The year is more gone that not so it's definitely time for another post. Don't take my silence to indicate a lack of shooting - far from it. In fact, I've shot so much, I now have a serious backlog of frames to process. While I'm happy to have a full-time job, it really does cut into the time I'd use for editing!
Of course work also cuts into time I'd use for shooting, being most of the daylight hours, but it does allow me to buy the odd bit of camera gear. In particular I'm now the privileged owner of one Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L. It wasn't the lens I really _wanted_ to buy, but it was the one I _needed_ for the work I've been doing, being mostly theatre shoots. I didn't have anything fast wider than 50mm, which on a crop-frame 7D is a bit of a handicap, and knew I was going to need to be up close to the stage in the relatively small theatres for the gigs I had coming up. Especially when the rear seats are significantly higher than the stage - the 70-200mm f/2.8 would do the job but I didn't want all my shots taken looking down from "the gods".
And the verdict? I really can't say I'm unhappy. Photographers must of course constantly deal with compromise, but in the theatre 24-70mm is quite a usable range, allowing me to take a reasonably wide shot while still giving me a short telephoto in an instant if I need it. The light levels generally mean I'm shooting at ISO 1600, almost always wide open at f/2.8 so I can get a reasonable shutter speed (1/100 or so) that doesn't leave me with a bunch of blurry actors. I was a little reticent about the lack of a stabiliser, but I haven't really missed it - I seem to lose shots more to motion blur or focus issues than camera shake.
So my rig now is generally the 7D, 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8, plus my 430EX II flash (rarely used, but useful enough to carry with me), which is all I need for what I get time to shoot at this point. I won't say I've got everything I _want_, but I recognise that this is a pretty good photographic base with which I can (and should!) make a lot of progress by concentrating on using it, not agonising on what to buy next (a 5D? 70-300L? 16-35? *grin*).
Anyway, those 8000-odd frames (representing about 1000 frames/night) aren't going to process themselves, so it's back to the Lightroom for me. Hopefully I'll be done before Christmas!
Friday, October 7, 2011
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Four Cameras and a Wedding
It's a new year, which means it's definitely time for a new blog post. There is much, dear reader, upon which to catch you, but I'll start at the end and see how far back we go.
Last weekend I did my first "official" wedding shoot with a photo-fiend friend, for some friends of ours. I've taken photos at weddings before, but this time we (thankfully not just "I") were the official ones. No pressure... The whole affair was reasonably low-key (no church, no cake, no cars, tiny bridal party, maybe 50 guests) and our couple were somewhat relaxed about photos ("just shoot what you want", they said!), but we wanted to deliver a quality result nonetheless.
My natural style, at least for people shots, seems to gravitate towards the telephoto portrait, and because I had a second shooter with a preference for up-close and/or wide shots, I could relax, knowing he had the wide stuff covered. I think having a second (or third, even) shooter at this kind of event is a good plan - you can never cover everything by yourself and it's hard to ask people to go get married again because you missed a shot... ;)
Oh, and the light! The main event was outside in a lovely rose garden, with the couple in a gazebo. While I like to get outside for a good photowalk from time to time, I mostly find myself shooting events in the dark (in a theatre, say), so I'm used to pushing ISO 1600, f/2.8 or wider and 1/100th if I'm _really_ lucky. Shooting outside in the middle of the day meant I could dial all the way down to ISO 100, go f/8 for depth and still have the shutter at 1/200th. Unfortunately we forgot the sunscreen and paid for it in lobster faces, but... I really like ISO 100.
There was a little frustration trying to get group shots lined up and lit, giving the fairly harsh lighting conditions. People looking into the sun tend to squint (not pretty) and putting the sun behind them makes for fun with shadows, plus the fairly aggressive schedule meant we didn't have a lot of time to shuffle people around. I think the message here is to allow plenty of time for group shots. It likely means a lot of people standing around waiting for you, but if the happy couple want good group shots... (ours didn't seem too fussed, so we could concentrate on them, which I much prefer).
We moved on to a beachfront restaurant for dinner (heading into more familar lower-light territory), but with nothing formal on the agenda and no entertainment here it was just lots of people shots. After dinner we stole away to the beach with the bride, the groom and the setting sun, to have our wicked way with them. I stuck with the natural light but my friend went a light wild with flashes and umbrellas. I think we were both happy with what we got there. I can appreciate but don't really like the style of shot where the subjects look like they've been shot in a studio and pasted onto a beach background. I stuck with natural light, shot around the umbrellas and came up happy - sunset at the beach is just a little bit awesome.
