Polarizer

Happy summer (southern hemisphere friends, happy winter…)

Summer. Hence Sun. Right? So you need a polarizing filter for your lenses?

Yes, this is a good filter to have. A polarizer, as you know if you have been reading, actually does stuff:

  1. If you turn it to the correct angle, it makes the sky go darker (best at one angle, roughly perpendicular to the sun).
  2. It removes reflections (non-metallic reflections, like those on the surface of water).
  3. It can often help saturate colours (especially greens, like in vegetation).
  4. Fringe benefit: it darkens a little (usually, about a stop), so it acts like an ND filter. But just a little.

Here, a polarizer. In picture 1, it lets through polarized light (emitted by the LCD screen). In picture two, it is rotated to let through less. In picture three, it is rotated to allow even less polarized light to enter; and picture 4, none.

Below, the same while looking at the sky, which emits polarized light as well as unpolarized light: no polarizer; a polarizer rotated to allow in most polarized light; and one rotated to allow in almost no polarized light.

You will hear many people talk about “circular polarizers”, as opposed to “linear polarizers” You need a circular one for a digital camera. Let me explain.

A linear polarizer is just a polarizer. It lets through all, or none, or some amount of, polarizer light. But polarized light like this can confuse your camera’s AF and exposure sensors. So a circular polarizer is one that has two layers: the polarizer, followed by a filter that makes the light circularly polarized (basically, unpolarized). That way, no bad effect on the AF anmd exposure sensors.

This also allows you very easily to see whether your polarizer is circular: a circular polarizer only works one way. Turn it around (screw threat in front), and it does not work. Because the second filter makes the light basically unpolarized, so that the subsequent polarizer does not do anything.

So if your polarizer works the same whether you look through it one way or the other way, it is a linear polarizer, and will give you problems.

Here’s a polarizer taking away reflections (again, only off non-metallic surfaces):

Note that a polarizer can give you issues with mirrorless cameras. My Fuji x100, for instance, does not show the real effect when I use the electronic viewfinder. Beware!

Finally, a sequence with the polarizer turned to let progressively less polarized light in (using the Fuji x100):

You will note in the last images that part of the sky is darker than other parts of the sky. Yhis is becuse, as said earlier, teh angle matters. Parallel to the sun (i,.e.. the sun is behind you or in front of you) the polarizer does very little; at 90 degree angles it does a lot more. The only solution: use a longer lens.

And the last note: if you have only one polarizer, you can use only one lens? Nope. here, I used a large thread polarizer, a 77mm, simply held in front of the tiny x100 lens. Where there’s a will…

___

Have you had a look at my five e-books? All are over 100 pages long, well organized, illustrated, and a great source of information that gets you started immediately. Head over to learning.photography now!

Stay Tuned!

Stay tuned to this place. In the next week, lots of interesting articles coming up, spanning subjects from learning to hardware. One new item: I will have the world premiere review of a new small flash modifier you should get. Can’t tell you more, but you will learn soon enough.

Learning Photography: as you know, there are my courses and my e-books. What you may not know is how well they tie in together, and what the benefits are of learning from me, specifically. So check out this article on the e-store site.

I posted this yesterday, and a fellow pro asked me to explain:

This is what I would call an abstract landscape picture. Clearly nature, and nothing man-made, but abstract, almost, in form.

Here’s the larger scene:

(f/22, 1/25 sec, ISO100)

And here, larger still:

(f/22, 1 sec, 100 ISO)

…all from a photo road trip yesterday.

So, the settings.

First, I used slow-ish to slow shutter speeds. As you know, I get those by using low ISO and high f-number, but even at the lowest ISO and highest f-number on a typical lens/camera combo, you will not go able to go slower than say 1/60 or 1/30 second. So I needed a Neutral Density (ND filter. I used my variable ND filter, which is able to go 8 stops darker if need be.

OK, so we can do a slow shutter (for which we must use a tripod). But how slow?

It depends!

For getting rid of all motion you need very slow. Like 10-20 seconds:

(1 sec at f/22, ISO100)

A smooth surface should be a smooth surface, so, the longer the better. 8 seconds, this one.

Waterfalls, a little less slow, since I want to see some texture of the water and its violence. The second pic uses 1/25th sec.

