SSPhotos - About Photography

Background From Hell

2011-08-22T14:25:00.000-07:00

The background from hell. You know the type. It's what you find when you have a good subject, but no good angle for a background that isn't ugly as...you get the idea.

This was one such situation. This man plays at a local Farmers Market. I'd seen him before, and enjoyed his playing. He'd make a great portrait subject, I thought. But the lighting - and that...ugh, background! He was under the open tent in a crowded market area, squeezed between produce vendors. The "background" was a huge steel container, which was in daylight. Lovely. What to do?

I opened my Nikon 85mm f/1.4 G lens all the way. That's something I normally don't do, simply because the depth of field is so thin at f/1.4. Focus is tricky at such a wide aperture, as any movement and you miss. In this case however, it saved the day. The lens turned that ugly steel container behind him into something almost creamy, and the color of the daylight behind the performer was actually fairly nice.

So it may seem obvious, but I see lots of images that could have benefited from shallow depth of field to blur the background. I've been guilty of it too, many times. Sometimes wide apertures are just what you need to tame that background from hell.

Thoughts On The Sony NEX-5

2011-03-19T06:18:00.000-07:00

Now that I've used the Sony NEX-5 for a while, I'm able to share some opinions based on experience, rather than first impressions. In fact, I can cut to the chase a bit and say that I really enjoy using the NEX-5, for what I intended. That last part, "for what I intended", is the key.

So what did I intend for the NEX-5? Simply put, I saw the NEX bodies as a digital back to hang various (mostly non-Sony) lenses on. I liked the size and weight of the body, and enjoyed the idea of not hefting my heavy dslr gear always. I liked the idea of using adapters for many different brands and types of lenses.

I also saw it as potentially a different shooting experience than using a dslr like my Nikon D700. I saw the concept of using full-time "live view", and framing from the LCD screen (as opposed to a dslr's viewfinder) as a different way to shoot. Then there is the flip-up LCD screen, something missing from many/most of today's dslr's.

What I have found after a few months of use is the Sony NEX-5 does these things very well indeed. My first realization was that the sensor in these Sony bodies is very good - certainly up there with the best APS-C size sensors. Even high ISO performance is quite excellent. That is key, because it means your favorite lenses will probably perform at least as well on this Sony NEX body as they do on your other cameras. I have found that many of my Nikon lenses, for example, are really superb on this little NEX body. In fact, for me it has breathed new life in some old Nikkors I hadn't used in ages. For example, my Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 is a natural on this NEX-5. I hadn't used that 55/2.8 in years, but it has a new life now:

A Nikkor 180/2.8 Ai-S lens is a stunning combo with this NEX sensor:

If you're wondering how that large-ish Nikkor 180/2.8 looks attached to a NEX body, you can see it below. It's surprisingly easy to handle, especially hanging from a neck strap, with the LCD tilted up.

As the sensor is APS-C size, just like Nikon's "DX" models, any DX lens is a natural. Even the Nikkor 10.5/2.8 DX fisheye lens works great:

Even larger, auto-focus lenses can be used. Of course you'll be focusing in manual mode, but this works surprisingly well. Here's one with the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR - amazingly sharp on this body:

How sharp is sharp? Here's a crop of that shot from the 70-300:

Other personal favorite lenses for the NEX-5 include the Nikkor 28/2.0 Ai-S and 50/1.2 Ai-S. Of course there are adapters available now to use a huge assortment of other lens makers offerings. For me, the option of so many kinds of lenses on a body with a really good APS-C sensor is the main draw.

I mentioned two other things as key to my use of the NEX-5. One is the full-time "live view". By that, I mean that when you look at your subject on the LCD screen in record mode (meaning not playing back a shot you've already taken), you see the effect of your exposure settings in real-time. This is huge! You can change your aperture, your shutter speed, even the ISO setting, and see what the result will be before you shoot. To be fair, some dlsr's have a "live view" function also. But you have to choose it, and it's simply not as easy or seamless as with the NEX. Second is the flip-up LCD screen. Why this is not a feature on every dlsr is beyond me, frankly. Using the screen flipped up allows holding the camera at waist level. This gives a perspective you can't get holding a camera to your eye. It also allows much easier viewing when shooting macros, or anything close to the ground. In addition, it can be a more stable/steadier way to hold the camera. Also, I've noticed that when shooting candids of people, the subjects generally don't even notice that you're taking their photo. Nose pickers, beware! My only complaint: Sony chose to only allow the tilt for horizontal shots. Portrait mode, no such luck.

Ok, lots of positive stuff, in my opinion. Which leads to the inevitable question: When is a Sony NEX camera not the best choice?

For one, action photos. For this, the conventional dslr type of camera is still the king. Auto focus of the type in the NEX bodies is just not fast enough for action shots. Also, Sony still has a very limited set of native (i.e. Sony "E" mount) lenses available. In fact, they have three as of this posting. That means for action shots you would likely resort to a third-party lens, which means manual focusing.

Also, and this may be a surprise, as a family/vacation/casual point-and-shoot camera. This may seem an odd statement, but consider a couple of things. For one, it's larger and less portable with a kit lens attached than many point-and-shoot cameras. Also, the little screw-in flash that comes with the camera is, frankly, pathetic. The bottom line is there are many other point-and-shoot cameras with a better form factor, and better flash support, than the NEX. True, they would all have smaller sensors, but for a family casual point-and-shoot, this is rarely a factor.

To sum it all up, it should be obvious that I am sold on the concept of the NEX-type camera. To be sure, there are things I wish it did better (flash support, for one). But there's no doubt I will keep a NEX or something similar in my bag going forward. Heck, lately I've been shooting much more with my NEX than with my big/heavy dslr gear. I can't wait to see the next generations of these, and hopefully other competing models!

NEX-5 and Off Camera Flash

2011-03-07T16:22:00.000-08:00

Imagine offering a camera with an excellent APS-C sensor, and the ability to use your favorite excellent legacy lenses. Now imagine offering all that wonderful functionality, and shipping it with a tiny (read: borderline useless) add-on flash. Then imagine equipping that flash with a pre-flash function YOU CAN'T TURN OFF!!

That's what Sony has done with the NEX-3/5 cameras. Don't get me wrong, I'm loving my NEX-5. But the inability to use anything but that puny, pointless little screw-on flash was making me crazy.

It took a while to figure out how to defeat/bypass/ignore/bribe-into-submission that pesky pre-flash function. I finally did find a way that is working well for me.

