You know you have a good thing going when your fiance encourages you to take photos for two hours while she sleeps in the car…then calls this particular image "one of her all time favorites."  Much better if viewed large on Flickr here.

Shot around midnight on July 8th.  2 image panorama at 14mm (if you can believe it).

I've seen people expressing concerns about camera shake while using some of today's high resolution SLRs (at 36 megapixels, the D800 is a prime example).  I've even seen folks use such high resolution as a "negative feature" when comparing to lower resolution cameras, their justification being that somehow higher resolution bodies produce lower quality images when handheld, due to camera shake.

Quite honestly, this is a load of malarkey.  What people are failing to realize is that high resolution cameras are only resolving imperfections in technique which were already there.  There is nothing inherent about a high resolution sensor which means one won't be able to shoot handheld as easily as one would with a lower resolution sensor, it just means that your bad handholding skills will be more apparent because each imperfection will be magnified that much more on a high resolution sensor than on a low resolution sensor.

Of course, since today everyone pixel peeps at 100%, these imperfections are going to stand out, but they do NOT indicate any specific issue with higher resolution cameras that we need to be worried about.  In fact, when downsizing a high resolution file, a photographer will see exactly the same sharpness as if that image were taken with a lower resolution camera in the first place.

Think of it this way: until recently, cameras could not resolve the imperfections that were already there in our technique.  Now that we have such cameras, we have to hold ourselves to higher standards when attempting to make images which will appear tack sharp at 100% resolution.  This means your 1/focal length rule is probably out the window (as it has been for the current breed of 16-20mp bodies for some time now), and you will probably have to adjust your shooting style as a result.

More tripods, more fun.

1600 look ok, the rest is just smudge. So, not really à jpg camera?

OMG !!!!! dpreview.com !! You cant take a foto ????

What are you doing ???

Shutter speed !!! Shutter speed !! Look !

No body use the Shutter speed 1/10 in real life !

The test ist not good ,if you use higher shutter speed have much NOISE in low light (1/60,1/100) and its sure iso 3200 much noise you will see !

Easily beating D4 at 25600 without even breaking a sweat.

Nikon wins.

Time for everyone to sell their Canon gear.

Better luck next time Canon.

This is the PERFECT camera ! Nikon users who consider upgrade to D800 shall weep for another 3 years. Huge upgrade in term of auto focus and ISO plus 6 FPS, who needs 36MP noise ridden, computer busting (huge file size) camera of Nikon …

 

I am getting one soon, give me …….QUICK ….

This is like new paint on an old car. Yawn. This is what the 5d 2 should have been. canon is asleep. Nokia 808 phone BLOWS THERE DOORS OFF !I just dont get it .. A phone camera has more mega pixels than a almost four grand slr!! Sony is going to be around 58 mega pixel,, And NIKON is 36 at 3 grand. What did I miss? This is why canon lost 20 per cent of the pro market last year. Add another 20 per cent loss this year. What a sad day.

So all the Noink fanbois repeating the mantras "12MP is enough" and "High ISO is more important than megapixels" since 2007 are now changing their tune? LOL. As if these fanbois even print their pictures to huge sizes that they require 36MP.

well"well" "well", 5D MARK-3 AT 22MP AND D800 AT 36MP THEN BOTH FOR AROUND 3.300 {WHATS-UP-WITH-"THAT"} CANON? I WOULD THINK THAT THE 5D MARK -3 WOULD HAVE MORE MP FOR THE MONEY", AT LEAST WITH 45MP GIVING YOU THE OPTION TO GO DOWN TO 22MP WOULD BE NICE.I LIKE TO UPGRADE TO A SECOND BODY FROM MY 7D AND HAVE A FULL SIZE SENSOR SLR FOR ONCE. IT LOOKS LIKE NIKON ANSWERED THE "Q" FOR ME. NO PLAN ON SWITCHING AT ALL BUT, IT WOULD BE NICE IF YOUR GOING TO UPGRADE THE 5D MARK-2 TO A "3", THEN DO IT IN EVERY WAY I WOULD THINK". MABY THERE IS A "5D-X" WHO KNOWS, I GUES WE WILL SEE IN DO TIME"

"OH", DID I MENTIONED THAT THE NEW 24-70 2.8 USM L HAS A WHOPPING 82MM FILTER LENS TREAD ,"YES THAT RIGT" IF YOU WANT A UV OR A CLR POLARIZER , YOUR GOING TO HAVE TO PAY THE BIG BUCS TO GO FROM 77MM TO 82MM FOR THE "SAME FOCAL RANGES ON YOUR 2.8 24-70 USM L PREVIOUS MODEL , NOT GOOD NEWS AT ALL!!!

————————————

OH, YEAH" I WOULD LIKE TO UPGRADE FROM MY AWSOME 7D APS SENSOR TO A FULL SIZE SENSOR SOME DAY AND END THE GET THE LATEST AND THE NEWEST "RAT-RACE" SOME DAY BUT, I AM WELL DISAPPOINTED WITH THE RIDICULOUS "ONE" MORE MP 21MP 5D-2 TO A 22MP 5D-3 UPGRADE. YES,IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE SINCE NIKON OFFERED 36MP WITH THE NICE OPTION OF GOING DOWN TO 22MP FOR EXTRA FINE DETAIL AND SOME DAY IF YOU LIKE TO BLOW UP LARGE PHOTOS AND GET THE EXTRA DETAILS WELL ITS ALL THERE AND READILY AVAILABLE. ITS JUST LIKE HAVING AN SLR THAT SHOOTS HD VIDEO.I DO NOT DO VIDEO YET BUT AS I SAID BEFORE, IT IS NICE TO HAVE THE OPTION TO. "YES, OPTIONS ARE GOOD.

————————————

IN MY CONCLUSION, IS IT WORH UPGRADING FROM A 7D OR A 5D-2 TO A 5D-3? CONSIDERING THE MEANING OF "UPGRADE", THE D800 WOULD TRULY FIT THAT DESCRIPTION. I WILL NOT MAKE A SWITCHOVER AT THIS TIME BUT, WHO KNOWS THE FUTURE". FOR ME ITS ABOUT ENDING THE NEVER ENDING RAT-RACE FOR THE LATEST AND THE NEWEST SOME DAY. I GUES WE ALL DO IT ONCE OR TWICE IN A LIFETIME. AND YES BOTH CAMERAS ARE VERY VERY GOOD IN THEIR WAYS FOR SURE. HOWEVER, NIKON IS GIVING YOU YOUR MONEYS WORTH IN THIS CATEGORY. CANON IS MY CHOICE FOR NOW, BUT THEY NEED TO SMELL THE COFFEE FAST.

Canon, really? This is the best you can do? Is there a real "new" camera coming like a 3D or a 9D that will keep serious photographers in the fold?

What! 22 MP only!How's that going to compete with Nikon's D800? I know 36MP might be overkill for the monent considering the resolving power of current lenses. Still disappointing though. The 5D Mark II had nearly twice the resolution of the 5D, so I was at least expecting a 50% increase for the Mark III. Is this Canon admitting it's lenses aren't good enough resolution wise?

On to the specs of this "new" EOS 5D wonder…..

 

"It can shoot 6 frames per second"

 

Wow, only 6 fps? In the year 2012? That's nothing to write home about, is it now? Re. video, it can shoot 1080p at 24, 25, and 30 frames per second. But so could the previous Canon EOS 5D that came out 3.5 years ago, right? The new 5D cannot even do 1080p60 video — another fatal mishap. Nor will the new 5D be able to put out uncompressed HDMI, like the Nikons will be able to do, wow!!! All you can do with the new EOS 5D is what you could with the old one — record video only internally, not externally.

 

For external recording capabilities with a connected video field recorder at superior bitrates, you will need to go with the NIKON D800 or NIKON D4, correct? Giant advantage: NIKON.

 

Mono audio recording only — yeah, right. I would have thought that SOMEONE at Canon must have heard of the word "stereo" by now, huh? But at least they give you a headphone jack, like the Nikons do.

————————————

"The EOS 5D Mark III features a new Creative Photo button, which enables users to quickly select Picture Styles."

 

Wow, so for $3,500, this Canon camera will give you capabilities that every $200 and up point-and-shoot pocketable camera now has — Picture Styles. Wow…. Veddy professional, indeed.

 

According to DP Review, the price will be $3,500 for the body alone. On the Canon web site, there is NO PRICE for this camera. And there is also NO PRICE still for the EOS 1D X that Canon had announced exactly four months ago! Maybe they are giving that one away for free, who really knows?

 

Considering that the $3,000 NIKON D800 dwarfs this new Canon EOS 5D in most technological aspects, not to mention that it looks much better, good luck to Canon for selling these "new" 5D bodies at $3,500 a pop…. or even close to it.

 

Only hard-core Canon fiends need to apply here, I suspect. :-((

And now on to some of the good responses.  You know, the ones which restore your faith in humanity

Awesome, I love how folks are always ready to abandon ship at announcements. Go ahead and dump your gear, just let me know where I can get your stuff for a used price while you switch sides to buy new again, only to repeat at the next announcement! haha The gear by these companies surpass the knowledge and effort most fanboys will ever practice anyway. Go back to film bitches

I am reading a lot of forums about totally different topics, why is it that photographers are the worst people i come across in the internet. Canon/Nikon owners are worse fanboys than Apple owners… jeeeez, get a grip, let people have their opinions, discuss the camera and stop the hating, it is embarrassing!

British Grand Prix, Brands Hatch 1982.

 

I saw something that has always stayed in my mind when it comes to photography and gear.

 

I couldn't help but notice the working Professional photographers going about their work.They had battered cameras and lenses held together with gaffer tape attached to monopods. Their photo's graced the newspapers on Monday and no doubt the glossy racing magazines later.

 

Waiting for the race to begin I noticed a keen amateur photographer in front of me. He had a pristine aluminium case. He eventually opened it to reveal a shiny Canon A1 and numerous lenses. They were immaculate. The foam protecting his gear was so sharply cut it could draw blood.

 

The crowd around him, bored, looked on.

 

But oh no what is this? A piece of grass had blown onto the foam! Manicured fingers quickly moved in to remove the errant grass and brushed away any dirt. Wow what a lucky escape.

 

The crowd around him watched on in amazement at this total plonker.

 

A camera is just a tool.

As always, the rumor mill has been going for a while on this one.  One of my favorite sources is Canon Rumors, so here's the rumored spec list from earlier today: http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/03/5d-mark-iii-full-spec-list.  Images below are (c) Canon Rumors.

Notable specs include:

• 22.3 Megapixel Full Frame CMOS sensor
• ISO 100-25600 (expandable to L:50 H1:51200, H2: 102400
• 61-point high-density reticular AF (up to 41 crosstype points)
• 6.0 fps
• Full HD Movie (ISO 100-12800 (H:25600)
• Dual card slots (CF & SD)
• Multiple Exposures
• High Dynamic Range (HDR) Mode
• iFCL metering with 63-zone dual-layer sensor
• Shutter durability of 150,000 cycles

I've heard the range of opinions on this spec list.  Plenty of people are excited (me being one of them), with the expected few who whine about needing 39 FPS at 382 megapixels at a 1,500 dollar price point.  I've thought all along that if they threw a full frame sensor into a body with 7D ergonomics and AF, I'd buy one in a heartbeat.  Canon seems to have heard my brainwaves, because that is exactly what they've done.  For those who say the 5D Mark III isn't an interesting upgrade, I'd counter with the following list of improvements which I believe will make a huge difference in handling and usability for this particular camera:

1. Better ergo BY FAR.  For those of you who have used the 7D and 5D II, I’m sure you’d agree that the 7D is better in every department as far as ergonomics are concerned.  Compared to the 5D II, the 5D III has:
   
   • M.fn button.
   • Properly placed DOF preview button.
   • The wonderful sculpted thumb grip of the 7D on the back of the cam.
   • The wonderful LV / Movie start/stop button.
   • Properly sized buttons that actually feel good when you press them (AND CAN BE USED WITH GLOVES).
   • A proper wheel lock dial separated from the ON/OFF switch.
   • A proper ON/OFF switch.
   • Locking mode dial (I hate this on both the 7D and 5D II)
   • (Assuming) Beautiful 7D-esque view finder
   • +/-3 EV display on top LCD vs. +/- 2 on the 5D II
   • Additional buttons (Q button, RATE button, whatever the button is above RATE) – assuming at least some of these can be re-mapped.
2. +2 stops native ISO – remember when cameras would release with maybe 1 stop tacked on to native ISO?  How can people not be excited for this?  (Yes, hold your breath for samples, etc, but do you really think Canon will screw the pooch here?)
3. AN ACTUAL AF SYSTEM – seriously, need I say more?  Remember when people were pining for 7D AF in the 5D II?  If this is at least as good, I am very pleased.
4. 50% increase in FPS at a higher resolution than the 5D II (6 vs 4).  Is it 8?  No, but it’s fast enough to actually make me consider using this for action photography.
5. Headphone jack for those video folks out there.
6. Dual card slots…this is huge – and if you have an Eye-FI, you can actually USE IT with this camera.
7. "Improved” weather sealing.  I’m assuming this is at 7D level, in which case, I am confident in shooting in rainy conditions without issue.

I haven't been on a walk for a while.  I guess it's been too easy to stay inside these days, what with 2 week long vacations and lots of books to read.  I need to go on more walks, I guess, so here are some photos of one my Mom and I went on back in October.

Best of 2012 to all of you.

…until I go on my backpacking trip to the Enchantments!  The National Park Service limits human traffic into the area via an annual lottery system, but I was lucky enough to get a spot with a group of Microsoft photographers who were going this October.  I've been waiting for half a year or so, and I'm kind of not really believing the time has arrived?  Why am I so excited?  Well, the core Enchantments zone is probably one of the most beautiful places in Washington state, if not the country.  It's a photographer's paradise, because you get half a dozen lakes, huge ridges, awesome boulder fields, neat-looking trees, and strange mossy growths all within an area smaller than 10 square miles.  It's also home to mountain goats who will lick anything you pee on for want of salt.

It's not a long hike (about 20 miles total if you don't count the walking around for photos), but the first day is a bitch:

• Day 1: Stuart / Colchuck Trailhead -> Tranquil Lake
  • Trailhead -> Colchuck Lake = 4.2 miles with 2200 feet elevation gain
  • Colchuck Lake -> Asgard Pass = 1.1 miles flat
  • Asgard Pass -> Tranquil Lake = 1.2 miles with 2300 feet elevation gain (bouldering + scree!)
• Day 2, 3, 4: Photography in the Core Enchantment Zone
• Day 5: Core Zone -> Snow Lakes Trailhead

Here's a map of the route (courtesy of www.niffgurd.com):

Fun fact, one of the Windows 7 desktops was taken in the Enchantments by a photographer working at Microsoft.  Who knows, maybe I'll get lucky and have something ship with Windows 8 (haha, yeah right)

Happy shooting!

