As winter sets in, I find that the opportunities to take photos get harder and harder to find. The hours of daylight are shorter, and tend to be while I’m at work – and the weather conditions and lighting all get worse. As I find it impractical to carry bulky camera equipment with me everywhere, instead, I try to carry a small compact camera with me. I can then grab a few minutes taking photos if I find a nice scene or conditions are good.
At the same time, I also like setting myself little challenges, to see how far I can push the equipment I’m using, trying to get the best from the situation with simple gear.
Recently, I came out of work and I was walking near St Paul’s cathedral in London. I spotted an opportunity to shoot the cathedral (a very over-photographed building) through an archway, to form a nice “frame within a frame”. The camera I had on me was my ten year old Casio Exilim EX-Z120, which I recently bought second hand for £6.
The camera itself is nothing special (though I am rather fond of it, because it has a view finder, which comes in handy on bright days, and takes pretty decent “snaps” for most casual purposes). It is pretty limited, though, in terms of its metering capabilities, low light response and dynamic range. It’s therefore a challenge to coax the best out of it that you can. Here is the final shot, which I will then give a bit of background to:
Overall, I am quite pleased with the result, but to get the photo to this state required a fair amount of post-processing (digital manipulation).
The shot, as taken, looked like this:
You can see from the image, that the camera was not able to expose well for the darker sections of the image and the sky at the same time, lacking the dynamic range to do so. The image also struggles because the parallel lines of the arch converge. This could not be avoided in-camera, because it was not possible to stand any further back (my back was against the wall). I had to look up to frame the image. Sure, it would be possible, with an expensive tilt-shift lens on a DSLR, but that would have been very impractical – so you have to rely on software, such as Photoshop elements to correct the so-called “barrel distortion” in the final image.
Similarly, the original needed quite a lot of levels adjustment to bring up the dark shadows of the early evening, and lastly it needed the sky restoring to it’ blue glory. The sky was shot at the same time, in the same place, but correctly exposed for the sky only. With multiple exposures, it would be possible to achieve the same or a similar effect using HDR compositing. In my case, I simply cropped a square of sky and dropped it into the original image as a new layer and used the “darken” tool in Photoshop elements. While some may view this kind of manipulation as cheating – all I was doing was restoring what I could see with my own eyes, but the camera was not capable of capturing directly.
Ultimately, you have to make the most of what you’ve got!
If you’re anything like me, you’ve probably been on holiday to some amazing places, but come back disappointed that you didn’t get enough (or any) good photos. This might be because you were too busy having a good time, in which case great, but it might also be because you didn’t feel you had the right kit, you didn’t want to carry around a tripod or you didn’t feel you had time to make the effort. But it needn’t be so!
For today, I’m going to focus on night time shots, because I think this is often when cities look best. The blanket of nightfall can cover a multitude of sins… Dull grey skies, litter and unsightly graffiti. All sky scrapers look better when all you can see is their glistening lights. In general, though, I think that a little bit of thought can help with your photographs at any time of day.
Again – let’s break it down to some simple “rules”. The camera you use is pretty irrelevant here – an expensive DSLR, a bridge camera or compact can all take pretty nice shots. For a couple of reasons that will become clear, though, mobile phones can struggle in this area.
“The blanket of nightfall can cover a multitude of sins… Dull grey skies, litter and unsightly graffiti. All sky scrapers look better when all you can see is their glistening lights.”
Rule 1: Learn to let go!
Shooting shots at night means slow shutter speeds if you’re going to get a reasonable looking shot. Shooting handheld is a lost cause (you are never as still as you think you are). Find something to put your camera on and let go of it completely. This will normally mean not even pressing the shutter button yourself – try using your cameras self timer (just a 2 or 3 second delay is fine) so that you don’t nudge the camera when taking the shot. You don’t need to walk away from your camera and leave it unattended in a strange city, just make sure you’re not touching it! (One of the problems with trying this with mobile phones is that they’re now so thin, they tend to fall over!)
Rule 2: Turn your ISO down and turn your flash off!
Okay, so rule 2 will only work if you’re already following Rule 1 (or if you’re using a tripod). Otherwise you’ll end up with some really blurry photos! But as a general rule, flash will not be helpful when shooting night time urban landscapes, where everything is too far away to be usefully lit. Instead, manually set your ISO low (if your camera allows you to do so) to keep image noise to a minimum and let the exposure be nice and long. Some simple point-and-shoot cameras don’t allow these to be manually adjusted, but generally if you select flash off and night mode, it will do the rest for you quite successfully.
Rule 3 – Head for the high ground!
This isn’t really a rule, but I think a good piece of advice (particularly for high rise cities). I would summarise it like this – Everything looks better from above (except for the stuff that doesn’t). In New York, head to the top of the Rockefeller or Empire State buildings, (actually do both – Empire State at night, and Rockefeller in the day). In Tokyo, there are lots of choices, but the Tokyo Tower seems an obvious choice. In London, head to the top of the shard…
All of these were shot without a tripod, but a few words of warning regarding the Shard. Firstly, it is really expensive to go up. Secondly, they won’t allow you to take a tripod, even if you want to! Which leads to the third point, there are no flat surfaces in the Shard. My earlier advice was to find something to rest your camera on, that simply won’t work at the top of this building. Therefore, you either need to get very good at bracing yourself against the wall, or take a bean bag and balance your camera carefully, or sneak in some kind of miniature clamp-on or flexible tripod. Lastly, the shard is in glass all the way around and it’s very difficult to deal with the reflections. Get as close to the glass as possible and be prepared to remove reflections by selectively adjusting the levels using software later.
