dreamingreal.com

New stuff going on at work, busy busy. Buying a truck to tow the wife's travel trailer. Shooting pictures like mad .

I got a new macro lens - well, not a NEW one. It's probably CA 1980 or so; the pentax 100mm f4 Macro that appeared in Dentistry dress as well. It really shines on this K20D. Here are a couple of samples (click for larger images):

Macro Tips for DSLR photographers

First, when you're shooting high-magnification (1:3 or better) Macro photographs, you don't focus the lens so much as you focus the camera by moving it closer and further away. This also allows you to control your magnification level critically by setting your macro lens to, say, 1:2 on the lens; you know what the final reproduction ratio is going to be, then.

Second, you must use a tripod or a flash, or both. I tend to use a flash; I have a Vivitar 283 with the manual exposure module and a Lumiquest ProMax Softbox ( a velcro-on camera mount softbox ) that I adjust down until it's just above the top of the lens. It's about 8" wide by 4" tall, and makes for a nice soft shadow (see images above). At the magnification levels we're talking about, only the short exposure created by the flash duration allows me to handhold these shots; even in direct sunlight I couldn't get a sharp image without flash. The nice thing about manual flash for macro is that you set your distance when you pre-focus, then you adjust aperture and flash intensity until you have good exposure and depth of field. Then you have a rig that's a very high-quality, macro-centric point and shoot. You walk up to your target until it's in focus, and fire away. Take three or four of any important shot to make sure you get your focus where you want it. If there's enough light, set your camera to "catch-in-focus" mode, and pick the focus point where the shutter fires when 'in focus'.

Third, know your sensor; do some test shots and find out what the critical limits of sharpness and contrast are. Generally, though, you want to keep your aperture between f8 and f22 inclusive. With my 100mm lens, that's still only about 6-7mm of DOF (see above) at 100% (onscreen actual pixels). DOF is dependent on final magnification of the image, and macro images see massive magnification - that's why we take them, right?

I've been reading a lot written about photography by photographers lately, as I'm awaiting the Amazonian arrival of my new K20D and rediscovering my fascination with the medium. Professional Photographers are an odd bunch (I know, I was one, once) and have all kinds of interesting notions about photography and art. A common, plaintive cry I hear is "You don't ask an author what kind of typewriter he uses; why would you ask a photographer what kind of camera he uses?". Of course, this analogy fails catastrophically (approaching non-sequitur), because a typewritten manuscript has nothing to do with the final appearance of a book. Obviously a camera has some impact on the final appearance of a photograph, as does the lens, the film or sensor, and Photoshop.

It is true, as Ken Rockwell points out in his treatise "Your Camera Doesn't Matter", at full frame 8x10 or smaller, and on 1024x1024 constrained web galleries, it is nearly impossible to discern any meaningful difference between cameras (barring obvious malfunctions or defects). But does that mean your camera doesn't matter? I'm not so sure, and I don't think Mr. Rockwell means "it doesn't matter" in a categorical sense; I think he means that you can make wonderful photographs with any camera. That much is absolutely true.

Ken points out that scene in the movie Blues Brothers where Ray Charles takes a crappy old piano with a sticky action and makes it sing. I like to talk about the story (perhaps apocryphal, but in character!) about the time Minnesota Fats came into a big city pool hall and said he'd beat any man in the place at a game for $500, playing with a broom handle - and proceeded to do so. And yes, a great guitar player can make the crappiest axe in the world sound like it's playable. And it's true that a race car driver can probably outrun the police cruisers in a '72 Pinto.

So where is the problem? Well, the real problem with this discussion and presentation is that people just don't work like that. You don't get up in the morning and go off to take generic "wonderful images". Most people who really want to be photographers have a certain concept in mind. Recently, Scott Bourne made the "Shakespeare" comment - that is, when someone asked what kind of camera he used for a photograph (of an eagle!!!), he complained that you ought to ask Shakespeare what kind of quill he used to pen Romeo and Juliette. Don't get me wrong, I like Scott, and I love the images he makes, but let's get real: Nature photography, specifically bird photography, and very specifically raptor photography, is one of the most equipment intensive undertakings one can make in the photographic world, right up there with underwater photography. Scott makes no bones about the price of his equipment and his "long lenses". Long lenses - long, FAST lenses - are not cheap, my friend, and believe me, you won't be shooting those intimate head-and-shoulder portraits of Harris Hawks with a point-and-shoot. Now sure, you can rent a 400 f4 EOS lens and bolt your Rebel onto the back of it, but you still have to have the lens. You're not shooting owls and peregrine falcons with a Holga.

It can be argued that art doesn't place constraints, and that good images that include raptors could be made with a point and shoot camera, and that's absolutely true. But if you're shooting a landscape that happens to include a raptor, you're photographing a landscape. You may love the picture as art, but if you're shooting a book about Eagles, you're going to need more than just distant shots of birds soaring above valleys. And everyone loves those photographs where you can count the ridges in the feathers and see the fierce, predatory gaze of those raptor eyes - assuming you're a raptor enthusiast, you'll want those images, as well.

You want to be an architectural photographer? You're going to need a tilt/shift lens or a 4x5 camera. Will you need it for every shot? Nope. Will you need it? Absolutely.

Some photographic disciplines lend themselves to certain equipment, and sometimes that equipment is not particularly specialized. If you want to be a 'street photographer', if you're drawn by images of people in urban settings doing urban things, you can get away with almost any camera. If you want to shoot candid images in subways, you'll need something with fast glass or fast film/sensor, or both, and unobtrusive to boot. You want to shoot coral reefs and great whites, you're going to need something waterproof. If taking pictures of bugs, flowers, and paint chips is your bag, you're going to want something with a good macro lens.