Actually, there's more than one way. The way I've tried came courtesy of someone with a very nice blog: http://whatdiduseetoday.blogspot.com/2010/08/strobist-with-sony-nex.html He found a little slave device that can actually ignore the pre-flash. I'd been trying to ignore it, but this thing actually does it! It's a Seagull SYK-5. A quick online search for "seagull syk-5", and I found a vendor. It looks like this from the front:

The back has a control that apparently sets the delay (I cannot read the Chinese instruction sheet that came with it, so can't say for sure). I set it where you see it, all the way to the right (minimum delay??). Whatever it is, setting it there did the job.

I hooked the thing up to a 300 WS monolight via a pc cord, and fired a few shots through a white shoot-through umbrella. Below are two shots of the little slave device, made using my NEX-5 with a Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 macro lens attached. The primary light source is the 300 WS monolight, positioned above and to my right (from the shooting position). You can see the shadow to the left, showing the monolight did indeed fire and sync with the NEX-5. I used a white reflector off to the left to help fill in those shadows a bit. Shutter speed was set to 1/160s, lens at f/8, and the monolight set to it's lowest output setting.

At first the result was flat looking, because the little NEX flash was filling in the shadows at close range. For the two shots you see here, I used my hand to deflect the little NEX flash output upward, away from the subject. I'll probably make a little reflector to do that for next time I use this thing.

Earlier in this blog I mentioned there are two ways to get past the pre-flash. Turns out there are at least a couple of shoe-mount flash units that have the ability to ignore the pre-flash. One is made by Nissan. The other is a Chinese manufacturer called Yongnuo. You can search online and find the appropriate models. For now, I'll keep using this little slave device - works just fine for me!

It's The Same Idea, Only Different

2010-11-14T16:14:00.000-08:00

This image of a tunnel between buildings was made using a Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8 G ED fisheye lens. You may say that's unusual enough, but you'd be wrong my friend. The unusual part is that the lens was mounted on a body that fits in the palm of my hand. No, I didn't let the air out of my D700. I fitted the lens (via an adapter) to a Sony NEX-5 body.

Turns out there are many different lens mount adapters available now for the NEX E mount. You can fit Leica lenses, Canon lenses, Olympus lenses, Voigtlanders, Contax lenses, and a few others. Sony A series also can fit with an adapter of course. There are also currently three lenses available from Sony that were made for these E mount bodies. So what we have here is a tiny body that can mount a ton of different lenses.

But that's not all. There are, after all, other small camera bodies that can use other lenses. Micro four/thirds format cameras, for example. What sets this one apart is that it has a larger sensor than those Micro four/thirds machines. In fact, it's an APS-C sensor, the same size as Nikon DX cameras. And it's a very good sensor, in fact. So now we have a very portable body with a large and excellent sensor, that can also use some very splendid optics.

You're already seen that it can be used with more exotic glass, like fisheye lenses. But that's only the beginning. I dug into my closet, and dusted off several lenses that hadn't seen daylight in a long time. A Nikon 105mm f/2.5 lens works wonderfully on this NEX-5 body. So does an old 55mm Micro-Nikkor f/2.8 that I hadn't used in years. A Nikon 50mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/2 also a good matches with this body. And, of course, all of the newer lenses, including my Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR, and all of the others. Of course, those newer big zooms pretty much dwarf the NEX-5 body - but the option is there if you want.

By the way, manual focusing is very nicely implemented with these new Sony's. With a E mount lens attached, a magnified view is automatically triggered if the focus ring is moved. With other lenses (like the Nikon's I've been using), there is a button assigned to activate the magnified view. One press of that button magnifies, two presses magnifies even more. Touch the shutter release to return to normal view. It's still obviously not as quick as a good autofocus, but still surprisingly workable.

What about some images from other lenses? Here are a few test shots.

A shot OF the 10.5 fisheye, made WITH the 55mm Micro-Nikkor:

Here's a test snap with a Nikon 35mm f/2 D lens:

And a shot from our first snow of the season, made with a Nikon 105mm AIS f/2.5:

What's not to love? Well, there are a few niggles:

One is about the user interface. Early on, many wrote about how unfriendly the menus are. Since then, there has been a ROM update that fixed much of that "unfriendliness". Still, there's no denying you have to go into the menus for a lot of adjustments. Personally, I don't find that so troubling. I suppose ones perspective on this might depend on whether you see these little gems as a dslr that was shrunk to the size of a compact digicam, or a compact digicam that happens to also be a dslr. I tend to compare the body functions to the Canon S90, because the bodies are similar in size, and somewhat similar in price. I find the layout and functions on the NEX less confusing in some instances than the Canon S90. If, on the other hand, one compares the NEX user controls to something like a Nikon D700, it seems bound to disappoint. Whatever the case, I find the user controls on the NEX-5 to be very usable, especially considering the size and cost. Still, one or two more user-customizable buttons would do wonders.
One other niggle is about the LCD viewer. Not the quality mind you, because it is superb as far as that goes. It's about the sort-of-articulating design. While it's great that we can tilt the screen for horizontal images, what about portrait orientation? No ability to tilt at all. Personally, I would happily give up a little compactness for a fully articulated screen. Maybe in the next model.
Then there's the flash. It comes with a small, add-on flash that is similar in output and function to what you'd find on other compact digital cameras. As of right now, that's the only flash option for these cameras. Not only are there no other models of flash from Sony, but you can't turn off the pre-flash either. That's makes it nearly impossible to use other external flashes. C'mon Sony, let's fix this already!

So what is this NEX-5, anyway? Is it a compact digital camera? Is it a dslr? Maybe the answer is: Either, or both.

For me it's a lightweight alternative to my honkin' big and heavy Nikon dslr gear. In fact, a bag with the NEX-5 and 18-55 mounted, plus five additional prime lenses, weighs surprisingly little.

Even more than that, it's sort of a throw-back to my earlier days in photography. The more deliberate nature of manual focus lenses reminds me shooting with my old gone-but-much-beloved Rollei twin-lens camera.

And, let's face it, the image quality can be top-notch. As mentioned before, the sensor is more than capable. Put good glass on this thing, and you're in for a real treat. Even when the light goes lower, this sensor is capable of wonderful results even at high ISO's that other compact bodies can't touch at this time.

I will write more on this camera as I get more time to use it. Keep watching!

Using Reflectors For Filling Shadows

2010-10-09T09:24:00.000-07:00

Ever wonder if using a reflector to fill in shadows is worth the effort? Here's a shot that demonstrates how even a small reflector can make a difference. Move your mouse over the image to see what it looked like without the reflector.

This photo of a Nikon D300 was made using a 300ws studio flash from the left, through a shoot-through umbrella. For a reflector, I used very small folding white-reflector-on-one-side/gray-card-on-the-other thing that is all of maybe 8 inches in diameter. Yes, it's that small. For this shot, small was just fine because the subject is also small. Notice how detail is lost on the shadow side of the camera without the reflector in place.

