C&C 10-20 woes

Calina

I have weird issues around the area of C&C posts, between posting stuff whcih I know is not perfect, and which I'd like some guidelines on, and stuff which I think is fantastic, which I want people to see, and trying to balance the feedback.

This is from Sunday morning, Dollymount, chosen because Dollymount is a big beach and the being frightened standing in the middle of 20 zooming past me men didn't arise so much.

Compositionally, this is one of my favourite photographs for various reasons. Technically, not so happy with it.

I've a bundle of shots taken on Sunday. IIRC they were all shot at F8 which would appear to really be the functional minimum with that lens under the conditions of 30 metre kitelines. The problem I have with many of them is that a) it's damn hard to choose a focussing point. Ultimately, there's often nothing in the middle to focus on because kite is at one extremity and kitesurfer is at the other extremity. Sunday, the weather/light wasn't exactly friendly either. Actually, it was absolutely appalling.

Anyway, the deal with this is from a processing point of view, has anyone any suggestions? Yes I know we're dealing with some underexposure, but conversions to black and white have been less than stellar; there's one blue rinse shot in the stream near this one and really it kills me that I am starting to be able to frame the shots I want but get let down by the light all the time.

Advice to move to the Dominican Republic or Noumea will be ignored. I need to be able to pay for a 40D after all.

georgey

Did you try all focus points on? My MKII would have gone for the highest contrast part of the pic and would have focused on the surfer for this reason, on the PP question if you CS2 (maybe CS) use the shadow/highlight tool under Image-adjustments tab, play around with the shodows sliders and it should fix this no problems.
Philip

Borderfox

I would try all the focus points on too. Nice shot by the way..

Calina

I actually have been given conflicting advice about this...maybe the rules of engagement for the 10-20 are very different to the long zooms on this front, but related to DOF issues on the zooms, I was advised to go for a single focussing point so that I wound up not focussing on the wave just beyond...if you catch my drift.

The image has been processed for shadows/highlights and contrast. Ultimately, I know that the mixture of signally horrible light along with some under exposure is not going to be nice to fix.

DaireQuinlan

Calina wrote:

I actually have been given conflicting advice about this...maybe the rules of engagement for the 10-20 are very different to the long zooms on this front, but related to DOF issues on the zooms, I was advised to go for a single focussing point so that I wound up not focussing on the wave just beyond...if you catch my drift.

The image has been processed for shadows/highlights and contrast. Ultimately, I know that the mixture of signally horrible light along with some under exposure is not going to be nice to fix.

by 10-20 I presume you mean a 10mm - 20mm zoom ? Thats about what, a 16mm-28mm in 35mm terms ? Focusing wise you could try upping the ISO and shooting at F8 / F16 manually focused at the hyperfocal distance, no need for focusing at all then ! WA lenses typically have pretty enormous depths of field. As regards the exposure there's not a lot you can do I reckon in a situation like this, any attempt to get the kitesurfer exposed correctly is going to blow out the sky I'd say. You might have to just live with that. I'm guessing you're shooting from directly below or to one side, so that the shadowed side of the surfer is almost always going to be facing you, with an overcast evenly illuminated sky thats probably the most challenging angle to try and take that shot :-)

AnCatDubh

no advice about the lens from this quarter but your stream has some well processed images.

i like what you did with this (is this the blue rinse you were talking about)



Also transparent framing like this i think works well;



So the long and the short of it in terms of processing (i think) is to do more of what you have been doing.

I mean - the sky is fairly s***e, but there's not much you could do about that (except maybe find religion ;o) . The sky is also responsible for the problem with the exposure issues. So with the source material you have available to you i.e. the captured image, i think go artsy like the other ones you've done above.

Not sure if that helps but its just my two'pence worth.

Cheers.

Borderfox

My take on the shot. Keep experimenting, I dont know how many times I suprise myself how to portray an equestrian shot, reinvention is the key, always change, break the rules if neccessary. Nothing is written in stone, if people tell me I cant get a shot shooting directly into the sun thats a challenge to me. I love the blue rinse effect, suits the shot very well.

