McKittrick Canyon Trail

McKittrick Canyon Trail
Originally uploaded by webbimage

Guadalupe Mountains National Park - If your image of Texas is flat, hot and brown, then just check out how it looks in this canyon in the Fall. Located about 100 miles east of El Paso and about 30 miles south of Carlsbad, NM, this is an area not to be missed.

It was a VERY windy day so I boosted the ISO to allow a small aperture for DOF with a fast enough shutter speed to eliminate the blur caused by the wind blowing things around.

Glenfinnan Monument at Loch Shiel

Glenfinnan Monument at Loch Shiel
Originally uploaded by webbimage

This is a shot of the Jacobite memorial at Glenfinnan, Scotland on the shore of Loch Shiel. This spot is marked in history as the place the final Jacobite rebellion started from, after the defiant raising of the Royal Standard on August 19th 1745. Prince Charlie managed to inspire the confidence and support of the loyal clansmen and it was here they rallied in support of the Stewart monarchy.

I've posted this as another example of what HDR can do to allow us to render a scene with way too much dynamic range (too wide a range from the darkest to the lightest parts of the scene). HDR lets us combine a bracketed set of exposures into one image that more closely matches what our eyes can see but cameras just can't record.

I've read that our eyes can see a range of about 23 f/stops or exposure values while a camera can record only 6 to 7. The pupils of our eyes adjust to the light level as we gaze across a scene and we see the detail in the shadows and in the highlights. The camera sensor just can't adjust the way it records the scene from pixel to pixel but must pick an average value for the entire sensor to use. HDR processing takes a range of exposures and combines them to allow a wider range of values to be captured. For instance, to record the hills, the sky and clouds would be blown out or to record the clouds properly, the hills and trees would be almost black. HDR takes the best exposed parts of the images and uses them to construct one final image that matches what we see.

5-exposure (2/3 ev step) HDR via Photomatix Pro

Luckenbach, Texas (Pop. 3)

Luckenbach, Texas (Pop. 3)
Originally uploaded by webbimage

Luckenbach is an almost mythical (and mystical) place not far from Fredericksburg, TX. Made popular in the song by Waylon Jennings.

The chorus sums it up:
Let's go to Luckenbach Texas with Waylon and Willie and the boys
This successful life we're livin' got us fueding like the Hatfield and McCoys
Between Hank Williams pain songs, Newberry's train songs and blue eyes cryin' in the rain
Out in Luckenbach Texas ain't nobody feelin' no pain.

It's worth the trip to the area to visit Luckenbach and spend some time in the store/post office/saloon/etc. The day I was there an impromptu song session started up back in the saloon part of the building. It made for a very enjoyable afternoon.

This photo is a High Dynamic Range (HDR) processed image created by running a 5-shot (2/3 ev step) bracketed set of exposures through Photomatix Pro.

After the Click - Screen and Print

OK, we've been to the great location, used that gear we bought, weathered the cold and wind waiting for the light to enfold the scene, framed, focused, pressed the shutter release and captured that sunrise shot. Now we want to share the image with friends and possibly clients. How do we best take advantage of the viewing options?

On-Screen:
Even if we print some of our photos, most of our images will be viewed on a computer screen; either our own or someone else's via our blog or website or photo-sharing sites like flickr, Webshots, Photo.net and others. The thing to remember with screen images is that you really don't need all of those 10 or 12 Mega pixels for the image to look great on the screen. Computer screens just don't have the resolution to use all of those pixels so don't waste upload time and storage space for those shots that are going to be viewed on screen.

Use your favorite post-processing program to save the photo at 72 dpi (no more than 150 dpi), with a maximum height of 680 pixels (let the width scale accordingly) and use a JPEG quality of 8 - 10 and the screen image will be sharp while keeping the files size manageable. Even free programs like Picasa2 have the tools to reduce the file size of your photos. Save the reduced size image with a new name so you preserve your original. I usually just append "-scrn" to the original file name so I can locate the original (full-sized) image and the screen image easily.

