project 7

Photo 1.

This is my preference of all of this series. I find the additional foreground more attractive than in some of the other photos with lees foreground.

Photo 2. Again I like the foreground here. When I say I like the foreground what I mean is that these two pictures look more "right" because of it.

Photo 3. Too close to the edge of the frame.

Photo 4. As above.

Photo 5. I can see what Michael Freeman means about framing the subject in the centre. Its like the background is crowded out or denied and that makes the viewers eye want to see it more. I find myself trying to see past the subject here more than in the other photos.

Project 6; Fitting the subject to the frame.

Photo 1; Conventional view. Not very interesting.

Photo 2; Subject fitting the frame. More interesting view point. I like the lens distortion and the curve of the barrow. A little abstract.

Photo 3; Close up, no edges showing. Interesting, perhaps a little abstract. Its not immediately obvious what the subject is and the photo is more interesting because the viewer has to figure out what the subject is.

Photo 4; Subject in its surroundings. Again nothing special here.

Project 5: Panning with different shutter speeds.

Photo 1; F 7.1 1/60 sec.

Here the background is blurred while the subject is sharp.

Photo 2; F 8.0 1/50 sec

no great difference.

Photo 3; F 8.0 1/40 sec

More blurring evident on background while subject is still sharp.

Photo 4; F 10 1/30 sec.

The feet on the pedals are now beginning to blur.

Photo 5; F9.0 1/25 sec

As above. Perhaps a little more blurring on the legs and feet.

Photo 6; F 13 1/20 sec

As above. Notice that the subjects feet and legs are blurred but the hands and arms are not.

Photo 7; F 10 1/15 sec.

More blurring on the background and the legs and feet. Perhaps the arms are also now beginning to become a little blurred.

Photo 8; F 16 1/10 sec

Photo 9; F 20 1/8 sec.

legs and feet very blurred now. Background also.

Photo 9 F 18 1/6 sec

Lots of blurring, beginning to show on main subject.

Towards the final few shots in this series it became very difficult to pan and prevent camera shake. My favorite in this series would be no 7. In the previous it would be no 9.

Project 4; Shutter speed

For this project the camera was mounted on a tripod.

Photo 1; F4.0 1/200 sec. Focal length 28 mm. ( Same for all shots)

The movement here is frozen. The spokes on the wheel are frozen. The picture lacks sharpness however because of the aperture setting.

Photo 2; F 4.5 1/160 sec.

Again the movement is frozen.

Photo 3; F5 1/125 sec.

.

The movement blur is beginning to appear here, notice the writing on the bicycle frame and also the feet on the pedals.

Photo 4; F 5.6 1/100 sec.

Movement blur is more pronounced, notice the blurring is greater on the arms.

Photo 5; F 6.3 1/80 sec.

Greater blurring. This can be seen on the subject and also the car passing by in the background. Also notice the traffic sign which is sharp and unblurred,

Photo 6; F 7.1 1/50 sec

Again blurred movement but not a lot greater to the previous photo.

Photo 7; F 9.0 1/40 sec.

Very blurred now but the background is sharp.

Photo 8; F 10 1/30 sec.

More blurring.

Photo 9; f11 1/30 sec.

As above.

Photo 10; F13 1/20 sec.

Beginning to lose solidity.

Photo 11 F 14 1/15 sec.

Lots of blur now.

Photo 12; F 16 1/10 sec.

Like paint running.

Photo 13; F 20 1/6 sec

Completely blurred and now see through and transparent like a ghost.

Project 3. Focus with different apertures

For this project I mounted the camera on a tripod. I used a canon 24mm to 105 mm zoom lens.

Photo 1. F4.0 1/80 sec. Focal lenght 45 mm. The camera is focused on the middle wine glass. The sharp area within the photograph is a narrow band marked in red.

Photo 2. F9.0 1/15 sec. Focal length 45 mm. The band of sharpness is a little larger, however I find it surprising how little there seems in the difference.

Photo 3. F22, 1/2 sec. Focal length 45 mm. The difference between the first and this photo is quite marked. The depth of field here is much greater in this photo than the other two.

Project 2;Focus with set aperture

In the course notes it suggests that this project be done in the field. I have chosen to use a still life instead.

Photo 1. F 4.0, 105 mm, 0.6 sec. Camera on tripod. Focus sharply on foreground.

Photo 2. F 4.0, 105 mm, 0.6 sec. Camera on tripod. Focus on the middle of shot.

Photo 3. F 4.0, 105 mm, 0.6 sec. Camera on tripod. Focus on back of shot. Fore and mid ground are blurred.

I think I prefer the third photo. What I prefer about it is that the eye is led into the picture from the foreground.

Project 1. Focal length and angle of view.

Project 1; Focal length and angle of view.

I mounted the camera on a tripod for this project.

Photo 1 is taken with a zoom lens. The focal length is 17 mm. It was quite apparent that everything within the frame appeared smaller than reality.

Photo 2 is taken with a 50 mm lens. It was easy to see that the elements within the frame were the same size as they are in reality. The camera has a full frame sensor and this therefore is the standard focal length.

Photo 3 is taken with a 35 mm prime lens. Again the elements within the frame are smaller than they are in reality.

Following printing the photos I found that viewing the 50 mm shot was comfortable at about 45 cm or less than an arms length. The 17 mm shot needed to be very close to my eyes, so close it was uncomfortable to view. The 35 mm also needed to be seen quite close up.