Tim Everett Photography Blogspot

Canon G11.

2011-12-16T16:32:00.004+01:00

Hull Pier, Canon G11.

Well I couldnt resist the temptation, I sold the G7 and bought a G11. I found the G7 a bit to compact for my taste, the G11 has a bit more bulk to it. I have to agree with what iv heard some people say, shooting raw on such a small sensor camera is a waste of time, compared to my SLR's its like night and day! Glad I got the G11 though it has advantages for me over the G7, wider lens, larger lcd screen, even the viewfinder seems a little bigger then on the G7. I prefer using SLR's, carnt beat a real viewfinder in my opinion, but these little cameras have their own advantages aswell. Heres a shot I took with the G11, its one thing looking at images on a screen, but real life prints from these little cameras are amazing!

Impressions of the Canon G7

2011-11-08T17:50:00.008+01:00

The Deep/Hull Pier. Taken with my Canon G7

Low Light Test shot with the G7, ISO 80, 10 seconds @ f3.5.

I fancied a decent pocket camera, something I can carry around anytime, incase I see anything interesting when I don’t have my SLR with me; it’s not practical to have an SLR with you all of the time. After a lot of consideration I decided to get the G7, it’s the only G series that doesn’t have the option to shoot in raw, but people in the know say there’s not much to be gained from having the raw ability on such a small sensor camera:

“I have found the RAW option to not be nearly as flexible on a compact camera with the tiny sensor as RAW can be when using larger sensored DSLR's, particularly when it comes to dealing with the noise, which you see at every ISO setting with these cameras. The camera companies do a very good job of getting the best results out of these cameras with their JPEG engines. I often found working with RAW files from compact digicams to not be worth the effort and time compared to what the camera just spits out using the highest quality JPEG setting” – Greg Chappell (From Photo.net)

“Ditto for wasting your time with raw. Compact cameras have so much noise and grit in the images to begin with, unlike SLRs, that there isn't anything to be gained wasting time, money and the environment processing raw files” – Ken Rockwell

I cannot verify this but I did try some noise reduction on an indoor Portrait, no flash at ISO 400 and could not see any difference whatsoever compared to the jpeg with no noise reduction applied, which kind of supports this idea. I was tempted by the G11, still am, but at the end of the day is it worth the extra cost, considering I will be using my SLRs more then the compact, its horses for courses and the G7 fits the bill for what I want, its also more pocketable then the G11. Obviously the jpegs cannot be manipulated as much as raw files from my SLRs, but it has a superb lens and produces great jpegs, if you take the time to get the exposures right it doesn’t need much manipulation anyway, Its best to underexpose a bit, similar to using slide film. I usually just tweak the jpegs a bit in Photoshop or Paint shop pro.

Initially I was reluctant to go digital, but think its great now, most of my reservations were just unfounded bias, I enjoy the digital darkroom, a lot easier dodging and burning for example compared to doing it in the traditional darkroom. Having said that, most people don’t appreciate how good film can be, especially most with no interest in the art of photography, they will probably have poor technique and be at the mercy of high street ‘Snappy Snaps’ for processing!

Digital is ideal for low light images, I did a test shot with the G7, see second image above. As you’re composing the shot via the LCD you can also see in real time what’s going on exposure wise. Something that’s impossible to do with film, the G7 also has an exposure scale visible on the right side of the LCD, but the camera leans towards overexposure, for the test shot above I had to underexpose to get the image looking like what I was actually seeing in reality. Same goes for indoors flash exposure, better to turn the power output down a bit, if you let the camera decide what’s right it blows it out, to much flash. Not tried it for outdoors fill in flash yet, it will take a speedlight but it wouldn’t look or feel right having one on such a small camera. Overall I am very pleased with the G7; it does what it says on the tin. A great little compact!

For indepth reviews and great articles visit Ken Rockwells site @ www.kenrockwell.com

Bingley Five Rise.

