The Untamed Landscape

Get out of my shot…

2010-12-23T13:12:00.000-08:00

A pretty common occurrence at popular scenic viewpoints, someone is standing with their tripod setup right where you want to be. Other photographers wander through and sometimes even setup right in front of you without looking. I can think of a couple ways to avoid that, go mid-week or get there when everyone else is sleeping or has gone home. Or better yet, find a different spot with a different perspective on the subject, you go home with a shot no one else has.

But here is something a little different, YOU get in your own shots. What… you ask while scratching your head?
It took me a while to start thinking about this before I arrived at a location. Of course, none of these things ever happened to me .
You wander around looking for a great composition and when you finally find the perfect spot, set up your camera and look through the view finder only to see there are great big clown size footprints right in the middle of your composition. Ok, who was the idiot that walked right through here??? Looking around only to find you are the only one there… Oops, way to go smarty pants. It helps to think about where you might setup ahead of time, preferably before you walk through that snow or sand.
How about this one, you are shooting in portrait orientation with the ultra-wide angle lens. You get some outstanding shots, at least so the camera LCD says, and cant wait to get home and see these beauties on that great BIG custom calibrated monitor you spent a month researching information on the internet before you bought. So there it is, The shot, but wait, what is that at the very bottom of the frame? Could that be a tripod foot? Doh… You didn’t even think of checking the bottom of the view finder while positioning your camera. This last one usually isn’t a problem unless you are using something wider than 17mm on a full 35mm format camera of 12mm on a cropped sensor camera. Of course, like I said, this has never happened to me.

Geez, and all I thought I had to do was get to a pretty location at the right time of day and snap the picture. Now you want me to think about where I walk, or double check the view finder all before I have had my morning coffee?
Next you’ll be asking if I remembered to charge my batteries…
About the pictures; the first was shot using a Nikon D3x and the AF-S 24-120 f4 at 38mm using a Singh-Ray circular polarizer to help cut some of the glare from the water and rocks. The second was shot with the Nikon D3x and the AF-S 16-35 f4 at 16mm.

Nikon AF-S 24-120 f4 review for Landscape Photography

2010-11-22T17:14:00.000-08:00

I recently rented the new Nikkor AF-S 24-120 f4 to see how well it would work as a landscape lens. I had read some mixed reviews about the lens but no one has really tested it from a landscape perspective. The focal ranges I normally use are 16mm to about 125mm. I have 2 lenses I carry all the time (Nikkor’s AF-S 16-35 f4 and AF-S 70-300 VR) and a 3rd (Nikkor AF-S28-70 f2.8) I use sometimes. The focal range of this new lens would compliment my 16-35 and reduce the lenses I carry to 2. Another benefit would be a bit of weight reduction in my backpack. The Nikkor AF-S 28-70 is a very large and heavy lens, while image quality is great, I would not miss having to carry it while backpacking. The Nikkor AF-S 24-120 f4 wont be replacing my 16-35, but I was curious how it would compare at 24mm if switching lenses in a nasty environment wasn’t an option. I also compared the Nikkor AF-S 24-120 f4 to the AF-S 28-70 f2.8 at 28mm and 50mm, and the AF-S 70-300 VR at 70mm, 85mm, and 120mm. The images posted are all at f11, though I am shooting the same shots at f8 also. Since I am looking at this from a landscape perspective, I wasn’t concerned with larger f stops. Shots posted are 200% crops for your pixel peeping benefit
Testing was done using a Nikon D3x mounted on a tripod, mirror lock up, cable release and Live View contrast detect focus. I was shooting at f8 and f11 and pixel peeping at 200% The shots were taken in RAW and no extra processing other than my normal ACR settings or sharpening was applied other than adjusting very slight exposure changes.
The images are posted HERE. My expectations weren't high considering the bashing this lens was getting (mostly from people who had not tested it.) My initial impression is, I don't see what all the fuss on build quality is about. It is similar to the feel of the AF-S 16-35 f4, the Nikkor AF-S 24-120 f4 internal sleeve is metal. It appears it will withstand my abuse as the AF-S 16-35 f4 does and I can be pretty hard on gear. It is very solid feeling when zooming. I don't get the plasticy (is that a word? ) feeling of my AF-S 70-300 VR. I think the build quality is quite good. The 24-120 does have a decent amount of barrel distortion improving all the way to 35mm where there is no distortion. As I zoomed further it changes to some minor pin cushion all the way to 120mm.
Testing at 24mm, the Nikkor AF-S 24-120 f4 is better than I was expecting, the center sharpness looks very close to the AF-S 16-35 f4 seeming ever so slightly sharper due to a little better micro contrast. They are close enough to not worry about (remember, 200% pixel peeping).
(When I refer to micro contrast or lens contrast it is a reference to sharpness, not like the contrast which distributes tonal gradation from black to white or lightest to darkest. Here is a good article explaining lens contrast). At f8 The 16-35 is better in the edge/corner department as I expected and the 24-120 has a bit of CA as does the 16-35 but the 16-35 CA is negligible. The 16-35 has nice clean straight lines and the 24-120 quite a bit of barrel distortion, no surprise here. At f11 there doesn't seem to be much change except edge/corner performance, the 16-35 improves and the 24-120 stays about the same.