I love bees, and I love taking photos of them. True, I am interested in all wildlife I really enjoy the challenges of macro, but bees are incredible, industrious, collectively intelligent, and indispensable little creatures and a real pleasure to observe and photograph.
For anyone who is interested in bees in general (and for some lovely video footage), I recommend checking out the excellent swiss movie, A Taste of Honey, (narrated in English by John Hurt). For anyone who wants to check out some photos of bees (taken with varying degrees of success) there is an enormous Flickr group, Bees, bees bees! which is a great place to start getting some ideas.
“…bees are incredible, industrious, collectively intelligent, and indispensable little creatures and a real pleasure to observe and photograph.”
So how should you approach shooting bees? What gear do you need? And how much will it cost?
Well – clearly, I’m not going to tell you to go out and spend lots of money! There are loads of different setups you can use for macro, and the most important thing is that you familiarise yourself and get comfortable with the one that you have chosen. One of my preferred setups is pairing a +2 diopter supplementary lens with a telephoto lens (such as a 70 – 300mm zoom), but you can also use supplementary lenses with bridge cameras, you can try using reversing rings, extension tubes or there are various macro lenses that you can pick up second hand. What I would like to talk about today though, is free. And that’s technique.
Many incredible macro shots are taken in studios with artificial environments and complex lighting arrangements – all of that costs money and to my mind means that you lose some of the natural simplicity and beauty of a shot. I’m therefore going look at natural environments in natural light (since specialist macro flashes are also very expensive). I thought it would be useful to reduce it all down to a few simple rules.
Rule 1: Shoot on cool bright days (or in the early morning)
This first rule goes directly against the advice that you will read in lots of books and magazines – which often say that it is preferable to shoot macro on overcast days because you get fewer burnt out reflections and you better contrast… Well, that maybe true if you’re shooting things which don’t move – but for insects which can be fast moving it’s complete nonsense. You need to be able to shoot handheld and at a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the action. Bright days are definitely best. However, insects (which are cold blooded) have a faster metabolism and are faster moving in warm conditions, so cool days (spring and autumn) and early mornings are absolutely ideal.
Rule 2: If the bee is on a flower, get really close and try to shoot sideways on.
To really get fine detail with budget equipment, you want to get up close and personal with the bee with a focal distance of just an inch or two. Reversed lenses, macro extension tubes or powerful diopters on shorter lenses are a good way of achieving this. The important thing, when shooting bees like this, is not to get nervous. Bees are very placid animals and are very, very unlikely to sting you unless they feel threatened. Often, when getting very close to them, people get scared and react unpredictably. If you feel this is likely to happen to you, it is important to master your instincts.
Getting really close means you will have a reduced depth of field which is great for throwing your background out of focus – however it also means that if you shoot with the subject facing directly towards you with the eyes in focus, the abdomen will be out of focus. Therefore try to get the bee side on (or nearly side on) so that you make the best use of the plane of focus.
Rule 3: If shooting bees in flight, stand back!
Getting really close to a bee is all well and good when they’re almost stationary, but when they’re flying it’s totally hopeless. For starters, they will actively try to avoid you, but in any case, your focal distance will be so short that you will never be able to keep track of their movements – therefore you need be able to stand back a few feet. In this case, you probably want a smaller diopter on a longer lens or a shorter extension tube on a longer lens. This setup should allow you to still get a big enough enlargement of the bee to be the subject of the shot while still being stood far enough away to track its movements. Another advantage is that bees in flight tend to look much better if shown in relation to their environment, such as the flowers they are flying around – so you can be sufficiently “zoomed out” to include the environment:
Rule 4: To get sharp focus, pre-focus, try to be nearly side-on and “pull back”
A really big problem when shooting flying bees is that they tend to fly too fast for most autofocuses (particularly on cheaper lenses) and too fast for you to rapidly re-focus the lens manually. You therefore need to get a bit clever about predicting the movement of bees. Try to remember that they tend to hover on approach and take off from a flower so they will be nearly stationary in flight for a fraction of a second – and that they “back out” from flowers having collected the nectar. This last point is critical, since it is easiest to “choose” a bee to photograph, while it is in a flower already.
Like my advice above, about shooting stationary bees side on to make the best use of the plane of focus, the same is true for flying bees. If you can get the trumpet of a flower in perfect profile, when the bee flies out backwards, it should remain in the plane of focus. If you want to compose the shot so that it is not perfectly sideways on, then remember, still that the bee will come out backwards. What you need to do, then, is focus on the part of the flower closest to the camera lens, and as the bee backs out tilt backwards (roll back on your heels) trying to keep the bee in focus by moving the camera with it. It sounds simple, but can be really quite tricky! As with all things, practice doesn’t exactly make perfect, but statistically at least, the more times you try, the more likely you are to get it right!!
