Tips to take unique photos

Perhaps the best piece of advice I can provide which will immediately improve one’s photography and cause it to stand out from the countless other photos on the web, is to act unusual while taking the photos.

If you’re standing upright, pointing your camera at obvious subjects, from obvious perspectives, at obvious times the day, the resulting photographs will be nothing more than…obvious.

Your photos will not differentiate themselves, as is the intentions of so many photographers. Everyone wants ‘different’ images that catch the public’s eye. But many do not take this into consideration while out with their camera. Many more do take it into consideration, but let the perception of passers-by impact their willingness to get into a unique position from which to gain an interesting perspective, to implement that prop that’ll make the photo fun and unique, or to point the lens toward subjects most people walk by without notice.

Many of my best photos were taken with at least one (and sometimes several) person staring at me as if I were a closed-head injury patient who happened to find a DSLR lying on the side of the road. These stares are usually led by my wife…

If I’m receiving unusual looks due to my lying on the ground, using an unusual prop in public view, or pointing my camera at a seemingly boring object because I see photographic potential, I can usually rest assured that I’m on the right track.

Unless an unusual opportunity presents itself, you can assume that a photograph which is easy to obtain has already been taken by numerous other photographers. But, if you have to get down on the ground to find a unique view of the subject, or if you are sticking your lens out of the window of a cab who’s driver is eying you down in the rear-view mirror, chances are you’ll come away with something unique.

Aside from potentially gaining an advantage over the army of other photographers ‘on the street,’ you’ll also fundamentally alter the way you view the world. After paying attention to different scenes, lighting, perspectives, textures, etc. through years of trying to view things from a unique viewpoint, I’ve realized that this strategy has trained me to see the world through my own internal lens. Overall, I think this allows me to come back from visiting various parts of the world having truly experienced the uniqueness of each place.

The next time you’re out with your camera, try the following:

1. First, take the shot you would normally take. Then, force yourself to take it from a drastically different perspective. This could be lying on the ground, climbing a nearby hill, or circling the subject for another alternative view.

2. Don’t be afraid to set up shop (tripod, camera, other gear) in busy places with lots of people watching you, wondering what you’re doing. Obviously, make sure you’re not breaking any rules or laws related to the location. But definitely don’t let odd looks from passers-by cause you to skip the shot. Just do it. When you get home and pull up the image on the computer, you’ll be happy you did.

3. Don’t quickly bounce from tourist-attraction to tourist-attraction while in a new location, as you’ll undoubtedly miss valuable shots in between. Pay attention to the doorways, the fence posts, the people, and everything in between. You might later realize your best photo of Paris isn’t of the Eiffel Tower, but is instead of the elderly man sipping espresso who you noticed on the way back to the hotel…

4. Be willing to act as your own subject, should the right situation arise. If you come across a picturesque situation which would be enhanced with a person in-frame, don’t hesitate to set up the tripod and become the actor in your own production. I assure you, you’ll find that you’re easier to direct than most potential subjects…

5. Finally, have fun. When you put down your guard and concentrate on having fun, instead of on acting normally in public, your shots will be impacted by that shift in thinking. Normal is boring. Unusual, is interesting…

Click here to View more...

Kids Photography Tips

They actually love being sent to the corner. A girl really does need an extra set of hands and they just move faster with their feet on the ground!

1. Put them in the corner. I’ve found that a great corner (I love bricks) can be very useful when photographing little ones on the run. They really have nowhere to go! Of course, that won’t stop them from running right between your legs, but it always buys me enough time for a few great shots and when they run away, we just go back to the corner again!

2. Ground them. Getting their little feet off the ground will give you time to get the shot. And by time, I mean 20 seconds tops. And that’s a lot of time for a toddler to not be moving so get ready before you set up the shot. For this shot, we sat him on an old tire which got his feet off the ground and satisfied the grubby boy in him for a moment. He didn’t sit still on the chair, but boy that tire was fun!

3. Bring a chaperone. They’ll hate you for it when they’re teenagers, but a partner in crime is much appreciated during a toddler photo session. They get sick of the whole idea pretty fast, but if you’ve got on-hand entertainment via a super bubbly (and kid friendly) ‘baby wrangler’, then you’re in business.

4. Include their parents without ruining their street cred. I rarely photograph families. My sessions are entirely focused on the little person. Have you ever noticed in cartoons like Muppet Babies (from the 80s) the parents were present, but never shown above the knee? The premise was to stay down low in baby world. I love bringing this idea into my sessions with something as simple as a mother’s guiding hand like in the shot on the right –>

5. Shout at them. I love this spot on the farm where I shoot. The fence on the left, the trees on the right. Not much space to escape. So I have them run away but at the right time, I shout their name and wait for them to look back. Let them do what they want and when you feel the moment, shout their name. But don’t waste your shouts because if you just keep shouting, they’ll drown you out pretty fast. I find that I get one chance – two if I’m lucky – to get a true reflex-reaction out of shouting their name.