You don't need anything special to use as a reflector either. Paper, mounting board, foil, lots of things will work just fine. Just keep in mind that if the surface has a color cast, that color will be imparted to the image also. Not always a bad thing, of course. Lots of photographers use gold colored reflectors, or even other colors to give a little extra flavor to the image (think cold, warm, or other variations). Also, metallic reflectors can be used to give more specular highlights. Silver surfaces are popular for this.

The key is to experiment. Use what you have around you. No need to buy anything, at least until you find a specific need that you can't make yourself (not sure what that would be...).

LumiQuest Quick Bounce

2010-08-29T10:01:00.000-07:00

It is so not like me to get excited about a small accessory. Especially not a flash accessory. However, when I recently couldn't locate the other bounce accessories I've purchased over the years...you guessed it, I bought another one. The others are around, somewhere. But now I don't really care if I ever find them.

It is called the LumiQuest Quick Bounce. Ok, the name doesn't have much pizzazz. On on first glance, the device isn't very interesting either. How exciting can a bounce card really be, after all? Ah, but it has a trick that mere mortal bounce cards can't do - it can open up the top, to bounce some/most of the light off the ceiling. What's left is reflected forward, towards your subject. The effect is a combined bounce from the ceiling, and fill from the front.

Here are views of the Quick Bounce, attached to a Nikon SB-800 flash. Note how the bounce is controlled by those trap doors on the top: Close them, and it's a fairly normal bounce card device. Open them, and you get most of the light to the ceiling (of course, you need a nice white ceiling), and a smaller amount bounced forward to help fill in the shadows. It's really that simple.

The quick shot at the top of this article was made using the Quick Bounce. Here are a couple more examples. The top photo, and this one, were literally quick grab shots. In both cases, the shot was there for only a moment, and there was no posing or time for calculations. For both shots, I had the little trap doors open. In those shots, most of the light was bounced from the ceiling, and a smaller amount
bounced forward for fill. The camera was a Nikon D700 with a Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 attached. Flash settings were TTL-BL, with the camera set for 1/320s sync speed and Auto-FP. With these settings, the camera and flash will work to balance ambient and flash exposures. As you can see, even quick grabs yield nicely balanced results.

The Quick Bounce does everything you would expect as a regular bounce device, and works great for outdoor fill. Never mind the groom - he can't help it. Again, the camera and flash are balancing the exposure automatically. Of course, you could do the same thing by calculating the exposures, and flash output. Note I said "you could". I don't want to go to that much work anymore.

And finally, it's handy for other general purposes. Case in point, a shot I took to show a friend my brand new 300ws studio flash unit. Yeah, laugh all you want - I paid a whopping $46 for it, and it works great. This quickie shot was made using the Quick Bounce with the little trap doors open.

Is there a down side to the LumiQuest Quick Bounce? Only two that I've found: First, you have to use Velcro strips on your flash unit to hold the thing in place. I wasn't keen on sticking Velcro tape to my flash, in part because I couldn't then use the little bounce dome attachment that came with it (and actually works fairly well). But this Quick Bounce is a much better light modifier than that dome attachment ever was, so I swallowed a bit and stuck on the Velcro. So far, I'm happy. The second down side isn't even really a downer, just a fact: You'll want to use this with a flash that has full head rotation. Obviously, if you can't rotate the head, you're stuck with horizontal ("landscape") format shooting. No problem with a flash like the Nikon SB-800, SB-900, or any flash with a rotating bounce head.

More on the Nikkor 16-35mm f/4 VRII

2010-06-13T10:10:00.000-07:00

Now that I've spent more quality time with the 16-35mm f/4 VRII, I can share a bit more about it. Here is what I've learned so far:

First, the 16-35 can most certainly be used for architectural shots. Yes, I can hear it now: "What about the terrible barrel distortion?!" There is barrel distortion, but it's not really any worse in practical terms to the 17-35/2.8. Besides, as I mention in my first blog post about this lens, it's easily corrected. See the "Commutator Foundry Co." shot for an example.

Here's another one, this time an interior. I almost didn't bother correcting this one, as it was hardly noticeable - but in the end I did a quick correction for the barrel distortion:

Also, it may well be the (nearly) perfect lens for casual interior shooting. Why would I say that, given that it's only an f/4 lens wide-open? Because the VRII is phenomenal, and more than makes up for the lens not being faster than f/4. Coupled with a body like the D700, it makes easy work of even dark museum interiors. Here's just such a shot, taken in a dark exhibit room - hand-held at 1/6s shutter speed:

Just to show it really is pretty sharp, even at that slow 1/6s shutter speed, and even at 16mm, here's a crop from the same image:

Some have said the 16-35 is not sharp at 16mm. I beg to differ, assuming you get a good copy (see my earlier blog post). Here's an example, shot at 16mm f/5.6 in very difficult lighting. This was inside a covered trailer, shot straight into bright back-lighting:

And the sharp-as-a-tack crop:

It also makes a great medium-wide. Shots at the 35mm end are sharp, contrasty, and distortion-free:

Here's a crop:

So what's my verdict? Oh, it's a keeper. To be sure, it has faults. There is barrel distortion at the wide end. There is also CA, although I've used many wide angle lenses that were worse in the CA department. Even my 17-35/2.8 was more prone to CA. But the overall image quality, and amazing VRII, more than make up for any deficiencies.

Lessons from the Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR

2010-04-11T09:33:00.000-07:00

Before buying a 16-35 f/4 VR, I read what few reviews and posts there were about the lens. Like other readers, I scratched my head at what seemed to be inconsistent results. To be sure, I saw some splendid samples - shots that appeared to show very promising results. At the same time, I saw some that were soft overall, or simply not good in the corners. Nonetheless, I sold my very good copy of the Nikon 17-35 f/2.8, hoping for at least equal performance, with newer coatings and VR.

Well, I'm now on my third copy of the 16-35 f/4 VR lens. The first one was simply a bit soft throughout the image. Stopping down to f/8 did nothing to improve the performance, and so back to the local store I went to exchange it. Copy two had me excited at first, as it was much better in terms of sharpness and micro-contrast. Everywhere, that is, except the right (viewing horizontal) 30% or so of the image. The further to the right, the worse it got. So back went that copy, and I now have number three.

There is some good news; number three seems to be just what I was hoping for. Although I no longer have the 17-35 f/2.8 for direct comparison, my sense is this 16-35 is at least as sharp in the center, and better in the corners (though not perfect), with what I'd describe as "richer" contrast and color. I suppose that's the nano-coatings at work. Whatever the case, I do like it better. Shots from the 17-35 look more two-dimensional to me, by comparison.

