Web album of my light box project

I documented my DIY light box project pretty thoroughly in the previous post. However, I figured that some of you may prefer going through a pictorial instead of reading my tutorial (hey, it rhymes!). So, I created a Picasa web album, uploaded the photos taken throughout the project and inserted captions to clearly explain each step. Those of you who did enjoy my guide on building a light box (previous post), may also be keen to see more photos taken throughout the preparation phase and additional sample shots taken with the light box.




joel@shutteria.com

Building my DIY light box / light tent

A light box or light tent is an enclosure that you put items to be photographed into (rest assured, I struggled with myself greatly to put that weak definition in writing). The lighting inside the enclosure is very even and soft. This produces an ideal environment to photograph standalone objects. Ever noticed photos of iPods, sunglasses, cocktails, mobile phones, etc. with a bright, white background? Chances are they were taken in a light box.

I've been having an urge to build one of these babies on my own for some time now. The urge reached its peak over Christmas when I was in Hamburg with my in-laws (don't even try to connect the two!). So, I did some research on the Internet and found several DIY projects for a light box. Ok, research is probably an exaggeration here - I simply googled "light box" and "light tent". Most of the DIY light boxes I came across were constructed using PVC pipes or cardboard boxes / cartons. Considering my lack of knowledge in the art of plumbing and my extensive experience with packing boxes, I decided to take the latter approach.

Google's image search function can be a formidable ally for such projects as well. By browsing through the images of different light boxes, I was able to get more ideas, analyze the pros and cons of each construction, refine my architectural design and outline my game plan (you're probably wondering at this point in time if I'm still talking about the same project - yes, I am). I decided that I wanted a light box that could be easily adjusted, enhanced and played around with to get different effects. I didn't want to be stuck with a light box that restricted my creativity. In other words, I wanted to be outside the box, not in it (that's what happens when an engineer starts talking philosophy!).

The following describes how I built my very own light box. It also serves as a step-by-step guide for those of you who plan to build a light box:

1. Things that are needed: cardboard box / carton, knife / blade, scissors (optional), tape (any kind that will stick firmly to the box), white tracing paper (enough to cover three of the four sides of the box) and thick, white paper to be used as the backdrop (enough to cover the base and broad side of the box).

2. First, I needed a cardboard box / carton. I remembered that I had a couple of IKEA boxes in the cellar and decided to use one for my project "L-i-g-h-t-B-o-x". The IKEA boxes are pretty sturdy, making them ideal for a light box. However, the drawback is that they're very rectangular. Something more squarish would probably be more ideal. Nonetheless, it was what I had and I didn't want to go hunting for another one.

3. I drew borders on three of its four sides to mark the sections I was going to cut out. The borders were 3 cm from the edges.

4. I used a blade to cut out the marked sections. I also cut out the flaps at the top of the box.

5. I measured and cut the tracing paper to cover the three exposed sides of the box. Then, I glued the tracing paper onto the box.

6. I ran some tape along the edges of the box to fasten the tracing paper to it and to reinforce the construction a little.

7. I placed the thick, white paper inside the box and used a couple of paper clips to hold it in place.

8. Here is where my "ingenuity" came in. I expanded on the designs that are typically available on the Web to optionally include a couple of reflectors on the sides. The reflectors were made by gluing some white, glossy paper to the leftover cardboard pieces. Now, if you would like to place your light source(s) on the sides, remove the reflectors. If you would like to place your light source above, use the reflectors to bounce off the light towards the sides of the object being photographed. Having the reflectors does soften the shadows and makes the white backdrop glow even more intensely. This is the out-of-the-box thinking I mentioned earlier.

You're probably curious to see some photos taken with this light box. Here are some shots that I took right after finishing the project.

A light box makes a great DIY photography project and I'd be happy to recommend it. Whether you are an eBay retailer, a stock photographer, a regular photographer or simply bored, you could well benefit from this project. I hope you found this guide and my experiences informational. Do drop me a note to tell me what you think.

joel@shutteria.com

Walchensee, a beautiful lake close to Munich

In my last post, I shared some of my favorite photos of Kochelsee (Lake Kochel). There is another lake very close to Kochelsee called Walchensee (Lake Walchen). As beautiful as Kochelsee was, I have to say that Walchensee was even better.

