tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-81466225447046539852024-03-13T11:13:12.131-07:00Matt Smith ImagingMatt Smith Imaging is a blog that discusses various issues in video/photo/design and also reports on my own latest work.Matt Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06086957910739482757noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8146622544704653985.post-75899894338340426042012-12-30T08:40:00.002-08:002012-12-30T08:43:23.387-08:00Final Cut X – Apple's Black SheepThis is just a short account of my recent experience with Final Cut X. Having used Final Cut over the last few years (only recently converting to Premiere), I was looking forward to use their latest installment in editing software: Final Cut X. Upon opening the program, my initial surprise came from the difference in the appearance of the console. There were rumours before it came out that Apple was moving away from professional editing and towards the consumer sector. This was evident within a few minutes of using Final Cut X, which began to feel more like a glorified iMovie than a professional editing package. The simplest of tasks that are the work of a second in Premiere are either missing, require plugins that have not been released or require a convoluted process using a host of other software. Editing titles, image control, colour mattes...WHERE ARE THEY??? The most annoying aspect for me was the inability to create save files, making the project to appear in your movies folder, and forcing you to follow an overly complicated procedure if you want to share a project on two computers. Other letdowns are the backwards compatibility issue, the limited export options and the lack of audio control. This is the most disappointing technological release that I can remember and I have immediately switched back to Premiere and After Effects. Matt Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06086957910739482757noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8146622544704653985.post-3685654602271547182012-04-11T12:14:00.004-07:002012-04-11T12:22:47.548-07:00Bloomin marvelousFor all you budding landscape photographers out there, it's that time of year again when the bluebells are rampant in our woodlands. It's well worth searching for a good patch near you and spending a little time to find an interesting angle to show them off. Personally, I like using a higher focal length because you really get a sense of the total coverage of their blanket and get a full blast of colour. The image below was taken in Knott Woods near Rothamsted Park, which is only open to the public for this month. While there is probably better light in the early morning, as long as you get some nice shafts of light to illuminate them, there is no reason why you cannot get a great image at midday.<br /><br /><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qbJIVE2-foA/T4XZ4Q0oAYI/AAAAAAAAADQ/oYTMTCkumG4/s1600/4.jpg"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 267px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qbJIVE2-foA/T4XZ4Q0oAYI/AAAAAAAAADQ/oYTMTCkumG4/s400/4.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5730225661510418818" border="0" /></a><br /><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bfEFmpky7io/T4XZCs4NwZI/AAAAAAAAADE/iJgrb_ZCx5Y/s1600/4.jpg"></a>Matt Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06086957910739482757noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8146622544704653985.post-74836246560480724912012-04-11T11:58:00.002-07:002012-04-11T12:07:10.604-07:00Taking a picture to print: PART II – colourIt may sound silly, but when working with colour images, one of the most important things is to get the colour spot on. Nobody wants to end up with an image showing purple grass or yellow trees (with the possible exception of D.Hockney). There are different processes (both in camera and in post-production) that can have a dramatic influence on the colour of your final print/image and while it may not be in your interest to learn and understand all the related technical jargon, it's fundamental to know how they affect your image and how to control this.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">In Camera</span><br /><br />For almost all photography, the trick to creating great images is making sure that you've made each step along the way as easy and quick for yourself as possible, starting in the camera. Even before pressing the shutter, you should have gone through the menu and set the camera up for the type of shooting you want. This includes controls for choosing between jpg/RAW, metering modes and importantly, <span style="font-style: italic;">colour space </span>and<span style="font-style: italic;"> white balance</span>.