Many have commented on the distortion. Certainly, there is barrel distortion at the wide end. The good new is it is easily corrected in CS4, and presumably other tools (PT-Lens maybe, I can't speak for that one for sure). It's noticeable to me in some images, and I correct those. In others, the barrel distortion does not bother me, but that is obviously a personal preference thing. This is not to be confused with the converging lines effect you see if your lens is pointed either up or down a bit. That effect is caused by perspective, and is not a flaw of the optics. But that's a subject for another post.

The two lessons from all of this for me are: 1) Take sample variation into account when reading reviews, and viewing samples from any lens. Looking back on it, I now believe the variable results I was seeing when researching were due to sample variations. 2) Always buy from a source where you can exchange easily, if possible. My local dealer was terrific about letting me swap out copies until I got a good one. Every place I looked seemed to be selling this lens at pretty much the same price, so there was really no incentive to buy elsewhere. I'm now glad I bought locally.

There is an obvious lesson for Nikon, too: Fix your QA!! Granted, I now have a splendid copy of this very useful lens. But it took too much testing, and swapping of copies, by me, a Nikon customer. In particular, copy number two (the one with the poor performance on only the right side of the image) should have never left the factory. Instead, it took testing by an end customer to catch Nikon's QA problem. Very sad, indeed.

That's enough sniping from me. Here are some samples from copy number three, all shot using a D700 body. Not works of art, but I had fun.

First, a few from a company event - a visit to the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis. The black and white at the top of this post was from the exterior of the theater building. It was shot at 16mm, f/8. Here's another exterior, also at 16mm and f/8:

I ducked into a restaurant that's attached to the theater, and snapped this at 16mm f/5.6:

Here's one at 24mm, wide open at f/4:

The 16mm end allowed me to capture some of the tour group, while also showing the projected images on the ceiling. Projected images are used throughout the theater:

Next a couple that aren't from the theater tour. Here's one of a horse at a local zoo, enjoying a lot of attention. This is at 35mm f/8:

My old lawn mower had long been held together with luck and wishful thinking. It was time for a new one this year. Note the grandson helping with the fertilizer speader. Shot at 20mm, f/7.1:

Blending Exposures

2009-11-14T11:27:00.001-08:00

If you've read my other blog entries, you know I like to use different image blending" or "stacking" techniques. Recently I've been doing some of that with images from a Canon Powershot S90. The image of the Union Station in St. Louis Missouri above is a good example of this technique. It was made using three different images of the same subject, each at a different exposure.

The idea is to bracket the exposures, then blend the resulting files together using software. The goal is to retain more dynamic range in the image, opening up detail that might not normally be there. The end result can produce a look that you might not expect from any digital camera, let alone a pocket-sized one like the S90.

Before we get started, you may ask yourself "Is it worth it?" Let's see a comparison between what we'll call the "original" exposure, and the same image blended from three different exposures. We'll use another image from the Union Station. In this case, I made three exposures; one "normal" exposure, one -2 stops from normal, and one +2 stops from normal. Here's the normal exposure JPEG file straight from the camera:

And now the blended (or "stacked") results from the three separate exposures:

As you can see, the original is sharp, contrasty, and has some nice color. But the shadow areas in this example simply do not give us much love. The version made from three exposures is still sharp and contrasty, but has glorious detail and color, where there was little before. In other words, lots of love.

Ok, so now we know it's worth the effort. So how to do it? Well first you have to make the multiple exposures. It's best to do that in-camera. You can change the exposure yourself, either by shooting in manual exposure mode or by using your camera's exposure compensation control. Better still, many modern cameras have a function that automatically brackets the exposures. Two things to note here: 1) Change the exposure by changing the shutter speed, not the aperture. We're going to be aligning and blending the images eventually, and don't need differences in depth of field between the images. 2) Use a tripod, if possible. If not possible, brace your self or the camera to limit movement between shots. Again, we're going to be aligning and blending these - make it as easy as possible for the software by keeping the images as similar as possible.

So how much to bracket? The shot of the Union Station staircase above was done using the auto bracket function of the S90, which only produces three images. I set it for 2 stop (+- 2 EV) increments around the "normal" exposure. Other times I usually go for at least five exposures, in 1 stop (+- 1 EV) increments. Generally more shots in smaller increments result in finer gradations of detail.

Although bracketing in-camera is usually the best way to go, sometimes it's just not possible. There is another way, even if you only came back with one shot. You can create brackets with software, after the fact. In DPP and ACR, for example, there is an "exposure" slider. You can save versions of the converted file out to TIFF files, for example, each with the exposure slider at a different setting. Starting with the 0 EV ("normal") version saved to TIFF, you could then do -1 EV, -2 EV, +1 EV, +2 EV. Many times this method works just fine. A good example of this is the image from the Mall of America in my post about the Canon S90. Note that this is best done with RAW files. It can be done also with JPEG's, but there simply is not as much data available for recovery of highlight and shadow detail as there is in RAW files. Here is a good case for shooting RAW+JPEG, if your camera allows that function.

Ok, so we have our bracketed shots now. If you RAW and bracketed in-camera, the next step is to convert the files. You can use your favorite RAW converter. I'll give a couple of guidelines that have worked well for me, and should apply to almost any RAW converter: 1) If the software allows a choice of camera profiles, I generally choose the one called "Neutral". I'll probably bump up the contrast and saturation later, but for now I want neutral color and as much highlight detail as possible for the blending process to come. Sometimes I'll even use highlight recovery in the conversion software. Again, we want as much detail as possible to feed into the blending process. 2) I turn off any noise reduction and sharpening in the RAW conversion software. This is my personal choice, but I do this because I can do a better job of noise reduction and sharpening after the blending using other tools. 3) I convert the RAW files to 16 bit TIFF files. I know, they're huge. But they're not compressed, which is good. And they will hold about as much detail as we can get. You can always delete them after we're all done with our blending, if you wish.

Now that we have our bracketed shots saved as TIFF files (JPEG's if you must), it's on to the blending. For that process I use Photoshop CS4. You can do similar things in other software packages. For that, consult their documentation.

In Photoshop, we want to load the files in as layers. The easy way is to use Bridge, where you can select all of the bracketed files, then select Tools > Photoshop > Load Files into Photoshop Layers. Bingo, bango, Photoshop opens and loads the files in as layers. Now within Photoshop, do the following:

Select all of the loaded bracketed images in the Layers palette.
Select Edit > Auto-Align Layers. Don't skip this step, it's important.
Select Edit > Auto-Blend Layers. Sit back and sip coffee, or something - this will take a bit.

