The Best Lens for the Job

All eyes are pointed upward when the Blue Angels fly overhead.  Thousands of outstretched hands holding iPhones and iPads follow the action from one horizon to the other.  Hundreds of SLRs record the action.  Everyone is a photographer.

The serious photographers are a much smaller group.  They arrive with the longest lens they own and shoot until the planes are tiny or their buffers are full.   We can't help but check to see who has the longest lens.  Today the guy with the 600mm was the winner.  

We all photograph the same thing from the same place.  During the peak action, the crowd will produce thousands of virtually identical photos.  How many Blue Angel photos does the world need?

I don't have many opportunities to photograph air shows.  Budget cuts have reduced the size and frequency of the performances.  The Blue Angels didn't fly at all last year.  This could be the last year that they fly.  

All my experience and decisions converge as I follow the aircraft with my lens.  I do the best I can.  When the show is over, I'm exhausted.  I spent 10 hours standing on a concrete flight line on the day that is statistically the hottest day of the Nebraska summer.  

As I walk a mile back to my car, I pass the guy with the 600mm lens.  He also has a huge tripod and a couple of other cameras and lens.  I don't envy him at this point.  

I downloaded all my images before I quit for the evening.   Overall, I was very  pleased.  However, the peak action takes place at "Show Center" and the 400mm was too long to show all the aircraft in the larger formations.  A zoom would have helped.  I also missed one aircraft in some of the opposing solo flights.  Finally, I was unable to photograph the smoke trail patterns left by the planes without a wider lens.  I definitely didn't need a 600mm lens.  Perhaps a shorter zoom would have worked better.

The Offutt Air Show is a two day event.  I decided to photograph the Sunday show with my very sharp 70-200mm lens.  I would be almost as close with the close-ups and could back off to 70mm to photograph smoke trails and the solo passes.  

Day 2 wasn't as hazy.  I took fewer photos because the Blue Angels had to be closer to me before they were large enough to shoot at 200mm.  Most of the time I wanted to zoom in more than the 200mm position allowed.  70mm wasn't wide enough to capture smoke trails very well either. 

I reviewed the  Day 2 photos after downloading.  If they had been the only photos I took,  I would have been very pleased with them.  They were properly exposed and sharp.  They could be cropped in Lightroom.

I wanted to see how they compared in more detail.  I found a moment were the shot from Day 1 and Day 2 were nearly identical.  I loaded them both in Photoshop.  I increased the size of the Day 2 shot until it was the same size as the Day 1 shot.  (200% larger)   The image below is a close-up of a small portion of the 200mm image.  When you place the mouse on the image, it switches to the 400mm version.

The aircraft were in a slightly different position on each day - the tire of the rear aircraft is noticeably higher on day 1.  The 400mm version has more detail - you can see a difference in the sharpness of the lettering.  The overall appearance of the 200mm version looks noisy - this is visible in the blue paint and the canopy. 

This isn't a unique photo -thousands of photos were taken as the aircraft overlapped.  Both lenses produced an image with more detail than the iPhones and most of the SLRs were able to capture.  The 400mm lens worked best for me and produced the shot that I wanted.  

The complete image is shown below - put the mouse on the image to shift from the 200mm version to the 400mm example.

 

Kenny Rogers, The Gambler and Snow Goose Photography

A million snow geese have been at rest for 30 minutes in the water at Squaw Creek.  Suddenly a lone eagle flies overhead.  A million geese explode into the air as if their life depends on it.  The explosion takes some time because only the geese at the edge have enough room to take off.  As they leave, the edge moves inward until every goose is able to fly.

This is the moment that I've been waiting for.  I fire a 24 shot burst with my Canon 1D Mark IV.  One of the shots will show the water and sky completely filled with geese.  Every shot will be slightly different.  I don't need 24 shots - I'll keep the best one and throw away the others.  

And the night got deathly quiet
And his face lost all expression
He said, "If you're gonna play the game, boy
You gotta learn to play it right

I employed the Spray and Pray strategy for a reason.  I'm using an 800mm lens extended to 1120mm.  It has a maximum aperture of f8.  I have the magnification necessary to show detail in each goose.  Unfortunately, I don't have the depth of field necessary to properly focus on each goose.  I don't have enough light to completely stop the beating wings.  The additional shots increase my odds for success.

You never count your money
When you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the dealin's done

There isn't much time in the field for "chimping".  I do check the histogram and a few shots from time to time, but mostly I rely on my experience and attempt to totally concentrate on what is happening at the moment.  I normally download my images as soon as I return home regardless of how tired I am.  I've worked hard all day and want to see what I got as I back it up.

