seems drawn to lighter areas in preference to darker ones. Secondly, when our eyes are drawn towards the edge of an image (and in particular the bottom right corner*), and if nothing pulls the attention back towards the centre again, the chances are that we will move away from this image and on to another one, with the result that the image seems less interesting or involving. So the theory is that if you can hold the eye within the image, it will seem more interesting and the viewers attention will be held for longer.

So, in the final analysis you choose.

*The bottom right corner is only significant for people brought up in a society where the convention is to read from top left to bottom right. At the bottom right you leave the page and turn over or move on in some way.

Image: Old Harry Rocks, Dorset, April 2007

Getting sensitive about image noise

2007-05-21T20:55:00.000Z

DPReview has an interesting article posted yesterday about the use and marketing of high ISO modes on compact digital cameras. If you have any interest in owning and using a compact digital camera, and particularly if you are thinking of buying one soon I recommend that you read this (even the technical bits). Good to see that the very resent purchase of DPReview by Amazon.com (I wonder how much Phil Askey made on that deal, but I bet he finds it difficult to stop smiling) has not caused them to rest on their laurels. Incidentally, I am open to offers for the purchase of my blog - well it was worth a try.

Image of Lulworth Cove, April 2007

Web site off line

2007-05-09T13:50:00.000Z

Hi. From the 9th May for a few days (only a few I hope) my web site will be unavailable while it is transferred to a new host. The link is likely to bring up a holding page until the change is complete.

Out, damned spot! - sensor dust (part 3) - a post script

2007-04-28T22:53:00.000Z

Well, not long after posting the second part of my piece on removing dust from DSLR sensors and a copy of "The Photographer" (the British Institute of Professional Photography magazine) lands on my doormat, proclaiming on it's front cover "On test: Dust-Aid sensor cleaner". This is a product with which I was unfamiliar, and I read the review by Steve Hynes with great interest. To describe the product briefly you get a plastic applicator which has stuck to it a foam pad. The foam pad has high strength adhesive on one side ( to stick to the applicator) and low strength adhesive on the other. You push the low-tack side of the pad on to the sensor (as we know, this is actually not the sensor but a sheet of glass in front of the sensor) and you hope that any dust sticks to the pad. The pads are removable and you get 12 pads with the applicator (for about £37).

A couple of points about the review. I have a high regard for Steve Hynes' reviews. Before becoming the editor of "The Photographer" he had two spells as editor of "Professional Photography" magazine, and on both occasions I think that magazine was better for his influence. He has also written many articles that I have found very informative.

You sense a "but" coming, don't you. Well, two actually. The first is that he states that "There are no signs of residual adhesive being left on the sensor", but from the review it seems that he only had one session of cleaning. I would be more impressed if he said that he had been using it every couple of weeks for six months and no residue was present - and detailing how this was verified.

The second reservation regards a bit of advice that he gives about sensor cleaning in general. He states quite rightly that several cameras can only be set to "sensor cleaning mode" if connected to a mains adaptor, and that mains adaptors cost "a stupid amount of money" (also true up to a point). His solution is to set the camera to the B (bulb) setting and lock the shutter open. My understanding was that cleaning the camera with the sensor powered up would be unwise as there would be a static charge present in the sensor and this would attract dust (generally unhelpful when trying to remove it). Prior to posting this piece I contacted Steve, and he said that he had used the bulb setting many times without problem and that there was not a significant static charge present. His point being that there is not a high enough voltage used to cause significant static. If he is right (well I'm not arguing with him) it means that the advice about always turning the camera off when changing lenses may also be unnecessary. All I can say at this stage is that I will still change lenses and clean the sensor with the power off, but I will try to find out more information and post it as soon as possible. As they say "you live and learn".

Image: Man o'War Beach, Dorset. April 2007

Out, damned spot! - sensor dust (part 2)

2007-04-11T10:49:00.000Z

You can spend quite a bit of money on products to clean your sensor. But when considering a large purchase bear in mind that in a very few years sensor dust may no longer be an issue on new cameras. Several current cameras have anti-dust measures built in, but a recent test on "PixInfo.com" suggested that most of them aren't terribly effective, although anecdotal evidence indicates that they may do better in "real world" conditions. It seems that this is an area where further development is needed. However, the manufacturers do seem to have dust removal in their sights and I would think the problem to be largely dealt with in the next few model updates. My point is just that dust removal equipment should not be viewed as a long term investment (but then by that logic digital cameras can't either).

As I mentioned in my last piece, the dust is not on the sensor, but a glass filter a little distance in front of the sensor, so when I talk about cleaning the sensor you understand that it is really this piece of glass that is being cleaned. OK. To the job at hand. First, some things not to use - under no circumstances use canned air directly on the sensor glass. I heard of someone who used such a can, and the nozzle came off and projected itself towards the sensor with expensive consequences (this will not be covered under your warranty, mainly because all the camera manufacturers tell you not to do it). Nor should you use CO2 blowers. Both of these may contain contaminants which will likely stick to your sensor. Lastly, don't use anything that will come into contact with the sensor that you use on anything else - just common sense really.

How do you test weather the sensor needs to be cleaned. A shot of a white evenly lit surface will tell you (I use a light box, but a plain sky or wall will do). Remember that the shot is of the sensor dust, so you don't have to hold the camera particularly still even at long exposures. Use a long lens stopped down to it's smallest aperture, and focus manually to throw your white surface out of focus so that you don't see any texture. Overexpose by a stop and a half and you should be able to see the dust clearly on the computer monitor, particularly if you increase contrast. Don't panic if it looks bad. You never shoot like that do you (You do? OK. Panic then). You are unlikely to get it looking perfect, but if you have the sort of spots that you can see in normal photographs then you are clearly looking for a marked improvement.

Quite recently Delkin announced a sensor viewer to give you an enlarged and illuminated view of the sensor and it's dust, and reports (one such here) suggest that it works quite well.

The first tool that everyone should have is a bulb blower. There is plenty of choice, but the one I use it the Giottos Rocket (large size), and it seems to be generally well regarded. I have no reason to disagree. This is the only method of DIY cleaning that Canon recommends.

If that doesn't work I use a "Visible Dust" brush. The brush has nylon bristles and is statically charged with compressed air. The static charge lifts dust from the sensor surface. This will work most of the time if the blower doesn't, but there are times when the particles are stuck or contaminated with something like grease (most likely on new cameras). An alternative to the brush method is the vacuum system used in the "Green Clean" produce. I haven't tried this, as it wasn't available when I bought my sensor brushes.

Where the brush doesn't work, wet and/or dry swabs are needed. There are many on the market but I have been using the ones produced in the UK by "Intemos". The same swab can be used either wet or dry, and I have found them to work well. Swabs are really the only method to use if there are greasy smears on the glass, because the cleaning fluid is a de-greaser. Do not over-wet the swabs otherwise you will be left with smears that then need to be removed.

As I have said, there are several methods, and you make your choice. However, most of these methods are not all things to all sensors. For instance if you start with a blower you may find that you can't get everything off. You might try a brush and find that some of the dust had grease on it so you now have to remove the smear (and clean the grease off the brush). What I am saying it that you will probably need several tools for different severity of dust, trying the simplest first (blower) and working towards the most severe (probably swabs) as the need arises - or as the severity of the problem rises.

Lastly, and as something of an afterthought, there is one other method of cleaning the sensor. You could send/take it to someone else to do. Some shops will do this (I heard of one charging about £200 - someone has a sense of humour) and of course the manufacturer of your camera. Either way this is not cheap, you will probably be without your camera for a number of days (Canon have just quoted me £30 inc. VAT to clean a 20D and £50 for a 5D and say it takes about a week) and there is no guarantee that the sensor will be spotless when it returns - in fact it's quite likely that it won't be. Let's hope that the camera makers get in-camera dust removal sorted sooner rather than later.

Some extra reading - www.cleaningdigitalcameras.com/ - Several links at top right - don't miss, also on Rob Galbraith's site and something from Bob Atkins.

Image: Isle of Wight, December 2006

Lens reviews on the internet

2007-04-07T16:40:00.000Z

Some time ago I was asked if I knew of any web sites that had reviews of lenses. The only site that came to mind at the time was "The-Digital-Picture.com", which deals with Canon and Canon-fit lenses - as well as bodies and accessories. Since the person who was asking was interested in Nikon lenses that wasn't much help. I had forgotten about "SLRgear.com", which has reviews of many brands of lenses both by their own team and by users of those lenses (including a few added by me a little while ago). Some others that have quite a good selection of lenses covered and are worth a look are "PhotoZone", "Bob Atkins Photography" and "Photodo".

Of course many of the digital camera review sites have some lens reviews, but they tend not to have a good range of lenses covered. If you have any other suggestions for additions to the list feel free to contact me and I will put up a link.

Just one word of caution. Reviews are just that. Your experience with a particular lens may well be different from the reviewers, either because the lens you have is different (either worse or better due to production variations), or because you are using the lens in different circumstances or because your expectations from the lens are different. Camera manufacturers tend to have quite tight production tolerances, but even so there will be differences. Some of the third party lens makers seem to be a little more casual about tolerances. I have seen quite marked differences in Sigma lenses, but I am not suggesting that they are the only ones. My preference when buying (particularly non-Canon lenses) is to go somewhere where I can test the lens and see the results in the shop and leave with the lens that I tested. It is worth searching out retailers that allow you to do this.

