Hey Folks- This is my first attempt to post photos on the Board. I would really like to improve my photos, so any criticism on technique or composition is appreciated. These were taken last August with Fuji ISO200 (print film)on a Nikon N80 with circular polarizer. For some reason, some of the scans were not very sharp, but the photos are well focued in real life...
Chatham Light:
Nauset Light:
Many thanks for any comments! I noted in attempting to post these that the images would not transfer from webphotos (in UBB or HTML) but they worked fine from dotphoto. Anyone know why?
Thanks, Chris
[This message has been edited by Hanifich (edited 05-21-2002).]
Chris, the webphoto hasn't been working for us for quite a while. I use clubphoto, works very well. The images are very nice. I have real problems keeping my horizons level and the towers vertical. The editing program is a huge help to me, to rotate my images. One reason I like the N80 Nikon is the grid pattern you can display to help compose the shots. Have you any experience with that function? Great job on the photos!
The picture of Chatham could have been improved by including more of the lawn in front of the tower and building. The building and tower seem to 'sit' on the bottom edge of the photo.
Including the flag pole is nice.
The colors on this photo are just right.
For the Nauset photos, you moved your feet around -- something our esteemed photographer Paul Brady recommends highly. *
But even so, you've demonstrated that getting the right angle isn't always easy.
The first shot again might have been improved by including more of the fence in the picture -- or excluded it.
Nice job on scanning and exposing. They look sharp to my eye.
* Paul gave a seminar at the 2001 Reunion on composition and one of his tips was to "Move Your Feet".
[This message has been edited by JChidester (edited 05-20-2002).]
Thanks Bud. I'm also a big fan of the grid feature on the N80. I bought it with the intention of doing a lot of landscape and architectural work and have found it invaluable. I turned it on the first day I had the camera and haven't turned it off since.
Thanks for the comments, John! There is a little more room on the bottom of all of these shots, but my scanner seems to have cut that off for some reason. In Chatham there is a little Coast Guard Sign I included, and in Nauset I included the split rail fence to the ground. Still, I agree a little more space would have been better. I have a bit of a tendency to over-zoom on things. I also agree it is good advice to circle the subject to change your perspective. Caution is indicated, however- lighthouses seem to attract a lot of poison ivy for some reason...
[This message has been edited by Hanifich (edited 05-21-2002).]
I agree with John on leaving more space around a subject then you might think necessary. Sometimes you might get a shot crooked (as mentioned above). The extra space allows you to twist it a bit without cutting off a corner or an important object, and still be able to create a good composition. Once a photo is scanned, you can "zoom" in to your preference by cropping it for composition.
"Cropping" for the composition is a little easier since you are in a controlled setting of the home, v.s. being in a hurry in the field. Having the finished product in front of you allows you to play with the composition more, and in many cases final composing it differently than you would with the limited time you may have for decisions in the field.
If you make any enlargements, keep in mind that full negatives, 4"x6"s, 5"x7"s, 8"x10"s and 11"x17"s are all at different proportions then each other. A picture may be composed well in the viewfinder and on the neg, but the lab will randomly cut off a portion of the shot for the enlargement. They never seem to cut the proportions where you want them to either. Using an 8"x10" enlargement as an example, a 35mm full neg is closer to 8"x12" than 8"x10" in size. Your centering might be perfect on the neg, but the lab will cut off approx 16% of the overall height. At most custom color labs you can ask for the "full neg" size, but you would have to get a custom size frame to accomodate the extra 2", etc.
This is just a suggestion to help make that "once in a lifetime shot" not be accidentally screwed up by overzooming, composing it crooked, or not being satisfied with the composition once you get it home. Don't go overboard with the extra space, but maybe give yourself just a little more to play with.Rod Watson
[This message has been edited by Rod Watson (edited 07-03-2002).]
Thanks again for the comments, everyone! I appreciate what you have said, Rod- I have saved many a photo's composition by creative cropping and matting, so a small area of waste around the edge is helpful. I guess when you go and spend all that money on a big zoom, the temptation (at least for me)is to crank it up as far as it will go and blast away.