Calina

I think the main issue is I'm getting a bit tired of having to do special processing on all these photographs because the light is so dud. I've been doing it for most of the summer at this stage. It was fine in May when I had the summer ahead of me. Now it's nearly October, I didn't get a summer and there was no light and no contrast.

The two that AnCatDubh linked into have two filters applied. I've done the high noise trick in the past. I've been radial blurring. I've been film graining. I have used every special effect filter I can to extract something out of these photographs.

Maybe I need a holiday from all this. Again.

JMcL

Calina wrote:

I actually have been given conflicting advice about this...maybe the rules of engagement for the 10-20 are very different to the long zooms on this front, but related to DOF issues on the zooms, I was advised to go for a single focussing point so that I wound up not focussing on the wave just beyond...if you catch my drift.

Regarding focus, I'd go with Daire's advice and use the hyperfocal distance. With a lens this wide on a small sensor camera, this is a doddle - if you manually focus to about 3m (I judge this to be about 1/4-1/3 the way from the 1m mark to infinity, which seems about right) then at f8 and 10mm everything from 40cm to infinity will be sharp. You can calculate the effect of the various combinations here.

Regarding exposure, I'd go manual again, and not let the camera metering get confused by bright skies. Unless the sun is in and out constantly, you should be fine with this.

(ps I'm still trying to make up my mind whether you're very brave or barking mad trying to get close enough to a kite surfer with a 10mm lens Whichever, nice photo!)

DaireQuinlan

JMcL wrote:

You can calculate the effect of the various combinations here.

yeah, good call on that site. I've got the downloadable (DOFMaster for windows) version of it that you can use to print out handy charts. I've always used a smaller than recommended circle of confusion though. I don't know about digital sensors, but using the recommended 35mm COC with film like Velvia for example, the resulting shots are unacceptably soft, for 35mm I always use .025mm or .020mm if I can get away with it.

I have a handy little cheat sheet on a label stuck permanently to my 20-35 for both COCs. I notice that the recommended one for APS sized sensors is 0.019. I presume this can be calculated with more accuracy for digital sensors than film, because any circle of confusion smaller than the actual dot pitch of the sensor itself for example is a bit of a waste :-)

Calina

JMcL wrote:

Regarding focus, I'd go with Daire's advice and use the hyperfocal distance. With a lens this wide on a small sensor camera, this is a doddle - if you manually focus to about 3m (I judge this to be about 1/4-1/3 the way from the 1m mark to infinity, which seems about right) then at f8 and 10mm everything from 40cm to infinity will be sharp. You can calculate the effect of the various combinations here.

Regarding exposure, I'd go manual again, and not let the camera metering get confused by bright skies. Unless the sun is in and out constantly, you should be fine with this.

(ps I'm still trying to make up my mind whether you're very brave or barking mad trying to get close enough to a kite surfer with a 10mm lens Whichever, nice photo!)

Thanks a million. I shoot on f8 fully manual by default unless it's really bright and then it's on aperture priority.

I don't have to get close to the kitesurfer. They come to me as a general rule and where that lens is concerned, I generally talk to them before I go in the water so that we've a reasonable idea of what to aim for. I am considering getting a slightly narrower lens for this because I'm not always getting what I want with the 10-20.

elven

In terms of processing, I think you possibly have space to push the histogram to the right further and bring back the highlight detail in ACR. That will give you more leeway to bring out the colours in the subject, with less compression at the shadow end of the histogram. To bring back the sky even more, just use one of the channels as a mask for a levels layer - since it's almost a silhouette you can do that with a couple of clicks, no bother:

Select background, check which channel gives you the best contrast, ctrl+a and ctrl+c to select and copy. Create a new levels layer, alt+click in the mask then ctrl+v to paste the mask in. Click back to the background layer so you can see the main pic again then go back into the levels dialog and you'll see that the chages you make only apply to the sky.

A wee trick as well as the shadows/highlights tool that sometimes helps me bring back shadow detail (a la Guy Gowan) is a new adjustment layer: selective colour - do you have that in elements? Basically for each colour in the drop down, slide to the left the colours that aren't used to make that one up - like slide the cyan and magenta left when you've selected yellow, the yellow left when you select blue, you get the idea. Then reduce the opacity of the layer to make it look less fake when you've finished.