Walchensee is located at about 800m above sea level and is further into the Alps than Kochelsee. It has its bustling spots but is rather quiet in general, which is what we loved about it. The drive from Kochelsee to Walchensee only took about 15 minutes although we spent quite a bit of time finding the best spot for some R&R. There is a passage on one side of the lake that requires an entrance fee. This stretch was much quieter and more pleasant than the others. We found a nice spot, unpacked, took a dip and while the others napped, I went to take some photos.

(Above) This panorama was created from a set of four shots that I took with a tripod. I was amazed how easy it is to generate panoramas automatically from a set of photos with Photoshop. I had to edit the photo a little after Photoshop did its magic but that wasn't too difficult. Panoramas are definitely something I would consider taking to add variety to my collection.

(Above) I guess it's quite typical to place boats in the foreground when taking shot of lakes, rivers, beaches and so forth. Nonetheless, it works well. I had to boost saturation and fill light quite a bit in post-processing to accentuate the colors of the boats.

(Above) I took this on the way back from Walchensee. I got as close to the water as I could and used the rocks as the foreground for this shot. The water there is extremely clean. You could drink it - I did.

joel@shutteria.com

Kochelsee, Kochel am See, close to Munich

If you're a fan of nature, Munich won't disappoint you. It's only about an hour's drive away to the Alps, the River Isar flows through the city and there are many beautiful lakes in and around Munich. I haven't visited them all but have definitely seen quite a bit of Munich.

This photo blog is about Kochelsee (Lake Kochel). About a month ago, I visited Kochelsee with my wife and parents-in-law. It's only about 40 km south-east from where we live but we had to endure some traffic jam to get there. Nonetheless, it was worth every bit of it. The lake it very close to the foot of the Alps and the view was fabulous. The sight of stone meeting water has always been something that fascinates me - you'd notice that from my shots below. A little further south from Kochelsee is another lake called Walchensee (Lake Walchen). Walchensee is beautiful too, if not more so than Kochelsee and there is a famous hydroelectric plant between the two lakes - for more information (in German), click here. Anyway, I'll leave Walchensee for the next post.

Here are some of my favourite photos of Kochelsee. All shots in this photo blog were taken with my Nikon D60 and Nikkor AF-S 18-105 mm VR lens.

(Above) A house on stilts typically used to store boats. I guess you could have a little "beach party" in there too. I got down very low to take this shot - my camera was only a few inches above the platform. I used the platform as a leading line into the picture. I boosted saturation a little to enhance that gold-ish tone just below the roof.

(Above) This shot is similar to the one above. It's a different house though and I used the rail as a leading line instead.

(Above) Kochelsee with the Alps in the background. I got as close to the water as possible and composed the shot with some rocks in the foreground to add more depth to it. I increased saturation in post-processing to make the elements stand out more (it was pretty flat before that).

(Above) On the way up to Walchensee, there was a small rest spot with an excellent view of Kochelsee. We decided to get down and take some shots. Kochelsee is about 600m above sea level whereas Walchensee is about 800m. This is one of the two shots I took.

Hope you liked them. Let me know what you think.

joel@shutteria.com

Nikon 35mm lens

I went back to Malaysia for a weekend some weeks ago. I was in Jakarta on business for a couple of weeks and decided to fly over to Malaysia for the weekend. It was a short but pleasant trip. I had the chance to see my family, play with and photograph my adorable nephews, enjoy some local food and... guess what? I got myself a Nikon AF-S 35mm f1.8 lens! Well actually, my parents got it for me as a birthday present. Boy, oh boy am I pleased with it.

I haven't used a prime (fixed focal length) lens for some time now. Some people often herald the benefits of prime lenses over more conventional zoom lenses. Ok, zoom lenses used to be a rarity but it has been the norm for some time now. Old 35mm cameras such as the Yashica FX-3 SLR that I had, came with prime lenses - usually 50mm. 50mm lenses (35mm equivalent) are often called normal lenses because they generate images that generally look natural to an observer under normal viewing conditions. By the way, that's the Wikipedia description.

The Nikon or should I say Nikkor AF-S 35mm f1.8 lens is a normal lens when paired with a Nikon DSLR with an APS-C sensor (non full-frame sensor). Nikon DSLRs such as my D60 have a cropping factor of 1.5. So, a 35mm lens on these cameras is equivalent to ~50mm (i.e. 35mm x 1.5 = 52.5mm) on a 35mm / full-frame camera.

