How to Take Better Photos, Pt 6

RAW vs. JPEG

When it comes to digital photography, you typically have two photo formats to choose from – RAW and JPEG.

But which should you shoot, and why?

The answer depends on your intentions as a photographer.

If you’re just shooting casually, if the idea of post-processing terrifies you, or if you’re the sort who likes to print photos straight off your camera, you’d probably be better off shooting JPEG.

If you want to retain total creative control over your shots, if you want to squeeze out every last bit of sharpness, or save an image from under- or overexposure, and are willing to get your hands dirty with post-processing, you should definitely consider shooting in RAW.

How to Write More Posts About How to Take Better Photos…

The “How to Take Better Photos” series has been moving along quite nicely, and I’m glad to see others getting so much out of it! Thank you so much for reading and commenting, it really is appreciated.

Moving forward, I have a few topics in mind for the next posts, but wanted to solicit your thoughts. Do any of the topics listed below strike your fancy? Or is there something I haven’t mentioned you’d like to see covered?

- RAW vs. JPEG – Which should you shoot and why?

- HDR Photography – Crash course in shooting and creating high dynamic range (HDR) images

- Shooting Food – Self explanatory…

- Photo Processing 101 – A rundown of what to do after you’ve taken your photos

How to Take Better Photos, Pt 5

Shooting in low light without a flash

First, let’s define low-light conditions.

Low light is obviously the absence of bright light, but when talking about cameras, it basically entails any situation that’s not outdoors during daylight hours (unless you’re shooting in a studio or a room with an abundance of natural light). Yes, this encompasses your typical indoor shooting situation.

Why? Because, compared to our eyes, camera sensors suck at registering light. Our pupils can dilate to adjust to a staggering range of lighting conditions and, given a few minutes, we can see reasonably well in all but total darkness.

Cameras can’t.

The reason? Because exposure is a variable of three variables: aperture, shutter speed, and ISO (discussed in How to Take Better Photos, Pt 2). Put simply, each affects exposure as follows:

• Aperture: the size of the lens opening through which light passes. A larger aperture allows more light to pass through to the sensor. This allows for “faster” shooting and reduces depth of field.
• Shutter speed: controls how long the shutter opens and exposes the sensor to light. Fast shutter speeds “freeze” action. Slower shutter speeds open your shots up to blur, which you want to avoid unless it’s intentional.
• ISO: dictates how sensitive your sensor is to light. At low ISOs, the camera demands more light, but captures clearer images with less grain. At higher ISOs, the camera sacrifices quality to make due with the light it can get. A higher ISO can help you get the shot, but you’ll have to accept the image noise that comes with it.

Most cameras suck in low light because they fall short in one of these three areas, which forces compromises from the other two.

The most common shortcoming is aperture. Point-and-shoot cameras have notoriously small apertures, so in low light they have to crank up the ISO to reach a reasonable shutter speed. Many kit lenses that come bundled with DSLRs suffer similarly small apertures, and face the same problems.

So what can you do if you want to shoot in low light?

If you have a point-and-shoot, sadly, you’re pretty much limited to cranking the ISO. A lot of P&S cameras have a mode that’ll do this on its own, but you’re going to have to live with wicked noise or equally wicked noise reduction processing.

If you have a DSLR, buy a fast prime lens.

What the $*@#* is a prime lens, you ask?

A prime lens is a lens with a fixed focal length (i.e. it doesn’t zoom). Yes, this means you have to move yourself to get the shot framed the way you want, but it’s worth it, for a few reasons

- First, because prime lenses tend to boast very large apertures up to f/1.4. Paired with the right camera, they can pretty much shoot in the dark. Paired with most cameras, they’ll kick ass in 90% of the situations you can throw at them.

- Second, because prime lenses have a simpler construction (because they don’t have to zoom). This means they are smaller, lighter, and cheaper than even crappy zooms. For example, the Nikon f/1.4 50mm prime runs about $130.

- Third, because of the simpler construction (i.e. less glass to distort things), prime lenses are among the sharpest lenses you can buy. Paired with their amazing depth of field capabilities, the effect is quite dramatic.

Now, if you’re in the market for a camera, a few suggestions.

