I pleased to announce the release of my latest eBook, Play Fool to Catch Wise. The title is inspired by a blog post of mine last year, which in turn was inspired by a colorful Jamaican proverb. Play Fool to Catch Wise is a selection of essays and articles from my writings on my personal photoblog, the Outdoor Photographer Magazine blog, and Nature Photographers Online Magazine. In making this selection, I avoided the more technical and process-oriented essays, focusing instead on those that discuss “right brain” intangibles and artistic philosophies. For those who are new to my writings, this eBook is a perfect introduction to my humorous—and at times accidentally informative—style. Even long-time readers of my blog will find this eBook to be a useful consolidation of my most important essays, and a handy portable reference. New and old readers alike should find enjoyment in this eBook, presented with a gorgeous “aged scrapbook” layout. Play Fool to Catch Wise is a 102-page downloadable PDF eBook filled with informative text, stunning full-color images, and plenty of insights and inspiration. This book is newly designed to optimize viewing across multiple platforms including computer screens and iPads. At only $8, it costs about the same as dinner at a fast food restaurant, so it’s a bargain to boot.

Before you rush out to purchase the book, you should know first that subscribers to my monthly email newsletter will receive an exclusive discount offer, good this month only, to purchase the book. In fact, monthly newsletter subscribers get a lot of perks, including exclusive offers and discounts, free monthly photo tips, as well as all the latest news about my recent adventures. My next monthly newsletter is scheduled for delivery on Friday, February 3 (that’s two days from now). So if you are already a subscriber, just wait two days for your exclusive discount. If you are not already a subscriber, sign up now and enjoy the benefits!

I recently went to my local wildlife park to do some final testing of the Tamron AF18-270MM F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD lens. I previously published an optical resolution review of the lens, as well as my first impressions. As I have alredy mentioned, I am being compensated by Tamron to test, review, and write about this lens. For my final review, I was hoping to do a lot of wildlife shooting to test the lens’ auto focus and image stabilization. Unfortunately, the local fauna didn’t get the memo, and mostly failed to show up for the event. So I wasn’t able to do as comprehensive a review as I had intended, but I did manage to snap a few shots and come to a few conclusions.

I decided to use the lens as it was intended—as an all-in-one walk around lens. So, unburdened with a tripod and other gear, I wandered around the park’s boardwalk looking for interesting subjects to photograph. It was quite a liberating experience, but unfortunately there wasn’t much to shoot (it’s winter here in Virginia, although with the 60°+ degree weather we’ve been having, you might think it was spring, except without any flowers—everything is fairly brown and uninteresting at the moment). Although the wildlife was scarce, I managed to find some ducks and an egret to photograph. The 18-270mm gave me a fair amount of reach, allowing me to zoom in and capture wildlife that was twenty or thirty feet away.

I’m used to using specialized, expensive, high quality telephoto prime and zoom lenses for my wildlife work, so I wasn’t expecting the Tamron 18-270mm to perform on the same level. That said, it seemed to do the job more than adequately. The lens’ auto focus worked reasonably well in full light conditions, and it was relatively quiet (I didn’t get a chance to test the lens in low light conditions, but the lens did handle tricky backlighting about as well as most of my other lenses). Below is a 100% crop of the above shot. The lens shows very good resolution, even when zoomed out to 270mm, although I did stop down to f/11 for this shot. As I demonstrated in my previous review, this lens benefits from a little bit of stopping down in the higher part of its zoom range.

The auto focus performed admirably when trying to capture an egret in flight, as shown in the sharp capture below. The lens does not have a focus limiter, which is a useful feature common with high-end telephoto lenses, so if the Tamron couldn’t find focus it would hunt through its range, often getting stuck in the macro end. This is not uncommon with lenses of this type, and by no means a black mark, but it is something to consider if you plan on doing a lot of wildlife work.

The image stabilization also seemed to work well. I even managed corner to corner sharp images in low light at 1/15th of a second handheld (when the lens was at 18mm). I didn’t do much comprehensive testing of the image stabilization, however, but I didn’t notice any glaring problems.

