Today is the 40th anniversary of the launch of the moon shot. NASA is streaming the audio of the entire mission, from pre-launch to splashdown, in real time, online.

Send this post to a friend

Featured Photoshopping by Moose: "Interesting what a little contemporary image processing can do. The proportions change dramatically.

"PTLens fisheye correction, NeatImage, PS Healing Brush, FM IntelliSharpen II."

Featured Comment by Clinton Bersuch: "NASA has also digitized some highlights from the cockpit voice recorders. It's interesting (to me anyway) how, on a couple of the recordings, the crew spends a fair amount of time talking about what lens and shutter speed/f stop combinations to use for various photographs they want to get. It sounds like they're using some sort of 'cheat sheet' with exposure information for various film types and subject matter. In one particular conversation Neil Armstrong advises Mike Collins to open up half a stop so he can get detail from the Moon's surface. These guys were many things—test pilots, explorers, etc., but it's easy to forget that they were also very much photographers and they spent a great deal of time making sure they got that part of the mission right. I can't say that I blame them."

UPDATE from Barry Hill: "The JFK Mueseum seems to be doing the audio in realtime as well and seems to be a better site using flash photos and videos."

Are you one of those photographers who keeps buying camera bags to excess, in a futile search for just the right one? I once knew a guy who had thirty camera bags—not because he collected them, just because he kept buying them hoping each time the new one would be better than all his others.

Well, there may not be any such thing as the perfect camera bag, but this has got to be a prime candidate for the coolest one. It goes on sale tomorrow at auction at Bonham's in New York City (Sale 17402, Lot 285), and it's expected to sell for forty to fifty thousand dollars.

And it's covered with dust. Not only that, but you want it to be.

It was used to store 16mm and 70mm film magazines for astronauts Jim Irwin and Dave Scott in the Apollo 15 Lunar Module. The crew performed two 7-hour EVAs (extra-vehicular activities) and came back to the LM covered with lunar dust, which got all over the camera bag. That's the dust.

Just the thing for the photographer who already has every kind of camera bag under the sun—one more, dingy with dirt from the moon. None of your friends have one!

Comes complete with deaccession papers from the National Air and Space Museum.

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by Hugh Crawford: "The last thing you would want to do with this is get anywhere near a camera. Moon dust is extrodinarily abrasive and corrosive. See:

What a Little Moon Dust Can Do

NASA's Dirty Secret: Moon Dust

NASA's Big Chore: Dusting on the Moon

Featured Comment by Rod S.: "Dave Scott and Jim Irwin performed three, not two, EVAs on the lunar surface. I watched all three through three consecutive nights here in Australia, where we had complete coverage because, as I recall, we took the feed directly from the radiotelescope at Parkes, which happened to have the moon in sight for each (they were 24 hours apart). The experience is one I treasure - along with meeting and talking with Jim Irwin in 1989, two years before he died.

"Andy Chaikin's book A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts reports that the durations of the three moonwalks were, 1st: 6 hrs., 32 min.; 2nd: 7 hrs., 12 min.; 3rd: 5 hrs., 40 min.

"Here in Australia, it's the morning of the 16th of July, the 40 year anniversary of the launch of Apollo 11."

UPDATE from Bob Peterson, July 16th: "According to the auction Web page Lot 285 'Sold for $36,600 inclusive of Buyer's Premium' "

In days of yore, when men were men and cameras took real pictures, one occasionally heard of hockey pucks like the Canon New F1 (for some reason, the New F1 was always described as a "hockey puck") being dunked in seawater, rescued, resuscitated (usually with a soak in fresh water followed by air-drying, after being opened as much as possible to said air) and revived, to go on soldiering for years afterwards. Nothing could stop 'em.

But a modern DSLR? All those delicate electronics? Forget it, right?

Wrong, pixel-breath. Planet5D tells the rather remarkable story of two Canon 5D Mark II's that went swimming and lived to shoot again, in what must have been very alarming inadvertent tests of their weatherproofing. Who'd a thunk they'd survive a dunk? Yet they did.

And if you need to shoot video underwater without taking your 5DII down on purpose, there's always the Liquid Image VideoMask:

Just be sure to be careful where you're looking, because that's being recorded too!

Send this post to a friend

By Ted Johnson

Thinking about the Sigma DP2 has made me continue to ponder the economics of camera manufacturing in the digital age. Electronics are not kind to low volume manufacturers. Components like sensors, LCDs, and the development cost of the software/firmware drop dramatically in price as volume increases. Furthermore, there is an economic benefit to having accumulated experience in designing cameras that isn't easily quantified, but certainly exists. Finally, if you have other products that can benefit from the technology, the cost of development is reduced on a unit basis.

