|
Archive for the ‘Digital Photography Tips’ Category
Friday, March 7th, 2008
I recently went through a significant change in the way I have my photos printed. For about 7 years I produced all my own prints using ink jet printers. First a Canon and then an Epson Stylus PRO 7600 with Ultrachrome ink. I loved that I could be in control of the entire process, print on demand and easily print test proofs. I also thought it was the most cost effective way of printing and that the quality was on par with any print lab.
Within the last year I have had a change of perspective and have now switched over to using a professional print lab to produce all my prints. Two factors contributed to my switch. First, as my 7600 got a couple of years under its belt, combined with the fact that I sometimes go for a couple weeks without printing anything, it began to have issues with ink nozzles clogging, creating banding in my prints. I would then need to spend as much as two hours running the cleaning cycle to clear the nozzles. The time lost, as well as the cost in wasted paper and ink, became a source of stress and frustration. Admittedly, I have many photographer friends who properly maintain their printers and don’t suffer similar issues.
The second factor was my discovery that when printing on coated, non-absorbent papers (referred to as RC papers), such as glossy or semi-gloss, solvents in the inks are not absorbed by the paper and instead evaporate over time. When such a print is framed, the evaporating solvent condenses on the inside of the glass leaving a visible foggy residue. The issue is widely commented on in web forums and the offered solutions include waiting several weeks to frame prints, or to layer newsprint between prints and stack books on them for 48 hours to draw out the solvent. I didn’t have any luck with the newsprint approach, and some other prints that I let cure for a month and a half still fogged the glass when framed. To read an article specifically about the fogging problem click HERE. Much more can be found with a quick Internet search.
The combination of the two problems drove me crazy enough that I began having West Coast Imaging produce all my prints. They aren’t cheap, but the quality is amazing and they deal with maintaining the equipment and stocking paper and ink. Since the evaporation issue isn’t a problem with canvas and fine art papers, I have them print these with their Epson ink jet printer. For all my glossy and semi-gloss prints, I have them use their Chromira printer, which uses traditional chemistry based “wet” printing. In the end, I think that wet printing on glossy paper give superior results in color and contrast and it eliminates the strange reflections created by different ink densities when viewing ink jet prints at an angle. In addition, I like the selection of papers, such as Fuji Crystal Archive and FujiFlex super gloss, that are available with Chromira prints. Most importantly, the prints can be framed right away and don’t leave any residue on glass.
I still think that ink jet printers offer great color and quality and a lot of control and convenience for amateur and professional photographers alike, as long as one has the time and patience to maintain them and the evaporating solvent issue isn’t a concern. If you know anyone who wants to buy a 7600, mine is available for a really good price. I’ll probably get a 13″ ink jet for test prints and printing cards and small prints on matte papers.
Posted in Digital Photography Tips, Photography Business, Photography Equipment | No Comments »
Wednesday, February 13th, 2008
Successful landscape photography brings the viewer into the scene, making a two dimensional image feel three dimensional. It also tells a story, leading the eye through it, revealing more and more the further you go. There are many composition and lighting techniques that landscape photographers use to achieve these effects. One of the most powerful is the use of a wide angle lens and the careful placement of foreground, middle ground and background elements.
Ansel Adams was a pioneering master of this technique and used it in many of his famous landscapes of Yosemite and the American west. Some photographs that illustrate the foreground, middle ground, background technique include Sand Dunes, Sunrise Death Valley , Mount Williamson and White Branches, Mono Lake.
Galen Rowell’s photography has had a great impact on my work. He brought wide angle, foreground, middle ground, background technique to color photography and the 35mm format. Galen worked hard to create compelling, dynamic and dimensional compositions and to reveal the landscape in new ways. Examples of his work that exemplify the technique include Cuernos del Paine at dawn from Lago Pehoe, Valley Of Ten Peaks, and Wild Iris At Dawn.
William Neil is another one of my favorite outdoor photographers who often uses the technique in his work. I particularly like how he uses very subtle subjects and ethereal compositions to lead the eye through mysterious and somewhat abstract landscapes.
Mark Adamus is a relatively new photographer whose dynamic and powerful landscape images are pushing the fore/middle/background technique to new levels. Some examples of his work include Coast Of Wonders, Edge Of Dreams and The Reflection Tarn.
The concepts involved in taking deeply dimensional, wide angle landscapes such as these are basic and complex at the same time. They are easy to learn, but can take a lifetime to master. Here are some technique tips I find helpful.
Use a wide angle lens. While fore/middle/background photos can be made using longer focal length lenses, they have the most dimension and depth when taken with a very wide angle lens. I like to use my 16-35mm zoom. For APS format digital SLRs that have a “crop factor” an even wider lens is needed.
Find a suitable landscape. Look for exciting background and middle ground elements first, such as dramatic sky, mountains, trees, streams, or shapes and patterns in the land that lead into the distance. Then look for an interesting subject that you can get close to for the foreground, such as a flower, plant, rock, log or intimate landscape feature.
Try many different camera positions to bring the elements together in a way that draws the viewer into the image. I like to use lines, light/shadow or motion to form a connection between my foreground and background, such as the S curve of a stream or ridge, a line of trees or rocks, or shadows cast by low angle sun. Sometimes moving the camera back and forth or up and down just a few inches will completely change the relationship between the different components.
