In the UK, photography=antisocial

In another fine example of anti-photography harassment, a Lancashire photographer was arrested for taking photographs. “Because of terrorism” and “photography is suspicious” were some of the reasons expressed by police in the photographer’s tape of the incident, in this article in The Guardian.

I have seen this many times when visiting the UK: Big Brother does not like photography except when He is doing it.

The photographer in this incident was polite and articulate and knew the law. It is indeed incumbent on us photographers to stop this escalation of nonsense.

RGB?

Adobe or sRGB? You may have wondered how to set up your camera in this regard. Look through its menus and the choice of colour space will come  up.

This question means “how shall I translate the colours to bits when making a JPG file”.

So what determines your choice?

  • AdobeRGB has more colours but can look very bad on a PC, on the web, or when printed on a cheap printer.
  • sRGB has fewer colours but is optimised to look good on  a computer screen, cheap printer, etc.
  • See above: “…when making a JPG file”.  It is only important when you are shooting JPG.

So the answer is:

  • When shooting JPG, use sRGB
  • Only change to AdobeRGB if the publication you are shooting for says you should use that colour space.
  • When shooting RAW the choice is irrelevant (so set it to sRGB too).

Simple. Like so many things.

And this also represents one of the many advantages of shooting RAW: not ahving to worry about such things as colour space, as they are set later, when the JPG is generated.

Dull day

On a dull day, with dreary light grey skies, you can consider doing a few things to add interest.

Off the Apache Trail, East of Phoenix, AZ

Technique:

  • Make the background darker by using -1 to -2 stops of exposure compensation
  • Get close to a subject that can add interest
  • If possible, make that a colourful subject
  • Use your flash!
  • Set flash compensation appropriately as needed

You will see that even on a dull day you can make interesting images.

Let there be music

Today I shot “Photo Day” for students at a music/drama school all day. Fun!

And in the middle of the shoot, one more of my Opus lights broke. This 250 Ws monolight totally stopped working -maybe blew a fuse? – in mid shoot. I had a spare – but that now makes 8 out of 9 Opus lights I have ever bought that have broken. An incredible ratio.

Nadel, the Canadian importer, says:

These unit were designed for the “Home User” looking to experiment with strobe lighting with out paying the premium for professional lights. [ ]  Your current Opus lights do carry a 2 year warranty. Just return the units to the point of purchase with proof of purchase and they will facilitate the repair process.

For home users? Interesting then that these lights say “FOR COMMERCIAL USE ONLY” on them. Warranty is a moot point if 8 out of 9 break. So now I need to do work and the replacements will also break, if the 8 out of 9 total is statistically significant. Which it is.

Fortunately, the Bowens lights I use for most shooting are excellent.

Architecture tip

When you shoot architecture and you want a straight photo, with no distortion, like this:

…then you need to do the following:

  1. Step back. Way back.
  2. Use a long telephoto lens.
  3. Do not aim up or down: keep the lens parallel to the ground.
  4. Consider using a tripod if the lens length is long.

You will now get an “undistorted” picture where the background is enlarged and drawn in to the subject.

Alu Gobi

I shot a food party tonight, for a glossy magazine. This included, of course, some food shots.

My setup was simple:

One 430EX flash in an umbrella above the food, and one 430EX direct flash with grid side/behind the food.

The camera: a Canon 1Ds MkIII with a 100mm f/2.8 EF Macro lens, with a 580EX flash fitted to drive the other two flashes. I set the camera to manual, f/8 at 1/125th second, 200 ISO, and used wireless E-TTL to drive the external flashes.

The shots: like this one of an Alu Gobi dish (it was freshly cooked Indian food):

See the steam?

And the food? Delicious.

High Key

Here’s an assignment for you all: Take a high-key portrait.

“High Key” means that the entire photo is bright. That means light background, good lighting and light clothing. This makes the subject’s face stand out beautifully as the obvious focus of attention, and it also gives the portrait a bright, cheerful look, as in this portrait of a few days ago:

Do you need two umbrellas on light stands, fired via E-TTL, as I was using here? And a backdrop? Or perhaps a few studio strobes? A background light?

Well – you could use all of the above. But you can also just use a small room with white walls, with an on-camera flash fired in a backward direction – i.e. behind you. That makes the entire room into a giant light box. Ask your subject to dress in light colours and put them in front of a white wall.

If you want to do it well, make sure your subject has a catch light in his or her eyes. The wall behind you, lit up by the flash, should take care of that, or else use a little flash bounce card to direct some light back into the eyes.