Then it was on to what I'll call a chocolate cafe (even lower light) with a small band and a little singing from the bride. By which point we'd been going for nearly 12 hours and were ready for a break! And some serious chocolate!
Anyway, 1500 frames were shot and I now have something of an editing job. I wasn't completely happy with how things panned out, but it was certainly a great opportunity to get a low-stress run at a wedding shoot. I'm not sure I want to be a wedding photographer but I'm certainly happy to give it another shot, with lessons learnt from the day. It's a humbling experience to look over your shots at the end of the day and think about all the things you could have done better. Happily, I know I also got some shots that our newlyweds will love.
Oh, and the gear? I was spoilt by my wife back in July with a shiny new 7D. It's all kinds of awesome. I was also spoilt by another photographer friend with a very generous loan/deferred purchase of a 70-200mm f/2.8L. Together this is... heavy, not to mention intimidating. But it's wonderful to have pro-grade gear to work with when you're trying to do a job. I still love all my old film bodies, but the new rig opens up new possibilities, which I'll hopefully talk about more before the year is out!
Last weekend I did my first "official" wedding shoot with a photo-fiend friend, for some friends of ours. I've taken photos at weddings before, but this time we (thankfully not just "I") were the official ones. No pressure... The whole affair was reasonably low-key (no church, no cake, no cars, tiny bridal party, maybe 50 guests) and our couple were somewhat relaxed about photos ("just shoot what you want", they said!), but we wanted to deliver a quality result nonetheless.
My natural style, at least for people shots, seems to gravitate towards the telephoto portrait, and because I had a second shooter with a preference for up-close and/or wide shots, I could relax, knowing he had the wide stuff covered. I think having a second (or third, even) shooter at this kind of event is a good plan - you can never cover everything by yourself and it's hard to ask people to go get married again because you missed a shot... ;)
Oh, and the light! The main event was outside in a lovely rose garden, with the couple in a gazebo. While I like to get outside for a good photowalk from time to time, I mostly find myself shooting events in the dark (in a theatre, say), so I'm used to pushing ISO 1600, f/2.8 or wider and 1/100th if I'm _really_ lucky. Shooting outside in the middle of the day meant I could dial all the way down to ISO 100, go f/8 for depth and still have the shutter at 1/200th. Unfortunately we forgot the sunscreen and paid for it in lobster faces, but... I really like ISO 100.
There was a little frustration trying to get group shots lined up and lit, giving the fairly harsh lighting conditions. People looking into the sun tend to squint (not pretty) and putting the sun behind them makes for fun with shadows, plus the fairly aggressive schedule meant we didn't have a lot of time to shuffle people around. I think the message here is to allow plenty of time for group shots. It likely means a lot of people standing around waiting for you, but if the happy couple want good group shots... (ours didn't seem too fussed, so we could concentrate on them, which I much prefer).
We moved on to a beachfront restaurant for dinner (heading into more familar lower-light territory), but with nothing formal on the agenda and no entertainment here it was just lots of people shots. After dinner we stole away to the beach with the bride, the groom and the setting sun, to have our wicked way with them. I stuck with the natural light but my friend went a light wild with flashes and umbrellas. I think we were both happy with what we got there. I can appreciate but don't really like the style of shot where the subjects look like they've been shot in a studio and pasted onto a beach background. I stuck with natural light, shot around the umbrellas and came up happy - sunset at the beach is just a little bit awesome.
Then it was on to what I'll call a chocolate cafe (even lower light) with a small band and a little singing from the bride. By which point we'd been going for nearly 12 hours and were ready for a break! And some serious chocolate!
Anyway, 1500 frames were shot and I now have something of an editing job. I wasn't completely happy with how things panned out, but it was certainly a great opportunity to get a low-stress run at a wedding shoot. I'm not sure I want to be a wedding photographer but I'm certainly happy to give it another shot, with lessons learnt from the day. It's a humbling experience to look over your shots at the end of the day and think about all the things you could have done better. Happily, I know I also got some shots that our newlyweds will love.