I proposed to Haley on an Oregon coast as the sun was setting and the fog rolling in, all while my camera was clicking away dutifully.  So happy to be with the one I love :).

Inspiration time!  Thanks to FlashBus and the associated flurry of Googling (and subsequent money spent on off-camera flash gear), I decided to take a stab at making a light tent.

Before I begin, you should start this project by asking yourself what you want to be able to do with your light tent.  Are you just going to photograph small items (jewelry, etc?)  A big box like this may be overkill.   I opted for a rather larger variety, as I knew I wanted to be able to take pictures of larger items.  Do you want more flexibility in hard / soft light?  This may not be for you, as you're going to get very soft light out of this almost no matter what you do.  My goals were just to do some basic product photography for all those times I sell things on POTN, so my requirements were pretty lax.  Yours may not be, so keep that in mind before starting.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this is just a recipe, not some proscriptive set of instructions.  For example:

• I chose to make 3 windows, and leave the back of the box intact, maybe you want to put a light behind your background, in which case you'll want to remove the back of the box, as well.
• Maybe you don't want to use paper for your window material, for fragility / light diffusion reasons.
• Maybe you want something more robust and not made out of what is effectively tree-pulp :).

That said, I'll show you how to make a pretty simple version which will get you stupidly good light for less than 10 dollars.

Full Flickr set can be found here.

What you'll need…

• 1x Cardboard box of sufficient size (the one I chose was 16"x18"x18")
• White Banner Paper
• Gaffer's Tape
• Thin Sharpie or Pen
• Scissors
• Knife / Box Cutter

Step 1: Measure your window opening

You are going to begin by measuring windows on 3 of the sides of the box.  Each of these windows should leave 2 inches on each side to allow you to attach your diffusion material and to give some structural integrity to the final product.

Step 2: Cut out window openings

Next, cut the window openings out with a sharp knife or box cutter.  I recommend using a box cutter if you have it.  Scissors will leave really bad lines and could damage the cardboard.  I actually used a kitchen knife, but I do NOT RECOMMEND THIS.  I am not the safest individual.  Your box should look something like the below.

Step 3: Attach window diffusion material

Next,  you're going to want to cut out squares of diffusion material that are slightly larger than the size of one side of your box.  In my case, I cut a 20 inch piece of my banner paper, taped it along two edges of the window opening, and cut off the excess. 

Do make sure that you leave enough space alongside the window borders to attach your diffusion material (I chose about an inch).  This is also why 2 inches of border is a good choice, as it gives you some working space.

Your finished light tent should look something like the below.  Notice that I have left the front and rear box flaps on.  This will be important for a couple of reasons later on.

Step 4: Measure and cut seamless background.

Your final step is to pick a background material, and cut it (if necessary) to fit the inside of your box.  I chose to use banner paper again because it can be folded easily in the box and can be taped up to the top inner edge without issue.  Card stock would work well, too.  One note: make sure that you leave 6-12 inches of background coming out of the front of your light tent.  This will let you fold the background forward to act as a reflector.

I actually cut at about 17.5 inches, to leave a bit of room on the edges of the inside of the box so the paper wouldn't get bunched up.

Step 5: Add background to light tent, enjoy!

Once you add your background to your new light tent, you are done!  Start to take some shots and be impressed by how brain-dead easy it is to get soft light.  A couple of notes before I show some example images.

• Leave the inside box flaps – this will allow you to hang your background easily (as you can see in the image below).
• Leave the side box flaps on in the front – this will allow you to flag your flashes if you have back them away from the side.  It also allows you to protect the inside background when you aren't using your light tent.
• Leave the bottom box flap on in the front – this will allow you to prop up the extra background you left in step 4 for use as a reflector
• Cut off the top front box flap – this serves no purpose and will just get in your way

Example Photos

Here are the first few shots I took with this light tent.  They are all straight out of camera with zero editing, to give you a sense of what this setup is capable of.  Tech details are below:

• 2x 580 EX II @ 1/8th power, Zoomed to 24MM angled up on the left + right sides of the box, flash head is about 6 inches away from each side window
• 1x Vivitar 2800D @ full power (non adjustable) aimed at top of box, about 8 inches away from window
• All flashes triggered by the new Cactus V5 transceivers (these things are amazing)
• Front lip of background folded forward for fill

The Setup

As mentioned, here are a couple setup shots to illustrate how easy it is to get soft light like this.

I had a bit of a happy thing happen which probably isn't that interesting, but I want to talk about nonetheless.

On Saturday I went to see Haley's new workplace's open house (a hospital in downtown Redmond) and took my camera along to take some shots.  I had presumed it would be crappy indoor lighting, so I took my 24/1.4 ii.  I also presumed it would be close quarters, so I paired it with my full frame camera.  Finally, I tossed my flash in my bag because I could, although I kind of just wanted to shoot fast with the prime and not worry about flash.  Well, I'm glad I had it with me because things would have sucked without it.

Since I was only going to be there for a half hour or so (I had a Starcraft match watching party to attend), I decided just to shoot around the room in which Haley works, the hospital's laboratory.  The lab is basically like a giant chemistry classroom filled with millions of dollars of equipment that do very specific things.  It had big windows, but they were only getting diffuse light off of a big, ivy covered, concrete wall half a dozen feet from the window.  Most of the light was coming from these strangely colored fluorescent lights overhead, with just enough cool ambient lighting to be annoying.  I took a few shots without flash using the fluorescent setting on my camera and was not happy…everything was a muddy greenish brown.  I shot a piece of paper for custom WB, tried again, and things looked better, but everything was muddy…mostly due to the lack of fill light.

I grudgingly got out my flash and thought about what to do next.  Normally when I'm in mixed lighting (diffuse daylight + fluorescent especially), I kind of give up.  The reason being that the standard plusgreen gel is just too green for the daylight, and bare flash is just too cool for the ceiling lighting.  In this case, since my first shot turned a strange green + brown, I knew that these weren't regular fluorescent lights, but probably some of the newer, energy-saving, variety that attempt to give off a more incandescent flavor of light.  Fortunately, I always tape the following gels (from a Rosco sample pack) to my flash head with gaffer's tape:

• Full CTO
• Half CTO
• Quarter CTO
• Quarter Plusgreen
• Half Plusgreen

Based on a wild ass guess, I took off a quarter CTO and a quarter Plusgreen and put them over the flash head and took a ceiling bounce flash shot using the custom WB I had already dialed in, using full TTL goodness and Aperture Priority with no compensation.  The result was that I was getting shutter speeds around 1/60th – 1/125th at 2.8 at ISO 200, and the bounce flash was adding just enough fill and balance to remove the muddiness I had been getting earlier.  Bam, almost perfect lighting with zero effort, and consistent enough that I could just walk around the room, varying flash head angle + fill card usage occasionally, but really just only having to think about composition and getting the focus spot on at 2.8.

Really happy I had my flash on my camera for this scenario.  Really happy I'm learning more about on (and off) camera flash.  I've got some lighting equipment coming this next week, so hopefully I'll get a chance to get more complicated very quickly.

I blame it all on Flash Bus.

I was fortunate enough to get some more lens data from Mr. Anton Largiader which I have added to the Canon Lens Handholdability post.

Changes include:

• Table now contains 353 lenses (up from 147).
• Added 200+ new lenses from Sigma, Tokina, Zenit, Zeiss, and Tamron.
• Added the following newly released Canon lenses:
  • EF 300 f/2.8L IS II USM
  • EF 400 f/2.8L IS II USM
  • EF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS
  • EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
  • TS-E 17mm f/4L
  • TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II
  • EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

I've also been able to add this new data to a SQL database in preparation for creating a tool which will let you query this lens list and factor in a few more variables into the handholdability analysis equation.  Stay tuned!

Updates

Post updated 3/20:

• Table now contains 353 lenses (a big thank you to Anton Largiader for the raw data).
• Added 200+ new lenses from Sigma, Tokina, Zenit, Zeiss, and Tamron.
• Added the following newly released Canon lenses:
  • EF 300 f/2.8L IS II USM
  • EF 400 f/2.8L IS II USM
  • EF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS
  • EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
  • TS-E 17mm f/4L
  • TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II
  • EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

Post updated 3/7:

• Added disclaimer, added additional assumptions to conditions for handholdability testing section.

Disclaimer

After some discussion across various communities, it is obvious that people think I am trying to come up with some kind of panecea to finding out which lens is better than another from a handholdability perspective.  That is not my goal.  My goal is to create a theoretical framework for which we might begin to compare lenses to one another under very specific circumstances.  Read the conditions below and keep these in mind when you look at the final results.  I have added several marked in red to indicate some excellent points brought up in discussing this work.

Eventually, of course, I hope to improve this framework.  Please do consider this a v.1 effort :).

Conditions for Handholdability Testing

I did some math tonight where I calculated the " maximal handholdability" of various lenses under certain conditions.  The conditions, as such, are laid out below:

1. Photos are being taken of static subjects.
2. We follow the 1/focal length rule for "safe hand-holding" to ensure reasonably sharp shots.
3. We do not differentiate between FF and 1.5x, or 1.6x sensor sizes when calculating safe handholding speeds.
4. We DO factor IS into the equation – 2 stops of IS is equivalent to 2 aperture stops (because we are assuming static subjects).
5. We always use the MINIMUM focal length of the lens as a benchmark.
6. We always use the MAXIMUM aperture value of the lens as a benchmark.
7. IS benefits are based on manufacturer's claims, are measured in whole f-stops, and are not necessarily tied to real-world results.
8. [added 3/7] We do not take into account lens weight, balance, or weight distribution, which are very important when handholding a lens.
9. [added 3/7] We do not factor in innate photographer skill / technique / body types, which are also key factors in handholding a lens.
10. [added 3/7] We do not factor in real-world IS improvements which are not captured in direct manufacturer's claims.  For example, any hybrid IS improvements in the new Canon V. II telephoto lenses are not taken into account here.
11. [added 3/7] While t-stops would be a more effective measure for "actual amount of light hitting the sensor," we currently do not factor this into our equation.
12. [added 3/7] We do not factor in variable lens aperture, which has an impact on overall handholdability, not maximal handholdability (which is what we care about).
13. [added 3/7] IS is known to become more effective at longer focal lengths, we do not take this into account.

With these assumptions, the handholdability of a lens only varies with the following parameters:

• The minimum focal length of the lens.
• The maximum aperture of the lens.
• Any claimed image stabilization advantages.

We can also infer the following rules from these parameters:

• Longer focal lengths decrease handholdability (inverse relationship).
• IS increases handholdability (direct relationship).
• Wider apertures increase handholdability (direct relationship).

Picking a Measure for Handholdability

There are a couple scenarios to consider when measuring how much light a lens is usable in.  The first is when comparing one lens to another, directly.  The second is when comparing a set of lenses amongst themselves.  These two scenarios may seem the exact same, but there is a key difference.  When comparing 2 lenses directly, we need only to answer the following 2 questions: "what is the difference in their apertures" and "what is the difference between their focal lengths."  When comparing a set of lenses, things become a bit more complicated, because we need a generic measure for a single lens's handholdability.  So, let's first go about deriving a formula to compare one lens to another, and then we can go about the task of making a generic measure for handholdability.

Scenario 1: Comparing 2 Lenses Directly

Our first task is simple: relate aperture and focal length together into some arbitrary measurement of handholdability.  For example, it makes logical sense that a 24 mm lens can be safely used in lower light than a 50 mm lens of the same max aperture.  Why?  Because you can handhold the 24mm lens in 1 stop lower light (1/25th of a second vs 1/50th of a second) than the 50mm lens simply because of the difference in focal length.  It also makes logical sense that given two lenses of identical focal length, the lens with the wider max aperture is handholdable in lower light.  Neither of these cases needs explaining by themselves; however, when they are related together is when things get interesting.  Using the rules I have defined above, we realize that an 85mm f/1.2 lens is actually less handholdable than a 14mm f/2.8 lens.  Why?  Because the combination of smaller aperture and shorter focal length of the 14mm combined still add up to a lens useable in lower light.  How so?  Read on.

Step 0: Taking IS into Account (or, Calculating Relative Max Aperture)

Before we can discuss F/numbers and aperture, we need to take a quick aside on how we deal with lenses which have IS.  We'll call this measure relative max aperture, and it will depend on if we have any IS improvements to take into account.  For example, if a lens has an f/2.8 maximum aperture opening and offers 4 stops of IS improvement, the relative max aperture would be f/1 (from the progression 2.8, 2, 1.4, 1).  The formula we use to calculate this is below:

• r = relative max aperture
• a = max aperture of the lens
• i = stops of is improvement

(1)  

Whenever you are calculating the max aperture of a lens, be sure to take this into account (remember, only works for static subjects!)  We will not use this formula until much later in our discussion.

Step 1: Find How F/Number Varies with Aperture Area

Ok, now that IS is out of the way, we first need to calculate the number of stops difference between the two lenses.  We already know that aperture varies with the square root of 2.  Why?  Because each 1 stop increase in F/number represents a halving of the area of the aperture opening:

There is a pattern we can discover in the table above.  Namely, every time the F/number increases exponentially with √2, the aperture area doubles.  Because a doubling of the aperture area represents an increase of 1 stop of light hitting the sensor, we can codify this relationship as follows: "how many times must we double the area of the aperture opening of the slower lens to equal the area of the aperture opening of the faster lens?" The equation below expresses this relationship:

• a_fast = area of the aperture opening of the faster lens
• a_slow = area of the aperture opening of the slower lens
• d_av = number of doublings of aperture value

(2)  

Step 2: Find How to Writing the Above Formula in Terms of F/Number

Now, while this formula is interesting, we want it in terms of F/number, not aperture opening area.  If you remember, I mentioned above that every power of √2 increase of the F/number leads to a doubling of the aperture area.  Because of this relationship, we can say simply replace the doubling factor in our above equation with the √2, to answer the question "how many times must we increase the F\number of a faster lens by √2 to equal the F\number of a slower lens?"  E.g.:

• f_slow = F/number of the slower lens
• f_fast = F/number of the faster lens
• d_av = number of doublings of aperture value

(3)  

You may notice that we've swapped the location of the slow and fast lens in the below.  This is because area varies inversely with the F/Number.

Step 3: Solve the Equation Above for the Number of Doublings (Stops)

Given this, we are ready to solve this equation for x, which will give us the number of stops of difference between two F/numbers.

