Well apologies for late posting but having terrible trouble with rural broadband. We were back to table top photography, always a favourite and a good one to hone your photographic skills on. We will also look at the last of week 2’s Q and A about DSLR v CSC/Mirror-less systems.
Table Top. Does what it says on the tin. Take something you can place on a table, make it interesting, light it photograph it. What is difficult in that? In truth it is one of those thing that is both straight forward but not necessarily that easy to get just right. But it is fun and it is relatively easy to set up and it can be as cheap as you want to make it. It is also an exercise in the basics of photography and as such is something well worth spending a rainy day, or part thereof.
Of course it is as involved and difficult as you want to make it, and some people do, but as with everything else with this craft, if you don’t get the basics right the rest is of little consequence. Or maybe you can pass it off as abstract art, depends upon your contacts. In the professional arena it is known as product photography, for all the reasons you would expect. It’s photography. Taken of clients products. Glad we got that out of the way early. The thing with that is that, whereas your product might be metallic, shiny, glass, matt, brightly coloured, black etc etc the clients expectations are going to be unique. Even when they want something like ….. they want something different. Otherwise it might fall to a competitors advantage. Energizer Bunny anyone? Yes you have seen him/her/it somewhere before ….
The basic set up into which you place your object is a flat surface, a light, a backdrop, usually plain, usually white, and a camera. The first addition to this is a reflector. Arguably you could swap light source for reflector and using existing light in this. Indeed I would put a reflector in the essentials. A useable five in one To get the ISO down to around the 100/200 mark I would suggest the next thing you acquire is a tripod. Then maybe a second light source. Some flags for putting more control into shadows, a light tent etc etc. Possibly more than any other area of photography this one opens itself up to DIY alternatives, or, if you are being hip as opposed to waiting for a replacement for one, hacks.
This is the area of photography where you have most control of the light, that is total control of the light, but as I have said before any videographer will tell you that the easiest thing about light is the theory of it. However, the control of the light is a good start when learning about how to put the light together with a subject to make a photograph. In the wild, as it were, we are more and more dependent upon what others or nature provide us with. This does not mean that it cannot be manipulated but it certainly gets more involved. Playing with reflections, bokeh and perspective is just basic fun. Certainly you will very soon come up against minimum focus, depth of field and other macro problems, all of which can be solved, all of which teach us something. Coming from the novice perspective we certainly learn to fill the frame.
OK the last of week 2’s Q&A, this time about CSC (Mirror-less) V DSLR. Undoubtedly a lot of nonsense has been talked about this. The alleged quality differences these days are pretty much that, alleged otherwise not proven in terms of general use, though certainly there are differences and certainly both have there advocates, but the reality is they are growing closer together for the everyday amateur and professional alike. Thing may be different at the nano-level but whether they are mission critical is another story entirely. Size, weight, battery life and access to lens ranges, are all “issues” largely of fan boys and people with other brands to sell, though each brand certainly has its own story.
The question is more nuanced than the badge on the front though. Perhaps the biggest selling point of a CSC/SLT Mirror-less camera is the fact that when you look through the viewfinder what you see is exactly what you get. This point alone (though it doesn’t stop people chimping I have noticed) I think is a, maybe the, major advantage for the amateur over the DSLR. It should, however, be noted that I am speaking here from the point of view of a stills photographer. The videographer has a different set of demands of a camera and may come to the same conclusion on either side of the argument, but for different reasons. Another part of this dynamic is the age of the camera you are comparing. In 2016 the differences seem to have shrunk, somewhat. In 2014, and into 2015, the dynamic range and the point at which noise intrudes definitely fell to the DSLR’s advantage. Then came the Sony A7 series and the big advances of the MK 2 versions of them the Alpha 6000 and 6300, and this week 6500; the Nikon D500; Fuji XT Mk2, even Hasselblad, they are coming thick and fast now. Some people seem to think that mirror-less is the future. They might be right but there is certainly life in the DSLR yet.
Ultimately it’s down to what you feel most comfortable with, of course.