Oh, and the gear? I was spoilt by my wife back in July with a shiny new 7D. It's all kinds of awesome. I was also spoilt by another photographer friend with a very generous loan/deferred purchase of a 70-200mm f/2.8L. Together this is... heavy, not to mention intimidating. But it's wonderful to have pro-grade gear to work with when you're trying to do a job. I still love all my old film bodies, but the new rig opens up new possibilities, which I'll hopefully talk about more before the year is out!
Sunday, July 25, 2010
My First Maternity Shoot
I had the privilege of doing my first maternity shoot yesterday. It was a low-key affair and a little too rushed for my liking due to time constraints, but ultimately a lot of fun and my first actual organised photo shoot (as opposed to my normal, relatively unplanned photo-wanderings).
I shot two rolls of film - Kodak Porta 800 (colour) in my EOS 3 and Fuji Neopan 400 (black and white) in my EOS 5 (yes, there's a story there too, but for another time...) as well as a bunch of digital shots on my 350D. The 350D was notionally for test shots, but the difference in zoom factor due to the digital's crop-frame sensor is starting to annoy me to the point where I want a full-frame digital. Plus the 350D, while still capable of great images in the right conditions, is starting to become a limitation.
We shot indoors by a balcony door and had plenty of natural light to work with, as is my preference. Joy of joys, I had a make-up artist (female) to work with who doubled as a second shooter and also helped me pose the model, not to mention getting some great shots that I couldn't (eg. me with said model) I also had a 1000W "cine" light which I used a little bit, mostly to experiment with a different "look" but turned it off after the rated four minutes and forgot to turn it on again. I also completely neglected to use a flash, but again, this is the look I generally prefer and since it was my photo shoot, I could get away with that.
I did manage some good shots with the 350D anyway, but I'm really looking forward to getting the film back from processing...
What did I learn so far? Having a switched-on assistant is really, really helpful. I got away with not having much of a plan because she had plenty of ideas, plus the model was very tolerant of our experiments. But it's a wake-up call to me that I need to become much more organised if I'm going to do this for real. Scary, but fun!
I shot two rolls of film - Kodak Porta 800 (colour) in my EOS 3 and Fuji Neopan 400 (black and white) in my EOS 5 (yes, there's a story there too, but for another time...) as well as a bunch of digital shots on my 350D. The 350D was notionally for test shots, but the difference in zoom factor due to the digital's crop-frame sensor is starting to annoy me to the point where I want a full-frame digital. Plus the 350D, while still capable of great images in the right conditions, is starting to become a limitation.
We shot indoors by a balcony door and had plenty of natural light to work with, as is my preference. Joy of joys, I had a make-up artist (female) to work with who doubled as a second shooter and also helped me pose the model, not to mention getting some great shots that I couldn't (eg. me with said model) I also had a 1000W "cine" light which I used a little bit, mostly to experiment with a different "look" but turned it off after the rated four minutes and forgot to turn it on again. I also completely neglected to use a flash, but again, this is the look I generally prefer and since it was my photo shoot, I could get away with that.
I did manage some good shots with the 350D anyway, but I'm really looking forward to getting the film back from processing...
What did I learn so far? Having a switched-on assistant is really, really helpful. I got away with not having much of a plan because she had plenty of ideas, plus the model was very tolerant of our experiments. But it's a wake-up call to me that I need to become much more organised if I'm going to do this for real. Scary, but fun!
Monday, June 28, 2010
Minolta Moments
Oh dear. It appears I need to start this post with that most terrible of journal crimes - an apology for a long gap in posting. I finally went back to full-time work in February after a long break (filled with photography... the break that is, not, alas, the job) and have been meaning to post ever since. Ooops. But never fear - I haven't stopped shooting and have plenty to catch you up on. :)
I've previously mentioned a Minolta SLR I used back before time began (well, in the early 90's) and I finally found prints of the shots I took back then, including on a three week odyssey to Western Australia. I don't even know what model Minolta it was, or the lens specs, except that I had some kind of zoom (with horrendous vignetting out wide) and a 200mm telephoto. Oh, and that the light meter was not integrated, but instead sat on top near the shutter trigger and could even be removed from the camera.