Print:
(A future post will go into how to set up to print. This one is at a much higher level.)

Here's where all of those pixels come into play. Now we need to use 240 to 300 dpi (or pixels) resolution and go for the best we can get.

Do we print at home or send the photos off to a lab or use a local print house? That depends upon how you're going to use the prints. (Confession - I rarely, if ever, print at home.)

Snapshots - For many of us, using WalMart or Costco to print those snapshots we took is the most cost effective way to do it. It may be fun to see them coming off your own printer but it's going to cost you more that way.

Display prints - I find that the commercial print houses do an excellent job. I use Mpix for most of my prints that I mount, mat, frame and sell. They have always done an excellent job; prices are reasonable; packaging is the best anywhere and turn-around time is immediate. There are various papers, including metallic (great for some landscapes) and other products are available. One downside to Mpix is that your stored photos "expire" from their database if not printed regularly. That means yo have to upload the original again before you can order. Minor annoyance but an annoyance , nonetheless.

Another good printer is Costco. Costco's prices are REALLY reasonable for large prints and I can get 11x14's in about an hour after uploading from my computer to their printer at a nearby store. I have been very pleased with their prints and really like that I can download the printer drivers for the exact printer at the store I use and for the type of paper, as well. These factor into the proofing process within Photoshop and make for a better final product.

Proof print - If you are working directly with a professional commercial printer and have a good large format (13x19) printer then it makes sense to make your proof print so that you can show the printer what the images should look like before they do a print run. Most of us don't fit into this category but that's the main instance I see the need for a really good printer of my own.

What are your thoughts?

The Body or the Lens?

This one is easy to state but difficult to execute.

(FYI - I followed the lens advice from Kevin Brown, a photographer friend of mine, and have not been sorry. See his work at http://www.digitalproshots.com/.)

Put your money in really good, fast lenses. Make them a priority over the camera body. Here are my thoughts on why.

• A good lens will be fast which means a large aperture (e. g., f/2.8 or larger) so it can gather more light and allow more latitude with shutter speed and/or ISO settings.
• A good fast, zoom lens will maintain a constant aperture over the entire zoom range. That is a 70-200 mm, f/2.8 zoom will be capable of f/2.8 even at 200mm. A lens that is characterized by an aperture rating of something like f/3.4-f/5.6 means that when it is zoomed to 200 mm its largest aperture will be f/5.6, much slower than the constant aperture of the fast lens.
• A good lens will be well made and will be durable; lasting for many years (easily 8-10 years). A camera body will be superseded with the newer model in about 18 months but even if you skip a generation you'll still be trading bodies in 3 years.
• It doesn't matter how many mega-pixels your camera body has, unless the image delivered to those pixels is tack sharp your photo won't be the best it could be. It might be "good enough" but is that what you really want?
• Ditto on distortion (barrel and/or pin cushion)

OK, now for the "Con" part

• No one fast lens will cover a REALLY wide zoom range. It is likely that you will need at least three to go from extreme wide angle (12-24 mm), to standard range (24-70 mm) and reasonable telephoto range (70-200 mm)
• A good lens is expensive. Most fast lenses in the above-mentioned ranges will be in the neighborhood of $1,800 each.
• These lenses will also be HEAVY.
• A body with that fast 70-200 mm telephoto will require a more stable (heavier) tripod and a larger capacity (heavier) ball head. The necessary tripod and ball head will set you back about $1,000. I use a Gitzo 3540 LS tripod and Really Right Stuff's largest ball head. (I'll blog about the right tripod/ball head combination in a later posting.)

Some practical notes.

