I so rarely re-blog, but this is one that struck home. Thanks Jakz!
Originally posted on Life As I Pretend To Know It:
While taking a walk through the neighborhood, stepping along the sidewalks strewn with fallen, crunchy leaves, I found my mind repeatedly drawn back to a somewhat absurd thought.
I think I wouldn’t mind being a leaf.
In their earliest of days, leaves break forth from their buds touting vibrant colors. They bring with them fresh life and the hope of spring, despite arriving in the slowly receding gray days of winter. They instantly greet life fully, welcoming the warmth of the sun as they reach for the skies above. They dance in the wind and let the rain splash across their surfaces. They embrace their life and where they were placed in this world.
As their days progress, slowly, steadily, they mature. They grow broader, hardier, and their reach extends further. Their ability to shade the world from the harsh sun increases, just in time for summer’s grand appearance. During the…
View original 731 more words
I’m a shooter first, editor second. But the modern era has provided such great variety of different software programs to use that it’s impossible to ignore the obvious: post-processing is important. We have available to us a virtually limitless supply of different editing treatments, and images can be manipulated to a degree never imagined by photographers of the past.
You can add or subtract major elements to your photo, merge as many different exposures as you wish, overlay all sorts of treatments that can make it look like a painting, etching, ancient film photo, etc. Oh, and you can even strive to faithfully replicate what was in front of you.
Before you read this post, you may want to check out Part I. It goes into the things you need to think about before deciding how you wish to approach post-processing. Editing software costs real money, and it will take real time to learn it. More time will be spent editing your photos.
It’s important to be realistic about how much time & money you want to invest, and to get a handle on what sort of payoff there might be. For example, if you decide you want to learn Photoshop, how proficient do you want to get? Do you want to become an expert, and how much time will that take? More important, how much of a difference will it ultimately make to the quality of the sorts of images you want to make?
I’m going to recommend an approach here that in my opinion keeps things simple, and yet allows you a lot of room to explore your creative side. In no way am I trying to convince you this is hands-down the best way to go. One thing that has always bugged me about education in general, and photography education in particular, is that so many teachers try to pretend they are presenting things in a totally unbiased way.
That’s nonsense. We all have biases, and no matter how much we try to remain impartial, those biases remain the moment we open our mouths. I think it’s best to be honest about that. If you’re pushing one way of doing things over another, fine. Just don’t be self-righteous or ideological about it. If you’re pushing a product or service you really love, just admit it and move on. Honesty is always the best policy.
JOB ONE: GET ORGANIZED
What is the first thing you want to do with your photos after they are recorded onto a memory card (SD, compact flash, etc.)? Make them look pretty? Share them? You may choose to shoot in Jpeg and share you photos instantly via Instagram. Of course that’s fine. In fact it’s very popular. But it’s also a fairly casual approach. If you’re more serious about your photography, I recommend doing the following before you do much (if any) shooting.
BUY LIGHTROOM (LR): Most professionals either use Photoshop Lightroom or Photoshop CS or a combination of the two. To start out you only need Lightroom, which is currently in version 5. Optionally you can add Photoshop Elements (the cheaper pared down version of Photoshop). Lightroom is the best general purpose software program made for photographers. You can also use Aperture, which is similar but not quite as versatile. Some Nikon shooters swear by Capture NX, which is that company’s in-house program.
TO CLOUD OR NOT? For better or worse, Adobe is trying to push us all onto “the cloud”. In fact, the latest version of Photoshop CS is only offered on the cloud, as a pay-per-month service. For Lightroom, you can still buy the standalone program for about $135, $79 for students & teachers. Photoshop Elements (version 13) is also available in non-cloud form, for about $80. How long will Adobe continue to offer these two in stand-alone form is anyone’s guess. They’re having a lot of success getting people to switch to the cloud.
Buying the cloud version means you get free upgrades whenever the new versions come out. You can also store files online and work on them from a different computer. But this isn’t strictly cloud-based software. You still download the software to your computer like normal, so you don’t need to be online to use it (a common misconception). You do need to have web access at least once every 4 months to confirm your subscription.
Another common misconception about the cloud is that you’re automatically sharing your work with strangers online: not true. While sharing is a breeze, you can still save any or all of your images on your own personal hard drives. Cloud storage actually makes a handy option for backing up your edited selects, though speeds aren’t quite to the point where it’s a realistic offsite backup option for RAW image catalogs.
