Party Shots via Shutterfly Share

Last weekend I was occupied with attending and hosting baby showers for friends!  I didn't go into either event planning on playing "Photographer", but I wanted to snap a few photos to remember the occasions...

Things to remember: Lighting! When setting up friends for a photo opportunity make sure to place them someplace in good light. Even with post-editing the two photos below did not come out as very strong images.  I continue to rush through the posing to get to the actual photo taking, but one is not exclusive of the other!

I should have used the lens hood to eliminate the sun spots at the top and bottom right corner.

Spotted shade...really?  I should have known better.

I uploaded all the photos that "made the cut" into Shutterfly and distributed my Shutterfly share account to the interested parties that wanted to see the resulting images.  The website for which is: http://wendybpics.shutterfly.com/

I really don't know the best way to send friends/family to view my photos... might involve some research!

Create Images - Don't Just Take Pictures!

I've always felt that my photographs don't qualify as "professional" quality images...they always feel flat to me, just a shot of something or another.  And as a subscriber to the Digital Photography School, in today's weekly email one of the topics really struck home with me.

"Stop Taking Pictures, Start Creating Images" gave me the great idea to create a vision with my photography.

I need to learn to tell a story with my photographs... Something with a clear beginning, middle and end.  I really took the idea of drawing out editorials to heart and used Flickr to search for images similar to what I can expect to capture in my upcoming trip to Abaco.  When I saw a photo that interests me, I drew out a quick sketch of the composition. I am not a very good drawer, but regardless I can use the scribbles as notes and will take them with me on my trip for ideas on creating lasting images.

You can view my horrendous sketches below... hopefully they will help me to visualize better and capture greater images!

Photography "Wish List"

With an upcoming trip to the Bahamas looming in a few months, I've been pestering my photography mates about what kind of equipment and/or accessories would be great to have on my island adventures.  Here's a short list of some of the suggestions offered:

My Travel Photography Wish List:

#1 A spare camera battery - I currently only have one camera battery.  Having a spare would obviously eliminate the photo taking down-time while waiting to recharge my sole battery. [CHECK]

#2 A new SD memory card.  Recommended brand name was SanDisk.  Class 4 SD HC card of at least a 4 or 8 GB capacity.  [CHECK]

#3 A Tripod - this is gonna be my big ticket item and a MUST buy for me.  My coworker suggested a brand of tripods that have great quality for a low price = Fancier.  He also suggested I make sure to get a Ball Head tripod so there is greater flexibility on shooting angles.  He said to look for a locking mechanism on the legs that snaps instead of rotates to control the height of the tripod's legs.  His final suggestion was to buy the tripod that does not have connected legs so you have a greater number of possible distances the legs can be distributed, as you never know exactly what you'll have available to use as a base for your tripod.

Update on #3 - Purchased my Fancier tripod (FT-535T) w/ ball head (FT-6693AH) yesterday!  Hopefully I got a great deal on them, paid $150 for both.  The store was the sketchiest place I think I've ever been in - some discount wholesale retailer in Burlingame... but I'm excited and can't wait for Abaco!  [CHECK]

#4 An Off-Camera Flash - I'm not sure I'll insist to bring this with me on my trip, as I believe my camera bag and tripod will be cumbersome enough without the added accessory of an off-camera flash.  And also considering I'm more likely to be taking landscape photos than portraits... but he recommended the SB700 and the Gary Fong Lightsphere Universal Cloud diffuser. [  ]

#5 A 50mm f/2.8 Macro Lens [  ]


#6 A remote - so I can park my camera on my NEW tripod and click the remote to snap picture without having to worry about nudging the camera off focus when depressing the shutter button.  [  ]

#7 A wide-angle lens - Since I can't afford the $1200 to buy one of these beauties, I have arranged to rent one for two week for $150 from BorrowLenses.com Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED AF-S VR  a great way to try out different lenses for those of us that are financially challenged.  [CHECK]

Neutral Density Filter

After receiving Joseph's comment I looked up and decided to purchase the Nikon Neutral Density (ND) Filter!  I think it will be great to use on my upcoming trip to the Bahamas were everything is sunny, sky blue and water reflection!  The ND filter will help to modify the colors and can even help make the motion blur effects I was desperately trying to do at McWay Creek!

