a1 Photo Tips

Today, I feel like musing a bit about how you can control the appearance of your subjects by how you choose some basic camera settings.

See the picture here, of the young woman? Notice how large her head appears to be, relative to the rest of her body! This is what happens when you use a wide-angle setting on your digicam. In this case, the effect was used very effectively to convey a sense of “being close”.

This is the advantage of using a wide-angle setting when taking pictures: to fill the frame with the subject of interest, you have to take the camera really close! Which is also obvious when you see the result - you feel it when looking at a picture like this one.

Here are some pictures I made today of candles and the banister of a staircase, to show the different effects of wide-angle (short focal length) compared to telephoto (long focal length). First, I put my digicam on a wide-angle setting. Now notice how large the distance appears to be, between the two candles! Also note what a large area of the back wall is visible in the images.

I also tried to show the difference in depth of field between a large aperture (f=2.5) and a rather small one (f=8.0). In both cases, I focused the camera on the nearest candle. Well, you can see that the background is sharper at the smaller aperture, but the difference doesn’t appear that great here.

That is partly because f=8.0 isn’t a really small aperture - but it’s the smallest I have on my Canon Powershot digicam. More advanced cameras come with aperture settings down to maybe f=22.

How come smaller apertures have higher numbers? It is because the numbers are actually fractions, like: 1/2.8 … 1/4.0 … 1/5.6 … and so on; so they really DO get smaller! But for convenience, they are always shown in the simplified form like: 2.8 … 4.0 … 5.6 … and so forth, omitting the “1/” part. More advanced cameras have these f-numbers engraved on the lens barrel, and imagine having to include all those “1/”:s… It would get kind of redundant.

Same thing with shutter speed settings, by the way - and for the same reason. They are usually shown as, for instance, “250″ rather than “1/250″ - to mean “1/250 of a second”.

OK, now the telephoto version of the candles on the banister:

Here I needed to take the camera further away from the subject than in the wide-angle shots above, to make the nearest candle fill the frame just right. As a result, the perspective is changed, plus the distance between the candles appears shorter now. And note how you now see a much smaller area of the wall in the back - because the moderate telephoto setting enlarged it.

This compressed perspective - which is partially caused by the greater distance to the subject - makes the image look more flat. You actually feel that the camera wasn’t as close to the subject (the nearest candle) as in the wide-angle shots. On the other hand, the background is now more manageable - there is less of it showing up, which is often an advantage.

And now what about the depth of field again? Well, there seems to be a really noticeable difference now; the picture shot at f=2.8 shows a much more blurry background than the other - proving that “telephoto lenses give a shorter depth of field than wide-angle lenses”, which you are told on the first page of every book about Photography.

(I could complicate things by taking that statement apart, but I won’t do that here.)

So what did we learn in School today? Well, for instance we learned about the Aperture scale, that it is actually a scale of fractions:

Also, we learned that wide-angle and telephoto settings give huge differences in how a subject is rendered. Wide-angle is useful to show we are CLOSE to a subject, while telephoto settings make it easier to isolate a subject by cropping a distracting background.

The technical side of the photography world is indeed changing fast. I remember the days when built-in exposure metering in SLR cameras was a novelty and only available in the most expensive models. Nowadays, with digital technology being the new standard with cameras, you can get features so advanced that nobody could have even dreamed about them back in the 1900’s. Stuff like image stabilization for instance.

All that is fine, but the pictures don’t necessarily get any better. Like, you don’t automatically become a better driver because you now own a Ferrari instead of a Ford Pinto - although the Ferrari is probably more fun to drive. People get really hung up on drooling over the minute details of technical specifications of the latest digicam, rather than spending some of their precious time actually learning how to make better pictures. (Reading the manual that came with the new digital wonder is always a good start.)

Anyways, just to satisfy the camera nerds out there I am making a quick comparison between three full-frame digital SLR cameras here: the Sony Alpha DSLR-A900; the Nikon D700; and the Canon EOS 5D Mark II.
In case you wonder what full-frame means: it is by reference to those ancient roll-film cameras, which had a 24×36 mm negative format. It all began way way back, I think in the 1920’s, when someone got the idea of building a still-picture camera for 35 mm movie film. Thus, the Leica M-series camera was born; and it set the standard for a whole new generation of small and conveniently portable cameras. But I digress.