<br /><br />Colour spaces are models that are used to represent colour using quantifiable values of Red, Blue and Green. There are two colour spaces available in the camera: <span style="font-style: italic;">Adobe RGB </span>and<span style="font-style: italic;"> sRGB</span>. If you wish to know more about these, then there are some very in depth blogs and websites that will go into much greater detail. In the interest of time, here is a brief overview. The 'S' in sRGB stands for standard and as such, it has become the standard colour space for image display. Adobe RGB was designed to encompass a broader range of colours, aiming for most of those achievable on CMYK printers. So Adobe RGB has more colours, sRGB can represent finer shades of colours. This is about all you need to know. Almost all photography work is done using sRGB because it is universal and compatible around the world. Unless you have some special need for it, are controlling all post-production and are in direct contact with your printers, Adobe RGB is not for you.<br /><br />Now you have your colour space sorted, it's time to correct your white balance (WB). In order to achieve the most accurate representation of the real world colours, you need to work out what the primary source of light is and it's temperature (temperature is just another word for colour –hot being redder and cold being blue). There are different types of lighting, but the three most common are tungsten (red-orange), fluorescent (blue) and daylight. To make your job easier, try not to mix different temperatures of light or you will find it very hard to balance the colour of all the elements in the image. In the event that you require another source as a fill light, try a flashgun with a complementing coloured gel. On some DSLR's, it is also possible to set your own custom white balance, and for this, you need a white surface to act as a reference colour. Generally, I just shoot on auto WB and make any small adjustments in Photoshop. In some instances, when I find that auto just isn't having the required effect, I might change it to one of the presets, but it is rare for me to need a custom WB.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Post-production</span><br /><br />Assuming that you've been shooting in RAW/sRGB and have kept to good shooting practice, your photos should need minimal adjustments. I try to keep mine down to adjusting levels, colour balance, contrast and possibly adding a vignette. Exceptions to this include exposure comps, long exposures and HDR shots.<br /><br />You may be patting yourself on the back now, thinking that you have negotiated your way through all the hurdles that have been flung in your way, but in fact there is one final test to champion. This is the part of the process when you need to work out what final output you are looking to produce and it's destination. You may want to upload your photos to a photo sharing website like flickr or 500px and have them scrutinised by your friends, enemies and total strangers. Alternatively, you may want to print them out and post them in a scrapbook or up on display for everyone to see as they walk into your room. Once you do this, you will be able to decide whether you want to export your images as CMYK or RGB.<br /><br />CMYK and RGB are both colour spaces that are used to represent images in various formats. CMYK is the colour space used in printing and stands for: Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black. These colours are related to the process by which colour is laid down in printing. If you have the chance, try looking at a photo in a book or a magazine with a magnifying glass and you will see that it is made up of loads of little coloured dots (some colours/text may not be made up of dots, but a constant layer of colour, but these use a process called spot colours, which cost a lot more and are not appropriate for printing photos). RGB stands for...you guessed it: Red, Blue and Green. Initially, RGB was initially created to closely resemble the colour perception of the human eye, but now it is used as the standard colour space for all electronic devices, including web.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">When sending images to print</span>, always make sure your images are <span style="font-weight: bold;">CMYK</span> and<span style="font-weight: bold;"> 300 dpi</span> (dots per inch – located under Image Size in Photoshop – consider whether you want to resample image, as this will change the number of pixels in the image and will affect the file size considerably). As I said in my previous post, try to export in jpg, as this will reduce file size and cause less confusion when sharing.