Thanks Randy and Bert! My pattern never fails- at the Cape I get great weather, at South Haven rain, and on the West Coast fog...
I think this is my favorite picture from the series. It is much more critically focused than the scan indicates, and I like having caught the light. How could this image be improved? I wish the sky was a little more impressive, otherwise I'm still pretty happy with it...
Chris, did you have a polarizer on this shot? If not, one may have given a little deeper sky. I'm not one to offer a lot of comments because my shots often need help! I do like all the input, I also have been learning a lot since joining the forums. Bud
Bud- Believe it or not, this was shot with a polarizer at the same time as the other shots on this page. The sky just wouldn't perk up. I believe hearing somewhere that a polarizer has its most dramatic effect if the light approaches from a particular angle; I guess this wasn't it!
Incidentally, I bought my first circular polarizer (Tiffen) because of the picture on the front of the box- you guessed it, a blazing white lighthouse in front of a brilliant blue sky...I forget which light it is. Perhaps a good trivia question for someone...
A polarizer has the greatest effect at an angle of 90 degrees to the sun. Point your finger at the sun, swing your thumb through an arc and your thumb will point to the areas of most dramatic effect.
Use caution with auto-exposure through the lens metering cameras. The darker blue sky might fool the exposure system into thinking that the entire picture needs to be 'lightened up', effectively over-exposing the image.
This is true of most digital cameras as well. You may need to decrease exposure 1/3rd to 1 full stop.
The dark contrasting shadows of the bushes could also have fooled your camera's auto exposure, forcing it to lighten up the shot to compensate, hence the lighter sky (same concept as John's above comments).
When you have the auto exposure turned on (and on most point and shoot cameras too) a big impact on the exposure may be determined by what you are actually aiming at when locking in the exposure (ie; pressing the shutter button half way down and holding, before composing and shooting). If you need to use the auto exposure vs manual (or on cameras with limited exposure choices), then maybe experiment by taking a couple of shots. Lock the exposure onto a brighter object first, then compose and shoot for one shot. Then lock the exposure onto a darker object, compose and shoot the identical shot for the second version. Compare the differences of the prints, and you'll understand better how your particular camera utilizes the auto exposure, ultimately learning how to "fool" it into exposing the way you want in future situations.
Some cameras are effected by this more than others, ie: some may concentrate much more on the center "spot" for calculating exposure vs "averaging" the light from the overall composition. Some cameras put much more emphasis on the bottom half of a shot (ignoring the "sky") for determining correct exposure, some cameras do the exact opposite.
The owner's manual of most cameras should have a diagram inside on where the emphasis or weighting is concentrated at when using the auto exposure. Keeping that diagram in the back of your mind as you shoot may help you in determining whether you may want to pre-lock in towards certain areas of a scene or not before composing and shooting. Rod Watson
[This message has been edited by Rod Watson (edited 07-03-2002).]
All good points, everyone! The original has a much lighter exposure. I think I need a more sophisticated scanner, or at least to learn how to use the one I have!
I have come to the conclusion that for me, spotmetering is the way to go. I have used it enough that I have a pretty good expectation of how the image will look. I think if you get pretty good with a spot meter you can expose just about any subject well, maybe with the exception of low light situations. (Reciprocity failure)
Having said that, it is critically important that your "spot" be pointed at the right thing - which isn't necessarily the central attraction of your image. In spot metering, you are effectively telling your camera that you have the meter pointed at a medium tone, so if you have it pointed at the white part of the lighthouse here, you're lying to your camera! I generally drag around some inexpensive gray cards and spot off of them if there is any question in my mind. Once I have the appropriate meter readings I switch to full manual, put in the indicated settings and compose away.