I decided on this lens for three reasons. First and foremost, I wanted a fast lens for low light photography. A fast lens is one with a large aperture (small f-stop number). There is a good article on Digital Photography School about fast lenses if you'd like to know more - click here. I've tried photographing kids indoor with my zoom lens and unless I use a flash or really bump up the ISO (which results in noisy pictures) the images usually turn out soft because the shutter is too slow. With a large aperture, I figured that I'd be able to use a faster shutter speed and avoid soft images. While I have found this to be true, the large aperture also results in a very narrow depth of field and you have to be careful when focusing to ensure sharp images.

I have found this lens to be a little soft and blurry when used at its maximum aperture of f1.8. I recommend stopping it down to at least f2.0 to get the best shots. The picture below, which was taken at f1.8 is rather soft.

Secondly, I wanted a fast lens to get the bokeh effect in my shots, especially portraits. Bokeh refers to the part of an image that is rendered out of focus on purpose by using a narrow depth of field (large aperture, small f-stop). This is often done to isolate the subject from a distracting background and / or foreground. There's a good article about bokeh on Wikipedia - click here.

Finally, I wanted a prime lens. Prime lenses typically produce better photos than equivalently priced zoom lenses. However, you sacrifice some flexibility and convenience since you have to "zoom" with your feet. I find that with this lens the color reproduction is better and my shots are sharper than with my AF-s 18-105 VR zoom lens.

All the shots in this post were taken with my D60 and Nikkor AF-S 35mm f1.8 lens - judge for yourselves. Overall, I'm very pleased with this lens and would gladly recommend it.

joel@shutteria.com

Reflections and forced perspectives from Nymphenburg

If there is one website that I have learnt most about photography from, it would be Digital Photgraphy School, also known as DPS. DPS is a blog where professional and semi-professional photographers regularly share tips, ideas and learnings about photography gained through their years of experience. The posts are typically quite short, which makes them easy to chew. They are also very inspiring and has often given me new ideas for my photography sessions.

During my visit to Nymphenburg Palace a few weeks ago, I used a couple of ideas I had previously learned from DPS. First, I was inspired by an article entitled "20 Effective Reflection Photos" by Nate Kay. This post really encouraged me to look for opportunities to take shots with reflections in them. This wasn't too difficult in Nymphenburg Palace since there is a lot of water in the palace grounds. Nate mentions in his article that reflections can make simple shots look extraordinary. Looking at the 20 pictures he selected for his article and the ones I took that day in Nymphenburg Palace, I tend to agree. Of course, compositional rules are still absolutely vital but reflections can make the difference between charming and captivating.

The second article that inspired is "15 Forced Perspective Technique Examples", by Nate Kay as well. Honestly, I had never heard about forced perspective techniques before reading this. As quoted in the post, the forced perspective technique manipulates our human perception with the use of optical illusions to make objects appear larger, smaller, farther, or closer than they actually are.

When I was in Nymphenburg Palace, I was on the lookout for compositions that would constitute a forced perspective. This indeed made things more fun as it gave me some idea of what I should be looking out for. The picture on the right is one of the "forced perspective" shots I took that day. The statue is indeed much smaller than the palace but the picture has been composed to convey a different message altogether. The image makes the statue look a whole lot bigger than it really is - well, at least that was my expectation.

I hope this has given you some ideas for next photo shoot. You can see my other shots of Nymphenburg Palace via this link.

joel@shutteria.com

To HDR or not to HDR ?

In my last photography tips post, I promised that I would share some HDR and non-HDR photos from my outing to Nymphenburg Palace, which is located here in Munich. I was there two weeks ago. You can read about my outing and the Nymphenburg Palace in general on my Living in Munich blog. Here's the link to that particular post. Overall, the outing was fun and I'm pretty content with most of the shots I took.



Above is a HDR image of the Palace's facade and the beautiful lake in front of it. To the right is the regular version. I find the colors to be more vibrant and dream-like in the HDR version. The regular one looks less vibrant, but more realistic. Most photography tips I've gotten point out that this is a general characteristic of HDR images.

---

To the left and below are slightly tighter shots of the facade. The one on the left is the HDR version and the one below is not.






Like the pair above, I find the HDR version to be more idealistic and less realistic as compared to the regular version.