2011-10-05T21:43:00.003+02:00

I took these two images on a recent visit to Bingley Five Rise Locks, near Bradford, West Yorkshire, U.K., with my Canon 30D and Sigma 18-50 EX Lens. For the Portrait of the boatsman taking a break, while waiting for the okay from the Lock keeper to got up the five Locks, I used the 'creative-aged photo' preset in Lightroom.

Skegness, 13 August, 2011.

2011-08-16T21:47:00.009+02:00

I took these images on a recent visit to Skegness, a popular seaside resort on the East Coast of England. All taken with my trusty Canon 10D plus Sigma 18-50 EX Lens, I love the images from the 10D, great tonal range with a film like look. One complaint iv heard about digital is that it doesnt handle extreme high/low light images aswell as film, true, but shooting in Raw I dont think its a problem, as you can alter the exposure in specific areas much easier in the digital darkroom. I made a mistake in taking these images, forgot to check the iso speed, (years of using film) it was on 400, 100 would have been better in the conditions, but the results are okay, I used the noise reduction in Lightroom. I did wonder why I was getting such fast shutter speeds, but never made the connection.

Incidently I recently got a copy of Lightroom 3, but ended up putting Lightroom 2 back on my p.c. I think some of the improvements are a bit gimmicky and I dont think the noise reduction is any better, as they claim. Maybe I got a bad copy, if thats possible?

HDR or Bust?

2011-08-07T16:50:00.001+02:00

I see a lot of images around the web on various sites, where the photographer has used HDR or simply put the saturation or vibrancy sky high, with lots of comments like “brilliant” and “amazing” from people who obviously don’t know to much about photography, and I think to myself well know it’s a decent image but its certainly not amazing or brilliant. For me photography is been creative through the camera, looking for that unusual angle and perspective, trying to capture something different even though there’s nothing new under the sun. I enjoy most Art, but am not much good with a paint brush or drawing etc, which is why I became drawn to photography. Not to say photography isn’t an important medium in its own right. I saw this quote recently in pro photographer magazine – “Great artists deserve a beautiful presentation of their work and photography clearly is the art form of today… for the most part, the most exiting work out there is coming from photography” – John Wood, www.21stphotography.com I am not against a bit of enhancement, its unavoidable especially shooting in raw, but I personally don’t like to sway to far from what could be achieved in the conventional darkroom. Too many photographers are using HDR etc to cover up or enhance what otherwise would be a pretty average image, and in my opinion at the expense of been creative through the lens!

A walk into town

2011-07-17T02:50:00.006+02:00

I took these two images during a walk into Hull City centre from where I live. Both taken with my Canon eos 30D and Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX Lens, raw captures processed in adobe lightroom, b/w using Nik Silver Efex. The Top one is an Old Oil Refinary Mill sitting derelict on the Riverside, the other image (just a bit further down river) is Wilmington Bridge, a disused Railway Line/Bridge over the River Hull. Now used by pedestrians and cyclists.

Last roll of film

2011-06-17T02:21:00.004+02:00

Heres a couple of scanned prints from that last roll of film, taken with the old Canon eos 50E and my Canon EF 24-85 f3.5/4.5 Lens. Both taken in the Hessle area/Humber Estuary, near Hull, U.K. All digital from now, unless I win the Lottery, then I might buy myself a large format view camera to play with!