I love toddlers. They’re so honest. They don’t know how to fake it yet and I feel like when I get ‘the shot’, I’ve really earned it.

Click here to View more...

Tips for Black and White Photography

You might be one of those photographers who decide to convert a photo to black and white in post production. Trying if it ‘works’ for a photo you took without thinking about black and white at the time. Nothing wrong with that, but have you ever tried to go out and shoot specifically with a black and white photo in mind? It’s worth doing so and I’d like to give you some tips for when you do.

Shoot in color

Most camera’s have a black and white preset that lets you take photos directly in black and white. Don’t use it. This might sound a bit weird, but you can better shoot your black and white images in color. A good black and white image will require post processing and the standard in-camera black and white conversion isn’t have as good as your own black and white conversion.

There is an exception to this rule; if you shoot in your cameras RAW format, you can use the black and white preset on your camera. When your shooting in RAW, your camera shows you its poor black and white conversion on your display, but the color information is still available. If your camera supports a RAW format, I’d recommend on using it. It will give you more control over the end result. The black and white preview on your camera display can help you to get a idea of how a black and white version might look.

Keeping control over the black and white conversion

Shoot at your lowest ISO setting

I know the grainy film look is popular in black and white photography, but I’d recommend on using the lowest possible ISO setting when taking your shots. Just like the black and white conversion itself, the grainy look is best added in post production. In the fill days photographers often used high ISO films to get the grainy look. Shooting in high ISO will give you enough noise, but the digital noise isn’t as sweet as the analog.

Be careful not to get unwanted movement in your shots when going for the lowest ISO setting. With modern cameras you can go up quite a lot before the noise kicks in. It’s better to get a sharp shot with some noise instead of a noiseless shot where your subject is a blur.

Grain added in post

Shoot on those gray days

You know those dull gray winter days when you feel like staying in bed for the day? Pick up your camera and go for a black and white shoot! Those grey days are perfect for black and white photography. The soft light will give you silky smooth transitions in your subjects. And, when needed, you can always add some extra contrast in post.

Learn to see black and white

The world looks differently in black and white. When you learn to ’see’ in black and white you’ll easily pick out the situations that are perfect for black and white photography. Try to envision how a shot will look in black and white before you take the shot. Seeing black and white requires practice. It isn’t too easy, but there are several things that may help you.

Differences in color versus black and white

Look for shapes. Shapes cast shadows that bring out the shape of a subject. If the light you use is hard, the shadows will show it. Beautiful shapes might disappear in an abundance of color. Black and white helps you to bring out the shape again.

With the absence of color, structure becomes more important. Use (or create) the light to bring out the structure. Structure can be found in many subjects, like hair, sand, skin or wood.

Too much contrast in a color photo often results in harsh and confusing images. Remove the color and harsh contrast becomes a great way to attract attention to your subject.

Showing structure

Go out and shoot

So, how often do you shoot black and white?
It’s worth trying and I’m looking forward to see your results!

Click here to View more...

CCD vs. CMOS Sensors - Cameras

The technologies and the markets that use them continue to mature, but the comparison is still a lot like apples vs. oranges: they can both be good for you. DALSA offers both.

CCD (charge coupled device) and CMOS (complementary metal oxide semiconductor) image sensors are two different technologies for capturing images digitally. Each has unique strengths and weaknesses giving advantages in different applications. Neither is categorically superior to the other, although vendors selling only one technology have usually claimed otherwise. In the last five years much has changed with both technologies, and many projections regarding the demise or ascendence of either have been proved false. The current situation and outlook for both technologies is vibrant, but a new framework exists for considering the relative strengths and opportunities of CCD and CMOS imagers.

Both types of imagers convert light into electric charge and process it into electronic signals. In a CCD sensor, every pixel's charge is transferred through a very limited number of output nodes (often just one) to be converted to voltage, buffered, and sent off-chip as an analog signal. All of the pixel can be devoted to light capture, and the output's uniformity (a key factor in image quality) is high. In a CMOS sensor, each pixel has its own charge-to-voltage conversion, and the sensor often also includes amplifiers, noise-correction, and digitization circuits, so that the chip outputs digital bits. These other functions increase the design complexity and reduce the area available for light capture. With each pixel doing its own conversion, uniformity is lower. But the chip can be built to require less off-chip circuitry for basic operation. For more details on device architecture and operation, see our original "CCD vs. CMOS: Facts and Fiction" article and its 2005 update, "CMOS vs. CCD: Maturing Technologies, Maturing Markets."

CCDs and CMOS imagers were both invented in the late 1960s and 1970s (DALSA founder and CEO Dr. Savvas Chamberlain was a pioneer in developing both technologies). CCD became dominant, primarily because they gave far superior images with the fabrication technology available. CMOS image sensors required more uniformity and smaller features than silicon wafer foundries could deliver at the time. Not until the 1990s did lithography develop to the point that designers could begin making a case for CMOS imagers again. Renewed interest in CMOS was based on expectations of lowered power consumption, camera-on-a-chip integration, and lowered fabrication costs from the reuse of mainstream logic and memory device fabrication. While all of these benefits are possible in theory, achieving them in practice while simultaneously delivering high image quality has taken far more time, money, and process adaptation than original projections suggested (see "CMOS Development's Winding Path" below).