When it's done, you should have a thoroughly blended, single image. You will need to flatten the image (from the Layers menu) to do much with it from here.

Remember I said I turn off noise reduction in the RAW conversion part of the process? That's because I use other tools for that. One good one is Noise Ninja, but there are others. I do the noise reduction at this point in the process, right after the blending.

You may notice the image is a bit flat; lacking contrast and saturation, and possible not all that sharp. So here is where you can use other tools to spiff up the image, such as curve adjustments, contrast adjustments, saturation, etc. One reason for doing the noise reduction before these tweaks is so you won't have problems with added noise from curve adjustments and such.

All done tweaking? Great - now for the sharpening. Use whatever you like to do for sharpening. These days I'm mostly using a process that involves converting to LAB mode, and running Unsharp Mask on just the Lightness channel. It's simple to do, and does a great job. But that's for another blog post.

More Canon Powershot S90 Sample Photos

2009-11-08T06:47:00.000-08:00

I'm still amazed by how it's possible to hand-hold shots at slow speeds with the Canon S90. Maybe other pocket cameras do just as well, I don't know. But I sure shouldn't be able to shoot at 1/5s, like the shot of the Minneapolis Library above. Or the shot below, taken in a dark museum area on the University of Minnesota campus at 1/8s. The IS (Image Stabilization) built into this little gem seems to work really well.

This shot, taken in the skyway above Nicollet Avenue in Downtown Mineapolis, was hardly even a challenge at 1/30s:

Here's a shot that was no challenge to hand-hold. I include it because it was possible only because I had the little camera in my pocket:

Sure, my Nikon D700 and pro glass would have performed much better. But in each case, the Nikon gear was at home while the S90 was in my shirt pocket. That, and the RAW file support, are what make this little camera nearly ideal for my everyday carry camera.

A Canon Powershot S90 Owner Review

2009-11-01T14:07:00.000-08:00

Canon Powershot S90 Image of the Mall Of America

I admit it - I'm getting older. Or just lazier, maybe. Whatever the case, I often leave the house without my dlsr gear because I just don't want to carry it around. Don't get me wrong, I love using the great dslr's and fabulous lenses. But man, oh man, is that stuff heavy!

Hence the eternal hunt for a suitable pocket camera. You know, something you can slide in a shirt pocket, or easily hide in your briefcase or backpack. Something discreet. Something that won't alert security people, like a pro-level dslr and big lens will. Something you can have with you when you see that photographic opportunity that only seems to show itself when we don't have a camera around.

I've owned several semi-pocketable cameras, including four of the Canon G series, from G2 through G10. I love those G series cameras, but pocketable they are not. So when Canon announced the Powershot S90, my ears perked up. Are you kidding? A pocket camera with full manual controls, raw format capabilities, and doesn't come in some shade of pink? What's not to like?

Not a lot is "not to like", I'm happy to report. When it shipped, I was one of the first to pick one up. And I haven't been disappointed overall.

What's the best thing about the Canon S90? The best thing is I always have it with me. That may sound like a flippant answer, but it's not. Like most of you I've walked right past countless photographs, waiting to be taken - if only I'd had a camera. Now this is generally not a problem. Here are some other things I really like:

Full manual controls. Not only that, but they're easy to set. This cannot be said for some other small cameras I've used that had manual controls.

Raw files (optional, of course). JPEG's are fine for snapshots. If you want to do more than that, raw files are the way to go. I've seen posts from folks who say there's no real advantage. Sorry, but such a statement is simply incorrect. If you work only with JPEG's, you're stuck more or less with whatever processing the camera provides. Plus any additional saves as a JPEG only serves to degrade the file. Yes, you can save as a TIFF and work from there. But if you're going to do that, how about just starting with raw in the first place? Don't get me started...

I like both the front control ring that surrounds the lens, and the control wheel on the back of the camera. Both are features that have meet with some controversy, and only you can decide if they're for you. They work for me.

Basic black, and not flashy. And not pink.

A little pop-up flash that actually produces usable results.

IS (Image Stabilization) that works really well.

Better performance at higher ISO's than I'm used to seeing in pocket cameras. More on that later.

Ergonomics are fine, for a little camera. I've seen forum posts of people complaining about holding the S90 without accidentally moving controls or tripping the shutter. C'mon folks - I'm as big as many NBA players. If I can use a S90 with ease, so can you.

What's not to like? Very little, but there are a couple of items:

There's no ability to manually move the focusing point. This is a common feature on many small cameras. This hasn't been a big deal so far, but I would rather have the option. It comes in handy if your subject is moving, particularly. You can lock the focus, but that only works if your subject is fairly static.

I'm not too impressed by the in-camera sharpening for JPEG's. It's not awful, but I've seen better. As a result, I'm mostly working with raw files.

Ok, time for some sample images.

Here's a shot taken before dawn, while on my way to work in downtown Minneapolis. I can't take a dslr with me to the office (no place to securely store it), so happily I had the S90 in my briefcase:

The shot of the light-rail train was hand-held at ISO 80. This demonstrates the value of the image stabilization in this little beastie. A higher ISO setting would have given a shorter shutter speed, at the expense of image quality. Thanks to the IS, I could shoot at a slow shutter speed and stay with ISO 80.

Here's one where a higher ISO was needed. This is hand-held at ISO 400. The lens was zoomed to the max, to get tighter on the bride and groom:

Another shot taken while walking to work. Or back to work after picking up lunch, actually. This image was processed as five separate images in 1 EV increments, then blended using CS4. I've done this with several images, including the Mall of America shot at the top of this post. Another good reason to shoot raw files:

So should you buy a Canon Powershot S90? Only you can answer that, of course. For now, I'm keeping mine. I haven't had this much fun photographing in a while. Of course it helps that I actually have a camera with me. Ahem...

HDR Tells The Story

2009-07-31T20:36:00.000-07:00

You may know that one purpose of HDR image processing is to expand the dynamic range of an image to levels that wouldn't normally be possible. 'HDR' stands for "High Dynamic Range", after all. The process of producing HDR photos usually involves blending together several different exposures of the same image. The net result should be that both shadow and highlight detail is retained, which is often not possible with a single exposure.

So why bother? Think of this: Chances are you have shot photographs that you later realize don't come close to capturing what you thought you saw. One reason for this is that the human brain is a really good HDR processer. Digital cameras, not nearly so much. You see a very broad range of shadows and light, and color, but the camera may not be able to record all of it in one image. Since the camera processor can't record all of the detail, something has to give. When you look at your image on your monitor, it's missing shadow detail, or highlight detail, and likely some colors that you're sure you remember seeing at the scene.