So I scanned those shots and found some stuff I actually quite liked. Seems this latent photographer really has been with me a while, even if he wasn't paying attention to camera models, shutter speeds and f-stops. Here's an example (it's the Eucla station of the Overland Telegraph, which used to be Australia's only wired communications link!), with most of the vignette cropped out:
Now I've been after my father for a while to find that camera so I can satisfy my need to know its specs and also to do some modern day shooting with it. Meanwhile I saw an 85-300mm macro zoom go buy on eBay and thought I'd grab it for when I did find the other camera. It went for $18! Of course, I couldn't let it sit on the shelf and just had to try it out, so I managed to buy a Minolta X-300 for the princely sum of... $10. So for $28 (plus shipping) I had a nice little Minolta rig from circa 1985. When I put it together, I noticed that the zoom had a "macro" feature, which is a word that has disappointed me in the past, but in this case is justified. At 300mm you can pull down the zoom ring to get from between 1:10 and 1:2 magnification at quite short distances. I just had to go shooting... 2 x SR76 batteries, my now-traditional 24 exposure Kodak Ultramax 400 ISO test film and off I went.
So that's a macro shot, although it's not immediately obvious if you don't know what I was shooting. But trust me, it's not something you can do with your average 85-300mm telehoto. I quite like this camera. It's uncomplicated but very functional - you can simply set the shutter to auto, set the aperture you want (manually of course, noting the selected shutter speed in passing) and go (oh, and focus... it is a manual focus deal). The shutter has a satisfyingly smooth click which I love. Plus it appears to take halfway decent photos...
I won't be using this camera full-time, but it's certainly not going to sit idle. I really enjoy using some of this old kit - I love my EOS 3 (and there's another story) but there's something satisfying about getting great photos with cameras that most people would leave to gather dust.
I've previously mentioned a Minolta SLR I used back before time began (well, in the early 90's) and I finally found prints of the shots I took back then, including on a three week odyssey to Western Australia. I don't even know what model Minolta it was, or the lens specs, except that I had some kind of zoom (with horrendous vignetting out wide) and a 200mm telephoto. Oh, and that the light meter was not integrated, but instead sat on top near the shutter trigger and could even be removed from the camera.
So I scanned those shots and found some stuff I actually quite liked. Seems this latent photographer really has been with me a while, even if he wasn't paying attention to camera models, shutter speeds and f-stops. Here's an example (it's the Eucla station of the Overland Telegraph, which used to be Australia's only wired communications link!), with most of the vignette cropped out:
Now I've been after my father for a while to find that camera so I can satisfy my need to know its specs and also to do some modern day shooting with it. Meanwhile I saw an 85-300mm macro zoom go buy on eBay and thought I'd grab it for when I did find the other camera. It went for $18! Of course, I couldn't let it sit on the shelf and just had to try it out, so I managed to buy a Minolta X-300 for the princely sum of... $10. So for $28 (plus shipping) I had a nice little Minolta rig from circa 1985. When I put it together, I noticed that the zoom had a "macro" feature, which is a word that has disappointed me in the past, but in this case is justified. At 300mm you can pull down the zoom ring to get from between 1:10 and 1:2 magnification at quite short distances. I just had to go shooting... 2 x SR76 batteries, my now-traditional 24 exposure Kodak Ultramax 400 ISO test film and off I went.
So that's a macro shot, although it's not immediately obvious if you don't know what I was shooting. But trust me, it's not something you can do with your average 85-300mm telehoto. I quite like this camera. It's uncomplicated but very functional - you can simply set the shutter to auto, set the aperture you want (manually of course, noting the selected shutter speed in passing) and go (oh, and focus... it is a manual focus deal). The shutter has a satisfyingly smooth click which I love. Plus it appears to take halfway decent photos...
I won't be using this camera full-time, but it's certainly not going to sit idle. I really enjoy using some of this old kit - I love my EOS 3 (and there's another story) but there's something satisfying about getting great photos with cameras that most people would leave to gather dust.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Shooting tips for my 350D I wish someone had told me in the beginning
When I first started shooting in anger with my 350D (9 months and over 15,000 shutter activations ago, not counting the film shots...) I had immense trouble and frustration losing shots to focus issues. Happily, a few things I learnt along the way really helped me:
1) Not using multi-point AF. Set it to the centre point and leave it there. Point at what you want in sharp focus, half-press the shutter, hold it down and recompose, then take the shot. Also, if you're having trouble getting the AF to lock, remember that it needs some contrast to work with. So give it an edge to look at (one that's at the focus point you want, of course) and then recompose.