Against the the 28-70, at 28mm, center performance is similar but the corners are much better with the 24-120. My eyes give a slight edge to the 24-120 in the center but it is very close. Both have a decent amount of CA of different type. The 24-120 still displays a bit of barrel distortion at 28mm and changes to pin cushion which showed up in my 50mm comparison. The 24-120 is the winner at 28mm. At 50mm the 24-120 had a repeat performance. I am satisfied the 24-120 could easily replace my 28-70 and give me better results.

At 70mm, compared to the 70-300 VR at f11 in the center, the 24-120 has a slight advantage, corners were too close to call. the 70-300 has always impressed me with it's corner performance and one of the reason I carry it over my AF 80-200 f2.8 (besides weight). At 85mm, the 70-300 has better corners, the 24-120 corners are very good, just not as good as the 70-300. The center frame comparison is the opposite with the 24-120 coming out on top nicely. Most of the CA has disappeared as well. Images at 120mm are close to the same results as 85 with the 24-120 corners not quite as good but still not bad and the center, the 24-120 is better. The 70-300 has virtually no CA and the 24-120 has a tiny bit.

Verdict: I think this lens will be a nice upgrade for a light landscape photography kit with the AF-S 16-35 f4 and the Nikkor AF-S 24-120 f4.

LIGHT……

2010-10-28T15:25:00.001-07:00

You are at a great location, you have your camera setup and a perfect composition through the view finder. What will turn a good image into a great one? Light…. it is why landscape photographers get up before the sun rises and make long treks early in the morning. It is why they spend hours at mid-day scouting for locations to use for morning or evening. It is why they walk back from an evening location for hours with a headlamp on.

You can use light to highlight elements within a scene such as this.

You can use light to light up the clouds in the evening.

On an overcast day you can use light in a scene so everything is lit more evenly.

But it is all about light. Next time you go out looking for that great shot, think about how light will affect it. Think about shadows, highlights, reflections… use it to your advantage. Most of all, be patient. Light changes, you need to be there when it does.

Central Oregon Coast

2010-10-07T16:02:00.001-07:00

During the month of September I spent some time on the Central Oregon Coast. The first trip was to do a little exploring since I have not been there before…. My bad! I went a second time to explore some more and capture a few shots. For me, to get decent photographs, I have to visit a location more than once. I go at first to find the area and get a feel for what type of photography I can expect. If I happen to get lucky, I might even get a nice shot. In the case of the coast, I want to get a feel for tides and how the sun looks against the coast. Knowing how a location looks at high tide and low tide tells me when the best time to be there is. Some areas look better at high tide, some at low, others have photographic opportunities at both. Some other questions I get answered are “how does this location look in the morning? How about in the evening?”