Overall, I find this lens to be a surprisingly strong performer. This lens does exactly what it is supposed to do: it covers a wide range of focal lengths, with very good overall optical performance, all in a compact package and with a relatively inexpensive price. For the general enthusiast with a crop-sensor camera looking for a single walk-around lens for travel, nature, and the occasional wildlife photography, the Tamron 18-270mm is a good buy.

A few months ago I posted a “first impressions” review of Tamron’s 18-270mm lens. It’s taken me awhile, but here is my promised test of lens resolution. I assessed the lens against a few of the full frame lenses I have in my kit, including the incomparable Nikon 14-24mm, the Canon 24-105mm L, and the Canon 100-400mm L. These are three pro-class lenses, worthy benchmarks for any lens review.

How did the Tamron perform against these three? Surprisingly well, especially in the lower half of its zoom range (optical performance, however, isn’t quite as strong at its longest focal lengths). Which, I guess, isn’t surprising: these new cropped sensor lenses are much easier to design than their full frame counterparts, and tend to have excellent optical characteristics. What is surprising is that Tamron managed to cram some really good optical performance into an all-in-one zoom lens. Chromatic aberration (CA), although fairly well controlled, was apparent (more so than might be expected from a modern coated lens)—but then again, CA is easily fixed in the raw conversion or photo editing process. But I won’t just share my opinions: below I have posted a number of 100% crops so that you may draw your own conclusions.

A quick note on methodology: I used a Canon 5D Mark II full frame camera for all tests. Of course, the Tamron 18-270mm is a cropped sensor lens, so to simulate using a cropped sensor camera, I applied a 1.5x crop to all of the test images. I focused manually using Live View, and for each head-to-head test I focused at the same point. I shot all images using a tripod, with lens image stabilization turned off. Unless otherwise noted, aperture and shutter speed were consistent for all tests. I used f/11 for all tests, except for tests shot at telephoto range, which were set at f/6.3. I did this for several reasons: (1) it made my tests, and this review, a lot more concise, and (2) for most of my nature work with wide t0 normal angle scenes, I almost never go below f/11; when working with wildlife using telephoto focal lengths, on the other hand, I tend to shoot wide open. I did not apply any sharpening to the images—what you see is what you get straight out of the file. I’m sure my methodology is not entirely perfect, but it is certainly sufficient for us to draw meaningful conclusions about the lens and its optical characteristics. Overall, I don’t intend for these tests to be as comprehensive as tests run by professional testers (see, for example, ephotozine.com’s review of the Tamron 18-270mm). Rather, I intend these samples to give context to the subjective evaluations I have made about this lens, and to give readers a good idea of how the lens performs.

Also, as I disclosed in my previous review, Tamron is compensating me for my time spent reviewing, testing, and writing about their lens. That is why I have chosen to present objective lens results in this review, so that you don’t need to take my word on it. Just in case anyone is wondering, I haven’t done any cherry-picking to show only favorable data. Rather, I sought to show results that were representative of my overall tests and conclusions.

Let’s start at the wide end of the range. Here, I matched the Tamron against my Nikon 14-24mm, which is my all-time favorite wide angle lens (I like it so much, I have adapted it to my Canon camera). I have to set aperture manually with my Nikon, without the assistance of a functional aperture scale, so while I estimated f/11 it seems I got something closer to f/8 instead. So, the depth-of-field of the Nikon is a little off (mostly apparent in the background trees), but the crops I present below are within the zone of apparent sharpness for this aperture, and in any event the Nikon is arguably sharpest at f/8 anyway (so it is not a perfect comparison but good enough for the time being). I tested both lenses at 18mm, which is at the widest end of the Tamron’s range. Overall, the Tamron exhibited excellent corner-to-corner sharpness in this test.

Here’s the full scene with the Tamron:

Here’s the first set of crops. First the Tamron 18-270mm @18mm:

Then, the Nikon 14-24mm @18mm:

In my opinion, the Nikon has a very slight advantage, almost imperceptible to the point that I would say these lenses are virtually running neck-and-neck. Here’s a few more crops.

Tamron 18-270mm @18mm:

Nikon 14-24mm @18mm:

Tamron 18-270mm @18mm:

Nikon 14-24mm @18mm:

You may notice that the Tamron lens shows some color fringing and chromatic aberration. Here’s another set of crops that shows the CA better. Remember, my depth-of-field for the Nikon is a little off, so these background trees don’t look as sharp as they could.

