Focus: Nighttime Portraits

Focus: Nighttime Portraits

I decided to write this after my experience with doing a portrait shoot at night.  I wasn't planning on the shoot being at night however by the time the makeup was done and we got to the location, the sun had already punched-out for the day.  I just want to go over some of the things I learned and maybe you have already learned these things but if not here you go.  So, my setup.

So I had one light stand and umbrella with me since there was a lot of walking involved.  Because of this I had my SB-600 on the stand and the SB-900 on my camera as a master/flash.  I used my 50mm, 105mm and the 17-55mm during the shoot.  

First off I was using my SB-900 for a AF assist light with the IR light or however that sensor works.  You can use your external Nikon (maybe other brands but I only have Nikon flashes) flashes to shoot a beam or red light at the subject to have your camera focus in darkness.  It is a great function and tool to have however it still is very hard to pin-point someone's eye through your viewfinder in the darkness.  The red light helps but it is still difficult however I got much better with it from practicing.  

After a couple of shots my SB-600 started making some funking beeping sound that didn't sound so good.  So I assumed because it was the very cold that night getting to it, so I turned it off and just used my SB-900 on camera.  This worked and I didn't need the SB-600 for what I was doing anyways.  Nevertheless I was still disappointed in the SB-600.  Moral of story, I'm glad I bought the SB-900.

Something that I didn't have that could have been nice was a flashlight.  Since I wasn't planning on it being dark I didn't bring one however I am sure it would have been nice.  I didn't need it per say however if you do not know your kit well and need help finding things then a flashlight of some kind would be good.  I am lucky enough that I know where everything goes and have a good routine of where I place lens caps and batteries and other small easily lost pieces.  

As for things I learned shooting was one to use the lights in background.  I am sure if you have seen other nighttime portraits you have probably seen the out of focus lights in the background.  It creates a very cool effect that I have always liked however this was the first time I had done it in a portrait.  When I first saw the effect of my 50mm at f/1.4 and the bokeh, I loved it.  Here is an example of what I mean from one of the photos I took that night:

Nighttime Portrait - 50mm - SB-900 on D90

Personally I have seen this effect a lot in many photos from christmas trees to street lights but I have never done it in a portrait and I loved it as I mentioned.  So because I knew my model was a creative person I decided to try something fun that I thought would look cool.  So I got her to blow "bubbles" with the out of focus lights being the bubbles.  

Blowing "Bubbles" - 50mm - SB-900 on D90

Another thing I learned is pick someone who trusts you to take photos of at night in the fall.  I say this because it was absolutely frigid that night and I was very lucky that a) I got the model to bundle up in a warm outfit and b) that she was a trooper and didn't mind walking and standing outside in the cold to get these shots.

Now for just personal points, I loved the effect of the lights in the background at large apertures.  However be careful because if I was at f/2.8, the circles turned into octagons (or however many edges it had) and had edges to them... therefore not as cool looking.   I personally really like being in control with the light.  Yes, it was very hard to see what on earth was in your viewfinder but very worth it in the end.  Also I got used to making out the model in the dark with the red light from the SB-900.  I liked the pitch black background you can get with shooting at night.  This shoot was at a park where there was enough open space to not have my flash's light hit anything.  For this shoot I wanted the model in a normal black peacoat however it didn't contrast with the black of the environment.  If you did want to have a strong contrast between colours of your subject and background this is a easy way to get that.  If I got my model to wear a red peacoat for example, she would definitely stick out a lot more. 

So yeah, I just wanted to share my experience with shooting portraits at night because I found I learned a lot in the process.  Therefore why not share what I learned and experienced.  

I hope this helps! 

Focus: Location, Location, Location.

Focus: Location, Location, Location.


Sometimes the difference between a good shot and a great shot is where you choose to take the photo from.  There are a lot of different factors to your location you choose to take your photo from.  The one I will be discussing in this article is getting to the right viewpoint to get a better photo.

I thought I would write a thing about this because when I was at Inglis Falls I noticed how important this is.  First there is a lookout by the parking lot that most people look at the falls from.  Then from there you can walk down further which gives you a better look out at the front of the falls.  From there you can walk even further and you find yourself off the nice path.  It gets very rocky and involves a downhill trek to the river and the falls.  From here you have to hike up slippery rocks to get closer to the falls.  But this is worth it to get a better shot.

I decided to write this because as my friend and I were trekking up the river, we past two photographers that looked like they were more than amateur photographers.  My friend and I decided to try to get closer to the falls and it was a little dangerous but we managed.  I got as far as I was willing to go due to the very wet and slippery rocks however there was a large boulder in my way.  So I decided to hop over some of the river and climb onto the boulder to get a better view of the falls and it worked.

Luckily enough, my friend was there and got a shot of me on my perch I had:

Myself on my perch - Photo Credit: Jacob Heyden-Thomas

So sometimes to get a better shot you have to be willing to risk a little more and push yourself further.  But do that safely since I almost did go swimming with my camera trekking up the side of the river.  But because I pushed on I got a shot like this:

Inglis Falls - 17-55mm

Thank you for reading.

Focus: Workflow

Hey,


So I thought I would do a quick-ish summary and walkthrough of how I edit my landscape photos.  More particularly my most recent waterfall shots at Inglis Falls.  I do pretty much the same type of things to my landscape photos but depending on the photo and exposure I tweak them all slightly differently but the same general gist.


