blog-page

Truly inspiring video

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 06:13:26 +0100

The Third & The Seventh from Alex Roman on Vimeo.

The Illusion of Colour

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:33:40 +0100

I have been thinking about how we as humans see colour.

As mad as it will seem to most - I have come to understand that we actually see no colour at all, in fact colour in a real state does not exist.

Instead colour is the result of the minds interpretation of the sequence of signals that pound our retinas as light and here’s how.

First we have to understand that light is Electromagnetic radiation which has huge bandwidths and varying wavelengths. Some of those Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) wavelengths can be received by the human eye and some cannot. In total 380 to 750 nm of EMR can be received by the cones and rods of the average human eye, which is a very small amount from the physical EMR available which is currently recorded to be 1pm -100Mm (1picameter – 100 Megameter).

In this sense the eye is in fact a EMR receiver no different to the satellite dish on your roof but instead tuned to receive a particular set of wavelengths, which is known as “visible light”.

When those signals hit the rods and cones the information gets sorted out with the receptive cells behind them called bipolar-cells, amacrine-cells and ganglion cells. These cells in turn send spiked signals to the receptive area in the brain which then decodes the signal (this is where the signal also gets lost to scientists) and gets interpreted by the “mind”. [“Mind” being the unexplained awareness of self-interpretation-will-recall-and-forethought of a living being.] It is believed that the point where the signal is lost that a common phenomenon within all human brains interprets the signal into physical colour/s. Which the rest of the brain then records as such and the “mind” accepts. These colours also include ones that have no signal at all such as Magenta which has no place in the EMR scope (as was described by Newton, Magenta is the only color that does not exist as a single wavelength of light, rather it is a mean result of two separate wavelengths). In fact Magenta can be used as evidence to prove that the mind invents colour as a means of interpretation of received EMR signal.

Whilst researching some of the above points I came across an interesting phenomenon called Synesthesia. Synesthesia is where other senses cause colours to be present for the receiver of the sensed happenings around them, be them aural; physical; gastronomical or via the olfactory.

Image listening to your friend talking and every time their voice hits a middle C, you get a flash of blue. Or even every time you eat an orange your world seems greener!

A study was carried out on Synesthesia using positron-emission tomography (PET) scans. In turn researchers have determined that the fusiform gyrus, in the temporal lobe of the brain, houses independent areas responsible for numbers and letters, and words. And that they In fact believe that the colour-recognition area of the brain is right next to the numbers- and letters-processing section. Thus hyperactivity in this region or over development can and does lead to Synesthesia.

Though I have gone off on a tangent here it certainly does pose the question about the existence of colour in our mind and what the world would truly look like if we could truly see it!

On the other hand a conundrum arises and horribly so.

Say I have a red box and I place that amongst 6 individuals and asked them what colour it is, they would most likely say in consensus that the box is red. But what would happen if say someone sees it as being blue and another as being orange etc., what then would be the scenario? most likely huge debates and lots of abuse given out about how bad the other person’s eyes are etc. But what if the reality IS that we DO see the same colour as a different colour but we have simply learned by presentation from our elders to recognize it as being a “red”,”blue” or “green”?

If we think for a moment beyond the confusion of what is colour and study black and white images and try to understand why black and white images relay so much more emotion, we can subtly start to understand the waste of time that our brains suffer trying to decipher EMR just to make the world a prettier place for the viewer.

The illusion of colour consumes photographers far and wide as they try to master it and try to present more and more and more of it, and yet in a single gray scale more can be said than a million words could ever say or a billion colours could ever paint.

It’s just a thought.

When Your Depth Of Field is in a Circle Of Confusion

Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:23:15 +0100

When Your Depth Of Field is in a Circle Of Confusion

I have recently read a few articles and guides that cover the depth of field (DOF) in photography, either about what it is or its application. Initially I made cut and paste notes of those articles and was going to put together my own article based on those C+P words but I kind of figured ‘isn’t it better to do my own?’ After all most guide lines lead us to be confused in one way or another.
First what is depth of field?

To cut the tech out so things get quickly understood - here are two images, the first has an extreme depth of field and the second has a shallow depth of field.