Digital cameras usually have a sensor format considerably smaller than 24×36 mm, due to the difficulty of building sensors that large. Only the most expensive, professional DSLR’s, have had “full-frame” sensors - up to very recently. Now, three top camera manufacturers are releasing full-frame feature-packed dSLR’s at quite competitive prices - if you consider around $2000-3000 to be “competitive”. Well, only a few years ago you’d pay several times more for a similar digicam, with fewer bells and whistles.

The Sony Alpha A900

The Sony Alpha A900 will be released sometime later this Fall. It sports an impressive 24.6 Megapixel image resolution - not bad at all! Actually, this is the highest sensor resolution of any 35 mm digital SLR yet announced.

The Sony A900 sports an in-camera image stabilization feature, achieved by having the sensor on a moving platter. This is branded as “SteadyShot Inside”, and is the first of its kind to come with a full-frame SLR digicam. (Other comparable digicams have image-stabilization built into some of the lenses.)

This dSLR camera has an optical viewfinder which is said to be very large and bright, by those who has seen it. On the rear panel you find a large 3-inch LCD display; used solely for reviewing of images, as well as for menus and status display. The Sony A900 does not offer digital live view capability.

The Sony Alpha A900 offers an ISO sensitivity range from 200 to 3,200, and this is expandable to a range of ISO 100 to 6,400. The shutter speed dial offers settings from 30 seconds to 1/8000 second, plus a bulb setting, and the x-sync is 1/250 second (or 1/200 second when SteadyShot is enabled).

The weight of this machine is substantial: 939 grams (2.07 pounds) for the body only. If you put on a lens like the Zeiss 24-70 mm f/2.8 zoom lens, you now need to lift 4.17 pounds (1,894 grams). This I think is about as heavy as the old Mamiya 645 medium-format camera I once had. On the other hand, professional-quality gear is usually not lightweight.

According to Sony, this digicam body includes sealing in various places to reduce ingress of moisture between the body panels, as well as at the various control dials and buttons. (One difference between consumer-level and professional cameras is that the latter have a more rugged and weather-proof construction.)

The Nikon D700

Nikon released this full-frame dSLR a few months ago. It has an image resolution of 12.1 Megapixels - quite respectable. The sensor is taken directly from the Nikon D3 digital SLR, and the D700 therefore has the same renowned image quality at high ISO as the D3 professional SLR - but in a more affordable camera body. Unlike the Sony A900, the Nikon D700 offers Live View - even two Live View modes (Handheld and Tripod).

The Nikon D700’s magnesium alloy body is sealed and said to “feel like a rock”, by those who has seen it, just like its predecessor. This camera body isn’t lightweight either; it weighs about 2.4 pounds (1,095 grams) with the battery and card. As compared to the Nikon D300, the D700 has a much larger optical viewfinder - more like that of the Nikon D3. The pentaprism is larger, too, than on the D300.

Overall, the Nikon D700 seems to have a lot of features in common with the top-of-the-line Nikon D3, which retails at nearly $5000; while you can buy a Nikon D700 for around half that amount of money!

The Canon EOS 5D Mark II

This new Canon flagship dSLR is slated to ship at the end of November 2008. Body-only weight is 1.78 pounds (810 grams), and although it is not as weather-proof as the professional Canon dSLR’s, it is claimed that the EOS 5D Mark II can function in light rain for “up to several minutes.” But I guess it’s wise to bring an umbrella anyway, in case of rainy weather.

Inside the camera body, there are a couple of hardware upgrades. Most notably the Canon EOS 5D Mark II has both a new image sensor and image processor. The Canon EOS-5D Mark II still uses a full-frame CMOS sensor developed by Canon, but the resolution of this has jumped from 12.8 to 21.1 megapixels i.e. same as the $8,000 Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III professional digital SLR, and only slightly less than the Sony Alpha A900! It’s actually not the same sensor, though, it has improvements in a some areas. Put briefly, Canon claims that the 5D Mark II offers noise levels significantly lower than those of the original 5D.

Also, the Canon 5D Mark II will ordinarily allow ISO sensitivities ranging from ISO 100 to 6,400, which is actually wider than the original 5D offered even when the expanded ISO range of 50 to 3,200 was enabled. (An “expanded” ISO range is enabled by the user, and may lead to somewhat lower image quality than the standard setting.)