Get close to your foreground. Wide angle lenses make distant objects look even more distant. To emphasize and showcase your foreground element you need to get close, sometimes within a few feet or even inches. Setting up too far away from your foreground feature makes it fade into the middle ground and leaves your foreground empty.
Use light and shadow to create the perception of depth. Side lighting helps reveal texture and shape and gives objects a more three dimensional look than direct front lighting. Also, within a composition, using areas of light and shadow to illuminate elements of the fore, middle and background add to the perception of depth.
Use a split neutral density filter to highlight the foreground and darken the more distant objects and the sky. The viewers eye will be drawn to the lighter foreground element first before being led into through the image towards the background. The darker background will appear more distant.
Posted in Digital Photography Tips, Photography Journal | 1 Comment »
Tuesday, November 27th, 2007
Nearly all digital images need sharpening to some degree, and I apply various techniques and amounts of sharpening throughout my workflow. The most important sharpening stage, so that the final image looks crisp and focused, is done as a final step to the image once it has been sized for its intended use. When images are downsized they lose sharpness, as detail along edges is lost in the reducing process. When images are enlarged, the lack of sharpness inherent in digital images is magnified. Using Photoshop’s digital sharpening filters makes it possible to increase contrast along fine edges to bring back lost image sharpness. There are many ways to do this, but I have recently developed a technique that I think does quite well. It is important to note that digital sharpening is not a substitute for lack of sharpness in the original image. Proper focus, shutter speed and technique is required at the point of capture to enable good digital sharpening.First, open an image in Photoshop. Then, flatten all layers (if any exist) and size the image for its intended use (print, email, screen saver, etc.). For help on how to size images you can refer to my articles on SIZING FOR PRINTING or SIZING FOR EMAIL. Once the image has been sized it is time to apply sharpening to make it look appropriately sharp. The technique I have developed makes two sharpening passes. The first pass uses the Unsharp Mask filter set to add a small degree of sharpening to larger edges and details to help with the overall crispness and “pop” in the image. The second pass uses the Smart Mask filter set to add a greater amount of contrast to the very finest edges and lines in the image for razor sharp fine detail. Versions of Photoshop prior to CS2 don’t include the Smart Sharpen filter, so the second pass can also be made with the Unsharp Mask filter with good results.
Make sure that you are viewing the image at 100%, or, if it is a larger sized print, 50%. To complete the first, large detail sharpening pass go to Filter>Sharpen>Unsharp Mask. Select a Threshold of 1, a radius of .7 to 1.0 for web images and 1.5 to 2.5 for prints, and an amount in the 50 to 75 % range. I find it helpful to check and uncheck the preview box to dial in the right amount of sharpening. Select OK when you are finished. Now to sharpen the fine edges and details, go to Filter>Sharpen>Smart Sharpen (or Unsharp Mask again if your version of PS is pre CS2). Set the Remove box to Lens Blur, the radius to 0.1 for screen and web size images or .2 to .4 for prints, depending on how large the print will be, and finally, adjust the amount to 100 to 140% or until the desired sharpness is achieved.
I find that this two-pass sharpening technique does a great job of targeting sharpening to both the larger and finer details separately, especially for images that will be displayed on a screen. As with any sharpening technique, knowing how far to go without going too far is the key and some experimentation is needed to determine the best combination of adjustments for each individual image. Below are samples of a screen sized image. The first is not sharpened, the second is sharpened appropriately using this technique and the final image is over sharpened in my opinion.
Posted in Digital Image Editing Tips, Digital Photography Tips | No Comments »
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007
Sizing digital images for various uses may be one of the most puzzling problems that the average digital photographer runs across these days. Do your eyes glaze over when trying to understand terms like resolution, pixels and dpi? Have you ever sent an image of your dog in an email that is so large that it fills up the recipient’s email in-box? Have you ever had an image enlarged and printed only to find out that the file size was too small and the printed photo is so pixilated that it looks like a graphic from an old Atari video game? If you answered yes to any of these questions then read on. Hopefully I can shed a little light on the matter.
In a previous article I provided some pointers for sizing images for email and the web. You can check out those tips by clicking HERE
Sizing images for printing is very different than sizing images for a computer screen. A concept that is difficult to wrap the mind around is the fact that the size you see an image on your screen is not the size at which it will print, unless you print at screen resolution, which generally does not have enough detail for good quality prints. For example, if I size an image to 4″ by 6″ inches at 80 dpi (dots per inch) it measures 4″x6″ on my monitor (this will be different from monitor to monitor depending on what the resolution of the monitor is set at). Screen resolution is usually between 72 and 96 dpi. At 80 dpi the 4″x6″ image looks great on my screen. When I print it, the print does indeed measure 4″x6″, but with only 80 dpi it is very blocky and pixilated. In order to get a detailed 4″x6″ print I would need to set the dpi much higher. When viewed on my 19″ screen, a 4″x6″ image at 300 dpi is too large to fit, even though it still prints as a 4″x6″ print (with much greater detail than the 4×6 @ 80 dpi). So, as you can see, how big an image appears on your screen does not necessarily indicate how large a print it will make.
Most cameras come with software that provide some help with sizing. However, this software is often oversimplified, giving the user very little control over the size and resolution of the final print. I prefer to use Photoshop, or some other advanced image editing software to size my images so that I have the most control. However, more contol also means more complexity, not something everyone wants. However you size your images, the requirements for getting good results remain the same.
