2013 Portfolio

It's been a bit since I've shared an updated portfolio so I've corrected that.

Enjoy!

HDR: In Camera vs In Post Production

 A lot of people have stretched into HDR Photography in the recent years as technologies have advanced.  Many cameras offer the capability to create an HDR image in-camera vice using a post-processing software package (like Photoshop or Lightroom).  A major down point to these in-camera options is they prevent you from using the camera during the processing, which means you're missing opportunities.  You may also not have as many options for controlling the exposure and it's impossible to properly see on a tiny display (anything smaller than 15" by many standards, most professionals prefer 20"+) if the exposure and adjustments really are correct for the image in question.

Personally I'd rather be able to take more images while shooting, and have more control over the end-product.  This is especially true when creating the HDR image requires multiple exposures (every HDR image requires at least 3 images, but 7-9 are more common) that are over longer than normal exposure times.  For example, the first image on this page is an HDR image that was combined from 7 different exposures.  This played with the streaks from the cars and the lights on the buildings as well as traffic lights.  It also gave nice depth throughout the dark portions of the buildings, tracked the movement of the moon a little behind the Union Bank building and gave me the option to use a single image for a print later, or the end-product HDR image.

The image here on the right is the same HDR image as above.  It's the same except for its differences.  I took the original HDR image that I had initially created, converted it to Black & White (during that process I was able to push and pull various color layer attributes to make the black and white version even more interesting with detail and contrast), then I added a sepia layer to it.  The Sepia layer added a lot of character for the image, but left the buildings feeling like they were new constructions in an old world.  Finally I added a layer of texture to give the image a feel like it was manually printed on a heavy tooth piece of cold-press, warm-tone paper.  That little difference made the image work, and I was able to give it some other special treatment, like over darkening the trees to balance out the blinding light of the cars, etc.  There are some things that can't be done in camera, while it's best to get the exposure and composition as close to perfect in camera as possible, some things are  better left for Photoshop.

Triptych

I'm working on a new triptych, the last one I put together was sold shortly after creation, I'm also going to be printing out a couple specialty prints.  After I've got these new guys printed and framed I'll post a photo of them on here and talk about framing, matting, and art work as a series in both diptych and triptych forms.

Stand by :)

Updated Portfolio Slideshow

I promised an updated portfolio, as promised here it is.  Enjoy!  :)

It's in slideshow format, there's a separate link at the bottom if you'd like to peruse some other images for sale.



See more here: http://500px.com/PCPhotography

New Portfolio Enroute

For now, until I've put together a new portfolio slideshow (if you'll notice the previous one is not a broken link) here's a bit on aperture and depth of field.  For now here are some images, dealing with different variables of Depth of Field.  At the absolute most basic level the Depth of Field is the amount of distance from foreground to background that's capable of being in focus.

Here's an example of what a large depth of field can do for you, all of the pipes have nice clean edges both near and far,  as well as the ones off to the side.  

Aperture directly correlates to depth of field.  The measurement of Aperture is a mathematical derivative that's relative to the distance from the focal plane in a lens as measured to the film plane, and the diaphragm of the actual aperture.  When you look on a lens and you see 2.8, 8, 16, 32 you're actually seeing a fraction that's been shortened.  f/2.8 is how it's actually seen, f is a variable because taking a lens from one camera maker to another, suffice it to say that f/2.8 can also be seen as f : 2.8 or 1 : 2.8.

This image has the appearance of a shallow depth of field because of everything except the child being blurred, where in reality the depth of field is quite large.  To be able to have a long enough shutter speed with how bright it was outside the light entering the camera had to be minimized by opening up the depth of field.

How does aperture work?  f/32 gives you a great depth of field, f/64 gives you an even greater depth of field.  On the other end f/2.8 has a very shallow depth of field.  With that in mind the aperture controls the amount of light coming in to the camera as well.  For example at f/2.8 there's a very shallow depth of field you're also maximizing the amount of light being allowed in to the camera.  Conversely at f/64 you're expanding the depth of field to allow everything in vision to be in focus while greatly limiting the amount of light in to the camera by restricting the aperture (diaphragm) within the camera lens.