You can get both Lightroom and the full version of Photoshop CS as a cloud-based package for $10/month, which isn’t such a bad deal if you’re the type who’s likely to buy the latest version anyway. I haven’t jumped to the cloud yet, mainly because I don’t do a lot in Photoshop and don’t always upgrade when a new version of Lightroom comes out.
LEARN LR BASICS & SET UP A FILE STRUCTURE: Learn something of how Lightroom works to organize your photos. Learn about catalogs and the Library Module. You can learn about the Develop Module (editing) and all the other stuff LR does as you go. Decide on and set up a file structure on your computer. Make it simple and make sure it fits your way of thinking.
Make sure you have enough storage space for the first year or so of image files plus their (multiple) backups. Depending on your camera, images take up more space than you might think. If you’re going to shoot video as well, that takes even more space.
Also decide on how you will be naming your photos. The names your camera gives them are just meaningless numbers. Books on Lightroom cover naming and file structure, but it really is a personal thing.
SET YOUR CAMERA TO SHOOT IN RAW: This will enable you to edit and save various versions of the image, all the while keeping the original file untouched. You’ll also have greater latitude when it comes to editing. You can also shoot in RAW plus Jpeg if you want. Always choose the highest quality and for color space choose either Adobe RGB (or ProPhoto RGB if it’s offered), not sRGB. Later, after editing, you will convert to the narrower color range of sRGB if the image is to be displayed on a digital screen.
UPLOAD & BACK UP
This is something you should do as often as possible, preferably after every shoot. Memory cards do fail (or get lost), and you don’t want to experience the frustration of capturing a great image only for it be lost before it can even be viewed. Save the original RAW files to a hard drive separate from your working drive, which is the one that runs your software. You might make this drive a fast, solid-state drive, in which case it’d probably be too small for an image catalog anyway.
Back up these files to a separate hard drive onsite, then mirror that to another drive, giving you three copies of each image file. You can keep this drive offsite or make yet another copy (for a total of four) and store that offsite. If your internet speed is fast enough you can consider cloud-based offsite backup. In most places that’s impractical, so what do you do if you’re traveling? Of course this limitation will disappear soon enough.
Next time we’ll continue with what to do once your images are uploaded to the computer. Have a great weekend!
This post continues a mini-series on the Ouachitas and Ozarks that I started last Friday. Check out Part I before reading this one.
HOW THE OZARKS CAME TO BE
So let’s continue with the geology of the Ozarks. If you’ve been to other places in the world with a lot of limestone caves, and if you’re observant, you’ll recognize a distinct type of terrain in the Ozarks: karst topography. Karst is made up of steep but not very high mountains. Most all karst lies in lower latitudes, so it tends to be forested. Caves, sinkholes and underground rivers are very common in this kind of terrain. You may at first glance find it hard to recognize karst in the Ozarks. But because of their great age, the karst here is more subtle than that of, for example, the Malay Peninsula or southwestern China.
Still, karst topography anywhere is not easily missed. In the middle Paleozoic Era, some 350 to 450 million years ago, the Ozarks were what geologists call a carbonate platform, a sandy seafloor interrupted occasionally by shallow reefs. But “carbonate platform” is too dry a term for me. It was in fact a warm, tropical sea, filled with marine life and dotted with islands. To put it even more simply, it was one of the many pre-human paradises that have existed on Earth.
Like today, the marine life was dominated by tiny planktonic (free floating) organisms. But there was also a very abundant sessile community (seafloor-dwellers like clams, etc.). Finally there were free swimmers like early fish and many squid-like creatures. Early sharks, which came in a variety of weird forms, patrolled the waters.
Most of the life in that ancient sea made their shells out of calcium carbonate, pulling CO2 out of the seawater and in the process helping to keep the world from warming up too much. When these little critters died they drifted down and accumulated on the sea floor. The limy sediment piled up, later to form limestone rock thousands of feet thick. The world’s largest lead-zinc mines occur in the Ozarks in what’s called the Viburnum Trend. Abundant lead and zinc occurs characteristically in thick stacks of limestone.
While the Ouachita Orogeny buckled and broke the land to the south, thrusting up high mountains, here in the Ozarks it simply lifted the carbonate platform straight up into a shallow dome-like plateau. (It also lifted up the entire southern part of the Great Plains.) When the limestone was lifted, it began to be subjected to the effects of a groundwater.
The water table is always changing with time. In wetter climates the limestone bedrock lay submerged in mildly acidic groundwater, which slowly enlarges fractures, dissolving out cavities. In drier times the rock was above water table. This is when familiar features like stalactites and stalagmites would form. The evolution of caverns only halts when erosion of the land above reaches them and they dry out. But without these often well-hidden openings, the Ozarks wouldn’t be one of the best places to go caving in North America.