Different methods of printing require different amounts of resolution detail, or dots per inch. If you don’t care that your print has jagged edges and visible pixels, then go ahead and print at 72 dpi. Some tests indicate that 150 dpi to be the minimum for good print results, but there are many factors that come in to play. For chemical process printing (non ink jet printing) 200 dpi is generally plenty of resolution. Most publishers (magazines, newspapers, etc.) have their printing standardized to 300 dpi and want all submissions at this resolution. The current generation of high quality ink jet photo printers are able to resolve detail in the 300 to 360 dpi range, although tests have shown that 240 dpi is almost indistinguishable and that 200 dpi gives great results. Knowing how the image will be printed will help you determine what dpi resolution to select when sizing the image.
Another consideration in selecting the dpi resolution at which to print has to do with the distance the print will be viewed at. Small prints that will be viewed close up benefit from higher print resolutions (240-300 dpi), while large prints that will be viewed from a few feet away can make due with lower print resolutions (150-200 dpi). Billboards that are viewed from hundreds of feet away are printed at 72 dpi and lower.
Once you know what dpi resolution you will select, the next thing to do before sizing is determine the native size of the image; in other words, the size at which it came out of the camera. In Photoshop it is easy to determine this. Open an image and then go to Image>Image Size. A dialog box will open that indicates the pixel dimensions as well as the dimensions in inches and the dpi (dots per inch). Next to the pixel dimensions it also indicates the total pixel count in thousands (k). It takes one million pixels (1000 k) to equal one megapixel. If the number in the dpi box already matches your desired print resolution, simply look at the inch measurements and they will show the height and width that the image will print. If the dpi is not correct for your desired print method, make sure that the “Resample Image” box is un-checked and then change the dpi to what you want. Once the dpi matches your desired print resolution you can now look at the image dimensions in inches to determine how large it is. For example, if you set the dpi to 200 and the dimensions in inches are 10 inches by 15 inches, the file will make a 10″x15″ print without any changes to its size. If you want to make a print that is 10″x15″ or smaller, then you are in good shape. Downsizing an image doesn’t create any resolution problems. Let’s say you want to make an 8″x12″ print. Simply re-check the “Resample Image” box, leave the dpi at 200 and then type 12 into the box that currently indicates 15 inches. If the “Constrain Proportions” box is also checked (which it should be) then the box indicating 10 inches will automatically change to 8. Click “OK” and your image will automatically be sized to print at 8″x12″ at 200 dpi. Remember not to save the image now unless you do so with a different name. Otherwise you will have permanently saved the image at the smaller size.
Now, let’s suppose that you want to enlarge the image so it prints bigger than its native size of 10″x15″ at 200 dpi. When enlarging, or upsizing, images you need to be a little more careful than when downsizing. To downsize, the software can simply remove pixels to shrink the image, which will not degrade how the smaller image appears to your eye. In order to enlarge an image, the software must add pixels. The act of removing or adding pixels is called interpolation. When interpolating an enlargement, the program uses complex math to decide how best to add pixels to make the image bigger. The current generation of interpolation software contained in Photoshop or third party applications, such as Genuine Fractals, is amazingly good at doing this. Lots of pixels can be added to enlarge an image without a noticeable decline in image quality. However, the computer can not add detail that wasn’t recorded by the camera, so at some point an enlargement will begin to show digital artifacts left by the computer doing its best to add large numbers of new pixels.
To enlarge an image in Photoshop, follow the same steps as when downsizing. Open the image in Photoshop and go to Image>Image Size. Uncheck the “Resample Image” box and enter the desired dpi resolution. This will show you how big the image will print at that dpi without any change in size. Using our previous hypothetic example, the image will print at 10″x15″ at 200 dpi. If you wish to print the image at 16″x24″ at 200 dpi, you know you will need to use interpolation to enlarge the print. As before, simply recheck the “Resample Image” box and change 10 inches to 16 inches. With the proportions constrained, the 15 inch box will automatically change to 24 inches. Click OK and Photoshop will enlarge the image accordingly.
How much can you enlarge an image and still maintain fine image detail? The answer is largely dependant on your own personal taste, the material the image is being printed on and the distance at which the image will be viewed. I have enlarged some 8×12 inch @ 300dpi images to 20×30 inches @ 300dpi with very good results, especially when viewed at normal viewing distance. The master print lab that I use has a very handy chart that helps visualize just how much various sized image files can be enlarged with good results. The chart can be viewed by clicking HERE.
So far, all of the sizing examples I have given have assumed that the image is being enlarged or reduced while maintaining the same dimensional proportions of the original. For example, an 8″x12″ image will perfectly size to 4″x6″, 10″x15″ or 12″x18″ because the proportions have not changed. However, it will not cleanly size to 5″x7″, 8″x10″ or 11″x14″ because the proportions are different. In order to size an image for printing and also crop the image to new proportions at the same time, use the Crop tool. Open an image in Photoshop and then click the Crop tool on the tools palette (or press “c” on the keyboard). With the Crop tool selected some cropping control boxes will appear below the menu tabs at the top of the page. Here you can enter your desired print dimensions and dpi resolution. If you wish to print an image at 8″x10″ at 300 dpi, simply enter those figures in the appropriate boxes. Then, move the crop tool to one corner of the image and drag to select the area that will be cropped. Once you have created the cropping area, you can use your mouse to move it around and fine tune your selection. You will notice that because you are changing the proportions of the image, some of the image will be cropped out. Once you are happy with your cropping selection, double click inside the selection or press the Return key and the image will be cropped and sized to your specifications.