If you want to shoot studio portraits, you're going to need lights, backgrounds, and a short telephoto lens. Unless you're one of those talents that can redefine a genre, in which case, you're going to need backdrops of some sort, light of some sort, and a lens of your choosing.

So yes, any camera can make wonderful photographs. Let's say I take my Pentax Optio on vacation - it takes very sharp 3.2 MP images; great for snapshots. While on vacation, I use that camera to create a wonderful image of some fog rolling in between two mountains - an absolutely gorgeous image worthy of Galen Rowell. I get home and print out the 5x7 and it's beautiful. I really, really want a good 16x24, but when I get it back, it's all fuzzy and unsharp, because my resolution was too low. Or I shoot a great picture of a bear from a pedestrian bridge, but the animal is too small in the frame, so I crop it. Looks great at 640x480... The camera isn't really appropriate for those kinds of images. It's been said that the best camera for any shot is the one you have with you, and I'll certainly agree that it's better to get a good shot you can't enlarge than to miss it altogether, but the point is that equipment does matter. You shouldn't let that stop you from taking pictures with the camera you have; and no, getting a better camera will not make you a better photographer. That's the point. Just buying better equipment won't make you a better photographer, guitar player, painter, or pianist. Buying a camera with a higher resolution will let you make larger prints of mediocre photographs if that's who you are. So certainly don't let equipment stop you from taking pictures. The best way to become a better photographer is to take more pictures, and examine them critically.

But let's remember that when Ray played the lousy piano, and when Minnesota Fats played with a broomstick, they might have played better than all the people around them, but they didn't play their best. There's a reason artists want quality tools, and equipment can matter, a lot.

Once upon a time, I was a professional photographer. I've been a computer guy so long now that I even forget that fact sometimes. Recently, I discovered a bunch of my old slides from the early '90s, and some of them reminded me how much I enjoyed photography. Here's one of them:

I loved this bird's eyes, and on my calibrated Mac screen the color is nearly exact. Firefox 2 won't display the colors properly, perhaps because of the color space I used. Firefox 3 will do so, however, if you enable color management.

This was shot on Ektachrome 100, 35mm film, using a Canon T90 and a ~70-210 f2.8 Canon L series lens, if memory serves. I rephotographed the slide with my Pentax *ist DL camera and the kit lens, if you can believe that. I held the slide up in front of a big white screen (Finder maximized on an empty folder) and shot it hand held four or five times. This one turned out OK. When I get my K20D I'm going to make a slide duplicator that will improve on this quality considerably; through a loupe you can count the feathers on this fellow, but here it's not nearly as sharp.

I don't plan on turning this into a photo blog, but I plan on shooting a lot more photos, so expect to see 'em.

This is one a picture I took long, long ago; the poor llama was just laying there while the warthog just kept at it. Poor llama!

This weekend I got to thinking about the perils of data stored only magnetically, and started looking at options for hard-copy printout of photographs. Specifically, all the photographs of my daughter - of my life since the advent of digital photography - are stored on a few hard drives scattered around the Metro Area. I've got three copies of my Aperture library, one at work, one on my laptop, one on my own Mac at home. Fairly safe, right? Redundancy and off-site storage.

But what if there were a perfect storm of failures? I've certainly had a few of those in my life - successive hard drive failures and data corruption combining to kill data that I thought was stored safely. So I started to look at my options online, and came down to three - not mutually exclusive - for hard copy.

The first option is actual photographic prints. There are several online sites that offer them for next to nothing, and you've got a freedom we've never had before in photographs. You can do whatever you want to the images before you ship them off to be printed. Most of the online providers suggest 300 pixels per inch of final print for "true photographic" quality. I signed up with winkflash.com, and they're now offering their "450HD" imaging, at 450 pixels per inch up to 5x7 inches. They offer 300 ppi prints for 8 cents per 4x6, and 8x10s for something like $1.49. I ordered a selection of standard prints, and I'll report back on the quality when I get them. I will probably try Kodak.com's digital prints as well, and then shutterfly.com. Both cost more than twice as much as winkflash.com; we'll see if the quality lives up to the price. Stay tuned!

The second option is a photo book. All of the printers listed in the previous paragraph will make them for you, but I chose to try out a site more built around books than those sites. Blurb.com has their own software, called "BookSmart", and works on a mac. I built a book of my daughter's first year photographs, 26 pages or so, and the price was less than $40 with shipping. This is a hardback 7x7 coffee table book with a full-color cover. Again, I'll let you know what the quality is like after I see it. I'm not sure about the specific archival quality of the books, but I know I've got books from the 60s that still look pretty doggone good after sitting in trunks or on shelves for years. Built in dark storage for the photographs, I figure. I will probably also try lulu.com before I'm done.

The third option is a printer with archival inks. Most major printer brands have such an offering now, but I think I'm going to try out the Kodak photo printers. They have a 5-color cartrige that's $14.99, and a black cartridge that's $9.99, and they claim the ink costs are half of the other major offerings. The new inks from Kodak are pigmented, and supposedly offer the same archival lifespan as Kodak prints (when you use Kodak paper, of course). The printers themselves aren't very expensive - they're all multi-function devices, with the top of line coming in at $199 with a sheet fed scanner/fax. I've currently got the Epson 220R, and I've not been very happy with the photographic results or the cost of the ink. I think it's going to become a dedicated black and white printer with inks from inksupply.com - the Ultratone inks run $65 for my printer, but supposedly offer print quality approaching that of an actual silver print.

I'll report back on the results of these as they come in.