Photo1Q1 Snaps 3: Malama Honua

Add caption

Read more

Photo1Q1.4: Depth of Field

Distance Between Photographer and Subject

~4 feet from subject | f/3.5, 1/60, 800 | 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

Aperture is probably my favorite part of the exposure triangle to play around with. It is arguably the only part of the triangle that makes "sense" for the different types of photography one is attempting to capture. If you're a landscape photographer, you're probably gonna be dealing with a lot of light. Fortunately, a higher f/stop number doesn't mean a brighter image, and it also means more stuff is in focus. I stick to very large apertures (f/1.8-3.5) because I do enjoy that blur, but I've recently been trying to experiment with the gritty and raw aspect of just using a smaller aperture. There was once a photo shoot that I did where choosing the right aperture mattered, and it was interesting to see the effect it creates. In the image above and below, the background is sharper (above), while the background is very blurred in the other (below). Even the hanger is nearly unable to discern without close inspection. I used a Canon Rebel T5 to capture all of the photos in this post.

~5 inches from subject | f/3.5, 1/30, 800 | 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

Zooming In and Out

~5 feet from subject | f/3.5, 1/400, 100 | 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

Zooming in and out actually changes your aperture to, I guess, "compensate". Sometimes it's helpful, sometimes it's not, but as one can see in this image (although I did move slightly), the zoom creates a more "combined" image. Things in the background take up so much more space as you're obviously zoomed in. The kit lens I used allowed me to go from 18mm to a max of 55mm.

~5 inches from subject | f/5.0, 1/400, 100 | 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

Use of Aperture Settings

~6 inches from subject | f/1.8, 1/160, 100 | 50mm f/1.8

In my opinion, using aperture to change your depth of field just makes sense to me. Zooming in is just lazy and can eliminate wanted items in the picture, and moving closer might be difficult (or even restricted) for certain types of photography (though, I would prioritize moving first as it might strengthen one's creativity. In the images above and below, there is a very clear difference in the depth of field, as the objects begin to turn into blurred circles in the first image (and the extremely shallow depth of field even affects the phone), while it's much easier to see the background in the second image.

~6 inches from subject | f/22, 1/8, 800 | 50mm f/1.8

Situations that would be most appropriate for a large aperture (besides portraiture) is really anything that begs attention. If you want to isolate the subject of a photograph (product photography makes the most sense here), you're gonna want a large aperture so that there's nothing else that catches the viewers attention other than the product themselves. Wedding photography might also require this, but that's a subsection of portraits.

On the other end of the spectrum, a large aperture is useful when you want everything in the picture to be in focus; as much detail as possible. Group photos, astro photography (because of the immense detail needed in the picture because of there being so many stars and whatnot), and especially long exposures. It's simply non-sensical to use a wide aperture when you're leaving the shutter open for a very long duration in almost all situations of long exposures.

Of the three techniques to change depth of field, I believe that moving is the best way to nurture one's creativity, while straight up changing the aperture makes the most sense and provides the much freedom. Overall, actually finding the right subjects to show depth of field was kinda difficult, but since I've worked a lot with the exposure triangle so much, it wasn't too much of a struggle.

Also, #11:59pm squad because I forgot to post this haha sorry Mrs. Takemoto

Read more

Photo1Q1 Snaps 2: Yellow

Read more

Photo1Q1.3: Low & High ISO

f/1.8, 1/125, 3200 | 50mm f/1.8

Throughout this project, I was pretty surprised how naturally adding noise through ISO can be beneficial to an image, so long as it doesn't distract from the image's composition and if it is intentional in adding that extra grit and sharpness to an image. Here, I went for a higher angle of Jordan to get this menacing, grunge-but-not-too-grunge appearance.

The easier category of ISO to capture was obviously the ones with low ISO. In it, it's one doesn't have to worry about camera shake and blur, because the shutter speeds will generally be very fast (if the photos are taken under great lighting). The practice tasks definitely helped me to prepare for this mini assignment, though, I already had prior experience with using the exposure triangle.

f/1.8, 1/160, 3200 | 50mm f/1.8

f/1.8, 1/160, 1600 | 50mm f/1.8

In the above two images, I experimented more with what shadows can do to a face more than attempt to capture a specific mood. Fortunately, they have A1 blank faces so the photos came out decent.