As in much of the U.S., renting a car is the only realistic way to see much. A regular two-wheel-drive sedan will do fine in this part of the country. Flying in you can try to get a relatively cheap flight to Fayetteville or Little Rock, Arkansas. Oklahoma City (4-5 hours by car) or Dallas (7 hours to the Ozarks, 4 to the Ouachitas) are also options.
Often when you’re looking at exploring a region, you can save money by flying relatively cheaply to a town that relies on tourism. There’s a good chance you’ll be able to score a cheap rental car too, then you can skip town and drive to your preferred (less touristy) destination. It works well as long as your tourist-town gateway isn’t too far from where you’re going. Las Vegas, only a few hours away from Zion National Park, is a good example.
For the Ozarks, try looking into the town of Branson, Missouri. Lying smack dab in the Missouri Ozarks, Branson has gambling and country music and you either love it or hate it. You might be able to get good flight and rental car deals to and from Branson. A flight to Dallas will still probably be cheaper, but remember to factor in gas and time when making a decision. For the Ouachitas, try Hot Springs, Arkansas. It isn’t as hot a tourist destination, but there’s a National Park.
Once you arrive and have transport, there are numerous potential base-towns that offer anything you may need, plus a great diversity of lodging. A couple larger ones are Hot Springs, Arkansas (home town of former president Bill Clinton) and Fayetteville, AR (home of the Razorbacks – college football is big in this area). Small towns are quite numerous, and fairly cheap motel rooms can be had in most of them.
Camping is possible in the Ouachita National Forest. Simple and basic as always, National Forest campsites here are often located beside lakes stocked with fish. Good state parks can also be found. Magazine Mountain State Park in Arkansas hosts an excellent state park with great hiking trails, camping and a beautiful lodge with outstanding views.
I went to Magazine Mountain because it was the highest peak in the Ouachitas. While you can hike a short trail to the summit, trees prevent much of a view. What you will see up there is an amazingly large map of Arkansas made of stone! Better views are found along the ridge-lines leading from the summit. A few miles south of the turnoff to the lodge, along Hwy. 309, a small scenic overlook beckons you to stop. From here you can walk the trail a hundred yards or more for even better natural stone viewing platforms.
A large picnic area off the east side of the road just uphill from the overlook makes a good place to eat lunch, and is also a good spot from which to go hiking. The lodge at Mt. Magazine is on a side road that takes off west of Hwy. 309. At this intersection there’s a small but nice visitor center. Stop and learn something of the local plant and animal life, get maps and hiking tips, and fill up a water bottle. The lodge is pretty luxurious. I don’t know the prices and they’re not listed on the web, but Google them and call or email. There are cabins, rooms and suites, all with splendid views. A restaurant that serves good basic meals is onsite as well.
The Benefield Loop, Bear Hollow and North Rim trails have the best views at Mt. Magazine. Don’t forget the camera; you’ll have many photo opportunities at both large and small scales. The sandstone here is harder and more resistant to erosion than surrounding shale, so it stands up, forming stunning overlooks (see above). It’s tempting to put a friend/subject/victim out on one of these and photograph them looking heroic.
The rock outcrops also host very interesting lichen and moss, and in summertime beautiful wildflowers spring from its crevices. You may find your macro lens getting a good workout at Mt. Magazine. Keep an eye out for deer on the roads of course, and watch for snakes too, especially as it warms up in spring. There are venomous (but not deadly) copperheads here.
I best leave it there. The next installment will highlight some of the region’s cultural history and describe a few nice spots to visit and photograph in the Ouachitas and Ozarks.
Evening comes on early these November days, so if I get the urge to shoot at sunset I’m usually rushing out, not leaving enough time. That was the case the other day. Since I was running late and thought I’d probably not shoot anything until the sun had dipped below the horizon, I automatically thought, ‘where’s the nearest water?’ When the light gets low just after sunset, light is beautiful but foregrounds can get very dark. Water, or some other reflective surface like snow, is often the best bet.
The Cimarron River was nearby so I drove fast in that direction. I parked near the bridge and scrambled down to the water. In my hurry I strode confidently right up to the water’s edge, without checking the footing. My front foot hit firm mud that was as slick as ice, and I did a split, with my front leg shin-deep in the river. Even when I was a young guy, splits weren’t really part of my repertoire. Now, they’re darn awkward!