At the time of writing (late September) there are still some bee species active, and conditions are good, as the days are now a little cooler. Try and get out this weekend and give it a go!
Today, I thought I would turn away from macro and taking photos from really close-up, to taking photos of things from really far away…
Like macro, taking shots with “super-telephoto” lenses can very easily be written off as a rich man’s game – and there are definitely plenty of rich boys’ toys out there if you have bottomless pockets. For example, a story recently surfaced of a £99,000 telephoto lens going on sale!
If you’re anything like me, though, you’re probably looking for a solution for under £100. Okay, so that’s hardly free, but this is a specialist area.
But what are your choices? Well, actually – there are quite a few.
In the case of the (slightly daft) £99,000 lens, the focal length on offer was an enormous 1,200mm – and the lens (as a result) was totally impractical for most purposes. However, there are times when you’re shooting wildlife, sporting events or some specific scenery when you may want something which is pretty far reaching. In these cases, it’s actually quite handy being on a budget as most cheaper cameras have smaller sensors which effectively increase the effective focal length of a lens, relative to a 35mm SLR or full frame DSLR. This basically means that you get more magnification in your final shot from the same lens. In the case of most Canon EOS cameras, you get a magnification (known as a “crop factor”) of 1.6X. For a Nikon you get 1.5X. For some bridge cameras, the crop factor may be as high as 5X to 6X!!
“it’s actually quite handy being on a budget as most cheaper cameras have smaller sensors which effectively increase the effective focal length of a lens…”
But what does it really mean? Well – I’m going to look at focal lengths of between 500 and 800mm (equivalent for a 35mm camera). This is because there are lots of ways of getting lenses of around 500mm of an APS-C DSLR which, because of the crop factor, will give the same level of overall magnification in your final shot as an 800mm lens on an old film SLR.
1. Supplementary telephoto lenses – from as little as £10 on ebay
I said I’d mention but not test one option – and this is it. Supplementary telephoto lenses screw in front of the lens of your camera (like the diopters I tested for macro), or many wide angle or fisheye adapters. I have already tested diopters on this website, and I will return to supplementary fisheyes in the future – but I’m not going to test the telephoto version because they are simply too rubbish. My three pieces of advice would be avoid, avoid, avoid. The real issue is that, unless you have a tiny aperture (and therefore have to push up the ISO and exposure time up beyond a practical level), you get terrible focus problems anywhere outside dead-centre of the frame. If you would like to see some tests demonstrating this – I would point you to Keith Cooper’s article here. (Seriously, though, even for £10, don’t bother.)
2. Teleconverters – Prices vary a lot, though if you shop around you can start from around £25 second hand.
In terms of intended outcome, teleconverters do the same thing as supplementary lenses – in so far as they work with an existing lens and increase its effective focal length. The mechanism by which they do this is far more effective, though. Rather than acting as a “magnifying glass” at the front of the lens, they work as an additional lens element stage between the sensor and the lens. While it is obviously not as good as an expensive, dedicated telephoto lens, it is still pretty effective and a lot cheaper!
Now – one clear challenge here, is that in order to use a teleconverter to reach super-telephoto length, you will already need to have a telephoto lens with a focal length of around 250mm to start with. These can also be expensive, but there are some cheap second hand options out there. A few examples are:
Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6, Nikon / Canon and other fits available. Second hand for £50 – £100.
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6, Canon fit only. New from around £70 (this is the lens tested below).
Nikon AF-S 55-200mm f/4-5.6, Nikon fit only. New from around £70
Nikon AF 70-300 mm f/4.0-5.6, Nikon fit only. Second hand from around £80
In my test case, I have coupled a second hand Jessops (Kenko) teleconverter (bought for £25) with a Canon EF 75-300mm lens, bought second hand for £50, so £75 in total. I also have the Tamron lens, which works equally well (perhaps a little better). The photos used in this test aren’t terribly exciting, but they were all taken at the same time, in the same light so give a fair representation of capabilities:
The focus achieved, given the long focal length is acceptably sharp, and chromatic aberration is not too noticeable (though from experience, this gets a log worse as contrast in your image increases).
Pairing a tele-converter with a zoom means you can have an enormous range of zoom available to you by simply adding / removing the converter. In this case, all the way from 75mm – 600mm.
Very space efficient, and can be paired with several different lenses. It can simply be kept in your kit bag alongside your main lenses.
Reasonable quality results, retaining aperture control for depth of field control.
While auto-focus works at shorter focal length, once you have gone up to super-telephoto lengths it gives up, so manual focus only. Focus confirm should still work, though.
Adding a teleconverter reduces the light which reaches the sensor, so you will need to up the ISO, or lengthen exposure time unless it’s very bright. At long focal lengths, this can be tricky. You will probably want a tripod! (Though I would recommend it for all of these solutions really…)
3. Manual focus mirror lenses (often t-mount) – cheap 500mm lenses from around £70
Until recently, I had never tried a mirror lens, and I had always been fascinated by the idea of them. If you look at a mirror lens from the “front” they really mess with your mind. How can you get a full image from a lens which looks like it still has a small lens cap stuck in the middle of it? (I’ll let you ponder that on your own).