If you’re looking at point-and-shoots, I’d say suck it up and buy a low-end DSLR. But maybe you just really like being able to carry a camera in your pocket or something. In that case, I’d start with the Canon PowerShot S90, which packs an f/2 lens. Because the sensor on a point-and-shoot is so small, you’re not going to get the awesome depth of field you’d get at f/2 on a DSLR, but you’ll be able to snap reasonable shots in low light.

Another option to consider would be any of Sony’s CMOS sensor-packing Cyber-shots, which as of this writing consist of the HX1, WX1, and TX1. The CMOS sensor itself boasts marginally better low-light handling, but it’s real value is the ability to shoot at a ridiculously fast 10 frames per second. Sony has very shrewdly built in some layer processing capabilities, which give these cameras the ability to shoot six frames in a split second (at high ISO), then combine them into a single, clearer image. This approach still doesn’t hold a candle to a capable DSLR, but it’s better than what’s come before.

If you’re looking for a DSLR and have money to burn, the full-frame models (which pack 35mm sensors vs the usual APS size) offer truly amazing low-light performance. But the Nikon D700 and Canon 5D Mk II both run around $2,500 for the body alone. If you’re not willing to drop that kind of coin, you have a ton of options out there when it comes to a solid consumer DSLR. The two I find myself recommending all the time are the Nikon D90 and Canon Eos T1i, but really any DSLR paired with a fast prime lens will get the job done.

Okay, so what about actually shooting in low light?

Honestly, half the battle of shooting in low light is having the right tools for the job.

The other half? Your settings.

First, man (or woman) up and turn your mode dial out of Auto. I’d also recommend disabling Auto ISO. This may mean you’ll have to take a few test shots to see how low an ISO you can get away with, but if you’re not taking a few test shots anyway, you may as well pack up and go home.

Once you’ve disabled Auto ISO (usually buried in some menu tree), switch your camera in to Aperture Priority and crank it as large as it’ll go. Remember, larger apertures are denoted by smaller numbers.

Also keep in mind that, with a large aperture, you’re going to have some ridiculously shallow depth of field. How shallow? Shallow enough that your subject’s nose may be in sharp focus, but the rest of their face might be a slight bit blurred. You can step the aperture down slightly, but keep in mind you’ll have to sacrifice either shutter speed or ISO to compensate.

Once the camera’s set and ready to go, start taking pictures. All the typical suggestions regarding framing and such still apply. Also, pay special attention to the camera’s focus points. I’ve had a lot of great pictures ruined because the camera chose to focus on something other than the subject’s face. It may help to put your subject in the middle of the frame while you focus, then keep the shutter pressed down halfway while you frame the shot.Unless you have a Nikon D3 or D700 with the crazy 51-point autofocus system which seems to pick out and focus on eyes as if by magic.

It takes time to get the hang of it, but don’t give up. The results are worth it.

The Unofficial Catalog of Dirty Diapers #2: The Footloose

For all the upsides of fatherhood, there are certainly some drawbacks. Chief among them the seemingly endless variety of dirty diapers one encounters from day to day. This is an unofficial catalog of selected specimens.

The Footloose

The Footloose is not so much a dirty diaper as it is the combination of a dirty diaper and a particularly ornery baby/toddler.

A proper Footloose typically involves a dirty diaper of epic proportions (see “The Lahar”, “The California Mudslide”, “The Ben-Hur” and similar). A Lesser Footloose (also called a “Pygmy Footloose”) may sometimes occur with a diaper of more manageable proportions.

The Footloose occurs when, in the midst of attempting to remove a Lahar or Ben-Hur type dirty diaper, the creator of said diaper kicks and squirms with sufficient energy to break loose of the parent’s grip, and manages to plant a foot directly in the recently removed diaper.

At this point, the parent’s mind goes into red alert, and all reasoning abilities are suppressed in a desperate effort to avoid contact with the poop-covered foot while simultaneously containing the child and keeping further poop distribution to a minimum.

The Footloose is a 9.5 on the UCDD scale of diaper difficulty, and may necessitate the calling in of backup in the form of another parent, both grandparents, or a highly trained helper dog.

How to Take Better Photos, Pt 4

Don’t use your camera’s flash. Except when you should.