Disadvantage of film

2011-06-08T17:43:00.008+02:00

Film and digital both have their pros and cons, and iv just realised another disadvantage with film, I have been using an old EOS 50E to use up some rolls of good Fuji reala film, before it gets to out of date, I took 28 shots on a 36 roll, so now I have to wait till I use the remaining frames before I can get it processed, now with digital it doesnt matter if I take 3 or 300 images, I can offload them onto my p.c. and start producing images straight away, another plus for me. While I still like film, esp for b/w, with programes like photoshop and Nik Silver Efex excellent b/w images can be had from digital. (Some people say you can achieve truer blacks with digital) Its so much easier, faster and less messy aswell working in the digital darkroom. I must admit I surprised myself at how much I enjoyed using digital and how intuiative I found it, as I had several reservations about it. But after actualy trying it (iv been using digital about 3 years now) my reservations turned out to be unfounded bias. I simply dont understand these die hards who condem it, without even trying it! People talk about images been manipulated, I can sympathise with that view to a certain extent but its in the practioners hands, (and people have been manipulating images in the Darkroom since photography begun) I personaly dont do anything in the digital Darkroom that could not be done in the wet Darkroom, its simply cleaner and easier, and I dont have a problem with using tools that makes life easier.

"Condemnation without Investigation is the height of ignorance" - Albert Einstein.

"I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I beleive that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them" - Ansel Adams forward to his book 'The Negative' published January 1980.

I read this quote recently by photographer Barry Lategan, (the man who gave Twiggy her now iconic name) "Digital photography hasnt changed the way I see and look at things, it has accelerated the result" I totally agree!

Spurn Light House

2011-03-23T02:02:00.002+01:00

Heres another one from Spurn Point, (East Yorkshire Coast/Humber Estuary) Taken with my Canon 10D 6.3mp, Check out the megapixel myth, I had a 12x18inch print done of this and its impressive quality, sure I could print a lot larger. Using a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX Lens. Raw capture, iso 100 @ f8, processed in Lightroom, b/w using Silver Efex pro.

Equipment

2011-02-15T17:40:00.003+01:00

While it always helps to have good equipment, as I said in one of my earlier posts at the end of the day its the person behind the camera that matters. Iv noticed on some forums an obsession with equipment, even more so in this digital age. Its as if people are anxiously waiting for the next bit of kit to come out, as if its going to make them a better photographer? I found this excellent article which illustrates the point in a more substantive way on Ken Rockwells site, check it out Here.

Loch Ness - 6x6cm Negative.

2010-12-27T22:21:00.003+01:00

I took this a few years ago with a twin lens camera, 6x6cm negative print film. It was early one morning on the way back south from Inverness. I found it very difficult to get a decent print in the darkroom, due to the many areas needing different exposures. Its the sort of print you could spend hours on, I was never happy with it and still think theres more potential in the Negative. With this example above I tried working on it in the digital darkroom (adobe Lightroom) and have managed to show more detail in the right hillside. However I was working from a scanned print, Not the scanned Negative, so I was at a disadvantage in that respect. When I get around to it, im going to get all my old films scanned, so I can work on them as digital files.

Another b/w conversion example - using photoshop

2010-12-24T03:24:00.002+01:00

Another b/w example, this time I used photoshop, (Layers and channel mixer) Taken with a Canon 30D, Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX Lens, shot in Raw (what else!) iso 100, @ f8. This is looking out from Hull Marina into the Humber Estuary.

Digital Darkroom example - adobe lightroom

2010-10-05T18:13:00.007+02:00

The above image is the original Raw capture straight out the camera, with no work done on it. I could have done a better job regarding exposure but I like the end result after working on it. Thats an advantage of shooting in Raw, you have a lot more to work with, a 12bit or more file compared to approx 8bit jpeg file.

This is after working on the image using adobe lightroom, I mainly got lightroom for processing Raw files, but its a great programe, I prefer using it to photoshop or paint shop pro (and I prefer paint shop pro to photoshop) I think photoshop is just to complicated. Lightroom is a lot more user freindly, and in my opinion better at doing what it does, it seems to be more geared/specific for use by photographers. I used a variety of tools in the develop tab to alter the exposure, contrast, brightness and clarity in certain areas of the image. I also used the luminance and saturation tabs in the colors to enhance the blue and clouds in the sky, giving the same effect as a polarizer filter. Also used the green and yellow saturation to enhance the color in the tree. Taken with my Canon 30D, Raw capture, iso 100, at f11.