Both CCDs and CMOS imagers can offer excellent imaging performance when designed properly. CCDs have traditionally provided the performance benchmarks in the photographic, scientific, and industrial applications that demand the highest image quality (as measured in quantum efficiency and noise) at the expense of system size. CMOS imagers offer more integration (more functions on the chip), lower power dissipation (at the chip level), and the possibility of smaller system size, but they have often required tradeoffs between image quality and device cost. Today there is no clear line dividing the types of applications each can serve. CMOS designers have devoted intense effort to achieving high image quality, while CCD designers have lowered their power requirements and pixel sizes. As a result, you can find CCDs in low-cost low-power cellphone cameras and CMOS sensors in high-performance professional and industrial cameras, directly contradicting the early stereotypes. It is worth noting that the producers succeeding with "crossovers" have almost always been established players with years of deep experience in both technologies.

Costs are similar at the chip level. Early CMOS proponents claimed CMOS imagers would be much cheaper because they could be produced on the same high-volume wafer processing lines as mainstream logic or memory chips. This has not been the case. The accommodations required for good imaging perfomance have required CMOS designers to iteratively develop specialized, optimized, lower-volume mixed-signal fabrication processes--very much like those used for CCDs. Proving out these processes at successively smaller lithography nodes (0.35um, 0.25um, 0.18um...) has been slow and expensive; those with a captive foundry have an advantage because they can better maintain the attention of the process engineers.

CMOS cameras may require fewer components and less power, but they still generally require companion chips to optimize image quality, increasing cost and reducing the advantage they gain from lower power consumption. CCD devices are less complex than CMOS, so they cost less to design. CCD fabrication processes also tend to be more mature and optimized; in general, it will cost less (in both design and fabrication) to yield a CCD than a CMOS imager for a specific high-performance application. However, wafer size can be a dominating influence on device cost; the larger the wafer, the more devices it can yield, and the lower the cost per device. 200mm is fairly common for third-party CMOS foundries while third-party CCD foundries tend to offer 150mm. Captive foundries use 150mm, 200mm, and 300mm production for both CCD and CMOS.

The larger issue around pricing is sustainability. Since many CMOS start-ups pursued high-volume, commodity applications from a small base of business, they priced below costs to win business. For some, the risk paid off and their volumes provided enough margin for viability. But others had to raise their prices, while still others went out of business entirely. High-risk startups can be interesting to venture capitalists, but imager customers require long-term stability and support.

While cost advantages have been difficult to realize and on-chip integration has been slow to arrive, speed is one area where CMOS imagers can demonstrate considerable strength because of the relative ease of parallel output structures. This gives them great potential in industrial applications.

CCDs and CMOS will remain complementary. The choice continues to depend on the application and the vendor more than the technology. DALSA's approach is "technology-neutral": we are one of the few vendors able to offer real solutions with both CCDs and CMOS.

Feature and Performance Comparison

Feature	CCD	CMOS
Signal out of pixel	Electron packet	Voltage
Signal out of chip	Voltage (analog)	Bits (digital)
Signal out of camera	Bits (digital)	Bits (digital)
Fill factor	High	Moderate
Amplifier mismatch	N/A	Moderate
System Noise	Low	Moderate
System Complexity	High	Low
Sensor Complexity	Low	High
Camera components	Sensor + multiple support chips + lens	Sensor + lens possible, but additional support chips common
Relative R&D cost	Lower	Higher
Relative system cost	Depends on Application	Depends on Application
Performance	CCD	CMOS
Responsivity	Moderate	Slightly better
Dynamic Range	High	Moderate
Uniformity	High	Low to Moderate
Uniform Shuttering	Fast, common	Poor
Uniformity	High	Low to Moderate
Speed	Moderate to High	Higher
Windowing	Limited	Extensive
Antiblooming	High to none	High
Biasing and Clocking	Multiple, higher voltage	Single, low-voltage

CMOS Development's Winding Path

Initial Prediction for CMOS	Twist	Outcome
Equivalence to CCD in imaging performance	Required much greater process adaptation and deeper submicron lithography than initially thought	High performance available in CMOS, but with higher development cost than CCD
On-chip circuit integration	Longer development cycles, increased cost, tradeoffs with noise, flexibility during operation	Greater integration in CMOS, but companion chips still required for both CMOS and CCD
Reduced power consumption	Steady improvement in CCDs	Advantage for CMOS, but margin diminished
Reduced imaging subsystem size	Optics, companion chips and packaging are often the dominant factors in imaging subsystem size	CCDs and CMOS comparable
Economies of scale from using mainstream logic and memory foundries	Extensive process development and optimization required	CMOS imagers use legacy production lines with highly adapted processes akin to CCD fabrication

Click here to View more...