Can't wait to test it out!

Wikipedia shows the below examples of uses for the ND Filter:

Demonstration of the effect of a neutral density filter

Neutral Density Filters are often used to achieve motion blur effects with slow shutter speeds

Comparison of two pictures showing the result of using a ND-filter at a landscape. The first one uses only a polarizer and the second one a pol and a 1000x ND-Filter (ND3.0).

Point Sur Lighthouse

View of Light House Rock from Highway 1-Southbound

Photo #133 (Below)

Meta Data: Photo Taken 11 June 2011 ~ 3:57pm

1/160 sec at f/22, ISO 200, 55 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

Photo #137 (Below)

Meta Data: Photo Taken 11 June 2011 ~ 3:59pm

1/80 sec at f/29, ISO 200, 150 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

 Before or After?

Close up of Facilities - surprised and proud I was actually able to get this in focus!  Using the car door as a tripod helped in Photo #152 (Below)

Meta Data: Photo Taken 11 June 2011 ~ 4:05pm

1/100 sec at f/29, ISO 200, 200 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

This is about the time when I realized I had a polarizing lens in my bag!  I should have been using this all day to give the sky or sea more color on such a grey day.  You can tell I used the filter because the sky in Photo #157 (Below) is so much  more blue than any other image

Meta Data: Photo Taken 11 June 2011 ~ 4:07pm

1/100 sec at f/29, ISO 200, 200 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

This concludes the photos I will post from our "Photo Adventure" Tour of Big Sur!

Julie Pfeiffer Burns State Park

When visiting Julie Pfeiffer Burns State Park in Big Sur, CA, there are two scenic sites on the ocean side of Highway 1.  The most sought after and well worth the trip to and $10 parking at the Park is McWay Falls.  But at the end of the viewing trail for the falls is a nicely shaded rest area with a few benches which also has a great view of the coastline North of the park.

Photo #117 (Below) is the best shot I was able to capture of this view.

Meta Data: Photo Taken 11 June 2011 ~ 2:55pm

1/80 sec at f/22, ISO 200, 62 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

I really liked the heart-shaped look of the surf/beach... tried to focus in on that in Photo #116 (Below)

Meta Data: Photo Taken 11 June 2011 ~ 2:54pm

1/100 sec at f/22, ISO 200, 92 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

What you couldn't tell from the above pictures was that there was a broken tree branch hanging right down in front of THE shot.  Jason says he likes this look-thru-the-branch view of Photo #108 (Below)... but I think it's distracting.

Meta Data: Photo Taken 11 June 2011 ~ 2:52pm

1/100 sec at f/22, ISO 200, 55 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

I was trying really hard to catch a Pterodactyl....I mean Pelican, for all you non-Jurassic park fans.  But Photo # 107 (Below) was the ONLY shot I actually captured one in, and its not in good focus.

Meta Data: Photo Taken 11 June 2011 ~ 2:52pm

1/100 sec at f/22, ISO 200, 145 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

McWay Falls @ Julie Pfeiffer Burns State Park

42 Exposures of the same view, that of McWay Falls, makes the selection process a bit daunting... When the subject never changes and you're just trying to capture the right piece of it in a photograph, it's hard to look at that many exposures with very little differences and know where to begin... don't worry - there's no way I'm posting all 42!  Hopefully just the best of the bunch - its kind of laughable how similar they all look, so I'll try to just post those with obvious differences.

I've been staring at these 42 exposures in Lightroom for almost an hour.  When looking at this many identical images I realize a few things... One - Don't take so many shots of the same landscape!  Either I have THE shot or I don't - change my perspective or move on! Don't continue snapping pics, hoping I have what I'm looking for.  I think I'm so excited to be there thinking about what I'm doing photographic-ly instead of really looking at the landscape... Finding THE shot and getting the camera to capture it.  I think too much about how it's going to look in the camera.