I decided to use the waterfall shots since I used my timer on my camera which took multiple photos each time.  So I have multiple copies of pretty much the same shot, just the water looks slightly different in each one due to the water changing paths a little (no big deal).  And what better way to demonstrate the differences each of my edits do.


So first I will start with my unedited photo.  So this is straight out of the D90.

Unedited - Inglis Falls 

It is a good photo but I find it doesn't really catch the eye as much as it could.  Due to the long exposure, I think the colours fade just a little because it is a lot of light coming into the camera.  As well the photo is just a little lighter than I want it.  Not that I had the exposure off, or it was under or over exposed, just it is a little flat.

I do my editing in Aperture.  So if you have Aperture, thats great (go Mac) and if not that is okay since I am sure editing suits are all pretty much the same for what edits I am doing here.  So step one, I increase the contrast a little.  (On Aperture I upped it to 2.0)

Contrast - Inglis Falls

This helps catch the eye a little more since it a little darker, not as flat looking.  However you don't want to over do this (or any other edit for the most part) or else it will just look really fake.  As well, when you increase the contrast you lose a little detail in the dark regions of your photo so be careful.  If that is what you want, then by all means but personally I want landscapes to look like how I saw it.  That is why I love wide angle lenses since the photos don't look like a snap shot of it.  Anywho, back to the edits.  

The next two steps will help have the colours pop as well be more like how I saw them when I was perched on my rock taking the photos*.  So first I usually play with the saturation by increasing it a little. So the below photo is with contrast as well as and saturation increase. (Increase saturation to 1.1)

*(As I said in my post about these photos, I was with my friend who just purchased a D7000 so he took a shot I believe of me perched on my rock I had to climb onto to get these shots.  I will be writing a post about what one must do sometimes to get a "the shot." So it helped having my friend there to take a photo of me on my semi-sketchy rock in the river.)

Contrast + Saturation - Inglis Falls

Next to help with colour I increased the vibrancy a little which helps the colours be well, more vibrant (and for those who don't want the word used in it's def'n, the colours are more vivid and less dull).  (Increased the vibrancy to 1.0 I believe)

Contrast + Saturation + Vibrancy - Inglis Falls 

So with that, those are the main things I do to my landscapes to help them look a little more like how I saw it.  The D90/lens usually does a great job however in some cases these edits help a lot.  This was also a good example since the colours and over all image fades a little when you gather a lot of light when using slow shutter speeds, I find.  Using my macro lens I never touch the photos unless it is portraits.  So my frog's eye shot you may have seen (if not check it out), I didn't edit that at all.  No cropping or vibrancy, nothing.  However landscapes do sometimes need some work.  Before I was never one to really edit my photos however now I have learned to bring all my photos up to the same level and sometimes that means I have to do minor things to them.  When you put them all together, you can get one great shot.

Also I sometime burn or dodge photos (brighten/lighten) if certain areas would do better being darker or lighter.  I rarely do this because it usually looks bad (or I am bad at it) but I usually just stick to the contrast to control that.

So this is not the be-all-end all with editing but it is a few minor things you can do to make your photos pop a little more.

Focus: Megapixels

Focus: Megapixels

I decided to write this from a question I got from my cousin.  He asked about upgrading cameras.  So I will go over one of the main selling points of a camera that a lot of people base choices on.  Common question is "how many megapixels does it have?"  First off, what is a megapixel? Lets start there.

A megapixel is one million pixels.  Mega is just a prefix for a number and a pixel is a really small square of light that makes up images on a sensor/screen.  So the more pixels you have effectively, the more detail and resolution you should have in your photos.  So if you have a lot of pixels you can have more detail and such.  However, how many is enough?  Using the new iPhone 4 as an example, they have more pixel detail in their screens than our eye can see.  So for example, the screen detail could get more pixels and better resolution but we wouldn't be able to tell.  So there is a limit for our eyes.

So what is a good number of Megapixels (MP)?  I would say between 10-12 MP will be just fine for your average shooter.  However with that said you can get great photos with less than 10 MP.  And if you are lucky enough to be shooting with lets say a D3X with 24.5 MP then I am sure you can get good photos too.  So next I should answer what do these MP's do for you?

Well they let you do two main things from my experience other than make for more or less resolution in your photos.  First, the more resolution you have, the more you can blow up your prints to larger sizes.  Second, the more resolution the photo, the more you can crop it and still have it be a good resolution.  With my D90 at 12.3 MP I believe, I can print out a 2'x3' print of a photo I took with my kit lens(18-105mm).  So I have this photo that is two by three feet framed above my bed:

Haida Gwaii Beach - 18-105mm

It wasn't that large of a file, between 2-3 mb.  So not a lot of detail but the print looks amazing.  So why are there cameras with more than 12 MP?  Well for two reasons I know of.  One, is you can print out even larger photos without even thinking about it looking bad from lack of resolution.  That is why the D3X has 24.5 MP.  You can print off a billboard and not break a sweat with that camera.  Do most people do this? No.  And the other reason is cropping.

Some people don't want to crop images because they think you should keep all your resolution you can.  And also it is usually a compositional issue if you are cropping.  Some believe that composing your image should be done at the time of the shot rather than after.  But if you start with a lot of detail then you will still have hopefully a lot of resolution left after you crop.  So having more MPs let you crop photos more.

So after a point, MP's don't matter a lot if you are not printing 8 foot prints or cropping your photos right down to nothing.  So if you are getting a new camera or upgrading, keep this in mind.  There are many other features to look for rather than megapixels.  

Hope this helps!

Focus: Filters

Focus: Filters

There are many kinds of filters you can use however the main point I want to make is about protecting your lens but first, what is a filter?