Mirror lenses used to be very popular as a cheap way of getting up to super-telephoto focal lengths, without enormous costs. Their relatively simple construction, basically consisting of two carefully aligned mirrors, means that there is far less complicated and heavy glasswork to create the image. The lenses are also much, much shorter than multi-element telephoto zooms. High grade mirror lenses remain very popular with astro-photographers, because they are virtually free from chromatic aberration and some of their weirder properties (donut shaped bokeh and “double vision” either side of the optimum depth of field) disappear at infinity focus.
But can they be used for day-to-day use? – On this occasion, I can’t exactly say that I’m convinced. I should say that I have only ever used one (so not a statistically brilliant sample), but it is a very common one – the Opteka 500m f/8, t-mount (don’t forget to buy the right adapter!) I bought mine new and I believe it to be in “perfect” working order – but there are some serious limitations to optics of this type.
The major problem is low contrast (caused by the shadow of the front mirror), but this in turn makes it very difficult to find focus and, to be honest, I am not convinced that the sharpness of this sort of lens is ever really up-to-scratch. That said, I have managed to get a few nice shots, and the low contrast can be corrected in post-processing. For a fair comparison, below is an unprocessed shot, straight from the camera:
Virtually no chromatic aberration (so good for astro-photography).
Very small for a dedicated super-telephoto lens.
Cheaper than buying a standard tele-photo lens plus a converter
Donut bokeh and double-vision backdrops
Low contrast and can be hard to focus
Can seem a bit soft generally (though that could just be me!)
Normally fixed f/8 aperture, so no control over depth of field.
Before moving on, though, it would be wrong of me not to show an image of something I believe that they are good at!
4. Manual focus multi-element telephoto lenses (often M42 mount) – new from around £80
I should start this section by saying I think I got an absolute bargain, having picked up an Optomax Telephoto 500mm f/8-f/32 lens for just £25. In my case the rear element (closest to the camera) has gone a little bit milky, but even with this problem it seems optically very good (so I would love to try a mint one!) Keep your eyes peeled for a second-hand bargain.
The costs of this sort of lens (often M42 to t-mount, so again, don’t forget the right adapter) vary quite a lot – but these generic lenses are much, much cheaper than branded auto-focus lenses. Rokinon are the modern makers of a basically identical lens, and you can buy them new from around £80 if you shop around. They are manual focus, and have manual aperture control (but this is important, as they aren’t fixed at f/8). They also make a super-tele zoom (Rokinon 650-1300mm, normally sold with a 2x tele-converter), which you can pick up from around £150 new. You will need to shop around for this.
The construction is pretty simple, and they can be taken apart almost completely, simply by twisting and unscrewing (which can be handy if you want to pack them away somewhere not at full length). They are pretty long and unwieldy and normally come with their own tripod mount.
The image quality from these is pretty good if you are patient enough and good at manual focus. Shooting handheld can be very tough though because of their length – so if you are trying to catch fast-flying birds, it may be a bit difficult.
Good optical quality at a very reasonable price
(Manual) aperture control
Can be paired with a 2x teleconverter to make enormous focal lengths
Big and unwieldy – difficult to use handheld
Fixed focal length
Manual focus only
5. Superzoom bridge cameras – used from around £50
All of the other options I have looked at today assume that you already have a camera to attach a lens to. This is a one-stop-shop solution and is therefore very convenient for travelling light. I am a big fan of bridge cameras as “good all rounders” and the modern superzooms are truly impressive in their equivalent focal-length range.
You will see in the photo below, that the equivalent focal length is not quite as large as I was able to achieve in the tests above, but I was using my old fuji Bridge camera (with an 18x optical zoom) and some newer bridge cameras can come with up to 50X optical zoom. In this case, my Fuji S8000fd has a focal length of 4.7 – 84.2mm which doesn’t sound much, but with a 5.6X crop factor, it gives a 35mm equivalent focal length of 24-486mm, which is pretty impressive. You can buy newer version for under £100 with 30X zooms which is equivalent to 24-720mm so the numbers are getting pretty big!
Of course, the downside is that the sensor is small and therefore the ultimate clarity and light sensitivity of the camera will suffer, and if autofocus doesn’t lock on, manual focus can be a dead-loss, but in good conditions, things are pretty good.
As ever, your final choice is up to you – there are advantages and disadvantages to each solution. Here are my thoughts in summary though:
Never buy a supplementary lens for your filter ring. You may as well burn a £10 note.
Personally, I would never build a DSLR camera bag and not include a 2x teleconverter. Sure, they may not be as good as a massive, expensive lens, but they’re cheap and portable, so you can take them with you everywhere.
Unless you’re into astro photography – don’t bother with a mirror lens. They’ll only frustrate and annoy you.
If you don’t mind the length, the fixed focal length M42 mount lenses from Rokinon and Optomax etc. are really good for the price.