I was muddy and one foot was already soaked. So I just took off both shoes and, after checking the depth, waded out into the river. I stuck the tripod legs into the mud of the river bottom and got this shot. The light had a beautiful purplish hue to it. Have a great week everyone!
Instead of Friday Foto Talk this week, I’m pausing to do something I haven’t done in quite some time. If you haven’t been reading this blog for long, you probably think I only do posts on photography. But my real love is exploring and learning about new places. In particular I love the land and how people have been relating to it and to each other over the ages. I tend to go for off-beat places lying “in-between” the well known destinations.
I don’t totally ignore the more touristy places. After all, nearly all of them used to be charming little spots, and that charm often lies just beneath the surface. But I don’t take trips without making time for detours. As an example, this blog actually started out when I did a 4-month trip to Africa. If you have time, you might check out some of the posts from that journey.
AN IMPROMPTU TRIP
This post is about a place I wouldn’t have thought of visiting if not for the fact I was working nearby and had some time off to explore. The southern U.S. is a culturally distinct area of the country. It’s the most conservative part of the U.S., and religious fundamentalism has a home there. But the region is also renowned for its polite respect and hospitality.
A liberal may not agree with much of what the people believe here, but they also might be treated much better than in friendlier ideological confines like California or Massachusetts. Unfortunately, in recent decades, that culture has been diluted by the ongoing homogenization of the world. In that respect it’s no different than many other places.
The Oachitas and Ozarks of Arkansas, eastern Oklahoma and southern Missouri are an interesting area of low mountains and forests, small towns and farms. Outstanding quartz crystals are found among pine forest in the Oachitas. In the Ozarks streams flow from numerous caves. Between the Appalachians and Rocky Mountains, this is some of the only high country you’ll find in the U.S.
The word Oachita (pronounced wosh-i-TAW) comes from the Choctaw tribe’s word for the region. It means place of large buffaloes. Sadly, bison no longer roam free here. The word Ozarks is derived from the French term aux arcs, referring to either the top bend of the Arkansas River or to the large number of natural bridges and arches in the area.
A good time to visit the Oachitas and Ozarks is in autumn, when the leaves of the oak and hickory turn golden and red. That happens in mid-October through early November most years. There is probably a little more fall color going on in the Ozarks than in the pine-rich Oachitas. Summers are hot and humid, but there are plenty of lakes to cool off in. Winters are fairly mild but cold, snowy periods are not uncommon. Early to mid-October is a perfect time to visit. Springtime (March to April) is also great.
I always start with this when talking about a place. Blame it on the fact that I did it for nearly 20 years. Or maybe I read a lot of James Michener when I was young. The Oachita Mountains are the remnants of a once-mighty mountain range. We can’t be sure exactly how high they were, but think of the modern Rocky Mountains of Colorado and you have the idea.
The reason these mountains are so mellow (some would even call them hills) is the combined effects of water, gravity and time. By the way, I don’t call them hills because I know about their long, grand reign. You wouldn’t call an old man who had seen and done great things a boy, now would you?
Like many (but not all) mountain chains, the Oachitas formed from the collision of two tectonic plates. About 300 million years ago, well before any dinosaur walked the earth, the South American continent, coming from the south, collided with North America. An ocean was destroyed in the process. Much later it was resurrected as the modern Atlantic, with the Gulf of Mexico butting up against the southern U.S.
The Oachita “orogeny” (mountain building event) created what is called a fold-thrust belt. Folds in layers of sedimentary rock are just like when you push a rug against a wall. Thrust faults are like pushing one rug over top another. Yep, tectonics is like your living room! The Alps are the classic example of a fold-thrust belt mountain range. But they are much younger than the Oachitas and Appalachians. The latter are characterized by long ridges separated by broad valleys. The ridges stand up because erosion has cut into the folds and exposed harder rocks like sandstone.
The sandstone, shale and limestone that make up the Oachitas were formed many millions of years before they were crunched by the Oachita Orogeny. The area was covered by thousands of feet of seawater, and the nearby coast was flat and quiet, much like the modern-day east coast of South America. Sediments were deposited in the quiet waters of a Paleozoic sea, precursor to the modern Atlantic. As that ocean was destroyed in the collision, the seafloor rocks and sediments were caught in a giant vise. They buckled under the stress of collision, eventually rising to form a fold-thrust mountain belt. Because the pressure was directed north-south, the mountains run east-west. They’re the only mountains in America that run in this direction.