I'm sure that's why cameras like the M8 are so expensive, and why they are not very refined electronically. And Sigma, which I feel is not overloaded with cash, has suffered even more. Another example is the Olympus Pen vs. the Panasonic G series: Olympus can't or won't spend the money on the high level of contrast autofocus that Panasonic has, so it is slower to autofocus. Also, the Olympus has a relatively crude LCD compared to the competition. I am sure these shortcomings are related to direct cost, accumulated experience and the ability to take the technology and apply it to other product lines. It's scary to think that Olympus is at a serious disadvantage vis-à-vis their competition, but I think they are, and will, over the long term, suffer for it.

It also means a fair price for an improved Sigma DP2 might be $1200, at which point Sigma might estimate they would sell 10 cameras, not 10,000. Which might be too bad: a $1200 camera that has the benefits of the DP2 with quick autofocus and file flush times is probably salable in decent volumes. But it takes a lot of guts in any corporation to price to value rather than pricing to demographics.

I was the general manager at Callaway Cars in the mid '80s during the Twin Turbo Corvette production. We charged $20,000 for the upgrade at a time when the base Corvette was $40,000. Plain and simple, it cost a lot of money to do the low-volume remanufacture required to make a good car. GM thought we were crazy and would never sell the option, but agreed to give us an option # and let us run with the program. We thought we'd sell 40 or 50 cars. We ended up selling 188 the first year! There are people who were willing to cough up the dough because they got a good product, but I can't tell you how many calls I got from shade-tree mechanics about how they could produce a better car in their garage. My response was, "okay, go ahead." They didn't have to worry about providing a warranty, sales and service support, and of course a car that was reliable and street legal. It takes a lot of money to do that and the customer ultimately has to pay. The smaller the production run, the more the customer has to pay!

The engine bay of an '87 twin-turbo Callaway 'Vette. Photo: vetteweb.com

The other thing that hits a small volume manufacturer is when something is wrong with the camera even after it has shipped to the public. Again, at Callaway's, we changed out many components in the engine to improve reliability, to the point where almost everything was new. But we still ended up having problems that were related to a timing gear at the base of the distributor. GM had changed the component to reduce cost, and basically the looser tolerance meant some—repeat, some—wore out faster than the original component. In the standard car, other than running a bit poorly, nothing else happened. In the turbo car, under boost, the retarded timing caused the exhaust gas temps to soar and could cause the car to catch fire! "Heat damage" was the euphemism GM used. Anyway, we had to buy a special race-prepped gear to fix the problem, which was expensive to say the least.

I'm sure Leica and Sigma have had similar types of issues to deal with in their development processes, which looks stupid to the public but which is the price of being small and taking risks.

Ted

Totally off-topic: my little brother's new auction series has begun. (He sells investment, jewelry, and collector gemstones at wholesale. His stones routinely appraise for 2x–4x what he sells them for. Not to brag, but Charlie is such a gem nerd that in high school he spent half his senior year interning at the Gemology Department at the Smithsonian Institution. He had already taught himself to facet by that time.)

For security's sake, I need to mention that the stones are all kept in safety deposit boxes, not in his home, which adds an extra 2–3 days to the typical MTBS (mean time before shipping).

Photos by my niece, home for summer break! Enjoy.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

I'm far from an expert in aerial photography, but I just wanted to add one small comment to the previous post: having one aerial photograph in your portfolio can be a real plus for you, and I recommend it. For many years I've had just one single aerial photo in mine*, but people almost always linger over it and ask about it.

In general, photographers want their portfolios to say "I'll do anything," and that's usually a mistake. (Have I written a post yet about why you should never have one wedding photograph in your portfolio? If I haven't, I've been meaning to.) Your portfolio should target a specific clientele and work to convince that clientele that you're the absolute best person for the job at hand—it shouldn't be a hodgepodge of jobber work of various kinds. However, having a token aerial shot might well be the exception to that rule. It really does say to clients "I can do anything" in a meaningful way. Generally, amateur photographers who do casual pro work once in a while aren't trusted with the budget for a plane or a helicopter. An aerial implies that you were trusted with just such a important job—even if you weren't!