Talking of lenses, the image above (Denham Village, April 2007) was taken with a lens that I will be discussing in a few weeks (it is still undergoing modifications/adjustments at the moment). It has up to 8˚of tilt in any direction and a total of 23mm of shift (also in any direction). The blur to the left and right of the image was not done in Photoshop (although the colour saturation was toned down), but in camera by setting the tilt on the lens to it's maximum (tilted to the left). More on this lens when the modifications are finished.

A day at Adobe's UK headquarters & the launch of Creative Suite 3

2007-04-01T20:27:00.000Z

I was fortunate enough to be amongst about 15 people invited by Ian Burley of DPNow.com to attend a training day to mark the launch of "Adobe Creative Suite 3" at Adobe's UK head office in Stockley Park. In fact it should be "suits", as there are now seven versions of the Creative Suite, each designed to appeal to a different market. The day was an opportunity to find out more about the programs that make up this collection, in particular Photoshop and Lightroom. I went along feeling quite comfortable with Photoshop, but still unconvinced by Lightroom, and very curious to find out if this experience could spark my interest.

The training comprised an overview of the whole suite, followed by more detailed hands-on sessions (each person had the use of a workstation) with Photoshop and then Lightroom. Also provided, although not exactly part of the training was a very nice lunch.

As expected our voyage through Photoshop showed many of the new but well publicised features, and an opportunity to try out some new tools. As I said before, for me Photoshop simply doesn't need to be sold. It's worth is beyond doubt. I shall not go into the changes from the last version as there are already so many details on the internet.

Lightroom is another matter. It seems to be marketed primarily as a workflow tool. A piece of software designed to help you to be more efficient at dealing with large numbers of files. For photographers working with very large numbers of similar images that all need the same basic correction Lightroom is ideal. There were several people at this meeting who obviously felt that it was a major benefit to them. It fell down for me for a number of reasons. To start with I don't do my RAW conversions using an Adobe RAW converter. I use DXO Optics Pro, and having made a comparison recently I will keep using it. This breaks the workflow chain at the first link. This is not my only hesitation. I don't typically work with large numbers of similar images. I more often work with smaller numbers of images that need individual treatment. Once I have finished with an image in DXO, if I need to do extra work on it I need the tools that are in Photoshop, but are not present in Lightroom.

It was admitted that Lightroom is not yet a full asset management program (although the implication seemed to be that it might well become that). It can't merge libraries created on different drives (such as those on two different computers) and also can not keep track of images that are on drives that are not always accessible, such as CD/DVD's.

Life is full of ironies however. At the end of the session there was a draw, and my name was chosen and I won a copy of - you guessed it - Lightroom. So it seems that I will be using it after all. Time will tell if I become a convert.

My thanks to Adobe for their fantastic generosity and hospitality (including the delicious and plentiful food), to Steve Newberry who provided the training and to Ian Burley of DPNow.com for the invitation to attend.

Photo: Granada 2006

Vista metadata issues

2007-02-27T15:19:00.000Z

Reports continue to appear about the problems with Micro$oft's new OS, Vista. Vista uses metadata as part of its search mechanism, but it is also possible to make changes to that same metadata. Many of the reports focus on the security implications, but maybe more worrying for digital camera users is that changes in the metadata can cause problems with files from digital cameras being recognised properly by other software. This could even render RAW files useless until a fix is provided.

The most recent mention is on Rob Galbraith's site. Further reading on the subject can be found on PhotographyBlog, and more general information on CNET.

Going full circle (image circle and choosing a lens)

2007-02-22T20:35:00.000Z

With PMA (the Photo Marketing Association exhibition in Las Vegas) just a couple of weeks away there are going to be quite a few new lenses announced (Canon and Pentax have already started the ball rolling), so it seems like a good time for a little piece here on the relevance of image circle to the format (sensor size) of the camera. Images produced by digital cameras are rectangular, yet the image formed by the lens is round. To get an image without any information missing at the corners you need a lens that produces an image circle at least as big as the diagonal or the rectangular image recorded by your camera. In fact since the image quality normally falls off towards the edges you need a lens to produce a circle that is a bit bigger than the format.

Now why should you care? You fit lenses to your camera and you get an image, right? That's fine until the time comes to buy a new lens. If you have a camera with a cropped frame sensor (currently all except a couple of Canon cameras) you have a choice of lenses that cover the full frame and those designed exclusively for the smaller format of most digital cameras. The lenses with the smaller image circle are no problem and are usually smaller and lighter (oh, and cheaper) than those designed to cover the 35mm format. It sounds like a good idea, and it may be, but you had better polish up your crystal ball, because you are making an investment in the future. What you need to decide is if you are likely to own a full frame camera, at least within the life of your lens, or be prepared to by a similar lens with a wider image circle when the time comes. A lens with a larger image circle will cover all formats up to it's maximum (the format for which it was designed). The smaller format lenses are restricted to that format or smaller.

Now you may wonder if this is such a big deal, as most cameras have cropped frame sensors. Go back to the crystal ball and find out if the maker of your camera system is going to introduce full frame cameras in the foreseeable future, and ask yourself if you are likely to be tempted by one. Larger sensors will get cheaper to make as the process of making them become still more reliable, and they may well find their way into cheaper cameras, and as we have seen, all cameras are tending to work their way down in price anyway. But cameras with cropped frame sensors have some very real advantages. Reduced size, weight and cost are all in their favour, and are likely always to be so, however far prices fall.

Photo: Lake district 2005

Out, damned spot! - sensor dust (part 1)

2007-02-12T19:40:00.000Z

Most people using DSLRs will at some time have to deal with sensor dust. I say "most", because an increasing number of cameras employ some sort of anti-dust mechanism. In fact I think it is likely that within a very few years sensor dust will be a non-issue on new cameras. Of course the dust isn't on the sensor at all, but on a piece of glass in front of the sensor. But how does the dust get there? The particles that you see will have come either from dust in the atmosphere, or may have come from inside the camera itself. It is not unknown for new cameras to shed a few particles as they loosen up after manufacture. Sometimes these particles are even a bit oily from the shutter mechanism. After some use this tends to settle down and most dust found is from the atmosphere outside the camera.

You can do things to reduce the amount of dust entering the camera. Keep the lens throat covered as much of the time as possible, either with a lens or with the body cap. When changing lenses keep the camera pointing down. Try not to change lenses more than necessary particularly in dry dusty environments. Don't pull your big zoom lenses in and out more than you need, particularly if they are the "push-pull" type, as they act like a bellows, pulling air (and dust) into the lens and the inside of the camera. Finally, always turn the camera off before changing lenses. The sensor gets warm when the camera is on, and this increases static build-up, which in turn attracts dust.

After you have used the camera for some time it is almost inevitable that there will be some dust on the sensor and this will need to be removed (unless you like using the healing brush in Photoshop). But you are not always aware of sensor dust. Some circumstances make it more or less visible on your images. I had very few problems with dust on any of my (Canon) SLRs until I got a 5D. There could be a number of reasons for this. It may be that the glass filter in front of the sensor is nearer to the sensor on the 5D, so bringing any pieces of dust into sharper focus. It may be that the bigger sensor retains more heat. There is a larger mirror in it so it will probably stir up the air inside the camera with greater vigour each time a shot is taken. When the camera was new some of the dust was obviously greasy and my first attempts left smears on the sensor. This seems more common with the full frame cameras. They have shutters which are designed for a longer harder life and are greased better. Some of the particles inside the camera had probably come from around the shutter mechanism.

Another factor is that if you tend to shoot with wide apertures you are less likely to see dust as it will not be rendered as sharp. If you want to check if dust is on your sensor just set the lens to it's smallest aperture and take a shot of a plain white surface (out of focus) overexposing about a stop or two. View the image on the computer and you will see what is on the sensor (increasing contrast in levels will make it look even more obvious, if you can stand the shock). Even after cleaning don't ever expect to see it looking perfect. If there is noticeably less dust and it is not visible in normal use that is as much as you can hope for.

There are essentially four methods of removing dust (the camera maker may employ other ones in the design of the camera). The first is to use a blower to try to blast the dust off the sensor. The second is to use a statically charged dry brush which is specially made for the purpose. The third is to remove pieces of dust with either a vacuum device or a sticky probe (sounds worse than it is). The forth is to use some sort of swab (either dry or wetted with a cleaning agent similar to isopropanol).

In the followup to this piece I will go into more detail about the ways of removing dust and also link to some information from other sources.

Picture: Denham snow 2007

The camera never lies (Yeah, right)

2007-01-15T12:25:00.000Z

Who said that in the first place. Whoever it was, he or she was either being deeply dishonest or had been seriously misinformed. When teaching classes and particularly in the case of those who are fairly new to digital capture, there are often people who honestly believe that it was once true, and that it is just the digital demon that has brought deception and subterfuge to the pure world of photography.

Of course it is my role - and indeed duty - to correct that perception. Oh, and do I enjoy doing so. But who are the witnesses for the prosecution in this case of "Truth versus Camera"? Lets call them one by one.