Tamron 18-270mm @18mm:

Nikon 14-24mm @18mm:

You can definitely see some color fringing in the trees with the Tamron, although it is not too bad. It’s just that the Nikon is better! But then again, the 14-24mm is one of the best lenses ever made, so I’m really impressed that the Tamron holds its own against this world-class lens. Overall, I have to say the Tamron 18-270mm performed very well, even here at the widest extreme of its range.

Next I move to 35mm, and this time I match the Tamron against the Canon 24-105mm L. I find the Tamron’s performance to be a little less even across the frame than at 18mm, but still excellent overall. For some parts of the image, the Canon holds a slight edge over the Tamron, for others parts the Tamron bests the Canon. Here’s the scene as photographed by the Tamron, and then a few 100% crop examples to give you the idea.

Tamron 18-270mm @35mm:

Canon 24-105mm @35mm:

Here, at the edge, the Canon and the Tamron seem really close. Below is a crop from an area of the image frame where the Canon outperforms the Tamron.

Tamron 18-270mm @35mm:

Canon 24-105mm @35mm:

But let’s see how they stack up closer to the middle of the image frame. It appears that as we get closer to the center, the Tamron does a better job than the Canon.

Tamron 18-270mm @35mm:

Canon 24-105mm @35mm:

Overall, both lenses do an excellent job, and their performance is fairly close. I wouldn’t hesitate to use the Tamron at this focal range.

At the longest end of the range, 270mm, I did some test shots using the 18-270mm’s widest aperture at this focal length, f/6.3. Here, I tested the Tamron against Canon’s 100-400mm L lens. By the very nature of this test, the Tamron is put at a slight disadvantage, as at 270mm the Tamron is wide-open at f/6.3, whereas the Canon lens, which has a wide aperture of f/5.0 at this length, ends up being stopped down by two-thirds when set to f/6.3. Just a little bit of stopping down can help sharpen a lens, so in a way the test isn’t absolutely fair, but I wanted to test the Tamron’s telephoto performance in a way that I would use the lens with a wildlife subject—wide open. As we can see, at this focal length the Canon L glass is doing a better job. Also, I noticed something curious: either the Tamron or the Canon focal length scale is off. To achieve an equivalent field of view from the Canon lens, I had to zoom out to about 190mm. I don’t have another lens in this range to test against, so I’m not sure which lens is off (and I didn’t notice any significant differences at the other focal lengths I tested). Either way, I decided to match the field of view rather than the numbers.

Tamron 18-270mm @270mm:

Canon 100-400mm @190mm:

As other testers have reported, it appears the 18-270mm isn’t at its strongest at this end of its focal range. Stopping down restores some overall sharpness, which makes this lens perhaps more useful for isolated landscape scenes rather than wildlife. I’ll be testing the lens on some wildlife subjects this weekend, so it will be interesting to see some field results. My overall impression of the Tamron at the 270mm is that its sharpness is adequate (when wide open) to good (when stopped down), but not as good as the excellent sharpness found at other focal lengths.

I’m not the kind of reviewer who will fault a lens for what it’s not supposed to be. The Tamron 18-270mm is not intended to compete with specialized professional zoom lenses such as the Nikon 14-24mm, and Canon’s 24-105mm and 100-400mm L lenses. That said, in terms of optical quality, the Tamron has held its own against these heavyweights, albeit more so at the wider half of its zoom range. What the Tamron 18-270mm lens is intended to be is a lightweight, compact all-in-one zoom for travel, hobbyists, and serious photo enthusiasts alike. From what I’ve seen so far, it handles these jobs with aplomb.

I’ll be doing some final testing of the lens in the field this weekend shooting wildlife subjects. We’ll see how well its auto focus and image stabilization work when dealing with fast moving subjects. Stay tuned!