Posted in Digital Image Editing Tips, Digital Photography Tips | 2 Comments »
Monday, November 19th, 2007
One of the great advantages of digital photography is the ability to easily share your photos with others. In addition to making traditional style prints, digital images can be posted on websites, uploaded to digital personal organizers, displayed on cell phones and emailed. In my business I email photos on a regular basis. I email photo submissions to publishers, proofs to commercial clients and archived image samples to stock photo buyers. But it isn’t just professional photographers who email lots of images. I also email shots of my kids to the grandparents and photos I took out skiing to my friends. Emailing digital images is most likely the number one thing that people using digital cameras do with their photos and yet many people don’t have a clue how to optimize their photos for best email performance.
The most important consideration when emailing photos is image size, especially for those of us with dial-up Internet connections, but also for those with broadband. If you set your camera to take images at a size that’s right for email then they are too small to make good prints, but if you try to email full size images they take a long time to send and don’t even fit on the screen for viewing. The solution is resizing. Most cameras these days come with software that can easily help you resize your images for email. It is also easy to resize images in image editing software such as Adobe Photoshop. However you go about sizing your photos, here are a few tips that I follow to make sure that I’m not the guy emailing photos so large that they overfill inboxes, take several hours to download and can’t be viewed without scrolling around. These tips only apply to photos that are intended to be viewed on screen but not printed. Print size files need to be large to give good print quality.
First, I like to size my photos so they are about 500 pixels on the longest side and have a resolution of 72 DPI (dots per inch). This enables them to be viewed on smaller monitors and even within the email message window without opening them full screen. 72 DPI is important because that is about the maximum resolution that a monitor can show. Images for print often need 300 DPI or more, but this is a lot of extra information that doesn’t make the image look any better on the screen. A 300 DPI image that is 500 pixels on its longest side contains 16 times more data than the same size image at 72 DPI.
Second, I save the resized images to be emailed with a different name in a separate email folder. This way I don’t change the original image file and I can safely delete the resized images from the email folder when I don’t need them any more without accidentally losing the originals.
Third, I save the email images as JPEG (.jpg) files and set the quality to medium (about 5 on the Photoshop scale) to compress the files even more. These steps ensure that I am emailing the smallest files possible and that they send quickly, don’t fill up all the space in someone’s inbox and can easily be viewed on screen.
One more tip if you are using software like Photoshop is to apply unsharp mask (Filter>Sharpen>Unsharp Mask) to the final sized image before saving and sending it. When you downsize an image it loses some detail that can be brought back with a little sharpening. Good luck and happy emailing.
Posted in Digital Image Editing Tips, Digital Photography Tips | No Comments »
Thursday, November 15th, 2007
Donna, a fellow photography enthusiast recently emailed me for some suggestions on two of her photos. Both photos clearly show a strong sense of purpose and concept, but she felt that the results did not match what she envisioned when she took them. Her questions reminded me of my own struggles to create images that live up to my vision, percpetion and experience. I thought the content of our diologue might prove helpful to other photographers who are inevitably confronted with the same challenges.
Hi Sean,
I couldn’t resist sending you a couple of photos that I have taken recently. I am learning to try to see things from a different perspective.
The first one is so you can tell me how I could have made it better. It was such an interesting contrast. The bright autumn tree standing at the far edge of the old, subdued cemetery. I was using my little Fuji and it just doesn’t do as well with dim light. I took some shots up closer to the tree, but I like this one best. It just didn’t quite come off as I had hoped.
The other is by the Lithia fountain in the park. It was shot hastily when I was there with guests. I wish you had been with me on both occasions, I think you would have come up with some really good versions of what I was attempting.Thanks for your help.
Donna
Hi Donna,
I see what you are going for with both shots and both are very worthy subjects. You obviously have an eye for elements that make an interesting image. In the first there is the juxtaposition of color and mood, and a sense of perspective that draws the eye along the headstones, through the cemetery to the orange tree. In the second I can almost feel the warm glowing light transmitting through the trees and bathing the autumn scene in soft, magical tones.
I think you did particularly well with both of these images for the circumstances. There are a couple of composition choices that I might have made differently, but that is hard to say without actually being there. For example, in the cemetery image, it feels like there is too much empty space in the lower left corner. My instinct would be to move a bit and to adjust the composition, but then the headstones might not line up or the tree might lose its central focus. It is hard to know without being there.
I think most of what isn’t meeting your expectations in these images are functions of lighting, atmosphere, equipment, technique and post processing. The same cemetery shot taken at sunrise on a misty morning, with warm light casting long rays and shadows across the scene and lighting the tree would give it some of the drama you were perhaps feeling when you were there. A dense foggy day would give another mood, but also add to the image.
I have made many trips to, and shot hundreds of photos of, the Rogue Gorge in a variety of conditions. I was never happy with a single photo, even though I felt there was something there worth capturing. So, I kept going back. Finally I happened to be there on an amazing morning last month when the elements all came together and I made a photo that captured something of what I had been visualizing. It took me five years to get that photo and I will probably never again be able to get such a shot (although there is always the chance I’ll experience something different but just as good). I really can’t overstress the value of timing, perseverance and luck in outdoor photography.