First of all I call Kodak and Fuji (and Agfa and Ilford - why not). They all make/made a wide range of different films that would show the truth in very different ways. If you ever took the same scene using Fuji Velvia and Kodachrome 64 slide film you will know what I am driving at here.

Next to the stand is the human brain. In it's self so easily fooled, or is it doing the fooling. It is hard to be sure. But it certainly meddles with the truth to such an extent that it should tread carefully in the witness box for fear of being charged with perjury. Like a corrupt politician it sees what it wants - or expects - to see.

For my next witness I call a whole host of wartime propaganda photographs and films. This article makes fascinating reading, and if it is to be believed (but then everything we read is true, isn't it) "Pancho Villa sold the rights to film his campaigns in the Mexican revolution of 1910-17 to an American film company. For $25,000 Villa agreed to give the Mutual Film Company of New York exclusive rights to his battles and to stage them in daylight as much as possible".

Next I call the darkroom. Even the name sounds sinister. Think of all the changes and meddling that have gone on in order to bring the negative image onto paper. Or was it a combination of more than one negative? Was multi-contrast printing perpetrated and almost certainly there was dodging and burning? Who knows what goes on in that "Dark Room" - the red light district of photography.

And talking of darkroom wizardry I now call Angus McBean, the well known surrealist photographer who made wonderful images as he wanted them to be. There is more information here.

Lastly, I call the camera. Yes, the defendant is being called as a witness for the prosecution. This contraption doesn't even know what truth is. It has conspired with more fraudsters - or is that photographers - than a Sicilian mobster.

Anyone for the defence? No. As you see, even the defendant has defected to the other side.

Image from my Isle of Wight trip, December 2006

Deleting files in camera

2007-01-10T17:17:00.000Z

An article on "The Online Photographer" caught my eye. Called "To Delete or Not, That Is the Question..." by Carl Weese, it discusses the merits of deleting images in camera. However, the article deals with it from the point of view that you may make mistakes and get rid of images that you would later (or sooner) regret loosing. It is worth reading*.

But there is another aspect to this. Some photographers will already have experienced card errors in the past. Times when the camera and card don't seem to want to talk to each other. When this occurs the normal practice is to turn the camera off and back on again (and if that doesn't work try removing the battery and even the card and after a short pause putting them back). The problem is that some of your images may be corrupted, most likely with the last one taken before the error. Another aggravation may be that you were in a situation where things were happening around you, and you were not able to capture them because of sorting out your cameras little huff. For most people these occurrences are very rare, but can be a nuisance none the less.

It may sound strange, but deleting images in camera may increase the likelihood of card errors. Here's why. Images (files) are written to the card in order and the space on the card is used in a particular "write order" - just as we write from top left to bottom right. If an image is deleted it leaves a space. When the next image is written to the card the space is filled. Fine, but what happens if this new file is bigger (quite possible because of variable file compression that can compress plain images more that images with a lot of detail). The file is split, and now part of it fills the space left by the deleted image and the rest goes to the end. This results in fragmentation and makes the card harder and slower to read.

My suggestion is that if you don't have enough room for the images you want to take, you simply buy a bigger card. These days they are cheap enough (but see my previous piece on buying cards on eBay). To clear the card completely, use the "Format" option on your camera.

*In Carl Weese's piece he refers to a previous article. I couldn't find it, but if you do and I am repeating what is in it, I apologise for the duplication.

The panoramic above is not an image from this winter, but taken in Denham - within a mile of my home - a few years ago. Six frames stitched together.

Counterfeit compact flash cards on eBay

2007-01-10T17:07:00.000Z

The second piece in a row that falls into the category of a "consumer warning". I hope this is not the start of a trend.

A friend contacted me to ask if I had any suggestions about which compact flash card to get (or which not to get) and where to get them. I had a little look around and contacted another friend who sells Delkin cards (among other things). We were talking about the prices of cards on eBay, and he mentioned that many of the cards (particularly the fast Sandisk and Lexar cards) sold from Hong Kong or China are not genuine. In his words "It is easier to fake a Sandisk card than a Gucci suit". All you do is get a cheep card, sometimes of lower capacity, and put new labels on it. There is even a warning on eBay about this here. We all find bargains tempting, but the saying that "if it seems too good to be true it probably is" applies here. My best suggestion for purchases of this type is to only buy on eBay if you can use PayPal and if the seller has the PayPal protection symbol. That way you can at least get your money back (check the terms and conditions of eligibility) if the item is not as described, and you may still have a working card (although slower and maybe not with the stated capacity). Tread carefully.

".... and the small print taketh away"

2007-01-07T22:43:00.000Z

Beware marketing men bearing gifts. Phil Askey on DPReview has a piece entitled "Stop misleading 'Image Stabilization' labels" in which he highlights several instances of companies advertising cameras as having so called image stabilisation that in reality is nothing more than a high sensitivity mode. As Tom Waits said, "The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" (Step Right Up, from the album Small Change - 1976).

Image: Isle of Wight, 2006

Another opportunity to learn

2007-01-07T22:21:00.000Z

Between Christmas and the New Year I spent a few days in the Isle of Wight. Every trip teaches you something. If nothing else it highlights how your way of seeing is changing. Maybe a lens that you used a lot on a previous trip was little used on this one. Maybe you found yourself wishing that you had something that you have never needed before. Of course some of this is simply due to photographing in different conditions and locations, but it is worth noting as part of a possible shift in direction.

Working much of the time along the coast I found that there were times when I wanted to reduce the light to get longer shutter speeds and thereby show movement in the water. So a .9 (-3 stops) neutral density filter is on my shopping list before I go away next.

What I also found interesting was that although I had my car with me (most trips I go on involve air travel and so I am more limited) most of the extra "stuff" that I packed because I had the space was not needed, and I mainly made use of the same lenses that I usually have with me. An example was my attempt to photograph the Needles (the most western part of the IOW) From what I was able to find out before I went (and which proved to be true), getting close is not easy, and so I brought my longest lens (Sigma 50-500, which is a bit of a big thing to carry normally). Because of the very high winds on the day I was shooting there, and which threatened to turn my tripod into a flying object, I found that this lens was not suitable and used my image stabilised 70-300 Canon lens instead, which is a normal part of my backpack kit.

Several items that I bought for the trip didn't get an airing. A fine pair of waders that I thought I would use stayed in the car and the UV filter that I bought to protect my lens from salt spray saw little use as I had a polariser on much of the time. As I say, you live and learn.

Image: Orchard bay, Isle of Wight 2006

Signing off for 2006

2006-12-23T09:34:00.000Z

I just wanted to put up one more image for 2006. Not particularly a Christmas image, but one taken yesterday in the mist/fog that for so many people is an impedance to their daily lives. I put a camera and a few lenses into a small backpack and cycled around in the woods near to my home. This is part of what resulted.

I was going to post here a Christmas list to Santa. It was going to contain all the things that I would like in terms of technology and product features for the future. The only problem was that I could only think of one thing that I would like (much to my own surprise), and since one thing doesn't make much of a list I abandoned the idea.

Just in case Santa is reading this blog (I'm told that he does) here is my request anyway:

"Dear Santa.

I would be very grateful if you could arrange that my next digital SLR has eye control focus (please pass this one on to Mr Canon). I know people thought it was a gimmick, but I found it very useful. It even worked with my specs and in combination with predictive autofocus it made stage photography with dancers much easier. I had it on my first auto-focus camera (Canon EOS 5) and I miss it.

Thanks, and don't overdo it on the mince pies."

Well, that's it from me for 2006. See you in 2007.

Photoshop CS3 Beta - problems

2006-12-19T01:16:00.000Z

It seems that there are a number of issues with the new Photoshop CS3 beta - not surprising, that's why it's a beta after all. Some people are having their serial numbers rejected by the generator, particularly those using academic licenses. There are other problems too. For more information you may wish to visit this page on MacFixit. This site is intended for users of Apple machines. I'm not sure where Windows users go for help (other than the Apple Store. Oops - sorry).

DXO Optics Pro v4.1 and Photoshop CS3 beta

2006-12-17T20:46:00.000Z

Swings and roundabouts, chalk and cheese, decisions, decisions, decisions. DXO Optics Pro v4.1 was released on the 4th December. On the 14th Photoshop CS3 was released in beta form. I mention them in the same piece, not because they are direct competition for one another, but because there are areas of overlap.

I have owned DXO Optics Pro (just DXO from now on) for some time, but didn't really make good use of it because I found it a very frustrating program to use. But it has evolved and I find version 4 much more user friendly than version three (not hard considering how bad the controls were on v3). The headline feature is probably what is known as the "Optics Engine". To understand what this does you need to know that the chaps at DXO make something called DXO Analyzer. This is used to evaluate and quantify characteristics for particular lenses. Things like distortion, resolution, sharpness and vignetting are all expressed in numerical form. What this means is that the people at DXO know quite a lot about the behaviour of your lenses. They know where they fall short of the ideal and that means that many of the shortcomings can be corrected in software. The Optics Engine corrects lens distortion, vignetting, lens softness and chromatic aberration. It is no exaggeration to say that it is like having better lenses (this engine only works with specified lens/body combinations - more are being added all the time).