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">When editing on the computer and uploading images to the web</span>, make sure your images are <span style="font-weight: bold;">RGB </span>and<span style="font-weight: bold;"> 72 dpi</span>.Matt Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06086957910739482757noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8146622544704653985.post-28026839913030348132012-04-06T13:32:00.004-07:002012-04-06T13:46:36.399-07:00Taking a picture to print: PART I – jpg vs RAWsRGB or Adobe, CMKY or RGB, what is DPI? Before and after the shutter has been released, a photographer is presented with a vast number of options that affect both the picture quality <span style="font-style: italic;">and</span> appearance. It would be an easy thing to flick the camera to Automatic mode and happily snap away in the knowledge that the camera is doing all the thinking for you. But if you are interested in taking your photography to the next level and want to compose pictures or bring them to print, a degree of understanding is needed to prevent mistakes that could have otherwise been easily avoided.<br /><br />First let us consider the debate of jpg vs RAW file. A few years ago, I was lucky enough to spend a couple of weeks deep in the Honduras jungle, conducting field experiments. At the time I was only a casual photographer and so only had a few small sized SD cards handy, with no laptop or portable hard-drive. In this scenario, I decided to use jpg instead of RAW, because it enabled me to continue shooting all the way up to the end of the two weeks without running out of space on my cards. The low file size of the jpg is one of the major advantages that the jpg has over RAW files. A typical jpg can be around a 1-3 MB, where a RAW can be 2 or 3 times larger than this. There are various technical reasons for this, but the only one you really need to know about is that the RAW file captures all the information from the sensor (including a higher dynamic range), while jpg doesn't, which is where the strength of shooting in RAW really lies.<br /><br />I always shoot RAW these days, not only for its ability to capture all the information on the sensor, but largely because it is a loss-less format, meaning that I can edit my photos to my hearts content and the image will maintain its quality, where a jpg will deteriorate with every edit you make. This even includes making minor changes, like a quick contrast change or rotation.<br /><br />You may be reading this and thinking that RAW is definitely the choice for you and largely, I would agree that it's the format of choice, however, there are some minor drawbacks. For instance, because of all the information it takes in, it takes longer for the camera to record a RAW shot than jpg. For landscape photography, this may not be a problem, but if you are an action or sports photographer, you might want to factor this in your decision. Another problem that I have encountered on various occasions is the issue regarding compatibility with computers. All the different brands of cameras have their own RAW files and certain editing software have notoriously had problems in opening some of these. Recently, I tried opening a few Nikon NEF files in Photoshop CS5 and encountered errors. While this is easily solved with download-able plugins or updating software, it renders RAW files unsuitable for sharing with other people, who may not have the correct version of software to open it. If you don't own any editing software or have no intention of editing, then jpg is for you since it is a universal file that can be opened in most software. It is also sharper and has a higher contrast than RAW files, which can look slightly washed out without appropriate tweaks.<br /><br />So to conclude, in almost all cases, it is better to shoot RAW, as you will have a greater control over the final image and safeguard against any mistakes in the camera (eg. a quick colour balance in Photoshop to remedy a dodgy white balance). After all the editing is complete, the final image should be saved down as a jpg, which is an ideal file for end users and clients due to its compatibility and relative small size. If you are still having difficulty in choosing between the two, I recommend you find the setting on your camera that allows you to shoot both jpg + RAW, since this will allow you use the jpg photos immediately and should you wish, come back to the RAW files in the future for post production.Matt Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06086957910739482757noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8146622544704653985.post-32875323426608715152012-03-23T09:49:00.004-07:002012-03-23T09:55:45.404-07:00Roadio photoshootHave been working with Roadio in the last few weeks, creating some hero shots for their website as well as profile pics for each driving instructor. I used my Canon 7D with 100mm f2 as well as a Nikon D7000 with a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 macro (with on camera flash for fill). Had to Photoshop some blue skies in, as it was miserably overcast.<br /><br /><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LSKt9rShjMs/T2yp02FgL6I/AAAAAAAAACs/ePt8n7Nxwvg/s1600/DSC_0284_LR.jpg"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 134px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LSKt9rShjMs/T2yp02FgL6I/AAAAAAAAACs/ePt8n7Nxwvg/s200/DSC_0284_LR.