Move and bounce

When photographing, don't be content to stay in one place. Move around - find a new spot with a different perspective ... lower down ... higher up ... an angle from which the light is better.

Never be satisfied with the first spot you have chosen. It may turn out to be the best place to shoot from ... but it probably won't.

My first photographs of Pettina Gappah addressing the Geneva Writers' Group gave an impression of the location and what was going on but, as I discussed in my last blog, shooting from a distance through a doorway gave problems with the light. I was using my new 50mm f1.4 prime lens with no zoom, so I needed to get physically closer.

I shifted position around to the other side. You can move around discreetly, even when someone is addressing an audience. I did it by creeping through a corridor at the back and popping out on the other side of the room.

But the problem with the light was worse in my new position. Look at those huge windows behind ... and Pettina with her back to them.

I pushed things in Photoshop here. And you can see it. Over-exposed panels and side of the man's face behind her, and noise on the dark area of her dress.

I knew, as I was taking the photograph, that it was going to give problems with that light, so I got out my flash. I don't like using flash so close to a speaker, with it going off 'POW!' in their face. But, from where I was, I could bounce it off the ceiling ...


Beautiful! Pettina being thanked by Susan Tiberghien at the end of her presentation. The bounce flash worked well, casting just enough light on their faces to eliminate the shadows, whilst the background is not over-exposed.

I feel this photo shows a wonderful expression of friendship and support. But that's what the Geneva Writers' Group is all about.

I'm glad I caught it.

Swings and roundabouts

Sometimes it's a tough call for a photographer - use the natural light (also called 'available light') or get out the flash?

Natural light is best of course. After all, it's natural. But sometimes it's not particularly bright. Or it's coming from the wrong direction.

You may be able to compensate for the lack of brightness by opening up the aperture or using a slower shutter speed. But these options have their limits. Use too slow a shutter speed, for example, and you'll get a blurry picture, either because you can't hold the camera steady enough or because your subject is moving.

You can also increase the ISO rating - in other words, increase the sensitivity of the chip. But then you'll start getting 'noise' speckling your image.

I faced that problem yesterday. Friend and writer Pettina Gappah (author of the best-selling 'An Elegy for Easterly') gave a reading to the Geneva Writers Group.

When Pettina had finished reading and was fielding questions I got out my camera to record the event. It was a difficult situation. The meeting was being held in a room with large glass windows behind the speaker and the mid-day light was streaming in through them.

I gave it a go using the natural light ...

Then I tried using flash ...

Which works best?

The flash version certainly gives more even lighting (look at the figures in the background) but it has also brought out the 'junk' in the picture - the assorted audio equipment behind Pettina's head, for example. And it's thrown a shadow of her face on the wall behind her.

But ... why didn't I use 'bounce flash', i.e aiming the flash to reflect off the ceiling?

That would have solved the problem, but I couldn't. I was standing in a neighbouring room, behind some other members of the audience, and shooting through a doorway. If you're sitting near a door look at the way it is built into the wall and (unless the door goes all the way up to the ceiling) you'll see why bouncing the flash would not have worked.

The natural light option gives a better picture (in my opinion), It's the way the background is more muted, bringing out the subject, Pettina.

But it's a 'noisy' image. Here's an enlarged section of the door and wall from the background ...

So, there you go. It's 'swings and roundabouts (from a British saying - "What you lose on the swings you gain on the roundabouts". In other words, it has as many advantages as disadvantages).

What would you have done? Which option do you think is best?

Sometimes it works.

Yes. If enough people protest they can have an effect.

At the end of last month I wrote about a 'rights-grabbing' photographic competition being run by a UK charity, The National Trust. See here.

There was a storm of protest from photographers big and small, amateur and professional. One renowned UK photographer, Simon Norfolk, even pulled out of a major project with the National Trust in disgust. (See here.)

And what happened?

The National Trust changed the terms.

Before, they read:

"If you submit any material to us, you agree to grant The National Trust a perpetual, royalty-free, worldwide, non-exclusive licence to use your contribution in all media. This includes the right to copy, edit, publish, grant sub-licences and exercise all other copyright and publicity rights over the material."

This means that, just by entering the competition you give all rights to your photograph to The National Trust to use as it wishes, and even sell on without any further reference to you.

Now the terms have been amended to read:

"Entrants will retain copyright and moral rights in their submitted images however, by entering, all entrants grant the National Trust in Northern Ireland, non-exclusive rights to use the images to promote the competition the images were submitted to, to use in regional publications and advertising campaigns, or for similar future use within a five year period of the winners being announced for the competition that the images concerned were submitted to.

