I think it's sometimes too easy to look for what I call postcard shots - i.e. the photos which are good enough for postcards. I'm determined this year to try and find some new and different views of my home city, London, so I'm going to be sure to have my camera when I'm out and about and hopefully will post some on here later in the year.

It's also quite fun trying different formats. The standard 3x2 works nicely but I really like the wider panoramic aspect ratio and also square. It does amuse me how many photos are taken with mobile phones on portrait mode though... I find it just the wrong shape to show much to be honest.

A few years ago, I was really keen on slide photography but didn't do much with them other than put them into a folder. I have been wanting to digitise them for ages, but kept putting it off, primarily due to the cost of the various provider who offer the service - basically between £100 and £200 for 100-300 photos dependent on quality and provider etc.

Recently though, I was looking through some old family photos (40-50 years old) - in truth these were not great quality slides, have been sitting in a cupboard for decades, but looking at them it's the memory I want to digitise more than the resolution.

Looking online I discovered that a modern DSLR and a macro lens (in my case a Canon 80D and a Sigma 105mm macro) combined with a light box (which I got for less than £40 off Amazon) can give pretty good results... rather than photograph the image via a projector you are photographing the slide itself... the camera resolution is good enough to let you do this, and the light box provides the back lighting.

The results have been really good, especially those which had been taken outside, but I think that's more a reflection of the slide than this technique.

I'm going to start digitising my more recent slides over the coming months and will try to post some results here.

I was asked recently what the numbers fixed on a lens next to the focus ring mean (the 22, 11, 0, 11, 22 in the diagram below).



It explains what is in focus for a given aperture. So, using the lens above:
At f2.8 (or a really wide aperture), you are limited to things which are basically at 1.5m. That means anything away from 1.5m will appear blurred (or have the bokeh effect)
At f11, anything from about 1.3m to 2m will be in focus, and everything else will be blurred
At f22, it extends to a range of 1.1m to 2.7m.

Not all lenses have this, but it can be useful for portraits and still life to work out what you want in focus.

It's also an exponential scale, in that the area behind the focus point extends quicker than the area in front as you go for a more narrow aperture.

It can also help a bit for landscapes as a friend of mine once explained to me - the natural tendency when taking a landscape is to use auto focus and put the focus out to infinity. However, if you use something like f16 and manually focus on something a little closer, the depth of field range I've described above will include infinity. Hey presto - you've just made an area a bit closer to you a bit more in focus without losing anything in the distance.

Having previously blamed Nigel Mansell for me choosing Canon over Nikon, I recently had a chance to review the entry level Nikon SLR (D3400). I would love to tell you how it's nowhere near as good as Canon, but that's not true. Conversely I can't tell you that it's miles better than Canon. It has a few things which are better: the entry level lens has surprisingly good optics, the intuitiveness of it (it feels more natural than Canon, which may seem odd given I've used Canon for years), and great resolution (more of that in a moment). For balance it has a few things not so good (there is no sensor cleaning on this updated model, and there's not enough focal points for tracking... perhaps a problem for all entry level cameras).

So I find myself with an entry level camera with a lens that doesn't match the rest of my kit. However, I'm delighted... and it all comes down to the fun of photography and megapixels. Megapixels first... this kit features a 24MP sensor with a 17-55 lens (equivalent to 27-82mm in old money). It's lightweight, compact (especially compared to my Canon 5D), and isn't that much bigger than a bridge camera. . With 24MP I can afford to crop the images a little so by my very approximate calculations I've got a camera that will print at sufficient resolution on A4 when outdoors for the equivalent focal range of 27-200mm. That's plenty for family holidays/days out where I would previously have to compromise between a compact camera with reasonable results and a bulky SLR with great results. I appreciate high pixel count can bring in noise, but the quality of this SLR will still far outperform my older generation cameras (notably a Canon 5D) and a Pentax compact.

It also brings me the fun of photography. A friend taught me a trick some time ago which is to take one camera body and one lens, and photograph what you see. For specialist stuff (air shows, pro portraits, wildlife) you need the higher end lenses and flash kit. Once you have it, there is almost an obligation to take it all with (just in case). For me though, I now have a second system with a quality way beyond my compact camera, and much less quality higher than a compact camera. It fits in with my RAW workflow, so I'm delighted.

Coming back to the Nikon's resolution - at the time of writing, the entry level Nikon has more megapixels than the Canon one, but the same as the next level up from Canon. In terms of spec, the Nikon probably sits between the two Canons, so which should you go for? I am still of the view that they are equivalent enough not to matter. There are other camera systems which are just as good (especially at the entry level) but if you invest in Canon or Nikon now (notably the lenses) then you will have many years of photography enjoyment to look ahead to.

When post-processing I sense there is a certain pressure to focus on a particular width v height ratio on the final image. My advice is, where possible, to treat the photo on its merits and if you are printing/framing it, make the frame fit the photo rather than the other way around.

That said, I am finding very wide (panoramic) is appealing to me more and more for landscapes; I've even printed recently into a large frame 3 panoramic images one above another which I'm delighted with. I also tend to like the 5x4 ratio (more portrait layout than landscape).. I'm not sure why - it just seems to work, and I have this in mind when I am framing the photo.

Where this can breakdown unfortunately is portraits, especially when you are asked for a photo for framing. Let's say you've taken a family portrait and you have cropped it nicely to print onto 6x4" (photo snaps in old money). A relative then wants to print it for 7x5"... you should be okay if there is enough space around the edges, so hopefully no cropping. However, when you are then asked for an image to frame in a 10x8" frame with a 0.5" border all the way around all hell breaks loose - you can't crop it as it will ruin the image... the only trick really is to always take the photo with enough space around the sides so that you can crop to your relatives' desire.