A shift in perspective in Chehalis

The St. Helens Apartments, Chehalis

Yesterday we went into the small town of Chehalis, Washington.  It is quite quaint and there are lots of old buildings which have been kept up.  I particularly liked the St. Helens Apartments, which has an antiquated outside fire escape.  The most interesting feature of the building though is its irregular quadrilateral shape, with one end being very narrow and the other end is quite wide.

The image on the left was my original shot.  Without a PC (perspective control) lens it is almost impossible to capture a tall building without showing significant signs of perspective.  Perspective is the appearance of objects getting smaller as they get further from you.  We see it all the time in stretches of railway or road as they move away from us, becoming little more than a hairline in the far distance.  Buildings suffer from this form of distortion because we are much closer to the bottom than the top.  In the shot above, I am also closer to the left side than the right side, and so the image suffers from perspective along two planes.

I used Photoshop to correct the distortion by evoking the perspective editing tool.  This helped me compensate for the vertical change in perspective.  I used the distort editing tool afterward to give the building its apparent height, as I find changing perspective usually gives the image a squashed appearance.  Lastly, to compensate for the left to right change in perspective, I employed the use of the skew editing tool.  Together the changes produce the image you see on the right.

Although the left image is what my eye saw, it is the right one which I saw in my mind’s eye – the way it should look if perspective was not an issue.  Of course, I played with white balance, contrast, exposure, curves, and a few other tools to get the shot just the way I wanted it.  This is precisely why I shoot in RAW mode; it gives me the greatest post editing potential without compromising the image significantly.

Thanks for reading.   www.ericspix.com

Bromeliads and Bros - a sense of scale.

My friend, Charles, posing by a tree covered with bromeliads.

Bromeliads are fascinating plants.  There are somewhere between 1500 to 3500 species, depending on which website you want to believe, and they range from the very small to the incredibly large at over 33 feet tall.  While we were in New Zealand we were thrilled to see numerous bromeliads growing, always on trees.  Not all bromeliads live on trees; pineapples grow in the soil of course.

The bromeliads we encountered are epiphytes.  These symbiotic plants form a commercialistic relationship with their hosts, neither hurting or harming them.  The bromeliads use the tree only as a substrate - a place to anchor themselves - and do not parasitize the tree in any manner.  As an epiphyte, the bromeliad obtains its nutrients from rainwater, the air, and organic matter which happens to fall upon it. 

We came across a remarkable collection of these tree-loving epiphytes perched on a tree overhanging a marine lagoon.  I took two shots, one with my friend and one without.  The shot with my friend gives a sense of scale to the plants, while the one without leaves you guessing as to how large they actually are.  I also like the fact that the left image is more personal and meaningful in nature while the right one could have been dug up on a google search. 

When you are out taking pictures, consider shooting scenery or evidence at to your location both with and without someone in them.  I could have a photograph of bromeliads, which would become more and more meaningless over time, or a shot of my "bro" with the bromeliads, which would maintain its value.  The great thing about both shots is that you can use each for something different, depending on what your exact needs are or will eventually be.

Thanks for reading.   www.ericspix.com

Flash at night - pros and cons

An evening on the West Coast Trail

Using flash at night, or even at dusk, has both advantages and disadvantages.  The power of the flash, the distance the subject is away, and the ISO of the sensor all dictate its working distance.  As you can see in the top photo the background becomes darker as distance increases.  The foreground is nicely lit up and allows a fast shutter speed to freeze motion.  You can see my daughter, Leanne (far left) playing with her fire stick - the moment is captured in time.  Without a flash, the shutter speed must decrease significantly.  In the bottom image, you can see her significantly blurred as her play is slowly rendered.  Flash freezes action and illuminates the only foreground.

When flash is not used in very low light situations long exposures are required.  The other option is to use high ISO values, which produces a great deal of noise.  The amount of noise produced is highly variable, but smaller sensors and longer exposures increase it as well.  I prefer to use low ISO values with long exposure noise reduction turned on.  The bottom image was shot at 100 ISO for five seconds at an aperture of f/5.0.  Even then it is somewhat underexposed, but I wanted to capture details in the fire.  The relative darkness of the event helps set the tone of the shot, which is lost when flash is used.  Not using flash blurs action and gives natural light the task of exposing the image, producing a softer, more evenly lit scene.