However DXO can now do amazing things with highlight and shadow detail and all manor of other controls, including a very good local contrast feature that I particularly like. DXO is also a RAW converter, so all of these changes can be applied before converting from the RAW file. For more information on DXO you may like to read this review and also visit the DXO web site. You can download a full 21 day demo here.

Photoshop CS3 beta (code name Red Pill in case you are interested) has a number of enhancements on previous versions. Greater selection ability with the "Quick Selection Tool" and "Refine Selection Edges", filters applied to smart objects and a lot more (Adobe lists major enhancements here, but there are many other small but helpful changes). But Photoshop also has a RAW converter called Camera RAW, and it is here that it overlaps with DXO. You can download the Photoshop CS3 beta which for registered users of Photoshop CS2 will run until the full version is released, but for those without a valid serial number only for 2 days (although it says 30).

Camera RAW (CR) has been improved. Some changes just make it more intuitive, but others run deeper. It will even edit TIFF and Jpeg files (as can DXO). But the most important point is that the better and more capable the RAW converter, the less has to be done post conversion. This should lead to less data loss and even quicker workflow. So it seemed like a good time to see how the two compare, how similar a result I could get and which I would prefer.

Unfortunately the results aren't clear cut. As already stated DXO has tricks that CR doesn't in terms of correcting failings of the lens. But the images that I used for comparison showed that overall one image may look better converted in one program and another image may be best converted in the other. In the landscape image that I am showing here I preferred the overall look and the contrast of the DXO image. The sky has more subtle detail particularly in the rather wispy clouds. But in many areas CR has caught up with DXO since I last did a test and the CR image was sharper than the DXO converted one. This last point would only matter if trying to reproduce the image at close to maximum size. Of course a DXO image can be saved as a DNG and the RAW conversion done in Photoshop. As I say, decisions, decisions, decisions.

The shot here was taken in the Sierra Nevada earlier this year and converted in DXO Optics Pro (Elite) v4.1. I have not put up the other photo as at this size a significant difference is not visible.

Photoshop CS3 (beta)

2006-12-16T15:57:00.000Z

The beta version of Photoshop CS3 (full version expected in April or May 2007) became available yesterday (download the beta). What is of great interest to me is to see if the RAW converter and other features within the program can compete with both the new and established features in DXO Optics Pro (v4.1). Obviously Photoshop does a lot that DXO doesn't, but it is in the areas where DXO excels that I will be looking for Photoshop to match it or not. My thoughts and findings coming soon - tomorrow if possible.

Getting the most from your lenses

2006-12-12T15:43:00.000Z

Do you fancy upgrading some or all of your lenses? Have you been coveting one of those "top of the range" lenses that you've seen advertised? Buying this type of lens will usually result in an improvement in image quality (note the use of the word "usually"), but are you getting the best from what you have, and is your technique up to those better lenses. I read some time ago the opinion that most lenses are better than most photographers. The point being that we tend to concentrate on trying to buy our way to better images rather than learning to do better with the equipment we have. It could be that improving technique could result in as much of an improvement as paying large amounts of money for better glass. Even if you decide to go ahead with the purchase, at least you will be harvesting the greatest reward from your investment.

So here are a few ways of getting better images from the lenses that you have. First, use a tripod whenever possible. I mean a good one with little or no plastic (you may recall my previous rant on this subject).

In high winds wrap the camera strap round the tripod (or tape it up) to stop it swinging around in the draft. If you can stand up-wind of the camera to act as a windbreak without turning the shot into a self-portrait, do so. Do everything you can to keep the tripod solid. On soft ground you may need to find large flat stones (if possible) or similar to put under the feet. Sometimes hanging your camera bag from the tripod will help.

Use a cable release (remote shutter release) or the camera's self-timer. Removing the movement and vibration caused by you operating the shutter release directly will give sharper images at all but the fastest shutter speeds.

Use mirror lock-up (if available on your camera - only for SLR users). The reason is the same as for the previous point. To have a piece of glass flapping around inside the camera fractions of a second before taking the image is not a great idea.

If your lens has image stabilisation use it, assuming that it is the later kind that does not get freaked out by being used tripod-mounted.

If there is no reason not to, use the lens at it's best aperture (your subject may dictate otherwise). If you have taken test shots at different apertures (with zooms, at different focal lengths also) you will have an idea where that is. Most lenses perform at or near their best stopped down a couple of stops from wide open, but don't take my word for it. Check for yourself.

Do all the stuff that I talked about in my piece on flare - make sure the lens is clean, use a lens hood etc.

The last point may seem too obvious for words. Focus carefully. Try this. Focus on something. If your lens has a distance scale check exactly where it is focussed. Focus again. Check the scale again, and there is a very good chance that the scale will be in a slightly different place. I remember trying this with a manual focus lens and marking the focussing ring with a soft pencil. I tried it about five times. I had five marks on the lens, all very close, some touching, but not in exactly the same place.

If you can't use a tripod (street photography for instance) and therefore can't use mirror-lockup or a remote shutter release do everything you can to make yourself as stable as possible. Support the lens with the left hand, keep elbows tucked in to your body as much as possible. If you can, lean against something like a lamp post or wall. Using a monopod may be an option worth considering if a tripod is out of the question.

Keep in mind that most of these points apply much more to the use of long focal length lenses than to wide angle ones.

Image: Norway 2005

Image Storage - keeping them safe (part 2)

2006-12-11T17:08:00.000Z

In the first part of this piece I took a look at the likely risks to your digital files. In this second part I present my thoughts on some of the available solutions. The aim is that the files will still be usable for an indefinite period of time. There are a number of measures which in combination are likely to achieve this.

Lets assume that hard disk failures are a fact of life (because they are - its not if, but when). But the risk of data loss can be reduced to almost nothing by storing the images on more than one drive. This can be done manually, by using some sort of backup utility (a piece of software that copies and ideally verifies your images to a second location) or by using several hard drives in a RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks) configuration. A RAID is a collection of hard drives that are set up to appear to the user just as one drive would. Mirroring (RAID 1) is where two or more drives hold the same information. Data is written to both/all drives simultaneously. If one fails the data is still on the other/s. A replacement drive is swapped for the faulty one and the RAID is rebuilt. In this set-up a RAID of two 500GB drives gives a usable space of 500GB (half of the total capacity, because the information is duplicated). RAID 5 requires a minimum of 3 drives and splits the data between them in such a way that if one drive fails the data can be reinstated from the other drives. If you had four 500GB drives in a RAID 5 configuration you would have 1,500GB usable capacity (total capacity minus the capacity of only one drive). This makes RAID 5 a more efficient proposition if more than two drives can be used (For much more on these and other RAID configurations read this page on Wikipedia).

So it looks as though a RAID is a good idea. It is, but it is not the whole solution. A RAID will not protect you against corruption of data. Some sort of removable media is the best solution so that you can at least go back to your original files. There is a question-mark over the longevity of some brands of CDs and maybe to some extent DVDs. The best bet for long life is to use DVD-RAM disks. These are much more robust than other types of DVD. They are available open (like CDs and other DVDs) or in caddies. The caddied versions are protected from dust, fingerprints and scratches by being in a case, and so are a better option. You will need a drive that can accept caddies, and most drives don't, but suitable drives are available and are inexpensive.

Lastly, what happens in the event of fire, theft or flood (can't think of anything else, as rampaging herds of wildebeest aren't likely round here)? Well you may need to get a new computer on the insurance, and maybe even a new house, but if you have an offsite drive (one that is housed at another location) your images will still be safe - as long as it wasn't a very widespread flood.

Apply all of these measures and you should be able to enjoy your photos for many years. Here's to a long future for your images and mine.

Image: Lake District 2005

Photography with flare

2006-12-07T17:26:00.000Z

Do your photos have flare? Yes, those little spots of colour running across the image. They weren't there in the scene that you saw were they. Or maybe there is just a strange type of fog wafting across your image. That wasn't there either, was it. The likelihood is that what you are seeing is flare, caused by light bouncing around between the elements of the lens. The light itself may not have been visible within the viewfinder image, in which case the chances are that it was just outside the frame when you took the photo.

I recently talked about introducing flare into an image with the intention of conveying a sense of intense light. But sometimes flare creeps into our pictures when we would prefer that it didn't.

There are a number of things that we can do to stop the light flaring into the lens. On all but the widest lenses a lens hood is an essential. Many lens manufacturers sell lens hoods designed specifically for a particular lens, and these are normally made out of rigid plastic. Sometimes they even come supplied with the lens (why is this not standard practice with every manufacturer and on every lens?). The idea is to cut out any light that is not going to form part of the image. If you don't have a hood for every lens that you own then may I suggest a trip to the camera shop is in order.

The biggest shortcoming with lens hoods occurs with zoom lenses, and because most people predominantly use zoom lenses these days this applies most of the time. The hood must be designed so as not to be visible in the image at the shortest focal length (widest angle of view). It follows that at all other focal lengths the hood is not working as efficiently as one might wish. Also, many lens hoods are cut off straight at the end. Now it is true that the lens receives a cone of light, but the image is rectangular, so a rectangular lens hood (or petal lens hood) is more efficient in most cases.