Every gambler knows
That the secret to survivin'
Is knowin' what to throw away
And knowin' what to keep 

I don't need to keep all 24 shots of a snow goose explosion.  Before I enter any of the images into Lightroom,  I review them twice.  On the first pass, I remove images with obvious problems - overall focus, exposure, framing etc. and put them in a folder titled CULLS.   This decision is quick and easy.  If I started with 1000 images,  I might find 200 to cull.  The second pass is more difficult.  I look for and flag the best shot/shots in each sequence.  If there are a lot of shots in the sequence, I look for the best in each group of 4.  I place the rejected images in a folder titled SECONDS.  If I had 800 images after culling, I may end up placing 600 of them in SECONDS.

I photographed geese at Squaw Creek on March 11th.  I wasn't satisfied with my results.  Instead of finding 6 or even 1 best shots in my 24 exposure bursts, I had 24 shots with exactly the same problem.  They had 99.9 percent of the geese in acceptable focus and .1% of the geese out of focus.  The geese that were out of focus in front of the others were big white blobs in the photos.

 

'Cause every hand's a winner
And every hand's a loser
And the best that you can hope for
Is to die in your sleep"

One of the reasons I decided to return to Squaw Creek the following day was to solve this problem.  I went to sleep thinking about a solution.  I could use a shorter focal length to get more depth of field.  I could focus on the .1% of the front geese and let the back 99.9 become blurred.  I could stop shooting explosions when other geese we in front.

You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
Know when to run

I returned on March 12th.  The geese were closer to shore.  I used a shorter telephoto for some of the shots.

I waited for shots without geese in front. 

Trying to focus on the geese in front wasn't as easy as it sounds.  The spot focus on my camera wasn't able to distinguish those geese.    I had some success looking for geese that were going to pass in front of the explosion, focusing on them before they were in front and panning with them as they crossed the other geese.

And the night got deathly quiet
And his face lost all expression
He said, "If you're gonna play the game, boy
You gotta learn to play it right

An Open Door Lens Sharpness Discussion.

The three images below show the effect of shooting through an open door when the inside temperature is 70 degrees and the outside temperature is 20 degrees.

The first and last photos were taken through regular somewhat dirty window glass immediately before and immediately after the door was opened and closed.  The middle photo was the best of several taken with the door open and only clean air between the camera and hawk.

The open door had some advantages.  The auto-exposure increased from 1/500 to 1/1000.  A slight green color cast is noticeable in the photos taken through the window glass.

After taking a number of photos through my kitchen window,  I decided to risk a shot from outside.  I moved my camera to my unheated sun porch and shot through the open screen door.  As careful as I was, one of the two hawks was spooked and flew away.  Its partner was disturbed but remained long enough for a couple of photos.

The shot on the left was taken through window glass and the shot on the right was taken in the cold air. 

The three photos above are a 300x closeup view of the differences in sharpness in the unsharpened raw files.  The image on the right was taken in 20 degree air - it is the sharpest.  The image on the left was taken in a 70 degree room with ordinary window glass between the camera and hawk.  It isn't as sharp but could be sharpened in Photoshop.  The image in the center was taken through a door that was opened in a 70 degree room.  It is unusable mush.

When I photograph Sandhill Cranes, I usually use my vehicle as a blind.  It is often very cold and I close the windows when I'm not shooting.  These images illustrate why it is better to stay warm with a jacket instead of using the heater in the car. 

I've seen many discussions comparing lens sharpness.  The differences are usually barely perceptible.  The shots above show that even the best lens will produce unacceptable results when the air between the lens and subject is distorted.

30 Random Thoughts While Scanning 30 Years of Negatives

• ·           I'll never finish - scanning is so slow. 

•         I should have done this sooner.  I could have shared more of my life with my children.

• ·            Did I know how to focus?  I missed focus on many shots that autofocus has made easy.  On the other hand, I'm impressed with focus on some action shots that I nailed.

• ·            I made a lot of the same mistakes on the same roll.  I didn't know that my exposure was wrong until my film was processed.

• ·          Why didn't I take more photos?  I wish I had more of so many things. 

•              I miss so many people.
         

•            Everyone was so young
         

•            Dust Dust Dust  Dust was everywhere.
          

•            Dust has changed color.  It's black now when dust is on the sensor.  It was white then on my prints.
         

•           How could the photo labs scratch so many negatives?
        

•             I can't pick the peak of action from several shots with film.  I only had one chance to get it.
         

•            I didn't worry about using out of date film - I should have.
           

•       Why did I take so many photos of cats?
         

•           The Lab covered many mistakes.  I was under the impression that overexposing negative film resulted in finer grain.  It may have but the dynamic range isn't as good.
         

•             I like the way film handled fine details.  With digital, the detail is there or not. Film leaves a hint of detail.  An example is a scene where distant tree branches meet the sky.  It looks more natural with  film
           

•       Most people wore funny clothes and drove classic cars.
        

•            I use out of focus areas in my composition now.  We didn't have bokah back then.
         

•           I should have spent more on lens.  
         

•           Some creative things I did are no longer creative when everyone can do them in Photoshop.
         

•            I thought I was a good photographer then.  Most of my scenic and nature photos aren't worth the time it takes to scan.
        