And the picture at the top? Here, too, excessive smoothing takes away the effect. I want to see violence, motion, speed! But I do want to do some smoothing. So I used 1/4 second. Perfect compromise.

Concluding: depending on lens etc, but as a rough guideline, 1/25 sec, 1/4 sec /  1 sec / 10 seconds are typical values for “a tiny bit of smoothing”, “visible smoothing”, “more smoothing”, and “extreme smoothing”. (And of course if I want tp freeze motion it’s 1/1000 sec or faster).

___

All this is also discussed also in my NEW  “Stunning Landscapes” e-book.  Get it here, now.

Always Look On The Bright Side…

…at least when you are shooting the moon. Like in this shot, made at 3AM right outside my front door:

(1/80 sec, f/10, ISO800)

What is the salient point about this photo, would you say?

For me, it is another chance to point out to you how bright the moon is. About as bright as the earth on a sunny day. Because when you see the moon it is experiencing just that: a sunny day.

For a starry night, however, you need a much longer exposure. Many stops difference. You show the stars, or you show the moon; never the two together. A rough calculation gives me:

  • Moon: 400 ISO, 1/400 second, f/16 (“Sunny sixteen”) or lower (last night: f/8);
  • Stars: 3200 ISO, f/1.4, 20 seconds.

So how many stops difference between those two?

  • ISO: 400 to 3200 is 3 stops.
  • Shutter: 1/400 to 20 seconds is around 13 stops.
  • Aperture: f/8 to f/1.4 is 5 stops.

So the total difference in brightness is around 3+13+5 = 21 stops!

So until the dynamic range of our sensors and cameras is 21+ stops, you cannot show the moon and the stars in one picture. You would have to use HDR, or just combine a star picture with  moon picture in Photoshop.

 

Sharp and crisp

Repeat after me: “Bright Pixels Are Sharp Pixels” (Willems’s Dictum).

And that is one reason Shiva is sharp here (see original size to really tell):

A major additional reason, which is touched upon in this article also, is the use of the flash: a flash gives us great light and high contrast; and it fires at 1/1000 sec at full power, so at quarter power, which is what my flash was set to, it takes just 1/4000 sec to light up the subject. That leaves little room for motion.

So I used a flash on a light stand:

As you see I bounced the flash off the wall. Flash fired via Pocketwizards, set to manual at 1/4 power, which on the camera needed f/4 at 1/250 sec, ISO 400 to light Shiva the cat properly. I used no light meter; just trial and error.

And that, as they say, is that.

 

 

Never Without My Hood Loupe

As you will have seen, last weekend I shot the World Naked Bike Ride in Toronto. During this event, many (many!) naked bike riders of all ages and sexes ride bicycles through major cities in the nude to promote “bicycles instead of oil”. Last weekend was Toronto’s turn.

I shot the crowd getting ready. So I shot outside. And outside it is… bright. especially on the sunny day that it was.

And when it is bright you cannot see the LCD display on the back when you press Playback. Hence, you have to guess that your exposures are right. Like in the film days.

Not cool.

But the Hoodman Hood Loupe comes to the rescue.

You just hold this thing on the LCD, adjust the eyepiece to suit your eye, and you see a completely sharp and bright image. As though you were inside. However bright it may be.This Hood Loupe is worth every penny of its price, and then some.

Oh, and the Hoodman guys will get a kick out of the following, I think:

While shooting a park full of naked people, of course I did not stand there gawking like the rather suspect people in the foreground in the picture below. Everyone else, other than those gawkers, was naked. Of course I did as the Romans do, and went naked too. And you can see me in the picture below, at the top left, raising my camera to get the group shot.

And here’s the kicker: as you will see when you click on the image and see it large, I am naked.. except I am wearing my Hood Loupe.

I can think of all sorts of ad slogans (“I’d rather go naked than go without my Hood Loupe”). Silly, but they contain more than a grain of truth. The Hood Loupe really is a device I will not go outside without. And I am not being paid to say this!

 

Cast of thousands

OK… cast of three. Three photographers, namely my friend Howard, his friend and fellow photographer, and myself, is what it takes to quickly do portraits in the sun. As we did today.