Do keep in mind that if you are using automatic metering (eTTL/iTTL), then you either need to spot meter your flash light off a grey card (or something similar), or you need to use Flash Exposure Compensation (FEC) to increase your flash power. You may need +1 to +2 stops extra flash light.

Have fun!

Expose to the right

What is this “expose to the right” thing we keep hearing about? And do I expose to the right?

A sensor can distinguish varying light levels. Say, for the sake of argument, 100 (the actual number does not matter. A JPG has 255 levels per red-green-blue colour, for example. A sensor can pick up more. But for this discussion, let’s just assume 100).

A picture will be a mix of dark and light (unless it is all one shade).

So let’s assume I am taking a picture of some normal scene that goes from dark to bright.

Ideally, I will want this scene’s sensor data to contain everything from “0” pixels (black) all the way up to “100” pixels (bright white). If I grossly underexpose it, it will be mainly black pixels (level 0), with some lighter pixels (say, between 0 and 10).  If I overexpose it, I’ll get maybe pixels between level 90 and 100.

So for a normal scene, it’s clear, I will want between 0 and 100. The histogram will stretch from left to right.

Now assume a dark scene, e.g. a nightscape. The actual scene may only contain dark stuff – from black to mid grey, say. So exposing it “realistically” would give me pixels from 0 to 50. And when I analyse it, there would be 50 levels. Or let’s assume I have a cave, where it’s so dark it only contains black to very dark. Real levels maybe 0 to 5.

So if I expose to give me a realistic histogram, it would only have five levels of black in the picture. Not much detail in five levels of black. Posterisation (that blocky stuff in areas that change brightness gradually) could easily occur. Also, low-level electronic noise would be hard to distinguish from signal (“The signal to noise ratio is low”, we say).

But if I expose that more (e.g. by opening the aperture or increasing shutter opening time), I would get, say, 0 to 80 levels of signal. Yes, the picture would look wrong – all bright – but if I do it that way I get 80 levels of black. I.e. I would preserve a lot more detail. I would of course need to reduce the levels again later in Lightroom or Photoshop, but I could do that in a way that allows me to choose which detail level to show.

And importantly, reducing the exposure also reduces the noise in that exposure (“the signal to noise ratio is higher”).

But too far, and we lose detail in the highlights (we hit the right side of the histogram).

So by “exposing to the right” and then reducing the exposure in post-production we:

  1. Reduce any posterisation
  2. Increase the signal-to-noise ratio
  3. Create a little more work for ourselves later
  4. Run the risk of exposing too far to the right – blowing out highlights.

So do I do this?

Well, I am not religious about it. Yes, I will often expose to the right. Willems’s Dictum says “Bright Pixels Are Sharp Pixels”. So as long as I can be sure I do not overexpose, I will go slightly brighter. I will check on my RGB histogram.

But not religious, because

  • Our cameras will often do a bit of this themselves, try to fill the available bit space.
  • I want to avoid too much extra work.
  • I might blow out highlights.
  • I feel bad about my skills if I look at “too bright” images.

So I do this in moderation.

Above all, though, I avoid exposing to the left, or underexposing. So you might summarise my workflow as “I always try to expose sufficiently to the right”.

Open wide:

How do I know that this picture (taken at a recent magazine shoot) was taken at f/2.8?

Given the lens (a 16-35mm f/2.8 lens), I look at the shape of the out-of-focus lights in the background. If the aperture was stopped down, they would be hexagonal or octagonal. Round out-of-focus spots means the lens was wide open: f/2.8, therefore.

Marie is retarded

Like so many companies now, Canon Canada has an “automated attendant”.

Alas, “Marie” is not a good listener – she does not start listening until she has finished her long list of mainly irrelevant options (they are mainly irrelevant by definition, since you only want one). Also, she cannot understand “Technical Support” when I say it clearly, and she does not know what an “EOS Mark IV” is – the best she can do is “EOS Mark II n”. She has not been told about recent product releases, it seems.

Tip to Canon: if you want to help humans, use humans, not “automated attendants” with an IQ of zero. The actual support people are so good, it seems a shame to put up Marie as a barrier first.

Why am I calling? Because C.Fn I-7, when set to “1”, which uses the active AF point for spot metering, does not in fact seem to do that. Most peculiar and I am sure I am missing something obvious. What? I’ll tell you when I get past Marie.

UPDATE: when you use all 45 focus points, you cannot spot meter to the focus point. You have to reduce the AF points to just 19. That’s pretty useless, and I missed that in my review. Damn!