2) Not using A-DEP. I don't know why I started using this in the first place really, but now I pretty much leave the camera on aperture priority (Av) and adjust for the depth of field I want (within the limitations of available light and motion of my subject... bearing in mind that you can't have everything!) Occasionally I go full manual (and paradoxically, sometimes I use P for manual lenses - eg. FD stuff with aperture rings, because the metering still helps).
3) Using one-shot AF mode. AI Focus and AI Servo modes for me are nice ideas, but I haven't figured out how to use them properly. Mostly they just cause me to focus on the wrong thing and I've come to prefer the certainty of a positive AF lock. That said, I have gotten a couple of nice bird-in-flight shots with AI Focus that I wouldn't have gotten otherwise. Save it for special [purpose] occasions.
4) Actual depth of field. Yes, f/1.8 is lovely for low light work and portraits, but if you're not careful your depth of field might only be a couple of centimetres, if not millimetres. You might not notice the difference in the viewfinder but you'll surely see it when you view the result full size. Consider f/8 or narrower if you have the light to do it without going so low on the shutter speed that you shake the shot anyway. (Oh and for the record, I _love_ f/1.8!)
5) Adjusting the viewfinder diopter. That little wheel to the right of the viewfinder may be set wrong for you (it's personal) and might be causing you not to notice focus issues. Or in my case, be so far out that I can barely make myself look in the viewfinder.
6) Holding the camera steady. Seems obvious, but sometimes you think you're steady when you're really not. If you're down below, say, 1/250, check your stance. Hold the lens barrel as well as the camera (don't disturb the focus, mind!) Use whatever's nearby (wall, post, etc) to brace yourself. Use a tripod. Use a monopod. Use a remote release. Etc. Etc. I can hand-hold 1/10 if I get lucky (but I do have good and bad days), but don't risk it if you don't have to. Hold the shutter release down and take a few shots if you're working on the edge - you might get at least one that works.
7) Using a vertical grip. For me, this added a nice amount of weight to the camera which make it easier for me to keep steady. The extra shutter button also meant I was much less likely to push the camera sideways when I hit the button on a portrait (ie. sideways) shot.
8) Staying on or under ISO 800. On the 350D, cranking the sensor up to ISO 1600 makes for some serious noise in the image. ISO 800 is ever so much nicer. Use ISO 1600 only if you must and be prepared for some serious editing (and/or disappointment). (Note that later models are much better in this regard - the 500D will give you decent results at 1600, for example, and this will only get better as the technology improves - one area where digital is definitely going to beat film, I'd say.)
Meanwhile, know that manual focus with a matte focus screen (ie. no split circle or microprisms) is really hard, especially with some of the cheaper EF lenses with really jumpy focus rings. And the LCD is so tiny it make make bad shots look OK (even if you zoom in the view). Trust the AF (but do try the "centre point AF, lock and recompose" trick). You may also wish to investigate a third-party split-circle focus screen if you really want to do a lot of manual focus work.
Look over your failed shots and try to figure out if it was focus or camera shake that killed it. What looks like focus might also just be depth of field - look for the sharp spot in the image. And shake might just be the operator trying to pushing the envelope too far - digital cameras are amazing but they're not magical.
Happy shooting!
1) Not using multi-point AF. Set it to the centre point and leave it there. Point at what you want in sharp focus, half-press the shutter, hold it down and recompose, then take the shot. Also, if you're having trouble getting the AF to lock, remember that it needs some contrast to work with. So give it an edge to look at (one that's at the focus point you want, of course) and then recompose.
2) Not using A-DEP. I don't know why I started using this in the first place really, but now I pretty much leave the camera on aperture priority (Av) and adjust for the depth of field I want (within the limitations of available light and motion of my subject... bearing in mind that you can't have everything!) Occasionally I go full manual (and paradoxically, sometimes I use P for manual lenses - eg. FD stuff with aperture rings, because the metering still helps).
