Showing posts with label Photography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Photography. Show all posts

Thursday, February 9, 2012

An Excursion to the Flower and Garden Show

This morning my friend Liisa and I paid a visit to the Northwest Flower and Garden Show. Liisa worked on the "Bird Song" display garden, created by the Arboretum at Washington Park and the Seattle Audubon and wanted to go back today as a spectator instead of worker to take photos for her fabulous blog, the Intercontinental Gardener. Liisa's already got some posted, so I won't duplicate things she's already covered.

[Photography Geek Note: Bill just bought a fixed F1.8 35mm DX lens, which I wanted to try out at the garden show because of the low light. The lens worked well, except I didn't always get the right thing in focus. If I had to do it again, I'd manually focus everything. Also, because of the low light, the depth of field had to be so shallow in some shots that the photos just didn't turn out well. I guess that's the price you pay for not using flash.]

Anyway, here are a few of the many things that caught my eye:
Colorful hand-blown glass galore, for garden and in-home use. If you're into glass, this is a great opportunity to see A LOT of it. 
Dan Robinson, of Elandon Gardens. It's really hard not to be a groupie, so I just am. He is the rock star of bonsai. If you ever get a chance, get yourself down to Port Orchard to see his nursery. It's worth the trip, believe me! 
What we won't do for art! Liisa has gotten permission  from Dan Robinson to move his "Gold Medal" award so she can get a clear show of this impressive root that he somehow managed to get into the convention center. 
Liisa photographing the gigantic tree root. Hopefully she got a better shot than I did.
This is part of the Arboretum "Bird Song" display. They created a beautiful, natural bird habitat, mostly  out of native plants, and put some bird replicas in it. If you're thinking about making your own wildlife habitat, this display will give you some good ideas. For more on that subject, see Gardening for Wildlife.
Another habitat shot.
A beautifully formed Japanese maple. It's obviously been shaped and pruned over the years.
I want a garden shed like this in my backyard!
The best photo ops were of the flower arrangements. 
A french horn and a willow variety that has flat branches. Very fun.
I don't know what these little yellow puff ball things are, but I like them a lot.


This was so cute, I included it even though it wasn't all in focus.
And last, but not least, my personal haul. Bill's going to be digging some new holes this weekend.
You might also enjoy:

Friday, July 29, 2011

Photographing Paintings

UPDATE August 11: I just got my "First Studio" lighting kit from B&H Photo and am getting it set up. I'll write a post about what happens. (I'm never quite sure what will happen when I start tangling with things that attach to the power grid.)

The faint of heart need go no farther. Here's a treatise by Robert Ward from a DPChallenge forum on the how to set up your equipment to photograph paintings. It's too long to tack onto the Digitizing Paintings post (which I've added more info to tonight as well), so I'm giving it a post of it's own.

Here goes:
----------------------
We used to record exhibitions for major museums in California, in San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. This was back in the 70's. The work was done with large-format cameras on 4x5 film.

The key question here is, "How many of these do you have to do?" In other words, is it worth your while to engineer a setup for repeatable results?

As others have noted in earlier posts, the most important thing is to have the sensor plane (back of the camera, roughly) parallel to the image plane. I'd add to that; the axis of the lens, projected forward, should point to the geometrical center of the painting being reproduced. By doiung these things, you remove distortion from the equation; no "keystoning" in either the vertical or horizontal direction.

The easiest way to accomplish this is to hang the art on a vertical wall and square your tripod up so that the center column is a true vertical. Ideally you'd draw a vertical line on the wall and extend that at right angles on the floor to our past where the tripod will be standing. Then you'd attach a plumb bob to your center column and be sure that the tripod was "directly in front of" the line on the wall. With a dSLR a small horizontal shift will be required if the lens is not aligned with the tripod screw, which they typically are not. If the lens were offset by 3/4 of an inch to the left, then you'd want to plumb to a point 3/4 of an inch to the right of the line on the floor.

Then you'd set the camera up at eye level and measure the height of the optical axis of the lens above the floor. You'd measure up along the line on the wall and mark that height ohnt he wall, and use a level to draw a true horizontal on the wall passing through that point and extending far enough on each side to be wider than the largest painting you will photograph. You'd use a high-quality zoom lens (this would be easiest, for photographing art of wildly varying sizes) and set up so the tripod were at a position to cover the largest painting you're gonna shoot at the wider end of the zoom. For smaller painings, you'd zoom in.

If you need to shoot vertical and horizontal paintings both, it's best to do them as two separate groups, because rotating the tripod head to portrait orientation will move the offset of the lens sufficiently to one side to require repositioning the tripod, plumbing it to a different offset from the line.

