Category: Photography

So, I took the camera down to the local Canon Authorised Service Centre (Yes, here were far too many uses of “s” in that … we’re in the UK, where these things happen.). The local wizard declared that, yes, something was wrong. Was this Canon’s fault? The combination of lens and camera? Nobody knows, but, ya know, we’ll recalibrate everything “under warranty” because, well, Canon seems not to have done so at the point of manufacture.

Let’s call that, oh, around 10,000 photos which aren’t focused correctly. Soft focus? Well, that’s for those people who think that zits can be remedied by blurring the picture. Me, I prefer to be given the option, rather than having it forced upon me.

It just seems a shame to me that all of my photos in D.C. will be … feeble, weak, diffuse.

You think I should switch to Nikkon?

-D

Awhile ago, our friend L asked me whether I still liked the Canon EOS 7D. I was quite enthusiastic in my response, but have since thought that, well, maybe not. It’s been rather hit-and-miss, as far as the photos go, and I’ve wondered what’s up, thinking that maybe I should have splashed out for one of the professional models rather than this “pro-sumer” version.

Why? Well, because the thing just doesn’t quite focus right. It’s fine for most things, viewed at low resolution, but … well, you don’t buy a 18-megapixel camera, costing upwards of $1,500 just for the body, to have “mostly good” pictures.

I’d thought that it was just the lens … but, on searching out comparisons between the 7D and the 5D Mark III today, I discovered that there are many many people out there who have had similar troubles, and worse.

Rather than return the thing, I’ve opted to try to make it work.

I updated the firmware, did some AF microadjustments, and changed the focusing method. Will this fix things? Well, my initial feeling is that the camera should go back. Even after all of that, things just aren’t as crisp as they were using the previous model.

I don’t have the additional $4,000 to put out for the professional one, though, so … I’ll keep tinkering. Or, maybe, when we get back from D.C. this next week, I’ll send it into the repair center. I hope that they can make it work!

-D

Sometimes HDR is the better option, sometimes not. The images on the left are the “pure” images, while the ones on the right are composites of 3 images. Which ones are better? Well … it’s all a matter of taste, really. I think that, of the top pair, the non-HDR image (left) is best, and of the bottom pair that the HDR image (right) is best. Why? Well … I can’t say, really. It’s up to the viewer to say what’s important about the picture, I guess.

I guess that with the top image I don’t really want to get any detail of the fence, while the bottom image gives me more of an idea of the character of the flower in HDR. But … well, it’s really a matter of taste, I suppose. Which do you prefer?

-D

This is more just a call for you all to go look at a page: Abandoned Places In The World. It’s something I come back to, time and again, simply because it’s so evocative.

Would I go to any of these places? Well, no, probably not (although that abandoned island off the coast of Japan seems way cool, and as if people ought to have moved in). But … these places are evocative, somehow, in a way that the pretty places are not.

Why take pictures of just “the beautiful?” Why ignore what is all around us: the gritty, the lost, the abandoned, the forgotten?

True, I’m guilty of it: I have taken 860 pictures of flowers, alone! Yet, I’ve also taken 95 pictures of “abandoned furniture,” and 302 pictures of “what in the world?”

The flowers, though, and the castles, and whatever else, seem to overwhelm things, giving an imbalanced picture of the world.

Thoughts?

-D

Sometimes I take pictures of things which appear … well, not interesting. It’s not immediately clear why I took this picture, for instance. Have a look, and see if you can see why it was interesting to me.

Do you notice how the light-pole lines up exactly with the corner of the building, giving the illusion that it’s actually attached to the building, but that the shadow it casts upon the building tells you otherwise? And how the car obscures the base of the light-pole, so you can’t verify whether it’s attached or not?

Fun with perspective, light and shadow, and exposure.

-D

Every few weeks, my coworker A. gets his hair cut. I’ve told him that he could do just as well by buying a set of clippers, but he doesn’t listen. No matter, though, as I usually take the opportunity to go with him, and to wander around downtown Glasgow while he’s wasting his money. It costs me £1.50 or so, and I get a good half-hour of photography in.

Yesterday was a fabulous day for it, as it was quite sunny (in between showers), and the clouds were phenomenal. Taking pictures in high contrast situations, though, is a special kind of thing. To demonstrate the challenge, look at the two images below.

The image to the left is “what the camera saw” … but it’s unfortunate, because it washes the sky out, and doesn’t show the beauty of the building at all. The one on the right, though, is a composite image: I took three photos, one overexposed (to show the building), one properly exposed (to get most of the content), and one underexposed (to get the sky). These three images were then blended together to give you the image to the right.

This photography technique (High Dynamic Range) tries to mimic the way the eye actually sees the world: when your eye focuses on something, your pupil dilates or contracts, to “meter” the area in focus. So, you’re constantly making the world more balanced, in terms of contrast. Doing this photographically, though, is rather a challenge. Some of the attempts I’ve made have been really eerie, and some have been absolutely stunning (or, at least I think so). Take a look at my photoset, and let me know what you think.

-D

While working away at the writing yesterday I put the camera onto a tripod, plugged it into the computer, and told the computer to take a picture every 5 seconds. This went on for 868 shots (I’d forgotten to change the batteries out for fresh ones). So, the video below represents 72.5 minutes, compressed down to just under 90 seconds. Combined into a video using JPGVideo, at 10 frames per second, it’s a marvel.

We love our park, but we truly love the clouds, and the sunshine. It gives an overwhelming sense of peace to watch the clouds roll on by. Just today we got some sleet, bouncing off of the windows … and now it’s sunny again.

Don’t know what this hook is for, in all of its ornateness, but it cast a lovely shadow on the side of the church.

This guy seems to have found a precarious hold upon the corner of the church. Is he a dog?

Nose to the grindstone for another few weeks. Back to regular blogging some day soon.