A filter for a lens is a piece of glass that is somehow attached to the front of the lens to stop certain light or all types of light from getting through.  Some filters are for Ultraviolet (UV) light which has a small effect on your photos.  I believe it effects the blues of your photos but I could be wrong there.  Another main type of filter is called a polarizer.  This behaves the same as polarized sunglasses which I will explain more later.  There are also filters that just darken your photos called neutral density filters, aka ND filters.  These are like putting sunglasses on your lens to block out a lot of light.  There are also graduated ND filters that have a gradient or a change in darkness from the top to the bottom.

So why have filters? Well it depends on what you want to get from them.  And here is my major point... UV filters are $20-60 (or so) pieces of glass you can screw onto the front of most lenses but secretly do more than block the UV light.  They protect the front element of your lens!  If you accidentally scratch the front of your lens, and you have a UV filter on it, then you just buy a new one for under $100.  However if you didn't have a filter on the lens and scratch the front of it against something... then you have to replace the front piece of glass in your lens or buy a new lens.  Both of which are costly.  However just as the price difference suggests between a filter and the front element on your lens, there is a quality difference as well.  So this is where some people disagree on UV filters for protecting your lens.

Yes, it is almost a no-brainer to want to protect the front of your lens from scratching and such.  Also it is easier to clean cause personally I am way more hesitant to try to clean the actual lens than a UV filter.  However because you are adding a lower quality piece of glass on the front of your lens, it could effect picture quality.  How?  Not sure.  I haven't done much testing with my UV filters on and off.  But I just know the filters are not the same quality of glass so it would effect your photos a little.  How much much?  Not sure but I am will to sacrifice some quality for safety since if I scratch my lens then my image quality I know for sure will go down.  So would my bank account.

So now that my main advice point is made I will go into some detail on the other filters.  UV filters are usually the more inexpensive so they are often what is recommend to just always stay on your lens to protect it.  Now I will move onto the polarizers.

Polarizers can be normal (linear?) or circular.  But first I will explain what it does.  So first some physics.  Light travels as a straight line and when it reflects on uneven surfaces the light starts traveling in all sorts of directions.  So when light hits water, it reflects and sparkles but that light is now not all traveling in the same uniform direction.  So what a polarizer does, is it filters out the stray scattered light so that you only get light that is traveling in the same plane or direction.  So what this does is it lets your colours in your photos be more vibrant because there is less scattered and excess light to kinda "bleach" out your photo.  So the greens are brighter and more strong because there isn't extra light just increasing the lightness of the photo.  These filters allow you also to take pictures of objects that usually reflect a lot of light as well.  So like the surface of water, or a freshly washed car.  The polarizer will cut down on the scattered reflected light.  Polarizers can be non-circular or circular and that I believe just tells you how the glass is designed to filter out the light.  But all you need to know is the circular ones are more expensive because they filter out the light is a better way.  So if you do a lot of landscape photography this may be for you.  However, if you have a ultra wide angle lens, they are pretty much useless because the view is so large the polarizer wont be uniform for the whole photo since the view of the lens is so large.  However on my 18-105mm lens it was great.  Another disclaimer is that these filters let less light in which means you need sunnier days or a tripod to take landscape photos because it is like wearing sunglasses as I said.  So everything will be darker and your camera will want to compensate for that decrease in light.  Smaller aperture values (larger diameter) or slower shutter speeds or last case, higher ISO.

ND filters are filters that are not polarized however are used to just darken the photo.  So if you wanted to do a photo of the slower shutter speed on water like this one:

Lavender Falls - 17-55mm - Tripod

But it was a bright sunny day and you had to use to fast of a shutter speed to get the correct exposure, then you would wish you had just normal sunglasses to just block out some of the light.  That is what a neutral density filter does.  As the name implies, the density of the filter is neutral and is just a solid darkness.  The other type of filter in the category is a graduated filter.  These are like some female sunglasses where the top is darker than the bottom.  So if you nod your head up and down (I don't advise you do this in public) you will see that there is a difference is how much light gets through between the top of the lens and the bottom.  The filters (or some female sunglasses) are designed this way because usually the sky is darker than the ground so if you can darken just the sky or the top half of the landscape then you can bring the exposure difference of the sky and ground closer together.  In some sunsets for instance, the sky is very bright and colourful and the ground is dark so your camera cannot expose properly for both the very dark and very bright.  So these filters help darken the sky closer to the ground so you have a better looking photo.  Personally I have not used either of these filters (unless you count the nodding in female glasses) so I cannot give any tips on their use other than they are very useful.  But you have to know what you are doing to use them since they are definitely not a beginners tool.  Also if you have a lens that extends as you zoom, you will want to be careful because you can zoom your lens into the filter because these ones do not usually screw into the front of your lens.  They are plates of glass that you attach to a holder that fits onto your lens.  

Personally I don't want to be carrying around extra plates of glass however if you want some of your landscapes to be kicked up a notch, filters can do it.  But if you are just looking for a cheap (compared to replacing or fixing a lens) protection for your lens, UV filters are a good thing to have.  Someday maybe I will get some ND filters but I want to master what I have first.