Winter is arguably one of the prettiest times to be an outdoor photographer; winter white can transform an otherwise lifeless brown landscape into a magical wonderland. However, winter is also one of the most challenging times to be outdoors shooting.  Frankly the biggest limiting factor in winter photography is personal comfort (for me anyway, I’m a wus).  If you’re not comfortable you won’t be free to think and see creatively and certainly won’t want to stay out for the sweet light.  Here is some practical advice, much of it learned at the school of hard knocks that can help improve your winter photography.

• Shoot right after a fresh snowfall.  By timing your photo outings with the end of a fresh snowfall event (especially important in the northeast and lower elevations) the landscape will look its best.  The fresh snow hides all the dirty old snow and coats the limbs of trees in white producing some beautiful patterns and contrast.  It also helps to tame issues with extreme dynamic range.  When the landscape is completely coated in white the dynamic range is more compressed than when only part of the landscape is coated in white.  You might not even need to use those fancy grad nd filters.

• Bring at least two fully charged batteries.  Keep one in the camera and the other in an interior pocket close to your body.  When the camera’s battery starts to wane (due to cold) simply swap the cold for the warm battery.  Place the cold battery in an interior pocket close to your body and allow it to warm back up.  You’ll be surprised how well a battery will perform again once it warms back up.  You can keep this rotation going for quite a while, perhaps all day.

• Using a tripod in the snow is a real pain in the arse.  If you can pack the snow down before you set up the tripod I recommend doing that.  If the snow is really deep try pushing the legs down into the snow before fully extending them to the sides.  This way as you push the tripod down into the snow, the snow will push the legs out the remainder of the way and ultimately you’ll get the tripod deeper into the snow.  Otherwise, the outward force of the snow could damage the legs and you won’t be able to get as sturdy a placement.

• Before bringing your camera back indoors or into a warm car place it in a sealed plastic bag.  If you bring a cold camera inside a warm environment you’ll cause condensation to form on or worse inside the body and lenses.  By placing it in a sealed bag first, the condensation will form on the outside of the cold bag and not your camera.  Allow the camera and/or lenses to warm to room temperature before taking them out.  If you leave your camera in a dedicated camera bag or pack, don’t open it indoors until the interior of the bag has acclimated, you’ll be surprised how long this can take (sometimes hours).  All that foam padding that protects the camera also serves as insulation, not only keeping out the cold but keeping it in as well.

• Hands can get cold super fast and wearing heavy gloves or mittens limits the dexterity needed to operate a camera. I like to keep a set of chemical hand warmers (aka Hot Hands) in my jacket pockets.  I’ll then wear only a thin pair of liner gloves for full dexterity when handling my camera.  When my hands start to get cold, into the pockets they go to warm up.  If you don’t let them get too cold you can warm them up quickly and avoid the discomfort of numb fingers.  When I’m done with the shot and ready to move on I put a warmer glove or mitten back on.

• There’s only one thing worse than cold hands, cold feet.  Feet sweat a lot, even in winter and when they do your socks and boot liners will get damp.  When this happens there is almost no way to keep your feet warm, even in sub-zero rated boots.  A lot of mountaineers and winter backcountry enthusiasts will use a vapor barrier sock to keep moisture from permeating their insulation layers.  I’ve always found vapor barrier socks to be super uncomfortable.  Here’s a tip I learned back in my ice climbing days.  Before you put your socks on in the morning coat your feet with an antiperspirant spray (not deodorant!).  This will prevent your feet from sweating and thus keep your feet dry and warm.  Plus they won’t be stinky either!

Path to the Summit, Green Mountains, Vermont

Technical Details: Canon 5D, 24mm, ISO 100, f16 @ 1/20 sec. polarizer

Shout-out (n.) Slang.

1. To acknowledge with respect.

2. A kind mention of a homey.

3. Like when rappers thank people when they make a CD.

Source: Urban Dictionary

Today, the Shout Out travels to lovely Romania, nestled deep within the heart of Europe. In recent centuries, Romania has been mostly famous for its creatures of the night—everyone knows the place is infested with more vampires than even Forks, Washington. In recent years, however, one brave young Romanian has boldly stepped forth to reclaim Romania’s place in sun. His name is Dorin Bofan, and today he gets a Shout Out for his courageous battle against the bloodsucking undead. Oh, yeah, and for his photography.

