Downtown Los Angeles

With the holidays unleashing its wrath, I had little to none when it came to photography projects. My hands were itching to handle a camera. So, on a chilly Los Angeles night, I braved the cold and drove around to take photos of the Downtown L.A. skyline. It always looks nice and clean on the day after it rains. I guess the rain washes the smog away? Interestingly and appropriately, LA by Milky Soul was the first song that came on the iPod when I headed out.

First stop was the top of the hill in my neighborhood. This is located on top of White Knoll Street (I might be wrong).





With the above photo (as well as the header photo), I used the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L tilt-shift lens. I figured I would practice on my selective focusing and didn't take it off for the rest of my expedition that night.

Then, I drove down the hill to Beaudry where it crosses 3rd to 6th. You can walk to 3rd, 4th, and 6th on the freeway overpasses. This overlooks the 110 Freeway. With these photos, I played around with the white balance and took advantage of the mixed ambient light to produce funky colors.







Thank you for looking, I hope you appreciate my work. You can find more of my stuff on Flickr!

Cigarettes and Alcohol

Do-It-Yourself projects are a big part of being an avid strobist. Projects range from macro studios, grids, snoots, and other creative light modifiers. My first attempt at a DIY project was the cardboard snoot. More than a year later, I'm still using that snoot. I've made a couple more but the original one, made of cardboard and gaffers tape, is still a staple in my lighting bag.

The task at hand is the Lunch Box. I carved out my box like it was Halloween and it took me thirty minutes to get to this point:

I reinforced the edges with gaffers tape. My choices for the diffusion material were limited to Rosco Tough Frost or Lee Hollywood Frost. These were the only ones I could gather without paying for them. David Hobby, the OG Strobist, used the Rosco Tough Frost. I decided to follow his lead, since it had better opacity. I adhered the gel to my box using more Gaffers Tape.

This box should be good for flatter objects shot a little bit higher than the subject. While a cold frosty mug of beer is not the ideal subject, I felt I had accomplished something and thought that I should reward myself. Here are my test shots:




These shots were lit by a Vivitar 285 and triggered with a Pocket Wizard.The first shot was on a white foam board. The second was with a piece of plexiglass on top of the white foam board. The third, on a black foam board. The fourth, on a black foamboard with plexiglass. The set-up shot pictured on the right was for the fourth shot.

After writing this blog entry, I felt I deserved another reward ...

A Fishy Review - Sigma EX 15mm vs. Canon EF 15mm

In true curber fashion, I found a good deal on a Sigma EX 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye lens and bought it! I have no intentions of keeping both. Initially, I had intended to keep the Sigma and sell the Canon as it would put more money in my pocket and since this would be a luxury since it is a lens that I rarely have the need for. In fact, after a year of owning the Canon, it only comes out of the bag during drunk moments ... "Lets take fffffffisheye p-p-p-photos!!!" And for that, I wouldn't really need sharpness, high lens IQ, etc.

First impressions ... The Sigma feels bulkier but not as well-built compared to the Canon. The two-part front lens cap of the Sigma might get annoying in the long run and that makes it two pieces that I may eventually lose. Oh, the Sigma rear lens cap ... Sigma lens owners know what I'm talking about. It is the scourge of the earth - frustrating at times, as it only goes in one way - you have to match the dots, unlike the Canon rear lens cap where you slap then twist, done! Moving on, the Sigma EX came with a pretty nice lens case. I can't say that with the Canon. In fact, I can't even say "it came with a case" with regards to the Canon. $650 for a lens, you can't give me a pouch, case, or something? I think this is essential for a novelty type lens considering that its not going to stay on the camera for long periods of time (unless that is your thing, to each his own). So dust accumulation might be a problem in the long run since the lens cap slides on instead of locking on - it may suck up dust while sliding it off or on. The zoom ring of the Sigma EX is also better, focuses faster and quieter. I didn't delve into the efficiency of the autofocus though. One weird thing about the Canon, when autofocusing, the lens barrel does not extend but the front element does! Its trippy to watch that big piece of glass moving forwards and backwards within the built-in lens hood. Another reason for the need of a pouch.

On to images ... I'm not a pixel peeper type of guy. I'm pretty much just into the aesthetic of the image. I don't really care if its sharper around the edges etc. etc. And with review of these lenses, barrel distortion shouldn't be a factor (or is it?). Anyways, on to the images ...

Sigma Shot # 1 (f/8 at 30 sec, ISO 100, Tungsten White Balance)


Canon Shot # 1 (f/8 at 30 sec, ISO 100, Tungsten White Balance)


Sigma Shot # 2 (f/7.1 at 30 sec, ISO 100, Tungsten White Balance)


Canon Shot # 2 (f/7.1 at 30 sec, ISO 100, Tungsten White Balance)


I took about 6 shots using the same process. Shoot with the Sigma, remove and mount Canon, Shoot. Repeat. The results were pretty consistent - not much between them BUT the sticking point is that it seems like the Canon produces brighter photos. By bright, I meant if it was "properly exposed" on the Sigma, it is very slightly overexposed on the Canon. This is illustrated in Shot # 2 above. HamburgCam from Flickr! commented on Canon Shot #2 above that:

Thank you for your comparison photos. From what I can see in the 1280Pixel Resolution samples, the Canon lets more Light in at f/7.1, it seems to be a tiny bit wider on the sides (hairsplitting, I know) but sharpness is difficult to judge from these samples. Especially since the Canon photos are brighter and lost more detail in the well lit areas.

My conclusion? I can't really come up with one because I think the color and sharpness comparisons would not really be the same since the Canon seems let in more light. Based on my Flickr! account - oddly enough, two people commented on the Canon photos, but not on the Sigma photos. Also, the Canon photos have been viewed more than the Sigma photos. Coincidence? Hmmm ... I think I'm keeping the Canon.

UPDATE: I listed the Sigma on eBay earlier ... it sold after an hour!

Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L

I found the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L tilt-shift lens on craigslist for $500. It retails around $1200, so even though I didn't have a need for it, or even have an idea how to use it, I bought it. Worse case scenario, I can always flog it back on eBay.

I was pretty excited to use it and play around with its unique features. Even though I've lived in Los Angeles for 13 years now, I had no idea where to go to be able to play with it. Yeah, I know - rarely get out.

After 15 minutes of driving around in Downtown LA, I thought my safest bet was the Walt Disney Concert Hall. When I say safe, i meant "pretty safe". Its dowtown, after all.

Can't go wrong with Frank Gehry's work. First thing I wanted to try was why this is the lens of choice of architectural photographers. Unfortunately, I had no idea how to do it. I just wanted to tilt and shift, if you know what I mean. Here is the best I can come up with:


I played around with it a little more to test the selective focus:




Quite fun, I must say. But unless I can learn more about architectural photography, I have no reason to hold on to the lens. I might as well sell it and and buy the new Lensbaby and pocket the rest if its just going to end up as that sort of toy. I'll take it out a couple of more times and decide. I'm still not sure if I like it.