Bridge cameras remain great all-rounders provided you aren’t too fussed about retaining total control (or taking portraits with lovely narrow depth of field at shorter focal lengths). Plus, the lens and the camera come together, so if you don’t mind an old 8 megapixel one they’re an absolute bargain.
I thought it might be worth returning to macro again immediately, having started touching on the subject yesterday.
When writing yesterday, I was feeling a little bit guilty about focusing so narrowly (if you’ll excuse my pun) on diopter lenses which generally only work with more expensive cameras such as SLRs / DSLRs / CSCs or bridge cameras. I thought, since this is a budget blog, I should return to the more accessible end of the market, using a mobile phone or cheap compact. In both cases, many have macro modes which allow you to get surprisingly close to small subjects.
“I was feeling a little bit guilty about focusing so narrowly (if you’ll excuse my pun) on diopter lenses which generally only work with more expensive cameras”
Here comes the science bit… I have included this under the title “Macro” because it is generally used to refer to close-up photography. Strictly speaking, though, the term macro isn’t right for most mobile phones or compact cameras, but it is the technical difference which gives these cameras some interesting properties.
Macro: A technical definition. – The ratio of the subject’s size on the film or sensor plane to its actual size is known as the reproduction ratio – macro normally describes reproduction ratios greater than 1:1.
So – now we’ve got this out of the way, why are mobile phones not macro? And what difference does it make?
Well, if you’re old enough to really remember 35mm film, you’ll know it was called this because each shot was taken on a 35mm wide piece of film. This is the same size as the sensor in expensive DSLRs. So, for a photo of a 20mm long insect to fill roughly two thirds of a photo, you would have needed a 1:1 (macro) reproduction.
Your mobile phone, though, will have a sensor which is considerably smaller, typically 1/3 inch, which is just 8.5mm across. This changes the reproduction ration from roughly 1:1 to 4:1. Don’t worry too much about the numbers themselves, but the point is that the insect you’re trying to shoot is now larger than the sensor you’re shooting it with, rather than the other way around.
Now, this reproduction ratio doesn’t mean you will actually be able to focus on something at very close distances (so you may struggle to shoot an insect which fills your whole frame, without some sort of adapter), but it will drastically increase the depth of field which can be achieved at the shortest distances your phone can focus at.
Here is an example, shot using my mobile phone, where you can see that nearly all of the flowers in the photo are in fairly sharp focus:
This increased depth of field is, in my opinion, generally a bad thing in macro photography, where you often want to remove distracting backgrounds with a tasteful blur. However, it does have some interesting applications, and you can have a lot of fun with them.
One of the great things about using a mobile phone is that you can often achieve greater depth of field from close-up of objects that otherwise would be impossible to keep in sharp focus when shooting at a short distance. This might be useful when shooting models, dolls houses, chess boards, or other miniature environments or landscapes. This can create some great fun opportunities to create some fun composite images. (See my articles on software such as PhotoScape or GIMP for some free applications to do this).
And the same shot after playing around with it in some software:
If you’re anything like me, you will doubtless have found yourself drawn in amazement to some of the photos out there of the very tiny, from very close up.
One of the great things about photography, is that it allows you to see things which are very difficult to perceive with the human eye, either because you simply can’t get close enough to focus well, or because you can’t “freeze” something whilst moving, and your eyes can’t keep up with it.
This is where the wonderful world of macro photography comes in – and there are some true masters of it. If you want to explore a vast array of images and techniques, the Flickr macros group is one of the largest on the site and is well worth a browse amongst its 300,000 or so photos (at the time of writing).
However, as with all things in photography, there is a catch. If you start getting serious about taking macro images and read all of the magazines, it becomes very clear, very quickly, that you can spend a LOT of money on gear. So is there any way to avoid this?
The short answer is yes – so long as you know and understand your equipment and its limitations. I am therefore intending, over a series of articles in the next few weeks, to cover off some of the ways you can achieve great results without splashing too much cash.
Supplementary Lenses (also known as diopters, close-up or macro filters, or simply close-up lenses)
Being a stickler for technical accuracy, I’m not keen on referring to these little beauties as macro filters, as technically they don’t filter out any light – they simply act as magnifying glasses. They are referred to as filters, though, as they tend to screw into the filter ring of your camera. (This is one of the reasons I recommend buying a bridge camera with a filter ring, or an appropriate adaptor).
As a general rule, you cannot use these sorts of lenses with more basic point and shoot cameras or mobile phones, which I will return to at another time.
There are a few reasons why I love these handy little tools, though, and why they formed part of every camera bag and setup I have ever owned:
They are really cheap (under £10; definitely the cheapest way of getting into macro photography to start with).
They can generally be fitted to any lens in a kitbag (either by choosing lenses with the same thread size, or a step-up ring, which can be bought for next to nothing).
They hardly take up any space, so you can have them with you all of the time.