HDR images are done using software that will blend exposure bracketed images of the same scene. Typically this means shooting anywhere from 3 to 7 images, at 1 or 2 stop intervals. I use mostly 1 stop intervals, and usually shoot either 5 or 7 images using the automatic bracketing function on my camera. Most modern dslr's now have this feature, and it really simplifies the process.

One great use of HDR is for shooting interiors. Anyone who has shot interiors, especially without any extra lighting, knows that keeping detail in windows and other highlight areas, while at the same time retaining all detail inside, is usually impossible. The interior shot of the home Christmas decorations is a good example, even without direct view of the windows. In this case, keeping the interior details without burning out the Christmas tree was the challenge.

Even with exteriors and landscapes, the same can hold true. The Minneapolis skyline shot includes detail in the bridge, the buildings themselves, while still showing detail in the lights.

Finally, there's an image of the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis Minnesota. This was shot very early in the morning, as the sun had only begun to peak over the horizon. The challenge here was to catch all of the detail, including the landscape, the buildings, and the sky. At the same time there was color in the autumn leaves that was visible to me as I photographed, but hardly showed in a single exposure. All of these elements came to life after blending five exposures in PhotomatixPro3.

With HDR it is sometimes tempting to push the colors, and produce unnatural tonal values. I know you've seen HDR images that were - well, over the top. I don't argue that there is a place for images with lots of impact. But there's also a place for images that tell the whole story. Those images have all of the detail and color you saw when you made the photograph in the first place. HDR is one way to make sure that story is told.

The Blue Bridge - I35W in Minneapolis

2009-07-23T11:05:00.000-07:00

Meet what I call "The Blue Bridge". In Minneapolis, this bridge represents much more that just a way to get over the Mississippi River. It's something of a triumph over disaster. In just over a year, this bridge went up to replace the one that collapsed, killing 13 and injuring 146 people. The new bridge went up in record time, three months earlier than the project due date. Even more amazing, it isn't simply a quickly built, utilitarian bridge. It's beautiful, and an asset to the other lovely aspects of the area around the bridge.

I'd been on a quest to capture not only the beauty of the bridge itself, but how it relates to the surrounding area. Tougher than it sounds, this task. In part, this is because one of the most beautiful aspects of the design is the lighting. At night this bridge glows in a translucent blue light. The blue light is provided by LED lighting fixtures. It is unique, and lovely, and simply must be photographed I thought.

But there's more to this story. The blue beauty of the bridge sits amid much older, historic areas along the Mississippi. The image I wanted to make also had to capture some of that history. So I chose this view, in part because the old bridge in the background provided context.

Now here's the tricky part: How to capture the blue wonder of the new bridge, and not lose the older bridge in the shadows? I tried several techniques. I had bracketed the base exposure for a total of five images, each one stop apart. At first I looked at the one image that provided the best exposure for the new bridge. It was very nice, but the old bridge was indeed lost in the shadows. I played with pulling the shadow areas out in various ways, but the result lacked contrast and gained noise.

I then tried loading the five images in CS4 as layers, and using the "Auto-blending" function. The same problem was there - no detail in the shadows.

Then I thought, "Maybe an HDR...". I tried an HDR image in CS4, and the result was closer. At least I could see the bridge, but the contrast was very low in those areas.

Time for a new tactic. Realising that HDR was on the right track, I loaded the RAW files (.nef's) into PhotomatixPro3. After running the Tone Mapping process, I tweaked a few parameters, and there it was - all the blue beautiness, and the old bridge clearly standing in the background. It was exactly what I wanted.

I'll be going back to that bridge. There's much more to explore there, and in the whole area for that matter. For now, please enjoy "The Blue Bridge".

A Lion In The Dark

2009-07-16T10:47:00.000-07:00

I had to post this image to rave (again) about the capabilities of current-generation dslr's and lenses. I know, we've talked about this before. But you really had to be there to fully appreciate how well this image worked, and how it would not have worked with earlier gear.

We were visiting the indoor part of a local zoo's African Lion exhibit. There, in a concrete cave-like room with murky glass, is a female lion. She is resting, out of the sun and noise of the outdoor lion area. It was dark enough that she was hard to see at first. I debated even bothering with a photo, sure I would get nothing useful. In my mind, the image would be flat, dark, and shaky - a great candidate for the 'delete' button.

What a surprise! I cranked the D700 up to ISO 3200, set the aperture on my 70-300 VR lens wide open, zoomed to 220mm and went for it. The camera was set to aperture priority, and the shutter speed it picked was 1/25s. I winced, but was careful to hold the shutter release at half-press for a bit to allow the VR to do its job. The VR surely did the job, as I could not normally hand-hold at 220mm nearly that well.

Some post processing was needed to get the image you see above, mainly to help correct the strange white balance. It seems there was a little fluorescent light leaking in from somewhere, just enough to throw off the color. That was easily corrected in NX2.

The moral to this story is this: If you're using reasonably current gear, don't be afraid of pushing its limits. I've had a Nikon D700 for many months now, and still it surprises me with nearly every outing. Most of the current dslr's from Nikon and Canon (and probably others I'm not familiar with) are amazingly capable, in what would have been impossible situations just a short time ago.

A Macro Surprise

2009-07-01T09:26:00.001-07:00

On a recent Sunday afternoon I was cradling my Nikon D700 with 300mm AF-S f/4 lens and TC-17E II 1.7x tele-converter attached. I was hoping for bird photographs, but the birds were apparently in a meeting somewhere. I could hear 'em, couldn't see 'em, and sure couldn't photograph them. Then I heard a "flllttt" sound, and looked to find a huge dragonfly about five feet to my right. There I was with the equivalent of a 500mm lens on my camera, and my bag was several yards away. That dragonfly was posing so nicely, flexing and stretching it's...parts. All I could do was turn slowly and try a shot.

What a surprise! Not only was I able to focus, but the dragonfly filled the viewfinder. I could see it rotate its head, I guess to check me out (how can you tell where it's looking with those compound eyes??). It looked mechanical, and I wondered for a moment if it wasn't a tiny machine. Ultra precision machining, in a small winged package.

The bigger surprise came when I returned home. Of course I loaded the images immediately, and opened the one you see above in CS4. Even without sharpening, I could see amazing detail! I could see those incredible eyes, and the hairs, and the wing structure. I never thought that a 300mm and 1.7x tele-converter would serve well as a macro lens. Even more amazing was that I had the exposure set for birds in flight, meaning a fast shutter speed courtesy of an ISO 1600 setting. All told, this shot was seemingly doomed to failure. Yet it obviously worked, and I now have yet another macro tool in my shed. I expect to use it more in the future, as a five foot shooting distance can come in handy.