First, divide both sides by f_slow…

(4)  

Now, take the log base √2 of both sides to remove the exponent…

(5)  

Then convert to log base 10 by dividing the right sides by log(√2)…

(6)  

If you know log rules, this should look familiar, because we can now simplify it to…

(7)  

Step 4: Find Out a Method for Accounting for Focal Length

So, we see that the 85/1.2 is approximately 2.5 stops faster than the 14/2.8.  Now, the only thing left to do now is to take into account the difference in focal lengths.  To do so, we need to answer the question "how many times must we double the shorter focal length to equal the longer focal length."  This question is derived from how shutter speeds work.  As we already know, as you change aperture size, the shutter speed varies inversely with the square of the difference.  The same applies to focal length when using the 1/focal length handholdability rule.  For every doubling of the focal length, we effectively lose 1 stop of handholding power.  So, in comparing a 24mm lens to a 50mm lens, we can deduce that the 24mm lens is approximately twice as handholdable.  This relationship is expressed in the following equation:

• l_short= short focal length
• l_long= long focal length
• d_fl = number of doublings of focal length

(8)  

Looks similar, right?  It should, it's exactly the formula we derived above, but with a different doubling factor.  This time, we know that to find the difference between two focal lengths, we just need to apply a straight factor of 2, not some root of 2 madness we had to deal with when concerning ourselves with the F/Number.  We'll derive this formula in almost exactly the same way as we did the previous. 

First, divide both sides by l_short

(9)  

Now, take the log base 2 of both sides to remove the exponent…

(10)  

Then convert to log base 10 by dividing both sides by log(2)…

(11)  

If you know log rules, this should look familiar, because we can now simplify it to…

(12)  

Step 5: Compare to our Previous Formula

Which is ALMOST exactly what we used to calculate the differences in stops of the lens aperture value. 

(13)  

What is the difference?  Let's compare the two equations.  As you can see, the only difference is what logarithm is on the bottom of the equations.  Think of the value inside the bottom logarithm in the equations below as "the factor which represents a doubling of the value."  For example, in the formula relating aperture openings, we know that the F\number is derived from powers of the square root of 2, as follows from our table above above.  When we go from, say, F/1 to F/1.4, we also know that we lose a stop of handholdability, and that those values are related with the square root of 2.  Similarly, in the formula relating focal length, we know that each time the focal length doubles, we lose a stop of handholdability, and that these values are related with a straight doubling factor of 2.

Step 6: Plug in Values and Evaluate

So, now we have a formula for finding the difference in f-stops of handholdability between two lenses given their apertures, and another formula for finding the difference in f-stops of handholdability between two lenses given their focal lengths.  Let's compare the Canon 85/1.2 to the Canon 14/2.8 and see, once and for all, which is more handholdable.  First, to find the difference in maximum aperture of the two lenses:

• f_slow = 2.8
• f_fast = 1.2
• d_av= ?

(14)  

(15)  

(16)  

So, the 85/1.2 is approximately 2.4 stops brighter than the 14/2.8.  We still need to take into account the focal lengths, however, which is where things get interesting:

• l_short= 14
• l_long= 85
• d_fl = ?

(17)  

(18)  

(19)  

Step 7: Analyze the Results

Now, when we look at the results of this last equation, we see the surprise (at least to me :))  Even though the 85/1.2 is 2.4 stops brighter than the 14/2.8, the 14/2.8 is still more handholdable because it's shorter focal length makes it useable at shutter speeds that are 2.6 stops slower than the 85/1.2!  We can make this relationship generic such that we can have a single formula that can answer the question "given two lenses, which is more handholdable?"  First, we assume that that the faster of the two lenses will always be more handholdable (with IS taken into account), therefore:

1. The slower lens is more handholdable than the faster lens if and only if it has a sufficiently short focal length:

(20)  

(21)  

Step 8: Compare Lenses with our Formula

So, let's compare some Canon lenses and see how they stack up against one another:

Here is how you interpret this table:

1. If the final column (d_fl-d_av) is negative, then you know that the longer lens is more handholdable.
2. If the final column is positive, then you know that the shorter lens is more handholdable.
3. If they are equal, then there is no difference in handholdability between these two lenses.

So, let's discuss each table row and what they mean in the real world:

1. The 35/1.4 is 1/3rd of a stop more handholdable than the 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS, despite the 2 stop IS improvement of the latter.
2. The 50/1.4 is 1/3rd of a stop more handholdable than the 10-22/3.5-4.5.
3. The 70-200/2.8 I IS is 1/3rd of a stop less handholdable than the 55-200/4-5.6 IS.
4. The 50/1.0 is 1.5 stops(!) less handholdable than the 17-55/2.8 IS.

Scenario 2: Comparing the Set of All Lenses

Now that we've found a formula to compare two lenses directly based on differences in their focal lengths and apertures, we can discuss how we might adapt this knowledge to create a general formula for comparing any number of lenses to one another.  To do this, we must find a measurement that relates aperture and focal length to some direct measure of how dark a scene is.  This is actually very straightforward, and the photographic community already has a way to measure it: Exposure Value.  Exposure value is defined as "a measure which denotes all the combinations of a camera's shutter speed and aperture which give the same exposure at ISO 100," and will allow us to find a single number to represent how little light a lens can be safely handheld in.  You can think of EV as relating directly to the amount of light present in a given scene.  In fact, photographers already have another measure for the amount of light present in a scene.  This measure is called "Light Value", or LV, and it is an ordinal value which is calculated in stops and is defined such that LV(0) = the light level that requires an exposure of 1 second at f/1 at ISO 100 (ie, very dark).  Let's take a look at common light values, how they relate to EV, and then how EV is calculated.

Step 0: Understanding Light Value and How it Relates to Exposure Value

When we think about the handholdability of a particular lens, one interesting question we might ask is how dimly lit a scene we can shoot sharply with a given scene.  As we discussed above, light value measures, effectively, how bright or dark a scene is.  It does so by pegging a value of zero at a given brightness, and then letting all other values fall as they may.  Each increase of 1 LV represents an increase of 1 stop.  You can see an example of light values and how they map to particular scenes below (data taken from wikipedia, kenrockwell.com, and photokaboom.com).

So, how is light value related to exposure value?  Quite simple:

EV = LV @ ISO 100

This means that, as long as we are at ISO 100, LV = EV.  As soon as we increase ISO, however, we must change the equivalent EV to compensate for the difference.  For example, if you are shooting a sunset and want to know what exposure to make at ISO 800, you would first look up the appropriate LV for that scene, which in this case is 8, and then compensate for the increased ISO by shifting the corresponding EV up by 3 stops (since ISO 800 is 3 stops more exposure than ISO 100).  So, in this case, you would choose an exposure which is aligned with LV(11), and you would say that your sunset scene has an exposure value at ISO 800 of 11, or, in other terms: EV₈₀₀ = 11.  If you have an F/2.8 lens available to you, you can look at an EV chart and learn that the exposure you need is 1/250 @ F2.8.  Below is a table of common exposure values so that you can see once and for all how LV, EV, and given camera settings are related.

Step 1: Examine How EV is Calculated

The formula for calculating EV is below:

1. N = F/Number
2. t = shutter speed

(22)  

Remember, we need to get this formula in terms of F/Number (which it already is) and Focal Length (which it isn't).  So how can we get focal length into the equation?  Well, remember the golden rule of handholdability relates just that, focal length to shutter speed, e.g shutter speed at a minimum must be equal to 1/focal length.

Step 2: Refactor the EV Equation in Terms of Focal Length

1. N = F/Number
2. t = shutter speed = 1 / focal length = 1 / f

(23)  

So what does this formula tell us?  Simple: "the lowest exposure value at which a given lens at maximum aperture can be handheld."  This may seem innocuous, but it allows us to assign a single numeric value to any lens which indicates its innate handholdability.  This is obviously very powerful, because now, all we need is a list of lenses, and we can find some interesting data.  Fortunately for us, a giant list of Canon lenses is only a click away (used from to Gallery1.co.uk).

Step 3: Plug in Values and Examine Results

Without further ado, here's a bunch of data!  First, a chart which shows many of the current Canon lenses and their associated handholdability ratings.  Second, a graph which relates this data visually.  A couple of surprises from this data:

1. The most handholdable lens is…the 15-85 3.5-5.6 IS USM!  This is mainly due to its 4 stop IS and relatively wide maximum aperture.  Take this with a grain of salt, as it's actually equivalent to a 28.8 mm lens on your favorite crop body (but who changes their 1/focal length rule when shooting crop anyway!).
2. The EF 200/2 IS is quite high in handholdability.  Mainly due to its MASSIVE aperture and 5 stop IS.
3. Lots of commodity lenses are in the top 20: 15-85, 18-55, 18-200, 17-85, 55-250…just goes to show that you don't need to buy L if you are shooting still subjects in the dark!
4. Surprisingly, the super fast primes are slightly lower in the list than expected – #10 for the 24/1.4, and #12 for the 50/1.0.
5. The 70-200/2.8 IS version 1 is no slouch in 13th place.  The newer version would beat out even some of the fast primes, since it gains a stop in IS improvement.

Conclusions and Next Steps

Well, if you've read this far, I applaud you.  I've tried to make this post as readable as possible, and would really appreciate feedback in that regard.  To summarize, we've learned:

1. What to care about when discussing handholdability, namely max aperture, and focal length.
2. How to relate focal length and max aperture together to compare one lens directly to another.
3. What EV and LV are and why they matter for this discussion.
4. How EV and LV can lead to us to a more generic solution for all lenses.

If you would like to download the spreadsheet which contains the data I've laid out in the chart and graph above, you can get it below.  Please, if you use this data or information on your site, send a friendly pointer my way.

Canon Lens Handholdability Analysis (XLS)

Canon Lens Handholdability Analysis (XLSX)

In the future, I hope to codify this data into an interactive tool that allows people to play with some variables that I have left out for this discussion.  I hope you have found this useful, I know I have!

Happy shooting!

Well, fresh from my trip with Haley, of course the next several days will be spent working on images.  Besides taking them all, the initial review on my computer is one of my favorite parts of the process.  It feels great to see them pop up on a large screen; like they have a new life when viewed properly (which cannot be said for the 1ds ii LCD…)

To begin, I randomly poked about on a few images from Leavenworth that weren't too exciting.  I decided to mess a bit with HDR, and spent a considerable amount of time stitching a 3 image wide, 7 shots per image, HDR panorama.  Needless to say, this took a bit of time.  Fortunately, I was having a nice conversation with my friend over ventrillo at the time, so it wasn't as much of a slog fest.  The end result was kind of boring…not sure if I'll upload or not. 

Now, you may wonder why I decided to edit my most boring images first.  Well, truth be told, the very first thing I did when I returned from my trip was to dump my cards on my computer, after which I immediately went to a set of night images I took during our last night on Lake Chelan.  These were probably the images that most excited me out of the thousand or so I took this weekend.  Unfortunately, the particular image I was most excited with was initially a bit vexing.  It happened to be an hour long exposure of the perfectly clear night sky and moon-illuminated mountains which surround the lake.  It's the longest single exposure I've done since I was in Canada several years ago, and seeing it on the big screen was akin to having film developed and seeing the images for the first time.  However, it was sub-par for a few reasons:

1. It was COVERED in sensor dust, due to the huge exposure length, small aperture, and expanses of subtle, single-color gradients (ie, the night sky).
2. It was overexposed by about 1/3rd of a stop (which ended up being a big deal), due to my over-correction of my tendency to under-expose night images.
3. Due to my choice to shoot at F/11 (mostly to keep the camera at native ISO), the star trails weren't as bright as I would have liked.

Being sub-par, I was pretty disappointed in myself initially, because they were kind of silly mistakes (except 3, which was a technical tradeoff), and the scene was absolutely stunning.  I spent a half hour or so Sunday attempting to get it to look like I wanted (and knocking out most of the sensor dust), but was not satisfied at the end.  This is why, when I came back to it today, I started in on the mediocre images of the trip to give me a good "crappiness baseline" to compare against my favorites from the trip.

I pulled up the image in question and erased all my previous edits.  I tried and tried to get just what I wanted, but wasn't having luck with any of the approaches I was using in Lightroom.  I decided to pop the image into Photoshop to see what I could do, and ended up spending 20-30 minutes messing with LAB channel masks before giving up and starting over ONCE AGAIN in Lightroom.  In case you were wondering, the difficulty I was having had to do with the fact that the foreground was much brighter than the star trails, and I wanted to make the stars pop against their background without modifying the nearly ideal exposure for the foreground.  The fact that I had overexposed slightly meant that I had basically zero highlight latitude in the image with which I could bring the stars AND foreground up as one unit.  I had tried a mixing of gradients and exposure adjustments initially, but it just wasn't working.  At the end of the day, I ended up zeroing out the image again, and instead of beginning with huge exposure adjustments and then using gradient layers to balance it out, I made some very slight exposure adjustments to the entire image, and then made what changes I wanted to the sky with gradients.  I finally ended up with something I felt decent about…but I must say that I am still not 100% satisfied.  I plan to learn more about channel masks in Photoshop and try to implement my changes there over the weekend.  The whole ordeal has reminded me of Ansel Adams' discussion on the difficulties of printing one of his favorite images: Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.

All of this makes me wish Lightroom had a better gradient system…specifically the ability to do:

1. More complicated layer masks (arbitrary lines, etc, that don't require tedious painting processes).
2. Related to 1), border detection for masks, or something similar to Nix's magical adjustment capabilities
3. Ability to map curves adjustments on gradients (this is a big hole, IMO).
4. Ability to do HSL adjustments on gradients.

Maybe this is something we'll see in LR4?  A man can hope.  Pics below, the first is my favorite from the trip, and the one which I have discussed above, the second is a 3 shot pano @ 2 mins per frame, of the same scene.

Hope you're all doing well!  Keep shooting!

Haley and I had just returned from a 3 day weekend tooling about Central Washington.  It was around 3 PM or so, and we had just finished lunch in Duvall at a wonderful place called the Armadillo BBQ.  Full and happy, we weren't yet quite ready to head home, so we decided to head on over to Snoqualmie falls, which is about 20 minutes from our apartment.  We arrived there at about quarter past three, and parked in our normal spot along the side of Fall City Road, away from the main parking lot.  We headed up to the (now renovated) viewing platform, and I began to take some shots.  We spent 30 minutes or so walking about and enjoying the setting sun when my camera battery went dead.  I decided to go back to the car, grab a new battery and a wider lens.

I returned to shooting for another 20 minutes or so, and at 4:30, Haley and I decided that we were ready to go home, enjoy a pizza, and relax a bit.  We arrived at our car, and, being preoccupied with cleaning a very wet UV filter, I wasn't paying much attention to my surroundings as I got into the car.  Haley, on the other hand, was.  "Check out that car to our left," she said, "it's got a broken window…".  Sure enough, the rear passenger window of the Lexus crossover to our left was broken, shards of glass sitting on the dirt next to the car.  I walked over and took a look, noticing that there was a lack of anything valuable remaining in the back seat.  Once I saw this, I told Haley to go talk to an employee at the falls' visitors center to maybe see if they could make an announcement to get the attention of the owners of the vehicle.  I decided to wait in our car to see if the owners came over.  While waiting, I once again resumed polishing my grubby filter, and, looking up a few minutes later, saw a group of 5 people milling around the Lexus in question.