The third reason, although not technically a cost saving piece of advice, is definitely one about getting value for money. One of the things I love about wildlife (particularly macro) photography, is that you can find things to take pictures of everywhere. Ants, spiders, wasps, bees, even common houseflies become a hundred times more interesting seen from close up. What you will find happens, is that you’ll go out with your camera and just stumble across things which you think are beautiful and interesting, and would love to take a photo of, but can’t because you don’t have the right lens, because it was too big or bulky. With these little screw-on lenses, that needn’t happen, because they’re tiny to start with.
But seriously – are they any good?
In all honesty, yes they are – so long as you know their weaknesses. Here are my “top tips” for getting the best out of your diopter lenses (with a few examples along the way):
Tip #1: Don’t just buy one diopter – by a set of three.
Or even a set of four! You will normally find that these are sold in sets of +1, +2 and +4 (sometimes +3 or +5), and some sets come with +10. I have a set of four, including a +10, but, to be honest, it’s a pretty crumby bit of glass, so stick to the lower numbers. You will also read that you can “stack” these lenses (with the largest diopter closest to the lens) but don’t bother doing that either, as it will rapidly degrade your image quality.
Tip #2: Keep your subject centre-frame.
Unless you can afford to buy a two-element diopter lens (also known as an achromatic lens), which are quite a bit more expensive, then these lenses suffer from chromatic aberration especially closer to the edges. This basically means that areas of high contrast end up with fringes of colour which should not be there. With an out-of-focus and even background, this won’t matter, but if it’s a key element of the photo, you will begin to notice. Therefore, when shooting (particularly in bright, high contrast conditions) try and keep your subject fairly central.
In this shot, you can see the chromatic aberration occuring on the right hand edge of the flower, though in the context of the shot, it detracts little from the action.
If you compare this with the following shot of a cricket, however, you can see how the image quality degrades as you reach closer to the edge of the frame:
However, if you shoot your subject dead centre, and against a low contrast (or single colour background) then you can hide the effect almost entirely:
Tip #3: Shoot on bright days!
There are a lot of comments out there about needing overcast light to shoot nice macro images, which is fine if you are able to shoot with an expensive ringflash or build complex artificial environments, but as a general rule, bright days are best if you’re on a budget. This is because they allow you to shoot your subject at a high enough shutter speed to freeze your action, and to give you more flexibility on the aperture you use.
Tip #4: Try using a longer focal-length lens, with a lower diopter number.
Especially if your subject is moving! This approach should allow you to shoot your subject from a sufficiently distant position, without scaring the subject off – it also means you won’t block out too much light by casting your own, huge shadow over the subject thereby extending shutter speeds. Also, the closer you get to your subject, the worse DoF problems can become making it hard to get what you want in focus.
Tip #5: Buy a mini-clamp tripod
These really are, cheap, low end bits of kit for about £5 – and would be rubbish for shooting birds, but for the small things they’re brilliant. They’re also really good for quick snaps on a self timer and attach to pretty much anything (and have tripod feet if needed). Again – they can be carried anywhere and used with any camera – so there’s not really any downside.
“a more serious contender as a competitor to Adobe’s more expensive options – the unfortunately named GIMP”
Yesterday, in my post “The hard truth about software“, I highlighted PhotoScape as a good piece of free software which will meet the needs of most budding photographers. It is intuitive and simple to use, but it has its limitations. Today, I want to highlight another good free option, which is a more serious contender as a competitor to Adobe’s more expensive options – the unfortunately named GIMP (the GNU Image Manipulation Program).
GIMP is a much more complex program than PhotoScape, and as such it can be a little bit harder to find your way around. It has a number of features which are comparable to Adobe’s Photoshop suite, such as the ability to use layers, to manipulate sections of the image selectively using lasso tools and to carry out levels and importantly curves adjustments. It is therefore a far more complete overall image editor. Unfortunately, in my eyes, it’s similarity to PhotoShop leads to one of its downfalls, because the way that you access all of these options is quite different, and therefore those who are used to using Adobe software can find it quite difficult switching between the two programs. This won’t be a problem at all, though, if you don’t have access to Photoshop to begin with!
The problem can also be avoided by using a related free program – Gimpshop – an amended version of GIMP specifically set up to look, act and feel a lot more like Photoshop. Gimpshop has taken advantage of the open source nature of GIMP and has used its architecture to build out this rather astonishing piece of (presumably legal) plagiarism. I can’t claim to be an expert on using it – but if you’re looking for a free Photoshop alternative, it would be totally remiss of me not to highlight this particular piece of software.
I will probably return to the subject of software in later blogs – but for now, I think that’s a good place to start. I would love to see some of your “before and afters”, to hear your experience using these programs and any other alternatives. Please feel free to share!
“inbuilt software is not infallible and of course, it can’t “look” at an image with a critical human eye”
The hard truth about software is that you need it. There are purists out there who argue that an image should be left as taken and that any form of digital manipulation or post processing is somehow cheating. Frankly, I think that’s rubbish. Digital cameras are all driven by software (firmware) specific to the camera, which helps them capture the images, setting the white balance, giving an interpretation of the dynamic range of a scene, carries out the automatic light metering to set the exposure etc. This inbuilt software is not infallible and of course, it can’t “look” at an image with a critical human eye – the camera may therefore not be able to capture a scene the way that you can in your mind’s eye. Software allows you to make adjustments to the brightness and contrast of images, selectively adjust the levels to change the depth of shadows or brightness of highlights, crop images, straighten them and to sharpen them as necessary. In short – software helps us ensure that our images are as good as they can be – and photos from all sorts of different cameras will benefit from this process.
