Again with the white background

Yep, another go at it. Now I need to try setting up compelling vignettes with more than one object. But in the meantime I thought I'd post this. It was my Dad's. Regrettably, I don't know the story behind it. Why did he buy it? Where did he buy it? Or, did someone give it to him? There is something comforting and familiar having objects in my home that belonged to relatives. Most spark some sort of (usually childhood) memories for me, and I find them interestingly reassuring and uplifting to look at....

Well THAT was just too easy!

The fabulous Ms Barb Kelly (link to her blog is over that-a-way ---->) posted a challenge on a small photography message board I frequent (http://ktphotography.proboards105.com/index.cgi...in case you'd like to join, we'd love to have you) to give her method of "product" photography a try.

It took me about 60 seconds to set up. Two pieces of foamcore, bounce my flash off the ceiling and voila. I added a piece of plexi I had in the basement to the base to give that nice reflection and ground the image. It was just too stinking easy. Now that I know what to do, I think I'm going to play some more tomorrow, and Barb will likely regret the day she posted this challenge!



Other than that, I haven't picked up my camera since Friday. I've been fighting some sort of stomach bug, and haven't been much inspired or interested in photographing anything. Colin came home from school early today not feeling well (that hasn't happened since I think 5th grade - a LONG time ago), and I hope he's not coming down with it too.

I did play with some conversions today though, and will post those later tonight or tomorrow.....

Glimpses of my garden

CONSTUCTIVE CRITICISM WELCOMED

It got up into the 40's today, but better yet, this afternoon was beautifully sunny out. So I decided I'd spend a half hour working in the garden. I should have known it would morph into 2 hours!

S'mores decided to "supervise" from the roof, so I snagged the camera and took a couple of completely uninspired shots of her. I am not EVEN going to show them. Of course then I decided my picture of the day would be something else from the yard, and shot a couple of pics of the yard waste bin as I had left it when I went to grab the camera. Still SO not inspired. Boring. I suppose I should have "set it up" a little more intersting.

By then it was starting to get dark out and I decided to clean up and head in. On the way I shot these two images. I've walked past this statue (tucked away under a shrub), and this cast concrete plaque (attached to a rusted old trellis by the front door) thousands of times, and never thought to take a picture of them even though I always enjoy looking at them.

This is what I love about the photo a day challenge. It forces me to look at things in a new light. Everything is fair game, and I am slowing down and shooting from various angles (and playing with intentionally over and under exposing) until I get something I am (relatively) happy with. It's also prompting me to play with my processing. Instead of worrying that everything is "right," I am shooting for fun, processing for fun, trying new things, and anything I get worth keeping is the icing on the cake.

Anyhow, if you've made it this far, I just want to say THANK YOU to the person who came up with the photo a day challenge!

Same shot, several edits. Do you prefer one over another?

Someone to watch over me

CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM WECOMED

Right next to my desk is a built in bookshelf about 48" high, and on top of that I have a wooden birdcage (which is typically empty). When I pulled out the Christmas decorations in December, Colin snagged a little bear and stuck him in the doorway to the cage, making it a polar bear cage ;) I love how he is still in tune with his inner child from time to time. He's almost 17, so it doesn't happen very often.

When I put the decorations away earlier this month, I couldn't put the little guy back in the box, so this is exactly what I see when I look to the right when seated at my desk chair. It makes me smile every time I see him because Colin put him there.

And just because I wanted to play with color:

Meant to address this yesterday

There were a couple of questions about my moon shot from the other night. The settings were f/8, SS 1/500, and I believe the ISO was 400. I used my 70-300 lens, zoomed out to 300mm. They are the same settings I used on this image shot in October:

If I recall correctly (after reading a tutorial online) it is recommended you use the longest focal length lens you have. The image in this entry I used my tripod. The one from the other day I was too lazy to get it out so I handheld the camera.

Hope this helps!