The flash. Just about every camera has one. And for the most part, using it is a sucker’s game.

Why?

A few reasons.

The Unofficial Catalog of Dirty Diapers #1: The Duke Nukem

For all the upsides of fatherhood, there are certainly some drawbacks. Chief among them the seemingly endless variety of dirty diapers one encounters from day to day. This is an unofficial catalog of selected specimens.

The Duke Nukem

This diaper announces its impending arrival with raucous, bombastic fanfare. You kind of can’t help but be in awe, as though there’s something special in the making.

As you open the diaper, you hold your breath, anticipating insane action, over-the-top gruesomeness and some well-timed expletives.

Then you open the diaper to find that it was all hype, and that there’s nothing there.

A Skeptic’s Guide to Foursquare

Over the past few months, I’ve noticed several coworkers and Twitterers “checking in” from this location or becoming “Mayor” of that location.  Turns out it was this new social networking/location game thing, Foursquare.

My initial reaction was something along the lines of “that’s retarded”. But that was my initial reaction to Twitter, too, and I’ve since come around to the usefulness of communicating in 140-character tweets, so I figured hey, you know, keep an open mind.

As the months went on, though, I still couldn’t see the utility of Foursquare, apart from bragging about all the cool places you can go when you aren’t saddled with a toddler. In the Twitter feed, the Foursquare posts remained mildly interesting at best, and downright annoying at worst (no, I don’t care that you unlocked the “Adventurer” badge).

But hey, it’s free, it’s social, and it’s part of my job to be up on this stuff, so I figured I’d dip my toe in and try it out for myself. So I signed up for an account and downloaded the Foursquare app to my iPhone.

Thoughts on the Next Ride

Barring the completely unforeseen, the Mini isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. Apart from endemic tire issues and the lack of a second suicide door, I absolutely love the Clubman. In fact, I’d go so far as to say it’s the best car I’ve ever owned.

But, at some point, it’ll have to go. Maybe the warranty will run out and maintenance will become ridiculous (hey, it IS a BMW at heart). Maybe Capitol Tower will burn down with the poor car stuck in the parking garage. Or maybe my needs will change.

Whatever the case, car nut that I am, I can’t help but look down the road to the next ride. Right now I don’t see myself moving on until 2012 at the earliest, but hey, it’s always fun to look.

So…as of right now…here are the cars that are on my radar.

Mazda3 5-door

I’ve been a fan of the Mazda3 since it first came out in 2004. Built on the same platform as the Euro-spec Focus (which is far superior to the crapbox we have over here), the Mazda3 has earned a reputation as one of the best-handling, most fun-to-drive cars in its class. The new generation, which debuted this year, builds on the success of the first-gen, and brings a swoopier, more sophisticated design into the mix. The giant, smiling fascia has turned some people off, but I’m guessing that’s something Mazda will grow out of by the time I’m in the market. Hopefully they’ll move on to a better engine, too, as the 4-cylinder options powering the 3 aren’t really anything to shake a stick at.

Subaru Forester

The Forester is one of those cars that grew on me. I was really put off by the design at first, but then I saw it in person, and it really holds together well when you see it with your own eyes. This not-a-wagon-but-not-an-SUV took home Motor Trend’s SUV of the Year Award, and has been pretty much single-handedly responsible for Subaru’s awesome staying power in the midst of the automotive apocalypse that has been this recession. Chalk it up to right-size packaging, one of the best AWD systems on the market, and Scooby’s horizontally-opposed boxer engines. Admittedly, the Forester’s not at absolute top of my list, but it’s pretty high, especially if driving dynamics have to take a back seat to functionality.

Ford Focus

Every time I mention my interest in the Focus, people look at me as though I’ve admitted to having a leper fetish. I can’t say I blame them. After all, the Ford Focus that’s available to us here in the U.S. is a total crapbox of a car. Like that other forgotten Ford, the Ranger, it rides on an extremely dated platform and simply isn’t competitive in its category. But that’s not the case in Europe, where the C1-based Focus enjoys a reputation as taut, sharp handling car. For years, stateside enthusiasts have clamored for a change at the Euro-spec Focus, and pretty soon, we’ll get it. The next-generation Focus (rendered above) is being designed as a world car, with a specific eye on the U.S. market.