3) Using one-shot AF mode. AI Focus and AI Servo modes for me are nice ideas, but I haven't figured out how to use them properly. Mostly they just cause me to focus on the wrong thing and I've come to prefer the certainty of a positive AF lock. That said, I have gotten a couple of nice bird-in-flight shots with AI Focus that I wouldn't have gotten otherwise. Save it for special [purpose] occasions.
4) Actual depth of field. Yes, f/1.8 is lovely for low light work and portraits, but if you're not careful your depth of field might only be a couple of centimetres, if not millimetres. You might not notice the difference in the viewfinder but you'll surely see it when you view the result full size. Consider f/8 or narrower if you have the light to do it without going so low on the shutter speed that you shake the shot anyway. (Oh and for the record, I _love_ f/1.8!)
5) Adjusting the viewfinder diopter. That little wheel to the right of the viewfinder may be set wrong for you (it's personal) and might be causing you not to notice focus issues. Or in my case, be so far out that I can barely make myself look in the viewfinder.
6) Holding the camera steady. Seems obvious, but sometimes you think you're steady when you're really not. If you're down below, say, 1/250, check your stance. Hold the lens barrel as well as the camera (don't disturb the focus, mind!) Use whatever's nearby (wall, post, etc) to brace yourself. Use a tripod. Use a monopod. Use a remote release. Etc. Etc. I can hand-hold 1/10 if I get lucky (but I do have good and bad days), but don't risk it if you don't have to. Hold the shutter release down and take a few shots if you're working on the edge - you might get at least one that works.
7) Using a vertical grip. For me, this added a nice amount of weight to the camera which make it easier for me to keep steady. The extra shutter button also meant I was much less likely to push the camera sideways when I hit the button on a portrait (ie. sideways) shot.
8) Staying on or under ISO 800. On the 350D, cranking the sensor up to ISO 1600 makes for some serious noise in the image. ISO 800 is ever so much nicer. Use ISO 1600 only if you must and be prepared for some serious editing (and/or disappointment). (Note that later models are much better in this regard - the 500D will give you decent results at 1600, for example, and this will only get better as the technology improves - one area where digital is definitely going to beat film, I'd say.)
Meanwhile, know that manual focus with a matte focus screen (ie. no split circle or microprisms) is really hard, especially with some of the cheaper EF lenses with really jumpy focus rings. And the LCD is so tiny it make make bad shots look OK (even if you zoom in the view). Trust the AF (but do try the "centre point AF, lock and recompose" trick). You may also wish to investigate a third-party split-circle focus screen if you really want to do a lot of manual focus work.
Look over your failed shots and try to figure out if it was focus or camera shake that killed it. What looks like focus might also just be depth of field - look for the sharp spot in the image. And shake might just be the operator trying to pushing the envelope too far - digital cameras are amazing but they're not magical.
Happy shooting!
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Teleconvert me!
A new toy arrived in the mail today. Actually it's relatively old, like a lot of my gear but it's new to me. It's a "2X CFE Teleplus MC4" teleconverter for Canon FD lenses for which I paid the princely sum of ninety-nine cents. I do feel ever so slightly guilty not paying more but I guess that's the way it goes when people list things on eBay for $0.99 and there's only one bid. I'll try to "pay it forward" or something...
The first combination I tried was the teleconverter and 100-300mm f/5.6 zoom on my AE-1 Program. After a little [user] trouble getting things mounted I was happy to note that metering worked as expected. Basically the teleconverter ate two stops (e.g. f/22 without became f/11 with), which is what my reading suggested for a 2X version. But for those two stops I do get 2X magnification... or a 600mm lens. In fact, this combination might equal or better my 600mm f/8 (fixed) mirror lens (although the mirror lens _is_ pretty sharp and the teleconverter optics might fail on that front).
And then it just got silly. I put the 600mm mirror lens on the teleconverter. So that's a 1200mm f/16 lens, which allows me to pick out small details on the roof of a shed two houses away. Of course, given that my personal film lab isn't quite up and running, I just had to try this on my 350D to see what it looked like. Out with the FD-EF adapter... and I have a [sort of] 1920mm focal length. Ridiculous! As is trying to hold the thing steady, so I'm off to play with this on a tripod now... ;) Photos soon.