Also just recently I bought a microfibre cloth.  This is because I usually use my merino wool shirts to clean off my filters if dust or water gets on them which isn't a bright idea.  So I was cleaning my filters off yesterday actually and three of them felt a little wobbly.  Not a great feeling.  After closer inspection I did see that the adhesive or whatever is holding the glass to the metal is going.  The three filters that are lose are made by Kenko.  One is on my macro, my 50mm and the other is a 77mm filter on my 17-55mm.  The Kenko filter on my 35mm is fine but I don't use that one that much compared to the others.  However on my Tokina 11-16mm, it has a 77mm UV Hoya filter which was fine.  So Kenko isn't that top quality I guess so I will slowly start replacing my filters now.  It is a bit of a pain since a new UV filter for a 77mm diameter lens is $100.  But again, still cheaper than a new lens.  So go with top quality companies for filters like Hoya, B+W or Tiffen.  So since I have a Hoya already and I trust it I will probably upgrade all to Hoya.  It will be expensive but worth it in the long run.  

Well I hope that helps!

Focus: Which Lenses To Start With?

Focus: Which Lens To Start With?

Well to start off on a wrong foot, I actually can't tell you the perfect lens for you.  But I can tell you what good lenses are and why and go from there.

So I will discuss this post as if you are starting with your DSLR and you're looking for another lens to go with your kit lens.  And since I use Nikon, this will be Nikon oriented since that is what I know.  So most start with a 18-55mm or 18-105mm.  These are decent lenses however are limited in quality of glass and maximum aperture size.  So usually this is noticeable in dark settings with the limited aperture ability of the kit lens.

So, what could you get next?  Well that mostly depends on what you want to shoot so I can't help you there but I can help with some good ideas that are lenses you wont want to sell later.  The two lenses I would recommend is a 50mm or 35mm.  Both these lenses are lenses I know people don't replace unless it is for a f/1.4 version.  Also these lenses can be cheap, and they are small.  They are prime lenses so they do not zoom, so that means you have to walk around a little more to compose.  This trains you a little more with composition which isn't terrible since that helps you especially at this stage.

So the 50mm's.  There is the 50mm f/1.8 D, and the 50mm f/1.8 G.  I used the 50mm f/1.8 D and it was great.  It is an amazing lens and it is cheap.  Less than $200, and for the quality of the lens that is quite the bargain especially when you are starting out.  So the 50mm is a great portrait lens so if you take photos of people a lot this is a great lens.  Since it is a prime lens they are very sharp and have very wide apertures.  The 50mm f/1.8 G I am sure is also a good lens.  I have never used it but the 50mm is classic, Nikon wouldn't mess that one up.

Now if you want to capture a little more in your photos the 35mm is less zoomed in.  It would capture a person and their environment better, or a small group of people.  Now of course you can walk closer or further away with either the 35mm or 50mm but with the 50mm I found myself backing up into walls and tables to get more than one person in the photo.  So the 35mm is a good "do it all" type lens because it is wide but not too wide to take portraits still.  The 35mm f/1.8 G is a good lens and very sharp.  My full review of the lens you can find here.  It isn't a very expensive lens but it is more than the 50mm f/1.8 D. 

So if you are not interested in a prime, well that's too bad but there are other lenses.  An 18-200mm is a good lens as a kit lens as well but that is a lens that you usually do not keep.  It again is a variable aperture zoom which doesn't fix the aperture constrictions you have with your last kit lens.  I have a friend who is a photographer and they bought a 18-200mm as a kit lens and now wants a new lens.  It is a good lens but is a "jack of all trades but a master at none."  So usually you replace it with other lenses that are masters.

Another option now for DX or cropped sensor cameras is the 40mm Micro (macro) lens.  It would be like the 35mm but you could experiment with macro photography as well.  This lets you take photos of flowers and bugs etc.  I have never used it and it is relatively new but it is a lens to think about for sure.  I love macro myself so I got the 105mm VR Macro but that is a fairly pricey lens.  Or was when I bought it.

There are some lenses a lot of people are tempted to get for a second lens like the 55-200mm.  Again, it is a beginner lens which works I am sure but you will want to sell it in a year so you may just want to save your money and get a better lens now.  The advice that is always tossed around is to invest in glass (lenses) instead of cameras.  Lenses usually hold their value more and are replaced less often.  So don't be afraid to invest in lenses.  It is usually worth it.  The lenses that do decrease in value are the starting kit lenses because people usually buy them and then try to sell them within the year so there are a lot of them floating around.

So usually try to get a fixed aperture lens.  They help you with low light and they usually are better than a variable aperture lens.  The less expensive ones are usually primes like the 35mm f/1.8 G and 50mm f/1.8 D or G.  I hope that helps.  I just wanted to get some of that information out there to help photographers starting out and trying to get a second lens.

Focus: Depth of Field

Focus: Depth of Field


So I mentioned Depth of Field (DoF) earlier in Part I, on exposure using aperture.  Changing your aperture settings of your lens changes the depth of field in your photos.  Now, what is depth of field?  It is the width of area in your photo that is in focus.  The larger your aperture (or smaller the aperture number) the smaller DoF you have.  So I demonstrated this using my portrait shot of my friend at f/1.4 (wide open/large aperture) with my 50mm f/1.4:

Portrait - 50mm f/1.4 D

So, I mentioned that the area of focus is just on her eye that is closest to the camera.  That is a very small or "shallow" DoF.  Another example of this would be some of my hand held macro work.  I need to use a wide open aperture to allow the most amount of light in to allow myself to have a fast enough shutter speed to not have any blur.  Some of my macro photos demonstrate a very small DoF which happens when you shoot macro photos with a wide open aperture.  This example of the dragonfly demonstrates just how small of a DoF we are talking:

Dragonfly - 105mm Macro VR

The depth of field in this photo is roughly the width of this dragonfly's head.  And when you look into the background it is completely blurred out.  This blurred out background is call bokeh.  Bokeh is not so much a cool hip trait for dragonfly portraits but more so for people portraits.  The photo above has very nice creamy bokeh.  The bokeh or out of focus background allows portraits to pop out a little more.