The Reluctant Poser

2010-10-04T21:37:00.002+02:00

Callum trying to watch kids t.v. Another example of b/w using Nik Silver Efex Pro, a brill programe with lots of presets. It will even replicate the look of various popular film types, but I prefer to alter it manualy using the exposure, contrast and brightness tabs until it looks right to my eye. This was taken with my Canon 10D, and Sigma 18-50 EX. 1/15sec at f2.8 focused on left eye. Raw capture processed in adobe lightroom, b/w using Nik Silver Efex Pro and resized using picasa.

Spurn Point.

2010-09-09T22:57:00.005+02:00

I took this recently at Spurn Point, not far from where I live. Its a thin strip of Land on the East Coast, (East Yorkshire) that runs out into the North Sea at the mouth of the Humber. Its become a wildlife sanctuary, visited by birdwatchers etc, people fish from the beach, in some parts the beach is very clean, however near the tip, it resembles a rubbish dump, the day I took this I came across kids toys, endless plastic bottles, an old t.v. set, 2 fridges, part of an old ship (possibly from an old Trawler) People do their best to keep it clear, but its a constant battle as it all gets washed in from the sea. Theres an old iconic Lighthouse there, and the RNLI have a permanent base, whole familys live there, it must be quite isolating in the winter months. Iv got more images from Spurn Point on my website.

Some recent monochrome images

2010-08-05T20:00:00.008+02:00

Tree stump on Hessle foreshore.

Hessle Creek.

The Humber Estuary.

I took these recently on the Humber Estuary, East Yorkshire, U.K. using my EOS 3 and ilford delta 100, these are scans from the film, iv just enhanced them a bit in photoshop. These sort of images are best viewed as gallery sized prints, in the flesh so to speak.

I came across the following quote in a book iv been reading, and would apply the same sentiments to my own images above:

"In some photographs the essences of light and space dominate; in others, the substance of rock and wood, and the luminous insistence of growing things....It is my intention to present, through the medium of photography, intuitive observations of the natural world which may have meaning to spectators" - Ansel Adams.

From a previous Life, travels with a Kodak Instamatic.

2010-08-05T18:54:00.016+02:00

The Taj Mahal, Agra. 1980.

This is an ancient Hindu Temple, the iron pillar never rusts, the last time I saw it on a t.v. programe it was all fenced off so people could not touch it. North India, 1980.

Snake charmers? New Delhi. 1980.

I think this was inside the Red fort of Agra, dont remember exactly. 1980.

Street photography Iranian style. Downtown Tehran 1978.

I took this from the roof of the Youth Hostel I was staying at, near Ferdowsie Avenue, Tehran, Iran. The islamic revolutionarys had just attacked a Bank. It was under martial Law at the time, the Sha's Military were all over the place, lots of fighting/demonstrations on the streets and the army were using live rounds on the then unarmed demonstrators. Central Tehran, 1978.

Downtown Tehran 1978, I tried 'repairing' the mountains in photoshop, because the prints are so old and faded you could not distinguish the mountains in the background from the sky. I did not do a very good job of it.

The Blue Mosque, Istanbul. 1978.

Mount Blanc on the Border of France and Italy. 1978.

From a previous life: 1978-80 travels with a Kodak Instamatic. I took the above images long before I became a serious photographer, back in 1978 - 80, I was 19 or 20 years old at the time. I travelled overland to India, well that was the plan, I became sort of stranded in Tehran, Iran for 3 months during the onset of the Islamic revolution. I quite like some of the images, even if I say so myself. I wish I had have been into photography back then, I could have got some great documentary type images in Iran. I have a lot more then this, I just scanned some I liked, the original prints are small about 3inch square, and are not in great condition, mainly because of their age. And the Kodak instamatic camera I used to take these were not great cameras, just a cheap compact type camera, it was not even 35mm film, something smaller, the film was in a cartridge which just pushed into the back of the camera, I remember it had rotating flash cubes you could mount on it, LOL. Footnote: All the above images in this post are Copyright Tim Everett Photography.