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5723135951817944994" border="0" /></a><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bWA6c3wYdZY/T2yp5XZbQXI/AAAAAAAAAC4/0K5knlyBhsc/s1600/IMG_3899_LR.jpg"> <img style="cursor: pointer; width: 89px; height: 133px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bWA6c3wYdZY/T2yp5XZbQXI/AAAAAAAAAC4/0K5knlyBhsc/s200/IMG_3899_LR.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5723136029479354738" border="0" /></a><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Sr1FdfcgwgE/T2ypxU19qeI/AAAAAAAAACg/viziqa4_QJk/s1600/DSC_0260_LR.jpg"> <img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 134px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Sr1FdfcgwgE/T2ypxU19qeI/AAAAAAAAACg/viziqa4_QJk/s200/DSC_0260_LR.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5723135891354790370" border="0" /></a>Matt Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06086957910739482757noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8146622544704653985.post-8083535187227724142012-03-23T09:16:00.012-07:002012-04-06T13:53:41.952-07:00Business Card Designs<span style="font-family: times new roman;font-family:times new roman;font-size:100%;" >I recently did some work for a friend, who is an up and coming</span><span style="font-family: times new roman;font-family:times new roman;font-size:100%;" > Photography Assistant and has worked with some terrific people. She asked for two business cards; </span><span style="font-family: times new roman;font-family:times new roman;font-size:100%;" >one for photography work and one for assisting work. I played</span><span style="font-family: times new roman;font-family:times new roman;font-size:100%;" > around with a few ideas, and finally, we agreed on this</span><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:100%;"> design (Front/Back):</span><br /><br /><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-y4aHkTMvg1Y/T2yoGsnMLAI/AAAAAAAAACI/yZUSCl6TWt0/s1600/sheila2.jpg"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 131px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-y4aHkTMvg1Y/T2yoGsnMLAI/AAAAAAAAACI/yZUSCl6TWt0/s200/sheila2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5723134059489274882" border="0" /></a><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TLe7sVFh2Wk/T2ynLuMBTqI/AAAAAAAAAB8/uqeeCCxCg8s/s1600/sheila.jpg"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 132px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TLe7sVFh2Wk/T2ynLuMBTqI/AAAAAAAAAB8/uqeeCCxCg8s/s200/sheila.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5723133046299905698" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PEMUwMFtskw/T2yjwQmPZKI/AAAAAAAAABw/Ls21FSrxvK0/s1600/sheila3.jpg"></a>Matt Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06086957910739482757noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8146622544704653985.post-23588419022628506932011-10-28T13:14:00.001-07:002011-10-28T13:14:38.060-07:00Here we explore the mystery of Depth of Field...Depth of Field (DOF) is probably one of the most difficult things for a beginner photographer to understand, probably because there are so many factors that affect it. Put simply, DOF describes the distance between the nearest and farthest elements in a photograph that appear acceptably sharp. This can be controlled by manipulating a number of different variables: The focal length, the aperture or "F-number," the size of the sensor and the distance from the camera to the subject. When used correctly, it can create an image that really stands out from the crowd.<br /><br />The aperture acts in a similar way to the iris in the eye, controlling the amount of light that is allowed to reach the sensor. It is represented by a series of numbers called f-stops. Depending on what lens you are using, you could be operating at f-stops ranging from f1.2 all the way up to f32. In reverse of what you would assume, the smaller the number, the wider the aperture and vice versa. At wide apertures, more light is let in and the DOF is shallow. These settings create images that have a beautifully sharp subject, but a blurred out background. A smaller aperture makes a deeper DOF, bringing more of the picture into focus.<br /><br />To practice this, set your camera at Aperture Priority (which might be represented by Av or A on your camera). On this setting, you can change the aperture manually and the camera will pick an appropriate shutter speed to expose the image correctly. Remember, the lower the f-number, the shallower the DOF. Try it out by taking your camera down to the lowest aperture it can manage, and focusing on an object. Telephoto lenses will have a more sensitive DOF than a wide angle lens, so try to zoom in to heighten the effect. Many cameras will have a DOF preview button that shows how the DOF will look, however if yours doesn't, don't worry, you can just take the picture and view it on preview screen. Now experiment by changing the aperture and comparing the images.