Two Sunday afternoons, 4 trips to Home Depot, and two trips to Lowe's later...

....we have a new faucet!!! Yep. That's what it took.

It started innocently enough. A kitchen faucet that got to the point that the only way it would turn fully off was if I turned the handle just so, clicked my heels together three times, said a little prayer, and turned in a circle while patting my head and rubbing my tummy.

What? You don't believe me? Seriously though, it was BAD. My husband has some amazing talents. However, plumbing repairs are not his forte. Couple that with an old home with archaic plumbing, and every project turns into an ordeal. This one was no different. Thankfully my husband persevered, and we now have the new faucet. It's fabulous, and has amazing water pressure. Better yet, it actually turns all the way off the first time I bring the handle down. Imagine that!

Since this week's photo challenge theme is water, I thought it was apropos to do something with the faucet. Not very original, but oh well. I can't believe I crouched there for 45 minutes shooting a stream of lightly running water. A year ago, who would have thought I'd find the kitchen faucet a compelling subject?!?

These were all shot at 1/500 sec, f 4.8, ISO 400, and a focal length of 195mm. Flash bounced off the ceiling. EC 0.

All were converted in the same method. It is amazing how the exact same subject (and same exposure), shot from a slightly different perspective (therefore the ambient light direction changing) and with the levels adjusted a little differently yield such a markedly different feeling to the images.

CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM WELCOMED

No catchy title tonight...

A couple of people had questions regarding yesterday's entry (all those theater pics), settings, etc. Rather than leave it at that, I thought I might post some more information that you may or may not find helpful, at least as a jumping off point for your own theater images.

CAMERA SETTINGS:
I always shoot in manual mode, and I shoot jpegs. Spot metering, and I meter off the brightest part of the face. That said, metering isn't all that helpful in this particular environment (at least to me), I tend to use my histogram and highlights more. I have my white balance set on incandescent. I prefer to adjust the color casts in PP, and sometimes I don't correct them if they contribute to the mood of an image. I personally shoot with my 85mm 1.8 because it's the sharpest, fastest lens I own with a halfway decent telephoto capability, If money were no object, I'd shoot with a better lens, but since it is, this is what I use.

BEFORE I LEAVE THE HOUSE:
I make sure I have an extra memory card and set my cameras settings to ISO 800, SS160, aperture 3.5. These are what I start with when I take a few test shots once I get there. Then I tweak until I get a decent exposure. Rarely, if ever will I go below a SS of 160, as I feel that I cannot handhold the lens and get really crisp photos at a SS below that. I try my hardest not to increase my ISO any higher than 800, but will if the situation dictates it. Every now and again if the lighting is just amazing, I can get it down to 400. As I am shooting, I am constantly changing my SS and aperture as the lighting changes, and also as the performers move about the stage. Aperture more often than not is between 2.2 and 4.5. Most of the time it's in the 2.8-3.5 range.

Keep in mind, if there is only one person on stage, I can open the aperture up quite a bit, conversely, if I am trying to capture a scene across the entire stage, I'll have to stop it down a bit. Also, if I'm capturing dancing, my SS has to increase. By how much depends on how fast the dancing is, but usually about 1/300, and sometimes as high as 1/500.

LOCATION:
In situations where the seats are not reserved, I like to get to the theater early in order to choose where I want to sit. Ideally I like to be at a level close to, or slightly above the performers' heads when I am seated. From time to time I have to sit lower than that....not my favorite thing to do, but oh well.

AS I AM SHOOTING:
I constantly check my histogram as lighting changes to make sure I'm not clipping blacks or blowing whites. I also use my "highlights" on the LCD, but not as much.

ANTICIPATE:
If I can shoot or sit in during a dress rehearsal, I do it. Then I have the ability to make mental notes where I want to take some shots during the "real" performance, and also read the light. I keep my camera in my lap during the performances, and once again anticipate where the plot is going, and when might be a good time to get some shots. I aim to shoot to tell a story rather than just randomly shooting. Hopefully I'm somewhat successful in that. I brace my arms (either against my body or on the armrests), and hold my breath for a sec while I depress the shutter.