As it turns out, Romania is a beautiful place, and Dorin has a wonderful eye for capturing that beauty and sharing it with the world. Through his efforts, people are beginning to see Romania in a new light. Tourists now pack differently when visiting Romania, bringing cameras and lenses instead of garlic and crucifixes.

Of course, all this has angered Dracula, who we all know is a bit of a prima donna and simply can’t stand sharing the limelight (I mean that figuratively, of course, as Dracula isn’t exactly a big fan of light generally). He has decided to settle the issue once and for all by challenging Dorin to a mano a mano all-out grudge match to the death. Dorin has accepted, but there has been some dispute as to timing: Dracula wants the fight to begin at midnight, whereas Dorin has sagely insisted that the fight start cowboy style at high noon. So, for the moment, the two parties are at an impasse, and tensions remain high.

The image below is a recent photo by Dorin that I absolutely love. It is, to me, the essence of the photographic experience—capturing a fleeting moment when conditions are just right, turning something that is otherwise mundane into something unique and special. It is a wonderful study in texture, shape, and color. Please visit Dorin’s website to see more of his amazing work.

Keep up the good work Dorin! Just don’t go outside to do any night photography . . .

Dorin Bofan Photography

Eastman Kodak Co., which for 130 years has been a pioneer in camera and film technology, which brought the world the handheld camera and inspired a hit song by Paul Simon, has recently filed for bankruptcy protection. Kodak’s current struggles are indelibly linked to the ascendancy of digital cameras and the virtual disappearance of film in the past few years. The popular refrain “mama don’t take my Kodachrome away” is now answered with “what the heck is Kodachrome?” The demise of film has been but a prelude to something we are now witnessing in its final throes: the death of photography.

Okay, I am being a bit melodramatic here. What I really mean is the death of photography as most of us have known it. For the past century, photography has been dominated by film generally, and for most professional and many amateur users since the introduction of Kodachrome in 1935, color slide film specifically. In recent decades, nature photography in particular has been virtually the exclusive domain of color slide film users until the past six or seven years. During this time, black and white and even color print film had their place among nature photographers, but there is little doubt that chrome reigned supreme.

Now, of course, all this has changed. Digital dethroned chrome, and sent film the way of the dinosaurs. Indeed, there are few photographers who still cling to the analog age, and I suspect that even the die-hards would admit that it is getting increasingly difficult to procure film and processing services. After all, it is not just Kodak that has struggled to survive in this turbulent digital revolution—many camera stores and film processing labs have also been swept aside by the digital tide. Film may continue to survive for a long time as a niche product, but it is clear that its day in the sun has passed.

My feelings about digital photography are somewhat mixed. On the one hand, I whole-heartedly embrace the quality, ease of use, and flexibility of digital cameras. And I enjoy the creative control that digital processing techniques give us. On the other hand, I cannot help but miss, for lack of a better way of putting it, the artistic “purity” of the slide film days. Then, there was no “post processing” or “digital manipulation”—granted, slide film added a fair amount of contrast and color saturation that was not exactly as the eye saw things—but what you did before you triggered the shutter determined how the final image looked, and the slide itself was most often the final product marketed to editorial and publishing clients. It was a golden age when photography was photography, men were men, and the sheep were scared.

Today, in the digital age, it seems that photography is increasingly becoming a mixed media art—some part photography, some part “digital art”—in some cases, the equation is heavily skewed towards the latter. Call it what you like—“computer art,” “digital art,” “digital painting,” or something else entirely—the point I am trying to get across is that these days, it seems that many of the artistic decisions about a photograph are being made on the computer after the fact, rather than before the shutter button is pressed. This often goes way beyond merely increasing color saturation and manipulating contrast; some photographers are using the computer to swap skies, warp compositional elements, change colors, and add and subtract significant elements of the photo.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not altogether opposed to this evolving approach (although I must admit I’m not completely thrilled by it either). I believe that artists should have the freedom to express themselves in any way they wish. I am a bit uncomfortable, however, with the fact that many who have privately embraced a limitless mixed media approach publicly deny doing so, claiming photographic purity instead. A notable recent example involves the scandal surrounding the Swedish Wildlife Photographer of the Year award. I say “notable,” rather than “extreme,” because I suspect this sort of thing has become much more commonplace than most of us would care to admit.