<br /><br />Where would you want to use a large DOF: When you are taking pictures of landscapes, where you want everything in the picture to be in focus. This is also important when taking group photos, where you want to get everybody's face in focus.<br /><br />Where would you want to use low DOF: When you want to place emphasis on one part of the photo and remove any distractions. An example of this would be in portrait photography.<br /><br /><br />Top tips<br />1. Foreground objects can help to elevate the sense of depth in the photograph, while moving away from a subject decreases this effect. <br />2. Wide angle lenses will have less noticeable effects on Depth of Field than longer telephoto lenses.<br />3. Try using ND filters to allow you to lower the f-number in brighter conditions (this is especially useful when shooting video)<br />4. Generally, prime lenses will give you the ability to shoot at lower f-numbers than equivalent similarly priced zoom lenses.<br />5. Reduce camera shake at smaller apertures by using a tripod to steady the camera. Alternatively, use flashes or a higher ISO to increase shutter speed.Matt Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06086957910739482757noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8146622544704653985.post-35913385525407204352010-11-16T05:24:00.001-08:002012-04-10T03:20:06.103-07:00Black and White and ScienceUp until 1935, when Eastman Kodak Company brought Kodachrome, the first modern colour print to the public, black and white was the main method for capturing photos. This gives black and white photographs a timeless, elegant, nostalgic effect that cannot be replicated in colour. This applies to resizing photos, since a grainy black and white photo will maintain its allure with loss in quality, where a color one will be at disadvantage. However, if shooting in black and white, this also gives the impression that you are recording history, where colour is contemporary and current.<br /><br />When shooting in colour the eye is primarily drawn to strong colours, distracting away from the subject being photographed. When removing colour in monochrome, the viewer is led to see shapes, lines and form within the image that may not have been obvious with colour. On the other hand, colour adds definition to shape, and picks out minute details that black and white would not have shown. If shooting in darkness, then lighting has increased importance to black and white photography. Since the principal lighting will be coming from flash, or artifical lighting, black and white images can end up looking flat and dull because the interplay of light and shade has been removed, whereas colour will appear to have more depth and shape.<br />The main argument for colour would be that it shows life as close to realistic as possible, and for a discipline such as scientific biological photography, the main mission is to portray the subject as accurate as possible.<br /><br />Photography has become an essential component of many areas of science. The science of photography dates back to the 1830s, and by the end of the 19th century, photography was being used as an instrument of observation of events that were otherwise unobservable with the eye, as well as use as a form of measurement. One reason was the arrival of reliable and standardisable photographic emulsions. Its mechanical, reproducible and reliable nature was reason to believe it would function as an artificial retina. With the discovery of X-rays, photography was shown to be an extremely flexible medium, which could be manipulated to show otherwise unseen worlds. For some time however, artistic appropriation and the forgeries made by spiritualists undermined the objectivity of photographs. Since then, it has played a crucial role in the study of anatomy (after US surgeons office compiled a record of Civil War wounds) and provided objective standards for defining visual characteristics of species of animal or rock type.<br /><br />But photography can also, more and more frequently, be used to depict subjects that the human eye cannot see, such as hour long exposures bringing out astronomical details, or at the other extreme, high speed photos that can show a bullet in flight. Such discoveries as neutrons in 1932 and viruses in 1942 show photos to be invaluable source for science. In addition, non visible spectrum photographs can be taken, such as X-rays taken in hospitals, and UV photographs in astronomy and medicine.