Photo of the Week 2014: #6 One Raffles Place

No doubt it's been ages since I last posted a photo proper...

Today I share a very random shot I grabbed while wandering around Raffles Place after some school activity.

11 mm DX, 1/80, f/2.8, ISO 1600.

This is the entrance to One Raffles Place, one of the newer and more prominent office buildings in the area.

I took this photograph in the early evening. There were no clouds which made the sky look rather empty, but clouds could have been distracting as well. The effect of this photograph is mainly to show how lights stand out at night, and how they also give architecture an interesting texture. Quite unfortunately the trees, like anywhere in Singapore, were rather overwhelming, and thanks to a CCTV pole I had to crop out the bottom strip of the photograph. But I thought the angle and the texture looks cool nonetheless, together with the LED typography. Really fun (but also annoying) to play with all the lights available in this area at night.

It will probably will make a good and appropriate cover photograph for this place - I really get the commercial feels from this shot. Perhaps I need to do a bit more cropping at the sides, to remove the redundant structures.

The CBD area has a lot to explore; will share more next time, when I get the chance to visit the place and do a shoot proper, with tripods and everything!

Photo of the Week 2014: #5 SoDaChe

I apologize for my long long hiatus, which was thanks to yet another batch of university admissions to deal with. I realize that I am far from catching up with my Photo of the Week series, so I will just continue and post one whenever I am able to. Let's see how many POTWs I'll have at the end of this year!

Today I hope to share a photograph I took a few months ago. It is not scenery, but instead a scene that is rather personal to me.

11 mm DX, 1/3, f/13, ISO 2000.

This is a SoDaChe session at my JC, during orientation campfire. SoDaChe is short for Song, Dance, and Cheer, the three elements that defines the school spirit and culture. While not my own orientation campfire - I'm returning merely as a graduated senior - it always reminds me of the friendships forged, the hardships endured, and the precious outcomes earned. I did not think I'd enjoy my two years here for it'll be tough. Indeed it was, but I enjoyed them nevertheless.

Once again, a starburst, from a handheld exposure. I stabilized the camera against the railing, but it still takes a bit of patience. When dealing with such spotlights and trying to get starbursts, it is always a little tricky.

One thing is the camera angle: especially with my Tokina 11-16 DX II which has a rather big 77 mm front element, flare was very common. It can add some effect to the photograph, but too much will also ruin the picture (Photoshop is. of course, an option).

Then there is controlling the aperture for the starburst. The aperture cannot be too small or the starburst will look pathetic and with some bad fringing (perhaps it's the lens), and your long exposure will simply give you motion blur. Too big an aperture, and the starburst will not be possible. I took some time to figure out my balance. The starbursts were nice, I was able to stay still for the buildings to be sharp, and there was some movement in the people but they were still relatively clear. Of course, the two spotlights were probably at different angles and brightness so the starbursts came out different. That was unfortunate.

More photographs to come; I promise.

Photo of the Week 2014: #4 Phuket Boat Tour

Today I bring you a photo from Phuket, Thailand. This shot was taken on a boat tour to James Bond island. On the way the boat anchored at an island and we were brought into a bat cave on water rafts. I found the style of the tour really unique (at one point in time, we were given time to jump into the sea to swim).

11 mm DX, 1/2000, f/2.8, ISO 100.

It's a fresh shot for me mainly because I've not used a wide angle for a very long while. This was shot on a Tokina 11-16 II, which on DX gives an equivalent of 16.5 to 24 mm. The wide-angle distortion I get here gives the shot an amazing perspective: I'm looking up from a low point to observe the magnificent surroundings (yes, I was on a water raft).

Of course, I was lucky to capture this scene with a beautiful sky, where thin streams of clouds form patterns. Phuket has wonderful skies. This I feel is the key attractive feature of this shot. Without a wide angle, you could barely capture that much of the sky, undoubtedly.

You would have noticed that the boat isn't very sharp. I was careless enough to shoot wide open at f/2.8, because just before this I was in the pitch-dark cave. Furthermore this was shot with my new D7100 which I was not very used to. In bright daylight and when shallow depth of field is not necessary (and not evident in wide-angles anyway), I've learnt to shoot at around f/8. Nevertheless, the loss in sharpness, I suspect, is not due to the focus but more of a faulty UV filter which was insecure and hence may not have been parallel to the front element. I've had a great deal of focusing and sharpness problems in Phuket, and after I obtained a change, the problems were much less prevalent.

If you like beaches and the sea, do visit Phuket. It's a pretty nice place to visit for a holiday.

