3. Deep Depth of Field High Key Lighting (1) High Key Lighting (2)
Low Key Lighting Shallow Depth of Field Close up figure Shot
4. IMAGE 1:
Image 1 was a wide angle shot of college
in landscape format. This is the first
establishing shot of the college to show
where the story is taking place.
IMAGE 2 + 3:
Images 2 and 3 were low light external
shots of the underground car park of
college. We decided to take multiple shots
of the same thing so that we could
experiment the lighting in the car park.
IMAGE 4:
Image 4 was a daytime external shot (it
could also be considered a wide angle
shot?). Similar to the previous images we
also took a few photos to experiment with
the lighting and compare it with the
lighting from the car park.
IMAGE 5 + 6:
Image 5 was one of the experimental
images that we took. It is a long zoom
shot of myself. Image was also another
one of the experimental shots that we
took. We each took it in turns to walk up
through the car park as another person
took the photos. That shot was a wide
shot.
IMAGE 7:
Image 7 was a deep depth of field as well
as a wide shot of myself entering college.
The lighting is still the same as the two
previous images due to the photos being
taken in the same location.
IMAGE 8:
Image 8 was a shot with high key lighting
of the school shop. The lighting has
changed since we had gone inside the
college.
IMAGE 11:
Image 11 was a shot with a shallow depth
of field of myself. However I noticed that
the previous photo that we took shows a
different drink compared to the one we
had taken originally.
IMAGE 10:
Image 10 was a low key lighting and close
up shot of the vending machine. Similar
with the previous image we also decided
to take this image on angle.
IMAGE 9:
Image 9 was the second high key lighting
shot that we took inside of the college.
This image is more straight on compared
to the previous image which we took on
an angle.
IMAGE 12:
The final image was a close up figure shot
of myself with low lighting.
5. IMAGE 1 (Process and Opinions):
This image was shot on a CANON DSLR camera that we acquired from college.
Since we wanted an establishing shot for our first shot, we decided not to alternate
any of the settings on the camera. This is the same for the lighting, the only lighting
we used was natural from outside. We also didn’t do any form of post production
(e.g., using Photoshop).
Strengths: I think that this image is an overall good establishing shot which we took
outside of college. We wanted to take it from a far enough distance to get the whole
of the college building in view of the shot. I also like the different shades of lighting we
managed to take in the photo e.g., the blue sky brightens the image but also the cloud
just above the college building make the image appear darker.
Weaknesses: The lighting is a lot darker on the image compared to how it looked to
us in real life, this could be due to our previous experiments different depths of field
since we had already taken photos beforehand as experiments. Another issue is that
you’re unable to see the college building fully as the majority of the car park and even
the entrance are cut from the photo. Instead of taking the image at an angle we could
instead have done a wide shot that is in perfect line with the entrance but so that you
could also see the whole building.
6. IMAGE 2 + 3 (Process and Opinions):
This image was also taken on the CANON DSLR where we took multiple shots in the
underground carpark in college. The reason for this being that we wanted to try and
experiment with the different lighting in order to establish a low light external shot. We
had attempted to alternate between aperture, e.g., the first experiment was to use low
aperture in low light and then move to medium aperture. However we decided that the
lighting that comes into the carpark from the outside worked well, giving us two low
light shots.
Strengths: I think the overall image is good. With our previous experiments I was
worried that we wouldn’t be able to get a clear view of myself walking since the image
would appear too dark however moving to a spot where there is a large amount of
light coming from above the underground carpark made the image look better overall.
Weaknesses: Although the lighting helped to make the image look a lot clearer, the
brightness took away from our efforts of experimenting with the aperture. I think that
something we could’ve attempted after taking all of our photos was to go into
Photoshop for post production to see if we could alter the brightness or even see if we
remove the brightness from above the carpark entirely to see what image we could
get. We could’ve then put the two images side by side in comparison.
