Project 4

I am not feeling very happy with project 4, but I will have to move on.

For this project I had to take 10 to 12 photographs of an object moving across the viewfinder. This had to be the same object and the photographs had to be taken with different shutter speeds.  Due to illness, I haven't been able to get out and about much during the last couple of weeks and I have been unable to find anyone daft enough to run up and down or ride a bike at an even speed.

Whilst at the Manchester Science Museum, I spotted Stephenson's Rocket and decided to use this as my subject. Not a good idea! This thing is too slow. Not too slow at moving down the track but too slow at coming back again. There was a ten to fifteen minute wait between trips. It doesn't take much to work out how long it takes to take 12 photos. ( I cheated and took two of the photos when it was coming backwards but I won't get away with it because anyone can see that the steam is drifting off in the wrong direction. :-) )

I missed one shot because the camera turned itself off at the crucial moment and wouldn't wake up again. This will not happen again - I've turned off its automatic shut down.

A couldn't get a clear background for the shots and there is a rail in front. Perhaps, I should have got a bit closer to the train but to be honest I was frightened of not getting any of it in the frame. Another problem  - there isn't a lot of contrast between the background and part of the engine. I am not happy with the composition but could improve it by cropping out the foreground and forming a letterbox frame.


By the time I had got down to  1/10, 1/5 of a second and 1 second, I was having real difficulty with the exposure. My lens was stopped down to f22 - its smallest aperture, but the images were blowing out - too much light.  I almost got there in the end - I had a word with the sun and it disappeared behind a cloud. I also put my polarising filter over the lens to cut down the light.

I need to buy a neutral density filter. 

Four of the shots:  

1/1000 sec

1/30 sec

1/10 sec

1/5 sec

Panning next - oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! I need to find something to pan.

The Crop Factor and Normal Lens

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/crop-factor.htm

http://www.tutorialzone.de/tutorials/Crop_Factor_Focal_Length_Multiplier_/6966

http://www.shortcourses.com/use/using5-4.html

Project 1

 Taken at 50 mm

 

 Taken at 32 mm

 

Taken at 18 mm

 

Taken at 270 mm

I used a  Tamron Superzoom 18 - 270 mm lens for all the photographs.

Each photograph was printed at A4. When I went back to the scene ( exact same spot ) and held the prints out in front of me, at about 18 inches, the 32 mm print seemed to show an area roughly the same angle as I could see with my eyes. ( I could, perhaps, see a little bit more from the corner of my eyes, but it was difficult to tell).

When I held out the 50 mm print, the windmill in the print looked almost the same size at it did in real life.

I could not get far enough back to view the scene as it shows in 18 mm print. Three steps back and I would have been on a very busy road.  I had to walk forward with the 270 mm print but people were beginning to stare at me so I didn't continue with this.

Re-think

I may have to re-think the last bit of my previous notes. Since I didn't change my position, then maybe the perspective or apparent perspective hadn't changed at all. Although things in the distance looked further away, perhaps everything in the frame was reduced in proportion - to fit my smaller view.  ( Can't check at the moment - all my batteries are dead)

After taking and printing the two photographs ( 50 mm on 35 film and 30 with my camera ) at the same size, they may well look the same - even through they looked very different through the viewfinders. I am going to have to do this experiment; otherwise it will drive me mad. I want to be absolutely sure that there isn't a distortion effect between near and far objects.

Project 1 and standard lens

I have had a look at project 1 and I am feeling a bit confused and argumentative – oh gawd! Already! The experiment itself and the title (Focal length and angle of view) seem to conflict. To find the standard focal length for my camera I am instructed to make objects in the viewfinder look the same size as in real -life. I am told that this is what is meant by standard. I am also told that on a 35mm film camera the standard is 50mm. As far as I was aware a 50 mm lens is a 50 mm lens and the perspective does not change whichever sensor it happens to be in front of (a full frame or a smaller 1.6 magnification). I get a cropped version with my sensor and all that changes is the angle of view. I’ve gone out and borrowed a full frame film camera to prove it. Having looked at the clock on my wall through the viewfinder of both cameras (with 50 mm lenses attached and from the same spot) I can confirm that the clock looks exactly the same size through both viewfinders – nearly life size. With the 35 mm camera I get a bigger overall view – I can see more of the surrounding wall but the clock is still the same size. (If I printed both photographs the clock from my camera would look larger than the clock in the 35 mm film print, but this is simply because mine is a cropped version printed at the same size as an uncropped 35 mm version.  An important point, however, is that the perspective and the spatial relationship between near and far objects remains unchanged)

On page 282 of the course material it says that the standard focal length for a camera is less than 50 mm in proportion to the smaller size of the sensor ( For mine this would be 50 divided by 1.6 which equals 31.25) – Fair enough, but this is the comparable angle of view and I am not going to arrive at this figure by following the experiment in project 1 and matching the size of the clock in my viewfinder to the size of the clock on my wall.  To arrive at this figure, without the mathematics, I need to match the full angle of view and not the size of objects to real life! (By the way, I would not be able to match the angle of view if I hadn’t borrowed a full frame camera – I wouldn’t have known what the angle looked like).