The equipment, techniques and post processing used in creating a photo also have a great deal to do with getting a shot to match your vision. The same Rogue Gorge shot wouldn’t have been possible with my handheld pocket camera. I was using a camera with a large, high resolution sensor and a high quality lens. The exposure lasted for several seconds so I was shooting on a tripod. I used a polarizing filter to help cut the glare off the water and the wet rocks and a graduated filter to try to hold back the exposure of the sky. I also took two different exposures and blended them in Photoshop because the sky was so much brighter than the dark foreground that the camera couldn’t record the entire range of light in one shot even with the graduated filter. All told, including learning the techniques, I may have spent hundreds of hours creating that one shot.
So, I guess what I’m getting at here is that I think you are completely on the right track with your photos. Keep looking, seeing and photographing things that get your attention when you find them. This is how you develop your personal vision. I think developing that vision is the most important step, but it is only one step in getting your photos to match the vision. The other steps are a little harder to pin down. Learning the camera and processing techniques takes time and practice, getting the equipment takes money and finding the right conditions takes perseverance, patience and luck. In the end, however, it is the vision that matters the most. The best part is you don’t even need a camera to explore your vision. I’m always visualizing photos in my mind, as I drive or walk down the street. I often hike through the woods without taking photos, instead holding up my fingers to help me frame and visualize my “virtual photographs”.
I think every photographer is constantly struggling to create photos that best express his or her inward impression of the experiences he or she has with the surroundings, but I don’t think anyone fully achieves that. I’m content knowing that my images are incrementally getting closer to my vision, but that I’m not in any danger of putting away my camera because I have done all there is to do.
Best,
Sean
Posted in Digital Photography Tips, Photography Journal | No Comments »
Wednesday, September 5th, 2007
Since the beginning of human existence night sky events have inspired in us wonder, awe, inquiry, fear and superstition. Solar and lunar eclipses are particularly inspiring because they affect the largest and most important objects in the sky, the Sun and Moon. Armed with some basic knowledge they also provide us with a real-time opportunity to observe and understand the motion, relationships and interactions among the Earth, Sun and Moon. Solar eclipses (the Earth passing through the Moon’s shadow) happen less frequently than lunar eclipses (the Moon passing through the Earth’s shadow) and, due to the harmful effects of staring at the sun, are also harder to observe directly. Lunar eclipses occur about twice a year and, other than happening in the dark, are easy and safe to view. As such, they provide an excellent photography opportunity, one that can yield great documentation of a cosmological event and, with a little creative vision, compelling artistic imagery.
On August 28, 2007 a total lunar eclipse was visible from the western portion of North America. With clear skies and summer temperatures in the forecast a photographer friend, Dane (www.inner-light-images.com), and I decided to take the opportunity to try our hand at photographing the event. Even though lunar eclipses are common on a cosmic scale, they are rare enough in the course of a photographer’s career that there might only be a few chances to be in the right place at the right time to photograph one. Neither my friend nor I had photographed one before, so a little research and education was in order. There are many good sources of information on lunar eclipses on the Web. The following two links were particularly helpful in preparing to capture the eclipse on camera.
NASA’s Eclipse Info Site
The eclipse photo site of the famed “Mr. Eclipse”
A lunar eclipse only occurs during a full moon because that is when the Moon is situated directly opposite the Sun with the Earth in the middle allowing the Earth to cast its shadow on the Moon. An eclipse doesn’t occur with every full moon because the Earth casts a shadow along a plane in line with the Sun, but the Moon’s orbit only crosses some portion of that plane two to four times per year. The rest of the time the full moon is either above or below the plane of the Earth’s shadow and no eclipse occurs. Additionally, a full moon can only be seen at night due to its location opposite the sun. This means that even if an eclipse happens, you must be on the night side of the Earth to observe it. The day side of the Earth faces the Sun and faces away from the full moon, so people on the day side of the Earth during an eclipse will not be able to see it. The NASA link above provides some excellent diagrams showing how this works.
Photographing a lunar eclipse presents some challenges, but due to the slow speed and predictable nature, it is possible to prepare before hand and do a lot of trial and error while photographing one. The first challenge is being in the right place at the right time. Some enthusiasts will travel to a place on the planet where it is known an eclipse will be visible. Others, like myself, wait until an eclipse will be visible where they live. Weather is another challenge. If the sky is cloud covered the eclipse will not be visible. Many eclipses occur late in the night and getting out of bed can be a particular challenge for some. Also, a total eclipse can last up to several hours from start to finish, so some commitment and patience is required to photograph the entire thing.
Photographically speaking there are several considerations to take into account when preparing to photograph a lunar eclipse. To see the surface of the moon with a great amount of detail, a large telephoto lens is necessary. Lenses in the range of 300mm to 500mm will enlarge the moon enough for sufficient detail, but even larger lenses or small telescopes fitted for photography are needed to get a full frame image of the moon. A wider angle lens can be used with a film camera to take multiple exposures of the moon on a single piece of film. If exposures are taken every ten minutes or so, the final image will show the actual arc of the moon in intervals throughout the period of the eclipse. Most digital cameras aren’t able to take multiple exposures in one image, so to get this affect, individual exposures of the moon must be taken and then placed together in an arc in a computer using image editing software like Photoshop. For my image of the full eclipse arc I took photographs about every 10 minutes during the five hour duration of the eclipse. Then I selected 20 photos that I felt made a good sequence. In Photoshop I cut the moon out of each imaged, sized them and placed them in an arc on a black background. Then I superimposed the moon arc onto a foreground image that I took from the same location on the same night. The final image does not show the actual path of the moon in the sky, but does give a pleasing and somewhat accurate representation of the event. I chose to include the pre-dawn colors on the horizon for artistic affect even though a full moon is actually located directly opposite the rising sun.