You also have to consider the need of a tripod or some other way to immobilize the camera when doing long exposures.  Vibration compensation helps mitigate blur due to a camera being handheld, but only within 3 or 4 stops of the standard 1/shutterspeed rule of thumb.  With a focal length of 45 mm on a full frame camera, a shutter speed of 1/50th of a second would suffice with no vibration compensation or a shutter speed of 1/5th of a second with it.  At 5 seconds the entire shot would be ruined if it was handheld, vibration compensation or not.

At the end of the day, it is always a good idea to try to do things in multiple ways.  Experience tends to be the best teacher; I have always found it is the best way to learn.  Of course, it takes time and some degree of organization to do this.  As well, you have to take your camera off full-auto because it will dictate how the shot will be orchestrated.  It will mean having to pay attention to settings and even understanding what they all mean.  Scary for some, but it is the best way to learn.

Thanks for reading.  www.ericspix.com

Time of day – shooting a creek at noon and at dusk

Left:  3.2 second exposure at noon    Right:  5 second exposure at 8:00 pm

Photography is the art of capturing light, and the nature of that light is very important in how the resulting image will appear.  Time of day affects the process because of the angle and intensity of the sun.  A cloudy day may make the difference somewhat moot, but there are still differences, although significantly subdued.

The above two images were shot from the same point of view and focal length, but the one on the left was photographed over eight hours earlier than the one on the right.  The sun was clearly in a different position relative to the scene.  Close to noon, the first one has significant shadows and highlights.  In fact, I had to use a graduated filter to diminish the brightness coming from the far bank, which was exposed to full sun.  That part of the scene was dodged by a full two stops, receiving only 25% of the light the rest of the image did.  Even then, it is still a titch on the bright side.  Conclusion:  midday exposures in full sun suffer from intense contrast and vast differences in shadow and highlights.  Early and late day photos are much less intense this way and do not require as much in the way of burning, dodging, or filling with flash.

There is a second difference.  The second photo was taken near 8:00 in the evening.  An aperture of f/10 was used with a shutter speed of five seconds; I needed to use a three-stop neutral density filter to take it from 0.4 seconds to 5 seconds to blur the moving water the way I wanted.  The noon photo was at f/11 with a shutter speed of 3.2 seconds.  However, it required a six-stop neutral density filter to achieve a proper exposure.  There are about four stops difference between the amount of light falling on the image in shade at noon and at 8:00 at night.  More if you consider the full sun exposure (about 7 stops).  Full sun shots are great for fast shutter speeds but lousy when wanting to use low ones.  Conclusion:  if you are wanting longer shutter speeds, consider shooting early morning or late afternoon.  If you do not have a neutral density filter, earlier or later is better.

There are subtle differences in white balance, water flow, and human activity as well.  These factors may play an important part in the final product, depending on the circumstances.  In general, I like to shoot early in the morning for a number of reasons.  Good light without harsh shadows, few people mulling about to get in the way, and my energy level is better.  If you can plan when you are going to shoot, you will end up with better pictures.

Clarity - also called mid tone contrast.

Cascade Falls, Mission.  Left:  low clarity   Right:  high clarity

I drove out to Cascade Falls yesterday with a friend of mine.  It was a wet, soggy day with little promise of blue skies.  Uncertain of what weather lay ahead, but determined to overcome whatever was thrown at us, we proceeded stout-heartedly towards our goal.  The truth is I considered whimping out a couple of times but was persuaded by my sodden-proof friend that such was the life of explorers.  So, we made our journey to the falls' parking lot where we donned what rain resistant gear we had and began our trek.

If you have never been to Cascade falls it is well worth the trip.  The round trip to the site really only takes fifteen minutes or so, and the trail is well established.  No mud and little in the way of foot entanglements.  The area is cordoned off so that anyone attempting to access the river will be thwarted by well maintained chain link fences.  Only those willing to scurry over or under them can make it there; the slope and river itself is very dangerous and staying on the walkway is highly recommended.