It's Just Black and White

2009-06-24T09:34:00.000-07:00

Converting an image to black and white can be another creative tool for you. Removing the color can help isolate geometric elements. It can also remove any distracting color elements that draw the eye from where you want it. And let's fact it - sometimes it just has that retro-cool look.

If you have ever made a black and white digital image from a color one, you probably already know there are options. In fact, the options can be a bit intimidating. First there's the software choice; which software package, or which plug-in to use? Once you pick one, then there are all those sliders and other controls. Why so many controls?

Part of the answer is kind of a throw-back to black and white film. If you have shot black and white film, you may be familiar with colored filters that can be used on the lens to produce different tonal ranges. Commonly used filters include red, green, blue, yellow, and orange. These filters can be used to lighten certain colors, while darkening others.

You can do the same thing with digital images when converting to black and white. Software for doing black and white typically includes the ability to adjust filtering for specific colors. Coincidentally, those colors usually include the ones we listed above.

In CS4, when you add a Channel Mixer adjustment layer, you get a panel with a monochrome check box, and sliders for adjusting red, green, and blue (see below). With those sliders, you can adjust the amount of filtration for each of the three primary colors. You can even mix them for specific effect.

Adobe provides another way to go, with a simple pick list. Here you can select to simply apply the effect of the red, yellow, orange, green, or blue filters.

The effects of these filters really hit home the other day, as I was working on one particular black and white conversion. This image is of Ana Popovic, a blues performer. It has some important color areas, and I found that certain filters really made those colors do things that were - well, not what I had in mind.

If you look at the examples below, you'll see that the red underlayer of her...um...bodice-thing comes and goes, depending on which filter is in use. Also notice the skin tones, and the effect that each of the three filters shown has on that. Then there's her hair, and the background. In fact, there are many places in the image where using a different filter color during conversion really changes things.

This comparison shows the color version and three black and white versions of the image. Here you can see the changes between the three filter colors. Notice what happens to the red in her bodice-thing. The red filter shows it clearly, because it's passing red light (I know it's digital, but the theory is the same) where the others are blocking varying amounts of red. The same is true of her skin and hair, to a lessor degree. Then notice what happens to the out-of-focus background. There's a lot of green and yellow there, which is fine for the green and red filters. But the blue one really changes that background.

So here's where a decision process helps narrow down the choices. In this image, I liked how the decorative features of the bodice-thingy are set off by the red fabric. I also liked the ethereal look that the lighter areas of the background give. The only filter of the three that keeps both of those elements is the red filter, so that's the one I used in the final conversion.

Whether or not you use Adobe CS4, you'll probably find similar controls. And you may find that black and white opens some doors for you, yielding new creative possibilities.

Focus Stacking in Adobe CS4

2009-06-11T13:20:00.000-07:00

I tried something new today - "focus stacking". I'd heard of this sort of thing before, and was interested in CS4's new implementation of this function. You're probably aware of it too, but in case not: Focus stacking is a process where you take multiple photos of the same subject, each focused at slightly different points. Software (CS4 in this experiment) is then used to "blend" these images together to simulate greater depth of field. The good news is it works as a tool for expanding apparent depth of field. The other news (note I didn't say "bad news") is there is a bit of a learning curve.

The first thing I found was that this process in CS4 uses lots of RAM. All of it, in fact, and then it wants more - at least on a PC. I was working on a four year old Dell, with 4 GB or RAM, and Windows XP Pro. I thought that should be plenty of RAM, but not so. After several attempts, I found it necessary to reduce the size of the files I was using to make it work. One way that worked was to create JPEG's at less than the highest quality (like 10 instead of 12, in Photoshop terms). Also I found it necessary to shut down CS4 before running the procedure. This apparently freed up RAM from previous processes. This may sound a bit extreme, but not shutting it down first resulted in a "insufficient RAM" error every time.

After my first trial run, I saw that I needed to make a few adjustments to my shooting. The first result ended up with bands of out-of-focus areas. It appeared the software simply wasn't able to bridge the gaps in my shots, where focused areas ended and out-of-focus areas began. So I did two things: I used a smaller aperture, so I had more depth of field to begin with. I also shot more images, making smaller adjustments in focus each time. Between these two things, the results greatly improved.

The processing procedure itself uses both Adobe Bridge and CS4. Here's an outline:

First, if you shot the originals in RAW format, you'll need to convert them. In my case, because of the RAM issues I converted them to JPEG's at a quality setting of "10". This helped reduce the overhead enough that the process would actually finish. Reducing the size of the output JPEG could also be an option. You may or may not need to do something similar. After you are finished with converting, you may need to close CS4 for the moment.

Next, open Bridge and select your images to be blended. Then from the menu select Tools > Photoshop > Load Files into Photoshop Layers. This will open CS4, with each image loaded as a separate layer.

Now from CS4, select all of the layers in the Layers panel. On a PC use Crtl-click for each one until they are all highlighted. Then from the CS4 menu (don't miss this step - it's important), select Edit > Auto-Align Layers. I used the "Auto" projection option for the Auto-Align step. Wait for this to complete, the select Edit > Auto-Blend Layers. Make sure the "Stack Images" option is selected. Let this step run, and hope you don't run out of RAM.

When the blending is complete, you'll have an image that you can use. I found that the outward edges of mine had some issues where the blending did not work well. Because of that, I will now shoot with some extra room around the edges, so I can crop a bit if needed. In the final shot above I used twelve images. It seems to be important to not leave many de-focused gaps for the software to deal with, hence lots of shots at different focus points. Here's a 100% crop that shows overall the result is surprisingly good:

Once I learned to give the software plenty of material to work with (i.e. lots of shots in small focus increments), this process started to open my eyes a bit. After all, that first shot of the guitar shows depth of field that really can't be duplicated with dslr's and conventional lenses. That's fun stuff!

Finally, I tried the same thing with a Sigma 150mm macro lens. It proved to be more difficult. Not because it's a bad lens (it's a beauty, actually). I think it's because the depth of field is narrower with longer lenses, and so I may need to tweak my shooting process. I will try again.

Concert Shooting - A Whole New Game

2009-06-02T14:38:00.000-07:00

I'm old enough to remember the grainy, usually not-so-sharp concert photos from the Jimi Hendrix era. Heck, I remember trying to shoot rock bands in the 70's. Even with a fast lens, getting a killer shot was usually very challenging. We often shot in black and white because the best quality color film was just so slow. The early high-speed color film yielded huge grain and poor image quality. And white balance was always a challenge, with few choices available to us. Kodak had tungsten-balanced Ektachrome for example, but there were few other good options.