---

Here we have pictures of the palace's rear. To the far left is a HDR image of the palace and a pond behind it. Next to it is the regular version.

The regular version has a slightly over-exposed sky and because of that there is almost no detail visible in the clouds. The HDR version on the other hand has successfully kept the sky correctly exposed (for the most part) and much of the detail intact.

---

Now we come to the final set. Once again we have pictures of the palace's rear but this time in landscape composition. To the left is the HDR version and below is the regular one.





In this set, I find the regular version to actually be more outstanding. Contrasts are stronger in the regular version and this accentuates the reflections in the pond.




Tell me what you think. Hope you enjoyed this photography tips posts on whether to go for HDR or not.

joel@shutteria.com

Intro to High Dynamic Range (HDR)

This post on photography tips is about HDR. HDR stands for High Dynamic Range and it is an art of photography that is getting popular in the world of digital photography these days. Surf around for photography tips and you're bound to stumble upon some HDR-related resources. A regular photo taken with a single shot has a limited dynamic range. This is how I understand it: imagine the darkest and brightest tones possible in this whole universe representing the furthest left and right corners of a histogram respectively. A camera's sensor is not able to capture the entire range of tones on this histogram. There is a point on the left beyond which everything is recorded as black and likewise, there is a point on the right beyond which everything is recorded as white. The range of tones between these two points is the sensor's dynamic range.

In a bright scene, the dynamic range shifts to the right and correspondingly in a dark scene, the dynamic range shifts to the left. The problem occurs when there is a scene with high contrast - some parts are very bright and others are very dark. With regular photos, setting the camera to correctly expose the bright parts will cause the dark parts to be under exposed. On the other hand, setting the camera to correctly expose the dark parts will cause the bright parts to be over exposed. Setting the camera's exposure in between the two has been the best solution before the advent of HDR photography. It resulted in slightly overexposed and underexposed parts but it was the lesser of evils.

With HDR, several shots are taken of the same scene but with different exposure settings. The idea is to have a set of identically composed photos where each correctly exposes a part of the scene. The pictures are then merged together using the appropriate software such as Adobe Photoshop. The resultant HDR image has a much larger dynamic range and ideally, everything of the scene is perfectly exposed. While it is possible to create a HDR image with only two or three photos in the set, I find that the best results require at least five. There was a group test in Digital Photo magazine a few months ago on HDR software. Photomatrix Pro v3.0 came out first. A free HDR software called Picturenaut was also reviewed. It didn't do very well in the group test but hey, it's free.

The picture on the top left is a HDR image composed from a set of five photos. It is a picture of the facade of Nymphenburg Palace in Munich. So, how did I take a set of photos with different exposure settings suitable for creating the HDR image above? I've found various photography tips on how to do this and settled for the method I feel is most convenient. First, I mounted up my camera on the tripod (since all photos in the set must be identically composed) and properly composed the shot. I set my camera to matrix metering, which is a Nikon proprietary light metering mechanism (Canon has an equivalent as well). I took the first shot without any exposure compensation i.e. 0 EV. Then I set the EV to -0.7, -1.3, +0.7 and +1.3 respectively for the next four shots. The picture on the right is also a HDR image. It was taken at the rear of Nymphenburg Palace.

HDR is not the best form of photography. There are benefits and drawbacks to it. In my next post, I'll share more pictures and thoughts on HDR photography from my outing to Nymphenburg Palace. I'll show you some HDR and non-HDR images for you to judge.

I hope you found this post on photography tips for HDR beneficial.

joel@shutteria.com

Flashing about in low light

In my last post, I bragged a little about how great it is to have a proper flash and I thought I'd share some pictures and photography tips for you to judge yourselves. Although, a flash can be very useful in extremely bright situations with high contrast as well, this post is about using a flash in low light conditions.

On the left is a picture of my friend, Ken that was taken during a birthday party of a mutual friend. I was about 1.5 meters away from Ken then. I tilted my Nikon SB-600 flash towards the ceiling, which was fortunately white, set my aperture to maximum and took the shot. By directing my flash towards the ceiling, I was able to avoid a ghastly glare from the window and instead got a nice reflection of the living room from it. Nonetheless, I do feel that this picture is a little overexposed. I probably should have stepped back a meter or so.