All these questions and exploring help plan your time wisely. Four things I always look at before heading out; Tide tables for the areas and weather, sunrise and sunset as well as moon rise and set. All four of those are important and can help decide if a trip was a success or a bust. And if the weather looks bad, that can mean photography is good. Nothing is more boring than a cloudless blue sky.

A word of caution, if you like keeping your camera gear pristine, shooting at the ocean is probably not a good idea. My gear can get wet, and I spend time keeping the salt film wiped from my camera and filters. I wear glasses, which get coated too, though they help keep me aware of when it is time to wipe the lens. I usually try and keep my polarizer on the lens, since my Singh-Ray circular polarizer wipes clean easier than the front element does. After shooting, my equipment is fine, but if you get nervous about that type of thing you might be better off shooting something else.

The photograph at the top is a good example of wiping the lens to keep it as clean as possible. I also had to keep an eye out for large waves as I was standing very exposed to incoming waves. Though the spray and the mist made for a nice extra glow around the water.

The next shot is Cannon Beach and Haystack Rock. I used a 3 stop Graduated Neutral Density Filter and a wide angle lens. What first attracted me to this location was the fingers of water pointing at the rock, but when I got there the ripples in the sand looked like they would catch the sun so I included them in the composition.

This third shot was screaming black and white to me. I converted it in Photoshop and did a little dodging and burning as well as contrast enhancement. This was another occasion where I had to keep the filter wiped constantly, though it was a 3 stop Soft Graduated Neutral Density one and no polarizer. I kept the lens cap on between shots.

This last one was taken right before sunrise, so the slow exposure gave the water a mist like look. I also used a Circular Polarizer so the tiny bit of reflection from some of the wet rocks and water weren't so obvious and to help slow the shutter speed a bit more.

Be selfish, enjoy yourself first...

2010-06-17T13:22:00.000-07:00

Then worry about getting "the" shot. I started out in landscape photography probably the same way many other photographers did. I loved the natural beauty of the world around me while I ventured out hiking and camping in the nearby mountains. Maybe for you it was walking through the desert or visiting the ocean before you decided to get serious and try and get more than just a "tourist photo." I think too often we are consumed with getting a beautiful shot to show friends and family, or if you're a pro, maybe you are concerned about getting that next publishable shot. I have been with people so anxious to get that shot, they miss the real beauty around them. They have forgotten why they started...

Looking at the photograph to the left, it isn't one I would call a great shot, it's nice and helps give the viewer a bit of an idea of the area. But the best part of being there was the hike and the scenery. There is this wonderful gorge where the river flows through, almost impossible to find a spot to photograph safely from, but I still remember how beautiful it was. I stopped along the trail many times, knowing the location I stopped at wouldn't make a great photograph, just to take in and really enjoy what I was seeing.

More often than not, a beautiful scene doesn't translate into a good landscape photograph. But sometimes photographers spend so much time trying to force it into a shot they miss the entire point of why they started. If you relax and enjoy the moment, you may not have a shot to show friends and family, but you have an unforgettable experience that will last a lifetime. And yet, you may also get much better photographs because you slow down and start noticing things you may not have seen in your rush. Some of my best shots are after I sit down and just enjoy what I am looking at.

People need to think back to why they began this quest. Don't lose sight of your goals, but open your eyes and "see" the way you used to. I don't know that you will go home with better shots, but I guarantee you will go home with a much more gratifying and better experience.

The Circular Polarizer: Myth and Truth

2010-05-20T11:13:00.000-07:00

A circular polarizer wont work on wide angle lenses, you cant use it on anything wider than 24mm.

I could fill a book with statements like that. Usually made by people who do more talking than photographing. The truth is, if you are shooting clear blue skies in mid-day in landscape orientation at the right angle to the sun, then yes, a circular polarizer will cause some problems with an uneven sky. But as most professional landscape photographers know, the reason you use a circular polarizer isn't to make blue sky darker blue. It is used to cut glare and enhance color. If all you want to do is make the sky darker blue, you can use a Graduated Neutral filter or do it in post processing. If I want darker skies, I use the graduated filter.