I set aside my filter and walked over to them, asking if it was their vehicle.  "Yes," an older man responded.  I began to tell him and his wife that Haley and I had returned to our car at 4:38 to see the broken window, and that Haley had gone to inform the park employees.  I told them to call the police immediately, and that Haley and I would stick around until they arrived, just in case the police needed a statement from us.  Immediately upon mentioning "police," one of the couple's companions, we'll call her Jane (to protect the innocent), started bawling uncontrollably.  She was absolutely beside herself.  She was so distraught that she began to roll on the ground and hold herself around her knees.  All the while her friends were attempting, unsuccessfully, to console her.  This is when the story gets sad. 

The only item stolen from the car was Jane's purse.  Now, given my description of her emotional state, you may be wondering why she was so upset.  Normally, when one loses a purse, a wallet, what have you, it's an inconvenience.  Most of us can cancel our credit cards, recover our licenses, and recoup the 36 or so dollars we lost in the process.  Of course, one cannot discount the feeling of being violated that comes along with having something personal stolen by a complete stranger; however, most of the time people don't go to pieces, like Jane was currently doing.  In this case, though, Jane's purse contained her entire life.  As we found out, she was a visiting scholar from abroad who was in the states for 6 months.  Her purse contained several thousand dollars cash, her work visa, her passport, all of her identification, credit cards, and, worst of all, flash drives containing her life's work.  In short, this bag contained everything she needed to get by in a foreign land, as well as several items which were impossible to replace.  We tried to offer her some water, something to eat, some kleenex, but she was completely (and rightly so) inconsolable.

Fifteen minutes later, a sheriff arrived and began to ask some questions.  He kept a professional demeanor, given the circumstances.  While he did seem a bit distant, it was obvious that there was only so much he could do in this particular case.  There was no evidence to collect, no security footage, nothing to aid in any kind of investigation except for the "testimony" of Haley and I, which amounted to being the first to see the broken window.  We stayed for another twenty minutes while the officer finished his questioning and it was obvious we were no longer needed.  The owners of the car thanked us for our time and we headed home.

On the way back, I realized a few things about the situation.  First, was the incredible speed at which, upon seeing the broken window and realizing what had happened, my mind went immediately to Haley's and my own belongings and whether or not anything was missing from our own car.  I suppose I can't claim to not be a selfish individual when such things as this happen.  Second was my realization about how incredibly painful it can be for something to be stolen from you.  Up until this point, I had considered stealing to be one of the "minor" transgressions that is always forgivable.  I suppose this is not surprising, given the culture of "mystique" and "honor" we build up around stealing through things like "Robin Hood" and "The Thomas Crown Affair", but, really, it can tear someone apart.  Imagine someone stealing your life's work, intentionally or not.  Would you be able to forgive him or her?  I wouldn't.  And I doubt Jane will be able to, either.

I hope against hope that everything will work out for this woman, a woman who now will think of Seattle, and the United States, as the "place where my entire life was stolen."  I hope, too, that perhaps the thieves who stole her purse will make some attempt at returning some of her irreplaceables.  It is unlikely that either of these things will happen.  If you know anything, contact the Snoqualmie Police Department.

In the mean time, here's a photo to cheer you up.

This is just a small writeup I did when asked "what features matter" in an entry level SLR purchase.  Of course, it all depends on use case, but here's a stab at it, and what I would by given different budgets right now.  I presume little to no knowledge of cameras in this post (hopefully I've delivered there):

Full disclosure: I shoot a Canon 7D and Canon 1Ds Mark II, so, while I hope I was not biased in this post, take my suggestions with this in mind.

Min / Max ISO sensitivity – this is a number, like 100, 200, 400, etc, which approximates how sensitive the sensor is to light.  The higher the number, the more sensitive.  What this means is if you have a camera that maxes out at 12,800 ISO and one which maxes out at 3200, the one which maxes out at the higher number will allow you to take sharper pictures in lower light.  Every doubling of the ISO effectively doubles the light sensitivity, allowing you to double your shutter speed.  If you imagine a darkly lit party where you are shooting at 1/15th of a second with your 3200 ISO camera and getting blurry shot after blurry shot, the camera which maxes out at 12,800 ISO would let you shoot at 1/60th of a second, which would allow you to take sharp pictures without much issue.

Image Resolution (Mega Pixels) – Any current entry level camera body is going to have at least a 12 MP resolution, and many will have more.  12 MP will allow you to make great prints…16x20s are no problem, and you can go plenty higher from there.  Lots of people will tell you megapixels dont matter any more.  The reason being that any camera today can output an image of sufficient quality to hang on your wall.  This is true…if you don't ever plan to crop your images.  As soon as you start cropping things, though, megapixels start to matter.  If you crop half the image away on a 12 MP shot, you are left with 6 MP to play with, which can be limiting if you are printing (but will still look great on a computer monitor).  If you think you won't crop / make any prints, this is not something you need to worry about…just consider your use cases before making it a feature you care about.

Screen quality – obviously digital cameras have a screen, but up until 2 years ago, they were pitifully low resolution for their size.  Older cameras typically have 230k pixels in their screens.  This is borderline questionable for being able to determine if a shot is sharp or not.  Newer cameras will have 920,000 pixels or more, and it makes a huge difference in usability.  I would recommend to consider this a big selling point.  FWIW, some of the lower-end Nikons still have 230k pixel screens.

Number of dedicated external buttons – okay, this is much harder to quantify, but you will notice it quickly if you go somewhere to handle the camera.  The reason this is important is, if you actually get into photography, you will want to change settings quickly.  If you are using a point and shoot now, you may or may not know the pain of changing things like focus points or ISO sensitivity, etc.  The more buttons you can devote to quick operations like this, the better prepared you are to change them as fast as possible when you need to.  Honestly, though, if you think you will be in auto mode the whole time and don't expect to invest time in learning about aperture, shutter speeds, and how they affect your image, this point doesn't matter at all.  If you were looking for 1 button, I would make it the ability to change ISO sensitivity with one press.

Ability to do "live view" – SLRs are designed to divert light to a physical viewfinder to allow the user to frame a shot.  Obviously this becomes problematic when shooting at strange angles, as your face needs to be smashed up against the cam to see what's in the frame and what isn't.  Live view shows you a "live" image as it appears on the sensor by exposing the sensor directly to light and outputting the result on the back screen.  This is great for strange shooting situations, tripod use, over-the-head use, etc, and also allows you to lock in focus extremely precisely (you can magnify the image and ensure spot on focus).  True, you will primarily be using the physical viewfinder, but having live view is a huge plus for around 20% of shooting situations.

# of AutoFocus points – this kind of doens't matter, but kind of does.  It really depends who you ask and what kind of shooting you will be doing.  In an SLR, as I mentioned, light coming through the lens is diverted to a physical viewfinder to allow you to frame the image.  Part of this light is split off before hitting your eye onto a passive autofocus sensor.  This is a piece of silicon with physical "points" that map to points inscribed on your viewfinder.  When you focus the camera, whatever is on your currently selected point will snap into focus.  Obviously, the more points on that piece of silicon, the more "choices" you have when focusing the camera.  This is important, because for a given composition, the thing you want in focus has a higher probability of falling onto an autofocus point if there are more of them.  The thing is that, unless you are really going to invest in the hobby, 9 or so is more than sufficient for your needs.  The good news is that most all entry level cameras offer 9 points, laid out in a way which covers almost all of the frame.  That said, I would avoid any cameras with 3-5 AF points…that's where the AF point layout can seriously hinder what you can do when taking a photo.  Just as a point of reference, the current pro bodies have 45-51 AF points, something which becomes much more important if you are going to be doing a lot of action photography (sports, birds/wildlife, etc).

Continuous Shooting Speed / Buffer Depth – This is probably the most obvious…these are two numbers, measured in FPS / number of frames, respectively, which define:

1) How fast the camera can shoot
2) How many consecutive images it can take before it has to slow down to flush that info to the memory card

These figures, again, are very important to action photographers.  If you aren't interested in that, stop here.  If you are, then almost any entry level camera is going to fall short here.  Most entry cams shoot around 3-4 FPS with a 30-35 JPEG frame / 6 RAW frame buffer.  If you are shooting RAW, this means you are having to slow down your shooting rate 2 seconds after starting.  This really hampers action photographers, as they will machine gun for several seconds at much higher frame rates to capture peak action.  As such, I wouldn't really worry about this figure for most entry level cams, as, if you want to do that kind of shooting,  you are better off going up a couple notches to a quicker camera body.

HD Video – going to be short with this one…  Newer cameras allow you to shoot extremely high quality HD video (read: several feature length films have been made with DSLRs).  This may not make much sense, but the fact that SLRs, which have HUGE sensors in comparison to typical video cameras, can shoot video is a big deal.  The quality they are capable of outputting is akin to cameras which, when this technology was debuting, cost several 10's to 100's of thousands of dollars.  If this is something that interests you, make sure you get a model which can capture at 24 and 30 FPS at full 1080P.  Some models capture their video at 20, which is shit, or at 720P, which is okay, but not great for making "real" videos.

Viewfinder quality / coverage – this doesn't really matter for entry level cams…as you step up, viewfinders get bigger / have more coverage of the scene.  If someone tells you to make this a selling point on an entry level body < the 1000 dollar mark, he's full of it, as most all of them are exactly the same.  If you want to be sure for yourself, hold them up to your face and compare :).

Conclusions:
All this said, spec sheets are only going to get you so far.  You really need to go into a camera shop and handle some of the models within your price range.  Take some shots, mess with settings as you take them, see how they feel in your hand, and leave the store with the one that feels the best in your hand and is the most intuitive for you to use.  SLRs do have a decent learning curve, so you probably wont be able to feel "at home" right away with any of them.  However, if you have to reach awkwardly for buttons, or end up bumping stuff with your face, or don't like how it fits your hand, then it's probably not the camera you should buy.

If I was going to buy a camera right now, here would be my choices for the sub  1500 dollar bracket:

1200 – Nikon D7000 (body only, no lens) (Canon 7D is a good choice for a couple hundred more, as well, but it's an older cam than the D7000)
900 – Canon 60D or a Nikon D90 (body only, no lens) (Nikon is an older camera here)
800 – Canon T2i w/ 18-55 IS lens
600 – Nikon D3100 or Canon T1i w/ 18-55 IS lens (Canon is an older camera here)

Honestly, for the price point, the T2i is probably the best featured camera out there.  It's a really, really good value.  If 800 is too much, the D3100 is very similar to the T2i, for a couple hundred bucks less.  If you can swing 900, the Canon 60D is a great choice, but it won't come with a lens, so expect to invest another 200 there.  For 1200, the D7000 blows any current offering away…it's a phenomenal camera, but you'd be looking at 1400-1500 to pick it up with a lens.

At the end of the day, I would pick up a Canon T2i, and if you have some money left over, get a 50mm/1.8 II lens, it's 100 bucks, sharp as shit, and will let you take pictures in very dark conditions hand-held.

Well, some entry level Canon stuff was announced today.  Among various point and shoots (one of which has GPS…neat) was the new Rebel offering (image courtesy of dpreview):

No surprise there, more of the "incremental feature adjustments" that makes Canon's lower end so…odd.  Let's take a look at the main changes from the T2i (550D) and the T3i (600D).  Courtesy of "oldscotch" via reddit.com are the following key differences:

• Vari-angle display
• Scene intelligent Auto Mode
• 'Basic+' creative controls in scene modes
• 'Creative Filters' can be applied to images in playback mode
• Multi-aspect ratio shooting (3:2, 4:3, 16:9, 1:1, previewable in Live View)
• Integrated Wireless flash controller with multi-flash support
• 'Video Snapshot' mode
• Auto Lighting Optimizer now adjustable in 4 levels
• Feature Guide
• Image rating (1-5 stars)
• Eye sensor for LCD display replaced by 'DISP' button
• Marginally larger and heavier

Shall we categorize a bit?  Let's make a table, where one column represents hardware improvements, and the other represents software improvements:

Notice I've left out "heavier" and "removal of eye sensor" as improvements, because….they aren't.  So, what you're left with is a bunch of firmware changes, a small screen improvement (depending on who you ask), and a "trickle down" feature (albiet an awesome one) from the 7D that was likely trivial to implement.  So, does it really take the Canon engineers 12 months to write some pretty basic software code and add some small hardware improvements?  Guess so.  Maybe the marketers spent all that time finding that consumery sweet spot, and told the engineers with 3 months left in their schedule.  Alas, all that said, Canon knows what they are doing, if their 2010 profits are any judge.

I was quite excited to see the 200-400 being developed.  The integrated extender is gold…what a great idea!  Just look at this beast (image courtesy of dpreview):

Canon is doing really strong the telephoto space, it seems, with all of the fresh new lenses they've released.  IIRC, they now have a 200/2, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, 800/5.6 that are all less than 2 years old.  I expect most other manufacturers to follow suit, and then maybe Canon can work on something like that sexy, sexy Nikon 14-24 2.8.

Complaining aside, my new Dell U3011 arrives tomorrow, to replace my randomly fried Samsung 24 incher that is off for repair.  Hoping to rock a triple monitor setup once I grab another vid card for some SLI action.  I'm also pretty excited to have a monitor with a decent color gamut…I've been holding off on photo editing ever since my Samsung died, since my only means of doing so is on a very yellowish old Dell 20 inch flat panel.  There is something to be said, though, that this 6 year old 20 inch Dell, that has been transported at least 10 times, once across the country, has had absolutely zero issues.  Meanwhile, a 1 year old Samsung that hasn't moved since it was purchased randomly fried itself one day.

I went out for a nice evening with Haley and Brad this Saturday.  We wanted to head to the Winter Festival, but learned quickly upon arriving that it was kind of…child-oriented.  Instead, we went to the market, ate some piroshki's, and drank a bit.  Our nightcap was Sopranos back at the apartment.  A good day!

Here are some shots.

Hope your Thanksgiving was a good one!

We had some very early snow this year on the West coast.  It was 20 here in Seattle while at the same time Boston was sitting at a balmy 60 degrees.  Unfair?  Maybe.  Scary?  Yes.  Many drivers here cannot mentally rationalize more than a nanometer of snow.  This is strange, because it rains a billion inches a year here.  Alas.

So, what did I do?  Well, besides from being really productive while working at home (seriously), I went outside and took some shots before the sun set each day.  They aren't great.  But hey, whatever.  My rules were:

1. B&W
2. No toning
3. 35mm only (on an FF cam)
4. Walk no more than 200 feet from apartment door

Here you go:

Happy Holidays!  Be safe.