On the right is a picture of Donald, our host for the evening. Likewise, no glare but a nice reflection. Another problem with aiming a flash directly at a subject is the unnatural tone it brings. Using a flash diffuser definitely does help but I still find that bouncing the flash off the ceiling yields the best results.






You can even get creative with your flash and bounce it off the wall to get a different effect, as I did with the picture on the left. This is one of the photography tips I got from a colleague. Make no mistakes, this shot could have and should have been better composed. But at least it demonstrates its effect.







On the right is Mark, from Australia. I added a little Sepia to this one.








And finally, Ken looks content. We all had a great time at the party that day and the photos I took were well received.

So, what do you think? I hope I gave you some useful tips on flash photography.

Deciding on my "Kitt"

Kitt - isn't that the name of the car in Night Rider? Anyway, now you know that I have a Nikon D60. Like most of you who are thinking of getting into photography, I did a lot of online research and asked around for a lot of tips before settling for the D60. At first I was considering either the Nikon D60 or Canon's EOS 450D. I have to say that I always favored having a Nikon. Probably because I know many people who use Nikon and also because I've seen many photojournalists using Nikons on TV. For me, it felt like Nikon was always the first choice for SLRs and photography in general. However, I have colleague who's a Canonite (in case you don't know what I'm talking about, read "Canon fan"). He told me that Canon is by far a much bigger camera manufacturer. They have much higher volumes and this is translated to better costs. In his opinion, Canon offered excellent value for money and I have to agree that he is right. On a feature level, you would probably get more from a Canon than an equivalently priced Nikon. However, I think that we would all agree that photography is not about features. It's art, not science.

Another question I asked myself was, "Which brand would I prefer to stick to all my life?" A great thing about having a digital SLR is that you can usually reuse lenses, flashes and other accessories when you upgrade the camera body as long as you stick to the same manufacturer. This greatly encourages people to stick to one manufacturer for life. In this respect, I was in favor of Nikon.

Anyway, I looked for lots of photography tips on the two and probably read every major review about them before deciding in favor of the Nikon D60. Digital Photography Review is probably one of the best online resources for such reviews and product-specific photography tips. I have to say that I was a little pissed off that almost every D-SLR by Canon or Nikon gets a "Highly Recommended" rating. While this doesn't help the decision process, I think that it truly reflects the state of digital photography these days. It is now a mature industry and manufacturers have improved their offerings so much that as a beginner, you can't really go wrong with any of them (as long as you stick to well-known, reputable makes like Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony and so forth) . Anyway, back to my decision. I think that it should be noted that the Canon EOS 450D is more expensive than the D60 and definitely has a great set of features that I would have loved to see on my D60 as well. Nonetheless, between the two, I decided on the D60.

However, I soon started comparing the D60 against its bigger brother, the D90. I started looking for reviews and photography tips on the D90. The D90 has all the major features the EOS 450D has to offer and more, it has excellent reviews, it has a built-in motor that would allow the use of a wider range or lenses (some lenses supported by the D90 and not on the D60 are cheaper and in the long run the total cost of ownership may be less with the D90 - or so I argued) and additionally, it was brand new.

I had a chat with my colleague about this new alternative. He didn't recommend one over the other but he gave me some tips and said something that really stuck with me. He told me that in photography, it's very important to invest into the whole kit and not just the camera body. In fact, he added that it's much better to have a good lens on an entry-level body than the other way around. He also encouraged me to immediately invest in a reasonably good flash and tripod. I would rank this as one of the top photography tips I've ever received. I started looking at my investment from a more holistic perspective and realized that if I went for the D90, I would have to cut back on the other things. So, I decided to invest in a good entry level "kit" instead to kick-off my photography.

I bought my D60 together with the Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105MM F/3.5-5.6G ED VR lens (kit lens for the D90), a Nikon SB-600 flash, a Tamrac bag and a Hoya UV filter. Recently, I added a Slik Pro 400DX tripod to my kit. I'm really glad that I decided on this kit and saw things holistically and beyond just the camera body. I have taken many nice pictures that I could never have had if I had decided to invest in a higher-end body and miss out on a good flash and tripod. Indoor pictures taken at night look best when you can fire a flash off a white ceiling and outdoor landscapes taken during sunrise or sunset look best when you can use a very small aperture (you will need to use a slow shutter speed and to mount the camera on a tripod).

There you have it - that's how I decided on my kit. I hope I offered you some practical advice and tips you don't typically get from reviews.