Think of it this way, why do we wear polarized sunglasses? To cut glare.... Think of a circular polarizer as sunglasses for your camera. I probably use my Singh-Ray polarizer for 75 percent of my shots. For a landscape photographer, it is one of the most useful tools available and the effect can not be reproduced in post processing.

One of the best uses of a CPL (circular polarizer) is around water and forest scenes. The polarizer will cut the glare from the water surface as well as from the wet rocks. Let's say we are shooting a forest stream, we are most likely going to find rocks, trees, shrubs and bushes. All of these surfaces are affected by light and can have some color robbing glare, even on dark cloudy days.

Here is an example of a scene shot without a polarized effect and with polarization. Notice not just the water, but the leaves, ferns and trees also have reduced glare and enhanced color. The scene was shot using a 16mm extreme wide angle lens by the way.

This is the before, the water, rocks and fallen trees have some glare to varying extent. Notice even the leaves have glare, something that we have to deal with in the Pacific Northwest. The glare is robbing the scene of some color too.

(When shooting in the woods, it is usually best to go very early or late, or on overcast days since a camera cant capture the entire dynamic range of light for a scene in sunshine. You either wind up with blown out bright parts with no color or pure black shadows that should have some detail in them and often times you get both blown and pure black areas.)

This is the after, you can see some of the colorful rocks under the surface of the water, the glare is mostly gone from the leaves and rocks adding more color to the scene. With a CPL you can vary the effect by rotating the front piece of glass. Sometimes you may not want top cut all the glare. many times on a still lake that has a beautiful reflection of a mountain, I will reduce the effect so the reflection is the main subject and not what is seen below the surface of the water if I had fully polarized the scene.

Misquoting, Misconstruing, and Misstating

2010-04-23T17:41:00.000-07:00

I read and interesting article from Thom Hogan

Misquoting, Misconstruing, and Misstating
April 23 (commentary)--
"...But the whole web of Web viralness shows a remarkable problem that's getting more and more common these days. First, we have misstatement and hyperbole. This is then misconstrued by many into something even more outrageous. At which point we eventually end up with complete misquotes that enhance the misconstruction. Lord help us, isn't anyone teaching English, logic, clarity, or fact-checking these days? Have all the reporters in the world disappeared and been replaced by bloggers who don't have time to actually check the source?"

Adobe releases Adobe Camera Raw for Photoshop And Lightroom

2010-04-21T08:53:00.000-07:00

Adobe just released Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) 5.7 for Photoshop CS4 and 2.7 for Lightroom 2.

The release includes support for several new camera models and an upgraded RAW processing engine (Camera Raw 5.7 includes an updated demosaic algorithm designed to provide compatibility with settings applied in Lightroom 3.)

The read me files for Lightroom are here
The read me files for Photoshop CS4 are here

Download Photoshop 5.7 for Windows here
Download Photoshop 5.7 for Mac here

Download Lightroom 2.7 for Windows here
Download Lightroom 2.7 for Mac here

I haven't had a chance to look at the new RAW processing engine yet, so stay tuned.

Do you own a DSLR?

2010-04-17T10:32:00.000-07:00

I was wondering how many owned a DSLR with interchangable lenses and understood as well as used them in anything other than Auto mode. They are quite powerful tools and learning to move beyond Auto is probably why you bought your camera in the first place. I am sure you have probably discovered by now, a DSLR can take just as bad a picture as a point and shoot and you might be wondering why your shots arent looking like the "Pro's" with those expensive DSLR's.

The new Nikon AF-S 16-35 f4 VR lens

2010-04-12T16:32:00.000-07:00

I recently added the Nikon 16-35 f4 VR to my lens collection. I already have the Nikon 17-35 f2.8, which is a very nice sharp wide angle zoom that performs well stopped down for landscapes. I was intrigued by the new Nikon lens and thought I would pick one up and try it out. The MTF charts on the Nikon web site indicated the new 16-35 was quite a bit sharper in the center and the edges/corners than the 17-35. If the 17-35 could use improvement, it was the edges and corners and an extra 1mm on the wide side wouldn't hurt either.