In landscape photography, as I also mentioned in Part I, needs a small aperture (or large aperture value) to create a large DoF so everything in the landscape is in focus.  Here is an example:

Boardwalk - 17-55mm

This photo just demonstrates that the depth of field is good because you can still make out the grass in the background and the boards going off into the distance.  In landscape photos you want the most detail you can get usually.  However in this photo the background isn't completely sharp because I focused more on the foreground because I wanted that area of the photo to be sharpest.  This was so that you looked at the bottom of the boardwalk first because it was sharpest, and then were led to the top of the photo.  The boardwalk gave your eyes a path, literally through the photo.  So you don't always have to follow photography rules especially if you have a game plan with what you are doing.

Depth of Field can be changed by Tilt-Shift lenses.  These flatten the DoF a little so that the DoF is more horizontal than just vertical.  This allows landscapes to have more detail because the DoF is flatter to the horizontal axis.  I personally have not used a TS lens so I have no examples and the photos would just look like a very sharp landscape photos from the foreground to background.  

Other manipulation of optics or in post-processing can blur the photo more to make the aperture effect on the DoF different.  Lensbaby lenses alter the effects of the DoF to blur areas of the photo while keeping certain areas of the photo in focus.  Again I have not tried one of these lenses so I am not an expert witness but that is the gist I have gotten from seeing the photos from those lenses.

So DoF can be a factor that makes or breaks a photo.  But just like most rules in photography, they can get tossed out the window from time to time.  It's art, who cares.  I am sure you can find an audience to like your photos even if you don't do the normal things with DoF.  But more often than not, DoF is a good thing to pay attention to since it is a large-ish part of photos.  

And with that I will wrap up my focus on DoF, I hope that helps and again if you have any questions or things you would want me to cover on my blog, do not be afraid to send me off a e-mail @ tomhouston7@gmail.com.

Focus: ISO. My Take On The "Exposure Triangle" Part III

Focus: ISO.  My Take On The "Exposure Triangle" Part III


So, first I will recap.  Part I covered aperture and how it effects exposure as well as shutter speed in part II. Now in Part III I will cover the third and final part of the triangle, ISO.  Once I am done with ISO, I will put them all together.


Now last but not least, ISO.  To be honest I have no idea what ISO stands for but do not fear, I know what it does.  So ISO is from the film days (not that they are gone but..) where ISO was the sensitivity or "speed" of the film.  So different film had different sensitivity to light which means different film would be better for different lighting situations.  ISO numbers that are low (100, 200) are not very sensitive to light so they would be used for a bright sunny day because it would take a lot of light to effect the film.  ISO speeds of 1600 and around there are very sensitive to light, so they would be good for dark situations because it does not take a lot of light to effect the film.


Now I am guessing for most of you reading this post are probably using a digital camera, so how does this effect you?  Well it is the same thing but a little more artificial since digital cameras have a sensor, not film. So ISO for the digital age is the same but you don't need to buy different film for different light now.  You can just go into your settings and turn up or down your ISO which increases and decreases the sensitivity to light.


So if you have your camera's ISO on 200, it will allow you to take well exposed photos during bright sunny days.  If you use ISO that is high like 1000-1600, you will have a very sensitive camera sensor that will be good for very dark situations.


Now before I put these all together... how does ISO effect you photos?  Just like aperture and shutter speed, ISO also has an effect on your photos.  Depending on your camera/film, the higher you crank your ISO, the more grain there is into your photos.  This grain is called "noise" because you can see all the pixels and it usually makes your photos not turn out so well.  To demonstrate noise I will bust out a old photo from a Weatherthans (Amazing band by the way) concert I was at when I had my old Point and Shoot camera:

The Weakerthans - Noisy Image Exmaple - P&S

So yes, that is a bad photo.  But I am posting it to demonstrate grain.  You can see all the pixels and it just isn't a great photo because of it.  This is what happens when there is not enough light so what my camera did was it automatically cranked up the ISO.  It was high enough that the photo had a lot of noise.  But it was a good concert!

Digital cameras these days are getting better and better at having minimal noise at higher ISO's.  My Nikon D90 is decent, but the D700 is known very well to be one of the best cameras in low light.  The new D3s can "shoot in the dark" or whatever the slogan was.  But they can, they can pick up light without noise from the environment that your naked eye would be hard pressed to see.  So depending on how current your camera's sensor is and the quality of it, you can have noise in your photos near ISO 1000 to 6400 haha, or never if you have a D3s.  But I am guessing if you have a D3s, you may not need to take advice from myself but if you are, I am honoured. 

So with ISO and noise, you just have to take photos at different ISO's and figure out what ISO your camera starts getting grainy.  I will quickly go over how it can be used.  So you increase your ISO if you need to keep your shutter speed and aperture fixed (or is you are already as wide as your lens can get).  So if it is dark and you need a fast shutter speed to capture action but also need a large DoF with a small aperture, then you are left with ISO to change to get a well exposed photo.  If you use a fast shutter speed and need a large DoF in a dark situation, you need to have a higher ISO to have a properly exposed photo usually.