Anyway, using this setup you can position paintings on the wall so they are centered on the intersection that defines the projected optical center of the lens, and you never need to adjust the tripod settings, just the zoom. It's also desirable to have a "quick change" system for hanging paintings on the wall. An acceptable approach is to use a true "artist's easel" (the kind with two parallel vertical bars and adjustable "tray" to hold the painting and clamp to snug it in place) as long as the easel can be set up to a true vertical. A better approach would be to replicate the easel directly on the wall, but that's a lot of work.

When photographing exhibitions in museums, we had a system for measuring the degree-off-vertical a painting was hanging at (some leaned out from the wall a tad) and transfering that angular deviation to the fore/aft tilt on the tripod, but this gets complicated.

Your next issue is lighting. It's generally better to shoot art with floodlights than with strobes, because you can more easily see the results you're getting. Your standard setup would be to draw on the floor two lines coming out at 45-degree andles from where the tripod-axis line intersects the wall. You'd position 4 floodlights, one high and one low on each axis, measuring the same distance out from the wall along each axis. You'd then use an incident light meter to measure the light falling at the center and on each corner of the largest painting you had to shoot, and angle your lights so the measured illumination was even across the entire surface of the painting. If it's even on the largest painting, it will be even on any smaller painting subsequently hung in that space.

You now have a geometrically consistent setup and a constant light level across the entire working space. All you have to do is move art on and off the wall, shooting each piece as you go. Use a cable release, and ideally mirror lockup as well. You should also photograph a "color target" (available at camera stores and online) under your controlled setup. You will process the color target image to eliminate any color cast and add slight exposure corrections needed, and then set up an action you can use to batch process all the other images to correct color balance and exposure.

That, in a nutshell, is a bare-bones "professional" approach to copying largish art that's too big to fit within the confines of a copy stand.

Robt.
 
Thank you, Robert!

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Always on the Lookout for Photo-ops

Like me, you photographers and painters out there are probably always on the lookout for scenes to make good pictures from. Check out some that I've found on the "My Photos" page. I've been adding new albums to that page all morning since I discovered a good batch-processing tool to make it easier.

One of my favorite places is Nelson, Nevada. It has a population of about two, I believe. Wait, let me check that out .... Oh excuse me, it's 369. They must have all been napping the day I was there. Gold was discovered there in 1859, but there doesn't appear to be any gold left, as there are no prospectors running around, and the equipment is all so decrepit you couldn't use it anyway.

But it has photographer's gold. Lots of it. Check it out. I can't wait to go back there!

Nelson, Nevada

Share this post:


Nelson, Nevada is a photographer's goldmine.

submit to reddit



Thursday, May 19, 2011

Special Discounts on Photomatix Software

You can now get special discounts on Photomatix software which helps you create HDR photos the easy way. Just click the links in this post for more information or to buy a copy. Important: You must use "MeganSeagren" as your coupon code at checkout.

There are English, Italian, and Japanese language versions. For each language there are three sets of links,
  • "Buy Now" if you're ready to buy. 
  • "Trial Version" if you want to just try it out. 
  • "Product Information" if you just want to read about it. 
Note: Even if you don't buy the software right away, remember to use the "MeganSeagren" coupon code to get your discount at checkout.

I. English-language versions:

"Buy Now":
Photomatix Light for Mac OS X (download delivery)
Photomatix Light for Windows (download delivery)
Photomatix Plug-in for Aperture (- Download delivery)
Photomatix Pro Plus for Mac OS X (download delivery)
Photomatix Pro Plus for Windows (download delivery)
Photomatix Pro for Mac OS X (download delivery)
Photomatix Pro for Windows (download delivery)
Tone Mapping Plug-In for Mac OS X (download delivery)
Tone Mapping Plug-In for Windows (download delivery)

Trial Versions:
Photomatix Plug-in for Aperture (download delivery)
Photomatix Pro Plus for Mac OS X (download delivery)
Photomatix Pro Plus for Windows (download delivery)
Photomatix Pro for Mac OS X (download delivery)
Photomatix Pro for Windows (download delivery)
Tone Mapping Plug-In for Mac OS X (download delivery)
Tone Mapping Plug-In for Windows (download delivery)
Photomatix Pro for Windows (download delivery)
Tone Mapping Plug-In for Mac OS X (download delivery)
Tone Mapping Plug-In for Windows (download)