Photo #72 (Below gives us the entire cove view) Also the only exposure taken at 18mm.

Meta Data: Photo Taken: 11 June 2011 ~ 2:38 pm 

1/160 sec at f/22, ISO 200, 18 mm (18.0-55.0 mm f/3.5-5.6)

I cropped it in 72A (Below) to bring the waterfall into focus more.  (Created a virtual copy of 72 than cropped so original file could be saved).

Jason says he likes seeing more of the surrounding hillside and get the entire cove view.  I wanted to crop them out and get closer to the surf.

When I was looking through the 42 exposures trying to find the next good shot, I'm looking for a composition where the waterfall lays along the first vertical third of the shot (a.k.a. rule of thirds)  The waterfall is my subject and the human eye is most drawn to photos where the subject is not exactly in the center, but instead along one of the 4 intersection points when a 3x3 grid is drawn over the image.  This helps me to eliminate a lot where the waterfall is too close to the left edge of the photo.  

And using Lightroom I'm able to rate each photo as I browse thru them, rank them with1 to 5 stars.  Then I can sort for the 5-stars and ignore the majority.

Photo #83 (Below) is one of my favorites because of the color variations in the sand.

Meta Data: Photo Taken: 11 June 2011 ~ 2:41 pm 

1/160 sec at f/22, ISO 200, 35 mm (18.0-55.0 mm f/3.5-5.6)

This last photo #99 (Below) is my favorite.  I like the rocks leading into the surf on the bottom of the frame.

Meta Data: Photo Taken: 11 June 2011 ~ 2:38 pm 

1/125 sec at f/22, ISO 200, 55 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

We managed to arrive at McWay Falls at possible the worst time of day to shoot photographs - during the high afternoon sun.  Photographs are better in soft light - dusk or sunrise.  I've seen some pictures of what McWay Falls can look like in sunset tones of pinks and reds (Google Image search: McWay Falls and you'll see them too.) But never having been to McWay Falls before we didn't know exactly how to plan our day around it.  Took us about 2.5 hours from Santa Clara.  I think it's definitely worth the long trip back for the right conditions.

McWay Creek @ Julie Pfeiffer Burns State Park

Photo 49 (below) is my favorite photo of the creek at Pfeiffer State Park - mostly because if you look close enough you can see the word LOVE etched into the wood railing.  There's probably some way I could emphasize that more using Lightroom but I haven't figured it out yet...

Meta Data: Photo Taken: 11 June 2011 ~ 2:24 pm 

ISO 200, f/4.2, 1/2000 sec 26 mm (18.0-55.0 mm f/3.5-5.6)

My real objective was to get the water to appear blurry, as you see sometimes, giving it a smoky look... which apparently is done using a very slow shutter speed... but I could not get my camera settings to work with that kind of shutter speed.  This is one I'm going to have to research and get help on.  I took 13 exposures trying to photograph this creek, the best of which you see here, but none were really what I had in my mind's eye.

I like Photo #47 (Below) because you can actually see one big splash of water captured and in focus!  

Meta Data: Photo Taken: 11 June 2011 ~ 2:35 pm 

ISO 200, f/4.0, 1/2000 sec 55 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

The next images below are another good example of a f-stop exercise... They look good together, side-by-side.  But I'm unable to pick one above the other.  I like the seeing the leaf and berry with blurry running water in #45, but also like seeing the creek itself in #46 (both below)

Meta Data: Photo Taken: 11 June 2011 ~ 2:22 pm 

ISO 200, f/4.8, 1/2000 sec 122 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

F-Stop/Depth of Field Exercise

I came upon the below scene during our Photo Adventure driving tour between Carmel & Big Sur...

Meta Data: Photo 32 (Below) Taken: 11 June 2011 ~ 2:04 pm 

ISO 200, f/22, 1/100 sec 60 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

But when I zoomed in to focus on that bright blue color among the rocks the foreground plants jumped into the shot...