7. IMAGE 4 (Process and Opinions):
This was yet another image taken on the CANON DSLR, since we didn’t have the
opportunity to use the Black Magic's, that we were given to experiment with different
aperture, shutter speed etc…
Similarly with the first image, we didn’t alternate between any of the settings to do
with aperture, shutter speed or the ISO. The reason for this being that this shot was
similar to the previous two images, this instead being a daytime external shot rather
than a low light external shot. We each took it in turns to walk the stairs from the
unground carpark, also taking turns in taking each others photographs for our
storyboard. The reason we did was because we all decided to follow the same story
in each of our storyboards but we would each be present in every photo, meaning
that we would take multiple shots of each of us doing the same thing.
Strengths: Similar to the first image, the natural lighting we got from outside of college
works perfectly for a daytime external shot. We also took this photo from a relatively
far distance to try and get as much background into the shot as possible, which I think
worked well since, even though I am the smallest part of the image, you’re not only
able to see myself but the whole background around me.
Weaknesses: I don’t think that could be many issues with this image due to the image
being yet another establishing shot (as well as primarily being a daytime external shot
of myself and another part of college).
8. IMAGE 5 + 6 (Process and Opinions):
These two images aren’t separate but are in fact the same image. The second is the
original image taken just after we shot our daytime external image and the second is
a close up version of the same version, focusing on myself primarily. The reason as to
why we decided to use the same image was because, after experimenting and taking
multiple takes of the same shot, that the zoom wasn’t able to remain in focus which
meant that we had to in the end improvise.
Both images are the exact same as the previous image due to us taking them
moments after, hence why the background and lighting haven’t changed. We had
attempted to and use the zoom with the CANON DSLR however every time it would
appear out of focus once we had taken the photos. We had multiple issues that we
also faced with the camera turning off which meant that we had to rush all of our
photos in the end. In post production, since we were unable to do the long zoom shot,
we had to manually zoom in on ourselves in order to get the shot we needed.
Strengths: The purpose of these two particular images was that they were also
establishing shot, both a wide shot and a ‘long zoom’. Since we only needed to take
these two different types of shots, we didn’t need to experiment with any of the
settings on the camera.
Weaknesses: The only issues with these images of course is that we were unable to
get a good long zoom shot due to the camera constantly being out of focus. I think
that if we were able to get the camera working, especially with the zoom function, it
definitely would’ve looked better since you’re able to see that the image doesn’t
match with how a long zoom would look (since we couldn’t do a long zoom we had to
improvise and take the second image and manually zoom in post production).
9. IMAGE 7 (Process and Opinions):
This image was a deep depth of field focus of myself outside of college, going in
through the main entrance. The point of the deep depth of field was to highlight the
sharpness both from the front and behind myself when the lens is in focus. You’re
able to see from the image what focused more with my camera, the building looks
less out of focus compared to myself who looks the most in focus. This is because we
wanted our images to primarily focus on the models rather than the background of the
image, since we were attempting to create a storyboard where each image would tell
a part of the image. We once again each took it in turns to take each others photos as
we took an ‘action shot’ of us walking into the main building in college.
Strengths: I think that our attempt at a deep depth of field was successful, since I
think that you’re able to see a difference between myself as the model and the
background (the background being seen as a lot blurrier compared to where I am in
the photo).
Weaknesses: Since I believe that we accomplished the shot that we needed for our
storyboards, I don’t think that there are any weaknesses to the image. The only
complaint I have with the image is that it doesn’t seem in line with the centre of the
college entrance and looks as if I was taken on an angle somewhat. It makes the
overall image appear uneven.
10. IMAGE 8 (Process and Opinions):
This image was a high key lighting shot of the café on the second floor of college.
You’re able to tell the different between the daytime and low key lighting shots
compared to this due to how the majority of the lighting comes from artificial lighting
rather than using natural lighting from outside.
Since we needed to all take different shots using high key lighting we decided to use
a place inside of college where there was a mix of both artificial and natural lighting to
make the image appear brighter, which resulted only in a few softer shadows in the
image. Since we were still having issues with the camera, we were unable to alternate
the settings of the ISO to make the image appear even brighter. In my opinion, I think
something we also could’ve tried to experiment with having each of us also be
present in the image to help showcase the different contrast between this image and
our previous images that relied on lighting (e.g., the daytime external shot, low light
external shot).