Regardless of whether you want to take close-ups or a wide angle, multiple exposure image, you will need to be prepared to adjust the length of exposure as the eclipse progresses. A fully lit full moon is very bright and has the same exposure requirements as sunlight on rock (since that’s what it is). But, as the shadow passes over the moon and the light shifts from direct light to indirect light, the exposure times will lengthen considerably. For the completely lit full moon my exposure times were 1/400 of a second at f/5.6 with an ISO setting of 100. As the Moon passed further into the Earth’s shadow the exposure times became longer. I bracketed my exposures on almost every image to make sure that I had at least one image in which the moon was properly exposed. Eventually I reached an exposure time of one second. From calculations made before the shoot (with help from THIS website), I knew that with a 400mm lens, any exposure time longer than one second would not be fast enough to stop the Moon’s motion in the sky, resulting in a blurry image. To maintain my one second maximum exposure time I began to adjust the ISO instead of my shutter speed to offset the drop in light. In digital cameras, ISO is the measure of how sensitive the sensor is to light. Higher settings are more sensitive so they would allow me to maintain my one second exposure time, even though the Moon kept getting darker. However, higher ISO settings also introduce noise into a digital image, so I wanted to keep the ISO as low as possible to minimize noise. When the Moon was completely within the Earth’s umbral shadow (totality) my exposure was 1 second @ f/5.6 with an ISO setting of 640. Then as the Moon passed back out of the shadow I reversed what I did during the first half of the eclipse.
 Many people have asked me about the color of the Moon when it is in totality. This particular eclipse featured a beautiful brick orange/red color. The color is determined by the way light is refracted through particles and clouds in the Earth’s atmosphere as it curves around the surface of the Earth. Depending on cloud cover, pollution, fires and recent volcanic activity, the color of an eclipsed moon can vary from light orange to brick red to dark brown. The difference in brightness between the lit and shadowed portions of the Moon during partial eclipse is so great that a camera can not “see” both the dark and light side at the same time. However, the human eye can, so when we observe an eclipse we see the reddish shadow advancing across the bright face of the moon but we see detail in all areas. What a camera sees is either the red shadowed side with the light side completely white, or the light side with the shadowed side completely black. By blending two different exposures of the moon in Photoshop, I was able to create an image that shows detail in both the shadowed and lit portions of the Moon during partial eclipse, much closer to the way it would appear the human eye.
I hope you have enjoyed viewing my lunar eclipse photography and found the information on eclipses and how to photograph them helpful. My lunar eclipse photos are available as signed art prints as well as more affordable special editon poster prints. If you are interested in purchasing a signed art print or a special edition poster, please contact me HERE.
Posted in Digital Image Editing Tips, Digital Photography Tips, Photography Journal | 9 Comments »
Tuesday, August 14th, 2007
The Canon EOS 1D Mark III vs. the Canon EOS 5D
While teaching a private digital photography lesson I was able to get my hands on and familiarize myself with the recently released and industry rocking new Canon EOS 1D Mark III. I haven’t had enough time to get to know all the finer details and nuances of this camera, but at first look I would have to say that it does live up to the hype it has received and certainly sets a new level of function and performance in the high-end DSLR world. However, the most important question on my mind is, “as a landscape, architecture and travel photographer does the Canon EOS 1D Mark III have what it takes to get me to pony up $4000 and switch over from my current much loved Canon EOS 5D, 12.7 megapixel, full frame camera?”
| 1D Mark III Basic Specifications |
| Resolution: |
10.10 Megapixels |
| Kit Lens: |
n/a |
| Viewfinder: |
Optical / LCD |
| LCD Size: |
3.0 inch |
| ISO: |
50-6400 |
| Shutter: |
30-1/8000 |
| Max Aperture: |
n/a |
| Mem Type: |
CF1 / CF2 / SDHC / SD |
| Battery: |
Custom LiIon |
| Dimensions: |
6.1×6.2×3.1in
(156×157x80mm) |
| Weight: |
40.4 oz
(1,155 g) |
| MSRP: |
$4,000 |
| Availability: |
On The market |
About a year and a half ago I purchased my 5D and have been very pleased with it ever since. The small size and weight, superior resolution, ease of use, price and full frame sensor form a pretty solid base of features important to the types of photography that I do. The $8000 price tag of the respected full frame EOS 1Ds Mark II along with its notoriously complex operation and large, heavy body all made it impractical for hauling into the wilderness, shooting in the dark and operating it in abusive conditions. The 1D Mark II N was geared more towards sports and journalistic photography and didn’t have the resolution I wanted, not to mention that the smaller APS sized sensor cut into my wide angle capability. Upon first reading about the 1D Mark III I thought that it might just have the right combination of advanced technology and features to persuade me to make the jump.As stated by Dave Etchells and Shawn Barnett on image-resource.com, “the big story with the Canon EOS 1D Mark III is that it’s a better, more universally appealing professional camera for more types of professional photographers. A lot of intermediate photographers may want to make the jump as well, given its more friendly interface and astonishing high ISO performance. And, the Canon EOS 1D Mark III isn’t just for sports anymore. It’s a more universal camera for the vast majority of pro photographers. With the multiple improvements in the new camera, photographers will no longer need to trade off resolution, image quality, and speed against each other. The 1D Mark III now has enough of all three to satisfy a huge slice of the market in a single camera body.”