Digital update: Ilkley Moor

2010-05-25T16:22:00.007+02:00

I recently spent a day in Ilkley, West Yorkshire not far from the City of Leeds, U.K. photographing landscapes. It was my first major shoot with the Canon 10D, I enjoy using the 10D its a very capable camera with a solid feel to it. With its 6.3mp sensor it’s more then capable of producing impressive 13x18inch prints. Check out the mega pixel myth, just google it. It was nice not having to worry about running out of film, a big plus for digital. I took approx 80 images, all raw files, using adobe Lightroom to process them. After six hours and several coffees working on them, my neck began aching, I could not help thinking spending six hours in the Darkroom is a lot more enjoyable! Which got me thinking about the work involved in Wedding jobs, while the advantages of digital would be a temptation, I would be inclined to still use film for Weddings, simply because of the extra post processing work involved using digital. With film I can use a professional Lab to produce my prints for me; all I need to do is the editing.

As I said in my last update I like both film and digital and will continue using both mediums. I have addressed my reservations regarding B/W prints from digital files after discovering the excellent Nik Silver Efex Pro, a powerful tool for creating B/W prints, used as a plug in with Photoshop or Lightroom. (Though I still prefer the look of film for B/W work) I plan to upgrade my DSLR, either a 40D or 1D mk2, carnt decide which to go for. I think the 1D mk2 is a nice compromise between full frame and the x1.6 crop sensor, at x1.3 crop my 20-35mm zoom would still be quite wide on the 1D mk2. When it comes to photography the most decisive, important piece of kit is the person behind the camera. I often think photographers get to bogged down in the technical side, of course you need to be competent in that area but at the end of the day you can only use what you have at hand, and aslong as you know its limitations and how to get the best from it, you can concentrate on being creative. The image above is a B/W conversion of one of my Ilkley images, visit my website to see more images from Ilkley.

The Classic Olympus Trip 35

2010-05-11T17:30:00.006+02:00

A Great little discreet camera, all manual no batteries required. The Trip 35 has a very sharp fixed 40mm Lens, capable of producing pin sharp images, aslong as you have it set right. Although theres not much to set, the main thing to get right is the focusing it has a distance scale, the setting below infinity has a great depth of field and is good for general walk around stuff. You can even use the film speed dial to manipulate exposure. The 3 above images were all taken with the Trip 35. Check out the Trip Man at www.tripman.co.uk for refurbished models and much more.

The Photophile: Olympus Trip 35 Cult

2010-03-11T22:50:00.000+01:00

The Photophile: Olympus Trip 35 Cult

Why I Like Film Update

2010-02-12T20:23:00.012+01:00

Having had some time to use my 10D, I can now say I like both Film and digital, I enjoy processing raw files using adobe lightroom. After learning about the mega pixel myth (i.e. theres a lot more factors impacting on the final image then just how many pixels you have, such as sensor size, Lens etc) I had the image above, which I took over the xmas holidays enlarged to a 12x18inch print and was impressed with the results. Its true what they say about the mega pixel myth. I shot it in raw, tweaked it a bit in adobe lightroom and saved it as a full size jpeg before having it enlarged.

However I have a lot of reservations regarding b/w images from digital files, iv been experimenting with b/w conversions from my 10D and find it difficult getting monochrome images anywhere as near as I can with film. Maybe if I had a top quality photo printer and the best paper money can buy I would see a difference, but all that is extra cost. Considering I enjoy the traditional wet process method, and get far better results for b/w work, it make more sense for me to simply use my film cameras. I will use both digital and film in the future, at the end of the day its the person behind the camera that takes the image, not the camera itself!