Product Information:
Photomatix Plug-in for Aperture
Photomatix Pro Plus for Mac OS X
Photomatix Pro Plus for Windows
Photomatix Pro for Mac OS X
Photomatix Pro for Windows
Tone Mapping Plug-In for Mac OS X
Tone Mapping Plug-In for Windows
Photomatix Pro for Windows
Tone Mapping Plug-In for Mac OS X
Tone Mapping Plug-In for Windows

2. Italian-language versions:

"Buy Now":
Photomatix Pro for Mac OS X (Italian)
Photomatix Pro for Windows (Italian)

Trial Versions:
Photomatix Pro for Mac OS X (Italian)
Photomatix Pro for Windows (Italian)

Product Information:
Photomatix Pro for Mac OS X (Italian)
Photomatix Pro for Windows (Italian)

3. Japanese-language versions:

"Buy Now":
Photomatix Pro for Mac OS X (Japanese)
Photomatix Pro for Windows (Japanese)

Trial Versions:
Photomatix Pro for Mac OS X (Japanese)
Photomatix Pro for Windows (Japanese)

Product Information:
Photomatix Pro for Mac OS X (Japanese)
Photomatix Pro for Windows (Japanese)


Friday, May 13, 2011

How to Create an HDR Photo from a Single RAW or NEF File

Breaking news: I just got a coupon code that you can use to get a special discount on Photomatix.

Making an HDR photo from a single NEF file is useful when the scene you're shooting has stuff moving around in it. Basic requirements: To make an HDR photo from a single RAW or NEF file, you need the following: (1) A camera that shoots in either RAW or NEF, (2) photo editing software that works with these file formats, and (3) a software program that allows you to create HDR photos, such as Photomatix or Photoshop.

A while back, I went through an "HDR photography" phase. Probably most people do this when first introduced to the technology because you can get some very cool effects with it. In case you're unfamiliar, HDR stands for High Dynamic Range. It addresses the problem that normal photos only display a slice of the total range of light available in a scene -- a much smaller range than the human eye can see -- which results in lost details in shadows or "blown out" lights. For a bit more background and a couple of examples of this, see Painting from Photos. To increase the range of light in a photo, HDR photography combines the information from two or more photos of the same scene, taken at different exposure settings, say -1, 0 and +1 EV for example.

Because they're made from a sandwich of two or more exposures, HDR photos can come out blurry when your subject or part of the scene in the photo is moving. This is also an issue if you're trying to take multiple exposures with a hand-held camera because your hands can't hold the camera absolutely steady. Even on a tripod, the camera can be shaken by a passing breeze. In addition, the camera can shake itself slightly just with the movement of the shutter.

One way to get around this problem is to shoot a single photo in either RAW or NEF format and then make the different exposures needed for your HDR photo from this file. In case you're not familiar with them, NEF is a format used by Nikon, and RAW is used by most everyone else. Most SLR cameras have the ability to shoot in one of these two formats. RAW and NEF files store a great deal more information from the scene than do JPG files. As a result, these files are very large. Mine generally run from 12 to 20 MB.

After taking your photo in RAW or NEF format, you need to upload it into your photo editing software, which probably came with your camera. I use Capture NX 2.0 to work with my NEF files. You can also use a third-party program such as Photoshop. Make any edits that you want to the photo, and then save two or more versions of it at different exposure settings, for example -1, 0, and +1 EV; or -2, 0, and +2 EV. Then save the resulting files in JPG format. Finally, create your HDR file from these JPGs by using a specialized program such as Photomatix or the photo combining features of Photoshop.

Here are some examples of HDR photos I made in this manner from shots I took one day when we went sailing with our friend, Michael.

Everything looks ship-shape, Cap'n.
Off we go! Isn't that Seattle over there?
Michael's sight-seeing. Hey, who's at the helm, anyway?
No worries. Bill's got the tiller.
Wow, look at that big boat over there!

Ah, Bill, I think we've had a close enough look.
Who knew playing chicken with a container ship could be so exhilarating!
Time to head back.

Ride's over Bill! Bill! BILL!
Don't forget to check out this coupon code that you can use to get a special discount on Photomatix.

Submit this post:


Make HDR photos even when parts of the scene are moving.

submit to reddit






Friday, May 6, 2011

Digitizing Paintings

Like most artists, I'd like to get my watercolor paintings into digital format to display on my Facebook page and blog. One approach is to photograph them. The key to getting a good photo of your work is to have neutral lighting. As the interior of my house is all painted in warm colors, I must take my paintings outside to photograph on an overcast day. I lay them out on the gray concrete (e.g., neutral color) sidewalk, set up my tripod so the camera is pointing down, and then photograph them. This works fine as long as it doesn't rain, which is a bit of a problem for a good part of the year in Seattle. BTW, you'll find links to good instructions for photographing paintings at the end of this post.