One also needs to remember that each type of film only has a certain latitude of exposure it will tolerate. If a subject has very bright areas and very dark areas (like a sunset over a dark beach) you have to decide where you lean in your desire for detail. You can have sharp detail in the beach and burn out the clouds, you can have good cloud detail with a pitch-black beach, or you can shoot in the middle and hope for the best. In this photo, I chose to have a lot of detail (not apparent in the scan) in the clump of grass. This caused the bright sky to be a little underexposed. Graduated filters help solve this problem sometimes, but that's over my head!
[This message has been edited by Hanifich (edited 05-28-2002).]
I am definately not an expert on photography but I did like your pictures. It's funny because they look almost exactly like the ones that I have taken of the same lighthouses!! I don't think that you can really screw up a picture of a lighthouse, can you? IMHO Someone mentioned about keeping the horizon straight so that your lighthouse doesn't lean, I must remember that. I have a picture of Nobska light that makes it look like it is ready to fall over. Let's see if I can add it to this message.
[This message has been edited by eskilady (edited 06-16-2002).]
[This message has been edited by lighthouse_photo (edited 06-16-2002).]
In general, good pics, Chris. Not sure how I missed this thread but it may have gone up originally while I was in Russia? Between John and Rod, probably not much I can offer in the way of helpful criticism, I think they pretty well covered the bases for you.
Rod's point on the difference between standard print sizes and the 2x3 dimensions of a 35 mm slide or negative is one well taken if you want to do enlargements. I know that I have 100% coverage in the viewfinders of my Nikon F5's and as a result tend to crop rather tightly in the viewfinder. All well and good if I wamt to print full frame... e.g. 6x9, 8x12 or 12x18. Otherwise you have to crop and unless you're using a professional photographic lab, either a tech or a software program is going to arbitrarily determine what gets cropped into oblivion! One other thing that you can do is to tell whoever is doing the printing to print your negative FULL FRAME. This will produce a print size of 6.67x10 inches on 8x10 paper as an example with black down both sides.
One other comment that I would generally make regarding photographing lighthouses. The taller the tower and the shorter the focal length of the lens that you're using, the more danger you have of the lighthouse having a sort of curved banana shape as it moves from the center of your frame. At 35 mm that isn't too noticeable. You'll see some of that at 28 mm and it starts to get really noticeable when you're down to 24 or 20 mm and shorter for whatever that's worth. As I shoot with lenses with focal lengths as short as 14 mm, it's something I have to pay attention to. Short focal length lenses can also significantly curve the horizon as it moves from the center of the frame. Just something to keep in mind if you've got a zoom that goes down to shorter focal lengths like the 24-120, 24-135, and the 24-200 mm zooms that are now available. It's a must remember for folks shooting with a lens like the 17-35 zooms that are also out there.
Regarding the question from eskilady... jpegs work just fine for posting. All of mine that are posted on this forum and on the other forums are in that format. If you're still having trouble, just e-mail me. We'd love to see your photos!
Nice picture Eskilady and welcome to the forums! It seems to me that if the tower were straight then the house might tilt to the right. Sometimes I think it must be the camera not the photographer. I don't think that the camera necessarily "sees" what we see, maybe because we have two eyes while our cameras only have one?
I can definitely screw up a picture of a lighthouse by cutting off the top of the lantern room. I have to remind myself to aim a bit higher to avoid doing this.
Nice picture Eskilady. You know, the only other thing I don't like in all these pictures are all the jet vapor trails. I guess we're stuck with them unless it gets overcast. I do like the blue sky shots, though.
It seems to me that your horizon is pretty straight. I believe that lenses are subject to different types of distortion based on their focal length (such as pincushion distortion). When taking pictures with a tall subject near the border of the frame the top and bottom will tend to lean toward the center. Exactly why this happens I will leave to someone brighter than myself. I believe the only way to really correct for it is to use a shifting lens to alter your focal plane.
As Gary mentioned, most of the tilting will occur with wide angle lenses less than the standard 50-55mm range (the human eye sees images in perspective fairly close to a standard 55mm lens). The wide angle lenses will also make a structure seem like it is 'falling backwards' too, especially tall objects. Try standing further away and using a telephoto in the 85-205mm range if possible. The shots will be much straighter looking and more correct in perspective.