Why all the obfuscation? I argue in a post on the Outdoor Photographer blog (The Power of Photography) that for better or for worse, most people seem to associate photography with reality. I suspect this is why some photographers intentionally obscure their sometimes heavy-handed computer manipulation: they know that for many people, discovering that a photograph is not “real” causes them to lose interest. The average viewer seems to prefer that a photo’s magic be captured as part of the photographic process—selecting a composition, waiting for the right moment and light, and triggering the shutter—rather than something cooked up in Photoshop.

I have also noticed a lot of effort in recent years to dismiss the notion that there is anything un-photographic about digital manipulation. The arguments typically get fairly convoluted, and involve several themes including (1) a denial that there is any objective reality; (2) the notion that somehow portraying reality cannot be art; (3) that art is inherently a manipulation of reality so therefore any attempt to portray reality is in and of itself a lie; and (4) darkroom manipulation has had a long tradition in nature photography, so therefore digital manipulation is an acceptable part of the photographic process. This last argument seems to gloss over the fact that most professional nature photographers over the past forty years were color slide film shooters, many of whom never saw the inside of a darkroom.

I’ve always found these “pro-manipulation” arguments unconvincing, not because I am opposed to digital manipulation, but chiefly because these arguments strike me as a “have your cake and eat it too” approach, justifying doing anything you want to a photograph on the computer but nonetheless claiming it is still a photograph. It is far more elegant, and likely more honest, to simply admit one’s mixed media approach and avoid drafting several pages of excuses for it. Frankly, I don’t understand the desire to obscure or rationalize one’s artistic process—one should proudly shout it to the heavens.

I’m not saying that digital manipulation—or for that matter, even lying about it—is necessarily bad, unethical, or immoral. I just think we need to be sober in our assessment of how the medium of photography is changing these days. Digital processing techniques are a good thing—in fact, they are necessary, especially when working with raw files, as one needs to add contrast and saturation to make digital files look good. And I embrace exposure blending techniques, which allow us to show the world more as the eye would actually see it, and other creative tools such as white balance selection. But as soon as we open a digital photograph in an image editing program and begin to make changes, we have entered into the vast sea of digital art—even if we only stick our big toe in the water rather than plunging right in. Each and every one of us must decide how far we wish to traverse the continuum between photography and digital art. Personally, I prefer to keep my craft rooted in the photographic process as much as possible, but on occasion I cross over, and I try to keep an open mind about things and to adjust with the changing attitudes of the times. What you do, of course, is up to you.

So, photography as we have known it is now dead, and in its ashes a new photography has been reborn. With it will come a whole new way of thinking about photography, and I have no doubt that in a few years the “mixed-media” framework I proffer here will be regarded as quaint and obsolete. Although I embrace the new, I can’t help but lament the passing of the old. We have exciting and challenging times ahead of us, but there’s no harm in looking back and waxing nostalgic about the past. Good luck Kodak—you’re going to need it.

"Leaf in Ice" - Shenandoah National Park (shot using Kodak VS color slide film)

OK, I know what you’re thinking after reading that title. Roller Derby. But what I am actually referencing here is one of my very favorite locations, the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Preserve/ Bombing Range. That’s right, you did not misread this. Twenty years ago you could have called one of the nation’s great remaining wildernesses a dual usage area. When you got your permit to go out there you had to sign a paper waiving liability and indicating that you understood that you could encounter unexploded ordnance on the bombing range/wildlife preserve. Today it still qualifies as “dual usage”, however, the “wildlife preserve” part has been effectively replaced by “border patrol”. Most of the Cabeza is now officially closed to all traffic except for smugglers, coyotes (both types) and border patrol. I’m pretty sure that now it’s like a freeway out there.

Step back a few years. The “Camino del Diablo”, or “Highway of the Devil” had regained popularity for the 1849 gold rush in California. The Camino offered a short cut of sorts; seducing low budget travelers with the promise of avoiding the long and costly sail around the Baja Peninsula. But the route had its perils as evidenced by its reputation, and the little white crosses that mark the route to this day.