Aside from sharp looks and the anticipated driving dynamics, the Focus has two more things to recommend it. First is Ford’s new line of EcoBoost engines, which embrace turbocharging as a way of delivering that extra oomph without adding cylinders and thus killing fuel economy. In other words, what Mini, Volkswagen and a few others already do. The second is the Ford Sync infotainment system, which is quite frankly the best in the business. Bluetooth integration, voice-to-text, full iPod navigation and playback, even Bluetooth audio streaming.

I’m still waiting to see the final product, but right now, my interest is highly piqued. Look for the production 2011 Ford Focus to make its world debut at the Detroit Auto Show in early January.

Volkswagen Golf GTD

Chances are you’ve heard of the GTI, the go-fast version of Volkswagen’s Golf. If you haven’t, the GTI is, well, the go-fast version of the Golf. In it’s current form, it ditches the staid engine for a 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder, firmer suspension, more heavily bolstered sport seats, and a row-your-own or DSG clutchless manual transmission.

The GTD basically takes the GTI formula and swaps out the gas engine for a turbodiesel, the benefits of which include gobs of torque and hybrid-level fuel economy.

With the GTD, Volkswagen addresses my number one complaint regard diesel cars here in the states. Namely, the tendency to offer them in regular models with lots of luxo options, but soft, spongy suspensions. For someone like me, who puts a huge premium on driving feel, this sucks. I don’t necessarily need speed. Hell, with my tendency to accumulate tickets, speed is probably the last thing I need. But in lieu of speed, I demand a car that’s a blast to toss through the winding roads of the Texas Hill Country.

Just one catch. The GTD isn’t currently slated for America. But Volkswagen is considering it, and has said they could bring it over within 18 months if they decide to do so.

The Opening Crawl

These past two weeks haven’t exactly been conducive to writing. Between sinus infections, a general increase in Nolan’s pissiness levels (due to his own sinus infection), work drama, stacked deadlines, and a thousand other piddling annoyances, I haven’t been able to marshal my thoughts as well as I’d like.

That said, I’ve managed to make some forward progress on the new Scipio novel. I’ve come to some decisions about story structure and character development. I’m toying with a different ending for one of the non-Scipio main characters, a young legionary who’ll provide the lowly foot soldier’s perspective of the Spanish campaigns (an ending that will make those who know their history squeal with glee). And, to cap it off, I’ve jotted down a draft of the novel’s opening crawl, intended to set the stage without forcing the reader to crack a history book and familiarize themselves with the first seven years of the Second Punic War:

Seven years have passed since Hannibal Barca led his army across the Alps and descended upon Italy. After a string of devastating defeats, the reeling Roman Republic has abandoned any attempt to meet the brilliant Carthaginian general head-on, and the pitched battles of the early war have given way to the long grind of siege and skirmish.

Now, at last, the weight of Roman arms has started to shift the balance. One by one, the cities and towns which defected to Hannibal during the Republic’s darkest hour fall to the legions. But Hannibal remains at large, as fearsome an opponent as ever.

Meanwhile, in faraway Spain, Carthaginian reinforcements threaten to break the long stalemate, and the brothers Gnaeus and Publius Scipio lead their legions south in a desperate bid to defeat Hannibal’s brothers before they can join forces…

It definitely needs tinkering, but hey, it’s a start. And after the way the last two weeks have unfolded, I’ll take it.

The Importance of Abandoning Crap

This American Life’s Ira Glass talks about the challenge of finding a good story and the importance of abandoning crap:

The entire video deserves a massive amen.

In a way, it also reminds me of a recent episode of Mad Men, where the new Brit whip-cracker is getting on Don’s case about the waste and inefficiency in the creative department. To which Don replies “my team needs to be unproductive so they can be productive”.

There’s more than a grain of truth here. Whether writing a novel or a few lines of feature copy, storyboarding a video, developing a content plan, or even putting together a solid presentation, it takes time to figure out the best approach and coax out the best story. And often, the mediocre stories, or the ones that just aren’t clicking, have to be killed. Which is exactly why I’ve jumped from topic to topic trying to determine the best course for the next novel. Better to kill things off at the outset than when you’ve already fought yourself halfway down that road.