Here’s the setup:

Camera Settings—The camera is set to Manual mode, as follows:

  • ISO 100. Always use this value, in bright sunlight.
  • 1/250 sec. Always use this value, in bright sunlight. (Or whatever fastest shutter speed your camera can handle when using flash)
  • And the adjustable value is the aperture… to get the right saturated (i.e. darker) sky etc I set it to f/10.

The flash is a studio strobe with a battery kit; fitted with a softbox. It is 45 degrees above the subject, off to one side. It is fired via Pocketwizards and adjusted manually to match the f/10 value. A sandbag stops it from toppling over, which otherwise it would, in the slightest breeze.

Using A Scrim—A scrim (a reflector without the cover, making it a translucent area that lets through light but softens it) is used to stop direct light falling onto the subject. Look at these two: first without scrim, then with.

Look at the face and neck, and now look at face and neck in the “with scrim” sample:

Need I say more?

Why I Used Flash—if I had not used a flash, I would have needed three stops more light, and the picture would have looked washed out—the snapshot aesthetic:

It’s not bad, but it’s not great. My style is very different:

With a few minor adjustments to the flash direction:

And there you have it. Straight out of camera, a nice portrait. And one more for good measure:

Mission accomplished: nice portraits made, portraits that reflect the subjects’ great, happy personality and as an extra, their excellent dress– and colour–sense. And portraits that elicit a “wow”, and that do not look like Uncle Fred’s work. And it’s all done in camera, not in Photoshop/Lightroom.

__________

You can learn this stuff too—see www.learning.photography and contact me to set up a training date.

 

 

 

Keeping it simple

Today I shot some photos of the tenth Toronto Annual World Naked Bike Ride. So if nude human bodies offend you (and I truly hope they do not: I cannot see why they should), you do not need to read on.

If, however, you want to learn a little sunny day snap technique, read on.

Above: the snappers snapped. I photographed the “getting ready” part, in Coronation Park, right at the lakeshore in downtown Toronto. There are always curious people at an event like this who come out with their DSLRs to snap something that apparently they have never seen: “nude!!! women!!!”. My advice to those people: grow up, or at at least gather up some courage and get naked yourselves, too.

As a lens, I chose the 24-70 f/2.8 zoom. A zoom for convenience, and that one because it is razor sharp. Camera was the 1Dx.

And it was a mainly sunny day. Easy, therefore. Right?

No. Sunny days give contrasty light, ugly hard shadows, and washed out colours.  I want the opposite.

And to get that I want to use, you guessed it, my flash. That enables me to make the background a little darker, meaning saturated colours; and it fills in the shadows. Even a bare on-camera flash. So that is what I used. Without a flash I would have had to expose faces etc with ambient light, and the backgrounds would have had to be very bright. And washed out.

I want to not have too dark a background when I am using an unmodified on camera flash. So my technique is:

  • Camera on manual.
  • Flash in TTL mode, aimed straight ahead. I used a 600EX flash.
  • 100 ISO
  • 1/250th sec (synch speed)
  • Now choose an aperture that gives you a slightly dark background. Depending on cloud cover, this can be between f/5.6 and f/16. If your subject is not in direct sunlight, i.e. if you manage to find a little shade, you may well get away with f/5.6.
  • Constantly watch the light. If clouds cover the sun, be ready to go down in aperture number.

My aperture was between 5.6 and 11 for most of the day.

And as you see, the pictures have a nice vivid look. Without flash, I could not have done that. Take this:

1/250 sec, 100 ISO and f/6.3. If she had been entirely in the sun, I would have needed a higher f-number.

One more, and again you see the vividness, and the nice saturated colours, that only flash can help you achieve on a sunny day:

That was 1/250th, ISO100, f/9. So again, I watch the light constantly and adjust the f-number only.

Here, I am using f/5.6:

I.e. here I have a little more ambient light, for a lighter look. Each picture can be different; you need to get a feel for the light.

So in conclusion: for sunny day snaps, you’ll do better if you have a flash available. And in that case use ISO 100, 1/250th sec (or 1/200, if that is the maximum your camera handles with flash), and then just vary aperture from 5.6 up. Flash on TTL, perhaps dialled down a little (note: I say may because a Canon camera does this anyway if you have bright ambient conditions: it assumes that you want simple fill flash.)