I got off a number of shots.  The above one was taken with a Panasonic bridge camera with an ISO of 80, a shutter speed of 1/25th of a second and an aperture of f/2.8.  The wet weather produced a low contrast scene.  I typically use a RAW camera setting and did so here as well.  I post processed in Photoshop CS 6.

If you look carefully at both images you will notice that they are, in fact, one and the same.  The same file was used to produce both images.  The difference between them is that the left one had a clarity setting of around -35 and the right one had a setting of around +18.  Mid-tone contrast, also called clarity, is a setting which alters the contrast of middle-value tones.  There are typically three tone ranges.  Highlights are the brighter values, shadows are darker values, and mid-tone are the values in between.  

Altering mid-tone contrast has a number of benefits.  Lowering it gives the image a decidedly softer feel.  I use low values in portraits and in places where I want to take the harshness off surfaces and edges.  In places where the scene would benefit from better definition and distinctive surfaces I use positive values.  Look at the waterfalls carefully.  You will notice the left one is much softer and the water appears almost misty.  The right one appears more like a thunderous avalanche of water.  I prefer the left one.

Not all editing programs offer the ability to change mid-tone contrast.  Photoshop and Elements both have it.  If this is a feature that is important to you, consider looking to see if what you have, or hope to acquire, does.

Thanks for reading.    www.ericspix.com

Use of a polarizer filter.

Dike at end of 216 St, Maple Ridge.  Left:  no polarizer   Right:  polarizer used

If you are at all like me, winter has not encouraged you to take many photographs.  With spring fully entrenched and summer lurking around the corner, you leave your ensconcement seeking sun and fresh air.  You find yourself outdoors.  Beauty abounds.  The landscape unfolds before you; blue sky meets forest and water.  It is time for the camera to come out.  Before you run out ready for action, you should make sure the battery is charged and you have a memory card in it with lots of room.

Out with camera in hand, you snap a few shots.  They look pretty good, although it seems a little less brilliant than the way you think it should be.  The colours are not as vivacious as they could be though, and they seem to off somehow.  Right beside you, a friend has the exact same camera, and all the settings are exactly the same (amazing); the only difference they are using a polarizer filter (since polarizers are grey in colour they actually reduce the light coming into the camera, so your friend's settings would be a bit different, but close).  You compare images - wow!  Look at the difference between the two shots!

It was, of course, the polarizer which did it.  I have discussed polarizers before (click here), but a brief review is in order.  Polarizers take out light which has been polarized along some plane.  Rotating the filter changes which plane it removes polarized light from.  It turns out light from open sky is very blue; it is also polarized light.  Used correctly, the polarizer will take all that extra blue light out of your image.  The result gives truer colours and better contrast. 

The trick with polarizers is to know when they will help.  They tend to be ineffectual on a cloudy day, although they will still help with reflections off surfaces, including water.  On sunny days they take the blue tint out of shadows and darken blue skies.  They will not darken all skies however; much of that depends on the time of day and the direction you are shooting relative to the sun.  You get the best results when the sun is behind you and not straight overhead. 

If you get a polarizer, try this:  Go out on a bright sunny day, mid-morning is fine.  View the sky and landscape with your camera.  Rotate ring on the the polarizer filter 180 degrees.  Change your position by rotating yourself to get a different part of the scene in the viewfinder and repeat with the polarizer.  Move, rotate, move, etc.  Pay close attention to how the polarizer affects the image.  You will notice that the polarizer makes the most difference when the sun is behind you but off to the side.  Do the same thing at noon and then later in the afternoon. 

I try to be careful with polarizers when using ultra-wide angle lenses, or when doing panoramas.  Since they perform differently depending on your angle to the sun, they will cause your resulting shots to be unbalanced.  I often remove polarizers when doing this type of photo, when using flash, and when shooting in low light.

Have fun, and keep on shooting.  www.ericspix.com

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?