Benched in Tortuga

Top:  bench in Tortuga  Bottom:  Kathryn on the same bench

When I see something that appeals to me visually, I want to photograph it.  I loved the scene facing us (top) while visiting Tortuga last year.  It was colourful, had clean lines, and was simple yet attractive.  It was populated with simple objects each of us takes for granted.  To top it all off there was an easy way to compose the image, facilitating the rule of thirds and framing.

Clearly though, something was missing.  The large open space to the left of the window was begging for a subject; anything really.  It was a gaping hole in an otherwise wonderful setting.  The solution was to incorporate a person, and I knew the very one.  One of the things I frequently do is to photograph something without someone in it, then repeat the process but this time with a person.  The change was dramatic.

Although the same void existed, there was now a dominate subject which displaced its presence (bottom).  Instead of the eye finding an empty quadrant, it found a person.  This deflected your attention in such a way as to change the entire composition.  The great news here is that it is an easy fix.  It accomplishes the goals of changing the anchor point in the image and adds a personal touch.  The reality is that the top photo would mean less to me over time while the bottom one would forever carry the image of one I love.  How poignant. 

This idea then is the basis of this blog.  Shoot as you see fit, but remember to put people in your shot some of the times.  Photographs of things or places will always carry with them a certain degree of appeal or nostalgia, but it is the people in our lives that gives them perpetual meaning.  Selfies are, of course, all the rage, but often leave out important methods of producing fetching photos.  A tripod, a little time, and some instructions on your part will likely produce far more rewarding images with you as the centerpiece, along with whoever accompanies you.  I suggest taking two shots, one with people and one without.  Compare them over time; the one with family and friends will almost certainly become the most favourite over time. 

Thanks for reading this.            www.ericspix.com

Flash and the beauty of no synch speed.

Top:  no flash was used.  Bottom:  built-in flash used.

I have spoken on the merits of fill flash, and will likely do it again because of how much it improves an image, even when its use is not mandatory.  Today I want to talk about the difference in using a DSLR camera which is limited by something called a flash synch speed and using a non-SLR-type camera which is not.  Normally I would sing the praises of the DSLR because of the larger sensor and the ability of it to take accessories such as other lenses and external flashes.  This is one place where non-SLR cameras have an advantage.

To understand what a flash synch speed is, you first have to comprehend why it even exists.  DSLR cameras use a mechanical shutter to allow the camera's sensor to be exposed.  It is a physical mechanism which opens and closes using "curtains", which block light when present in front of the sensor.  When a photo is taken, the first curtain travels across the sensor plane leaving the senor open for an exposure to take place.  The first curtain remains open until the exposure is complete, then the second curtain moves and finishes off the job.

They travel independently of each other as long as the shutter speed is at or below the flash synch speed.   This tends to be between 1/180th to 1/250th of a second, with most cameras using 1/200th of a second.  At shutter speeds faster than the flash synch speed, the shutters move in tandem, the space between them guided by the shutter speed.  Faster shutter speeds require that the two shutters are closer together.  To see a video on this, click here.

The problem starts when flash is used.  At shutter speeds at or below the flash synch speed there is no problem because the entire shutter is open.  At speeds above this, only a portion of the shutter is open at any moment and the flash will illuminate only a portion of the image.  To prevent this your camera will limit the shutter speed when the flash is popped up or an external one is attached.  If you use an off-camera flash which is not dedicated, the camera will not be aware of a flash.  This means you can go above the flash synch speed, but with a consequence.

Enter non-DSLR cameras.  Compacts usually use non-mechanical shutters.  They are electronic in nature and use no moving parts.  They do not have a flash synch speed and so higher shutter speeds can be used in situations involving flash.  This is where the photos above come in.

Both shots are done with an ISO of 80, an aperture of f/3, and a shutter speed of 1/1000 of a second.  The top photo is not an issue as no flash was used.  The bottom image does involve flash, however.  The camera was a bridge camera; it is an all-in-one camera that uses an electronic shutter instead of a mechanical one.  A shutter speed of 1/1000 of a second is not a problem.  The question you may have at this point is, "So what?   Why is it a problem?"

