Lomography for real!

Well the other day I was looking through the fashion mag that comes weekly with the newspaper, and I noticed that a shop was selling replica Lomography cameras. I was like hey cool and went to inspect the website and to look up lomo cameras as I didn't realise you could get them these days. Anyway I couldn't believe it when I saw the 'Diana' lomo camera..I used to play with one when I was little! It was just hanging out in the toy box so was considered a toy. The top is pale green, the bottom half black with a rough texture. I remember this little red round thing on the back at the bottom, i'm not sure what it is exactly but I remember I used to press it like it was a button. I remember its little metal switch/s(?) too.

But as for that camera, who knows where it is these days. Is it still at Dad's place in amongst the toys or was it thrown away at some stage? I have no idea.

Originals like that are a lot more expensive to buy than the replicas. And also have the misfortune of taking a 120 film. So buying another one of those (or even finding and using the old one) was out of the question as it would be too expensive to use.
Luckily I discovered some that take a 35mm film. They look a bit different to the originals but in the long run would be cheaper. Cheap to buy and cheap to use (or as cheap as a film camera can be anyway).



So...in the end I decided to buy a 'Holga' which isn't the same as the old one but the picture seems to be a bit more to my liking. I've heard they are more sturdy than Dianes too. Now all I have to do is wait for it to arrive! It's going to be weird using a film camera again! I know I've only had digitals since 2005..so 5 years of my 18 odd years of owning cameras...but I'm really gonna have to get used to using film again! No playback...who knows what you will get? But that was the exciting thing about using film! I loved the surprise of getting the photos back... And the thing about Lomography is it's creative and arty so doesn't have to be perfect.

Cant wait!

Wedding Photography

Well I've been a bit slack over the winter (although I do have a few things I'll have to put up at some stage), but now it's spring and it's time to get back into it.
Yesterday I went to an afternoon course on wedding photography. There were 19 other girls on the course plus a 4 models (a fake bride and groom for single shots, and a bride and groom that were actually a married couple for the couple shots)

We learnt a lot about using the light available inside and outside so you don't have to use a flash. I didn't really know anything about using light to begin with so it was good. We also learnt about posing people so they look natural, and also to get rid of unwanted features like fat bulges and unwanted shadows.

The people taking the course were from Perspectives Photography. They're the company who take amazing photos of brides 'trashing' their wedding dress (eg: swimming in it in a river, rolling in the sand etc).

www.perspectivesphotography.co.nz

So here are a few of the photos I took...

More Lomo

I was having so much fun using my new learnt technique on photos and tried out some other ideas I thought might look good...


Here's Ferndus and Mini with Lomo style applied plus Black and White. It makes the feeling of the image quite dramatic.




Taken at Steve's army training also Lomo style with an emerald filter added which also gives a sense of drama rather than the fact that the uni mog was just towing the gun back to base.




And one more shot of Natalie I took with only lomo applied which worked nicely. I think it's my favourite photo in this style.



Heres the Original....

Old School

I was looking through a website of New Zealand photography and I was wondering what filters or settings (or film if that's the case)that is used for some styles of the photos that were on there. Its a look that you see around sometimes especially in fashion magazines or those odd mags where people are just lying around and doing weird things (arty types of mags I think, anyway I don't understand them).
So I typed into Google 'how do you make photos look old' and the first thing that came up was the technique I was looking for. Although it wasn't a photography technique at all...
Actually it started off with a cheap Russian made camera called a Lomo. It would take photos that looked a bit different (especially when the film was developed in the wrong chemical). It was a bit of a craze to do this in the 90's.
Apart from using one of those cameras the effect can be created by using (you guessed it!) Photoshop. Yay! And it's really easy too.

Here's the tutorial I followed....

http://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-make-digital-photos-look-like-lomo-photograph

And here's some examples of the technique...


This was my first attempt using a picture I took while taking photos for the 2010 Auckland Photography competition a few weeks ago...




This is a photo Mel took of Natalie which I experimented on...



Here's a mushroom I took when I was at the Arboretum...



I still need some more practice with my own settings so the photos aren't too bright or whatever the case may be. I reckon a warming filter would give it an older look...