The hardest part of the Camino for the settlers to cross was the 130 mile stretch from Sonoyta to Yuma, with the trail following  the springs and collective waterholes. This was the route that I drove at least 6 times during the 80′s and 90′s before border pressure overwhelmed the entire area. 115 miles of pure wilderness. Not a single person or car or building – going on and on. Of course, there were the ever-present F-16′s. I would hear them before I’d see them. An incredible roar would split the sky and a couple of F16′s would scream directly overhead about 200 feet above. I knew it would be a couple of pilots checking me out, and had they malicious intent, I certainly would have been toast. I always smile a little when I think of the F16 pilots lighting up the little protected bunnies with their fire control radar systems. Of course, it may also be the reason I only have one kid…

The Camino was also the first and only time I have witnessed complete and absolute silence. It was my first solo trip, and it was late spring, so it was hot—105° F hot. There had been a bit of a drought, and I had been noticing that the saguaros had that crispified “please-put-me-out-of-my-misery” look as I stopped for the evening. Later on, when the truck engine stopped ticking, I realized that there was not a single sound; not a bird, a cricket or the wind. Nothing. When I lit my camp stove for dinner the hiss seemed obscenely sacrilegious, so I turned it off. All I could hear was my own heartbeat. It still remains one of my finest wilderness experiences.

Even back then, I’d trip motion detectors and always had a border patrol welcome as I emerged from the Camino. The officers would relate how they  had followed my progress all the way; and proving this by indicating my arrival and departure times from specific areas.

Bronica GS-1, 200mm, Velvia, 1 second @ f22: 2 stop ND Grad

Today’s image is “Teardrop Virga”. I’ve always considered this one of my signature pieces. I was out with my good friend and fine photographer, Colin McKay in the “Charlie Bell Pass” area of the Cabeza. As we watched the clouds covering the western horizon we thought we’d been shut out…then the sky opened and permitted just a few rays to pass through.

After we shot this iscene, we made a little fire with a fireplace log (I’m much too lazy to gather wood) and opened a bottle of Cuervo 1800. About an hour or so after dark, the Air Force decided to begin some night time Warthog exercises a few miles away. We sat and watched 15 or 20 Warthogs line up and make strafing runs until after midnight. Plane after plane would dive, blast away and pull up, the tracers leaving echoes on our retinas. A night to remember, and oh yeah, that bottle was a dead soldier by the time we finished.

One other thing. A little sickly kit fox kept trying to walk into our fire. We’d shoo him off, but he kept coming back. I was pretty sure he was rabid (one of the first clues is a wild animal acting tame), and we decided if he returned again we should probably put him down. Luckily for him and us, he gave it up….

the same scene the next morning

The entire border area of Arizona is feeling the pressure with closures and constant patrols. More than once I’ve had border patrol in body armor with M16′s come to check me out. Leave a vehicle by the side of the road and disappear into the desert and this kind of thing tends to happen, depending on the location. Let me tell you, you glance up and see some guy with an automatic weapon sliding behind a nearby cactus, its hands-in-the-air with loud verbal proclamations such as “I’m right here. I’m by myself”. Then another 4 guys materialize from the desert; and while they have never failed to be great guys doing a difficult job, it does kinda tend to diminish the overall wilderness experience.

And it’s not just the US border that has been overwhelmed. Pinacate National Park in Mexico, directly south of Organ Pipe is a major smuggling route and is patrolled by the Mexican Military. Another one of the most beautiful places in the world being turned into crap. Bottom line, I’m trying to find an optimistic spin to put on all this, but just can’t seem to find one. So I guess I’ll just wax nostalgic for the good-old-days when the wilderness was wild and rangers were unarmed. Not so nostalgic about the film. Oh yeah, and if you go? Be sure to carry ID at all times.

My latest post to the Outdoor Photographer blog, Wide Angle Lenses and the Art of Inclusion, discusses the perspective effects of different focal lengths, and how different lenses can yield different artistic approaches and results. The image that illustrates the post, shown below, was taken with an ultra-wide angle lens (14mm) in the extremely chaotic Hoh Rain Forest of Olympic National Park. I got very close to the foreground ferns in an effort to exaggerate their size relative to the background. In terms of composition, I was attracted to the relationship of shapes—the curving ferns in the foreground reinforced and repeated the shape of the curving vine maple branches in the background. I was careful to position myself so that the ferns filled the foreground evenly, and the fern fronds radiated from the bottom corners, creating a leading element that encourages the eye into the scene. I used a polarizer filter to reduce glare on the waxy leaves.