Meta Data: Photo 21 (Below) Taken: 11 June 2011 ~ 2:01 pm 

ISO 200, f/20, 1/100 sec 90 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

So I thought this would be a great opportunity to exercise increasing/decreasing my Depth of Field - how far I want the camera to focus, which can be decided by changing your F-Stop.  A smaller F-stop number means only the subject closest to the camera will be in focus - like in the below, the foreground flowers are in focus and the rocky background is blurry... notice my F-stop here = f/4.5 (4.5 = low)

Meta Data: Photo 36 (Below) Taken: 11 June 2011 ~ 2:06 pm 

ISO 200, f/4.5, 1/1250 sec 98 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

To Increase my Depth of Field and make the background rocks in focus instead of the foreground flowers, I can increase my f-stop and get a completely different picture.  Notice my f-stop went from 4.5 to 4.8 increasing my Depth of Field.  I'm surprised that such a small increase actually made a huge difference!

Meta Data: Photo 33 (Below) Taken: 11 June 2011 ~ 2:05 pm 

ISO 200, f/4.8, 1/1250 sec 125 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

The same image = four completely different photographs!

I personally would vote for #33

Pacific Coast "Leading Line"

Photo 13 vs 23 vs 30 - Debate:

I like how your eyes will hop from the large rock in the foreground and follow the rocks up the coastline.

"Leading Lines" is the photography term for that... takes you deeper into the photo.

Meta Data: Photo 13 (below) Taken: 11 June 2011 ~ 1:58 pm
ISO 200, f/18, 1/200 sec 122 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

Which copy of above is "doctored"? Which do you like best?  Should the others be "doctored' as well?

Meta Data: 

Photo 30 (below) Taken: 11 June 2011 ~ 2:04 pm
ISO 200, f/18, 1/100 sec 66 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

I like how you get to see the end of the coastline here... Like the foreground a bit better than #13

Meta Data: 

Photo 23 (below) Taken: 11 June 2011 ~ 2:02 pm
ISO 200, f/20, 1/100 sec 68 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

I like the color of the beach on this one...combination of these three would probably make THE shot.

I found that I really don't know what I have "in the tin" until I see them on my monitor.  The view screen on the back of my camera is just too small and hard to see in sunlight.  Maybe I need to buy and iPad (Jason... hint-hint) then I can upload and view the images as I take them with an opportunity to re-shoot before leaving the scene.

Exposures

A "Photo Adventure" tour of Big Sur this weekend has got me thinking about the sheer number of exposures I'm taking... 160 exposures taken over the period of a 3-hour drive.  And including seven or so different landscapes.  But that's about  22 exposures of the same shot.  Sure the angle might change a bit and the zoom brings the viewer closer to the scene but it's really 22 shots of the same landscape.  I find it hard to differentiate between so many multiple versions of the same scene.

Which is the best and why?

Another hard question is what and/or how could all the software like PhotoShop or Lightroom (which I use) do to improve this shot?  ... the color, toning, and details effects.  All with a variation of options that could change an image.  Some options completely alters the picture and could so in sometimes drastic ways.  But it takes forever to configure for each image.

"Doctored" photos may have more art appeal.  With these coastline photos a dream-like quality can be applied towards the photo to soften the landscape.  Persuade the viewer that they are looking into a dream-scape.

An original image or "doctored" photography?

Granted the original image was WAY underexposed, (Meta Data: Photo Taken: 11 June 2011 ~ 2:35 pm ISO 200, f/16, 1/1000 sec 72 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6) which offered greater flexibility with Lightroom software.  Turning otherwise a wasted exposure into a useful subject.  But the effects I used were just guesses at making the shot look good without ever really getting a good look at it.

I imagine this shot stretched out on canvas...maybe 3 feet tall and 2.5 wide.  Small details blown up that large can completely ruin an image that looks decent on my laptop computer screen.  I've never actually seen my photographs on canvas either.

