I, Curtis

Recently when I shot the moon, I did so in RAW, so I get a few options in post-processing for how I wish the white balance to be. Anyone got any opinions on which one looks best?

Recently I have been working with a technique for digital photography called “high dynamic range”, which essentially takes the highlights from one image and matches them with the shadows from another image shot in the exact same position in a different exposure value. There is also another process that can be applied to an HDR image called tone mapping, that I don’t really know what it is yet, but it produces interesting results. Fusing is another related process to HDR, except it isn’t truly a high dynamic range, it is just fusing various segments from the images and creating a composite image. These images are supposed to appear more natural than the originals, but so far, I am having difficulty with that particular aspect of HDR. I suspect I am not selecting images that are far enough apart representing enough of the range needed to develop the final images, or I simply do not know which sliders to roll to get my desired result.

As many of my readers are aware, I like to do macro photography. This tends to be an interesting lighting situation to stabilize, since macro needs a really narrow aperture for the wide depth of field required to focus something so physically close to the lens. In most difficult situations for photography, the first line of defense is a flash of some type, whether it be a light box, on-camera flash, or remote flash system. The problem with this is that all of these methods can be interfered with too easily, and some (such as remote and light box) are hard to move around for fast-moving subjects. One of the best solutions developed for this problem was the ring-flash, a simple flash unit that attaches to the front of the lens. If you recall from a previous post, regarding flash, having flash and lens on the same plane can cause red eye and other problems. It is also a very direct, which depending on subject, distance and reflections, can be very harsh. Another flaw I found out about earlier today is that some lower end models have short lifespans, 100-200 flashes maximum. Not a very long-lasting device (especially at $150), considering I will sometimes shoot 500 or more exposures in a day. Originally I considered one of these flashes , but have now changed my mind. Another option for macro lighting is a different type of on-lens lighting system, such as Nikon’s R1 close up lighting system. The lights move with the camera, has a separation from camera and subject (which is adjustable, unlike ring-flashes) and can be used to command other flash units (such as a subordinate SB-600).

As a result of the absolutely crappy performance of the low-end ring flashes, and the expense of the Nikon R1 system (and the fact it is only compatible with Nikon cameras that have full CLS support), I will be waiting before obtaining a flash unit for macro and close up shots.

I thought for sure after my Summer additions to my “system” I would be finished for a while, but it seems a few things have cropped up that I feel compelled to deal with.

On the positive side of things, I have developed a criterion on which my decision to upgrade the body in my system will be based. I shall obtain a new SLR body whenever I encounter a situation where the body is the limitation to me not getting a shot, or when the total cost of accessories needed to meet my wants meet the cost of the new body. At the moment I can only identify about $450 of a $1,200 body, so it might be a while.

Most accurately, direct flash is the enemy of good photographs. If there is one thing I have learned about photography, it is that it is all about light. If you have bad light, you have a bad photo. Flash can make things look unnatural or cast horrible shadows. This topic comes up because I was just browsing Flickr and discovered that there were a lot of images of guys taken at night that were really bad. A lot of otherwise really cute guys looked sickly or drunk, all because of bad lighting. The issue comes from the fact that at the end of the day a lot of guys get this really unique glow to their skin, flash will make that glow look like the guys are just dropping wet, and not in a good way, however, natural light, especially near sunset, gives these guys a warm, appealing glow, almost angelic, except in a whole different way. The problem is that in general, the proper lighting is not enough light for the camera.

There are several ways to solve the direct flash issue,

1. Extend shutter time – this often causes blurry images, however, it does give the best chance for natural light to enter. Often not an option of compact cameras.
2. Increase sensitivity – this puts grain into the image, but keeps a lot of color and isn’t as likely to blur as a shutter time extension. Often not an option on compact cameras (they already do this for the puny sensors)
3. External bounce flash – this puts you in control of the light source, but if not used carefully, you are back to square one. Can often be bounced from any number of places, or diffused as needed. Almost no compact cameras have a hot shoe for the external unit.
4. Diffusion – if you have flash, you have this option. Using a combination of paper plates, aluminum foil, clear plastic cups and anything else you can find that will diffuse light but not block it, you can bounce light around just enough to let it bounce around before hitting your subject, taking the light off your subject and adding to the ambient light level. Takes practice, but anybody can do it (although, having an assistant to hold the diffusion object in front of the flash is a good idea). Also, a safety note, do not put anything flammable or a human body part closer than about 3 inches from a flash bulb that will fire.

Its nearly 11am and I have not been to bed yet, so if this is TMI or in any way incoherent, I apologize, but then again, this is my blog, what did you expect?