Colour space and gamut. Sounds like a poor man’s crime fighting duo, but as Rich Price showed us it is a surprisingly powerful way to subtly (or not so) expand the presentation of colour in an image. Concentrating on derivatives of RGB, Red, Green, Blue, from which all other colours can be made and moving towards white, there are a number of different models – the basic physics of how we end up seeing the rendering – all existing to do the same job: Turn 1’s and 0’s into recognisable colours on screen or in print ( the model is the printer’s map, the image the contour lines). CMYK mixes cyan, magenta, yellow and black (the K stands for Key ), on the page and is popular with magazines and similar publications, and works by subtracting light from white as the start point. Then things start to get complicated with other models, such as CIELAB and CIE XYZ that approximate human vision in constructing colours and are used converting RGB images to CMYK. In itself all fascinating but not something that we need particularly concern ourselves with in depth. It gets very technical but is interesting.
So much for the models but we were concentrating on the work spaces. There are a number of them: sRGB – the most common found in display screens and cameras, PhotoRGB, the aforementioned CIELAB and Adobe RGB are a few. Rich concentrated on sRGB, and Adobe with a brief excursion through ProPhoto which Adobe use between LightroomTM and PhotoshopTM. Prophoto has a very large gamut, in fact 15% of it cannot be seen with the human eye. More is not always better, as with everything else, more is only useful when you have a need for it. If your image is looking muddy it is far, far more likely that you are viewing the narrower sRGB profile in an image that was modelled in the more defined Adobe RBG than the straight forward “fault” of the more limited spectrum. Most people cannot tell the difference most of the time. The gamut of any two profiles will have colours in common but when comparing sRGB and Adobe RBG the number of shades that can be represented between two points of saturation. What the smaller gamut will produce is an approximation of the colour defined in the larger one and necessarily, it will be different. The basis is in the degree of colour gradation that can be shown, that is the number of steps (shades) you can produce in the transition between two (complimentary) colours on the colour wheel. Just for the record the “small” sRGB colour space has 16,777,216 (256 for each of the RGB channels) colours in it.
The most likely time you will see the difference is when you print a digital image. Printer manufacturers have their own profiles and these are usually pretty easy to get hold of – unlike the Linux version of Adobe which seems to have disappeared from their website. These can then be loaded into your editor, the internet will show you how for your programme if you don’t know. Paper manufacturers also have different profiles for their papers and the respective manufacturers web sites are the best places to start with this. What this means is that if you are sending off your treasured image to be printed then you get a heads up on what the final thing will look like through your editing programme. It can change quite a bit, for example, an early morning mist shot I took yesterday, an almost golden light, when reviewed via a Fuji printer ICC profile downloaded from the print shop, showed some of the shadows moving from an almost dark chocolate to cyan – the valley opposite had oxidised! It also saves you time and money when printing at home, and quality inkjet ink is not cheap and cheap inkjet ink can quite often look it, especially on a quality photo paper.
Rich, when he started his presentation, stated that there is an important factor to be taken into consideration when we are talking about colour space, which can easily be overlooked and comes to us from the familiar colour wheel. Colour space is three dimensional, whereas the colour wheel as most of us remember it is two dimensional. The three dimensions are hue, saturation and lightness aka HSL aka HSV (v – value) and they form the backbone of all image editing software. What we are doing when we edit is navigating our way around this space, forwards, backwards, side to side and up and down and in a combination of these three. That gives us a clue that there are work flow questions to be answered here. Work flow in itself is a whole separate blog and we will return to that sometime in the future, but essentially it is all the production, administration and physical actions it takes to complete a process. There are many different forms of workflow, probably as many as there are photographers practising, but, when it comes to colour space there are some basics worth heeding – not least the effect your monitor is having on the images you are viewing and the accuracy and compatibility of colours when your image meets other devices. The club has a device for calibrating monitors which is available to borrow to club members. Ask about it at a meeting if you want to know more.
The second half of the meeting was a practical and members were busily engaged in the delights of LightroomTM and PhotoshopTM and there were more than a few “Aha!” moments. So, our thanks to Rich for his time and energy in putting this together. Next meeting is our own Adrian Cooke who will be talking us through a selection of his images.
Next meeting is also the deadline for Deadline for “Dear Reflex…” questions “Dear Reflex…” is a question and answer session where club members can ask any photography-related questions of the club. These will later be presented to members who will have the opportunity to volunteer to answer them, and given time to present their answer.
See you Thursday!