This image has two very good things going for it, first of all it has an extremely shallow depth of field, and secondly the lens used was a zoom lens which has allowed the image to be visually compressed and taken what would have been a blurred background and smashed it to a mixed color gradient.

Touching on what I mentioned earlier, the above and below images are both very shallow in their depth of field, both were shot at an aperture of f/2.8.

This image has a very shallow depth of field like the one before it, the big difference between this image and the one before it is that the zoom factor isn't as great, which is why the background doesn't seem to merge in to the flower that is in focus in the front.  A great zoom length (or focal length) leads to a greater amount of compression.  Compression is basically visually putting the background in to the same plane as the foreground.

Notice the streaks of light in this image, and the stars that seem to appear from the street lights?  Also notice how the rail road tracks don't seem to lose clarity in their line quality?  This has a very large depth of field, it's also a longer exposure, all my shots this particular night were between 30 seconds and 3 minutes and all had an aperture of f/22 or f/32 depending on which lens I used.

 The image above and below were both shot with very open depth of fields, the top image as noted was either f/22 or f/32 and the lower image was shot with an aperture some where between f/8 and f/16.

Here's one of those times where you're not really sure what the depth of field was.  The reason for this is because I used an effect filter, by adding a Circular Polarizer I was able to control the light reflecting on to a reflective surface, in this case the large panels are a mirrored glass on a sky scraper.  Setting the focus on the lens allowed me to get the pane holders in proper focus while adjusting the C.P. allowed me to boost and clear up the reflection in the mirrored glass.

 Below is one last image that shows how much fun a shallow depth of field can be.  Especially if you pay attention to the little spots of reflected light toward the top of the image that have begun to split off from the remainder of the background and in to their own existence.

Here's one last look at depth of field.  This was shot with at 70mm using a 70-mm200mm f/2.8 IS II L lens, not zooming in allowed the desserts behind the main to have some detail while blurring together everything in the deep background.

Any questions?  Please feel free to ask and I'll post the question with an answer and sample images to follow.

It's all about the light!

San Diego Bay at sunset, Late September 2012.

People, cameras, computer monitors and televisions all see light differently.  People's eyes adjust to the light, as such a lot of times people think there is either too much or "still enough" light to get a photograph, and they're as often right as they are wrong.  Some time's it's a matter of needing different equipment for the situation you're in, other times it's how you're taking the photograph.  Simply stated if you're shooting on a DSLR (or Digital Single Lens Reflex) camera, switch to manual and control what you can of the exposure.

The corner over looking Henessey's and Golden West Hotel in downtown San Diego, February 2012 if I remember correctly, either way it was early 2012.

Using a tri-pod will allow you to use a "bulb exposure" which is essentially any exposure where you manually tell the camera when to start and stop the exposure.  The modern DSLR (and SLR for that matter) are designed to have built-in exposure times varying anywhere from 30 seconds to as fast as 1/8000th of a second, how fast the shutter can move is usually dictated by the quality of the camera, however few if any allow for a longer pre-determined shutter length than 30 seconds.  That's where the Bulb feature (usually indicated by either "Bulb" or "B".   All three of the images on this post were shot using a tri-pod while on the Bulb setting.  The exposures varied anywhere from 45 seconds to 3 minutes.

Early December overlooking Downtown San Diego from the Admiral Kidd (Event & Catering Center) located on FLEASWTRACEN in Point Loma.  

As you begin to venture in to long exposures there are a countless numbering of technicalities and sciences to remember.  For now let's keep to the basics.  Any exposure that is less than the length of your camera lens should be taken with support assistance from a bag, tri-pod or mono-pod as the situation dictates.  What I mean by that is if you're using a 28-105 lens and you're zoomed in to 105 then any shutter speed 1/100th of a second of LONGER (ie 1/80th, 1/60th, 1/30th, 1/20th, etc) should be taken while on a tri-pod.  Using a tri-pod in those instances will help reduce your chance of lens shake.

