Rss Feed
Facebook button
Reddit button
Delicious button

Archive for the 'photography' Category

Page 2 of 4

Point and shoot badly

Luciano Supervieille I went to the concert of Bajofondo Tango Club in Brugge last Friday. Of course I took my Canon 350D along and shot a lot of pictures. I never use a flash for concert pictures, certainly not since I started using a 50mm f/1.8 and I can grab quite a lot of light with it. I usually use ‘Aperture priority’ mode (with aperture on 1.8, obviously) and use the automatic focus, because I’m not good enough at doing that manually. You sometimes have to wait for the right podium lights to go on, include some light spots in the frame so that your camera uses a shorter shutter but above all, you have to be lucky.

The pictures that came out rather well are in my Flickr Bajofondo Tango Club album.

I did have some fun with a guy in front of me with a ‘point-and-shoot’ camera, it might have been a Canon Ixus or something. He added a twist to the common ‘people-using-a-camera-flash-from-a-distance’ error. He would see a beautiful image in his viewer, push the button and a totally awful grayish picture would show up as a result. For his sake and that of other P&S’ers, here’s two rules for using it in a concert where you’re in the audience.

Rule #1: do not use your camera flash

You have a simple small flash in your camera that might reach as far as 5m maybe, but it is of no use for a podium 20m away. Your camera will think that the subject of your photo will receive a bunch of light from it and choose a faster shutter. The light of your flash will never reach those musicians, but chances are some will fall on members of the audience that are standing nearby, so the only thing that will light up is some bald heads, a fake blonde and a lot of dandruff.

Switch the flash to ‘off’ or use the ‘landscape’ setting! If your camera permits it, set the ISO-setting to as high as 800ISO (if you own a 1000€-plus camera, 1600ISO is safe too, but you shouldn’t be reading this then). This will make the image grainier, but will make the shutter time shorter. If the scene is still too dark and your camera uses shutter times of more than 1/20 sec, try to include more light in the composition. Don’t zoom in too much, it will only make things worse. You can always crop the picture when you’re home.

Remember: when you’re using a small flash at a concert, or even worse, a mobile phone with the built-in flash from 30m away, you look like an utter amateur.

Rule #2: do not hold your finger in front of the flash

This one cracked me up: the guy in front of me held his left index finger right in front of his flash. So most of his pictures were extremely dark, with the odd one that included a completely white fragment of his finger. The only times that this wasn’t the case, was when he took pictures in portrait, turning his camera 90 degrees to the left, which brought his flash even lower and added quite some very bright shoulders to the composition.

So, if your flash photos are way too dark, and your finger feels very warm whenever you take a picture, check where the flash sits on your compact camera and make sure you put no bodily parts in front of it.

Bajofondo Tango Club

“Living photographs” by Andrew Mole

I just discovered a really neat online publication: Cabinet Magazine. Here follows one of their articles, on Andrew Mole, a American photographer of the early 20th century. Kind of a Spencer Tunick, with a patriotic message and way more clothes (uniforms, actually).
Living Portrait of President Woodrow Wilson

Living Portrait of President Woodrow Wilson, for which 21,000 troops assembled at Camp Sherman in Chillicothe, Ohio, in 1918, is the best-known of Mole’s photographs. The image is characteristic of Mole’s work in that it wavers between the compositional effect of the whole (i.e. a portrait of Woodrow Wilson) and the desire to focus upon the obscured individuals who constitute the image, thereby undermining the optical illusion of the totality to a degree. To call this image a portrait would be misleading because the subject of the representation is not so much the countenance of Woodrow Wilson as what he represents and symbolizes.
via Cabinet Magazine

Package Delivery 2.0

Sexteto Veritango
I spent last weekend at the Brussels Tango Festival, mostly taking pictures of people dancing. Because of the lack of light that is typical for tango events, I had bought a Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens online one week before. First at Pixmania, but because they couldn’t deliver fast enough (product not in stock), I cancelled and ordered at Foto Konijnenberg. I expected the package to be delivered in a couple of days. When I didn’t see any sign of delivery and the track&trace URL didn’t work, I contacted Foto Konijnenberg (very friendly and correct customer support, by the way) to ask what was happening. Apparently the transport company had been at my door twice, did however not leave any message, took the package back and at that moment no one could tell me where the package was. We’re now 2 weeks after purchase and still at the same stage: my lens is somewhere in the purgatory between vendor and buyer but the transport company (TNT/DPD) has no clue where.

Apart from the fact that the transporter screwed up their tracking of the package, the whole process of showing up at closed doors and going back seems so inefficient. It’s like so much effort has been spent to smoothen out the process of purchasing online, but the physical delivery still works basically the same as twenty years ago, eventhough the drivers now have wireless devices and you have to sign on an electronic sensor.

Let’s describe how I would have preferred to have my goods delivered:

Package Delivery 2.0

Continue reading ‘Package Delivery 2.0′

100.000 Flickr views

100000 views
Yesterday I reached 100.000 views on my Flickr account. Using the numbers above, that translates in almost 32 views on average for each picture. But of course, my Flickr photo collection has power law (big head/long tail) distribution. Let’s dive into the head.