Strengths: I think that this image works as a high key lighting shot since overall
brightness is a lot sharper than what we had taken outside using natural lighting.
You’re able to see that there aren’t many shadows in the image, the majority of the
darker colours in the image coming from the centre where the café is shut.
Weaknesses: I think that a weakness would definitely be that we were unable to
experiment with the ISO, meaning that if our camera was working correctly we
would’ve been able to take a photo with much more brightness that could’ve reduced
the contrast in the centre of the image. I also think that we could’ve used alternative
lighting, either props or lights from the studio in college, in order to see if it could
make a difference with the image.
11. IMAGE 9 (Process and Opinions):
This is our second high key lighting shot we took from inside of college (this was
taken in the exact same location as the previous photo however we decided to then
focus on a different subject so the two would be different). Since we needed to take
two high key lighting shots we decided to take two separate photos at the same
location. With this image, like the previous, you’re also able to tell it is high key
lighting due to the natural lighting from outside of college on the right whilst also
getting artificial lighting from both the lights above and the vending machine.
Strengths: I think that this is also a good example of high key lighting. It’s also
noticeable that the shadows from the side of the vending machine are a lot softer
compared to other images we had taken.
Weaknesses: I think that this image could’ve also been improved if one of us had
stood next to the vending machine to see the difference in contrast. If our camera had
also been working correctly when we were taking this photo, I think that
experimenting with the ISO could’ve made the high key lighting even clearer.
12. IMAGE 10 (Process and Opinions):
This image was our low key lighting shot (this was also taken in the same location as
the previous two images – except this one was not only a low key lighting shot but
also a close up of the vending machine). The difference in contrast between the
previous two images, that focused on high key lighting, and this image which focuses
on low key lighting you’re able to see a clear cut difference between the two despite
them both being in the exact same location.
Strengths: The purpose of this image was to showcase a low key lighting shot. This
type of shot is polar opposite to the high key lighting shots we had taken previously. I
think that the overall is a lot darker than it had originally looked when we first took the
image. The image was also taken on an angle so that we could cut away some of the
light that you were able to clearly see in the previous photo (the primary lighting in this
photo comes the internal light inside of the vending machine)
Weaknesses: I think that post production could’ve helped us to make the image
appear even darker, since the internal light from the vending machine is still too bright
and brightens the entire image as a whole. I also think that having a useable camera
for ISO would’ve helped us since that also could’ve allowed us to alternate the
contrast even further.
13. IMAGE 11 (Process and Opinions):
This image was our attempt at a shallow depth of field shot. This type of shot meant
that we had to focus on ourselves whilst blurring out the background of the image. We
had originally wanted to blur the entire background, including ourselves since we
were also modelling during these photos, and just have the water bottle be in focus.
However this was impossible as the camera kept primarily focusing on us and, the
majority of the time, only focused on us and the background whilst blurring out the
bottle.
Strength: I think the image is an overall good attempt at a shallow depth of field.
Since you’re able to clearly see that the image has focused on myself as well as the
object I am holding. There also weren’t many attempts to shooting this particular
image because of how easy it was for us to get the camera into focus.
Weakness: I don’t think that there are any weaknesses to the image since you’re able
to tell that it is a shallow depth of field.
14. IMAGE 12 (Process and Opinions):
The final image that we took for our storyboards was a close up shot of ourselves. We
each took it in turns to take a close up shot of us in front of the white screen inside the
studio at college. We also wanted to experiment with the lighting to see if we could
create another low key lighting shot, whilst also creating our close up shot
simultaneously. The image is rather simple but you’re clearly able to understand what
type of shot we were establishing.
Strengths: The overall image is clear and the shot is easy to identify. I also like how
we were able to accomplish two different camera techniques with only a single
photograph.
Weaknesses: Although we were able to take the close up shot we needed I don’t think
that this shot works with all of the other photos we had taken previously, since we
were creating a storyboard that is supposed to tell a story. I think that the overall story
was clear until this final image. I think one of the main issues being that the lighting
has change completely from the previous image.