After testing the 16-35 against the 17-35 for 2 days I was satisified it would meet my landscape needs and brought it along on my recent trip to the Eastern Sierra to test it out in the real world for the type of shooting I do. After using it for a week and looking at the files it produced I can say it adds a special something to my shots I cant quite explain but I can see, almost a 3D type effect in some shots. There is quite a bit of barrel distortion at the wide end, a bit more than my 17-35, but for most landscape shooting it is not noticeable. At 16mm, perspective distortion will be the major issue one will have to deal with anyway and all wide lenses cant avoid that. I have started using focus stacking with some of my images, this lens is quite suitable for this purpose as there is very little focus breathing. The one troubling "feature" with this lens is the small distance from close focusing to infinity on the focus ring. It is very difficult if you manually focus for DOF to get the proper distance set. Of course, if there is something at the correct hyper focal distance you can auto focus on that. Though that isnt always going to be the case and manual focus will need to be set occaisionally. I added a small white paint spot on the focus ring at 3 feet to help me get the distance correct when focusing manually.

This shot taken with the 16-35, f11 at 16mm, as you can tell from this, barrel distortion isnt an issue. The only time it would be a problem is if the horizon was near the extreme top or bottom of the frame. To my eyes, the lens renders the shot much more pleasing than my 17-35 would have done.

The Southwest

2010-04-12T15:08:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite places to photograph is the southwest. I recently went on a trip with friend and fellow landscape photographer Kevin McNeal. Part of the time we spent some frustrating days waiting out snow storms. But patients pays off sometimes as we were able to capture some of these areas with some dramatic light and snow. Many of the places we visited were iconic, but we didn't have these in our portfolios. We also went during the dead of winter since most National Parks are captured during the spring through fall seasons.

Three advantages going in off-season are 1: A lot less people to deal with 2: The chance of snow in areas that you don't see much of it in photographs 3: The weather and light tend to be more dramatic. Finally, there were a couple other photographers at this spot when I started, but by the time this light happened they had given up and had gone home. Patience is not only a virtue, it is essential for capturing that magic light we look for.The first image of the Watchman (above) would have been a difficult capture with a Graduated Neutral Density Filter which I would normally use. I shot this as 2 exposures, one for highlights and one for shadows then I combined them in post processing to give the same type of effect as if I had used a filter on the camera.

Another iconic spot, but also done a bit differently than what you will normally see. This is Turret Arch through North Window. You can make your shots a little different than everyone else's by composing from different angles, or shooting at a different time of day. That is what was done with this shot. The most common time of day from this location is just as the sun hits the rock face of the North Window. I shot this a few minutes before sunrise with a longer exposure to capture some of the stars that can be seen in a larger version of this shot.

This last shot was 2 exposures combined in Photoshop, not because of a difficult exposure, but to achieve better sharpness throughout the photograph. The focal length was 26mm and the foreground was very close so I had a shallower depth of field to deal with. I shot one image focused for the foreground and one focused further into the scene. Photoshop has a new feature that allows the photographer to use the the sharpest parts of several images to create one very sharp image throughout. I combined the 2 shots for exceptional sharpness that could not have been achieved in a single shot.

Autumn in the Columbia Gorge

2009-11-04T14:02:00.001-08:00

I spent a day and a half hiking around some of the trails at the Columbia Gorge. I enjoyed a long time at this location, probably longer than I should have, but it was beautiful and I wanted to make sure I had a really nice composition. An advantage to spending a while at a location is the weather can change so later photographs look different than the earlier ones in the same day. In this case, there was a slight breeze early that had leaf movement showing in my shots. a bit later the breeze was gone and the longer exposures came out much better.

I used a 17-35 set at 17mm and a Singh-Ray circular polarizer for this shot.