For studio work I often use a bellows lens hood, which is square, but as the format that I use is not square but an elongated rectangle there is still some room for improvement. In the studio it is common practice to put pieces of card in between the lens and any light that might otherwise shine into the lens, so as to cast a shadow in the direction of the lens. This is referred to as a flag. The same method can be used when outside by holding something by hand so that it casts a shadow on the lens.

Of course the light source might be within the image. Much of the time and with most lenses there is just no way round the fact that this will cause flare. In many situations we can at least have some control of how the flare shows in the image. To minimise flare the lens should be clean. Dust and fingerprints on the lens will scatter light, reducing contrast. Using a smaller aperture will reduce the size of the little disks of light that you often see if the sun is in the frame. Finally, see if it is possible to manoeuvre so that the light source is at least partially behind something - the branch of a tree for instance. This can give you a degree of reduction in visible flaring (see the picture that accompanies the piece called "Doing it with flare").

The image above was taken directly into the only source of illumination. Flare was avoided by using a good quality lens which was free of dust and fingerprints (Schneider Symmar-S 240mm on Sinar P). A less diffused light source would be more likely to generate flare.

Image storage - keeping them safe (part 1)

2006-11-30T15:22:00.000Z

Where do you keep your digital images? On the computer's hard drive, on CDs or DVDs, or maybe on an external drive. But how safe are they? I have heard it said many times that image loss is a bigger problem with digital images than it is with film. I disagree for the following reason. Most film based images will one day show visible signs of ageing. Dye based images (colour and mono C41 films) will show deterioration first, but even black and white silver based negatives will age if not given proper treatment and storage conditions - how well did you fix and wash your negs all those years ago. Also, how many versions of your negs do you have? Most people don't have duplicates, and making dupes results in some loss of quality.

There is no doubt that keeping digital images safe is hard work. It is a pain. But it can be done, and if you take sufficient precautions your images could last indefinitely without any data loss at all. There are really three main risks to the prolonged life of your digital images.

The first is media failure, where for some reason the disk can't be read in the normal way. With CDs & DVDs this may be because of the affects of ageing on the disk. Some CDs have been known to become unreadable in less than two years. CDs and most DVDs are also vulnerable because the writing surface is unprotected from handling - fingerprints, scratches and dust. Hard disks normally fail due to some sort of mechanism failure meaning that the information may still be on the disk but can't be accessed, or the disk itself may be damaged.

The second threat is corruption of the data on the disks, which could be caused when writing or copying them or if some sort of problem occurs with the computer (such as a crash or virus infection).

The final danger is from external influences such as fire, flood or theft. I lump these together because the solution is the same for all of them. In brief you will need a version of your images which is remote (not in the same building, or even same area if flooding is likely) from your normal storage.

In fact there is a fourth risk. It is called human error. More of that another time.

Having dealt with the risks here, I will look more closely at the solutions in the next part - coming soon.

Image: Lake District 2005 (goes all the way to the Lake District and photographs grass, of all things)

The Online Photographer is one year old

2006-11-28T14:51:00.000Z

Happy first birthday to The Online Photographer. Michael Johnston's blog started one year ago. If you haven't seen it you might like to have a look. An article that came out in June 2006 called Great Photographers on the Internet is particularly amusing.

Photo taken in Granada 2006 (modified version)

Assessing photographs in the digital world

2006-11-22T17:06:00.000Z

Isn't digital wonderful? Once we had to process images before we could see them at all (and I am not referring to using a RAW converter). If you didn't want to do this yourself you could take them to a lab, and they could lose or scratch them for you (and charge you for the privilege). Now the things pretty much pop straight out of the camera. And we view them differently too. At one time you made a print to see for sure if the image was any good or not. Now you can examine the image on screen much bigger (or at higher magnification) than it will ever be reproduced on the printed page.

But I think that this has changed the way we assess photos. Image quality seems to be about scrutinising image noise and sharpness at 100% on-screen magnification, rather than the more subtle appreciation of tone and that hard to define "feel" in an image. Was it always this way? I think not. But if not, why the change in emphasis? Maybe just because these are fairly easy parameters to use by way of comparison. But being easy doesn't make them useful, just as judging a camera simply by the number of pixels it records doesn't tell the whole storey or even the best bit of it.

Let's leave the camera makers to worry about noise, and get back to trying to appreciate those things that make an image stand out.

Image: Grasmere - Lake District 2005

Lenses - Through the fish's eye

2006-11-21T17:52:00.000Z

As well as a choice of lenses of different focal lengths, used in order to capture a wider or narrower field of view, there are also some lenses that are chosen because they have characteristics unique to their particular type. One such is the "fisheye" lens. Most people know what an image taken with a fisheye looks like. Lines that should look to be straight in the normal world are rendered as curved (well most are) and the lens can take in a very wide field of view - normally about 180° - remember to keep your feet and fingers out of the picture.

There are in fact two types of fisheye. Full frame fisheye lenses (see example above and in previous piece) fill the rectangular frame with the image. The normal focal length for these lenses is 15 to 16mm. Circular fisheye lenses produce a circular image (in fact all lenses do, but we normally see just a rectangular part of it) and leave the rest of the frame dark. Lenses of this type are often around 8mm in focal length.

As I have already said, using a fisheye bends straight lines, but it doesn't always to this. If a line goes through the centre of the lens it will not be bent. As you will see in the image above, the pole cuts through the centre of the image (made easy by aligning the centre focussing point in the viewfinder), and the wires are either straight or nearly so. But take a look at the horizon. That has been bent in an extreme way that characterises a fisheye image. So by careful selection of where elements are placed in the frame we can choose to bend them or not. There is also a tendency for fisheye lenses to produce a rather nice starburst type flare if the sun or similar point light source is within the image - again see the image accompanying the previous piece.

Image taken with a fisheye lens near Turville (Chiltern Hills) 19/11/06

Doing it with flare

2006-11-20T19:03:00.000Z

Flare in images is often seen as a problem. But what is flare anyway? Flare is light reflecting between the surfaces of the elements of the lens in a way which either causes patterns across the image, or just a general reduction in contrast. It sounds like something we would want to avoid, and sometimes (maybe often) it is. But is it always such a bad thing?

Sometimes we are confronted by a scene in which the intensity of the light is an important part of the feel that we want to convey. But when the image is reproduced on paper or on screen that feeling of intense light is lost. Particularly in the case of prints the greatest intensity that can be expressed is the unprinted white paper. Even with the screen which is backlit we are not overwhelmed by the brightness. Maybe flare could be useful after all. This partly depends on the kind of flare that results from the use of a particular lens, and also the content of the image, but just keep in mind that flare could be a useful device and be prepared to embrace photographic flare.

The image above was taken with no filters (that's right, not even a starburst filter) but with a fish-eye lens. More on this soon. Turville 19/11/06

Follow-up on filters

2006-11-17T19:40:00.000Z

I thought I would just put up a couple of shots to show the use of two different filters. The first shot was taken using a Lee PL-L polariser to darken the sky and help the clouds to stand out. Without this, the cloud formation was not very pronounced. Note that because the polarising effect on the sky is stronger at a right-angle to the direction of the sun, and I was using a wide angle lens the sky does not look evenly dark from one side of the image to the other. This is seen as a problem by some. Make your own decision on this.

The other similar framing of the scene was taken using a Lee 87 IR filter and infrared modified camera (Canon Rebel XT). The darkening of the sky caused by the IR filter is more even from left to right when compared to the polarised shot. The shots were taken in the evening, with the sun quite low in the sky (Norway 2005).

Filters - Do you need them?

2006-11-16T14:34:00.000Z

Camera shops must love filters. There are so many on the market, but I bet that the majority spend very little time in front of your lens. Is this a good thing, or should you be making better use of that "tobacco grad" that you bought two (or was it twenty) years ago? Of course there is no right or wrong, but I prefer to be sparing in my use of filters. Unless there are special circumstances, I normally carry four filters with me. Two of them are polarisers - one a screw-on one and the other a 4" Lee filter. I also carry a HiTech neutral density (.6 ND) graduated filter (this filter is clear at one end and gives a two stop reduction in transmitted light at the other) and a Lee 87 for use with an infrared modified camera as described in my piece on infrared digital photography (Shooting with an IR Rebel). I work on the principal that if it is obvious that a filter has been used you probably shouldn't have used it (the exception being for infrared), but also remember that rules are made to be broken.

Polarisers darken blue skies, suppress reflections and so often give the appearance of better saturated colours. ND graduated filters are normally used to reduce the contrast range within an image - for example when photographing a landscape if you find that the sky is too bright, you might otherwise have to darken the whole image or risk burning out the sky. The use of an ND grad would allow you to darken the upper portion of the image - the sky - without changing other parts of the image.

A word of warning. I understand from various sources that some of the inexpensive slot-in ND filters that are commonly available are not truly neutral (not an accurate grey), and may result in a colour cast in your image. This could be a problem particularly with a graduated filter. I believe that this was an issue familiar to users of Fuji Velvia film in particular, but may also be a problem for digital camera users. I have no personal experience of this as I do not have any of these filters. It does not occur with the better makes, but unfortunately they aren't available through most high street shops so you would need to find a specialist supplier.