So if you are doing star trails, or long exposure photography, having a low ISO is what to do so that your sensor is not sensitive to light which allows you to have longer shutter speeds.  If your shutter needs to be open to for a long time, you do not want your sensor to be sensitive to light or else it will look like you are being summoned to heaven again.  Also having some grain in your photos and some good post-processing (editing after) you can get a photo that looks like it was film.  This can be a desired look for some.  

Now to put it all together.  As I covered with the concert example, ISO can be used to brighten or darken a photo if you cannot use aperture of shutter speed.  So these three things are used to get the proper exposure of a photo.  So if your photos are too bright or too dark, these three things can help you depending on how you want your photo to look.  Personally I always leave my ISO at 200.  That is the lowest ISO my camera can do.  This allows me to not have any noise in any of my photos.  I rarely up my ISO because I do not want to risk noise in my photos.  But as I mentioned, if I cannot change my aperture or shutter speed more to get the right exposure, I will play with my ISO.

So depending on what you want to control in your photo, you use ISO, aperture or shutter speed to compensate for proper exposure to get the look you want in your photos.  I can't tell you how to have your camera settings for everything shot because each camera has different sensors and each lens has different apertures and every shot is different.  What I can tell you is to keep those three things in your head as you shoot.  If you are always practicing those things and actively thinking about how to control the light you will probably get better at taking photos.  

I hope my take on the exposure triangle helped in some way.  Sure you can read all of the basic foundation information for photography but you can't stop there.  You have to go out and practice.  Sometimes you only have a small amount of time to capture a great shot and you have to know your stuff to get the photo.  Sure sometimes you can take a couple of test shots before you get the one you are looking for but usually life goes easier if you can get it right the first or second time.  Saves you from taking a bunch of photos you know you are going to have to delete later.  Anywho, practice, practice and practice is what I am trying to say.

Hope that helps!  I will keep thinking up more helpful things to blog about.  I decided for me to help you better I will open up my e-mail for questions and ideas.  So you can e-mail me at tomhouston7@gmail.com if you have any questions for me on photography or an idea you want me to write a post about.  I will start checking that e-mail now to see if anyone has any questions or ideas they want me to cover.  Please don't hesitate to ask questions.  I was always asking questions on gear and photography knowledge and I still am to this day asking other photographers questions.  So thank you again for reading and I hope to hear from people now with photography questions, I hope I can help!

Thanks again,

Tom

P.S. Just made videos for understanding the exposure triangle and here is the one on ISO: http://youtu.be/h0V4SqBi6HU

Focus: Shutter Speed. My Take On The "Exposure Triangle" Part II

Focus: Shutter Speed. My Take On The "Exposure Triangle" Part II


Part I covered aperture which I decided to cover first.  If you did not read it, you can click here to read the post.  I would recommend covering aperture first since this post will build on that knowledge a little.


Shutter speed is the duration it takes to open and close the mechanism that allows the light to hit the film or sensor of the camera.  It is the click as you take your photo.  Shutter speed allows you to control again how much light you can let it just like aperture does just in a different way.  


Slow shutter speeds keep the shutter open a longer amount of time which allows more light to pass through to the sensor/film to create a brighter image.  Having a fast shutter speed opens and closes the shutter quickly creating less time for the light to come through the lens to hit the sensor/film.  So both aperture and shutter speed control how much light hits the sensor however they both do this in different ways.  Just like aperture, shutter speed has other effects on your photos than just controlling the amount of light that is let in.  Aperture had an effect on the out of focus areas of the photo or bokeh as well as the Depth of Field (DoF) of the photo.  Shutter speed has it's own effects.  


However before I go into the effects of shutter speed I will discuss how it effects your photos if you are not using it for creativity purposes.  Shutter speed is something that can negatively effect your photos beyond having them too bright or too dark.  Using a slow shutter speed allows the camera to capture the movement of the camera which in most cases is from your hands shaking a little.  This results in blurry photos and lights streaking around in the photo.  Using a fast shutter speed ensures that the photo is captured quick enough that there isn't enough time to have any camera shake effect the photo.  Usually in most cases between opening up your aperture and slowing your shutter speed you can get decent photos if you do not have a lot of light.  There can be a couple of reasons you need to have a slow shutter speed.  If you cannot open your aperture wider due to the lens or you want a certain aperture for a desired DoF then you have to play with the shutter speed to get the right exposure. If your aperture limitations cause your shutter speed to be too slow for a hand held shot then you will get blurred photos.  This can sometimes be fixed with a tripod if the subject of the photo is stationary, or now with some newer lenses there is the ability to decrease the effect of camera shake.  


Using a tripod as a fix for slower shutter speeds is helpful if you are doing landscapes since usually there is not a lot of movement and therefore having a 2 second shutter speed wont result in a photo that looks like abstract art.  You are in a tough spot if you need to have a slower shutter speed and have your subject moving around.  For me this is what I run into at concerts.  Lighting is terrible and the singers are moving around.  Here is where it is very useful to have a large aperture on your lens.  


From the example from the concert, you may have noticed that a faster shutter speed "freezes" movement in a photo better than a slower one.  So with a fast shutter speed, you can capture something moving in a still photo and not have it blurry.  However if you are photographing something moving with a slow shutter speed you get motion blur.  The problem here is that sometimes you want motion blur and sometimes you don't.  Having your camera setup on a tripod you can get motion blur of cool things like stars or water which both can have very cool effects.  However if you are again taking photos of a concert and use a slow shutter speed as someone is strumming a guitar, you just get a semi sharp portrait with a very blurry hand/arm which looks kinda weird most of the time.  