• This stuff adds up: Body $5,000, Tripod & Head $1,000, 3 fast lenses @ $1,800 each $5,400 - easily $11,000 to $12,000 not counting back packs, strobe, extra batteries, etc.
• If you are just starting out and can't afford all of this then go for a good body instead of the pro version. That is buy the new Nikon D300 at $1,700 instead of the pro D3 at around $5.000. The image processing engine is the same and many of the capabilities are there. I use the D300 because that allowed me to put the extra $$ into 2 of those fast lenses.
• Get a lens that will suit what you are doing but be careful NOT to go for the cheapest. A great all-around lens is the Nikon 18-200 VR zoom. It is not a fast lens by the above standards but the VR helps. At around $700 or so it will serve for most things (except macros) that you will want to shoot. Check out lens reviews at Ken Rockwell (good common sense advice) and dpreview (deep technical analyses). I've said before that I LOVE this lens.
• I haven't bought that fast Nikon super wide angle lens yet. I am using the Tokina 12-24 Pro DX f/4 constant aperture and have had great results.

Bottom Line: In the long run you want to build your equipment around good, fast lenses with the camera body being secondary. Those lenses are going to still be giving great results long after you've traded camera bodies several times. It doesn't matter how expensive or feature-rich the camera body is if you don't get the optimum image to the sensor.

Make That Wind Work For Ya'

OK, I know I said that my next post was going to be about where to put the $$; camera body or lenses but I wanted to get this one posted for memorial Day.

Sometimes we just have to take what Mother nature throws at us. I was out taking shots around dawn on Saturday and it was REALLY windy, as it often is here in North Texas. I wanted a shot of the red, white and blue bunting at the station for the Grapevine Vintage Rail Road but the wind had it whipping something fierce. So, I took advantage of that and set my camera to use rear-curtain-sync flash. The exposure was 1 second at f/20. The long exposure allowed the camera to capture the movement of the bunting and the flash froze the motion at the end of the exposure and added the in-focus portion to the image - visible most easily with the stars.

This shot seems kind of fitting for memorial Day.

Here's another shot using similar technique.

What Lense(s) Do You REALLY Need?

Disclaimer: Written by a Nikon user from that point of view.

As DSLRs become ever better regarding their noise handling abilities at high ISOs (> 800) and with the proliferation of shake cancelling technology (be it Nikon's VR, Canon's IS, etc.) we can get by (i. e., take good photos) with lenses that a few years ago would not be considered suitable for "pros" to use. Bumping the ISO to 800-1600 or higher is possible (the Nikon noise reduction DOES work superbly well) and the VR can add 2 to 3 stops of margin. Given that, do we NEED to drop the coin required to add a "fast" lens or two or three to our gear?

A typical fast lens with a constant aperture of f/2.8 for example will cost in the near-$2,000 range for something 200 mm and below. Are those lenses really necessary or worth it with the other technology that we have available to us?

As usual, the answer "depends."

I use a Nikon D300 and usually have attached to it Nikon's 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom Nikkor. (OK, the only important part of all of that alphabet soup is the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR part.) This is hands-down the best lens I have ever used from a convenience standpoint. Further, the images are tack sharp and the VR works like magic. It is much lighter than either the fast 28-70 mm, f/2.8 or the 70-200 mm f/2.8 (which, to cover not even quite all of the same zoom range, I would have to carry both).

The beauty of the 18-200 is that I can leave it attached and be sure that I can capture virtually anything that comes up during the day, even without a tripod. This is the ultimate "walking around" lens. Get one.

There are times though when that lens won't do it. Consider the following situation.

I live near Fort Worth, Texas, and I was shooting an indoor rodeo at night down at the Stockyards. I was using an f/2.8 lens with a monopod and was able to shoot, using available light, across the arena. To capture the action I couldn't go too low on shutter speed. Most of the night I was shooting at around 1/80 with ISO was at 800. I was pushing the envelope about every way I could. If I had been using my 18-200 zoomed all the way in the maximum aperture would have been f/5.6 and I would have needed 2 additional stops to capture the shots but the aperture of the 18-200 was maxed out so the only thing left was ISO. The 2 stops would mean that ISO had to go up to 3200 and the noise, even with high ISO NR, could become unmanageable. Without the additional light gathering available with the f/2.8 lens I couldn't have gotten the shots.

That said, we each have to judge for ourselves whether the extra cost of a "pro" lens is a good value.

More to follow on this. Next time I'll discuss where to put the most $$ - lens or body.