On a curved surface like that of our planet, mountains don’t run in straight lines forever. The Oachitas are part of a very, very long arc of ancient mountains, extending thousands of miles from Maine to Texas. The Appalachians, which are themselves quite long, extend to the west. They are interrupted by the Mississippi embayment, but pick up in central Arkansas as the Oachitas. Even further to the west, the range is submerged beneath younger rocks, popping up as the Wichita Mountains of Oklahoma and the Marathon Mountains of west Texas.
The Oachitas are known for their beautiful quartz crystals and also for novaculite. Novaculite is a very fine grained, hard flinty rock that resembles flint or chert. It’s easily knapped or flaked, and as such made this area a magnet for newly arrived humans some 12,000 years ago. These hunter-gatherers were looking for good raw material from which to make spear-points.
As a bonus, the Oachitas also provided deer, bison and other animals to hunt with those spear points. Both the crystalline and the micro-crystalline quartz (novaculite is micro-crystalline) were created when fluids from deeper in the crust rose and filled the pervasive fractures formed during mountain building.
The Ozarks lie north of the Oachitas. In ancient times (and I do mean ancient), the North American continent was smaller, with a coastline to the north of the Ozarks.
**Sorry, I just have to go on a tangent: Although there have been a few periods in Earth’s history when all the continents joined together into super-continents, most of the time it’s been like today, continents separated by oceans. But in the distant past continents were smaller and oceans bigger. It’s one reason we have so much darn limestone around (that rock forms in shallow seas). Pangea, which you may have heard of, was the last of the super-continents, and it came together after the Oachitas formed. In fact, the tectonic collision that led to the rise of the Appalachian-Oachita mountains was a big event leading to the coming together of Pangea.
We’ll have another super-continent again sometime in the future, but the bigger picture is this: continents started out quite small and have grown steadily larger over billions of years. This means big things for carbon, the basis of life and (combined with oxygen) the ultimate controller of climate. It means more carbon will be soaked up by weathering and stored away in limestone and other rocks. Of course this has always happened and we’ve done just fine. Carbon has been dragged with it’s enclosing rocks down into the mantle by subduction, and then recycled back into the atmosphere in volcanic eruptions. It’s what has kept earth from freezing over.
But with bigger continents comes more weathering. With relatively shorter coastline and less ocean comes fewer volcanoes. The net effect will probably mean less efficient long-term carbon cycling, and declining ability for the planet to resist ice ages. It will mean less carbon for life and less carbon dioxide for the greenhouse effect. This trend won’t become noticeable for quite some time. But after the current episode of global warming plays itself out, we will return to a long-term cooling and drying trend, one that has been in place for about 30 million years. We probably won’t freeze over, because the sun has been gradually getting hotter ever since the solar system’s formation.
While this trend will have big effects on climate, evolution tends to triumph over those kinds of changes. But having less carbon around has crucial implications for life. We’re living, most probably, in the latter stages of life’s heyday. Though life began some 3.5 to 4 billion years ago, it only really got going about a half billion years ago. It saw its peak sometime between 150 and 35 million years ago, and has been slowly declining ever since.
You may have heard that the sun will expand in about 5 billion years, destroying the earth and us in the process. That will happen. But unfortunately, all complex life (including us if we don’t evolve into a space-faring and/or partly synthetic species) will likely have disappeared long before that. In fact, we might have only about a billion more years of habitability here. Tiny one-celled organisms may be the only thing to witness the expansion of the sun to its red giant stage. Nothing lasts forever, and that goes for both good times and bad. I think there’s a lesson to be learned here. Enjoy life! And guard the precious ability of our Earth to shelter it.
I’ve gone over on length with this one, so I’ll leave it there and continue next time with more on the Ozarks, plus some interesting cultural history. I’ll have tips for travel and photography in this interesting area as well. Have a great weekend!
Last Friday wrapped up the short series of posts on learning photography. But I thought I’d follow up this week with one more thing you need to think about: post-processing. This post will cover general considerations and decisions you’ll need to make. Next time I’ll go into specific software choices.
When I first bought a digital camera, I was under the naive impression that the photos coming out of the camera were what they were. I knew you could do fancy things with Photoshop, things like putting several pictures together to make a scene that looked like it belonged on a cover from a Yes album (a 70s era prog. rock band for all you millenials!). Or even merging my face onto Arnold Schwarzenegger’s body (I never did that!). But since I knew I didn’t want to get into any of that, I just didn’t see the need to buy software.
Although I was blissfully ignorant of the real situation, I was partly right. I was shooting in Jpeg. And when you shoot in Jpeg the camera edits pictures before it displays them on the LCD screen. You can load those Jpegs into your computer and do a lot of extra editing of course. But the whole idea of shooting in Jpeg is so that you can do a basic edit “in-camera” and get the pictures out without extra work. Now we have things like Instagram, which does (often dramatic) extra work on pictures before they are shared on the internet. And all of this without you spending any extra time.