•            It is hard to preview images.  I need a 10x loupe and a light table and need to look at each one.  Now I see everything on my huge screen and see tiny flaws immediately.
          

•            People look very happy with their ex-wives and husbands.
         

•          I have photos of people I had completely forgotten.
         

•         I have photos that I don't remember taking.
         

•           I have photos that I didn't want to remember taking.  I had to quit scanning for a while after I saw a photo appear on my screen of my wife and daughters funeral.
         

•            Some negatives are impossible to color balance.  I don't know if the negative faded or the film processing was bad.
        

•           My medium format shots are nice, but I can do better with 35mm today.
           

•       I wish I had taken more shots of the everyday things.
         

•           Some of the real old people I photographed were younger than I am.
         

•           I wonder if I'm wasting my time.  Some of my negatives are 40 years old.  I'm not sure that any of my digital images will be around in 40 years.  It only takes one delete and they are gone.

Sell Adobe - This Will be a Nasty Divorce

It was a marriage made in heaven.  I purchased Photoshop shortly after switching to digital photography.  I had never paid so much for software before but Adobe had a winner.  About once a year, Adobe would release a new version with marvelous new features.  I willingly upgraded each time up to Photoshop 7.

Adobe never released Photoshop 8.  They announced Photoshop CS instead.  They started breaking the software into modules that interacted with each other.  They split Photoshop into two versions - the extended version was more expensive.  It sounded great in their press releases but it made my workflow more complicated.  Instead of working for me the software started working against me.  Since couldn't move to the extended version as an upgrade, Photoshop CS was a watered down version of Photoshop.

About the time of Photoshop CS2, things got worse.  Adobe announced a new file format - DNG.  They said that the time would come when they would no longer support older versions of file formats.  They provided a DNG converter free of charge.  Once we had modified our files to their format, we would always be able to work with them.  They were doing this as a favor.  Adobe also provided Camera Raw and soon you had to buy the most recent version of Photoshop if you wanted to be able to use the latest camera models.  They effectively cut out the past and future for those who didn't upgrade.

I did like one of the new modules that Adobe developed - Lightroom.  I started using it with Lightroom 2.  I found that I needed to use Photoshop less as I started using Lightroom more.  I liked Lightroom so much that I decided not to purchase Photoshop CS5.  Adobe had only made minor changes and I didn't have a new camera.  This strategy worked for almost a year.  About the time I was expecting Photoshop CS6 to be released, Adobe announced that only users of CS5 would be able to upgrade.  They offered a small discount for Photoshop CS5.  I purchased the Photoshop CS5 upgrade before their deadline.  The extortion had worked for Adobe and their profits went up. 

Photoshop CS6 didn't have any new features that I was excited about, but I had learned my lesson.  I went to Amazon to purchase it and found out that it wasn't there.  Adobe now was only selling it through their own site.  They didn't even want to provide a CD with the purchase. 

Photoshop CC was announced in June.  I had learned that when Adobe changes the name, bad things happened but I wasn't prepared for this one.  Adobe had another new rule.  They wanted me to pay a monthly fee to use photoshop whether they had improved it or not.  They were also now selling space on the "cloud" so that I could start paying a monthly charge for my files as well.  This was the breaking point for me.  I decided to continue to use Lightroom and my Photoshop CS6 would have to do until I absolutely needed to move to something new.

Apparently many others felt the same way, and Adobe offered a "deal".  I could subscribe for 10 dollars a month and would receive Photoshop CC as well as Lightroom if I was a current user of CS6 and met a deadline date.  This deal is good as long as I maintain my subscription although the fine print doesn't say  exactly the same thing that Adobe is promising.  I need to trust them. 

I swallowed my pride and signed up.  Adobe promptly allowed hackers to download all of their credit card subscribers information. 

Apparently Adobe isn't telling its stockholders the same thing that its telling its users.  Today I read:
"The quicker transition to subscriptions has a shorter-term downside: because customers pay smaller fees steadily over a long period of time instead of a large sum at the beginning of a purchase, revenues drop when the subscriptions begin. That's true of  Adobe, and it's complicated by the fact that it offered promotions to encourage people to make the change.
For example, earlier Creative Suite customers can spend $30 a month instead of $50 for    their first year for the full CC subscription to all Adobe's software, and the company also has a limited-term $10-per-month Photoshop Photography Program option that gives   access to Photoshop, Lightroom, cloud storage, and access to the Behance professional network. "

Adobe is telling its stockholders that everyone loves the new model and to expect massive increases in profit in future years.  

Adobe should tell its stockholders that it is out of ideas and now needs to rely on extortion and vague promises to maintain its user base.  It has become a commodity - a monthly bill like a leased car.  Nearly everyone who wants Photoshop has it.  The only way to increase prices is to charge more or to offer something better.  Adobe is looking at strike 3 with many of its most loyal users - including myself.    If someone else starts to market a similar product, I'm ready to leave.   If you own Adobe stock, I wouldn't count on Photoshop to increase future profits.  The band may be playing but the ship is going down.