Most viewed pictures

The top five of my most viewed pictures are:

Average penis size
32450 views. I admit, this was total linkbait, used for Size doesn’t matter.
Richard, Katie and Holly
10557 views. A totally ugly tweaked picture about the threesome scam
Peter Forret Web 2.0 meme overview
5787 views and also a favourite of 29 people. My not-so-bad Web 2.0 overview from the early days of the meme (Sep 2005)
grace kelly
5482 views. I have no idea where those came from.
Germany Top Models: 50% anorexic
4196 views. A very unappealling Excel scatter plot about anorexia amongst models, used in The next German top model will be thin

Continue reading ‘100.000 Flickr views’

To upsize a picture, use the B-spline algorithm

If you take a low-res picture, and you want to blow it up to a higher size, there are different algorithms to do the calculation of all those new pixels. I talked about this earlier in “How to upsize an image“. I went a bit further now and took a 100×100 pixels detail of a Roos Van Acker picture by Filip Naudts and enlarged it five times: to 500×500. The tool I use, Irfanview, has 6 algorithms to do resize:
Upsize picture from 100x100 to 500x500

Contrary to what I expected, it was not the Lanczos filter (slowest and ‘best’) that gave the best results, but the B-spline algorithm that’s supposedly a bit worse. With Lanczos you get an rastering effect (check her hair), with B-spline it’s more even.
Continue reading ‘To upsize a picture, use the B-spline algorithm’

French hospitality

French hospitality #1
Logeren bij Belgen
I’ve just spent a great weekend with the family in France. A couple from Antwerp has restored a “gentilhommière” (small castle) in Le Thurel (Picardie) as a gite d’etappe and turned it into a pleasant bed-and-breakfast!
Bunker
Long walks on the beach, excellent food and abundance of wine. Splendid!
Continue reading ‘French hospitality’

Lots of New Year’s pictures

Lots of people have been taking pictures on New Year and this clearly shows in the stats of incoming pictures at two major photo hosting sites: Flickr and Smugmug.
Flickr reached a peak of nearly 100.000 pictures/hour (97.1 k#/h) and Smugmug a quarter of that (22.7 k#/h). That is 50% to 100% more than regular days.

Flickr

Flickr growth: photos/hour
(about 60 of those are mine)

Smugmug

Smugmug growth: photos/hour
(none of mine)

Megapixel myth nuances

What’s the value of more megapixels? Is 10 megapixels better than 5? Here are some articles stating the opposite:

On the show, we did a test. We blew up a photograph to 16 x 24 inches at a professional photo lab. One print had 13-megapixel resolution; one had 8; the third had 5. Same exact photo, down-rezzed twice, all three printed at the same poster size. I wanted to hang them all on a wall in Times Square and challenge passersby to see if they could tell the difference.
(…)
I’m telling you, there was NO DIFFERENCE.
The Truth About Digital Cameras (NYT)

Megapixel apples and oranges
A 5-megapixel image that was created by down-sampling a 13 megapixel original is not the same as a 5-megapixel original. Why?
Well, let’s take a look at how a digital camera CCD sensor works. Natively the sensor is color-agnostic: pixels only measure light, not color. So the chip can only do greyscale images. A smart guy from Eastman-Kodak, Dr. Bryce E. Bayer, has however found a way to add color-sensitivity, by adding an RGB color filter array (the Bayer filter). Each pixel has a filter in front of it that lets through either the Red, Green of Blue light. Since the human eye is most sensitive to green, 50% of all pixels measure green, 25% do red and another 25% blue. A 5-megapixel image from the sensor is really a 2.5 MP green image, a 1.25 MP red and a 1.25 MP blue image, the three of them almost overlapping (1 pixel off). This is how the image is stored in RAW format. Each such pixel has a value between 0 and 4096 (12 bits). To convert it to a full-color image (8-bit value for each color R-G-B, so 24 bits for each pixel), the missing colors for each pixel are derived from the neighbouring pixels (aka demosaicing). E.g. a Red pixel has the exact value for the colour red, gets the green component from 4 neighbouring green pixels and the blue one from 2 neighbouring pixels. (More advanced algorithms exist) This gives some false colors (‘artefacts’) at sharp edges. Let’s simulate this with a pure black/white border:
Photography: RAW to JPG conversion

A pixel in a native 5-megapixel JPG image is based on 5 to 7 pixels of RAW color info. A pixel in a 5-megapixel camera that was downsampled from a 13MP image, gets its color info from roughly 20 pixels of original info. So the colors are more correct (provided the original picture was good quality, of course). Also, the color artefacts around sharp edges are much thinner so that they may almost disappear after the resizing.
Photography: RAW to JPG conversion
My point being: printing out a resized 5MP picture is not an honest comparison.
Continue reading ‘Megapixel myth nuances’