All but 10 of my 160 exposures were good making the selection of finding the best of the bunch much harder.
And with Lightroom I can add a personal effect to each of these un-doctored images, once I choose THE image.

Full Landscape #1: (Photo Taken: 11 June 2011 ~11:46 am ISO 200, f/16, 1/60 sec 55 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6) FYI - a shot taken at 50mm = what the human eye would see in person.  This shot was taken at 55mm so it's pretty darn close to what you would've seen as if you were in the car that day with me & Jason.

 Photo #2 is a vertical of the same coastline.

Photo Taken: 6 June 2011 ~ 11:46am ISO 200, f/16, 1/60 sec 86 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6) 

Photo #162 - used the TRIM feature in my camera menu to get a closer look at the coast rocks.

Photo Taken: 6 June 2011 ~ 11:46am ISO 200, f/16, 1/60 sec 55 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

Photo #3 - Changing the ISO from 200 to 400 really white-washed the image.

Photo Taken: 6 June 2011 ~ 11:47am ISO 400, f/16, 1/60 sec 100 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

 Photo #4 - Zoomed into the rock - if there were large enough waves crashing upon this rock this photo could be more interesting.  Bland on it's own.

Photo Taken: 6 June 2011 ~ 11:47am ISO 400, f/16, 1/60 sec 160 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

 Photo #161 - use the QUICK FIX feature in my camera menu to restore some of the haze caused from the days cloud cover and low visibility.  Even though viewing #1 & 161 next to each other I can't notice any difference between the fixed version and the original.

Photo Taken: 6 June 2011 ~ 11:46am ISO 200, f/16, 1/60 sec 55 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

Photo #162 and 163 are using the FILTER EFFECTS in my camera menu to adjust the 

BLUE and GREEN

Snoring Elephant Seals

Meta Data:

Photo Taken: 5 June 2011 ~ 2:32 pm

ISO 400, f/13, 1/400 sec

200 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

I was actually able to use the "Trim" feature in my camera to get this shot out of a boring larger framed image.

I like the open mounted snore happening at the bottom of the frame.

And the symmetry of the smiling chins below the two yelling at each other.

Elephant Seals @ Ano Nuevo

Meta Data:

Photo Taken: 5 June 2011 ~ 2:17 pm

ISO 400, f/13, 1/400 sec

200 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

Composition: 

None really, I was concentrating on making sure image would not be blurry at max zoom with no tripod.

Found the "Quick Fix" Feature on my camera to brighten image:

Ano Nuevo State Park

Meta Data:

Photo Taken: 5 June 2011 ~ 2:11 pm

ISO 400, f/13, 1/400 sec

75 mm (55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6)

Composition: 

"Seal House" - Top/Right 1/3rd

Horizon - Top 1/3rd

Elephant Seals in Surf - Bottom/Left 1/3rd

I had this great composition in mind with the dueling elephant seals in the foreground of the "Seal House", but the dueling seals really just look like a piece of rock jutting out of the surf - yes, those are actually two dueling seals there in the water.  I do like the one on-looker to the duel at the bottom of the frame... at least she's interested.

This "Quick Fix" feature works great on these cloudy day pics

Pigeon Point Lighthouse

Meta Data:

Photo Taken: 5 June 2011 ~ 3:40 pm

ISO 400, f/13, 1/400 sec

24 mm (18.0-55.0 mm f/3.5-5.6)

Composition: 

Lighthouse - Right 1/3rd

Horizon - Bottom 1/3rd (sort of - a bit off)

Took quite a few here, trying to get the Lighthouse in JUST the right place, but I thought the rocky coast was more interesting than the dull sky.  (Would a colored lens filter be fun here?)

I can see how some post-editing might work to remove the chain-link fence from around the yard... maybe clean up the lighthouse itself a bit too.  Maybe even turn the light "on" with editing.  But I have not mastered the post-editing programs yet... but it's the thought that counts, right?

"Quick Fix" Again...