Technical details: Canon 5DII, 14mm, ISO 400, f/14, 4 seconds.

Wide Angle Lenses and the Art of Inclusion

“…Honey, Love The One You’re With” (Stephen Stills).  I’ll leave it up to you guys to do your own dit, dit, dits.  And I do apologize in advance if the song gets stuck in your head, it’s pretty catchy.  It seems as though I’m into the mantra thing lately (see my previous post Just Do It!), especially if it relates to improving one’s photography.

As many of you already know, I live in northern Vermont.  With the exception of two weeks in early October we are by no means the envy of the photographic world, no Grand Teton, majestic El Cap or towering coastal sea stacks to photograph here.  Make no mistake about it though, Vermont is a beautiful place to be a photographer and the quality of life here is unlike any other place I’ve lived.  However, truth be told I still spend a lot of time longing to travel elsewhere for my photography, and thanks to the interwebz the list gets longer every day.  If you’re not careful however, this “grass is always greener” mentality can be a real drain on your creativity.   And if you’re really not careful, it can actually become an impediment to shooting your home turf all together.  This can be especially true if you find yourself making excuses like, “If only I lived in a more dramatic place” or “I’m just not inspired by my home landscape” or worse yet, “There’s just nothing to shoot here.”

These excuses of course are utter hogwash and they only serve to get in the way of making photographs, doing the “work” that is your craft and passion.  There are actually many advantages of shooting close to home.

• It’s much less expensive and resource intensive
• Less of a drain on your spouse and family (this is probably my most considered issue as a professional photographer)
• Allows you to shoot when the conditions/seasons are optimal
• Fosters a deeper knowledge and experience in the “place”
• Can allow for a slower more methodical approach
• Almost guarantees that your images will be unique

"Hunger Mountain Alpenglow" Putnam State Forest, Vermont

The trailhead to Hunger Mountain in the central green mountains is close to my home.  I hike it often and know it well.  When conditions are optimal I like to get on top of it for sunset, especially in winter as it catches the last rays of light from the setting sun.  In composing this shot I had to be careful not to spoil the pristine snow with my own snowshoe tracks. I used a wide-angle lens to include the surrounding spruce trees in the fore-ground making sure to find a position that did not obstruct the view of the mountain. I like how the empty space in the foreground acts to balance the distant summit and the taller spruces on the left form a triangle that points to the mountain.

There’s nothing wrong with traveling to far-flung destinations in search of adventure and exciting landscapes, but don’t forget there are lots of great photographic opportunities when you’re willing to “…love the one you’re with.”

Technical Details: Canon 5D, 17-40 f4L, ISO 100, f16 @ 1/13 sec., polarizer, 2 stop grad ND

Everyone sees the world in different ways. It never ceases to amaze me when I shoot with other photographers—we may photograph the same scene, but more often than not we come away with entirely different photographs. Some photographers seem to compose using “left brain” analytics, whereas others rely more on “right brain” creative intuition. Some folks are wide-angle junkies (guilty as charged), others prefer longer glass. Some see in a way that is sweeping and bold, whereas others are drawn more to nuance and subtlety. All approaches are valid and can lead to beautiful works of art.

It is important to try to expand one’s creative vision, and to learn to see the world in ways that might not come naturally. Artistic growth can only be achieved by challenging one’s own perceptions, and by breaking free from one’s well established routine. If you shut your eyes to what others are doing, you run the risk of limiting your progress as an artist. To that end, I always encourage people to study the work of other photographers, and to be open to new techniques, styles, and inspirations.

That said, never forget that your way of seeing the world is unique and intensely personal. In the end, you cannot allow anyone else’s creative vision to superimpose upon your own. And while it is important, on some level, to have one’s work accepted by others, you should never forget who your most important audience is—yourself.

In the end, you must follow your own eyes and heart and find what speaks to you.