Through this entire series I’ve assumed you all are on the road toward excellence in photography, and that you want to optimize your time and money on that journey. The bad news is that in order to fully control what your pictures look like you’ll need to learn to edit them using one or several computer programs. And this takes even more time and money. You can limit the damage for the latter by buying your software while taking a formal photography class (say, at a community college). Student discounts on the most popular software by Adobe and others are very significant, often well over 50% off! The time you spend learning is directly related to how quickly you pick up computer software. My experience included a good amount of frustration, and I consider myself rather an ordinary image-editor. You may have more success. But however it turns out, if you embark on learning how to use photo software you will eventually become proficient. So never mind the misplaced images and other screw-ups, the plateaus in learning. Stick with it!
THE ILLUSION OF THE UNTOUCHED IMAGE
One more thing before I continue with recommendations. You’ll occasionally see folks posting pictures on the web with a caption that seems to brag “straight out of camera”, or words to that effect. I’m not sure why people do this. Are they saying their photos are inherently so good that they don’t need any further enhancement on the computer? Or are they building in an excuse for unedited images because they don’t think they measure up to their usual high standards? Or are they just feeling guilty about being too lazy to edit?
Whatever it is, they are using flawed logic. Digital photography is similar to film in a very fundamental way. Just as with film, in order for a digital photo to be finished it has to be developed, or edited. Whether you shoot in RAW or Jpeg, the picture that appears on your LCD has been edited on a computer – the computer inside your camera. Often the editing is quite minimal, but depending on how advanced your camera is you can (automatically) do quite significant things to an image simply by adjusting camera settings.
I can understand if somebody wants to share a picture but they don’t have the time or inclination to edit it. Just don’t pretend the image hasn’t been “sullied” by computer-based editing, and is thus somehow more pure than an edited shot. In the film days I didn’t like to look at negatives; I wanted to see the finished product. It’s the same with digital. The image starts as a digital file – ones and zeroes – and then gets rendered by a computer (in camera or out) into an image we can all understand and appreciate.
YOUR EDITING DECISION
The issue isn’t whether you want your images to look “photoshopped” or real. The computer only makes images look unreal or unnatural if you tell it to. No, the real issue is this: do you want to invest the time and effort to learn software and take full control of the editing process? Or would you rather just use the camera to edit your photos automatically? Do you like the idea of an intermediate option, making quick choices using Instagram? One final option is to hire one of the many outlets that’ll edit your photos for you?
I’m not here to convince you one way or the other. It’s your time, your pictures. And your choice on this doesn’t mark you as either serious or casual, pro or amateur. Believe it or not, pros shoot Jpeg, using in-camera processing. They’re sports photographers who need to get their photos of the game out to online outlets while the game goes on and they’re still shooting. I made the choice to learn some software and do my own editing. But I sometimes question that decision. Sitting at the computer is not my favorite thing to do by a long shot!
What I’m saying is to think of using a computer to edit a digital image file just as you would using chemicals to transform a film negative into a beautiful color photograph. How much you do to the file is up to you. You can keep it as close as memory allows to the way the scene was as you squeezed the shutter button. Or you can take off on a flight of fancy. Or something in between. Your approach will, of course, help to define your style. But however you swing it, computer-based editing is an inseparable part of the image-making process.
This is the final installment in this short series on learning photography. Check out the first three posts on this topic for tips on how to make the most of your time and money when you set out to get serious about making images. Enjoy some images from my most recent two trips.
WHAT LENSES TO GET: QUALITY
Quality is number one in the lens arena. When I bought my first serious DSLR (a Canon 5D Mark II), I made the mistake of buying a Sigma 24-70 mm. lens with it. I never was happy with that lens, and ended up returning it for a Canon. Of course you can’t do that in most places, but I had bought it in Singapore. The guys in the shop were very surprised to see me return almost a year later. I had told them where I was from so they didn’t expect to ever see me again. But I like Singapore. It’s a fine place to break a long flight to somewhere like India or Nepal, a convenient jumping off point for Borneo, Indonesia & PNG, and the atmosphere (and food!) on the street is great.