Photo of the Week 2014: #3 Sunburst

I've been on a pretty long hiatus thanks to a new hard disk that I thought crashed after I attempted to back up my Mac in preparation for Mavericks. And I really thought I lost all my recent photos, until I passed the disk to my good buddy and he said there was nothing wrong. Well, probably the few stupid things about a Mac.

I'm now going to make up for this loss, so these few days I'll spam a few posts. Do bear with me!

Today's photo is taken at Sentosa. Sunburst: a starburst with the sun.

11 mm DX, 1/15, f/22, ISO 100.

As my friends were taking the sunset above the sea behind this bush, I thought I'd try something different. I noticed this little bush with two tree trunks sticking out of it, and I found the symmetry pretty interesting. The sun also produces nice star bursts when the light shines through the gaps in the bush. Hence I composed my image as seen.

One thing that's very unfortunate is that the trees behind that were slanting out towards the sea actually ruined the symmetry. Thus when I looked at this photo after nearly a month of taking it I didn't realize what I was trying to do until a short while later.

This shot was taken using a few layers of ND filters. Of course, my ND and GND filters were not strong enough to produce a nice sun. One thing to take extra care of when using such glass (referring to the filter itself and not its material), especially common plastic ones, is to blow off all the dust regularly. Rubbing it with a piece of cloth isn't a very good idea because the plastic will get easily charged with static electricity and attract even more dust. My photo was nearly ruined by the dust particles I left on it.

A very delicate procedure when editing such photos of the sun is the white balance. For this stage of sunset where there is yet to be any glow, it's tricky to get a good balance between the warmth of the sun and the coolness of the sky. A trick would be to use graduated filters in post-processing to separate the sky from the ground. However do not overdo this as it will make the photograph look very artificial.

Lastly, the starburst. The trick is to pick a lens with an odd number of aperture blades, which should be most lenses (sorry Canon users, most Canon lenses have an even number of blades). Rounded blades do not work as well, but they are still acceptable. Then stop down to the lowest possible aperture, which in my case is f/22. Starbursts occur due to a special type of diffraction against the aperture blades. I won't bore you with physics here.

Typically starbursts are made more pronounced in post-processing by boosting clarity and contrast. And a lens flare can enhance or ruin the effect, so be sure to check your shots. Unlike sun rays through clouds, starbursts should be identifiable out of the camera, and post-processing will only enhance them. If you can't see it on the camera LCD, then something is wrong.

Working with the sun is extremely tricky. We like it when the sky is cloudless so we get the full unobstructed sun. Yet, clouds dampen the rays and give you more options for a cleaner, more balanced exposure. I'd fix my shot, which has the sun too overexposed (it has to be overexposed; it's just about how much), with a big stopper, if I had one.

A final minor point: do play around with cropping; sometimes it helps concentrate the subject and remove distractions, and also adds something interesting to your photo.

Photo of the Week 2014: #2 Timeless

A photographer's nightmare is to have insufficient disk space left on the computer. I could barely run my usual apps, let alone transfer new photos in or use Lightroom (yes, I use Lightroom, and someday I'll explain to you why I chose it for the bulk of my editing) or Photoshop. So I couldn't get any new photos out for you today.

Instead, I bring you a photo I took more than two years ago. It was one of the first few shots that helped me pave the way towards full manual control of my camera, and also a SOOC (Straight Out Of Camera) shot. Back then, I didn't believe in post processing. I felt that post processing is cheating. A true photographer, I thought, should be able to get whatever he wants using what the camera can offer and with mastery of the camera controls, and deliver SOOC. Truth is, the camera processor is essentially doing post processing. The sensor captures the RAW image, and the processor will interpret the RAW signals to produce the photo the camera feels you're trying to obtain (and of course compress it to JPEG). So post processing (on the computer) is essentially doing the interpretation manually, which in other words is eliminating automation by the camera processor. That's actually less cheating, isn't it?

Not to say that every photo must be post processed; sometimes the camera interprets your photos very well and you can just leave it as that. So the rule of thumb is: it doesn't matter how you get your photo, as long as you get it. Of course, there's a fine line between an impressive photograph and an impressive art work so keep that in mind if you're going to do some extensive Photoshopping.

So here's today's photo, entitled Timeless.

18 mm DX, 1'', f/10, ISO 100.

Admittedly this was no impressive shot. The light came from a warm tungsten lamp, and (if I remember correctly) I tried to angle it to give it a nice shadow but only to realize that at that particular angle the light will not illuminate the face of the clock. And I couldn't lower the lamp too much or it'll illuminate the background, which I want in pitch darkness. This was the best compromise I could obtain (Or was it the best?).