So; the question is, what software? And how much does it cost? Well, like so much else in Photography, the answer is as much as you want to spend.
Probably the most famous single piece of software for photographers is Adobe Photoshop, but it doesn’t come cheap. It is now primarily available through monthly subscription (of £7.49 per month) so over the course of a year you’ll be paying around £90, and this would be an ongoing commitment to stump up that sum each year. Photoshop Elements is a simpler version (and my preferred software) but even that will set you back around £60. There are a number of other programs, such as Adobe’s Lightroom (£100) that many photographers swear by either alongside or instead of Photoshop, so you can see how costs can quickly escalate.
It doesn’t have to be one of these expensive programs, though, and there are a number of free programs out there which can be extremely useful if you’re trying to avoid costs. One that I think is particularly worthy of mention is PhotoScape. This free software includes RAW conversion to JPG and a competent photo editor including resizing tools, brightness and colour adjustment, white balance, backlight correction, cropping, various filters, red eye removal, blooming, paint brush, clone stamp and an effect brush. It’s certainly no Photoshop, but for a photographer on a budget, it’s hard to find cheaper than free!!
“for a photographer on a budget, it’s hard to find cheaper than free!!”
Use software to turn this:
This shot was taken using my trusty Fuji bridge camera – but one of the great things about software like this is that you can use it to enhance images from any sort of camera (or cameraphone) really helping you get the best from modest equipment. An example of this is given below, shot on an old Pentax Optio E50 – a basic “point and click” compact:
…use whatever you like, whatever you can get your hands on and whatever you have lying about.
As this blog is about photography, I guess it’s only right that my first proper post should be about cameras. With all the thousands of different types of cameras out there, what on earth should you use?
The shortest and best answer I can give is – use whatever you like, whatever you can get your hands on and whatever you have lying about.
I’m not saying that to be frivolous or to avoid answering the question – but after all, this blog is about doing things on a shoestring and frankly, I don’t know how long your shoestrings are. Of course, I could recommend you a particular make or model of camera, but if I did, for some it would be too expensive, for some too complex, for others it may be too basic, or not powerful enough, or not carry the right features. If there are any camera snobs reading this, my recommendations could even seem too “cheap” – but if you fall into that category, this blog probably isn’t for you.
Instead, I think it’s important to work our what sort of photographer you are, what sort you want to be and what sorts of cameras will best meet your needs. Note my use of plural here, as some of you may well want to use more than one type of camera depending on circumstances.- and this doesn’t need to be expensive…
A few tips on different types of camera:
Compact / Point & Click cameras:
Don’t write these cameras off as no good simply because they are (normally) at the cheaper end of the market – there are some excellent cameras out there.
Don’t get sucked in, looking for the highest number of megapixels. It is far more important to get a camera which is optically good (with a good lens) and decent response to different light conditions, than getting a high resolution JPG of an image which looks bad.
If you don’t mind buying second hand, you can pick older ones up really cheap. (I recently bought a 7mp camera for £6 and use it a lot).
Obviously, they fit in your pocket. This is great as it means you can always have one with you; you never know when you’ll find the “perfect” photo opportunity, and kick yourself for not having a camera.
If you get a cheap second hand one, you can try things and take it to places you may be unwilling to take more expensive gear (out sailing, diving in a cheap plastic cover, up a mountain etc.)
They normally run on AA or AAA batteries that you can replace anywhere in the world.
They tend not to have powerful zooms.
Look out for: Optical zoom. A decent ground glass lens. A view finder or electronic viewfinder (EVF) if you can find one. At least some level of manual control. A tripod mount.
Avoid: Digital zoom only. Small or poorly manufactured lenses. Cameras overladen with “gimmick” features but little manual control.
Always try before you buy – and zoom in on a test photo all the way to see the sharpness of the image captured. If you can, try the same in low light. Often the big names, like Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Fuji etc are good bets, but they have also made some dogs!
Mobile Phones / Camera Phones
Some purists amongst you may object to their inclusion here, but let’s be honest, we nearly all have mobile phones, and nearly all of them have cameras these days. A lot of them are really very good. In fact, the cameras in phones have come on so far that these days, that sometimes the design is clearly more camera than phone. (Check out the Samsung Galaxy S4 or Nokia Lumia 1020 to see what I mean).
Of course, top end phones and/or camera phones don’t come cheap, but a lot of you will have access to them anyway because of your mobile phone contracts – so don’t be shy about using their cameras to their full capabilities, because it’s almost a camera for free.
Even older phones with less high quality cameras can still be very good, especially in good light.
One key benefit is that you will nearly always have your mobile phone on you, so you never need to miss that golden opportunity for a shot.
New phones can be loaded with loads of cool (and free!) photo apps for editing and sharing on the internet.