I still don't understand this constant obsession with image quality amongst digital photographers, of course its a consideration, everyone wants nicely exposed sharp images, but at the end of the day the image content, framing, subject etc should be the main concern, even more so if you consider photography as art, some people believe sharpness is overrated, I remember watching a t.v. programme about the photographer David Gepp shooting Venice with one of his home made pin hole cameras, with fantastic results, great artwork. The use of diffusers were very popular at one time for Portraits. When I decided to check out digital photography, I did some research to determine which model to buy, (if money was no object I suppose I would have just got the latest high end pro model) and came across some reviews of different models, on one someone had taken the same image with various models at various ISO settings, then blown up a particular small area to compare noise levels, Hello, whats all that about, the human eye and brain just cannot do such things in the real world! People don't see with their eyes, they see with the brain, the eyes just been like the lens of a camera. That's why in my opinion this obsession with image quality is bull crap, you get the same thing with new T.V. systems now, blue ray, sting ray, High definition, super duper high definition etc, etc. If people had superhuman vision, and Opticians became jobless overnight there might be some point to it. In the met museum of modern art in N.Y. City, you will find photographic prints hanging taken over 50 years ago, not because of image quality but because of the subject content.

The late great A.Adams foresaw the digital era:
"I eagerly awaite new concepts and processes. I beleive that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them" - Ansel Adams forward to his book 'The Negative' published January 1980.

Why I Like Film

2009-10-04T23:09:00.004+02:00

I wish to stress this article is my own personal opinion, it is not a general Film v Digital debate.

Let me start with the Cameras themselves, apart from the high end pro DSLR’s ( and the sturdy Canon eos 10D with its magnesium alloy body) most other DSLR’s are cheap looking plasticky little things, that more resemble a Childs toy then an SLR camera. I could not imagine a hefty Long Lens on one these things. They definitely don’t look like their worth the money they cost.

When I press the shutter button on my EOS 3 or 1N, I know that I am committed to producing a print from the exposure that I just made, this encourages my creativity, I don’t want to waste my efforts and time. Not unlike when I am using my medium format twin lens camera, knowing I only have twelve frames per roll of film concentrates the mind, making me think and pick my shots more carefully. Having the ability to record hundreds of images (and knowing you can delete any one in a second) on the memory card of a digital SLR/camera, in my opinion has the opposite effect; it must be tempting to just shoot away without much discrimination, and therefore having a negative effect on creativity.

Another reason I prefer using film, is because I enjoy producing my own B/W prints in the Darkroom. I know that when I have produced a good print, I have influenced and worked on it, inputting various skills and techniques all through the process, from the moment I choose a film, put it in the camera, to the moment I put the final print into the wash. I have produced that final print with my own hands, literally. Definitely more satisfying then simply clicking buttons as you would do with a digital camera in order to produce a monochrome print and in my opinion a lot more skillful as well. Sure there is skill in digital imaging, but it’s a skill sort of removed from photography itself. I did not become a photographer to spend hours and hours sat behind a computer screen manipulating images, I like been out and about capturing images.

I feel sorry for young photography students who go straight into using digital; they are missing out on a lot for the simple reason that film photography teaches the true fundamentals of photography. From such basics like how cameras actually work, how lenses work, the interaction of light/various lighting techniques etc, whatever you can think of about photography, film will teach the true fundamentals of it. I find that a lot of digital photographers are obsessed with technical matters; they will spend hours in forums/debates discussing sharpness, or staring at bland images of brick walls discussing noise levels at various ISO settings? What’s all that about? No lover of Art or Art dealer would enter a gallery with a microscope and go round comparing corner sharpness (another obsession of digital photographers) to help decide which piece of Art they will buy!

I would like to stress I am not against digital photography, despite my opinions and observations. I can see and appreciate the appeal of digital. I recently bought a Canon 10D, iv not had the chance to use it to any great extent yet, but its comfortable to use, nice sturdy feel to it, like a film SLR that’s why I chose the 10D, though its an old model, I think its ideal to explore the digital world with. I suppose it’s just another tool to use in the pursuit of good images, though I can never imagine it taking precedence over my film photography.