Before I go into the cool effects that shutter speed can have I am going to lastly go over how your lens can help.  So we went over aperture already, but some newer lenses have the ability to shake opposite to your hand to allow for slower shutter speeds without camera shake effecting the photo.  Different camera/lens companies call this technology different things.  Nikon calls it VR for Vibration Reduction, Canon calls it IS for Image Stabilization and Sigma calls it OS for Optical Stabilization.  Personally I am a Nikon user so I only know how well Nikon's VR works but I am sure they all are basically the same.


VR is very useful and I only have it in one of my lenses.  I have it in my 105mm Macro lens.  Most people think that it shouldn't be in a macro lens but it is outrageously useful.  I rarely use it with a tripod as I should for marco work.  However I have managed to capture some very good marco photos (I think but you can make that call so I tossed one of my hand held macros at the end of the post) without a tripod and just taking photos hand held.  Shutter speed along with VR help do this as well as sunny days and steady hands.  I have heard photographers speak and write about the new 70-200mm VR II Nikkor lens and it's amazing ability to get shots with slow shutter speeds.  It is a useful technology that definitely helps photographers get tougher shots in low light that were almost impossible before.  


Now for how you can use shutter speed to help you.  You can use a fast shutter speed to capture actions or movement.  I think my best example of this would be in this photograph:

Humming Bird - BC - 18-105mm VR

So with a fast shutter speed I was able to capture a photo of a hummingbird with it's wings not blurry.  That is impressive since their wings beat at 60-90 beats per second or so.  Slow shutter speeds can get nice night shots with stars as well as motion blur like this photo:

Queen Charlotte Islands - 18-105mm VR

I took this photo with a semi-slow shutter speed in a car while it was moving.  This slow shutter speed allowed me to capture the movement of the car.  To be honest I accidentally took this photo, but I liked it a lot so I kept it.  


To sum this up, shutter speed is the duration of time that the shutter allows light to pass through to the sensor/film which dictates the amount of light that is let in for the photo.  So now aperture along with shutter speed control the amount of light that is let to the sensor/film.  Together they can be used in combination to allow you to get the look you want in you photo be it a large or small DoF to motion blur or freezing action.  


Next I will go over the last thing responsible for the brightness or darkness (exposure) of your photos, ISO.  So that will be Part III.  Since ISO won't take as long as shutter speed and aperture, I will tie them all together in Part III.  


Again, if you have any questions to make anything clearer please do not hesitate.  Hope this helps.  And always remember to practice!


As I said with the macro shots and the aid of VR, here is a hand held macro shot:

Frog - 105mm Macro VR

P.S. I've now made videos on my youtube channel about the exposure triangle so here is the one on shutter speed:  http://youtu.be/z1VNrU6PofI

Focus: Aperture. My Take On The "Exposure Triangle" Part I

Focus: My Take On The "Exposure Triangle" Part I


I cracked and decided to write posts on aperture, shutter speed and ISO.  I finished the reviews of my gear so I decided to move on and try to pass on more knowledge.  I am not an expert on exposure but I will share what I know.


First I will start with aperture however it is hard for me to explain these components separately since sometimes they are link together at times.  So aperture is the diameter of the lens diaphragm that is responsible for controlling how much enters to the film/sensor.  My best way to explain it is, the aperture of the lens is like the pupil of an eye.  So in low light or dark situations, the aperture can to be opened up to allow more light to enter just like a pupil dilates to allow more light to enter the eye.  And vice versa, in bright situations, the aperture closes to decrease the amount of light so the photo is not blown out.  The pupil also constricts in bright situations so you don't burn your eyes.  Aperture allows the photographer to control how much light the lens lets in which can brighten or darken the whole photo.


So now it gets a tad bit confusing.  Sorry, there is no way around it.  The lens, not the camera, is responsible for the aperture.  The camera can control the aperture of the lens but it is the lens that dictates the range of apertures available to you.  So on a lens, the aperture value is denoted by the f-value.  So the value is written as "f/__."  So for example, my 50mm has an aperture value of f/1.4.  So now the confusing part.  The smaller the f-value number, the larger the diameter of the diaphragm.  So f/1.4 can open up larger than a f/2.8, and an aperture of f/2.8 can open up wider than a f/4 etc.  I will go into aperture values and what is good at the end but first I will cover what these numbers are used for and how aperture affects photos.


The f-stops are in numerical values so that you can determine how much you are increasing or decreasing the light by.  So one stop of light difference, is if you go from f/2.8 to f/4.  So what that means is if I change my aperture from f/4 to f/2.8, I am letting in twice as much light through my lens.  It is just math and calculations on figuring out the numbers and how many whole/half/third of a stop difference there is between values.  I wont go into the math of it cause I find it boring and I never think of that in my head ever while I am taking photos.  To get by and use your aperture of your lens(es) well, you just need to understand how it works and the smaller the number, the large the diameter and vice versa.  It is go to know the approximate differences of the apertures so you roughly know how much more light you are letting in or keeping out.  However I have never taken a photo and said "man, I need to triple the amount of light being let in.  I need to change my aperture from f/2.8 to f/8."  I just know "okay, my photo is dark (or underexposed) so I need to let in more light so that means I have to increase the diameter of my lens," and therefore go to a lower f-value to achieve that.  And the opposite to a photo that is too bright where I have parts of the photo blown out or over exposed.