The photo of Kris was taken through pointing a phone camera light to the side of his face. As instructed, the lighting had to come from a smaller source, and required a higher ISO (1600). I could definitely see the grain. In my opinion, despite being a street photographer, I generally try to stay away from the higher ISO levels. Though, after this assignment, I could definitely see how it could be uesed in an artistic way. It adds a bit of detail that makes the overall image appear gritty. In black and white, this grit adds to the whole message of the picture really well.

f/1.8, 1/1000, 100 | 50mm f/1.8

f/1.8, 1/40, 200 | 50mm f/1.8

Using low ISO is a standard for daylight and indoor photos with good lighting. In the photos above and below, I had to slow the shutter speed slightly though, despite having a lamp on.

f/1.8, 1/40, 200 | 50mm f/1.8

ISO is fun to use. I should probably use it more for settings like those depicted in the high ISO photos because of how much grit that grain can add to a photo. I used to add it in post but just looks better when you add it before.

In moving toward the other two factors of the exposure triangle (shutter speed and aperture), I feel confident utilizing ISO in the appropriate situations. I would say that I feel confident using ISO creatively now, as it is pretty common sense how ISO should be used in most lighting situations.

My understanding has definitely been strengthened through the camera control practice tasks and this mini assignment. If anything, my knowledge is reinforced, as everything seems to now make sense after taking photos for a wide variety of situations.

Generally, staying away from ISO is pretty accurate advice. I say generally because there are very few and obvious exceptions that one would make for high ISO. High ISO can be used creatively in black and white photos, gritty and detailed portraits, or any photo that needs a certain emphasis through having more detail. It can also be used in the worst case scenarios, where you simply cannot compromise the other two components of the exposure triangle. It's all about balancing, choosing what you need, and sometimes sacrificing or finding workarounds for things that are lost when it comes to exposure.

---

thank you to Jordan Lum, Rylen Austria, Kris Bautista, Eldon Wong, Ashlei Schofield-Gibbs, for posing and stuff
Original Photos

Read more

Photo1Q1 Snaps 1: Freedom

Read more

Photo1Q1.2: Camera Control & Exposure Tasks

ISO- Label with settings from 100-?? Have you used ISO prior to this task? When or what shooting situation do you think this would be the most helpful for you to use? Did you see the digital noise at the higher ISO settings or did you see a exposure change or did you see both?

Labels are shown in the image
    Each situation in photography calls for a different change in what exactly one should manipulate in exposure. If I'm shooting street photography (which is what I enjoy most), I will most likely utilize ISO as it is a simple quick fix to fix varying exposure without sacrificing the shallow depth of field that isolates the subject. I will generally switch between ISO and shutter speed, though, if I'm shooting at night for street photography, shutter speed is generally what I will stay away from as my hands are not the most stable things in the world. This is great for street photography because grain/digital noise is actually beneficial to most photos, as it makes the whole picture feel raw, genuine, and "in the moment".

    In personal experience, I prefer to change ISO second or last in most situations. Shooting handheld, I will make exceptions as I do somewhat rely too much on shutter speed and end up with very slight motion blur in the past. Different cameras have different sensitivity levels, and can handle grain differently. In all photos displayed for the ISO portion of this assignment, it's clear that as ISO increases (digital noise is a negative side effect at higher levels). My Rebel T5 is "alright" for ISO under 800 as there isn't any noticeable degradation of quality. It starts at 1600 and gets pretty bad, so I try my best to stay under that. However, other cameras are incredible at handling night. The Sony A7S line is famous for this. Thus, as with any of the other exposure properties (aperture, shutter speed), it's really a game of balancing and choosing what you need and what you have to sacrifice.

Exposure Compensation
Labels are shown in the image

FLASHFILL- Label which is before (with evident shadows) and after (with forced flash/flashfill). How can you tell that the flash worked to diminish shadows?

Labels are shown in the image

    In the pictures above, did help to reduce shadows, but my exposure was likely still to dark that the shadows are still there in either photo. For example, many of the keys in the left photo near the bottom aren't very illuminated and viewers can barely see the type. On the right, it's much clearer to see and they only seem to disappear once it intersects with the primary source of light, which is the sun. Speaking of the sun itself was very clear on the day this photo was taken, thus, the really hard shadows are still there. Shadows aren't absolutely cleared, but rather brightened so it's not as "distracting" in the overall image. The colors also seem to pop more, as the red staircase on the left seems more desaturated in contrast with the staircase on the right.

JUMPING w/o flash and w/ flash- Label which demonstrates with and without flash. Did you see any visible differences between the two photos?