Adding one aerial shot to your portfolio isn't as hard as it sounds. You might have a friend who flies. Small planes and helicopters can be rented for not that much money. And there are even things like biplane rides at air shows and tethered hot air balloon rides that can get you way up in the air for very little inconvenience or expense. Best of all, while it's just as hard to get a great aerial shot as it is to get any other kind of great picture, getting a good one is fairly easy...lots of things look more interesting from high above, as most of us know from peering out the window of a descending airliner when the air is clear and the light is nice.

A shot not many of us could get: Door Gunner Looks at Baghdad, by John Camp

Anyway, I highly recommend adding an aerial shot to your general portfolio. It's unlikely to get you any work shooting them, but it says good things about you all the same. 

*I'd show it to you if my darned scanner worked, but oh well.

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by Dave: "As a former flight instructor I can tell you that if show up at your local airport, a flight instructor will be happy to help you take aerial photos. Most flight instructors will do just about anything to log additional flight time. A photo flight is considered a cherry assignment for a starving flight instructor. It beats teaching someone how to land.

"Some tips to get the most out of your photo flight:

1) Plan ahead—an hour of flight time will cost from $60–$120. You'll not want to waste a minute. Spend at least an hour with your pilot planning the photo mission. The pilot will need to have a plan for navigating to the photo site and dealing with local air traffic control.

2) Schedule to fly during good lighting conditions. Early morning or late afternoon.

3) Get some latitude and longitude info from google maps. Most aircraft are now equipped with GPS. If you come prepared with lat and long data you'll save the pilot a lot of work and possible wasted flight time.

4) Ask if you can fly the plane. A flight instructor won't mind handing the controls over for awhile and teaching you some turns or something more exciting if you're brave."

Featured Comment by Steve Renwick: "As a Cessna driver, I'd like to add a few comments.

"Make sure that you and the pilot are on the same page at all times, i.e., you both know how low the plane will fly, you ask before opening the window, etc. Never surprise the pilot.

"If you are not accustomed to small planes, it would be a really good idea to take a ride without your camera at first, just so you know what to expect.

"As somebody else said, looking through the viewfinder whilst going in circles is a very good way to upset your stomach. Don't try to tough it out, as that won't work. Look up at the horizon and ask the pilot to fly straight and level for a while. A little delay is better than the alternative."

Featured Comment by Stan Semuskie: "I agree with your comment about the aerial photo in your portfolio. A couple years ago I received a call from Forbes.com to shoot a photo of the home of one of the richest guys in the U.S. I was kind of taken aback by the request, and asked if the person would set up the shoot. She said just rent a plane or helicopter, find the house and take a picture. I still wasn't convinced that I could do it so I called the local airport, in Hillsboro, Oregon, and much to my surprise I could rent a helicopter with a pilot for $125/hr, and they would only charge me for what I used in 6-minute increments. I did the job, used up the whole hour and shot much more than the house—I also shot my company, my house, and all my friends' houses from the air. It was one of the best experiences I have had.

"By the way, the person whose house I shot was Phil Knight (founder of Nike). He just happened to live in my town of Hillsboro, and I was lucky enough to get the job from Forbes. I would recommend anyone to call around and see what it costs for an hour of air time. I think many will be very much surprised at how inexpensive it can be."

Our friend Jim Richardson, in his blog, has a nice account of taking this picture, and of planning aerial photographs in general. Jim's blog takes pictures mostly from his work for National Geographic and tries to give a down to earth, nuts-and-bolts look at how they were made.

"The latest," he writes, "is about an aerial photograph of wheat harvest for our 'Great Plains' story, in which I go into considerable detail about the rigors of aerial photography from a small plane. It also emphasizes the importance of capturing moments (even from the air) by studiously predicting when they are going to happen. It's not a romantic view of photography, just what you have to do to make it happen."

Mike
(Thanks to Jim)

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by Hugh Crawford: "When I was in high school I would take aerial photos of crops on my family's farm. We would take the doors off of a Citabria and I'd take pictures out the door. Between the placement of the doors and the struts and me in the backseat and 120mph of wind buffeting me, the pictures sucked for any other purpose than seeing how the center of the sunflower field was doing. In retrospect I think it was all just an excuse to go flying with the doors off the plane. I hadn't thought of that in years, and now I can distinctly remember the smell of avgas and the farm."

Featured Comment by Hikari: "I had once the chance of taking photos from the window of a small plane and got sick after 30 min. smelling the gasoline and looking through the viewfinder. From that day I really appreciate the work of these kind of photographers."

Featured Comment by Tim F: "Tip from someone who has done this all of once: do not ask the pilot to fly as low as he can if you only have one pass. I was looking up at telephone poles."