After some spirited negotiation, I traded the Sigma in for a Canon and from that point on stuck with quality, mostly Canon L lenses. There are important exceptions to the L rule regarding Canon. Not really knowing Nikon I can’t say for sure, but I expect it applies as well. There are a few non-L Canon lenses that match the image quality of L lenses. One example is the EF-S 17-55 mm., an excellent lens made specifically for crop-frame cameras. Another is the 100 mm. macro (the older, non-L macro). Conversely, there are a few Canon L lenses that have somewhat lower image quality (though all L lenses have high build quality).
With Nikon there isn’t such a clear way to tell which lens has better build/image quality like with the red ring of Canon L lenses. But Nikon lenses with gold rings and “ED” in their names generally represent higher quality. Bottom line is you need to evaluate lenses on a case by case basis. Even some 3rd party lenses are worth considering. Though I can’t vouch for any Sigma or Tamron lens, I do know they carry good models.
I can personally vouch for Tokina’s wide-angle zoom, the 16-28 mm. f/2.8, and pretty much anything made by Zeiss is quality both in build and clarity (and will put a dent in your wallet!). Note that Zeiss has traditionally made only fixed (non-zoom) lenses with manual-focus only. However, they’ve been departing from that practice lately, building zooms for Sony. They may be about to do the same for Canon and Nikon.
Note that I haven’t mentioned any kit lenses. That’s because I think you should try to eschew kit lenses, even starting out. If one comes with your camera and you’re sure you can make a little money by selling it, by all means get it and sell it off. Or use it until you can afford to upgrade. Once again there are exceptions. The Canon 24-105 mm. f/4L is sold as a kit lens with their 5D cameras, and though some will argue, this is a very good lens.
WHAT LENSES TO GET: FOCAL LENGTH
When starting out you should probably just go for the “wedding setup”. If you’re like me you loathe the idea of shooting a wedding (or even attending one, hehe!). But that doesn’t mean you won’t do very well in a wide variety of situations with the lenses that most wedding shooters go with. That is, a mid-range zoom in the neighborhood of 24-70 mm. focal length plus a 70-200 mm. zoom. This focal length (24-200 mm.) is mandatory for you to cover. You don’t necessarily need to cover every millimeter of it of course; for example, if you plan on going with fixed-focal length lenses. But try to cover most of it. Slightly less important (unless you’re into landscapes, where it’s a necessity) is a wider-angle zoom in the range starting at 14-16 mm. on the wide end and going up to 24-40 mm. on the long end.
Okay, that’s two to three lenses, depending on money & whether you will be doing a lot of landscapes. I would, early on, add a fast 50 mm.lens, fast meaning one with a wide maximum aperture (f/1.8 or so). This will allow you to shoot in low-light without spending a ton of money (50s are cheap). If you are indeed going to be shooting indoors with plenty of portraits (such as weddings – ugh!), you’ll need to get faster, more expensive lenses. In a zoom, this normally means a maximum aperture of f/2.8. If you’ll be doing a lot of landscape or general photography, lenses with maximum aperture of f/4 are just fine. I wouldn’t go slower that that except for lenses longer than 300 mm. And I wouldn’t go with lenses that have a variable maximum aperture. Again, this leaves out most kit lenses, most of which have variable maximum apertures.
MACRO OR NOT?
Unless you’re very sure you want to get deeply into macro photography straight off, I would wait to get a macro lens. Sure, you can skip the 70-200 mm. f/4 lens and get a 100 mm. f/2.8 macro instead. This would give you a good portrait lens and of course allow macro. But you’re giving up the flexibility of a 70-200, particularly in the landscape arena. Instead of going macro right away, you can instead buy a Canon 500D close-up lens. It screws on like a filter to any lens (doesn’t need to be Canon), yielding high-quality close-up images. It works very well with a 70-200 mm. zoom lens, and goes for about $150.
This is where many companies have sprung up trying to cash in on the photography craze. Resist the urge to go crazy on extras. You will need the following: tripod, tripod head, mounting plates, backpack or other camera bag, a filter or three, camera protection and cleaning stuff. For the latter, get a couple very good cleaning cloths, maybe a lens pen, plus swabs and solution for the sensor. You would think all lens cloths are the same, but they aren’t. I really love my “Tiger” cloth, a large orange cleaning cloth made by an outfit called Kinetronics.
While you don’t need to buy the best there is, you do need to go with quality here. I would strongly consider a carbon fiber model if money allows, but a regular aluminum tripod, though heavier, will do the job as well. Manfrotto is one of several companies with well-built medium-priced tripods that come in both aluminum and carbon-fiber versions. Just don’t go too cheap ($150 or under). You can easily buy several tripods, not being happy with any of them, and end up going with a good one costing at least $200. The reason for this is the aggravation that results from using a tripod that is made cheap or is too lightweight. Better to just pony up in the beginning. Used is always an option with tripods of course, but make sure it’s only a year or two old.