Other notable improvements from the original 5D include a dust-removal system for the sensor, and a larger pentaprism.

What else… Oh, yes, now there is VIDEO, too! The EOS 5D Mark II has video-recording capability. The recording limit is 4 gigabyte recorded file, or 30 minutes of elapsed recording time - whichever comes first.

– Which one of these fantastic digicams would I buy? I am really not sure. Traditionally, I’ve been a fan of Canon cameras, but times change and I see the other top manufacturers come up with very competitive gear. The Nikon D700 has the advantage of very low image noise at high ISO-settings, while the Sony A900 seems weaker on that point, according to what I’ve read. The Canon EOS 5D Mark II is said to have improved high-ISO performance but I haven’t seen any user reviews on that yet.

Being able to shoot at high ISO and yet get excellent image quality is a huge advantage - equivalent to avoiding the need of buying expensive and heavy large-aperture lenses for low-light situations.

Anyway, if I was seriously choosing between any of these three full-frame dSLR’s, I would look not only at the camera bodies but also check what lenses are offered by each company. After all, the picture quality is largely determined by the quality of the lens.

Candid Photography “is best described as un-posed and unplanned, immediate and unobtrusive”, according to Wikipedia. Sooo… it basically means that it’s the kind of pictures you take when the subject is ignoring it, or they have just gotten so used to your presence that they don’t care - they have forgotten that you are there with a camera.

Here you can see a fine example, made by “XirannisX en Off“. Note how the woman seems to be unaware of the camera; she appears to be immersed in her own thoughts and makes no attempt to put on any particular “photogenic” pose!

Such candid photographs are usually made in ambient light, and the composition of such an image tends to be somewhat “raw“. There is really no place here for the painstakingly planned and “perfect” shot; rather, a candid photo will feel spontaneous like it is simply freezing a moment of an ongoing process - life itself!

Candid photos can be snapped in places where the photographer knows the subjects - such as among family and friends. In this case, success depends on how well the photographer manages to put the subjects at ease and allow them to relax. In a situation like that, you as the photographer must act so as to blend in, and above all avoid trying to tell your subjects to “pose” in any way! You must be very patient, and also very fast. An interesting situation may unfold in a matter of seconds - and then be gone. You need to follow what is going on, and even anticipate potential opportunities before they actually happen.

A classic example is “blowing out the candles on the Birthday cake“! To get a really candid shot of something like this, you need to refrain from trying to stage the event. Rather, just observe and make sure you have complete control over your camera. One annoying thing with many digicams is the shutter lag. This happens because the camera needs time to set the focus and other stuff when you press the button.
The simplest advice I can give you to cope with this is to pre-focus: You press the shutter half-way and then keep your finger there. Usually, a digicam is built to freeze the settings when you do this - which means that when you squeeze the button all the way, the picture is now snapped instantly. Of course, this requires some planning ahead.

Another thing: turn the flash off! There is nothing so counter-productive to your attempt at being a candid photographer as firing off flashes. It both annoys the subjects AND kills every trace of relaxed, natural mood in your pictures. You don’t want to act like those despised “papparazzi” photographers, who sneak up on their subjects, fire a flash in their face, and then run away! But what about low-light situations indoors, you ask? Well, read my article about making low-light pictures without flash for some tips on that subject.

Further, I advise you to avoid using long zoom settings. This is both for technical reasons and more ethical ones. If you use a telephoto setting, you miss the sense of “being there” which a candid picture should - IMHO - convey. The picture will reveal that it was made from a far-away position - giving a “peeping-tom” feeling to it. Also, it will be harder to get a good shot because you now have bigger problems with camera shake while the maximum available aperture will be smaller than at a wide angle setting (assuming a zoom lens).

Some famous photographers have brought the art of candid photography to a fantastic level. I am thinking of people like the French photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson and others. Bresson primarily took pictures of strangers he happened to notice in public places, like on the street. To pull this off, you need an ability to blend in with the crowd anywhere you go, and use a small, fast, unobtrusive camera. Certain people have the ability to do this, others don’t. I’ve read about one photographer of that type, who seemed to become invisible when he was out making candid photographs. People in the street wouldn’t even notice he was right there among them. The picture here by “kamshots” is a fine example of that style.