Eh, I woke up to snow and scary drivers today.  Ended up spending most of my day at home, working on various power points / bug triages / schedules for work, but I did get a chance to take a couple shots of the newly fallen snow before it got too dark.  I can't say I was too thrilled with the results, but it was a fun diversion in an otherwise busy day.  I've also started looking at some of my untouched shots from the Olympics over the last few days.  I think there are still some decent ones to be found in there, I just have to spend the time to look at all of them closely and decide what best represents my time there.

It's an interesting challenge, trying to distill 1400 + pictures into a few defining moments.  I suppose if I were REALLY good, they would ALL be defining moments, but hey, what are you going to do.  Anyway, here are a few shots, apologies to those who follow my Flickr stream, because you have already seen these :).

Enjoy the winter weather, wherever you are.

Just finished editing some shots from my sojourn to the Fall City area yesterday.  I was hoping to catch a bit of sun, but it got pretty socked in as I was driving, and I only got to catch a glimpse of the sunset through the clouds.  I spent about 40 minutes at the top of the falls and got absolutely soaked to the bone.  Not having waterproof gloves on me meant that my hands went numb rather quickly…I'm definitely going to invest in a pair soon.  I was shooting with both cams, complimented by the 70-200 and 24-70, and was happy that they performed admirably despite being as soaked as I was.  Though, I must say that I still get nervous when my cameras get wet, but history has borne out that Canon's weather sealing is no joke.  Once I had exhausted my possibilities on the top of the falls, I started looking for the trail down past the hydroelectric plant that leads to the base of the falls.  I was saddend to find out, after 5 minutes of aimless searching, that there is some serious rennovation going on down there, and as such the trail won't be open until March of 2013.

When I got tired of waiting for light to hit the falls, and finally realized I couldn't get to the base, I ended up going to the edge of the river and seeing what I could make of the surroundings a half a mile down river of the falls.  I had seen some guys fishing there when I drove by earlier, and hoped that I could catch some shots before they packed it up for the night.  Lucky for me, the two I had spotted an hour ago were still there, standing knee-deep in freezing water.  I snapped a few dozen shots with the 7D + 70-200 and was about to head to the water's edge when I noticed someone walking up the road.  Once he got closer, I realized that it was another fisherman who had been fishing a few hundred yards down river.  As he walked by, I asked him if he had caught anything, and subsequently ended up talking for 5 minutes.  His name was Seth, and he told me that he had been out since 11, and that the guys I was photographing were his buddies.  He hadn't caught any keepers – "only a couple 8 inch steelhead" – but that didn't seem to bother him.  I think my favorite thing about this encounter was what he said as he was walking away.  As we said goodbye and he was walking away, he asked me if I was a professional photographer.  "Just a hobby, like you and fishing," I said.  He yelled back: "No way!  I'm going pro!"  Awesome.  Makes me wonder when I will be able to say that with such confidence :).

Here are some shots.  I hope you enjoy them!

Have a good day, and stay warm!

And got really wet.  And was sad the Snoqualmie trail is closed until March 2013.  And met a fisherman named Seth.  And tried on my new hiking pants (thanks Jim and Norine!)

All in all, it was a good day.  More to come tomorrow.  For now, a pic.

An interesting conversation about art and photography I had this morning with my artist / musician / friend Ario.

(10:49:44 AM) arioelami: i read your newest post
(10:50:39 AM) arioelami: what is your reservation about photographs of waterfalls?
(10:55:25 AM) st33nwyk: i dont know…
(10:55:27 AM) st33nwyk: i just
(10:55:31 AM) st33nwyk: dont find them interesting
(10:55:35 AM) st33nwyk: or didnt
(10:55:38 AM) arioelami: do you think it is like the shot of the lone tree on the hill
(10:55:43 AM) st33nwyk: haha
(10:55:49 AM) st33nwyk: no, i like those, typically
(10:56:01 AM) st33nwyk: but i guess
(10:56:06 AM) arioelami: i was wondering if it was coming from notions of cliches
(10:56:17 AM) st33nwyk: its just because they feel so compositionally limiting
(10:56:23 AM) st33nwyk: that, a bit
(10:56:50 AM) st33nwyk: did you go to the link of that guy who does almost exclusively waterfall sh ots
(10:56:54 AM) st33nwyk: he does a good job
(10:57:02 AM) arioelami: no, not yet
(10:57:09 AM) arioelami: i will now
(10:57:17 AM) st33nwyk: i dont have the practice he has to do as well, but i've always not been very interested in them as a subject
(10:57:29 AM) st33nwyk: are there things you arent immediately interested in as a subject?
(10:58:03 AM) arioelami: in terms of other people's work or my own?
(10:58:33 AM) st33nwyk: both, i suppose
(10:59:52 AM) arioelami: i mean, it kind of depends on how you're defining subject as a word. because a subject can be what you see, or what the work is "really" about.
(11:00:10 AM) st33nwyk: ah yes
(11:00:46 AM) arioelami: like i am not specifically interested in the visual experience of a lot of minimal art, but i enjoy the implications sometimes that come out of discussing or thinking about the work.
(11:01:27 AM) arioelami: but yeah, there are things i'm right away less interested in, graphically
(11:01:43 AM) arioelami: graffiti would probably be one
(11:01:52 AM) arioelami: another would be children
(11:02:00 AM) st33nwyk: hm
(11:02:04 AM) arioelami: cars?
(11:02:08 AM) st33nwyk: so why, would you say, that is
(11:02:28 AM) st33nwyk: like, i would say i am typically drawn to large vistas bathed in interesting light
(11:02:40 AM) st33nwyk: or perhaps rainy overcast conditions
(11:03:11 AM) arioelami: it's hard to say, because this comes down to very personal reactions on an intuitive level, i think
(11:03:47 AM) st33nwyk: yeah
(11:04:03 AM) arioelami: i could at least say with graffiti, it is tied to a practice that i find often visually damages the place where it makes its mark
(11:04:15 AM) arioelami: so part of that is just irritation with associated action
(11:04:36 AM) st33nwyk: i see
(11:04:44 AM) arioelami: i also think about he chemicals used for graffiti, which smell unpleasant
(11:05:00 AM) st33nwyk: so its tied to something beyond just the visual appearance at hand
(11:05:14 AM) st33nwyk: i suppose i have the same thing with some of the photos ive taken
(11:05:17 AM) st33nwyk: im sure everyone does
(11:05:18 AM) arioelami: right, it has a social application, and i don't like that application
(11:05:27 AM) st33nwyk: they represent something more than just themselves
(11:06:03 AM) st33nwyk: do you think art should be appreciated with an impartial eye?
(11:06:16 AM) st33nwyk: as in, is it not important the context under which the work was made?
(11:06:20 AM) arioelami: i think it's impossible to appreciate art with an impartial eye
(11:06:40 AM) st33nwyk: but, i mean, a photo of my family is going to be incredibly important to me, but not to others
(11:06:50 AM) st33nwyk: it may be a shit photo, but i may love it simply for that fact
(11:07:05 AM) st33nwyk: i find it's hard to separate oneself as an artist from one's work
(11:07:22 AM) arioelami: i think it's easy to make the separation once the work is done, though
(11:07:29 AM) arioelami: if that is even a separation
(11:07:34 AM) st33nwyk: why do you say that?
(11:07:57 AM) arioelami: i don't know, i feel most connected to anything when i'm actually working on it
(11:08:09 AM) arioelami: once it's done it's a public object
(11:08:30 AM) st33nwyk: but your work on something is protracted
(11:08:37 AM) st33nwyk: it can last for days, weeks, months
(11:08:49 AM) st33nwyk: for a photographer, at least, tripping the shutter takes an instant
(11:09:08 AM) st33nwyk: of course, there is post processing, and the kind of "meta" aspects of actually going out and sh ooting, or doing a project
(11:09:36 AM) st33nwyk: but i almost think that because there isnt as intimate (imo) a connection for a photographer to the actual act of doing the thing, that it becomes harder to let go once it's complete
(11:09:37 AM) arioelami: but don't you actually go into programs and edit your photos for lengthy periods of time? isn't that an extension of the process
(11:09:42 AM) st33nwyk: yes, it is
(11:09:56 AM) st33nwyk: but, i dont think it's nearly as in depth as the things you do
(11:10:12 AM) st33nwyk: i mean, if you are doing something truly fantastic, it takes some time
(11:10:22 AM) st33nwyk: but it's measured in hours, typically
(11:11:18 AM) arioelami: i'm not so sure i measure connection in terms of time taken
(11:11:24 AM) st33nwyk: i suppose the difference is that the volume of a photographer is much higher, so his or her entire body of work needs to be that much more pointed
(11:11:38 AM) st33nwyk: well, i dont get connected to the photographs i take when i post process them
(11:11:47 AM) st33nwyk: its more the experience surrounding them that is important
(11:12:15 AM) st33nwyk: like the process of hiking somewhere remote and waking up at ungodly hours and watching the light come over a mountain as the sun rises
(11:12:58 AM) st33nwyk: its very much about the making of the photograph, not just the moment the shutter trips, but all the things surrounding how i got to that point
(11:14:18 AM) arioelami: yeah
(11:14:46 AM) arioelami: and there are some people who don't even physically take a photograph or are there when the photograph is taken
(11:14:51 AM) arioelami: it's kind of hard to measure connection
(11:15:14 AM) arioelami: *aren't
(11:15:40 AM) arioelami: i'm thinking of one person who set up a camera system near a city street that would randomly take shots of pedestrians
(11:15:45 AM) arioelami: and that formed the material for a work
(11:16:07 AM) st33nwyk: see, for me, i wouldn't be interested in doing that
(11:16:18 AM) st33nwyk: because, like you said, im not there experiencing it first-hand
(11:16:25 AM) arioelami: yeah. some people aren't concerned with the connection
(11:16:31 AM) arioelami: actually, shunning the connection could be the basis for the work
(11:16:38 AM) st33nwyk: which is really interesting, though
(11:16:39 AM) arioelami: taking on a mechanical persona
(11:16:45 AM) st33nwyk: because compare it to drawing or painting
(11:16:56 AM) st33nwyk: which inherently requires some input
(11:17:07 AM) arioelami: it goes back to warhol sort of (aaaaaa)
(11:17:17 AM) arioelami: who said he wanted to be a machine
(11:17:22 AM) st33nwyk: this is why I think that it must be much harder to do the same thing in that area of art
(11:17:25 AM) st33nwyk: oh yeah?
(11:17:38 AM) arioelami: drawing or painting doesn't necessarily require input
(11:17:43 AM) arioelami: you could have a machine do either of those too
(11:17:47 AM) arioelami: (which has been done)
(11:18:10 AM) arioelami: then it becomes "is it art if a person didn't physically make these marks" which kind of isn't that interesting to me
(11:18:19 AM) arioelami: my interest depends on the day and how much food i've had
(11:18:19 AM) st33nwyk: but really…how could you do that
(11:18:23 AM) st33nwyk: there is still input required
(11:18:25 AM) st33nwyk: you have to direct the machine
(11:18:32 AM) st33nwyk: unless you are saying its somehow automatic
(11:18:40 AM) arioelami: you have to build the machine, but you don't have to direct it
(11:18:48 AM) arioelami: it could be as simple as a rope mechanism
(11:19:06 AM) arioelami: where you just attach a brush to a rope and let it fall and brush against the canvas like a pendulum until it stops
(11:19:23 AM) arioelami: it's prompted by one action, but the ripple effect is mechanical
(11:19:52 AM) st33nwyk: i see
(11:20:09 AM) st33nwyk: i suppose that makes a statement on its own, i just dont care for it
(11:21:38 AM) arioelami: these waterfall photos are fine
(11:21:45 AM) arioelami: this actually ties into something i wanted to write about
(11:22:05 AM) st33nwyk: and what's that
(11:22:13 AM) st33nwyk: you mean the shots of cascade creations?
(11:22:53 AM) arioelami: uh yeah
(11:23:03 AM) arioelami: was looking for what you were taking about
(11:23:07 AM) arioelami: cascadekreations
(11:24:22 AM) arioelami: it's about how photography invites a critical element, or absolute quality, to a real place or object(s) and how that potentially ruins the memory or presence of those things
(11:24:59 AM) arioelami: maybe it ties into native american ideas about photographs
(11:25:03 AM) arioelami: i'm not really sure yet
(11:25:11 AM) st33nwyk: hm
(11:25:17 AM) arioelami: i got to thinking about it after reading a few texts
(11:25:27 AM) st33nwyk: but being critical of a photograph has nothing to do with the thing that was photographed
(11:25:27 AM) arioelami: and seeing my mom photograph these places in maine
(11:25:44 AM) arioelami: how do you mean
(11:25:59 AM) st33nwyk: like the quality of the subject is not denegrated by a bad photograph, and nor is it elevated by a good one
(11:26:19 AM) arioelami: well, that's something i kind of want to figure out
(11:26:25 AM) arioelami: i'm not sure that's actually true
(11:26:25 AM) st33nwyk: the subject just is, making a photograph of it is just the act of preserving it in time for whatever reason
(11:26:36 AM) st33nwyk: a photograph represents something
(11:26:55 AM) st33nwyk: if the representation is a foul one, fine, but it needs to be taken with a grain of salt, so to speak
(11:27:03 AM) st33nwyk: like i can portray something any way i want to
(11:27:09 AM) st33nwyk: but it becomes my portrayal of it
(11:27:14 AM) st33nwyk: not the viewer's
(11:28:15 AM) arioelami: i think i would approach the subject as photography in terms of myself as a photographer (not a Photographer, but a person who can take photos if i want to)
(11:28:41 AM) arioelami: i almost never take photographs and when i kind of wish i hadn't
(11:28:46 AM) arioelami: *when i do
(11:29:17 AM) st33nwyk: is that because you dont feel you can adequately represent what you are trying to photograph, and, due to that, you feel the experience was cheapened by taking a picture?
(11:30:57 AM) arioelami: i think it might come down to me seeing a photograph taken by myself as a kind of experiential container, and i prefer having the experience dependent upon the real place or just what i can remember — not an object that turns the experience into a fact, if that makes sense
(11:31:44 AM) st33nwyk: but that fact should remind you of the experience. that fact isn't the experience itself, it's just an entry point into the thing as a whole
(11:31:58 AM) st33nwyk: a really good photograph brings others within that experience
(11:32:25 AM) arioelami: but the experience isn't actually there anymore
(11:32:46 AM) st33nwyk: that's the beauty of it, to some degree
(11:33:03 AM) st33nwyk: isnt that what one is doing when one makes art? capturing something eternally in some form?
(11:34:52 AM) arioelami: that's situational, i think. i'm not capturing anything real when i draw a landscape. even if i were to draw from a real place, i'd still be making an edit, since drawing cannot ever capture a scene precisely, insofar as how that scene is exactly rendered to our eyes
(11:35:31 AM) arioelami: a photograph is exactly as something is in that exact time and place
(11:35:58 AM) arioelami: i'm not making a qualitative judgment, here btw
(11:35:58 AM) st33nwyk: isnt that just "creative license" :). I mean, every time i edit a photo i'm removing it from reality. hell, even when I take the photo, i make choices that remove it from being exactly what my eye might see
(11:36:05 AM) st33nwyk: yeah i know
(11:36:20 AM) st33nwyk: but it's not, a photograph is not exactly what something is
(11:36:42 AM) st33nwyk: i mean, take a look at this photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/absencesix/5023355425/
(11:36:42 AM) arioelami: in what way
(11:36:49 AM) st33nwyk: that is simply not what anyone's eye could see, ever
(11:37:10 AM) st33nwyk: even straight from the camera it's not "realistic"
(11:37:13 AM) arioelami: so what are you documenting then?
(11:37:51 AM) st33nwyk: well, interestingly, i documented non-reality at that point
(11:38:02 AM) st33nwyk: you see, the waves were crashing quite hard
(11:38:09 AM) st33nwyk: so i wanted to remove them from the picture, so to speak
(11:38:22 AM) st33nwyk: and have it be just about the stacks and the water
(11:38:39 AM) st33nwyk: so i chose a long exposure that would make the waves seem almost like a mist
(11:39:40 AM) arioelami: that unreality comes back to what i was saying about memory
(11:40:14 AM) arioelami: i like that i have these places in my head and that their apparent quality is subject to all the errors and modifications i've made through memorizing them
(11:40:35 AM) st33nwyk: so, photographing it "dehumanizes" the experience?
(11:41:29 AM) arioelami: i don't know about that. i'm really hesitant to condemn an entire method to futility.