Both of those things, you can stick into an action so if you have aload of shots that need the same stuff done, you just have to click one button to finish it.

Just as an aside though, I looked through a kitesurfing magazine at the weekend there and your stuff was head and shoulders above most of the photography in there

SOL

Use a flash next time? it would light up the surfer, they wouldn't care cause it'd be too bright outside to bother them and you would have nicely exposed images...?

DaireQuinlan

SOL wrote:

Use a flash next time? it would light up the surfer, they wouldn't care cause it'd be too bright outside to bother them and you would have nicely exposed images...?

Its not a bad idea, a nice little bit of fill would do the job. One problem though ... would YOU bring a fully charged flash out waist deep in salt water :eek:

Calina

I'm considering the flash idea yes, for other reasons. However, I'd square it with them in advance because no matter how bright it is, there's still a risk of blinding them which you don't want if they are coming at you at driving speed. What I want to do with the flash would probably work better on a really sunny day though which Sunday wasn't.

My sanity is already questioned. I don't suppose the flash would make much difference except that my flash gun synchs at 1/200 afair and that's too slow.

I'm really grateful for all the input I'm getting here, by the way. It makes a major difference to me to know that people put some thought into the problems I've had this summer.

elven, thanks for the comment about the magazines...makes me feel good. I think some of what you recommend is possible in elements, but not all of it. I will have a closer look at it later on this evening.

JMcL

DaireQuinlan wrote:

I presume this can be calculated with more accuracy for digital sensors than film, because any circle of confusion smaller than the actual dot pitch of the sensor itself for example is a bit of a waste :-)

There's an article here on LuLa that discusses this. To quote:

(from an article by Charles S. Johnson on Luminous Landscape)

"So how can digital cameras and especially DSLR cameras with large pixels work with high quality lenses and small diffraction broadening. This is only possible through the use of anti-aliasing filters that blur the image! Such filters are, of course, a standard feature of modern digital cameras; and cameras with very small pixels need less blurring to avoid aliasing. The conclusion is that small sensors with high pixel density are not necessarily overkill at least as far as resolution is concerned."

It's an interesting read, though heavy on the hard sums, and turns into a bit of intellectual willy waving between the two lads. (ironically, I hated optics in physics when I was at school)

ThOnda

Too late for any comments.
Your exposure is excellent, as usuall. There are details inthe darkest parts of the mad man and also enough information to make the sky look good.
As DaireQuinlan said, with wide lenses you don't have to focus so much. Having experience with 17mm lense, I set f8, focused at 1,5 meters and forgot about focusing. That's the street photography way. And it is essential with very fast sports, like cycling (the sport I like). You just don't have time to focuse.
And about fill-in flash - it is not problem in MTB DH races, so what about people with soft landing into the water? Don't worry about blinding them. If you set the flash correctly, there'll be almost no effect on their orientation.

Calina

ThOnda wrote:

And about fill-in flash - it is not problem in MTB DH races, so what about people with soft landing into the water? Don't worry about blinding them. If you set the flash correctly, there'll be almost no effect on their orientation.

Uhem ThOnda, you're really missing a key point here. The second last time I was out with the wide angle in the water, one of the best kitesurfers in the country almost landed on top of me. I don't care about them (well I do), but I really care about them landing on top of me which they can do even without being blinded.

ThOnda

That's the spirit! If you want to be close, you have to be careful. And if they can't control that wired thing, they shouldn't be doing that. I suppose that your movement during photography is much slower than theirs, so they have the responsibility.
With respect to both parts in sports photograhpy - everybody has to take care about himself and the others.

Monasette

Treasa, I continue to be amazed (and a little bit worried) by what you do. Tried shooting wind-surfers a few times (from dry land) and didn't make much of a job of it.

Re: fill-in flash - (not sure if I mentioned this before) - the Canon 580EX II synches at all speeds with the 5D (and probably other Canon cameras - definitely the pro dslrs). Couldn't imagine bringing that kit into the water, though.