I shall cover more on the use of polarising filters soon, including the difference between linear and circular polarisers, and also how to get the best from them.

I don't use UV or skylight filters (there may be one in a draw somewhere), nor do I keep any sort of filter over the lens for protection (sometimes referred to as an "optical lens cap"). Again, this is a matter of personal choice and also may be influenced by the conditions in which you work. For instance, if I were photographing a lot of coastal scenes I would probably use one as a protection from salt spray. As it is, I find that the use of rigid lens hoods is usually enough to protect the lens from harm and the only frequent cleaning that the lenses need is with a good quality blower (Giottos Rocket). I am in two minds about the use of UV filters for another reason. UV filters cut out UV light - hardly surprising. This reduces the appearance of atmospheric haze which may be visible in distant scenes. Sometimes you want to reduce this haze, but not always and since this is something that I often find very appealing - and can sometimes add to a sense of depth in an image - I see no reason to remove it in many images. If you chose to keep a filter in front of the lens it is probably best to use a good quality multi-coated one.

So to sum up, you will see that choice of filters is very personal. My choice will likely not be yours, but it is important to consider the use - and the purchase - of filters carefully. In many cases it would be better to spend the money on a train ticket to somewhere new and take some photos you would not otherwise have taken.

Image taken in Norway 2005

Lenses - Focal length and angle of view

2006-11-14T16:57:00.000Z

Camera lenses are normally referred to by their focal length (in millimetres). Most people understand that the shorter the focal length (lower number) the wider the field (or angle) of view. But focal length in itself does not determine angle of view. Lets start at the beginning.

Focal length is simply the distance from the optical centre of the lens to the image when focused at infinity, so that the optical centre of a 50mm lens is 50mm form the film or digital sensor when the focussing scale is on the infinity mark. But the reason why this is not the whole story regarding angle of view is because we have several camera formats. Actually, lets really go back to the beginning. Some of the first cameras (at least loosely) were in fact rooms (camera obscura meaning darkened room or chamber) with a hole facing outside - in essence a giant pinhole camera. Now imagine that you were in this darkened room. The focal length would be the distance from the hole to the opposite wall onto which the image was projected (upside down). Now lets say that you had a choice of different sized sheets of light sensitive material. If you pinned a big sheet to the wall you would record a wider field of view than if you chose to pin a smaller sheet to the wall. So it is with different camera formats.

Digital compact cameras have tiny sensors and therefore record from a tiny image area. Cropped frame SLRs have sensors similar in size to APS film (so smaller than 35mm). Full frame digital SLRs and all 35mm film cameras have an image area of 24mm x 36mm. There are both film and digital formats above this, and these are commonly used where high resolution imaging is needed. For the reasons mentioned above digital compact cameras with very small sensors need lenses of much shorter focal length to get an equivalent field of view to larger format cameras. As another example, a 90mm lens on a 35mm film camera is on the long side of normal, on a medium format film camera (say 6cm x 6cm) it is near to normal, but on a 5" x 4" large format film camera a 90mm lens is a wide angle. Same focal length. Different image area hence different field of view.

For a more in-depth description of angle of view you may wish to read this article aptly entitled "Angle of View" and for more on the implications of using different lenses how about reading "How to choose the best lens for a specific composition". More on lenses coming up soon.

Image taken in High Wycombe, December 2005 (the day after the Buncefield explosion)

Article alert

2006-11-13T19:30:00.000Z

Alain Briot has an article up on "The Luminous Landscape" entitled "The Eye and the Camera". Want to know why the camera sees the world in a different way from you? Set aside some reading time and pay a visit.

Image size and DOF

2006-11-13T18:57:00.000Z

As a little follow up to my piece highlighting issues raised elsewhere on the internet about depth of field (DOF) I thought I would add something about the consequence of reproducing the same image at different sizes. With each post (at least so far) I have added a picture, sometimes to illustrate a point, and more often just as a form of decoration. These images are put up quite small (400 pixels on the largest side) and are resized from much larger images and then sharpened - as I would with any image.

In some cases, reducing the size does things to the image other than simply make it smaller. Several of the images are modified to make them "work" at this size. In particular it has an impact on depth of field. Two images that I previously put up serve as an example of this. The one of droplets on a web (part of the piece on "Chasing pixels") is a crop from a larger image. Had I shown the whole image reduced in size it would not have made the droplets to the left and right hand side look as soft and out of focus. The whole reason that I took the image at an angle rather than straight on was to play with selective focus. This didn't really show up when the image was reduced, but cropping the image and only reducing the size a bit kept more of the feel that I wanted, although cropping bits off still reduced the effect to some degree as the bits at the edge were even softer.

The other example is the image that accompanied the previous article on this topic (DOF - Does it need fixing?). The full size image has relatively shallow depth of field. For example the bird in the distance is noticeably soft in the full size image, yet looks quite sharp in the smaller one. I have reproduced part of the image here at the sort of size at which it might be printed, so that you can compare.

In fact the only time depth of field is not affected by size of reproduction is when it extends from front to back in an image even at full enlargement. Just something else to think about.

The image at the top of this piece was taken in Norway in 2005

Travelling light (part 2 - followup)

2006-11-10T17:59:00.000Z

Just a little update to my second post about downloaders. In the second part of this piece I mentioned that some Vosonic devices (in particular the VP8360) were likely to have user replaceable hard drives. I notice that on the Vosonic site it refers to an "upgradable 2.5" hard drive" and also to it as being "customer swappable". Similarly the batteries are easily obtainable and not specific to this device only. It is such a refreshing change from the attitude of some of the bigger manufacturers such as Epson, Jobo and others. Digital camera file sizes are rocketing up, and I hope more and more people are saving RAW files, so it is very likely that a device with adequate storage now will seem a bit limited in the near future. Some manufacturers seem to think that you will just go out and buy another downloader from them at several hundred pounds. Vosonic appear to have more respect for their customers, and realise that they can't keep putting their hands in our pockets every few years. Good move.

Infrared image taken in Norway 2005

Shooting with an IR Rebel (digital infrared photography)

2006-11-10T17:14:00.000Z

Invisible light photography. Have you ever wondered what it would be like to take photos using light that you can't see. Well, you may have seen that a couple of the images that I have put up to accompany my blog have been taken with an infrared modified camera (a Canon Digital Rebel XT, or EOS 350D as the model is known over here). I will detail a bit about using this camera and the reasons for choosing it. Clearly this is in no way a review of the camera functions. In almost every respect it is a normal camera, and there are plenty of reviews. If you were to put it beside a normal Rebel XT it would look identical, and the menus and controls all work in the same way. The only change is that it has had its infrared (IR) blocking filter replaced with one that allows IR light to pass (just taking out the filter would not enable the camera to focus to infinity). If someone were to pick it up and use it in the normal way, he or she would notice nothing different until they came to view the image, at which point they would probably wonder why someone had poured diluted tomato soup into the camera - images taken without a filter come out with an orange/red cast.

The technique for making IR images on film is to use a specialised film that is sensitive to both visible and IR light and then use a filter to cut out as much of the visible light as is desired. Some photographers favour a dark red filter (so combining the red end of the spectrum with IR for a shorter exposure time), but I have always preferred to use a visually opaque filter (Lee 87) and cut out all the visible light, relying on the IR light for the whole exposure.

When I first went to digital I experimented with a normal camera. I used a Minolta Dimage 7, which had quite good sensitivity to infrared (seen as a problem by most people, including Minolta themselves). I also tried several Canon SLRs. The IR filtration on Canon's cameras is so severe that to get a decent exposure outside at 100 ISO at f8 would often require a shutter speed of around 15 minutes (and if you let it do it's long exposure noise reduction - taking a blank frame of the same duration after the exposure and subtracting the noise - that became half an hour). After all of that I can tell you that the results weren't good.

I placed an order for a modified EOS 350D from Hutech in the USA (which is why it is badged as a Rebel XT, the name under which it is sold in the States). When it arrived I was interested not only in the image quality, but curious to see what sort of shutter speeds would be needed. I was confident about reducing the 15 minutes for the normal camera, but by how much? Using Konica IR film and the Lee 87 filter the exposure times had often been around 30 seconds. Would they be as good as that? Not only were they much shorter, but I was amazed to find that I could use the normal meter (before putting the filter over the lens) as a guide. The amount of visible light is never an absolute guide to the IR levels, and light meters don't measure IR, but I have found that I am normally within about two stops and can simply fine tune my exposure to suit. In other words the camera is about as sensitive to IR as it is to visible light. As you can imagine I was amazed and delighted. The other huge surprise is that the camera will even focus through the filter, as long as it has something with good contrast to lock on to. On most lenses IR light focuses at a different point from visible light, and so some lenses have a mark on them to help you to make a compensation. Some lenses don't. That is not a problem with this camera. Finally, because of the need to put an opaque filter over the lens it is not normally a good idea to hand hold, so a tripod is needed as a framing aid, if not for stability.