I'm finally getting around to processing some of the shots from my recent Oregon trip.  The ones you see below are from our last day, which was spent mostly on the road eating Voodoo doughnuts and enjoying the countryside.  The drive back was quite astonishing.  We began by taking the historic Columbia River Highway, which winds its way along several dozen waterfalls on its way parallel to the Columbia River.  I must say, before this time I was generally…skeptical…of waterfalls.  What I mean by this is that there are not many waterfall shots that I truly enjoy.  As such, I didn't think that I would really enjoy actually shooting them.  I was completely wrong.  What a blast!  Something about freezing the never-ending torrent in time is just satisfying.  I won't say that I did a very good job (this guy, on the other hand, is a waterfall genius), but I did really dug standing in the mist and working with the camera.

After overcast and falls and getting wet came the trip through the more arid parts of Oregon and Washington.  This local offers its own own charm, but this particular time though was mind-blowing.  We sidled up next to the Hood around sunset and had 2 hours of simply astonishing light.  Light was kissing the hills and valleys around us every which way, and the sky was just…I don't think I've seen anything like it, to be honest.  The clouds were like someone had taken a giant sheet and draped it across the sky creating hundreds of folds that caught every ray of light differently.  And the sun was this blood-orange color that made everything seem on fire.  My only spot of sadness about this entire trip was that I didn't ask to pull over the car and get some proper shots.  I do now know, however, that I will be going back as soon as the weather permits.

Here are some shots.

I was editing images from Portland, and found an interesting distinction between those images taken with a circular polarizer and those which weren't.  In the back of our heads, I think we all have an idea of what polarizers are for, but not often do we get a first-hand sense of what they can do for our images.

I've used polarizers typically only when there are large swaths of blue skies, clouds, or reflections to knock out.  In this sense, my applications were pretty limited – I probably only have it on for 10% of my total shooting time.  Many times, I don't bother putting it on at all, and think to myself after the fact that it wouldn't have made a difference anyway.  This is because (IMO) seeing the difference in the field is really, really hard.  Yes, you can see a bit through the viewfinder, and the LCD, but the full nuances of the effect are masked until you get home and take a looksie on the monitor.  Yes, we've all seen the drastic transformations polarizers can bring to clouds and summery blue skies, but what about a scene like the one below?

Let's evaluate the scene a bit:

• Flat lighting (overcast)
• Lots of foliage
• Many reflections close in brightness to the scene itself
• Lots of open shade

Now, mouse over the image to see what it looks like with a B&W CPL at full effect.

Just as an FYI: both images are straight from the camera with zero editing.  Some notable improvements I notice are:

• Better contrast ratio between the water and surroundings
• Distracting reflections in the water toned down dramatically
• Fewer distracting reflections on the foliage
• Richer colors in the foreground (look at the ground in the bottom right corner)
• Richer colors in the foliage
• Better separation from the greens and reds of the Japanese maple in the foreground

Of course, the more standard uses of polarizers still apply, as seen below.

I suppose if there is one take-away from this post it would be this: polarizers are a specialized tool, and we all have some preconceived notions on how they should be used; however, there are situations where, while they do not create as dramatic an effect, polarizers can be used to add that extra bit of something to an image to make it that much better.

So, would I be happy with the first image?  Probably.  Is the second image better?  Definitely – I would pick it over the non-polarized image every time.  Which image do you prefer?

I was reminded today about some of those special moments one has travelling.  I think a lot of us travel to experience the world, to try a new food, to see a new place, to witness an exotic way of life firsthand.  Much of travelling, on its surface, seems to me to be the broadening of horizons on a few important, but limited levels.  That is, we go so far out of our way for the sights, sounds, and tastes of a new place, but sometimes completely miss what makes travelling truly wonderful: the people we meet.

Let me be clear: I am certainly not well travelled, even among my close friends.  I have been many places in the US, true, but few beyond our borders, whereas I have friends under 25 who have already spent years of their lives abroad.  I don't necessarily regret this, but I think it is important to note that many of my excursions are local (if numerous), and so one might say that I don't have the same experience travelling that others do.  That being said, I would characterize much of my travels as focusing around what I will call "areas of interest."  I think we all do this at some point or another.  Travelling becomes about the visceral, and is almost its primary goal.  That's why I wake up at 4 am to take photos – I want to see the beauty of ths sunrise.  That's why I hike until my legs want to give out, schlepping 30 lbs of camera gear up to the top of some peak, so I can see the vista and subsequently record it for posterity (I suppose).  Hell, that's why I do pretty much anything related to travel.  There is always some goal, some thing, at the end of the road which drives me to go somewhere.  Whether it's a mountain peak or a museum, a restaraunt or a waterpark, it doesn't matter.  It appears that it's all about the end result.

I must say, though, tonight I've come to realize that this end result is not what makes a trip really special.  Sure, I won't forget watching the sun rise from the headland on Rialto, or the cloudbreak I had right as Haley and I got to the top of Maple Pass. Nor will I forget the sun rise over Mormon Row, or the moon rise over Mount Moran almost 3 years ago.  But really, if you asked me what was the defining moment of my Teton trip, it wouldn't be the phenomenal sights, it would be the two guys I waterskiied with at 6 am on Jackson Lake, and ate elk with on into the late night.  If you asked me what the most important part of coming through Hell's Canyon a few summers past, it wouldn't be sitting under the night sky watching the Milky Way rise into view, it would be the muzzle-loader-toting mama who fed us frozen pizza and regailed us with hunting stories.  Similarly, if you ask me what really stood out about this trip to Portland, it wouldn't be watching the moon rise over Cannon Beach, it would be two people I met over wine while relaxing in the hotel lounge.

We met Caron and Ross over a dog.  Specifically, their wonderful chocolate schnauzer whose temperment made Larry King seem like a punk rocker.  All of us, loving animals as we do, immediately begin trading stories and pictures and laughs about our pets, pulling out iphones and cameras and the like to prove the various claims of cuteness we were making.  Most people would stop there, shake hands, and politely turn the conversation inwards, back to our respective cliques, but not this time.  Caron was incredibly warm, and interesting, and genuinely interested in what we had to say and in who we were, as people.  She asked questions to every one of us, questions which weren't ones like "what's your name" or "what do you do," but real, important questions; questions which made you feel part of the conversation and engaged you to talk more and more.  We found out that she was an educator, and that she had two kids, 20 and 23, both of whom were engineers.  We found out that her husband (who, at that time, was absent) was an artist, specializing in oil landscapes.  We found out that she lived in Vancouver with her husband, but grew up in Saskatchewan, and lived (at one point) 250 miles south of the Arctic Circle.  

Soon, her husband sat down, and I could just tell that they were made for each other.  They were so obviously in love, it was just wonderful to see.  Of course, once I found out Ross was an artist, I was keenly interested in his work and what drove him.  He was gracious, and just as endearing as his wife, and a pleasure to talk to.  Eventually we learned that Ross was a career firefighter, but had been interested in drawing since he was in 6th grade.  We learned, too, that he had started painting "only 20 years ago" (as if that is insignificant), and that he and his wife were on their way down to San Francisco to show some of his work off at a gallery there.  When he and Caron discovered we were genuinely interested in his art, he went up to his room and got us some simply gorgeous 5×4 cards with some of his work.  When he didn't have enough for all of us, he went to his car and got more.  A true class act.

Needless to say, the conversation took its twists and turns, covering everything from photography to 4chan, black/white hat to politics, you name it.  Before we knew it, I was down 3 glasses of wine, and we had been talking for an hour and a half. Eventually we all went our separate ways, but not before, I think, creating a lasting impression on each other.

So I come back to it.  This idea that we are so enamored with the places and things and sights and sounds and tastes and smells of new places that we stop caring to meet new people.  Hell, maybe we even avoid meeting new people because we don't want it to impede our travels.  I know I've done that before.  I'm sure you've cut a conversation short for similar reasons.  It's kind of built into our collective psyche these days, to be so cold to one another, with everything available so fast, and our itineraries and travel guides and 9-8 work cycles and hectic hoo-ha, we forget to say hello to our fellow fleshbag walking down the same street we do day in and day out.  So, make the effort.  Say hello.  Throw away your vacation schedule.  Get drunk with a stranger.

And make sure you take pictures of it all.

PS – Check out some of Ross' work at http://www.rosspenhall.com/.  Simply phenomenal.

The four of us are in Portland now, after a rainy day of driving through Tillamook and Western Oregon.  I awoke first to overcast skies at an ambitious time of 630, then gave up the ghost upon looking out the window at flat light on Cannon Beach.  The extra 2 hours of sleep didn't prevent me from sleeping much of the car ride there, but damn, did it feel good.  

Breakfast was steak and eggs at Pig'n Pancake, and was a wonderful chance to talk with my Mom about some of the stupid things her and I have done in our lives (getting bowled over by waves on Rialto, and being human lightning rods among them).  As we left, it started to rain, and we made our way up and out of Cannon Beach, ending up eventually in Tillamook, where we had the chance to visit "cheese hq," and eat some damn fine strawberry ice cream.  Haley was giddy, being in such close proximity to two of her favorite things: cows and cheese.

A few hours later, and we were snaking our way though Portland traffic to arrive at the wonderful Hotel Monaco smack in the center of Portland.  Less than 30 minutes after we arrived, we were treated to (apparently) the daily happy hour, in which it seemed the whole milieu of Portland was represented in a single room.  In fact, it was just a bunch of tourists and their dogs, but cool, nonetheless.  I had a delicious cosmopolitan, a drink I did not know I enjoyed.  Dinner was a wonderful steak (man, I'm really into cow these last two days) at the Red Star tavern, and our evening diversions included a much-awaited trip to Powell's Books, quickly becoming one of my favorite book stores anywhere, although Dawn Treader is right up there.  After stocking up on sci-fi and another Ansel book, we made our way back to our rooms, where I am now at once chatting with my friend Michael about video games in modern culture while pecking away at this post.  Of course, said post would not be complete without some pictures, so you can find a few below.

As an aside – getting focus right with the 35 wide open can be challenging, and AF doesn't seem to cut it in low light.  Need to work on my technique!  Also, for the chunk of the car ride for which I was awake, I was kept enthralled by an excellent paper on dynamic range, image noise, and the engineering behind digital imaging chips.

Live long and prosper, friends.

I spent most of today on the road.  Okay, not most, but enough to make my ass sore.  Fortunately, good company relieves sore posteriers.  We started off at around 11 after many attempts to wake me and a short diversion to our favorite breakfast nook in Issaquah.  After carbo loading and asking why I had to eat that last blintz, we were on the road towards somewhere along the Oregon coast.  Truth is, we didn't know where, but that's part of the fun, right?  We spent around 4 hours on the road, stopping once or twice for lookouts / bathroom breaks, and ended up (partly on my behest) at Cannon Beach.  We arrived around 3, and the girls were kind enough to let me meander down the beach with my photo gear for a couple hours while they got the hotel and (apparently) dinner arrangements squared away.  I got some reasonable shots, although the main drag of Cannon beach is lacking in much beyond a couple stacks and some neat beach houses.  No matter, the sky was wonderful, and the moon was rising, so I made due.  As the sun was setting, I got a call informing me of impending dinner plans at a local spot called the "Wayfarer" (cool name).  Apparently they had good seafood.  Well, it wasn't really good…it was FUCKING ASTOUNDING.  Ugh, I can feel the butter coursing through my veins yet.  I polished off a 14 oz steak + crab + some chocolate desert thing that I really didn't need.  Oh, and I learned what a Tiger Woods is (hint, also good).

Coming down from my sugar high, I meandered back to the room and started dumping photos on my laptop.  Some bittersweetness therein, unfortunately.  The good, I suppose, is that _wow_ the 1ds mark ii files are detailed.  Throughout the ISO range simply better than my 7D.  Stretching colors / exposure nets much cleaner files, high ISO perf is astoundingly good, low ISOs simply blow the 7D away.  I really thought I would be getting a camera that performed as good to worse than my 7D, with the benefit of being full frame.  No, it's fast becoming my landscape machine.  16-35 + mkii and 70-200 + 7d is a great(!) combo to walk around with.  I couldn't really be happier.  The bad is…well, not that bad…but HOLY CRAP is the mkii's sensor dirty.  Oh man, I've never seen it this bad.  There are probably 40 or so noticable dust spots at f/16 @ 16mm…making post a fun process, to say the least.  Worse stil is I left my cleaning gear at home, AND I don't have sensor swabs for an FF cam.  In the end, it's not really a big deal, but I'm going to have some fun posting files from this trip…

Well, all that said, I'm heading to bed – going to try and wake up before the sun tomorrow.  Before I go, here are some photos.

Best wishes and happy trails to you.

At 9 tomorrow, I'll be on my way down through the Columbia river gorge and on through to Portland with my Mom, Haley, and Jacque.  We haven't planned much outside of a night or two in the city and some excursions about the coast, so it'll be nice to relax and play things by ear.  Hopefully we get to some of the beaches / falls, so I can try out some UWA shots with the newfound glory of the 16-35 on a full frame body.  If not, I'll be bringing my tripod with me and hopefully catching some night shots of the city.  Oh, and Powell's Books.  And Voodoo Doughnut.  And maybe that bamboo bike company Andy and Matt found.