Featured Comment by Jim Richardson: "Any discussion of aerial photographers would be incomplete without giving full credit and fawning admiration for my own aerial hero, Georg Gerster. Long before Yann Arthus-Bertrand took the world by storm Gerster was showing us what art aerial photography could be. He has built up an enormous body of work of simply stunning images.

"Once, years ago, I had the honor of working with him, when we were doing the 'Day in the Life of America' and I was one of the assigning editors. Georg Gerster was assigned to me and I remember sitting there asking him what he wanted to do. Simply and professional he said, 'I want to do what you need done.'

"Quite a guy, and not a bad photographer."

It pains me to write this. It really does. In so many ways, Sigma has made a valiant effort to create the kind of camera I first called for four years ago, and that I think is still needed in the marketplace: the DP2 is a true compact, with a fixed lens of highly utilitarian focal length and acceptable lens speed, yet with a DSLR-sized sensor. Compliments of a generous reader (thanks again, T.J.!), I had a chance to shoot with a DP2 for a few days last week.

My reaction could be confined to the two sentences in the second-to-last paragraph of this post, except that would be the world's shortest camera review.

The good news is that Sigma did two of the most important things very well: the lens in this camera is superb, and the sensor's image quality is beguiling. Despite one or two minor IQ oddities that I consider basically inconsequential, the overall look of the image files is distinctive and remarkably pleasing. These two important parameters are good enough that for some people, the results that are possible could be worth putting up with the camera. In some ways, DP2 images look better than what I get from my DSLRs.

The bad news is that the camera is slow. I mean like 2002 all over again.

The only way to get good shutter responsiveness in AF mode is to pre-focus, but as soon as the action around you fires up to more than leisurely-stroll-level, pre-focusing seems to take forever. It takes so long that you can't even pre-focus directly on moderately fast moving subjects, because the subject moves before the camera can lock on to it! As for throughput...well, when a camera uses an hourglass symbol to indicate progress writing a single picture to the card and you find yourself not infrequently watching that hourglass symbol as you wait to take the next shot....

The DP2 is a camera that would virtually force you to work out a method that it's capable of and that's acceptable to you in order for you to use it, virtually to the point that it would dictate the kind of subject matter you could use it for. At least comfortably. If you shoot almost exclusively static subjects at middle distances or greater, it could work. Sean Reid describes using it with a clip-on optical viewfinder for medium-distance subjects outdoors, guesstimating focus distance with the handy manual-focusing wheel. (In my past experience, this works reasonably well at middle apertures for subjects farther away from us than we are tall, roughly—with practice. For closer subjects, like maybe four or five feet on in, you often need more exact focus, so you'd either need to be really good at the aforementioned guesstimation or switch to AF.) You'll also be better off shooting JPEG, so the camera has a chance to keep up with you. Shooting raw with the DP2 is like walking holding hands with a three-year-old: it's just gonna slow you down.

For me, the camera's egregious lack of responsiveness makes it a non-starter. Workarounds are all well and good, but I would just prefer to have a camera that works better.

I wanted to like the Sigma DP2. I really did. But it's like a tripod with two legs: what's missing overwhelms what's done well. I have to call a personal verdict of "not recommended."

Send this post to a friend

UPDATE: I just found out the camera I used last week did not have the latest firmware, which is said to improve AF speed. So add a grain of salt—or another one, if you disagree with what I said—to my comments about that.  —Mike

Featured Comment by Colin Work: "The problem with workarounds with the DP2 (and many other cameras) is that they were not designed to support this.

"Old film cameras were designed for manual focus and a pleasure to use in this way as well as being quick.

"When technology works well, great, but when it doesn't, trying to work around it is generally worse than not having the technology at all—try retuning a modern TV when you've lost the remote!

"For me, the best cameras (old and new) are those which reduce the need to take the camera into consideration when shooting. An old manual film camera achieves an almost perfect level of 'transparency'—it works pretty much exactly as fast as you can think and react.

"Very few DSLRs in my experience can match this...my 1D3 comes close, but even then I occasionally have to make a focus point change when it 'mis-locks.'

"From what I read, the DP2 has nothing like the level of transparency I would want. Yes, IQ is very important—but of no value whatsoever if the critical moment is missed.

"I think we will wait a long time for the perfect DMD—not because it can't be made, but because the manufacturers will not risk bringing a stripped down, feature-limited camera to market. We may get a usable DMD, but only by using a sub-section of an otherwise highly spec'd (and priced) camera."