Enjoy. (And I hope Naked News TV uses the interview they did with me!)

FOOTNOTE: last day for the Father’s Day Specials. Please check http://learning.photography for them. Portrait, lesson and book discounts for dad. Got to buy by tomorrow!

 

Reader Question

A loyal reader asks this:

I’m having a bit of a dilemma here. Vistek has the Canon 50mm f1.2L on sale for $500 off. I’ve had my eye on this for a while and this is perfect incentive. However, I have an EOS 7D (DIGIC 4). As you know, that means my 50 becomes an 80. To get to a 50, I really need a 30 and the closest I can get to that is a 35mm f1.4L. So a few questions here:

1. When the 35 goes to a 56, is there any tilt on buildings like you would have with a 35 or does that sort of “auto-correct”?

2.  Is the quality of a 35 at 56 on crop-frame comparable to the quality of a 50 at 50 on full-frame?

3. What would you say are the critical decision factors in moving from a 7D to a 5D?

The thing is, I really like the 7D and it’s a bit lighter in weight than the 5D, so I’m kind of wrestling with this a bit

Great questions!

First, both are great cameras and all options are good. You will be a happy man tomorrow whatever you choose. But let me help in more detail.

Question one. When you put a 35mm on a 7D, it behaves like a 50mm on a 5D. In every way. So whatever a 50mm lens on a 5D would do is what the 35mm on the 7D will do. Including perspective etc. And by the way I have the 35mm f/1.4 lens and it is sweet, the most amazing lens. And sharp: oh boy, so sharp. And I also have the 85mm f/1.2, same story. And used to have the 50mm f/1.2: not as sharp, but wonderful too.

Question two. Yes. The same. Because the sensors have the same number of megapixels.  So yes, the same quality, With one proviso: the 7D has a smaller sensor which means more “noise” (quality loss) at high ISO values. So if you plan to shoot often at 3200+ ISO, then get the 5D. Else, the 7D is wonderful. I love mine. Great focus system, great menus, a wonderful piece of equipment.

Question three. See question two. The 5D has better high ISO performance. It also has a bigger brighter viewfinder. And some more functions, but nothing you really need.  The 7D is smaller and lighter, it shoots faster rapid pictures, and in general is a really cool camera. I think the only really important thing is high ISO: if you always hsoot at high ISO values (1600 and abiove), go for the 5D. Else, the 7D is great. I use mine all the time.

I’ll leave you with a few 7D shots I made just now near Ontario’s Royal Botanical Gardens.

 

Manual or TTL?

For chiaroscuro shots like this, of a Sheridan student Monday night, I prefer manual flash power settings to TTL (automatic flash metering).

(1/125 sec at f/10, ISO 200.)

Why? Because TTL may try to average this and will therefore overexpose the bright areas. If I do it manually, once it is set correctly, it is set correctly, period.

Unless, that is, I change the distance between light source and object that is being lit. Closer gives me this:

And farther gives me this:

That’s because of the Inverse Square Law. The brightness decreases with the square of the distance. Twice as far means 4x less light. 3x farther means 9x less light (since 3×3=9).

And

  • 1.4 times farther means 2x less light, i.e. one stop less, since 1.41 (the square root of two) times 1.41 is 2.
  • 0.7 times closer means 2x more light, i.e. one stop more, since 0.7 (1 divided by the square root of two) times 0.7 is 1/2.

So—and remember this: every time I want one stop more light, I move a flash 30% closer (to 0.7x the original distance); and every time I want a stop less light, I move the flash 40% farther (to 1.4x the original distance).

See? Math can be useful! Who’d have thunk.

Grey

A pastoral scene in The Netherlands, from Nov 2013:

(1/100 sec at f/6.3, ISO 400, using 16mm lens)

Why those settings? I wanted 1/100th to be free of shake. f/6.3 to get enough depth of field. So I set my camera to those values; then the ISO follows those two.

A grey, cold, scene devoid of positive feelings. Pretty much the way I feel after a provincial election where once again, due to the asinine British “first past the post” system, my vote was not heard, and a government that nearly 60% of voters voted against got 100% of the power.