So what results do you get. Straight out of the camera the image looks incredibly red/magenta. I have the camera set to save RAW files and I think this is essential (and I really do mean essential) for good results. I have tried several RAW converters, but now use DXO Optics Pro. In spite of its quite horribly designed controls and layout (don't get me started) it gets the best results that I have seen. Capture One comes a close second with Camera RAW (Adobe) surprisingly not handling the extreme colour correction as I would want. The images that result are not truly monochrome. There are differences in wavelength, but of course these are beyond the visible spectrum, so there is no such thing as true or correct colours. With the colour enhanced a bit and the image balanced, skies tend to look a bit yellow, and trees look a bit blue. It is quite easy to reverse this if desired.

Infrared image taken in Norway 2005

Chasing pixels

2006-11-08T15:39:00.000Z

I see that Sharp Corporation has just announced a new sensor for compact digital cameras. It boasts a pixel count of 12 million, and cameras with this sensor will find their way into the shops before long. Other manufacturers will surely follow. Does the thought of a 12 megapixel compact fill you with excitement? Does it make you want to rush out and upgrade your current model? Sharp obviously thinks that it will. But do more pixels inevitably make for a better camera?

Compact cameras almost all have very small sensors. In most cases when a model comes out to replace the previous one, the sensor is the same size, even if it has more pixels. The only way to accommodate these extra pixels is to make them smaller. There is a disadvantage to doing this. The smaller each pixel, the less light hits it. It is therefore less sensitive. This is clearly not helpful, so the ISO is increased by amplifying the signal. This in turn causes the signal noise (that occurs in any circuit) to become more apparent, taking the form of false colours seen in the image.

Compact cameras are at a disadvantage to digital SLRs because the latter generally have larger sensors, and therefore bigger pixels. As an example and to give some idea of the extent of the difference the Canon Powershot S70 compact camera has a pixel pitch of 2.3 microns. The Canon EOS 20D (Cropped frame SLR) has a pixel pitch of 6.4 microns and Canon EOS 5D (full frame SLR) has a pixel pitch of 8.2 microns. This means that each pixel in the 5D is about 4 times the size of the S70 pixels, and therefore in the region of 16 times the area and so receives about 16 times more light.

My description has of necessity been brief, and to some degree simplified. For more reading on the subject the Canon web site has a useful article, and for serious in-depth information take a look at Roger Clark's site - just stop reading when your head hurts :-).

Consider what you are going to do with those extra pixels. Will you be making very big prints, or maybe you want the flexibility to be able to crop much of your original image away? If not, all the extra pixels do is take up space on your card and on your computer. Even if the noise issue didn't exist, it is unlikely that the new cameras will have lenses of sufficient quality to make good use of the pixels, which leaves one wondering why manufacturers do this. The only answer seems to be that they believe that it will help them sell more cameras - to you.

The image above was taken in Denham Country Park (6th November '06)

Travelling light (part 2) - choosing a device

2006-11-06T14:43:00.000Z

As I mentioned in part one of this piece, I now take two downloaders with me when I am travelling with the intention of taking photos and the same images are written to both of them. One device is a "SmartDisk FlashTrax XT" with 80 GB of capacity.

The plus points for this device are as follows (from my personal point of view): Clamshell design keeps the screen protected when closed in the same way as a laptop computer - very useful when on the move. Very long battery life. Ability to read a wide range of RAW files. High storage capacity for the price (and it is possible that an even bigger drive could be substituted at a later date although doing so would void the warranty).

The weak points compared to some similar devices are: Somewhat poor quality screen image compared to some competitors - fine for checking images, but not so good for assessing their exposure or appreciating them aesthetically. Somewhat dated design. Not quite as compact as some others.

I also take a "Digital Camera Partner" as my backup device. In spite of the rather "chummy" name, this is a simple and somewhat minimalist gadget, which does not allow viewing. In fact it has no screen at all, but communicates it's status by means of a row of coloured lights. It does have one great advantage, and that is that it can be purchased without a hard drive. Of course it is no use without a drive, but the fact that it is "user installable" indicates that drives can be changed round easily. This gives it almost unlimited storage capacity, as all you have to do is take a number of laptop hard drives and swap them out as each is filled. Very flexible. It also means that you can buy your own hard drive (or take it out of a dead laptop), which may help to keep costs down. There are many similar products around, particularly on eBay.

So what are the alternatives? There are many, but I will concentrate on ones with colour screens (the more expensive ones) as they have more features that need explaining. The first one (in fact four) to consider is the Epson series of devices. The original one was called the P2000. It is still on the market and comes with a 40 GB drive and a truly superb screen. Epson introduced the P4000 with an 80 GB drive some time ago. To coincide with Photokina 2006 Epson introduced the P3000 and P5000. Still 40 GB and 80 GB capacity, the most noticeable difference is a slightly bigger screen and an increase in display quality (did it really need it?). The screen remains relatively unprotected in transit (it comes with a soft case) and I know of one P2000 that ended its life when something fell and damaged the screen.

The next on the list is probably the "Jobo Giga Vu Pro Evolution" - nice device, long name. Available in capacities of 40 GB, 80 GB and 120 GB. I haven't seen one, but reports suggest that the display on this is in a similar league to the Epson P2000/P4000. Although not a clamshell design, it comes with a clip-on hard plastic lid to protect the screen. Jobo also produce the "Giga One" which is a much simpler device, with status screen only.

Vosonic produce a bewildering range of suitable but varied devices. The one that has recently attracted my attention is the VP8360. It looks to have a good-sized screen. It is available in capacities of 60 GB, 80 GB and 100 GB, but I have seen it advertised through one outlet without a drive, indicating that it may be another device to offer easy hard drive swapping (see my updated comments). I am keen to get my hands on one of these to see the screen quality for myself, and when I do I will likely put a mention here.

Another announcement timed to coincide with Photokina was that of the Canon Media Storage M30 and M80 (have a guess at the capacities of these two devices). These look set to compete head on with Epson. One bonus for owners of Canon cameras such as the EOS 5D, 20D and 30D is the fact that these downloaders use the same battery.

There are lots of other products on the market, but I will mention only one. It could be that you already have one of these. The latest (full size) iPod comes in capacities of 30 GB and 80 GB. It has a rather nice screen, although it is not as big as the best of the dedicated downloaders. With the addition of a small adaptor (iPod Camera Connector) you can connect an iPod to your camera using the camera's USB cable. Not only are they very compact, but if you have one already then this would be the cheapest option of all.

Finally it is worth mentioning that almost all of these products have additional functions. Most play music and video, so can be used to watch films. Some (the FlashTrax is an example) pick up FM radio too. They can also be used as additional storage for your computer.

The image above was taken in the grounds of the Alhambra Palace in Granada, Spain, September 2006

Slow shutter speeds - unfreezing the still image

2006-11-05T22:56:00.000Z

The still photographic image is the freezing of a moment in time. Yet throughout the history of photography there have been many attempts to portray the one thing that it might seem that photography could not show - movement.

First image taken at 1/60 sec f5 ISO 3200

Second image taken at 10 sec f16 ISO 50

Normally when we take photographs we tend to use fairly high shutter speeds. If the camera is being hand held this is necessary to prevent camera shake from being visible in an image. But this often renders everything looking completely still. This is not a criticism. Sometimes it is the best solution. But there are times when in order to convey that a person or object is moving, we need to use longer shutter speeds to emphasise that movement. The basic technique takes several forms. We can place the camera on a tripod and simply leave the shutter open for a longer time. Of course this will cause over-exposure if there is not a compensation made, either by reducing the aperture size, by reducing sensitivity (ISO), by using neutral density (ND) filters or by choosing a time of day when there is not much light (or a combination of several of these measures).

A second technique is called panning (frequently used in sporting events), where the camera tracks the subject, blurring the background to create streaks in the direction of travel. Again, depending on the speed of the subject, a tripod or monopod is often used.

A third technique is referred to as "slow-sync flash". This produces a sort of double image or composite. Again, I have seen this used in sports photography, particularly in mountain bike racing, and the results can be very impressive. The exposure for available (ambient) light is set to give a long shutter speed and normally to slightly underexpose. The speed is too long to completely freeze any part of the image. However, an additional exposure is recorded by the flash, which will render parts of the image sharp, particularly if they are close to the flash, as they receive more light.

The key to mastering any of these techniques is considerable experimentation and practice. Start unfreezing your photographs now.

Travelling light (part 1) - image storage on the move

2006-11-05T17:15:00.000Z

Like many people I spent part of the summer travelling away from home, to new and unfamiliar places. In my case this wasn't a family holiday but a photographic trip, so I intended to spend most of the time taking pictures, and would therefore expect to have hundreds or even thousands of images to store by the time I came back. One of the big advantages of digital capture is that you can take as many images as you like, unhindered by thoughts of cost (or anything else for that matter), and I see no reason why this should be any different when away from home. But to many people this poses a problem. What do you do with the images once your card is full.

Well you could buy more cards, and for those who are taking just a few images during a whole trip that may be enough. But for the serious photographer that would require too many cards and so be an expensive option. You could travel with a laptop, and some people do. But I wanted the flexibility to use all my luggage space for photographic gear, and not computers, so I needed something else. A few years ago I bought something called an "Image Tank" - a make of downloader, or image storage device.