Anyway, here are some shots from tonight.  I've got to get packing.

So, I just received the 35/1.4  in the mail this evening.  Oh my…how delicious it is.  Such a nice focal length on full frame, and can blow out the background like no-one's business.  I've only taken a few cat shots and the like so far, but I have a good feeling about this lens.  I must say, the kit is getting solid…although I am missing a macro lens and long tele…but those will come with time.  The nice thing about the 35/1.4 is it actually enables me to take shots that would not be possible _at all_ with the lenses I already have.  So, as much as I sound like a gear whore right now, I'm pretty happy about my purchase.  Here are a couple shots I got off before the sun set.

Honestly, the reason I bought this lens now rather than waiting until spring / summer when shooting will ramp up is that buying now means I get to geek out with it over the holidays with my family.  Super excited for that alone. 

Best of everything to you.

You know, I had an interesting experience tonight.  It has to do with some shots I've taken on the coast over the last 2-3 months.  Specifically, an outing I had with Haley in October over-nighting on Rialto and Shi-Shi and some photos I was reviewing from that trip.  Before I get into that, though, let me give you a sense of my last outing.  Last time I was out that direction, I was treated with some of the most glorious light both days I was there, especially in the morning, which is the best time to get detail on the stacks and surrounding scenery.  On Rialto in particular, I shot from 430 am until 10 am and was getting shot after shot that I knew was "pretty good" and a few that I knew I would remember for a long time.  It was really a great feeling.

Fast forward a month or so to when Haley and I were waking up on Riato once more, this time with flat light and not a whole lot going on in general.  I took several hundred shots that morning, but didn't really have any that spoke to me right away.  I had an inkling I had something, somewhere, within the shots I took, but nothing was really jumping out as it had the month earlier.  "No matter," I thought, "I still had an awesome time," even if I wasn't as immediately satisfied as I had been previously.

Unfortunately, the feeling nagged on me even as I got home and reviewed the shots on my computer.  It was either:

• Flat lighting
• Too much dynamic range causing lack of detail
• Lack of "punch" straight out of the camera

…that made me feel bad about my performance as a photographer that weekend, and really turned me off to editing the photos in earnest.  I uploaded a few shots over the next few days after I had returned, but nothing really jumped out at me, and eventually the entire trip went down to the bottom of my stack as I started to take photos that I was immediately interested in sharing with the world.

Now, we come to tonight.  Tonight, as I said earlier, I had an interesting experience.  That experience was paging through the Rialto photos again, after having divorced myself from that feeling of failure.  It was kind of like looking at someone else's work…and suddenly I felt a bit better about them.  Yeah, there were a good number of crappy ones.  Yeah, the light had been pretty flat.  But there were some that stood out, even lacking contrast and clarity.  A few minutes of PP and wow…I had some stuff I was really proud of.  Stuff that I would have never thought was there.  Stuff that I would hang on my wall, even.  It was really quite astonishing.  I have never really had this experience of "rediscovering" my own photography.  It may sound silly, but it was kind of a mini-revelation, and really made me feel good about that long past trip.  Here's the shot that fostered this realization:

I guess if there is some nugget of truth in this rambling, it's the title: don't get discouraged.  You may feel bad about your performance doing something, whether it's photography, music, sculpture, whatever.  You may think you suck, and want to go off and divorce yourself from that bad experience, never to look to it again.  Well, don't.  Your eye / ear / chisel is a good one, and you should give yourself the benefit of the doubt.  If you find yourself stuck like I was, put it aside and come back a month later; chances are you'll see it with new eyes and will blow yourself away.

Trust yourself, and happy shooting.

So, I took the plunge.  2 days ago, a used 1Ds Mark II arrived on my doorstep in pristine condition, marking my transition to what seems to be a popular thing in photography these days: full frame sensors.  Of course, I could talk of pixel pitch and SNR and the other purported advantages that come with a sensor the size of a piece of 35mm film (anyone else think that is becoming increasingly arbitrary?), but I figured I'd try to give a sense of how full frame compares to crop from the more visceral level.

Human-Camera Interface

I've been shooting crop SLR bodies since August 2006, according to the earliest photo in my Lightroom catalog.  Before that, I played around with various Pentax M42 gear my Dad owned.  One thing I never really appreciated was how damn nice the viewfinders on those Pentax bodies were.  Bright, large, well matted for easy manual focusing…all things that made the act of shooting extremely pleasurable.  Once I got my 30D, though, I kind of lost sight of what it was like to look through the Pentaxes and got used to the cramped and rather dim view afforded by the smaller pentaprism.  A couple years later, I picked up my Mamiya 645 and was simply blown away by the viewfinder…if you've never looked through one, go check out your local camera store and ask to see their medium format film bodies.  It's like sex in a light-proof box.  Of course, then I realized how dismal my 30D really was, not that it bothered me that much.  Now, just a year ago I picked up my 7D, which is really a phenomenal camera ergonomically, and was extremely happy with the wonderfully bright and informative viewfinder it offered.  I didn't really think it could get any better…until I picked up the 1Ds.

It's so BIG!  (That's what she said).  It's actually less magnification than my 7D, but wow, the fact that it's almost half again as large is a real treat.  I really underestimated how big of a deal a nice viewfinder image is to general photographic pleasure.  It's one of those things that you can't really quantify too well in a spec sheet, it's very experiential.  All that said, I wouldn't say it's as nice as a true MF film body, but it's damn close.

Lenses Tell the Truth

I generally shoot landscapes.  As such, lately I've been walking around with my 16-35 more often than any other lens I own, simply because it's the widest I have had for a while.  I did have a Sigma 10-20 for a long time and adored the perspective it provided, but was annoyed by the lack of edge to edge sharpness.  Having gotten rid of the Sigma, I was running about lacking a true UWA for a long time.  I started missing it quite often when I would be in a location that, for one reason or another, didn't lend itself to stitching with a longer focal length, or when running about in the city where the buildings all but tower over you.

The minute I got the FF cam, I threw the 16-35 on it to see what it was like.  Wow.  It's wide.  Really wide.  Probably too wide for a lot of stuff, but it will be a total boon for beach shots.  The 24-70?  Actually usably wide at 24!  70-200?  Eh, not very long any more, but hey, that's what the 7D is for :).  All in all, very happy, and expect now that the 24-70 will spend a lot of time on the FF cam.

Same Perspective Bokeh Advantage

One of the first things I noticed when taking images around the house with an FF camera is the fact that for a given perspective, the camera had oodles more of that creamy subject isolating bokeh for a given aperture.  I always knew this to be the case, but seeing it first hand is a wonderful thing.  One of the annoyances I had with my current lens kit was that I lacked a way of isolating subjects while keeping a generally wide field of view.  Now it seems that even 24mm affords some great opportunities at even modest apertures.

Now, you may ask why FF offers this type of advantage.  We all know Adams and Weston had to stop down to crazy small apertures to get enough DOF for their work, but why?  Well, let's examine the variables: aperture, subject to background distance, focal length, and film diagonal.  For a given focal length, aperture, and subject to background distance, we can expect background blur to be the same no matter the sensor size.  That is to say, if I put a 100mm lens on my 7D and a 100mm lens on my 1Ds Mk II, use f/2.8 on both, and stand the same distance from my subject, I will see exactly the same background blur from both cameras.  The only difference between the two pictures will be the perspective offered by each.  This is because the image circle projected by a lens of a given focal length is always the same size.  In this way, on the FF camera, you will be afforded a wider FOV than on the crop camera, and thus, will be able to blur the background more if you "foot zoomed" such that the perspectives of the two photos were equal.  In this crude illustration, you can see that for a given image circle (ie, lens), a full frame sensor nets a wider field of view with the same background blur:

I'll post some examples of what this looks like in real life shortly.  Until then, enjoy the cat and happy shooting!

Haley and I spent this Saturday in Northern Washington picking apples.  It's becoming somewhat of a tradition (as much as you can call it for a couple who's lived here for a bit over a year now) for us to go up to Jones Creek farm and peruse the literally thousands of apple trees found there for that perfectly crisp, sweet, and slightly tart specimen.

After we had finished picking apples, I noticed the moon rising over the hills surrounding us.  I walked a quarter mile or so to a spot unobscured by the large hedgerows that separated individual's farmland from one another.  Once I arrived, I started shooting like mad, knowing the moon would quickly move out of position. 

I knew that I wanted the compressed perspective offered by a long lens, so I chose to take several dozen shots and stitch them later in post, rather than just using a wider angle lens.  This made the apparent size of the moon much larger while also creating the illusion that the foreground was much closer in relation to the hills than it actually was.  Of course, stitching something like this is a pain in the butt, so I ended up recreating large swaths of sky by hand in post, due to the impossibilities of getting control points on featureless blue sky.

The original pano was 108 shots @ 190mm, but I cropped a large portion out of the center for compositional reasons.  If I had gone with the whole thing, the final file size would be around a gigapixel, making it my largest yet :).  As it stands, this version is 420 megapixels.

So, I've written 3 posts over the last 3 weeks, but scrapped them because I haven't been able to put in the time to make them as good as I think they should be.  I think it has something to do with the 12 hour work days…hopefully that will peter out at some point because I'm missing the tail end of summer!  I was able to get out to the coast over labor day weekend to do some backpacking, which was simply awesome.  Unfortunately, now I have 1400 pictures to edit and very little time to do it in.  Some day!

Either way, here are some shots from assorted locales around the PacNW, I hope you enjoy them!  Hoping to get some quality blog time in once work gets less crazy.

Happy fun times and keep shooting!

My largest pano to date – 83 18MP shots for 0.92 gigapixels.  Pictured is the summit of Maple Pass Loop.

One thing about the mountains is that the weather changes.  Fast.

Ugh, work has been slamming me for the past couple weeks.  Several 12 hour days later, and I'm not feeling the burn to go home and sit in front of a computer for another 4 hours editing pictures.  This, of course, sucks, because I have some decent ones from my trip to the Northern Cascades last weekend.  But alas, this will be a short post as I have to call in at 7 am tomorrow.

Been loving taking my camera to work the last few days, if only to spend 5 minutes shooting when the golden light hits Microsoft's campus at around 7:30 pm.  Of course, today, when I don't bring the damn thing, there is some of the most astounding cloud breaks I've seen in several months, culminating in me literally dropping my jaw as I was turning on Sahalee Way earlier this evening.  There was so much texture in the clouds that they almost appeared 3D layering against one another, sort of like a compressed mountain range lit by the golden setting sun.  This cloud range was surrounded by black storm clouds that at once enhanced the illusion and added some spectacular contrast to the whole scene.  It was one of those "cloudscapes" that needs no foreground to make it an excellent photo.  I was immediately reminded of some watercolors my friend Ario had done which I've always enjoyed:

I did take one photo today, using my phone, in a parking lot, in an uninspired manner, but it was a photo nonetheless.  It's about 0.1% what I saw 30 minutes later on my drive home, but better than the flat blue sky that has been around for the last week or so.

I'm really interested in waking up around 4am this weekend and driving somewhere to go shoot, but I know when that time comes I'll be much more inclined to catch up on sleep than drive an hour or two to watch the sun rise.  Maybe I can compromise and go for a sunset somewhere…

So much to do, so little time.

How many of you carry a camera with you everywhere you go?  Not just a cellphone, but your DSLR, or really anything that allows you to express yourself within the fullest means of your capabilities.  I used to do this.  I had my DSLR with me _everywhere_.  It helped that I had convenient storage, but really, not much would have stopped me from lugging even my old 30D with the "xbawkz is hueg" 24-70 attached to it.  Recently, however, this behavior has changed.  For a long time after moving to Seattle, I was not carrying my camera with me on a daily basis; I was not looking for photographs in the world around me; I was not engaging as I once had.  I've thought about this pretty hard recently, and have come to the conclusion that it was not any sort of waning interest in photography that caused me to stop living and breathing the hobby, but rather the fact that I had moved away from the best shooting buddies that I will ever have.

First, a story.  I started attending the University of Michigan after I graduated high school in May 2004.  Around this time, I also started to get into photography pretty heavily, having just shot my cousin's wedding with some of my Dad's old Pentax gear (that's another blog post).  For those of you who have had the good fortune to visit Ann Arbor, you'll know that it's a damn fun town to hang around in, and holds endless photographic opportunities.  As you can imagine, the timing was divine: I was learning f/stops and shutter speeds while being surrounded by lots of inspiring things to point the camera at. 

Fast forward about 2 years to the beginning of my 5th semester at Michigan.  At that time, I had decided that I wanted to major in comp sci, and was getting absolutely slammed by the computation theory and hardcore programming classes that were the "weeders" of the engineering department.  Truth be told, I was enjoying myself, but had made the mistake this particular semester of scheduling 19 credit hours (including a 5 cr Mandarin course).  My advisor was beating me over the head for the decision, and I knew I had to cut back for my own sanity.  I ended up dropping 4 credits and had some free time on my hands, so, with 15 credit hours, I decided it was a good time to check out getting a job.  I started searching and found an interesting posting working for the engineering school's HPC group.  I decided to go interview, and ended up getting a part-time that involved monkeying around on a *nix console all day, something which I enjoy thoroughly.  I remember being really happy that I got the job, because Matt, Andy, and Brock are certified Unix bad asses, and certainly intimidating for a nooblet like me.

Being that I brought my camera with me everywhere, I invariably showed up with it at work.  Of course, a DSLR is an instant conversation piece with any set of self-respecting nerds, and these three were no exception.  None of them were into photography at this point; I think Matt may have had some experience in days past, but I don't think any of them counted it as a hobby.  We were having a pretty standard conversation about the capabilities of my particular camera, how fast it could shoot, what kind of lenses there were, etc, when Andy asked a question about action photography.  I think he said something to the effect of "I hate how long it takes to focus using my P&S; I always miss the moment."  This was the point where I began to grin, because we all know that if there is one thing a DSLR can do that a P&S can't, it's action photography.  I asked Brock, who was standing nearby, to throw his glove up in the air, and proceeded to machine gun it on its way down to the floor.  I turned to Andy and showed him a few photos of the glove in flight, and one in particular where it appeared to "float" upright on the ground, and he IMMEDIATELY said he was going to get a DSLR.  You see, his wife was having a baby later that year, and this apparently convinced him of the capabilities a DSLR would provide him as his child was growing up.  Sure enough, Andy picked up a Rebel XTi around christmas time, and Matt followed suit with a Nikon D40 shortly thereafter.  I assert that that single moment sealed the deal for both Matt and Andy to get heavily involved in photography.