That’s just the tripod legs. You still need to get a head, and it may be best to buy your tripod and head separately. You can either go with a pan- or ball-head. A ball-head will enable you to quickly pick any angle and lock it down. A pan-head is better for video and for panning. Unless you already know which you prefer, I’d get a ballhead. Again, spend a little more and get a good one; at least $200 should do it. One with an Arca-Swiss type of clamp is best, for its ease of use. It clamps onto a plate that you mount on the bottom of your camera (or lens when using telephotos).
Get a plate made specifically for your camera and match it well to the clamp on the ball-head. The same brand for both head and plate is good but not strictly necessary. Check when you get it that the fit is perfect; if it’s not send it back and get a plate that matches. You can’t afford to fool around with this, since all your expensive gear could go crashing if it’s not mounted very securely to your tripod. By the way, I use an L plate, which wraps around one side of the camera, allowing it to be mounted vertically on the tripod head. Though more expensive than a regular plate, it is much more stable and offers protection too.
For some reason this is the hardest thing to resist going crazy on. I’m not generally a gear-head, but I really love camera backpacks. If I didn’t exert serious willpower I’d own a dozen. Unless you see yourself doing only street photography (for which many prefer shoulder bags), or something like sports (where backpacks are clunky), I would just go for a comfortable camera backpack. Backpacks aren’t just for hikers; they allow a lot of gear to be carried in the most efficient way possible. We’re getting into the topic of travel here, so I’ll save the discussion of backpacks and luggage for another post.
If you want to go with an optional second bag, I’d get a smaller one for those times you want to carry only your camera and a lens (or two). You could get a smallish shoulder bag, or one of the Lowepro Toploaders, which have shoulder slings but can also be attached to an optional chest sling (I use this for XC skiing). You can get a lens case that attaches optionally to the Toploader. Then you have camera, two lenses plus accessories in an easily-carried, protected bag.
FILTERS & OTHER STUFF
In the film days filters were a big deal. Not so much anymore, since software can simulate most of what filters used to do. One thing software doesn’t really simulate is polarization. So I think a circular polarizer is necessary, especially if you’re into landscapes. You can get just one that is the size of the largest lens you’ll use it on, then get step-down rings that allow it to fit smaller lenses. I have two for convenience. Neutral density filters are good to have if you’re into landscapes, and they come in handy in other situations too. I’ve already posted on these in detail.
Should you get UV filters for each of your lenses? It depends. They don’t really do anything except help protect your lens. But get just one scratch on a lens and you’ll wish you had bought one. Despite what some say, they are more sure protection than a hood (which you should also use). The main knock on them is they put another layer of glass between you and the image, potentially impacting quality. So if you’re going with them you need high-quality UV filters (B&W brand or better). If you’re pretty careful with equipment, I’d probably skip them. But if you’re like me, rough on your equipment, they may be worthwhile.
There is one more thing you should definitely get when you buy a camera, and that’s protection. First off, get something to protect your LCD display(s). Unlike lenses, these will scratch if you look at them. The best option in my opinion are the thin, rigid stick-on covers. Not the flexible stick-on film you buy in packages of 20. I’m talking about the rigid ones you buy just one of, made by GGS & others. They’re thin & inconspicuous and yet very durable. Some even come in a package of two, one for your main rear LCD & one for the small LCD on top of many DSLRs. Put them on as soon as you get the camera out of its box. Also consider a rain-cover if you’ll be shooting somewhere with a wet climate. Even if it’s just a shower-cap &/or thick terry towel (which is what I use), always have it in your camera bag.
Do you need a flash? Some cameras have built-in flash, but these rarely produce good results. In my opinion you should learn to shoot in natural light first, then later on, if desired, you can learn about using off-camera flash and other artificial lighting. If you plan, right off the bat, to shoot indoors a lot, you might want to get a good off-camera flash plus accessories to get the most out of it. I’d stick with the same brand as your camera, but you don’t necessarily need the top of the line model. For instance, I have the Canon 430 EX II ($250) plus a synch cord (to fire the flash from above or to the side of the camera). I also have a hand-held diffuser and reflector. I don’t use this stuff much, but it’s all I need for fill light plus the occasional indoor portrait.
Well that just about does it. Thanks for sticking with this lengthy post! I hope it helped in your quest to get the right gear (but no more), and to lessen some of the sticker shock that comes with getting serious about photography. Have a fun weekend!