<br /><br />As in the case of von Hippel, some scientists can become so entranced with photographs that they continue to use photos created for experimental purposes as a form of art. For example, the X-ray photographs of atoms and molecules made by Dorothy Hodgkin, which were turned into textile designs for 1951 Festival of Britain.Matt Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06086957910739482757noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8146622544704653985.post-79085401992353452302010-11-14T13:28:00.000-08:002010-11-14T13:34:48.321-08:00Nikon vs Canon: Goliath vs goliathThe age old argument of Nikon vs Canon has lived on through the change from film to digital, and now hits the age of DSLR HD video. Lets for a moment ignore the other makes, such as panasonic, sony, olympus, pentax etc, and focus on the two. Why choose these two over others...well, I suppose historically, this is because Canon and Nikon dominated the lens market, and this meant that photographers could use their old film lenses on these new DSLRs. Lots of companies are coming out with quite good cameras, some of which can rival some of the Nikon and Canon cameras. I'm not mentioning such cameras as phase 1 and Hasselblad, which are out of my price range, and really for high end photography (eg. pro studio work).<br /><br />One major issue is compatibility with other lenses. Being a Nikon D40X owner, I was partially victim to this, since in many instances, AF does not work with the D40X, which lacks its own focusing motor. However, this small limitation is nothing compared to the EOS dilemma witnessed on Canon's mounts. Rendering all FD manual focus lenses impotent on the new mounts, a lot of lenses became extinct! If you are starting out as a new photographer, then this issue is redundant (unless you happen to be inheriting lenses). <br /><br />Now some more technical issues:<br /><br />Traditionally, Canon were used by sports and action photographers because of the speed of autofocus, but Nikon are now equal in the expensive high end lenses. In cheap lenses, there still seems to be a little bit of difference. There is a bit of a rumour going round that Canon are still dominating this market, however, this could be due to the huge amount of money they put into advertising and marketing, as well as the fact that L-series lenses (which are bright white) are so easily picked out in a crowd. The sudden move of wildlife photographer Andy Rouse would say otherwise, praising the D3's high ISO performance, and consistent AF.<br /><br />Flash control is a lot better in the Nikon camera, where Canon hides a lot of functions in its warren of menus. In TTL, Nikon flashes present information in an easy way, and the photographer has complete control over each independent flash. In this respect, Canon has an advantage where a quick turn of a dial can change the entire flash exposure quickly and simply. Nikon also carry an on camera wireless system, where Canon forces you to buy a pocketwizard.<br /><br />In Nikons, there are only 2 sensor sizes: Full frame and 1.5x, whereas Canon has full frame, 1.3x and 1.6x. if you're going to use different lenses on different cameras, this can be annoying, as they each perform differently depending on the frame size (full frame being very wide, while cropped zooms in). Full frame tend to be more expensive as well, though I think the quality of image and wide angle ability is well worth a look. <br /><br />I could talk about the differences in image quality and lenses for a quite a while, however, my next point is going to by about video. There are a few reasons why Canon video is generally considered better than Nikon. To avoid European Taxes placed on camcorders, Canon placed a limit of 12 minutes on any single clip (this might also be to do with buffering space on camera). In comparison to this, Nikon only have 5 minutes, which, having recorded lots of interviews, is not particularly helpful. There is no 1080p on Nikon video, which for most situations is OK, but soon, this will be the min requirement for HD. The quality of the two codecs is incomparable. The Canon H.264 beats the Nikons m.peg every time.<br /><br />Finally, comes personal choice. I started on Nikon cameras, and while I learnt photography with this set up, I also think that the Nikon camera is set in a much more user friendly way. All the controls seem to be in the right places, from the on off button to changing apertures and shutter speeds. I have found that the AF speed on cameras is generally pretty similar, though on my D40X (my first camera), I had the problem of lens compatibility. If I was going into photography, I would certainly choose a Nikon camera, starting out on a cheap model, say the D70, moving to a more pro camera, possibly the D3 or go to medium and large format. The inclusion of such good quality HD video on the Canons has forced my hand, and I am currently using a 7D to shoot video. Aside from the slightly annoying controls, and somewhat convoluted menu system, I haven't got any major issues using it, except, I have to get all new lenses, or an adapter. <br /><br />Cameras are largely down to consumer choice and feel. The best thing to do is go into a shop (Tottenham Court Road has quite a few camera shops, and you might be able to bargain and get a good deal), and try a few cameras out. I will probably blog about lenses at some point, but kit lenses tend to be pretty useful, and a lens like the Nikon 18-200mm VR is always quite good. If you are saving up, I quite like a 100mm macro, which encompasses portraits and macro work. Fixed focal lengths or prime lenses tend to be better quality, but only if you are going into photography as a profession, otherwise, there are a lot of good zoom lenses out there, including other third party companies, like sigma and tamron.