While the 1D Mark III’s 10 frames per second burst rate, the fastest in the world, is impressive it really isn’t an important consideration for photographers who photograph low motion subjects like landscapes. Below I have listed the features of the 1D Mark III that really caught my eye as a landscape and architecture photographer that might challenge my preference for the 5D.
- Three inch LCD monitor with live view capability for on screen compositions – handy for creative and difficult compositions.
- Dual DIGIC III Image Processors for fine detail, natural color reproduction and high-speed performance – I’m all about better color reproduction and fine detail. High speed is an added bonus.
- Professional EOS Integrated Cleaning System with Self-Cleaning Sensor Unit – dust spots on the sensor may be my single biggest gripe with digital SLRs.
- Dust Delete Data acquisition – for those times when the self-cleaning sensor misses some specks.
- More intuitive menus and controls similar to the 5D – my 5D fits like a glove and is almost as easy to use.
- Expanded ISO range with less noise in images shot at a higher ISO – I often shoot on a tripod, but expanding my handheld shooting ability while still producing low noise images is very tempting.
- 14-bit A/D conversion for fine color/tonal gradation – again, any technology that allows for better, more accurate color reproduction is high on my list of priorities.
- New 10.1-megapixel CMOS sensor, improved microlens array and pixel fill factor plus optimized photodiode structure to increase light-reception efficiency – the improved sensor design and resolution along with the other image quality enhancements would most likely give me plenty of detail for 20 x 30 art prints or larger (as with my 5D), but I’m not excited about the smaller than full frame sensor size. I really need to be able to access the entire wide angle view of my 16 mm lens.
- Increased shutter durability of approximately 300,000 cycles – it just keeps going and going.
- 50% less shadow noise for all images – shadow noise is something that I’m constantly trying to avoid in my landscape photography.
- High-capacity, lightweight and compact lithium-ion battery with estimated battery life display – lithium-ion is the way to go and I like that Canon has finally figured out a way to let you know how much more time you have left on your battery.
- Strong magnesium alloy body construction sealed to resist dust and water – I take my gear to some pretty harsh environments. The fact that the 5D is not as well sealed as the 1D series cameras is one of its serious drawbacks for abusive professional photographers.
Based on the image comparisons I have been able to make between the 1D Mark III and the 5D, along with viewing many sample images taken by independent reviewers on the web, I would have to say that the Mark III certainly does produce remarkably detailed high resolution images with extremely accurate colors. When used with a sharp lens, the 1D Mark III can produce images with a vast amount of fine detail. I would say that the image quality and resolution at low ISO settings rivals that of the 12 megapixel 5D. In some situations, such as along high contrast edges, in shadow detail and in tricky lighting, I would say that the Mark III even outperforms the 5D.
However, this camera really shows its stuff with its low noise levels when shooting at higher ISO settings. Even at its highest setting of ISO 6,400, the images are cleaner than those shot at ISO 1600 and perhaps even 800 on the 5D. There is digital noise, but there’s still an amazing amount of shadow detail and finer detail for such a sensitive ISO setting. At lower sensitivities, images are extremely clean, and noise doesn’t even begin to show up significantly on monitors until you reach ISO 800.
The 1D Mark III certainly sets new standards on many fronts. The ease of use, sensor cleaning technology, color accuracy, detailed resolution and low noise are features that really excite me, and there are many more that are pretty cool, although not essential, to the landscape photographer. Impressive as it is, would it tempt me away from my 5D? It is close, but the answer is, Nope.
The main factor that would keep me away is the APS-H sized sensor which applies a magnification factor of 1.3x to the focal length of the lens. Being able to get full use out my wide-angle lenses with the 5D is just too important to give up. To a lesser degree I am also deterred by the size and weight of the camera.
So what would the camera that would get me to hand over the keys to my 5D look like? We’ll my guess is it would be called the EOS 5D Mark II and it would have the follwing features:
- A compact, lightweight body like the current 5D
- Magnesium alloy body construction sealed against dust and moisture to the same standards as the EOS 1D cameras
- The same dual DIGIC III processors, firmware and sensor improvements found in the 1D Mark III
- The same high sensitivity/low noise ability of the 1D Mark III
- 14 bit color
- Live view LCD screen
- Self-Cleaning Sensor Unit
- The same intuitive menu and control system found on the 5D and 1D Mark III
- Battery life display
- Shutter rated to 300,000 shots
- And most importantly…a FULL FRAME sensor in the 13-16 megapixel range
What is the chance that such a camera is on the horizon? The consensus among the big dogs seems to be that Canon will put this technology to use at the top end first by coming out with a 1Ds Mark III. It would include all the improvements made to the 1D but it is anticipated that the new 1Ds will feature a 22 megapixel full frame sensor as well. This is sure to be an amazing camera, but the body size and likely $7000 to $9000 price tag will not place it high on my wish list. Hopefully, soon after that, a new 5D will hit the market. I’m holding out for that day.