It was a fairly simple device with only the minimum number of buttons. There was no way to view or verify images on the device, as it had no screen but only a simple LCD status display. I used this device until last year. I was in Norway and downloaded some images from a Microdrive. The Image Tank showed that a problem had occurred with the download, but I didn't know what the problem was. I continued to download throughout the rest of the trip, although I avoided using the Microdrive again. It was only when I returned to England that I found out that all the subsequent downloads had been corrupted. Luckily I still had most of the images elsewhere.

This year when I travelled to Spain I took two downloaders. The Image Tank was not used. Of the devices used on that trip, one is similar to the Image Tank (but lighter and with a shorter download time) and has no screen. The other has a 3.6" colour display, on which the images can be viewed and therefore verified. Each evening I would download to the device with the colour screen, go through all the images to check that they where OK and then download to the other device as backup. Only once this was done where the cards re-formatted. The two devices were kept separate at all times, particularly when I was on the move. During the flight back one of the downloaders was stored in my camera bag and the other in my coat pocket. Neither was entrusted to the gentle care of the baggage handlers.

In the next part I will go into more detail about the devices that I use, and some of the other options on the market.

Photo taken in the Sierra Nevada in September 2006

DOF - Does it need fixing?

2006-11-02T01:05:00.000Z

Digital photography has caused many people to rethink how they approach picture taking. At the start everything seemed new and there was a lot to learn very quickly. But after a while most of us thought we had a pretty good grip on the situation and started to relax. But you can't relax for very long. Every now and again someone comes up with something that makes you feel that you hadn't considered every aspect, or that's how it is for me anyway.

An article (actually two) that did this for me recently appeared on The Luminous Landscape, entitled "Focusing in the Digital Era" by Gary Ferguson. In brief it says that depth of field (DOF) with digital cameras can't always be approached the way it was in the days of film (it says a lot more than that - go read). Part of the content came as no surprise. Depth of field scales on lenses designed for film will not be a good guide if we are making substantially larger prints. But that is just down to the maximum acceptable size of circles of confusion (if that confuses you read "Understanding Depth of Field", or even better read chapter 3 of "Basic Photography" by Michael Langford).

As is so often the case, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. So I started to look again at some of my images with this new information still ringing in my ears. Would they be inadequate in the DOF department? Had I just not noticed in my infatuation with this new(ish) digital medium? I have to tell you I was a bit nervous when I started checking. I don't think I need have been. So far I have not found any of my images spoilt by inadequate depth of field (spoilt by plenty of other things though), but I shall keep watching.

So is this a case of "if it ain't broken don't fix it", or was Gary Ferguson drawing out attention to a previously unknown danger. My feeling is that the truth lies somewhere in between, and that his suggestions (particularly regarding infinity focussing) can be seen as another tool in our armoury of techniques, that will be useful when the right circumstances arise.

Picture taken in Granada, September 2006

Creativity and limitations (part 2)

2006-10-31T12:08:00.000Z

This is the second part of a short piece looking at what gets in the way when taking photos. I don't mean physical obstacles, but mental ones. Previously I noted some factors that tend to stop us venturing out. Now I want to explore what might cause problems once we are out there with the intention of taking photos.

From time to time I take small groups of photographers out on location. I have often found it interesting to watch them as they work in a group. The first sign that the focus of attention has slipped is chatter. People in the group do the natural thing and start talking to one another. Now this doesn't mean that they are no longer looking. You can carry on a conversation and be visually aware at the same time. But this takes practice. A quick glance at where they are looking normally reveals that they are simply watching where they are going, and no longer looking around.

The same problem occurred during a trip to the Lake District in 2005. Because the walking required some attention due to the uneven and steep ground it was easy to stop looking for photos and for some people they slipped from photo mode to walking mode. The Canadian photographer and teacher, Freeman Patterson, used the term "relaxed attentiveness" when talking about this subject. He pointed out that we need to put our concerns about work, finances, relationships etc. to one side when we go out to take photos. I feel that this is very much like the practice of meditation (although meditation techniques vary considerably).

A few years ago I was out with a group and one of them started asking about the theatre photography work that I do from time to time and mentioning a production that she had seen. It was obvious that she was no longer fully present among the scenery that was all around us, but had travelled in her mind back to that theatre experience.

Other things can also make photographing difficult. Sometimes it seems a bit embarrassing to start photographing a small plant growing out of a wall, when there are people passing by. Or you might be in an area where you don't feel very secure. All that highly expensive photographic gear may be a temptation for a mugger. Of course one thing that can help here is to work in a group. If several people around you are photographing similarly strange objects then you don't feel that you stand out so much, and you probably also feel more secure within your own "gang" of like-minded people.

The infrared photo was taken in Denham in 2005

Tripod or hobby-horse (both, actually)

2006-10-30T22:51:00.000Z

Something of an annoyance is the number of "tripod looking" devices on the market that don't do what a tripod should. OK. Why would you buy the thing in the first place? Normally with the intention of steadying the camera and getting sharper photos. Some materials are more suitable that others for making tripods. Metals are good. Most are fairly rigid, but some of them are also heavy. Commonly aluminium is used in tripods because it is quite light in relation to it's strength. Magnesium is also used in some more expensive tripods for the same reasons, only more so. In recent years carbon fibre has become popular. There is a cost penalty to bear, but where a tripod is going to be carried for several hours the benefits of it's very light weight and high strength may be worth it.

There is a material which should in most cases not be used for making tripods. PLASTIC. Yes, it is light. Yes, it is cheep. But no, it is not rigid and therefore no good for tripods. Now there are parts of a tripod that do not suffer if plastic is used. Adjustment knobs (assuming that the screw part is metal) are best made from the stuff. The little feet at the ends of the legs are also fine.

In general the higher up the tripod a component is, the more any lack of rigidity will be noticed. That means that in particular plastic used in the making of the head is undesirable, if not totally defeating of the reason for buying the thing in the first place. Yet this is where these pseudo-tripods often have the highest concentration of plastic. This is clearly because it is much cheaper to make a head out of plastic than aluminium, and after all it still looks like a tripod. Don't be fooled. The price you don't pay in the shop is the price you pay with your photography.

Now time to clear up one more point. How much this affects you depends on what type of camera and lens you intend to put on the tripod. If you will only mount a small compact camera without extra lens attachments then these tripods are for you (except in high winds). But the heavier the camera and the more out of balance the whole thing is the more important it is to exclude plastic wherever possible.

At this stage I would like to recount something that happened to me quite a few years ago. I had travelled to stay with a friend in Spain, and I had taken with me a quite heavy medium format camera (Bronica GS1) and lenses. On one day I decided to take some photos of my friend in the park. I set up the camera on my tripod and fitted the 250 mm lens (equivalent to about 125 mm on a 35 mm camera). This lens is a physically long lens and the combination looks more like light artillery than photo gear. It is also very unbalanced as there is no tripod collar on the lens, so it is attached at the base of the camera.

I took the shots and processed them when I was back in England. I was very upset to find that they were not at all sharp. After all, I had used a tripod (and a remote shutter release). I was very puzzled. I had used this lens quite extensively in the studio (with flash) and found it to be very sharp. All the same I made a series of tests. Eventually I realised that the problem was not the lens, but the tripod. It was a good quality tripod from a good company. It turned out that they had "upgraded" the design of the tripod and changed the centre column design, fitting a telescopic column fastened by a plastic collet. This meant that the column could be extended very quickly. The original column design had been an all metal affair that had needed to be bolted together to extend its length (a slower procedure). As the older design of column was still available as a spare part I was able to "downgrade" my tripod. The problem never returned. I still own and use that tripod today, and it has been used with everything up to a 5x4 Sinar P.

The image above is an infrared shot taken in Norway in 2005 (with a tripod).

Creativity and limitations (part 1 - before you even start)

2006-10-30T00:33:00.000Z

What limits your creativity. Well, the same thing that limits mine probably. Whatever it is, the one thing it is unlikely to be is your equipment, and yet many (maybe most) of us spent much of our time and energy on that aspect of the process.

I made a little list of the things that I think get in my way when it comes to taking pictures. It goes something like this. Time, other commitments, weather conditions (too cold, too wet, too hot, not wet enough) and the worst of all which I think is summed up by the word "inertia". That's it. That "I'll do it tomorrow" feeling. Yet I am passionate about the subject and spend many hours thinking and planning how I will make new and interesting images.

The same problem affects other parts of my life. It is the reason that I have not updated the web site that I had intended to revamp over a year ago. Please feel free to visit the existing site: www.jhmaw.com

I'm not proposing any solutions here. Only the thought that being aware of this problem may in some way help to overcome it. Let's see.

Part two will look briefly at what gets in the way during the process of taking photos.

The image you see is a photo taken in the Sierra Nevada in September '06

The first post

2006-10-29T23:33:00.000Z

Well this is the first tentative step to creating something that I hope might be of interest to like minded people (that is those who are interested in photography). I am a professional photographer working in the south east of England. As well as working as a photographer I also teach photography (and image editing) and take photographs for my own enjoyment.

I am not sure yet how often I will be able to post here, but I thought the best thing would be to make a start and see where it goes. Also, thanks to Christine for the use of the photo.

All the best.

John