<br /><br />Conclusion:<br /><br />Canon and Nikon are both massive multi million companies, who seem to leapfrog each other each year. At the moment, i would choose Nikon for photography just, but Canon in video by a long way, but this could change at any instant!Matt Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06086957910739482757noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8146622544704653985.post-84593451757183637132010-11-14T07:59:00.001-08:002010-11-14T07:59:49.927-08:00Final Cut vs Adobe PremiereFinal Cut vs Premiere<br /><br />Having applied for quite a few jobs now, the most pressing requirements for a lot of companies appear to be the ability to use and manipulate video in either final cut or premiere. What are the two, and what are the differences? <br /><br />Having recently completed an MSc in Biological Photography and Imaging, where we predominantly used Final Cut and Motion, I have had quite a lot of experience in the advantages and disadvantages in that system, but quite recently, I have been lucky enough to use adobe premiere. <br /><br />Final Cut Studio is the main video editing software for Apple Macs, while Premiere tends to be for windows, however, premiere is now supported by macs, and I am not sure if the same can be said for Final cut on Windows. Generally, Final Cut is the choice of the professional editor, however, this could be seen as the mac system winning over the Windows, less reliable and slower system.<br /><br />Initially, I was blown away by the similarities between the two. There are a few small technical differences in the two, which for me, Final Cut is better for (a lot of the tools and viewers just seem more sensible), however if you are looking for a reason to buy one or the other, this doesn't seem a strong enough argument, and once you use it for a while, you will soon adapt.<br /><br />My main issue with Final Cut is its compatibility with Motion compared with that or Premiere, which integrates well with After Effects and Photoshop. Now, I don't claim to be an expert on either of these, only using them mainly for titles, logos, idents and DVD menus etc, but I find After effects a lot easier to use, using keyframes rather than behaviors, and hugely more powerful! In addition to this, After Effects is a 3D program, where Motion is not. <br /><br />Personally, I cannot afford the packages, so I am going to buy whichever I can find cheapest, since the difference in the actual editing software is so minimal that it has little to do with my decision. Since I am more comfortable with Final Cut, I guess I might just play safe and get Final Cut Express, until I need something a bit better!Matt Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06086957910739482757noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8146622544704653985.post-70779628551185095462010-11-12T09:19:00.001-08:002010-11-12T09:19:35.925-08:003D films3D films seem to have gone into a bit of a revolution of late. The earliest memory of 3D for me is posters I used to get in the sunday times and other such newspapers. These used to come with the little red and green glasses, and yes, seeing a brachiosaurus in vivid 3D detail was quite exciting (until the glasses go missing/break). Since then, 3D has broken from stills to the movie industry, and recently to TV. The question I would like to pose is whether the hype really lives up to much? <br /><br />Though, I am informed (via wiki) the first film in 3D was "3D Jamboree" in 1956, the first film I saw in 3D was Avatar (Yes, I finally succumbed to the media frenzy). Initially I was very impressed by the technology behind the film, it was genuinely amazing! But it ends there. As has been proved by public reaction, the film really was too long, with a fairly cliched and monotonous story-line. Since then, I have seen films like "UP" and "the last airbender" in the cinemas, and I've felt that my experience was really ruined by the 3D effects, which were in many cases completely irrelevant and pointless to the point of me questioning whether they were in the film to boost the visual effects, or just to prove a point. <br /><br />Primarily, for someone not used to wearing glasses, having these cumbersome, chunky glasses on your head is a bit of a strange feeling, unavoidable I know, and a bit pathetic of me to mention it, they do hurt your eyes! But my main problem with the glasses is that they are slightly tinted, so that the film seems dark. It seems that way to me anyway, and to counter this, film producers should brighten the original movie or perhaps play with saturation/contrasts. <br /><br />Another