Because they tend to have small sensors, they can actually be really, really good for close-up work which dedicated cameras can’t achieve without spending quite a bit of money.
They often only offer digital zooms, which can be a pain (though some newer models buck this trend).
Look out for: Decent low light sensitivity. A powerful flash. Macro focus mode. A reasonably wide field of view.
Avoid: Poor low light response (like the plague!!). Poor field of view. Poor autofocus.
Bridge Cameras are called this because they bridge the gap between Point & Click cameras and interchangeable lens cameras (DSLRs and CSCs). They offer far greater manual control than most simple compact cameras, normally offering independent shutter and aperture controls and quite often they offer “manual” focus (thought this will be achieved digitally).
They normally have significantly better zooms than compact cameras, starting from around 15x from a few years ago right the way up to a whopping 50x available today.,
They have large ground glass lenses so their optical quality is normally much better than compact cameras (even on older models with lower pixel counts).
They are incredibly versatile, offering a wide range of shooting options in a single camera and lens.
They are therefore great travel cameras covering a wide range of situations.
Like compact cameras, old ones are now getting really quite cheap (though I’ve not seen one for £7 yet). If you shop around you can start finding pretty decent ones from about £50.
As you start pushing the boundaries of their capabilities, you are likely to start wanting to upgrade to an interchangeable lens camera.
Look out for: A decent zoom range (anything from about 18x is pretty good for older models). Full manual controls including manual focus. RAW image capture if available. A threaded filter ring (or one capable of having a filter ring adapter added). A snug fitting lens cap. Optical Image Stabilisation.
Avoid: Anything with a scratched lens (if buying second hand). This is common in cameras of this type. Any versions that don’t have an EVF.
Interchangeable lens cameras
There’s so much to say about these, that they will need another blog entry, but they fall broadly into two types – DSLRs (Digital Single Lens Reflex) and CSC (Compact System Cameras). Both types vary greatly, and the modern high spec versions can be pretty pricey. At the lower end, it’s much easier to find second hand DSLRs, as they have been around for a lot longer (basically since the early days of digital photography) where as CSCs are only really becoming mainstream now. It is therefore also much easier to buy second hand lenses for DSLRs today…
Looking at ebay today – you can buy a 6.3MP DSLR for under £50 but you would be lucky to get a decent lens with it, and the light sensitivity will not be as good as a more modern camera.
If you are really, really serious about photography, it’s likely that you will want to upgrade to an interchangeable lens camera at some point because the range of different lenses you can use ultimately gives a greater range of shooting capabilities than even those offered by a Bridge camera – but it can therefore be an expensive journey to set out on. If you’re total budget is £100, you are much better off sticking with a Bridge camera.
I can’t tell you what to buy – I own variants of all of these, but I would suggest to anyone that a few quid on a compact camera with a decent lens can never be a waste of money… If you learn how to make the most of it, you’ll be able to get some great pictures. If you’re a little more serious but still just getting going – an upgrade to a bridge is a massive step up in terms of the capabilities of the camera.
I say everyone, but I’m not sure that anyone will find this straight away. This is my first entry in my new blog, Shooting on a Shoestring, and well, my first blog entry ever! I’m new to this, so bear with me…
Over the next few months and years, I’d like to invite you all on a journey in photography, helping everyone to take the best pictures possible on a tight budget. I would welcome comments and advice from any readers (so feel free to leave comments etc.) because I am always looking for new ideas, and I know a lot of other photographers are too.
One of my biggest bugbears as an amateur photographer is asking about equipment and being told the only way to achieve something is by spending lots of money. A classic example is wildlife photography, where you often want to take photos of something very close (macro) or very far away (telescopic). In these areas, lens prices from the major brands can get pretty astronomical, pretty quickly. These are areas I will return to (probably several times) – but this blog isn’t just focused on specific lenses or SLR equipment. It will also look at software, the web, cameraphones, point and shoot cameras, cheap printing methods, scanning techniques, classes and a whole range of other items that I haven’t thought of yet. It will also cover challenges and games for those who want to get involved.
So – who am I?
I’m Alex Denny, and I’m a keen (and still learning) amateur photographer. When high street camera shops still existed, I used to work in my local one in Tonbridge in Kent (called Camera Gear). We sold new and second hand cameras, as well as developed colour prints on various automatic processors and black and white prints in a dark room on site. My early days in photography were therefore very much based in film (and as I’m in my 30s, I still remember the days when digital wasn’t really around) – but these days it’s nearly all digital. The focus of this blog will be mainly digital as it’s quite a bit cheaper these days, but I will look at techniques for film as and when it comes up.
I’m interested in all sorts of images and types of photography – but in general I want to capture the wonder of the world around me. I’m a keen naturalist and animal lover. I’m fascinated with wildlife large and small, but also the great expanses of the countryside, of the night sky, of mountains and rivers and of all sorts of travel. I love diving and I love flying, so nothing is therefore off limits.
I can’t claim to be an expert at shooting any of these things. I’m still learning. The aim of this blog is to help us all get to the stage where we can capture the images we want to without breaking the bank.