Panning

I've tried panning in downtown San Francisco, but none of the attempts have been too successful. This is mainly because the police seem to give me the evil eye whenever I take shots of traffic, so I get nervous. I shot this SUV from the Rockridge BART station in Oakland. It's better than my SF shots, but I still have lots of room for improvement. For a good description of panning, go here. This is fun stuff. I'm going to brave the SFPD and try panning again in the City!

Ghostbusting

I have lots of problems with ghost images appearing in my photos whenever there's a strong source of light in the frame. I use the Nikkor 35mm f/2D lens and from all the reports I've read, lens flare and ghost images are not an issue. I couldn't understand why I had this problem. Then I realized that maybe it's the Tiffen 52mm UV protection filter in front of my lens, so I conducted a little test from my couch. With filter: Without filter: The results are conclusive: the filter is the culprit. It's coming off. It's a bummer because I don't like the idea of dust and grime fouling the lens directly. I'll also miss the added protection from jostling and bumping that the filter offers. But until I find a better filter, I'll have to avoid using it, unless I'm shooting in a rough and tumble situation, or outdoors in inclement weather AND I don't plan on shooting into direct light sources. You can also see this problem in these past posts: Sunset at the Emeryville Marina Lesson Learned: Avoid Guessing (check out the ghost lightsaber!)

RAW vs. JPG: Recovering From Extreme Underexposure

RAW vs. JPG is the biggest debate in the world of digital photography. The anti-RAW tenet can be distilled down to this quote from Ken Rockwell: "Raw is a waste of time and space". The pro-RAW side claims that RAW offers more flexibility and a better chance at recovering ruined shots in post-processing. They therefore say that RAW is worth the extra time and space. Furthermore, they state that when done intelligently there is very little extra time required, and as for the space issue, price per megabyte continues to plunge, while capacity grows exponentially. I'm not going to say which format YOU should shoot with. But for me, RAW is the only way to go. Mr. Rockwell says that a good photographer will "get it right the first time". Amen to that. But I'm not a good photographer. I'm getting better and would like to someday take perfect shots that don't require post-processing. That would definitely make my wrist happy! But that day has not yet arrived. I often under/overexpose my shots by much more than 1/2 a stop. RAW allows me to save what would otherwise be a ruined photograph. I'd like to point out that I don't take photos thinking, "I don't care about my exposure settings, I'll let RAW+Lightroom take care of it". I genuinely want to create a great shot "in the camera", but that's not always possible. Sometimes I shoot in very low light situations and do not want to use flash, because it will disturb the people around me. I watched The Muppet Movie at Dolores Park in San Francisco a few evenings ago. I popped off this deliberately underexposed shot so that I could compare how much of the scene could be recovered from the RAW and JPG files. I shot it in RAW+JPG mode. I post-processed the first four photos in Lightroom: +4 stops of exposure (max allowed), +30% fill light, +100% highlight recovery (max allowed). I also increased the brightness of the fourth photo by 150% in a last ditch effort to recover the JPG. They are displayed in descending order of preference (the first photo is my favorite). The final two are the original photos. RAW: JPG created in Lightroom from RAW: JPG created in camera: JPG created in camera: Original RAW: Original JPG created in camera: It's jaw dropping how much more detail is recovered from the first RAW photo. The colors and highlights look a lot better. Sure, it's grainy, but I underexposed the scene by at least two full stops, so that is expected. In conclusion, this little test is enough to convince me to always shoot in RAW. The upside far outweighs the downside for me. I don't shoot thousands of photos at a time, so including the extra step of processing the RAW files in Lightroom adds very little time to my workflow. Second, memory is cheap and plentiful. Look for rebates and sales. But wait! There's more. Proponents of RAW claim that RAW files allow for more accurate adjustment of white balance. I will be testing this claim soon. You can also see the photos on flickr.

Struggling With Indoor Flash-Lit Photography

I dread pulling out the flash when I'm indoors. Even when I bounce the flash off the ceiling, the resulting photos look artificial and for lack of a better word, weird. But often there's no practical alternative. I just have to keep practicing. During post-processing, I'm not sure how much I should brighten the photos. This is compounded by the fact that my photos don't look consistent across my home and work computers. Original: +1 stops of exposure in Lightroom: +2 stops of exposure in Lightroom: Which looks the best? If forced to, I'd choose the bottom one. Their faces are well-lit, but unfortunately the background is too bright. This can be mitigated by adjusting the fill light setting in Lightroom. But when I mix and match exposure and fill light settings in Lightroom, it gets even more confusing.

A Brief Digression

Friday night. Four hours, three beers, two gin & tonics, and a shot of Ketel One later, I stumble into the BART station. Lo and behold at the gate I see a camera mounted on a tripod. Alcohol haze clears immediately. The girl behind the camera politely stops what she's doing and allows me to pass. I say something like, "I love photography, I'm very interested to see what you're doing, please don't mind me." Exposure info: 52.5mm focal length, 2 sec, f/16, ISO 400, 9:58 pm. I learn that she and her subject are students at the Art Institute of San Francisco. This is her second time trying to capture him crossing the gate. Her first attempt didn't work out because he was severely underexposed. She's using a Nikon FM2 35mm SLR. I tell her how cool her camera is. I tell her that I have a DSLR with me and I can help her out by mimicking her settings which will give her a rough idea of what her image will look like on film. I actually don't have any idea if there's a direct correlation between what a DSLR captures vs. what 35mm film captures, but what the heck, it's worth a try. I take a few shots and show her the image on the LCD and she seems happy with the exposure. Nevermind the blurriness, I shot it inebriated and without a tripod! Looking at the histogram, she's spot on. Most impressive. What's my point? I don't know if I have one. But two things from this encounter stand out. 1. I have the utmost admiration for film shooters. It takes a lot of hard work, dedication, and skill to capture something without being able to check an LCD. I remember my Ricoh KR-5 days and there's something magical about eagerly awaiting for my prints to see what I've captured. Shooting digitally has always seemed like cheating to me. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't trade my DSLR for a film camera. Still, it seems to me that a true photographer knows how to shoot film. 2. We photographers belong to a community. Let's help each other whenever possible. I love this art so much. Yes, I'm still buzzing.

Lesson Learned: Check Your Settings Before Shooting

I forgot to check my ISO setting before I took this photo of the mayor of San Francisco. The photo was shot at ISO 800 even though I was lighting him with a flash. The resulting shot looks decent, but if you zoom in, you can see a lot of graininess. In addition, my flash was set at -2 EV compensation (from my first club gig). This forced me to apply a bit more post-processing to bring out the mayor's face. Bottom line: Check all your settings before snapping off shots.

Lesson Learned: Take Two Shots When It Counts

If the moment is important, take two shots. Sometimes people blink and you don't notice it, until you're back at home. Technically in the above instance I didn't have to take two shots since she didn't blink in the first one. If she did, I would have been hosed, so I'm glad I snapped off two shots. Blinking is not the only thing that might ruin a photo. Your subject could be out of focus, the exposure could be way off, the composition might be questionable, or any of a million other problems. Don't trust the LCD. It's easy to miss important details even on a large 3" screen. So if the shot is important, take two (or more) shots just in case.