As time went on, the entire CAC staff was talking about photography several times a day (sometimes at the expense of doing work!).  Matt, Andy, and I would travel with our cameras everywhere, and would shoot photos constantly.  Of course, this was all much to the chagrin of Brock, who ended up being our model countless times (he was a really good sport).  We all looked up to Chris Peplin (another CAC student employee), who was always taking better photos than us, but was totally humble about it, and eventually, even had a sort of community develop around commenting on Flickr and supporting one another as we took what were probably objectively pretty mediocre photographs.  When time permitted, we'd go out shooting on weekends, and indeed, those were some of the most memorable times of the 5 years I spent in Ann Arbor.  Really, if it wasn't for these guys in my life as I was learning what it meant to be a photographer, I don't know if I'd still be into it today.

So what does this all mean?  What is it about other people that spurs us to action in anything we do?  Why can just chatting with someone face-to-face for 5 minutes a day about something you love keep the fire going?  Honestly, I don't know.  Sure, there's always a feedback loop when you get involved in any sort of community – you contribute, you get feedback, you want more feedback, you contribute more – but this was different.  This was something personal, and probably wouldn't have developed if Matt, Andy, Brock, and Chris weren't all great people anyway.  The fact is that once I moved 2,000 miles away, despite being in an absolutely amazing setting for the type of photography I enjoy, the fire started dying.  I didn't have other people around to nerd it up with, to carry 3,000 dollars worth of camera gear with to lunch "because we might miss a shot," to hold my flash as I tried (poorly) to become the next strobist.  It was now up to me to keep the creative juices flowing, and to keep carrying the camera with me wherever I go.  It's a hard transition, and I think I'm still making it, but I have the feeling that I'm not alone in having this experience.  I've been helped immensely by the Microsoft Photography alias and some of the *ahem* fucking phenomenal photography its members put out, and by a very supportive girlfriend.  But…

I'm still looking that the people who will fill the void left behind once I moved away from Michigan.

Keep on shooting.

If you came here for the photos, never fear, you can find some after the break, or:

• Flash Gallery
  
• Flickr Set (post feedback if you love me! or hate me!)
• Benn and Mindy's Website
  

Now for some thoughts on my experience.

First let me say that I'm not a wedding photographer.  Phew!  Ok, got that off my chest, so now you can take what is about to follow with a salt mine.

Recently my good friends Benn and Mindy Wolfe were married under beautiful blue skies in my fair hometown of Kalamazoo (there's a gal there, etc).  My completely accurate opinion was that it was about 200 degrees in the sun, but Unitarian ceremonies are short (and awesome), and everyone was given little fans.  Honestly, I just can't handle heat well, you could not have asked for a better day for a wedding…unless you are taking the pictures…

CONTRAST IS EVIL

Black tuxes and white dresses in direct sunlight sure are hell for a photographer's sanity.  I mean, the only thing that could be worse is if the groom was dressed in a black hole, and the bride in tin foil.  If only Mr. Burns' were around with his sun blocking machine.  With my exposition out of the way, I shall now attempt to give you a reason for reading this post: things I learned photographing this most excellent of occasions.

Thing 1: Always take a gray card…and USE IT.

See, I told you I wasn't a wedding photographer.  Anybody worth their salt does this.  I am not worth my salt, and I paid for it with several extra hours in post.  Honestly, two things were going through my head:

• Hey, when I'm outside, there can only be one color balance to worry about, right?!  AWB it is!

NOPE.  I mean, it's not like I don't understand there are different color temperatures for shade, sunlight, etc., I just didn't appreciate how much more time ignoring this fact adds to the whole process.

• I'm inside now, tungsten all the way!

This was probably an accurate assessment of the situation.  Most of the lighting was of the Christmas tree variety, with some splashes of DJ disco-ball here and there.  Here's the issue.  Problem one: not all "tungsten" (e.g. "it looks orange to me!") is the same, and even if you think it is, you're wrong.  Problem two: If you shoot with gelled flashes (as I was), you'd better be damn sure your flash temp matches the shooting environment.  So, indeed, spending 5 measly minutes with a gray card is well worth the effort, as the pain incurred as you are posting is monumental.

Thing 2: Sleep with your camera.

Or get to know it well, if you catch my drift.  Too many times was I in ISO 200 instead of 100, or AI Servo vs. One Shot, or had the wrong AF mode activated for the situation.  I'll be honest, I'm pretty fast with my camera, but no where near as fast as I should be in situations like these.  I really need to work on being able to switch AF modes quickly, for one (I always tend to hit the FEL button on my 7D when attempting to change AF modes).  Secondly, I need to do a mind check on camera settings every once and a while.  Did it just turn sunny?  Bump the ISO down.  Did I just run outside?  Change white balance.  Are there thousands of UFOs descending on my location firing death beams?  AI Servo and 8 frames, baby!

Thing 3: Remember your DoF.

Missed.  Focus.  Sucks.  Period.  Imagine this situation: here I am zooming along at fit to screen resolution in Lightroom doing my initial culling pass on the wedding shots.  BAM!  I see a GREAT expression captured.  I go *glee*! and pop open the 100% preview.  My elated face turns into a sad face, which turns into this…

Don't pretend like you haven't done it, too!

The point is, if you are at all unsure of your capability to focus within 6cm of the mark at 20 feet (yes, that is the level of precision we are talking about), then take that pretty bokeh hit and at least get passable shots.  I missed many a shot as a result of wanting the best bokeh possible.  One sharp and slightly less bokeh-y picture of the moment the bride and groom kiss is inifintely better than 100 with great bokeh that are out of focus.  If I did it again, I would run around at 2.5 or 2.8 on my 100mm f/2.  Probably wouldn't notice much difference in background blur, and my keeper rate would have gone up by 30%. 

Again, it's all a balance.  I'm sure someone more skilled than I could pull off a higher keeper rate with a wide open lens, just make sure you are making the correct choice for your application.  Oh, and don't blame your out of focus shots on your camera; they are not a panacea for bad technique.

Thing 4: If you KNOW the shot sucks, then don't take it.

This is perhaps the hardest lesson to internalize.  A lot of people won't agree with me on this one, I think, since bits are free.  However, one thing I have learned not only from shooting this wedding, but also from landscape photography, is that there are infinite terrible photographs waiting to be taken, and a very few excellent ones.  I think I have taken maybe 2 excellent photographs in my lifetime as a photographer.  The fact is, that just because you can point a camera at it, doesn't mean the shutter needs to be pressed.  Being selective in camera will save you tons of time in post, and will generally make you feel better about yourself (at least that is my experience).  Let me walk you through an example of a really bad photo:

Okay, ignoring the fact that it's about 2/3rd's a stop over exposed, here are all the things I can find wrong with this image:

1. Most egregious: what is this photo about?  You can't even tell it was taken at a wedding (excepting the bridesmaid in the corner).
2. Composition, where have you gone!  Yes, taken at body height, pretty much ignoring any sort of rules about not cutting people in half (sorry, cute bridesmaid!)
3. Boooorrring.  Nothing says this photo was taken by anyone a monkey with a camera who was trained to aim at things facing random directions.
4. Unbalanced (see #2).

So the important question then becomes, what would I change?  Zoom with your feet.  Get in close and get rid of extraneous noise.  Pick a subject and make the photo about it.  Find something interesting that is going on and capture it.  Go get down on the ground and aim up at the woman shaking hands in the right of the frame.  Ask the bridesmaid to pose with her bouquet.  Capture a random smile.  Pretty much any of these things would make this photo better.  Fortunately for me, all this is learning that is applicable to any photo I take, I just have to remember to apply it actively as part of the shooting process.

Thing 5: Be Brave.

I saved the best for last.

If you asked me "Adam, if you could improve one aspect of your photography, what would it be?",  I would tell you without hesitation: bravery.  I have missed countless opportunities for excellent photographs because I did not have the cajones to walk up and take the shot.  If I could steal a motto: "take pictures, ask questions later."  The very reason I got any passable portraits at Benn's wedding is because I got in close, watched my subject, and took the shot when the time was right.  Your 400mm + D3 is no match for someone who spends 15 minutes with the subject and captures their soul on film.  No, I am not a ghost buster, it was just poetic.

Thanks for listening to me think out loud, once again.  Happy shooting everyone.  Some of my favorites after the break.

Well, it's been 2 years coming, but I finally decided to pull the trigger on Canon's new 70-200 2.8 IS lens.  I will miss my Sigma 70-200 dearly, as it's always been a stellar performer, and has helped me to make many a fine photo.  A salute to all the "stepping stone" lenses we have used in our photographic journey!

This brings me to another thing: photographic gear acquisition seems to be a tender point for many people.  Some are of the opinion that a kit lens and cheapo body are all you need to get great shots, and they would be right.  Others are of the opinion that the best of the best is all that will do for high quality photos.  They are correct, as well. 

How could this be?  Well, gear does not make you a better photographer, despite what Canon and Nikon want you to think.  There is nothing to make up for getting out there and shooting until your shutter finger is sore.  On the flipside, you aren't going to catch interesting photos of birds in flight with a 50mm lens, nor are you going to be able to get that nice, wide, landscape shot you saw in NatGeo.  There are always trade-offs, and you pick and choose your battles.  You don't buy a 500 mm lens just to "have it," but you don't skimp out on the focal lengths you use every day.  Buy what you can afford, and when you want something new, take solace in the fact that lenses hold their value for a long, long time.

All that being said, I plan to be a hardcore gear nerd for the next week or two after I get my new lens.  Photographic conscience be damned.

I was reading Miguel de Icaza's blog today when I happened on what I take to be the holy grail of all web surfing: a flickr link.  Maybe it's silly, but I can spend hours perusing complete strangers' flickr streams.  Anyway, as I was clicking around, I happened on a particular photo that made me laugh and think about my photographic intentions at the same time.  Here it is:

Photo copyright Miguel de Icaza.

Now, I must say that I actually enjoy Trompe-l'œil, and think this is a fine example.  I also don't think there is anything wrong about taking the photo Miguel took (so please don't sue me for using your photo to make a point :)).  What such an example makes me consider is: why, as photographers, do we sometimes struggle with seeing things differently than those who have come before us?

1. You're never the first.

The world is a small place.  We see and experience what thousands have seen and experienced before, but WE are the ones left holding the bag, trying to figure out how to convey what may be a very important experience to us as individuals.   Sometimes we get somewhere, and cannot bring ourselves to "see" our subjects differently than the hordes who have come before us.  But, we just have to take that shot that everyone has taken before, as edification of our bring there, right?  Well, maybe, but I'd assert that unless you really like the shot you take, you aren't doing yourself anything by tripping the shutter.  Explore, get something someone doesn't already have.  Zoom in tight and capture the details.  Point your camera behind you and capture the child looking on in wonder.  Take a photo at 3 am with the milky way backing your subject (credit .Bala).  Anything to differentiate your photography and bring it from being merely documentation to being something which truly captures your vision.

Here's an example.  I was in the Tetons a couple summers ago and was absolutely drinking it up.  It's a fine example of a place where you feel like you can't take a bad picture, but what you end up with is a bunch of shots of the mountain range backed by blue sky.  At the time your brain says "this certainly captures this feeling of awe I have," when in fact, you are just taking the same pictures that everyone takes, only using several thousand dollars worth of camera equipment.

The good shots come when you wake up early, or stay up late.

2. You're overwhelmed by it all.

Say you just traveled 2,000 miles to see the Rockies, or flew across the pacific to view those strange hillocks in Yangshuo, or took a boat to Antarctica to spend a month shooting penguins and ice.  The fact is, you just spent a serious amount of money and vacation time to be where you are now, and you are damn well going to come back with amazing photos!  However, when you arrive, you are so overwhelmed with the sights, sounds, and feelings of the new place that you start taking pictures left and right, hoping to capture that feeling of absolute wonder through the pure quantity of photos you've taken.

I do this all the time, and its just bad.  Somehow I think I can make up for quality with quantity.  One concrete example of this is when I recently went out to Friday Harbor with Haley and my good friend Shannon (aren't they cute?!)

I took 693 photos from 7am to 5pm, spanning 2 cameras with lenses from 16 to 200mm.  I was shooting like a madman.  I get home, and guess what, I have maybe 20 photos I would consider decent, and 5-6 that I am relatively proud of.  If you're time constrained and can't schedule vacations around your photography, you absolutely must slow down, contemplate your itchy shutter finger, and take the shot when the moment is right, not when your 32 gb memory card calls out to you.

A good way I've found to slow down is to carry a film camera in my bag.  If I find myself going nuts, I'll grab it and take some shots.  I've found that using a Mamiya 645, with its reversed image, is a great way to f with my mind just enough to help me see my subject differently.

3. You don't know what to expect.

I just finished reading duChemin's Within the Frame (excellent book).  He talks a lot about his process, especially in that if he is traveling to shoot, he spends days in advance scouting and taking notes, so that when it comes time for him to shoot, he is fully prepared.  Of course, this is not always possible when you are time constrained, but even taking a lunch-time trip to the scene you want to capture in the evening light can go a long way to limiting the feeling of dread that inevitably washes over you as you scramble to set up your tripod and gear 20 minutes before the sun goes below the horizon.

I've in this situation plenty of times, too.  As recently as 2 weeks ago when I was scrambling down Rialto beach to catch the last vestiges of the sunset near Hole in the Wall (note: buy some ND Grads).  I had maybe 15 minutes of good light to work with, and then it was gone behind a huge fog bank that had gathered 5 degrees above the horizon.  Alas.  You live, learn, and get there earlier next time.

4. "Someone else can do it better."

There is always someone better than you.  Every photographer with a shred of humility thinks he's "not worthy."  However, sometimes in the act of shooting a photo, we get nagged by that little voice that asks us "would Adams frame it this way?  am I following the rule of thirds? WWGRD (what would Galen Rowel do?)"  Worse still is when this voice dictates when we pull the trigger.  Of course, we must be critical of our work while we create it, but not so much that we prevent ourselves from exploring our subject.  If you zoom in on that sliver of mountain because you like the outline it makes in the dusk sky, then you'd better darn well take the shot, even if the voice tells you it's no good.  What matters is your opinion on the subject, not what someone else may have done.  Make the shot your own.

5. Performance anxiety.

We've all been there.  You have a minute to capture the god-beams streaming through the clouds.  What is your composition going to be like?  What settings are you going to use?  Do you have your ND Grad aligned correctly?  Is the shot going to be sharp enough?  Am I using the right ISO?  What about that guy shooting next to me, what is he doing?  Oh look, the light's gone. 

I don't know how many shots I've missed by a fraction of a second for all the same reasons.  Really good people make this process automatic.  I'm not there yet, but I know how to get there: practice.  Bring your camera to lunch and catch your friend's fleeting expressions.  Explore the way the light falls on the one flower in the parking lot at work.  Take pictures of your cat in new and interesting ways.

If you can make the mundane your strength and make all the technical concerns insignificant, just imagine what you can do when a truly glorious vista is unfolded before you.