COLOR CASTS:
As I said above, I shoot ion the incandescent WB setting. Most of the time I can get a fair representation of the singer's/actor's skin tones in my PP. Sometimes there will be red gels on one part of the stage, yellow on another, and so forth. Then it's usually difficult to get the color on each and every person right. In instances like that (because I am typically edited dozens of images at one time), I do not worry about getting each person's skin tone perfect, just a decent job. And sometimes converting to B&W actually enhances the image, so in the worst cases, that's what I'll do.

NOISE:
I automatically run everything I shoot at ISO 800 and above through Noiseware. 400 and below I usually don't.

I never planned to write a novel....sorry about that!

And now for my photo of the day. Saw this outside my kitchen window tonight, and since I hadn't pulled out my camera at all today (imagine that), I shot a few frames:

What is YOUR passion?

I look at other photo blogs and I am astounded by the creative eye so many people have, and wish I had it too. I'm a shoot as I see it kind of girl, instead of a shoot how it could be kind of girl. I need to embrace it, and realize it is what it is (is THAT an overused phrase or what?).

My passion is shooting theater images. I love being able to sit back and watch events as they unfold, and try to capture the emotion of the moment. The desire to capture these images well is what convinced me to learn to shoot in manual mode last spring.

I did take pictures today (not theater ones) but didn't feel like PP them tonight, so instead I decided to post about theater. Below are a few (ok, more than a few) of my favorite captures from an assortment of shows during the last nine months:

What does guilt look like?

Could it be this? Caught red-handed, hanging out on top of a sewing project I'm working on. Naw, that's not guilt, that's annoyance at being woken up from sleeping on top of said project. Silly me, cats can't feel guilt, they own the world ;)

Ran through noiseware, USM for web, that's it. Blacks are clipped a bit, but oddly, it doesn't bother me.
ISO 1600, f 1.8, SS 1/160
CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM WELCOME



In regards to yesterday's entry. The lens I'm returning is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. It is very soft at all apertures up to 5.6 (and is barely acceptable at 5.6 in my opinion), not just wide open. And it IS the lens, not me, as I shoot wide open on my other lenses all the time.

Keeping the husband, not the lens

CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM WELCOME

Meet my husband, the guy who has put up with me (not an easy task) for 17 years of marriage. The one who lets me practice shooting with my new lens to determine whether the softness is as bad as I thought it was (it is). The man who removes his glasses for me so that I can see his eyes clearly to be able to tell if indeed the lens is having issues. Who does his best not to squint at me and furrow his brow even though without his glasses he's prone to do both. Yes, he's too good to me.

So, then lens is going back, but I'm keeping the guy.

I tried a darker, more gritty conversion than is my norm. What do you think?

SS 1/320, f 2.8, ISO 400

Texture

This is why someone (who shall remain unnamed) needs to start taking her camera with her on walks through the woods. I know you're reading this.... ;)

In regards to yesterday's post:

Thanks so much for letting me know which conversion you prefer!

In regards to the location and the amazing catchlights. The headshots were shot in the theater lobby. If I could shoot there all the time, I would. The light is amazing on sunny days. I was standing with my back to the NE corner of the space. To my right was a large wall of windows facing north, with light bouncing off the light colored building and concrete walkway adjacent. To my left, were 3 sets of double doors facing east which were open. The sun was to the SW, so there was no direct light coming in, just lots of bounced light.

It helps that her eyes are blue, but I got fabulous catchlights in all the headshots. I want a room in my home with lighting like this :)

Used my 50mm lens, SS 250, f 2.5, ISO 400.

Just for the heck of it, a 100% crop of her eyes. I did no work to them, just USM for web.



Will update again later today with some pics.....I think.