As can be easily seen in the above images the extreme depth of field covers the whole scene and everything is in detail, whilst on the other hand a shallow depth of field covers a specific point with the rest of the scene blurred or obscured. Though the first image carried more information, the second image has more interest to the eye and thus more “art” impact to the viewer.

Deep or extreme depths of field are usually used in landscapes photography but are also used in street photography and photojournalism where more information can relay a greater story or a more solid and detailed scene.

The shallow depth of field on the other hand is usually used in portraiture and still life photography, but these are not set rules rather rhythms that most photographers apply.

SO NOW YOU’VE CHATTED TOO MUCH…HOW DO CONTROL THE “DOF”

It’s a very simple procedure. On any standard DSLR camera the best way to get a greater depth of field is to use a higher number aperture setting such as f16 and higher, the focal distance set to exact midpoint and a low ISO sensitivity (100 or less, 50 is better). For a shallow DOF set the aperture to the lowest number setting such as f3.5 or lower, set the focal distance on the target subject and have a more sensitive ISO setting of 400.

What you can do to practice this, before going out, is to take several objects of equal size and place them on a line at equal distances from the camera lens. Play around with the settings especially the f-numbers and the shutter speed. Once you can do what has been presented in the two images above then you are ready to “go-live” and experiment out and about with the same thing.

Practice street portraiture by asking passersby if you can photograph them. They will be curious to ask why, don’t be shy and explain what it is you are doing and always show them the results. If you get bad feedback, walk on, there are plenty of people in this world. Try to photograph them with 50% of the scene sharp in the background and then the same with the scene blurred like a photographic canvass backdrop. You’ll be amazed at the results. If people are not your thing then try with low to the ground objects like fire hydrants and post boxes etc.

Whatever you do, have fun. It is advisable to walk around with business cards with your details and your website or photo gallery url printed on them, that way the people you interact with get to interact with you as well enjoy what you do. It all makes for a friendlier world after all.

Any questions on this topic then email me at admin@photospeye.com and I will try to get you your answers.

Sunny f16 Rule

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:39:23 +0100

The F16 rule is not a regulation for the Lochhead Fighting Falcon but a basic light estimation method.
Commonly known as the Sunny f16 rule (also known as the Sunny f/16 rule) it can achieve correct exposure of difficult subjects. As the rule is based on incident light, rather than reflected light as with most camera light meters, very bright or very dark subjects are compensated for. The rule serves as a mnemonic for the camera settings obtained on a sunny day using the exposure value (EV) system.

The basic rule is, “On a sunny day set aperture to f/16 and shutter speed to the ISO film speed.” For example:

* On a sunny day and with ISO 100 film in the camera, one sets the aperture to f/16 and the shutter speed to 1/100 or 1/125 second (on most cameras 1/125 second is the available setting nearest to 1/100 second).

* On a sunny day with ISO 200 film and aperture at f/16, set shutter speed to 1/200 or 1/250.

* On a sunny day with ISO 400 film and aperture at f/16, set shutter speed to 1/400 or 1/500.

As with other light readings, shutter speed can be changed as long as the f-number is altered to compensate, e.g. 1/250 second at f/11 gives equivalent exposure to 1/125 second at f/16.

An elaborated form of the Sunny 16 rule is to set shutter speed nearest to the reciprocal of the ISO film speed and f-number according to this table:

Aperture Lighting Conditions Shadow Detail
f/16 Sunny Distinct
f/11 Slight Overcast Soft around edges
f/8 Overcast Barely visible
f/5.6 Heavy Overcast No shadows

taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_16_rule

NEW HDR SOFTWARE WORKS WONDERS

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:37:30 +0100

TEST IMAGES
............

For HDR 32bit floating point image:

3 RAW files taken on a canon rebel xti, Focal 18mm, ISO 100, shutter priority at 1/125

image 1= F/11; image 2 = F/22; image 3 = F/5.6
............

Why such strange settings? Because the image was a handheld HDR. I could of lowered the ISO to 200 and used the aperture priority setting but then

I would of chanced noise. Also by using the shutter priority with handheld HDR I get softer looking skys and still maintain detail in them.

Now onto the process.
...

HDR DARKROOM
...............

I load up HDR-D which at first seems to have an easy learning curve and very few buttons to fiddle with...a straight to the point tonemapper.
On the left panel are small buttons that are page-relative active, which helps coordinate the workflow, rather than tabbing through menus.