To get around the rain-on-my-paintings issue, I wanted to see if I could scan them and get acceptable or better images. We have a Canon printer/copier/scanner/fax, so I suspected that this might be possible. Otherwise, my route to getting good quality digital images would be to have the paintings professionally scanned, which is pricey, and I'm not quite ready to take that step.

I quickly discovered that my 11 X 17 - inch paintings are too large to fit on the platen of the scanner. Canon's included software has a feature called "stitch assist," so I was able to scan two halves of the picture and join them into one image. This is a nice feature, but unfortunately you can see where the image is joined. After trying a number of different things to make this less obvious, I ended up using good old Microsoft Paint. It has an "eye dropper" tool that allows you to sample the color of one part of the picture and apply it to another. I picked up the color adjacent to the area I wanted to disguise and use the spray can tool to spray it on, trying to feather it to make it less obvious where the image was doctored. The result is OK, although I'll play with it some more tomorrow to see if I can figure out a better way to scan the paintings so this step isn't necessary.

Here are the three paintings I worked on. See if you can tell where the two halves are joined.

Coupeville Barn


Daisy Fall

Japanese Tea House, Japanese Garden, Washington Park Arboretum, Seattle, WA
This is a lot of work to go through for each painting, so next time I'm going to scan the two sides of each painting, save them into their own files, and then join the two sides together in Microsoft Paint. I'm convinced that this will eliminate the problem of the seam showing.

Update: I just found this article about how to photograph paintings for publication By Northlight Books. If you want to do a really professional job, here's how. http://www.wetcanvas.com/Dan/Art-Photography-Guide.pdf

Here's an article about how to scan your artwork: http://www.theartistsweb.net/wiki/How_To_Scan_Artwork

For a simpler approach to photographing your paintings, read this post by Gwenn Seemel. If you try her approach, please let me know how it works out: If you Don't Document Your Work, You Never Made It.

And here's another very detailed article from Plein Air Salon on how to make photos of your paintings. Scroll about halfway down the page to view the instructions.

And see my new post, Totally Geeking Out on Photographing Paintings, for detailed information on how to set up your equipment.

Friday, April 15, 2011

Books on Pictorial Composition

Now that I've got the basic idea of how to put paint on paper and how to take a correctly exposed and focused photo, I've been giving this subject of composition a lot of attention, sometimes reading and studying rather than painting and photographing! Not that I will do this for long, but this is important enough to warrant the special focus.

Here are two books on composition that apply to any type of pictorial art. Although they're written with the painter in mind, these principals are just as important in planning and executing a fine art photograph. Composition makes or breaks a painting or photo. No matter how good the application of the paint is or how beautiful the objects in the photo are, the picture will fail without a good composition. 


Pictorial Composition, An Introduction, by Henry Rankin Poore. If you really don't have a clue about the classical rules of composition, this book will help. It's the kind of thing that every serious artist should at least know, even if they choose to ignore it in their work. It certainly helps you understand why some arrangements in a picture work while others clearly don't. I didn't many of the explanations to be all that clear, but by looking at the illustrations and thinking about them, I got the drift. Then I moved on to the next book.


Mastering Composition: Techniques and Principles to Dramatically Improve Your Painting, by Ian Roberts.This is a beautifully done book and includes a 40 minute instructional DVD. ( I couldn't raise the volume on the DVD on my computer, but it probably works fine in a regular DVD player.) Roberts teaches a five-step approach to creating powerful compositions:
  • Choosing good references and create a range of thumbnail designs
  • Identifying the structures at work within a composition based on eight common armatures
  • Using a viewfinder to determine framing and cropping
  • Analyzing color shapes or value, hue, and intensity
  • Directing the eye through the picture plane

submit to reddit

Friday, March 25, 2011

Painting from Photos


Daniel Smith Fine Quality Artists' Materials


See the end of this post for special discounts on Photomatix software. Photomatix helps you make HDR photos the easy way.

When it's too rainy and cold to paint outside, I often paint using a photograph as my reference. One thing I like about photos is that you can crop them to match the picture you want to paint. Also, you don't have to worry about your subjects moving all around on you or shadows and light changing as the day progresses.

More problematic is that the camera distorts the view. Depending on the type of lens you have, the scene can look more or less "deep" than it really is. (You can see an illustration of this in my Depth of Field post.) To compensate for this, you can take sketches in the field at the same time you take the photo. (When taking portrait photos this gets really critical, and you want to be sure to use the right focal length on your lens. This discussion is a bit more than I want to bite off tonight, though.)