The National Trust in Northern Ireland will contact image owners before using any images, to seek permission where it is deemed necessary for any other use. We will not use any images without the owners consent."

Not perfect as they still take certain rights to all entries. But a whole lot better.

So, enough people making enough noise can make a difference.

If you see a photo competition that takes 'all rights' to 'all entries', don't enter. Submit the image I gave in my previous post, instead. Let Copyright Action know, too. And spread the word elsewhere. Tell me, too, and I'll post on here.

It's time big companies stopped taking photographers for a ride.

An Evening of Good Things

Last night, deep in the ancient cellars ... or were they dungeons? ... under the castle in the Swiss town of Nyon, we members of the Leman Poetry Workshop held an evening of readings and music.

It was in celebration of our new website, the publication of our latest anthology Up To Now and a homage to Brian Hughes, an acclaimed poet, founder of the Workshop, and our much-missed mentor.

As well as reading some of my poetry, I took photographs.

Reading your work in front of an expectant audience is a tough challenge but the photography was a tougher. Light levels were very low and, in such a gathering, you can't use flash. The burst of blinding light is too distracting for reader and audience alike.

So, it was a good opportunity to try out the new Nikon 50mm f1.4 prime lens I've just bought.

The lens worked like a dream. With it wide open and the camera speed racked up to ISO 1000 I could hand-hold in the available light:


And, with an aperture of f1.4, the depth of field was shallow, enabling me to focus on one performer whilst showing others, in a non-distracting way, in the background.

The light, though dim, was also beautiful down there and occasionally I got lucky with it highlighting a performer whilst leaving the audience in shadow ...

My one regret with this last photograph is the background line through the performer's head. Could I have avoided it?

I always seem to ask myself questions like that afterwards.

To travel hopefully ...

How about this as an innovative project?

For her finals, UK art student Hannah Hughes wanted to get as many people as she could to take a photograph of the sky at exactly the same time, on exactly the same day, from wherever they were the world. The photos she received would then be published in a book.

Amazingly simple in concept, this is just the sort of thing the internet can do so well. So she posted her request on Facebook, (amongst other places).

I saw it and thought, "Why not?" All I'd have to do would be to go outside at the time Hanna had set - 3pm - point my camera upwards and press the button.

No framing. No composition. Just 'snap!'

The trouble was, at 3pm in Gland, Switzerland, the sky was covered from horizon to horizon by featureless grey stratus cloud. Not a break or ripple in sight. No sign of the sun. No blue. No anything. It's the sort of cloud cover that we can get for days on end down here in the valley of Lac Léman.

"Ah well," I thought. "Too bad. You're going to get a completely blank image from me, Hanna. But you asked for it."

I pointed my camera upwards and ...

Amazing! This was taken at 27 seconds past the hour and at that instant I caught three old and much-loved African friends in my photograph of the sky - a Black Kite and two Barn Swallows.

Sometimes, when you travel hopefully, you arrive at a place you were not expecting.

Test your colour vision

Apparently 1 out of 255 women and 1 out of 12 men have some form of colour vision deficiency.

That's not good news if you're a photographer, you're processing the photos you've just taken and you're trying to get them looking right on the monitor.

But you can test your colour vision here.

On the screen you are presented with 4 rows of coloured tiles, all mixed up, and you have to sort them in to the correct colour order by dragging and dropping, up and down each row.

It's not as easy as it seems! It's best done in a darkened room - which is also the way you should work on your photographs if you're really serious about getting them to look their best.

Why men should have a far higher level of colour vision deficiency than women I don't know. Maybe that's why we men tend to be less concerned about the colour of a car and more interested in its performance.

Rain starts play

When it rains, most photographers pack up their gear and head for shelter.

Don't.

Rain provides lots of opportunities to get different and unusual shots. There are reflections from wet streets, colourful umbrellas and rain gear, people pelting for shelter, or landmarks with a sheen you've never seen before. Rain changes everything.

If you don't want to get your camera wet you can take photographs from inside, through a wet window ...


But get outside too. Most cameras are a little more waterproof than we realise. If the rain is only a light drizzle you can keep your camera dry under your coat and bring it out to take the shots. A few spots of rain on it won't do any harm.

But if it's really pouring down you can waterproof your camera very effectively with nothing more complex than a clear plastic bag and an elastic band. Put the camera in the bag with the lens poking out through the opening and secure the bag around the lens barrel with the elastic band.

It won't look very elegant ...

... and the view through the viewfinder will be a little blurry. But it's a simple, cheap and effective method. If you use this set-up in conjunction with a good lens hood too, the front element of the lens will be well- protected.

And it's the photos you want ...