Posted in Digital Photography Tips, Photography Equipment | No Comments »
Thursday, May 3rd, 2007
I often get questions about the signing and numbering of photography prints. As with any art work, piece of music or writing, the author adds his signature as a way of identification and as a stamp of completion and approval. I sign and number all my prints. At some point I might offer non-numbered, open edition prints, but at this point all my prints are part of limited editions. I generally sign and number prints on the white border below the print with an acid free, archival ink pen. I sign on the lower right and number on the lower left. I sign close to the print edge so that a collector can choose to have it matted with the signature showing or so that the matte covers up the signature. Some photographers sign directly on the printed surface like a painter, and I have done this at times, but prefer not to write on the print itself. If I, myself, am having the framing done for a show or for a client I also sign and number the matte with a pencil in addition to signing the print itself. When I number the print I write it as a ratio of the print number over the total number in the edition. i.e. – 15/200.
In the darkroom days when an image was mastered from film an entire edition of prints was often produced all at the same time. So, by definition, the edition actually was limited. In these days of digital imaging we can create an infinite number of prints of varying sizes from our digital “master” whenever we please, so thier isn’t a functional reason to limit the number of prints. However, art buyers still value limited edition prints becasue they know they are purchasing something that hasn’t been mass produced and will continue to be a somewhat rare and collectible item. Deciding how to establish edition size can be tricky and will be different from one photographer to another. If editions are limited to only 10 prints this will increase perceived value, but will also strictly limit the photographer’s ability to create income from the photo over the course of his career. On the other hand, an edition of 1,000 prints is large enough to decrease the value of each print in collector’s eyes. Most photographers I know have limited editions between 50 and 200. Some also apply other rules to their limited editions. Some photographers have a sliding price scale so that the print price goes up as more of them sell. In theory, this encourages more early sales while the price is lower and then increases the price as the print gains popularity. Other photographers will reserve the first five or ten prints in an edition for gallery shows and special clients, or just to archive for the future.
It is important to carefully set edition numbers. Once an edition number is set it can’t change later. It is important to find a number small enough to be considered limited but which does not remove the image from the photographer’s portfolio too early in his career. It is also important to specify if the edition includes all print sizes or if each sizes constitues a separate edition.
To date, all my prints are in editions of 200 total, so no more than 200 of any image will be produced regardless of print size. At this point in my career none of my editions are in danger of selling out, which is good because I plan on selling them for many years to come.
Posted in Digital Photography Tips | 4 Comments »
Friday, April 20th, 2007
Oregon is home to some of the most astounding waterfalls in the country. In the spring, with good water flow, lush greenery and filtered, overcast light, they offer some great photography opportunities. While waterfalls can be found all around the state, there are a few regions that have many waterfalls in a relatively small area, making it possible to visit a bunch of them in one trip. The three areas that I find particularly visitor friendly are the Columbia River Gorge Wilderness, Silver Creek State Park and the upper North Umpqua River. There are many excellent websites where you can get visitor information and directions to Oregon Waterfalls. Here are a few I like:
www.waterfallsnorthwest.com
www.waterfalls-guide.com
http://geology.com/waterfalls
In mid April, my dad and I took a three-day trip to photograph some waterfalls. The first day we visited falls and lush creeks along the North Umpqua River. The second day we spent exploring and photographing the falls of Silver Creek State Park and on the third day we visited only a few of the many falls in the Columbia Gorge.
Photographing waterfalls and rainforest streams can be challenging. The dense forest setting can create a situation of “too much going on” and make it difficult to get unobstructed views and find coherent compositions. Additionally, on a sunny day there is too much contrast between the bright and shadowed areas of the forest making it nearly impossible to balance the light and show detail in all areas of an image. Here are some tips that I have found helpful when photographing waterfalls and dense forest streams.
- Shoot when the light is soft and balanced. This includes overcast days, mornings, evenings, and canyons deep in shadow.
- Light rain or mist is your friend. Wet foliage really pops and light fog can add a very mystical dimension to photos.
- Use a circular polarizer to cut out light scattered off the surface of shiny green plants and the surface of water. The difference this makes is amazing.
- Shoot on a tripod. Since the best conditions for shooting are lower light conditions, your shutter speeds will necessarily be longer than you can hold steady. Add in a small aperture setting for increased depth of field and a polarizing filter and you could be looking at shutter speeds longer than one second.
- For the best “smooth water” effects try for a shutter speed between .5 and 1.5 seconds. If your exposure is too long then the water loses all its texture.
- If shooting digitally, shoot two exposures, one for the water and one for the foliage. When the foliage is properly exposed, the white, foamy areas of water will often be blown out and lacking detail. Shooting two exposures allows you to blend them later in Photoshop to achieve the correct exposure throughout. For my article on how to do this kind of exposure blending click HERE.
- Look for interesting vantage points. Try angles down close to the water, up on a rock or a rise, across a ravine or from the side.
- Don’t simply shoot the waterfall or stream centered in the middle of the image. Place the waterfall off center and show some of the surroundings to give a sense of place. Look for ways to have curves in the stream lead your eye through the image at an angle. Try to cut out paths, bridges and other signs of people unless you are going for a “humans in nature” shot.
- Tread carefully and preserve the beauty. Stay on trails in sensitive areas. Don’t step on delicate plant life. Avoid muddy and eroding areas. Avoid entering off trail areas that are clearly getting too much use.
Posted in Digital Photography Tips, Photography Travel Journal | No Comments »
|