The short answer is aperture.  It was very bright, and the shutter speed of 1/1000 of a second allowed me to use the low aperture of f/3.  This means the flash can further and impact shadows a greater distance from the camera.  With a shutter speed of 1/200th of a second, my minimum aperture would have been around f/7.  Light travels less than half the distance at that aperture, and it is likely there would not be enough of it to properly illuminate the scene.  The built-in flash of a DSLR camera would not be able to work to its full potential because of the limitations of flash synch speed.  There are two ways around this though.  One is to use an external flash on a DSLR or to use a feature called high flash synch speed, which is not available on all cameras.

video link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3SjH_Ja_E8

Which is the correct white balance?

Old horse-drawn wagon, Lake Nakamun, Alberta

Before you are two images, each differing by one single factor.  They have both been white-balanced to the snow, but the colours are clearly different.  So what is going on?  Snow is, after all, supposed to be white. 

Although we think of snow as being white, it can actually be many colours.  In places where coal is used extensively the snow takes on grey hues.  A certain species of protozoa is red in colour, and when present in significant numbers dyes the snow its distinctive shade.  Compact snow, converted to ice, may lose the dissolved gasses originally present and take on its familiar blue tones.  Then there is yellow snow - we all know what that means.

The property of snow that we need to understand is that it reflects all wavelengths of visible light.  If you were to place a string of  Christmas lights on the snow at night, the snow around each light would reflect the emitted light displaying the associated colour.  That is what is happening here.  Direct sunlight has a relatively even balance of light making up the spectrum.  The brighter areas of the scene are lit by it.  The shaded areas, on the other hand, are illuminated by the sun indirectly.

Indirect sunlight will bear the cast of wherever the light comes from.  On a sunny day shaded areas receive reflected light from areas immediately around them, but more importantly, the bulk of the light comes from the open sky above.  Blue sky carries with it more blue than other shades.  Just like a blue Christmas light will cause snow around it to turn blue, the light from open sky is also mostly blue.  The result is light in shaded areas on sunny days is predominately blue.

This brings us back to the shots above.  The top image was colour balanced to the snow in shade, which resulted in having the blue colour cast removed.  Look at the wagon; notice how the wood seems a more natural tone.  The bottom image was balanced using the brighter sunlit snow, causing the shaded areas to appear bluish.  Compare the wagons in both shots and you will see that the bottom wagon is also very blue for the same reason.

Here is the general thought then:  Colour balance for the subject.  If the subject is in shade, balance for that light source.  If the subject is in sun, then for that source.  This works well for the most part, although there are exceptions to everything.  I prefer the top photo because the wagon is not maligned with the blue colour cast of shadows.

Thanks for reading.

Perspective on Paihia

Changing focal length in Paihia, New Zealand.   

If you go to New Zealand, and happen to visit a quaint little area known as Paihia, you will find this sword fish statue posing for your shots at town center.  I photographed the above images using a Panasonic FZ2500, a bridge type camera with a one inch sensor.  The actual focal lengths were quite a bit lower, at 8.8 mm for the wide angle shot and 60.4 mm for the telephoto shot.  The crop factor for the camera is 2.72, meaning that if you take any actual focal length for the lens and multiply it by its crop factor number, you will get the relative focal length on a full frame digital camera.  So in this case, 8.8 mm (actual focal length) times 2.72 (the crop factor) gives about 24 mm (the relative focal length).  A full frame digital camera with a 24 mm lens will give the same field of view as a one inch sensor camera using an 8.8 mm lens.

In order to get this type of photo you need a couple of things.  First of all you need a camera with a zoom lens which has the ability to change its focal length from a wide angle  to a telephoto.  Then you need two subjects, one closer to you and one farther away.  Lastly you have to position yourself so that you are close to the front subject with the back object lined up in the camera's viewfinder.  When that is all done, you are ready to go on to the next phase of the shot.

At this point you set the camera's lens to a wide angle value; generally accepted as being below or at 35 mm relative.  In this case I used a 24 mm setting.  I was close to the sword fish and made sure the island at the back was in my viewfinder.  Click.  The first shot is done.

This then is the key.  You have to move back and zoom in.  The distance you move back depends upon a lot of factors.  Without getting into details, it is all based upon ratios.  The zooming in enlarges the foreground subject.  If you zoom in the right amount that object should be the same size in your viewfinder as it was in the original shot.  Since the distance between the foreground and background object has not changed, the background appears larger relative to the foreground.  This is called compression because it looks like you are compressing the distance between the two subjects.  Again, it is all based upon ratios.

Click.  The second shot is now complete.

If you did this right your foreground in both shots should be about the same.  The background will look significantly closer though in the second shot - it is quite an earth-moving experience.