The first combination I tried was the teleconverter and 100-300mm f/5.6 zoom on my AE-1 Program. After a little [user] trouble getting things mounted I was happy to note that metering worked as expected. Basically the teleconverter ate two stops (e.g. f/22 without became f/11 with), which is what my reading suggested for a 2X version. But for those two stops I do get 2X magnification... or a 600mm lens. In fact, this combination might equal or better my 600mm f/8 (fixed) mirror lens (although the mirror lens _is_ pretty sharp and the teleconverter optics might fail on that front).
And then it just got silly. I put the 600mm mirror lens on the teleconverter. So that's a 1200mm f/16 lens, which allows me to pick out small details on the roof of a shed two houses away. Of course, given that my personal film lab isn't quite up and running, I just had to try this on my 350D to see what it looked like. Out with the FD-EF adapter... and I have a [sort of] 1920mm focal length. Ridiculous! As is trying to hold the thing steady, so I'm off to play with this on a tripod now... ;) Photos soon.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Fun wth Infrared
Infrared photography has been on my list of things to do for a little while and this week the correct celestial alignment presented itself. Basically I picked up some Ilford SFX 200 from a bargain bin of expired film thinking I'd try something new. I thought it was just another black and white film but it turns out this one is a little different in that it's sensitive to infrared light.
So I asked the friendly photography store people what I needed to use it and they found me a relatively cheap ($A40) 52mm Hoya R72 filter. I was intending to use this film in my AE-1 Program and this size fits most of my FD lenses. It's also significantly cheaper than the 58mm R72 and fits the [f=]50mm EF lens for my EOS cameras.
And in fact, that's the only lens I've tried out with this filter so far since it's much easier to whack it on my 350D and play around with exposures on a digital camera than to shoot a roll of film and hope that I got something right. Happily the 350D's sensor is also sensitive to IR light and it doesn't get filtered out on the way through.
The filter seems opaque just to look at and once on the camera it makes the viewfinder completely black, unless you point it at the sun (with some leaves in the way for a nice effect), like so (f/4, 1/125):
With no sun in the frame things are trickier as you really can't see what you're shooting, but I seem to be able to guess OK. When I shoot the film I'll most likely use a tripod, frame the shot with the filter off and only put the filter on for the actual exposure. Meanwhile, the near-instant feedback on the digital camera, not to mention the inexpensive medium of compact flash, makes experimenting easy. Here's another experiment without the sun in the frame, shot at f/1.8, 1/40 (manual mode is what you want, since the camera's metering is affected by the filter).
Obviously these shots are very red (except for the purple trees!), whereas the film will be black and white, but I kinda like it. Focus is another issue to deal with when shooting infrared, presumably because light at infrared wavelengths bends differently to visible light, making the focal point different. In practice the 350D's autofocus still worked sufficiently well for my experiments, but I'll be making use of the helpful red dots on my FD lenses when I try the film...
So I asked the friendly photography store people what I needed to use it and they found me a relatively cheap ($A40) 52mm Hoya R72 filter. I was intending to use this film in my AE-1 Program and this size fits most of my FD lenses. It's also significantly cheaper than the 58mm R72 and fits the [f=]50mm EF lens for my EOS cameras.
And in fact, that's the only lens I've tried out with this filter so far since it's much easier to whack it on my 350D and play around with exposures on a digital camera than to shoot a roll of film and hope that I got something right. Happily the 350D's sensor is also sensitive to IR light and it doesn't get filtered out on the way through.
The filter seems opaque just to look at and once on the camera it makes the viewfinder completely black, unless you point it at the sun (with some leaves in the way for a nice effect), like so (f/4, 1/125):
With no sun in the frame things are trickier as you really can't see what you're shooting, but I seem to be able to guess OK. When I shoot the film I'll most likely use a tripod, frame the shot with the filter off and only put the filter on for the actual exposure. Meanwhile, the near-instant feedback on the digital camera, not to mention the inexpensive medium of compact flash, makes experimenting easy. Here's another experiment without the sun in the frame, shot at f/1.8, 1/40 (manual mode is what you want, since the camera's metering is affected by the filter).
Obviously these shots are very red (except for the purple trees!), whereas the film will be black and white, but I kinda like it. Focus is another issue to deal with when shooting infrared, presumably because light at infrared wavelengths bends differently to visible light, making the focal point different. In practice the 350D's autofocus still worked sufficiently well for my experiments, but I'll be making use of the helpful red dots on my FD lenses when I try the film...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)