Underexposed
Another issue is that the camera lens can only record a slice of the total range of light and dark that is quite a bit smaller than the slice the human eye can see. This is the most noticeable on a sunny day where the scene is brightly lit because this creates a very broad range of light and dark for the camera to record. You have to adjust the camera exposure to keep the photo from being overexposed (too light), but then the shadows are too dark, and you can't see into them in the photo like you can in real life. If you expose for the shadows, the light parts of the photo so bright you can't see the details, or possibly much of anything at all.

Overexposed

There are several ways to deal with this. One, you can decide that you don't care about the overexposed lights or the underexposed shadows, that the photo is good enough to paint from for your purposes. If you're not satisfied with this solution, alternatively you can take two exposures, one with the shadows correctly exposed, and one with the lights correctly exposed. If you print these yourself, they'll come out the way you took them, which is what you want. You can then use both of them as references to see more of the information in the original scene. If you have a service print them, be sure to tell them not to correct for the exposure.

Bill Wiped Out
If you're a camera buff and have the software -- such as Photomatix (affiliate) or Photoshop -- you can make an "HDR" photo, which is one photo that is made from three or so others taken at different exposures. The software smushes the photos to make a single one that contains all of the information from the original photos. This will allow you to see details in both the shadows and the lights. Some newer cameras have this feature built in.

Here's an HDR photo that I did of Bill after he spent the day digging holes for all the little trees I brought home from the plant nursery. It was made from three exposures that were combined using Photomatix. The photos were taken at night in a darkish room. This rendition is very reduced in resolution, so it will upload quickly, but you can still see all the details just as you would sitting there in the room.




submit to reddit

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Hyperfocusing in Photography

What's the best way to get the entire scene in focus in a photo? Like most amateur photographers, I've always focused on the most distant point to do this. For example, to get a mountain and the foreground in front of it all in focus, I'd focus on the mountain. We learned in photography class, however, that this isn't the best way to get everything in focus. Instead is a technique called hyperfocusing, which sounds pretty technical, but it's actually not all that difficult.

The principle behind hyperfocusing is this: the range of a scene that your lens can focus on the most clearly extends 1/3 in front of and 2/3 behind the point in the scene that you focus on (aka the focal point). In order to decide on a focal point, you should pick a point that is 1/3 of the way from the closest point that you want to have in focus in your photo to the most distant point.

The following two photos of seven evenly spaced plant pots illustrate this principle.

 
In the first photo above, I used a shallow depth of field (large aperture and long focal length) to make the areas that are in focus easier for you to see. The flower hanging down on the side of the second pot was my focal point. Notice that the photo quickly goes out of focus both in front and in back of the flower, but that the focus is better on the pots behind the flower than it is on the one in front of it. For example, look at the third pot, and compare it to the first pot. The third pot is in better focus because it is behind the focal point (flower), even though it is the same distance away from the focal point as the first pot is. In fact, even the fourth pot is in better focus than the first one.

While the above photo illustrates the basic idea of hyperfocusing, it doesn't show you how to get the whole scene in focus. To accomplish that, in addition to hyperfocusing, you need to use a the greatest possible depth of field (smallest aperture and shortest focal length) possible. Doing this will maximize the amount of the scene that the lens can get into focus.
  
In the second photo, above, I focused on the same point, using a great depth of field so that as much of the photo as possible would be in focus. Notice how sharp it is from the closest pot to the furthest one. In addition, even the blinds way behind the focal point are in focus.Woo hoo.




Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Contrast in Photography

In my black and white photography class, we're learning how to develop and print our own film. I took the class because it's a prerequisite for most of the other classes at the school. Much to my surprise I'm loving it, notwithstanding the need to stand in a darkened room with noxious chemicals for hours on end. Go figure.

Anyway, last week's lesson was about contrast. The more contrast, the more middle gray tones move to either white or black. The following pictures were printed (enlarged or whatever the heck they call it) with different contrast filters. These are physical filters made of colored plastic gel that magically affect the contrast of the photo being printed/enlarged.

The topmost photo shows the effect of a #1 contrast filter, which reduces the contrast. The second photo was created using a #2 filter, producing normal contrast. On the last three photos I used #s 3, 4, and 5 respectively, which as you can see, increase the contrast. The result of using five different contrast filters is five different "takes" on the same picture. Pick the one you like the best. You can do the same thing for digital photos in a photo editing program.