Now, I think it is important to briefly go over what other effects aperture has on photos other than just increasing and decreasing light.  The aperture selected also dictates the amount of area in the photo that is in focus which is called Depth of Field (DoF).  So, what on Earth does that mean?  Good question.  The Depth of Field or DoF is the width of the area of focus in the photo.  So I will use my photos to explain.  A small DoF would have a very little amount of the photo in focus.  Here is a portrait I took that has a very small or shallow DoF:

Portrait - 50mm f/1.4 D

So as you can see, the background is out of focus, her shoulder is not really in focus but just a thin sliver of the photo is sharp/in focus, which is in the same plane as the eye closest to the camera.  You can also tell this by looking at the hair laying on the front side of her shoulder.  If you look carefully, the hair goes from in focus to out of focus very quickly because the DoF, or the width of the area in focus is very small.  This time, the numbers line up... the smaller the aperture, the smaller the DoF.  So that shot above was shot at f/1.4, so the DoF was extremely small.  This is good for portraits for multiple reasons but one of them being is that you are focusing on the model and not any of the trees or the road in the background.  Also most of the face is out of focus which makes the skin look nicer and just makes portraits overall more flattering. 

While a small aperture value has a small DoF, a large aperture has a large DoF.  Example:

Cape Forchu, NS - 17-55mm

This photo was shot at f/11 which has a large DoF which is more suited for landscape photography because you want to have everything you can in the photo in focus.  The photo has the foreground of rocks that are in focus, to the lighthouse in the background.  If this was shot at f/2.8 which is the largest diameter the 17-55mm can go to, the foreground would be fuzzy if I focused on the lighthouse.  That isn't really wanted for landscape photography.  Well, I sure didn't desire it in this photo.  For myself personally I try to have my landscapes all in focus because I want my landscapes to look exactly like it was when I saw them.

Different aperture values have different uses.  Sometimes you have to use a wide open aperture (the smallest number your lens can do) to let in the most light if it is in a dark room for instance.  Sometimes on a bright sunny day you have to close your diaphragm right down so your photo doesn't look like you are being summoned to heaven (completely white everywhere or blown out).  The larger the minimum aperture, the more versatile the lens is because you have the option to gather a lot of light if you need to.  However which a larger diameter diaphragm, comes a larger diameter glass and larger pieces of glass makes a larger price tag.  

Lenses and apertures.  Kit lenses usually have a variable aperture.  This means the aperture has a range depending on the focal length of the lens.  My kit lens was the AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR.  Important part of the name for this post's purpose is 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6.  So at 18mm, so the widest angle of view, the lens could have an aperture of f/3.5 and up.  At 105mm, the lens could have an aperture of f/5.6 and up.  This means, as you zoom out from 18mm to 105mm, the lens needs to have a smaller diaphragm to make the optics work.  So as you zoom out, you lose some ability to let in as much light.  This for a lot of normal scenarios is manageable, however there are some cases where you do not want your aperture to change on you if you zoom.  So fixed aperture lenses are in my opinion and I believe almost everyone else's, are best.  Currently I have all fixed aperture lenses which means I can keep my lens at whatever aperture I want and zoom in or out and have it stay at the value I picked.  For an example I will use my example from the portrait above to help pull some of this together hopefully.  I wanted a shallow DoF in that portrait, so I set my lens to f/1.4, the widest the diaphragm in that lens can go.  If it was a zoom lens, and I decided to zoom in, and the aperture would changed then I would have a completely different look than the one I wanted.  More of the photo would be in focus which may not be flattering, and more of the background would be in focus which would make it more distracting.  Another example would be in a dark room which was actually the reason I bought a 50mm f/1.8 D.  I was at a dinner and didn't want to use a flash because it is a little obnoxious to do in a restaurant.  My kit lens couldn't let in enough light so all my photos were blurry and the colours were off because the shutter was open too long.  So that is another occasion to "need" a larger aperture or fixed aperture.  

Smaller apertures allow for the backgrounds of photos to be more out of focus which makes them less distracting and allows for some photos to just look better.  This is called "bokeh" which people pronounce as "bo-kay" or "bo-kah."  I don't know what is the right way to say since people say it differently.  I will cover that in another post since this one is already long enough.  So stay posted for my take on bokeh later.

So to sum up a little:

Aperture is the size of the diaphragm of the lens which dictates the amount of light that is let in as well as the DoF.  Which is like the pupil of an eye dilating and constricting depending on the light conditions.  And the Dof (Depth of Field) is the amount of area of the photo that is in focus which is controlled by the aperture.  The aperture is donated as f-values like f/2.8 which is fairly large diameter to f/16 or f/22 which is a very small hole.  So the smaller the number, the larger the diameter and vice versa.  Then for DoF, it is the smaller the f-value, the smaller the DoF and vice versa.  Fixed apertures that are small numbers usually are best because they can allow you to let a lot of light in compared to larger apertures.  Variable aperture lenses that have a variable range depending on the focal length of the zoom range make it more difficult to harness the light needed for photos sometimes especially indoors.  

The larger the aperture, the more light that you have access to which allows you to have a faster shutter speed.  I managed to keep shutter speed mostly separate from aperture which is nice because it makes it simpler that way but shutter speed will be the topic of Part II.

I hope that is simple and easy to understand.  Personally when I was getting a handle on all of these things I read multiple articles on the same topic so that I could build a strong understanding of it.  Also I went out and practiced shooting a lot which helps to have the "hands on" part of learning as well.  So if some of this is confusing or written poorly I am sorry but ask any of your questions in the comment section or read other sites on aperture and things will hopefully become clearer.  And don't forget to try it for yourself!

Here is a link to a video I made for my Youtube Channel on this topic.