Old photo, new edit

CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM WELCOMED

Last spring I took the headshots for a show at my son's school. At that time I was still in the very beginning stages of learning, and see lots of things I would change if given the opportunity.

This girl's mom needs her headshots for some upcoming auditions, so I did a re-edit of it before sending in to the lab.

If given the chance to have a headshot session with her, I would change the backdrop to a darker one, and also put her in something that was a medium to dark tone. She's so fair that she pretty much blends in with the background and her clothing, this image needs more contrast. I would also work on getting her to pose a little more naturally and be sure her hair was more controlled. I was shooting over 75 kids, so it was an assembly line sort of thing going on. Oh, and yes, her teeth are naturally THAT white. I want teeth like that!

Anyhow, here's the re-edit. Please tell me what you would change if given the chance...thanks! Also, there are two very similar conversions, which do you prefer?

On another note, I'm hoping to play with (and fingers crossed) become more satisfied with my new lens later today.

Not the best day....

I bought a new lens today. One I had researched and been saving for for several months now, and was exited to go pick up.

I do a lot of theater shots, and while my 24mm 2.8, 50mm 1.8 and 85 mm 1.8 work really well, I wanted a zoom because there are times when the ability to zoom would be great, and I don't want to miss a shot because I'm trying to change a lens in the dark.

So, I bought the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. I know that some people have had issues with the sharpness, but most it seems are happy as can be.

I fooled around with it just a bit this afternoon, and I am so disappointed in the shots I got with it wide open. And most of the time I would be shooting with it wide, or nearly wide open.

Here's a sample of a few of them, all shot at 1600ISO, f 2.8, SS ranging between 160 and 250, various focal lengths:







Shadows in the next one are from the lighting in the dining room, not flash:


I need to find some human subjects to experiment with, but these are not sharp at all...and I am really sad about that. I cannot afford to buy the Nikon equivalent at $1,700. Thankfully I made sure to buy it locally, so that I could return it if need be. Maybe I'm just spoiled with my primes, I dunno.

More snow pics

CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM WELCOMED

It snowed again today, can you believe it? Third time in less than a week. Considering we typically will get maybe one or two snowfalls a year, this is pretty amazing.

I went for a walk this morning, and took just a few pictures. No beautiful blue skies like the other day, but it was somewhat easier to expose the images correctly with an overcast sky. Shot at an ISO of 800, and I decided not to run them through noiseware as the grain isn't bothering me. Does it bother you? Here are a couple of them:



These next two, I can't decide whether I prefer them in B&W or color, so I'm posting both:

Beware, many photos ahead!

CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM WELCOMED!

I played with the Orton technique some more last night. I wanted to see what kinds of pictures it would be successful on, and which it would not. What I do like it how rich the colors get when doing that duplicate layer, even without doing the gaussian blur on one of them.

Here are some of my experiments on photos I took last summer. Let me know what YOU think, ok?

This first photo is a bit soft, I shot it through the glass and handheld my 70-300 lens at a SS of 1/40. I typically keep my SS at double the longest focal length of my lens, but this time it was too dark to do so, so I gave it a shot. I think I was fairly successful.

SS 1/40, f 4.5, ISO 1600.

SOOC


With Orton



Another. SS 125, f4.5, I believe the ISO was 400

SOOC


Orton



And one more. Here I also did the Orton but also did it without doing the gaussian blur on it.

SOOC


Orton WITH gaussian


Orton WITHOUT gaussian


Here are a couple more images I worked on, I am on the fence about them. That duplicate layer can tend to blow the highlights on a photo, and on this lighthouse I think it did. Your thoughts? Be honest!

Aperture was f16 on this, other than that I cannot recall and I'm too lazy to go back into PS and find out ;)



Aperture was f13 on this. I think it's just too busy to work well:



And aperture on the following two was about f2something. I really don't think these work at all. I think the aperture needs to be stopped down a lot in order for the blurring technique to work well.