Labels are shown in the image

    There is a very clear difference between the photo that demonstrates jumping with and without flash. Due to the lighting condition being poor, I ended up with a silhouette on the left because I did not want to sacrifice having motion blur. On the right, Kaz is illuminated clearly, but due to flash sync, my shutter speed was set by the camera automatically to 1/200 to line up with the speed of the internal flash. Motion blur is sacrificed as a result, which is one of the major difficulties with using an internal flash, as it limits one's shutter speed and doesn't allow one to change it.

WHITE BALANCE Collage

Labels are shown in the image

CLOSING:
Now that you’ve practiced making some adjustments with these features, which feature had you used before? Which TWO features do you think you’d utilize the most? Explain how these control features could help you in your photo work situations? What was the most valuable thing you learned about your camera or how to use it?

    Of all these features, I really only used the ISO function. I never experimented with flash because I felt that the shadows that it can create are too "sharp" for my taste. I enjoy photos that are raw and without much underlying pre-production editing to it (I say this because post-production work can actually do wonders to a photo). It's one of the reasons why I love candid photos (street photography). 

    After experimenting with these features, besides ISO, I would likely use flash fill for daylight situations only and white balance. Mainly, I'd use these for experimental purposes because I really do shy away from shooting an image that has such permanent settings. I like to take things in their most neutral color and lighting so that I can manipulate it in post the way I want it. This year, I'd like to try and change that and force myself to use lighting gels and different temperature settings on white balance. They can work in different photo situations to my advantage. For example, flash fill can fill in unwanted shadows and generally saturate a scene naturally without compromising shutter speed that much. Experimenting in other white balance modes can offer easy ways to see what a scene would look like under different moods (tungsten for cool, dark, sinister photos and daylight for somewhat warm, outdoor, fun photos).

    The reason why I do not prefer to use exposure compensation is because the same effects can basically be done by manipulating the exposure triangle. Unless I cannot get the right exposure to save my life, I will use it, but otherwise, it just takes too much freedom and time away to shoot in program and allow the camera to choose the right lighting and crossing my fingers, hoping for the best.

    The most valuable thing I learned about my camera was that it wasn't the main part to shooting. When I created the above photos, I had to work under specific parameters. It helped me realize that despite having perfect, balanced, and neutral lighting, photos can look even better with great and occasionally creative shot composition. Posing objects was somewhat easier, but even then I had to think about what I wanted the shot to look like.

---

thank you to Kaz Danbara for helping with the jumping shots
Original Photos (only DOE accounts can view)

Read more

Photo1Q1.1: Best Photos

Begin with Introducing your First image that gives your audience an idea of the kinds of things you like to photograph.

When I began taking photos, I really enjoyed capturing landscape, structural, and "aesthetic" photos with no real basis behind them other than the fact that they look nice. When I bought my first point and shoot, I took depth of field into the next level and realized how I can really refine and give an image it's character. The best subjects for that however, are people. I'm still not comfortable posing people in photos, but I enjoy taking photos of them in their raw and genuine settings. There are so many moments and intriguing aspects of culture, and Hawaii is basically a melting pot for diversity. My first real street photography set came during this year, at the Honolulu Night Market. It was that session that helped me realize how much I enjoy street photography.

Next, Post one best shot that YOU’VE taken up to this point and time (reason and subject matter is open to your discretion). Please include the following information that you had shared in-class about your image: details of what kind of camera was used, where you were and when, and especially why this image is considered your BEST at this starting point of the school year. 

One would expect a street photographer to have a street photo as their "best photo", but I think that this portrait is among my top 5 favorite photos due to how much planning and inevitable improvisation it had. I was tagging along with some young, but well established photographers that had much more knowledge than me in terms of shot composition. Despite that, the entire shoot had a lot of "why don't you pose here and I'll just take a picture" moments. Luckily, we were working with natural, great models that were also our age. This photo is a reminder to me that while planning is important, most of the time, things will not go as planned. Someone once said that learning something is good, but putting it into action is even greater. I now go by that saying in photography, as applying is better than simply learning. Plus, I just like how the lighting fell on the model in this photo; it's just nice. It would look cooler if the shadows were sharper, though.

Lastly, include the third image which depicts a little of what you strive to work on this year or what you’d like to explore more of.

Throughout most of my photographic "career", I focused on capturing as neutral of an image as possible when shooting, and using post-production techniques to drastically reshape an image to the style I want it. Instead, this year, I'd like to try doing the opposite; I'd like to drag my focus and work more toward the shot-phase instead of editing. This means composing a shot exactly the way I want it, adding creative and different lighting, and much more. I'd also like to cement my lighting skills this year so that it can assist me not only in photography, but also in videography.

---

thank you to kiana burgher

Read more