niggle for me is that in a cinema, a place which is essentially built for total immersion into the narrative, one cannot really fall into the spell or magic of the big screen when cartoony and unrealistic elements of the film decide to spray out from the screen. It goes some way to explaining why animated films are successful with this, whereas lots of the live action ones haven't quite hit the same plaudits (I don't even need to mention last airbender, which was butchered by m.night). I understand that the CGI may not be there yet, but if thats the case, then don't put it in! <br /><br />Last year I went to the video expo in london, where I saw close up 3D television for the first time (I think they were showing tri nations rugby or something), and I had to admit, again, my initial reaction was WOW, this is amazing, the picture quality and everything was great. It doesn't mean that I want to watch a whole game in 3D, nor for that matter, a whole season. With 3D, it seems you are spending too much time trying to enjoy the nice and expensive effects that actually watching the sport. Its hard to follow, and not a pleasant experience. <br /><br />Finally, it seems that porn has the final say on any technology, VHS and DVDs were born through porn's backing, and I for one am not in favor of 3D porn, im sticky enough after the cinema, covered in coke and popcorn to have to worry about other substances!<br /><br />My conclusion is that while 3D is a very clever technology, and could have a great effect on films in the future, I believe that it is in a stage at the moment, where it only detracts from the enjoyment of the film. Can we imagine Casablanca in 3D? Would Schindlers List have benefitted from Jewish blood spraying from the screen? I wish hollywood would sort itself out, and actually try and write an original storyline, and not just rely on CGI and effects to cover their arses!Matt Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06086957910739482757noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8146622544704653985.post-38985980565205432182010-05-20T07:06:00.002-07:002012-04-10T03:11:59.371-07:00Aesthetics over ethicsI am astounded as to how powerful Photoshop is in creative a whole new persona in portrait shots. For example: see photos below. Here is a prime example where Photoshop has been used to enhance someones face. The before picture was taken in student halls, with a handy camera and poor lighting. This picture was destined to be used as a passport photo, so it was meant to represent the subject with a certain degree of accuracy. However, I gave him the supremodel treatment and added whitening on the teeth, took roundness out of the chin, sharpened the eyes, took out blemishes, softened the skin, colour corrected, and corrected the exposure. I think this proves that with an alright photograph, one can make something of professional quality.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: left;">However, is this ethical, especially in this instance, where the photo is taken to represent real life. In my opinion, the categories of photography are split into the realistic (wildlife, scientific and records) and unrealistic (eg. advertising). My friends Peter Moonlight and Sam Waldron at 'Exposing the Wild' (http://www.moonlightimaging.co.uk/captioning.html) have written extensively on this subject, and have come up with a snazzy system using captions to highlight certain characteristics of a photo, for instance, how much post production has been used, or whether it is a wild photo or in studio. In principle I agree with this system, what with the recent scandal in the British Wildlife Photographer of the Year Award. It would provide just enough information to prove the photos authenticity, while keeping the trade secrets underwraps...but, what's to stop people lying, and who will maintain these standards? All I can do is wish them well with their endevour, and secretly hope that it is not a success, because I don't think I have the patience to wade through all my photos and reclassify them.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JQnZnSO_8t0/S_VCGGOh7WI/AAAAAAAAAAM/9yPcgmDdpFE/s1600/nigel1+%281+of+1%29.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 214px; height: 320px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JQnZnSO_8t0/S_VCGGOh7WI/AAAAAAAAAAM/9yPcgmDdpFE/s320/nigel1+%281+of+1%29.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5473353594656910690" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_JQnZnSO_8t0/S_VCGWTPmUI/AAAAAAAAAAU/KXUIpj4y3MI/s1600/nigel2+%281+of+1%29.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 214px; height: 320px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_JQnZnSO_8t0/S_VCGWTPmUI/AAAAAAAAAAU/KXUIpj4y3MI/s320/nigel2+%281+of+1%29.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5473353598971648322" border="0" /></a></div>Matt Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06086957910739482757noreply@blogger.com0