Conclusion

If I match the size of objects and the spatial relationships to real life, as I seem to be instructed, the answer is about 50 to 60 (the same as full frame) but if I match the full angle of view, the standard focal length for my camera is about 30 (with a much smaller clock in the viewfinder).

To top it all I think that 60 mm give a better natural perspective then 50 mm (on both cameras).  I think the true answer to this question must be as follows: If I want a natural looking perspective I should choose a focal length of between 50 and 65. If I want to achieve the same angle of view as a 50 mm lens on a full frame, then I would choose a focal length of approximately 30 mm.  (Although this photograph would have the same angle of view, as far as I can see or judge, it will not (appear to ) have the same perspective. I can see this by looking through the viewfinders. Objects in the distance look much further away in my viewfinder when viewed at 30 mm) To prove it on here, I will need to  buy a film,  learn how to use the 35mm camera and display the two different photographs.  This will be done at a later date. For now I am going to have to move on because at this rate I am not going to get through the projects and the assignments.

Blogging Along

Although I have not as yet had any contact with the tutor, I have given some more thought to the structure of my learning journal. I will keep this blog as my note / workspace for all my courses and photographic interests and do the 'official' OCA course journal on paper, adding cuttings, prints, found photographs etc. I have enough 'other' blogs out here in cyberspace - I've lost some of them.

Although I will be posting some of my projects on here, I want to get used to printing, handling, filing and presenting real prints. A paper based journal and file will force me to do this. A printed image is the test of the quality.

For online content and activities, I will refer to this blog in my journal.

[ I have joined the OCR Flickr group but not posted any images as yet.]

Using a graduated neutral density filter

Using a graduated neutral density filter

Course Pack

My OCA course pack arrived today and I have spent some time skimming through it.

[Before I forget where I've seen it - Reference format: Michael Freeman, Complete Guide to photography, HarperCollin, UK, 1995]

There are 67 projects and 5 assignments involving many, many photographs. I daren' t count them. :-)

When I consider that I have already committed myself to two other courses during the lifetime of this course, it looks like I have got my work cut out. Not to worry. Bring it on.

I have also received the course book: The Photograph: A Visual and Cultural History ( Oxford History of Art) by Graham Clark. This means that I am now the proud,  but surprised, owner of two copies of this book. My existing copy will remain on the shelf, whilst I write in the course copy. Where's my marker pen? I enjoy writing and making notes in reference books. It gives me a sense of ownership and engagement.

It was no surprise to learn that I am required to keep and submit a learning journal but I am looking at the instructions on how to set up a Google account and register with Blogger with a quiet reluctance. Although it isn't compulsory, I am being encouraged to blog. This is all well and good but the blog, which will be assessed, is to consist of weekly reflections. This is too limiting for me. I am more than happy to summarize my activities on a weekly basis and include them in a journal, as well as on here, but I do not want this blog to be limited. It's a personal photographic home -  a powerhouse for years to come. I am also more than happy for my tutor to drop in here but it is likely to contain stuff outside the scope of the OCA course and there will be times when I am talking to myself on a daily basis. I could set up another blog but how many blogs does a person need or want? I could also submit a paper based journal but that goes against the grain. I need to clear my head a little and decide what I want to do. A second official blog elsewhere seems, perhaps, to be the only answer.  I haven't made contact with the tutor yet - I am sure a discussion will resolve matters.

The Complete Kodak Book of Photography

I have just finished reading this book and enjoyed every word of it (478 wonderfully illustrated pages). The book was published in 1990 and, as far as I know, it is out of print. I bought it from a second-hand book stall for £3.00.

Although the book discusses film, and there are small sections on cameras and the home darkroom, it concentrates on the making of good photographs and goes into some depth: the composition, the use of light, the elements of a good photograph etc. This is in contrast to books with the words 'Digital Photography' in their title - many of which give well over half their pages to camera controls and digital manipulations. I have separate books on Photoshop and the camera controls and really need to learn more about the art of photography itself.

I found the sections on portraits and lighting particularly valuable. I struggle with portraiture. Partly, because I have not had enough practice with lighting techniques, and partly, because I have always believed that taking photographs of people is somewhat intrusive. [I will need to work on and through this thought if I am to be successful with portraiture.]

Extracts:

... two things are fundamentally important in any picture: composition and light.

... the important elements of composition: balance and asymmetry, shape and form, pattern and texture. They are the core of creative photography, as is light, which is not only necessary to form a photographic image, but is a compositional tool in it own right. To create photographs that have calculated effects, you must know how to vary the quality and direction of light as well as its quantity. Similarly, you can use colour to create delight, impact, variety - and you can even make colour itself the subject of the picture.

… Ultimately, the ability to produce strong images unerringly, rather than by chance, depends on looking long and hard at your subject, analyzing what you see, and planning what to do.

.. For portraits, you should taken an active approach to sunlight, not just use it as you find it.

Why a Photography Learning Blog?

I want to improve my photography. This blog is to be a record of my progress. It will also provide me with a space in which I can reflect on my work. I already keep files, a notebook, a personal blog and a computer log but I want to bring all my photography learning together in one place.

A few days ago I enrolled on a course with the Open College of the Arts. I am eagerly awaiting my course pack.

Art of Photography

Adding a few links to this page will help to pass the time