Though the initial create HDR window could have other options such as "remove aberration", Manuel input of levels, and different alignments (such as rotational variance, horizon shift, auto, and manual with alignment pins...[wish list]). In all the compiler is relatively straight forward and easy to use, especially for the beginner, though a good idea would be to bring in an expert mode where by the prementioned options could be available.
Loading up the images is rather quick especially in the fast alignment mode which loads 3jpgs in 9 seconds(guess exposure) and 8 seconds(exif), whilst 3 RAWs take 20 seconds (guess exposure) 21 seconds (exif).

A full table is given here:

image type : quantity : alignment : method : time
.........................................................

   JPG : 3 : accurate   : guess   : 48s
   RAW : 3 : accurate   : guess   : 56s
   JPG        : 3 :    fast    : guess   : 9s
   RAW : 3 :    fast      : guess   : 20s
   JPG        : 3 : no : guess   : 6s
   RAW : 3 : no : guess   : 18s
   JPG    : 3 : accurate   : exif : 46s
   RAW : 3 : accurate   : exif : 55s
   JPG : 3 :    fast    : exif : 8s
   RAW : 3 :    fast : exif    : 21s
   JPG        : 3 : no    : exif : 6s
   RAW : 3 : no     : exif : 18s

Calculated on a Intel Quad Core 2.83ghz CPU having 4GB RAM.

I like the fact I can bring in a single image and enhance details too (all those jpgs that needed a bit more enhancement are certainly cued to HDR-D now).
...

Once the image is compiled
..............
A mean point version appears on the screen and can be rotated either way by clock or anti-clock, this helps a great deal as we all like to look at our images straight on when editing.

The settings are great and easy to use, but I feel the histogram should be a floating window, hidden away at the top right of the screen means that when scrolling down the editing panel the histogram disappears.

There is 3 tone mapping engines to choose from:
Local tone balancer (LTB)
Local tone enhancer (LTE)
Fast tone compressor (FTC).

LTB is great for grunge work as it exaggerates detail though for the sacrifice of smoothness over plain areas and tends to render rather noisy images especially in grays and blues. Images are noisy and there tends to be colour artifacts occuring in white areas such as bright clouds etc.

Some people enjoy this type of editing and can be great fun when trying to get even more detail from an image. Scientifically it can be used to extract minor details for visual appeal, photographically it can be used to create an image to be masked into a not so heavily tonemapped version to bring out detail in wood, rock and other textured surfaces.
Settings include: strength (contrasting detail); Local light (controls light curve); brightness (overall exposure control); saturation (colour amount).

LTE is where the photographers want to be. Having control over strength of local contrast as well as brightness and saturation, one can also have control over the shadows exposure with a clever control called fill-light. The Fill-light function though controlling the global soft contrast tends to lighten up the darker regions just enough to pull out a little more detail without creating useless noise. A superb feature to use.
Once you are somewhere near the image you want you will notice that the image is a bit washed out, this is where the B/W clipping on the lower panel comes into play though a live-histogram is needed for accuracy of bin clip.
Also what I found was the sliders are post-slide-view rather than live-view. It’s not a big deal but I like to shift the slider and watch the detail or contrast on the image shift at the same time, this helps coordinate things quicker.
The balance of luminance to contrast to saturation is very good indeed, in fact so much so that post-wise very little emphazize in the way of color balance and hue correction is needed, Which means a quicker final result.

FTC renders superb results quickly. Its great for people who have a lot of images to get through. Working basically the same as LTE except in FTC the fill-light function is lost. Most FTC produced images might need a little colour balancing which you can either do with the provided colour balance panel or post with Photoshop etc. In all a great function that is neither brain taxing nor noisy.
...

Once done
.............

You have the choice to export to photoshop which is excellent, but I would like to see control over the PPi (pixels per inch) and File type, jpg, tiff, etc. and its BPC (bits per channel) rate, 8,16,32.
Saving the image allows you multiple options and formats to save at such as: jpg, bmp, png, tif-24bit, HDR, EXR, tif-48bit.
I recommend tif-48bit as you want to retain as much information as possible as the monitors and LCDs do not show all the available color space.
A great thing is you can reload your resulting image back into HDR-D and get more detail out. One thing to note is the lack of irritating and surreal contrast halos...YES!!!---AT LAST!!!
...