What's interesting about this shot is actually the subject, a clock with no hands. This is actually a mechanical clock from Ikea, one that my dad bought for the fun but broke under my sister's somewhat abusive handling. I really loved this object like this, for I feel it sends a very interesting message about time. Unfortunately the clock now is nowhere to be found, so this is effectively the only photo I have of it.

Timeless. This little mechanical device dictates our daily lives literally down to the second; I always wonder what will happen if one day the world spins without clocks. Will we still care about time? What will we use to gauge the stages of the day? (the sun?) What will it feel like to live in a world that is timeless?

This photo would have been produced better with a better angle and a different lighting. A looming shadow on the ground would perhaps do the job, and perhaps having the legs exposed would make the picture look more complete. I wouldn't do much in post processing though, mainly because half the picture is black. The only edit I may do to this would be to turn it into black and white, though I would have preferred to have some blurred objects in the background.

Unfortunately it'll take me some time to find something similar (effectively to find a pretty vintage clock and tear out the hands). I suppose that's why it's so important to know how to get your shot as perfect as possible, because for anything at all (not just referring to the streets or sports or the fast moving sort of thing), you'll never know whether it'll be the same again the next time you need it. Cool life principle man.

Photo of the Week 2014: #1 Sunset at CBD

I have decided to launch the Photo of the Week (POTW) series this year, where I will present a photograph and describe how I obtained the shot, and the significance of it. The post may come anytime in the week, but most likely on weekends, so do stay tuned!

Today, I present you a shot of Singapore's famous but clichéd landscape, the Central Business District (CBD), in the light of sunset.

11 mm DX, 1/5000, f/2.8, ISO 100.

The sunset is evidently very strong and overpowering the blue sky with its orange light. Coincidentally, it shines behind the skyscrapers at the CBD, which stand tall and prominently in the scene. The intended message in this photo is that the CBD seems like Singapore's powerful driving force and adding live and functionality to the city, just like how the sunset behind it is influencing the uniform blueness in the rest of the skies to have some more vibrant colors and making the sky more dynamic and attractive.

The original shot was obtained with the sunset nicely exposed, and hence the buildings were underexposed. Exposing accurately on the sunset will ensure that you capture the correct colors and tones in the sky. It was initially meant to be a silhouette shot, but in this context the silhouette evidently did not look nice.

A great deal of the effect was brought about in post production. On top of the usual adjustments, I added a white balance gradient to make the left side of the photo cooler than the right, where the sunset is happening. I also used a brush to brighten up the buildings (hence they won't be in shadows) and add some extra clarity to them, so they will look (artificially) shiny and metallic. Yes, the artificiality is intended for vibrancy in the architecture. And note, this is not a HDR, I have to emphasize.

I have received some critiques online, one regarding the perspective of the photo, and another regarding the color temperature gradient. I understand that the buildings are leaning backwards which can be very ugly at times. However, I have tried correcting the distortion only to realize that the shadows in the water will then be slanted instead, hence making the photo look weirder. Furthermore, on second thoughts, the perspective gives us the feeling of inferiority towards the humongous skyscrapers, giving us a better sense of perspective and context instead. The color temperature gradient, as I previously mentioned, is intentional. The left of the picture seems boring, this I fully agree. But it's the intended effect, that the left shows a rather monotonous environment (though in real life the left is yet another beautiful scene). I have placed the buildings towards the side specially to create the effect that I described above. Thus for this particular shot I did what I did and not anything that critiques suggested. I'm thankful though that the critiques pointed out these points, which would definitely help me make better photographs in future :)

This photograph is not without flaws, definitely. One very very annoying flaw that I can't fix is the reflection of the buildings, which clearly show the buildings in shadows, but the buildings appear to be not. For my situation the only way to fix it probably would be a HDR. In fact a HDR in this scenario may be a good idea. But I choose to keep my shot as a single shot, and perhaps accept this flaw. After all, I feel it doesn't look that bad and glaring as a flaw. Do tell me what other flaws you spot, and they may be worthy of some discussion.

I find it absolutely fascinating how scenes transform from what we see into what is captured by the camera (film, digital RAW, or digital compressed), then into the final product after being put through layers of layers and rounds and rounds of edits. I started off photography fully objecting post processing, because I feel that post processing is to cover up for your shortcomings and mistakes in the actual handling of the camera i.e. taking of the photograph itself. This may be true, but nevertheless you do have to cover up your glaring mistakes. And post processing will give the photo a meaning that the camera and photography skills will not produce, and you need to manipulate your photos for it to become the piece of art that you desire it to be, and for it to convey the message you want it to convey. That's often a key purpose of photographs, isn't it?

Therefore, post processing is yet another world of art, one that I now subscribe to.