Most point and shoot cameras have built in zooms from around the 28mm-105mm range, so keep in mind the majority of the lens' lower half of range would be in the wide angle category. Even the standard 50-55mm range will tilt a little along the outer edges. Usually 85mm and up is much safer.
You have to keep in mind though that the longer the lens, the more vulnerable you are to camera shake. Most zoom lenses tend to have their worst specs when opened all the way out too, so you have to balance out the various evils.Rod Watson
[This message has been edited by Rod Watson (edited 07-03-2002).]
Say, that's good to know Rod! Do they tell you these things in the manual, which I never read? Nice for us that "someone bright" showed up to answer this one for us!
I would think that some manuals explain a little about it, Sue. Why read instructions though when you have Gary, Paul, John, and the forums to read!! You get alot more common sense answers here anyways. LOL.
The problem with my previous comment is you can't always step further away from some subjects due to trees, houses, wires, cliffs, etc. A wide angle lens is very handy for those tight situations, but usually isn't the greatest solution for architectural or tall rigid subjects. You may shrink the structure to fit in the viewfinder fine, but you usually end up with it tight to the edges, which worsens the bending problem even more.
Paul gave a nice lecture at the last reunion on how to use the trees, vegetation, or other pleasing objects to 'hide' the ugly ones in compositions. Standing further away if possible and using Paul's concept can usually work wonders with the obstructing objects.
Below is a prominant example of the 'leaning backwards' effect. I was shooting Point Aux Barques up close with a 28mm lens on this shot to avoid shooting the entire tree from the top left corner. The short lens really makes the tower seem like it is falling away from me (and appear shorter than it really is). In reality, the tower's top and bottom are each bending towards me because of the lens, but the eyes' perception is of it falling backwards. Standing 100 feet or more further back with a 125mm lens and adding the tree to the composition somewhere would have resulted in a much more accurate perspective. The backwards lean really bugs me on this one. You learn as you go, I guess..
PS: I left more space around the tower in the actual full neg version, then cropped it down to size later. That is why you don't see it lean left and right quite as much, since the tower really wasn't that close to the edge as shown above. That's another way to keep the bending down to minimum with wide angles.Rod Watson
[This message has been edited by Rod Watson (edited 07-03-2002).]
The mind is an amazing thing. I 'know' what a lighthouse looks like and that it isn't built to tip one way or another.
So in looking at Rod's photo, for example, your mind 'corrects' the 'tilt' based on what you know about lighthouses and basically, the image looks OK.
If you are using a very wide angle lens - say 24-28mm, holding the camera 'level' to the ground will reduce the effect somewhat compared with centering the image so the horizon is above the middle of the frame.
You might compose the photo so there is something interesting in the foreground - a flower bed, for example. Use the smallest aperature (f16, f22) to gain the most depth of field.
Chris, I was using Kodak print film in 1998, so it would have been Kodak Gold 100 at the time. Handheld on a very bright and sunny day. No records, but I assume it would have been at an f8-f11 range and somewhere around 1/125-1/250 shutter speed. The 28mm lens was a Canon f2.0 w/ hood, so it was fairly fast for it's size.
I was always rushing around from light to light on vacations, so I never really spent time for a tripod setup or keeping much records. I think on this trip we hit 21 lights in 4 days.Rod Watson
[This message has been edited by Rod Watson (edited 07-03-2002).]
Here's another example of Rod's good point about the backwards lean of a lighthouse caused by a wide angle lens. This particular shot was taken of the what used to be the Peche Island light now located in a park on the river in Marine City, Michigan. This particular light isn't all that tall, but it was shot at the 17 mm end of a 17-35 mm wide angle zoom giving that pronuced backward lean.
Good point, Rod!
Gary
[This message has been edited by lighthouse_photo (edited 06-19-2002).]
All of these photos keeps confirming my desire to get up to the northeast to photograph the lights with my cameras... Please keep sharing your photos with us all!
