Using perspective and skew in Photoshop.

Left:  Church before correction    Right: Church after correction

Have a look at the above images.  The exposures are one and the same.  The difference between them occurs after the file has been accessed by photoshop.  What are the differences, why do they matter, and how did I do them?

The image was taken off center, mostly because it was a better position to shoot from and I captured more of the flowers on the left side of the door (you can see them if you look carefully).  Shooting it off center caused the roof line to appear at an angle.  I used the skew command in Photoshop to line this up parallel to the top of the frame.

With height comes a reduction in the width of any building, which is why the church's tower is smaller at the bottom than the top.  This is the normal effect of perspective.  You can use a PC (perspective control) lens to correct it in camera, or use a bellows with the ability to angle the lens; something present on some large format cameras.  My solution was much more economical.  Use the perspective control in Photoshop to widen the top of the image.  It worked fine.

The problem this produces though is that it makes the church appear squat because now the width is the same all the way up but the height is wrong for the proportions.  For this I used the distortion command and lengthened the whole image, stretching the church.  The downside to this is that everything gets stretched, not just the upper part of the church.  If there was a way to stretch the image proportionally, with none at the bottom and an increasing amount over the height of the image, the effect would be much better.  However, it works well for the most part.  This is why the image on the left is shorter than the image on the right.

Finally, there was the issue of the missing corner.  When the skew command was issued the upper right part of the image became barren as no image data was available for it.  Fortunately, the missing section was only sky and it was a simple matter of using the clone tool to patch up that part of the photo.  I think the corrected version looks much better than the original.  What is your opinion?

The making of a monster.

If the monster was to talk, what would it say?

We were at Coombs market yesterday.  Its most renowned feature is the fact that it has a grass roof which hosts goats during the summer.  The whole area is perfect for the eclectic shopper.  As usual, I was packing a camera and discovered an unexpected subject; a one-eyed monster tree.  The original picture, unedited, is on the left.

That was the picture my mind saw the moment it popped into my visual field.  It only needed a second eye, which I knew Photoshop could address.  After bringing the image back to my computer, thought became a reality.  That's the image on the right.  Now I needed a caption.

That's one of the fun thing about interesting photos.  The meaning or effect of an image can change completely with the right words.  Consider some of the possibilities:

  "Squirrel!"
  "That's E-N-T, not A-N-T."
  "Keep that dog away from me!"
  "That was a tasty kite, Charlie Brown."
  "My roots!  Where are my roots?"
  "... and the green grass grew all around, all around, and the green grass grew all around."
  "OK goat, just a little closer to the edge."

If you think of a caption, won't you please attach it as a comment.  Thank you.

Bowen park waterfalls and a neutral density filter

Bowen Park Waterfalls, Nanaimo

A neutral density filter is a grey filter, completely neutral in colour, which attaches to the front of your camera lens.  Its sole purpose is to allow you to use slower shutter speeds than what you would otherwise be able to.  You would not make use of one normally, as shutter speeds are often slow enough as it is.  Most people don't have one, or may even not know about their existence.

The top image was taken early in the morning without an ND filter.  The exposure time was 0.3 seconds.  This is slow enough to allow some blurring of the water's movements.  It produces a pleasant effect.  The bottom photograph was shot using a neutral density filter; the aperture and focus points are exactly the same.  The shutter speed is significantly slower though, being a full 20 seconds.

The difference is subtle, although I prefer the longer shutter speed over the shorter one.  I love how the rocks and moss in the stream stand out from the blurred water.

I have a confession.  The camera I used was a 1-inch sensor bridge camera; a Panasonic FZ2500 camera which comes equipped with a virtual neutral density filter.  A small switch on the side of the camera reduces the amount of light hitting the sensor, allowing you to shoot slower shutter speeds.  The switch was set to the 1/64 value - a 6 stop reduction in light.  If you take the 20 second exposure from the bottom image and divide it by the 0.3 second exposure from the top, you get 66.7 - close enough to the 64 times light reduction.

I have a variable neutral density filter which I use on my DSLR lenses.  It does the same thing, although it has the disadvantage of putting extra glass between my subject and the sensor plus being an extra thing to buy and carry to boot.  I have to admit to liking the sliding switch feature on the all-in-one camera though.