Then came the digital age. Early on with digital cameras we had similar problems to the film of the 60's and 70's - specifically high levels of noise (grain) and degraded image quality at higher ISO's. But digital imaging had many advantages in terms of control over white balance, and other image parameters. Those advantages alone were enough to convince me that digital was the right choice, even with the earlier dslr's.

The newer higher-end dslr's are a different story. Thanks especially to drastically improved high-ISO performance, we can shoot in dark venues that would have been nearly impossible in the 60's and 70's. And we can get great color and contrast, even at ISO's of 3200 or higher. To be fair, a lot of this capability is very recent, just becoming realistic in the past three or four years. But the difference in imaging capabilities between now and the classic-rock era is stunning, and opens up possibilities we couldn't dream of earlier.

The newer technology allows the use of tools we really couldn't even consider back then. The shot above of Paul Mayasich performing is a great example. The venue was dark - literally a barn, with weak stage lights. I almost passed on the opportunity, because of the poor light. But I tried anyway, and was surprised at the result. This shot was taken at ISO 3200, using a Nikon D700 body and a hand-held Nikkor 300mm AF-S f/4 lens! I didn't even need to use the lens wide open - the lens was at f/5.6. A few years ago, I would have needed to use a lower ISO. I would have also likely chosen a different lens in favor of something with at least a f/2.8 maximum aperture. The biggest surprise of this shoot for me was how easy it was with the 300mm lens, even in that dark old barn.

By the way, Paul Mayasich's performance was stunning! If you ever get a chance to hear him play, run - don't walk. He's up there with the very best, and worth any effort to get there. Here's another shot of Paul playing, this time with his "Blue Whale" guitar.

Raw Converters and Profiles

2009-05-27T09:05:00.000-07:00

Adobe's ACR raw converter began providing "canned" camera profiles starting in 2008. What does this mean to me, a Nikon shooter? I was surprised when I recently did a direct comparison between ACR 5.3 using the profiles, and NX2 using Nikon's Picture Controls. Below are sample images:

ACR 5.3 version using Adobe Camera Neutral Profile

Nikon's Capture NX2 version using Neutral Picture Control

Notice anything? They're practically identical. Subtle differences to be sure, but you have to really look for them.

I must admit that I like Capture NX2. I know some have had issues with speed (I have not), or don't like the UI. I've always liked the quality of the output, and the relative ease of getting that quality. Sure, the UI is...well, different. But there's no denying the results. One reason I like using NX2 is that it makes use of in-camera settings that other raw processors usually cannot. Picture Control settings, for example. I use Picture Controls, especially the Neutral, Portrait, and D2X mode III Picture Controls. Why do I use those? Because I like the overall look from those particular controls. Picture Controls, for those not familiar with them, are like a canned profile. They alter the curve, and possibly some other parameters, to achieve a specific look. As you might guess, the Neutral Picture Control is designed to give as neutral a look as possible. The Portrait one is meant to give a good general-use portrait "look". There are several of these Picture Controls available to choose from. Within Nikon cameras you also have the option to tweak some parameters of these Picture Controls, such as sharpness, brightness, and contrast. NX2 will read and use those tweaks, if you choose to apply them in-camera.

What are the advantages to using Picture Controls? For JPEG shooters, it's simply an easy way to apply a "look" directly to the JPEG file. For Raw shooters, it can be a way to shorten post processing time by having the conversion software apply that "look" for you. That was the attraction for me. Besides, I liked some of those "looks", as I've mentioned before.

Now Adobe offers the same "looks" with their Camera Profiles. For Nikon cameras, this includes profiles meant to duplicate the results from Nikon's Picture Controls. So how do they work? ACR can't read the Picture Control parameters within a .nef (Raw) file, so you have to select the one you want. But that's very easy and quick to do.

This means I can now easily use CS4 to achieve the "look" I like using camera profiles. That gives me an easy path to the other features within CS4, where previously I might have sometimes converted to TIFF using NX2, and imported the TIFF into CS-whatever to further tweak the image. Does this mean I can stop using NX2? Well, no. The fact is, each software package has advantages. There are still features that CS4/ACR can't support, and some controls in NX2 that Adobe doesn't offer without buying plugins (i.e. U-Point controls). But for now, this is a step in the right direction.

An Alternative To Big Glass

2009-05-23T19:24:00.000-07:00

I wanted to make wildlife photos like the big boys. I could just see it: A vest with countless pockets for photo
"stuff", a cool safari-type hat, and really really big lenses hanging on my cameras. National Geographic, here I
come. Then, for fun, I looked at the prices for those really really big lenses. Call the paramedics, I may have a heart attack!

Ok, $8k plus is not in my budget for a shiny new 500mm Nikkor this month. But I still really wanted to take wildlife photos, so what to do? I found a solution that (thankfully) is working for me. It came in the form of a mint condition used Nikkor 300mm AF-S f/4 lens. Cost was slightly less than $1000. What's that you say? 300mm is not 500mm? How true, how true. But add a 1.7x tele-converter (Nikon TC-17E II, about $500) and that 300mm f/4
effectively becomes a 500mm f/6.8. As it happened, I already had the TC-17E II, so I was set to try this out.

But is it sharp? You bet it is! Certainly sharp enough for me. The top photo is a shot of a Japanese Macaque (a.k.a. Snow Monkey). Below is a 100% crop. This shot was hand-held, using a Nikon D700 at ISO 800. The
shutter speed was 1/800s, aperture f/7.1.

Of course, you get more with the much spendier big glass, like the Nikkor 500mm f/4 ED VR. For one thing, at f/4 it's 1.5 stops faster. That not only means shooting in slightly lower light, but would also provide faster auto-focusing. Also, it has VR, which is Nikon's version of image stabilization. Plus you get bragging rights to a very expensive lens, and it's larger and meaner looking than my combo.

But here's the thing: The Nikon D700, like some other modern dslr cameras, can provide beautiful results at higher
ISO settings. With it, I routinely shoot at ISO 800 to 3200 with this 300mm and teleconverter. This helps make up
for the smaller f/stop, and lack of VR. I have no trouble hand-holding in daylight, or even with slight overcast.
And so far, I've not had an issue with auto-focus speed. I've had great success photographing ducks, geese, and
other birds in flight with this combination.

If you'd like to see more examples, go to my Smugmug gallery: http://ssphotos.smugmug.com
Within the "Nature" category, both the "Birds" and the "Mammals Reptiles and Fish" galleries have examples shot with this lens and tele-converter.