If you're shooting sports from the sidelines and you're using say a 200mm lens then you want to keep your shutter speed closer to 1/200th of a second, as you learn to properly pan with the motion that may change, but for starters 1/200th is a good starting point.  Because games can go long I'd also recommend using a Mono-pod, it's smaller than a tri-pod (and therefore you can move more easily with it and won't get in the say as much or get run over as easily) but it also provides a little bit of stability that helps you to focus your attentions to the horizon in the distance that might otherwise be thrown away in the moment.

If you're using long exposures (really anything longer than 1/20th of a second) you really want to consider using a remote shutter release, this is the critical component that allows for bulb exposures without the potential for "camera shake" from engaging and releasing the shutter, it also allows you to expose your image for seconds to minutes or hours as the scene dictates.  If your exposures are going to be within your cameras pre-programmed shutter speeds then you can get by using the "timer" option, using this remember that there's a delay from the time you tell the camera to start the timer to when the camera engages the shutter and subsequently completes the exposure.

Don't be afraid to make an exposure take longer.  Making your ISO go down to 100 can make the quality of the image that much greater, especially in low-light situations where you're equipped for long exposures.  f/22+ (ie f/22, f/32, f/64, etc) allow for greater depths of field.  Generally shooting at night it's hard to tell if what you really want to be in focus is in focus.  Having a greater depth of field by using one of these apertures can heighten the interest and end quality of your image.  Just remember apertures are fractions, f/22 is larger than f/32 and is substantially smaller than f/2.8.  That's because it's a mathematical equation specific to your lens/camera combination presently being used, but more on that in future posts.

As always:

See more here: https://www.facebook.com/CrownPhoto

Buy more here: http://fotoneurotic.photostockplus.com/

Read more here: http://paulcphoto.blogspot.com/

A private pond located in Mapleton, Utah.  As seen during sub-freezing temperatures late December 2012.

This year I had a unique opportunity to visit home, home for me is Utah.  Specifically home is Salem, though my in-laws are located in Mapleton where I took these photographs.  I hadn't been home just a few weeks shy of two years, though it felt like I hadn't been home for over three, since before joining the military and leaving post-bootcamp to San Diego.  At the time it was just my wife and I, this year we had an addition to the family, a happy bundle of joy who's now learned to crawl and at the tender age of six months is already terrorizing the lower-regions of the household like any good little girl would.

For those who haven't seen snow close up, it can be as intriguing to look in to as fire, though a fire tends to be warmer than snow (not that it's much of a surprise).

Being home is surreal to me, the previous two Christmas's I'd had the opportunity to walk outside wearing shorts and a t-shirt, even flip-flops if I so desired.  This year we were greeted with snow nearly every day and sub-freezing temperatures the remainder of the time.  Still, temperature aside it was the joy of being with family that made it all more than worth it.  It's a funny thing that to be around people you know and love can make what may otherwise be a less-enjoyable attribute of a circumstance much more enjoyable.  For example, the cold can be overwhelming, but when spent with family or friends sipping hot cocoa and reminiscing on stories of years past it can be quite nostalgic.  This past trip was the latter, though now that I think about it I'm confident we didn't sip any hot cocoa and I've sipped more in the summer in San Diego than I can remember sipping any other time of the year since moving here but I digress.

Another view of a private pond located in Mapleton, Utah.  As seen during sub-freezing temperatures late December 2012, this is taken while physically on the frozen pond, though just barely out from the shore.

Home is where the heart is, it's where your family is, it's where the people you're closest to reside and it's everything others say it's not cracked up to be.  Wherever you call home, whatever weather may be like there, and whatever 2013 has in store for you, may you find happiness in your lot and with your family.