My new Polarising Filter

I finally decided on which filter to get and bought one on Ebay. I decided to go for the Kenko Pro 1 DMC circular polarising filter. I did some tests with and without the filter...

This is the photo without the filter, the settings are at F/5, 1/800 and ISO 400.



This is the photo with the filter. The settings are the same.


The sky is still a bit bright but there was quite a lot of cloud cover.
Here are some examples using the polarising filter with only a few clouds...

Its tricky finding the right combination, I'm going to need more practice at it. This one the building is all right but the cloud is a bit bright. The settings were f/3.5, 1/1000 and ISO 400.


This one the sky is good but the landscape below is a bit dark. Settings: F/8, 1/320 and ISO 200.

The confusing task of spot metering...

I always see people talking about 'metering' in articles. I knew that there were four metering settings on my camera (evaluative, spot, partial and centre weight)but I just usually leave it on evaluative which is the 'auto' setting. Generally metering is the way to find the best exposure but the evaluative one doesn't always find it.
I had a read various articles about the other types of metering and decided that spot metering looked quite handy for certain situations such as those where the subject is dark in a back-lit situation. At first I thought it was going to be simple: spot meter on most important part of the subject to take the exposure, press the auto exposure lock (AEL) to keep that exposure, recompose and take the shot with the stored exposure. If the exposure isn't right do the above again, but take the reading of the exposure from a different source.
So I headed outside with Massimo the cat so replicate the scene used in one of the articles I read...two kids, backs to the sun, kids came out too dark, he took a reading off one of the kids faces, took the photo again and wallah! The photo was perfect.
Unfortunately it didn't seem to want to work for me...



This first picture of Massimo was taken using the 'auto' evaluative meter. Looks pretty good, not too over or under exposed in full sunlight.




Then I moved around into a spot where it was shady but the sun was back-lighting the picture. I tried the same thing and it did this (above) and it also did the same for spot metering off anything that gave a reading of more than 1/640. The aperture was f8 and ISO was 400 for all the pictures.




For readings around 1/500 or less this is what it looked like. Massimo is fine but the background is way too overexposed.

I tried adjusting the exposure compensation and still nothing.


So how do you get a picture of a subject that is at the right exposure with the background good too? Hmm... looks like I might need to do a bit more research on that.

Next I went into a fully shaded area. The aperture was still f8 and the ISO was still 400. I took a photo of a flower...





The initial picture was taken with a reading from the flower of 1/125. That was slightly dark. I looked at the histogram and the peak was to the left indicating that it was under exposed(the peak should be in the middle).




This one was taken with a reading from one of the light green flower pods and was 1/500. It too was underexposed with the histogram showing even more to the left.




The next was taken from a different part of the garden from a darker spot which was metered at 1/40. It came out relatively well and the histogram says that the peak is slightly to the left but nearer the middle. It looks almost overexposed to me though.




And the final one was metered at 1/8 and was taken from the dark dirt. It is way too overexposed and the histogram is off the richter scale over to the right.

SO..what have we learnt? Readings off LIGHT things = a darker picture and readings off DARK things = a lighter picture. In other words a higher reading eg: 1/500 = a darker picture and vice versa. SO you have to find the average.

Or just use the evaluative meter.

Some sites about metering...
Spot metering used in different shots
A detailed description on spot metering
Exposure
Using a grey card to get a reading
Metering modes

New lens

Well here I am at long last, after the difficult task of choosing a zoom lens.
I spent at least 3 WHOLE days researching and talking to people on the Canon forum after narrowing my preferred lens choices down to 2. At first I was sure I was going to go for the 70-200 F4 USM "L" lens, but then I changed my mind to the 70-300mm IS, then I changed it back, then someone threw in another possibility (the 55-250mm IS) and the evidence for that being a better lens than the 70-300, so I did more research and changed my mind between them a few more times and finally decided that I would go into Camera & Camera to have a look at all three.
So I went in there and had a look. The guy that served me in the shop was really helpful and his recommendation was that I get the 55-250mm as in his opinion it was just as good as the other two but less than half the price. So in the end I bought it.
Which is good because now I have more money to spend on other things like filters and a new camera bag.