Overall, as you can see from the 3 attached images HDR-D renders very well, though there is a little aberration that can be worked around without much difficulty. The detail and preservation of contrast-to-detail is very well balanced. Not much noise (LTE and FTC settings), no more than any other HDR tonemapper (a lot less than photomatix...whispers).

I enjoy global contrasting for tonemapping and so HDR-D works well with me as it gives me the results I am looking for.

I am yet to try batching and can't wait for when its available.
...

HDR DARKROOM could easily be my new tool of choice for tonemapping.

The resulting image can be viewed here: http://stuartperry.deviantart.com/art/Grand-Arch-143020387

stuart perry

renovated at last

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:35:20 +0100

I have just finished re-editing the thousands of old photos I have from 2006-08.
Over the next few months I will upload the whole collection under categories such as:

PEOPLE ... Human Perspectives Collection phase 1 complete, please view here
URBAN DECAY ... phase 1 complete, please view here
HERITAGE
NATURE
SCENES
PORTFOLIO

If you have any suggestions please either email me or comment here under the blog in the comments box.

Enjoy.

Legal Criminal Aspects

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:04:56 +0100

As a photographer, with modern paranoia induced by rabid media dogs, photographers are seen to be the demons of the modern society.

Why?
Because very very very few but bad individuals take photos for reasons other than photography.
These people are generally paedaphiles, crooks (gathering data for heists) and of course the infamous terrorist (I bet you imagined a bearded man? right?).

Now there is (at a guess) probably 50,000 pro-am photographers in the UK alone, maybe a little less in germany a lot more in france and about the same for most european countries. We could easily say that there is about 2,000,000 pro-am photographers in europe alone. This does not include the "happy-snapper-facebook-myspace" exhibitionists.
So if we were to include them we could conclude that probably the amount could equal 80,000,000 or more happy snappers.
Now lets make this image wider.
How many people have cell-phones with cameras? We could happily say more than half of europes population, right?
This is roughly 220,000,000, or about 5.5% of the worlds population.

Let us take the paranoia element and expand on that.

Be afraid of paedaphiles for sure, but paedaphiles who take photos of kids are usually either older relatives of the kids or have direct access to the kids due to either profession or trust. Most paedaphiles would not risk a photograph randomly taken on the street as for them the risk is equal to actually taking a child (may God forbid it from happening.)
So the chances of a paedaphile running around with a camera in hand taking shots of kids is very very slim.

Now.

Does this mean that every male muslim in Europe is no longer allowed to photograph in public?
Does it also mean that every male in europe who photographs a scene with kids in it is a paedaphile?

Its your choice, you make your mind up about it.

In todays society, too many assumptions are delivered as facts and too many peoples lives are destroyed by these very assumptions.
As a muslim, as a photographer, as a human being I ask people to think before acting on a whim installed by rabid media dogs' enjoyment of paranoia.
Think before condemning a man to prison because of an assumption that sits in a paranoid frame that has been forced upon you.
Think, as much as you would not like to be blamed for something that you did not do, is it not the same for us too?
The world is becoming an awful place and freedom is something for Hollywood to make glorious movies about but no longer exists in our daily reality.

Photography is an art - not an act of sexual invasion nor a terrorist plot.

A photographer is an artist not an extremist (I bet you thought about muslims with back-packs again...right? don't believe the hype.)

Let us share the freedom as we share the photographs and may the world be a better, brighter place.

Time to make a change and YOU can do it!

http://www.not-a-crime.com/

Welcome

Fri, 31 Jul 2009 03:27:02 +0100

Welcome.

I am Stuart Perry.

Originating from Birmingham in the UK and now living elsewhere in the world.
Photography is my world, my way of communicating to others, sometimes it's the only way to communicate.
I love to see things from different angles and enjoy the places I see turn into works of art through the lenses of my cameras.
I have in the region of 20,000 photographs, so as you can imagine its not so easy to upload them all here.
But what I endeavour to do is to show you the views through my lens, show you the stories I see through my lens and give to you an image of the life and world we live in.
I just hope you enjoy them.