I believe a camera upgrade ought to offer real advantages, over the equipment it replaces. 

People obviously do have the right to spend money on what they want. It’s easy though, to become deluded into thinking that new camera equipment will make you a better photographer, will make your images sharper, and your prints better; when in fact your time and money would be better spent on photographic instruction, better lenses, or a sturdier tripod.

That having been said, I(using my impeccable judgment) bought a new camera body several weeks ago.  I had a choice between purchasing a 36 megapixel, pro-level Nikon D800 “refurb” for about $2400, or the newer 24 megapixel Nikon D600 for roughly $2,100.  After considerable thought, I chose that the D600.  It was not the difference in cost that drove my decision, but rather the different characteristics of each model that prompted my choice.

The D 800 is unequivocally the pro-level body.  It is entirely made of magnesium, and is roughly the same size and feel of my D700.  It is sturdy and weather-sealed, and suitable for the rigors of full-time daily use.  Like many professional level bodies it feels as though it would make a pretty good weapon.  I admit that I love the feel of these devices, the weight in my hand, and the deliberate nature of the controls.

As a part-time landscape photographer however much of this robustness is of little advantage to me.  I shoot 3 to 4 times weekly and do not have to abuse my equipment the way that for instance, a full-time photojournalist would. And, I am happily not really concerned about the bragging rights of owning the Nikon “flagship”.

The D600 is built in a matter very similar to my D7000.  It too has a stout magnesium frame, with metal on the top and bottom, but rigid plastic on the front and back of the camera.  It also feels very sturdy, but not nearly as weighty as a pro level body.  It too, is well weatherproofed.  Though it has the viewfinder eyepiece of the more consumer oriented Nikon bodies, the viewfinder covers 100% of the captured image, which is actually an improvement over the viewfinder of my D700.  On the left upper surface of the camera, it uses the consumer level rotary dial to select camera modes, rather than the four button pro arrangement of the D800.  On the D600, they have added a small locking button on top of the dial, to prevent inadvertent control changes, an addition which is well appreciated.  Given this change, I now have little preference for either of the control designs.

The D600 is definitely lighter, and smaller than the D800.  Given my style of photography, this is a definite advantage, especially since much of my work involves hiking over considerable distances to arrive at shooting locales.

I like that the D600 uses the same battery, and the same remote release, as the D7000.

Now, on to the matter of the imagers.  Certainly a 36 megapixel imager, particularly one as fine as the one utilized by the D800 would be irresistible choice.  It is the top rated imager by DX0 Mark and is well-known to have extraordinary dynamic range as well as very high-resolution.  But high-resolution comes with disadvantages.  One of those problems has to do with lens diffraction, which on higher resolution sensors becomes a problem at tighter apertures.

There is also the matter of the sheer size of the files created by a 36 MP imager, and the storage and processing power that they require.

As I’ve stated elsewhere on the site, one can make a perfectly good 20x 30”print from a 12 megapixel large imager camera (micro 4/3 and larger) given good glass and good technique. Generally, this is as big as I need to print. Remember that, for really big prints, stitching multiple images into one is easily accomplished through Photoshop and other imaging software.

The 24 Mega pixel full-frame sensor on the D 600, rates just below that of the D 800 on DX0 Mark site.  More importantly, in terms of its high ISO capabilities, it rates higher than all Nikon cameras, save the vaunted D3s, higher even than the D4, which is also full frame, but only 16 megapixels.  To me this means that it can replace my D700 as a natural light event shooter (though my Fuji X100 remains my favorite for this work) while still serving as my optimum landscape camera body. Remember, this imager has the same resolution (but is otherwise more capable) as that of the $7000 Nikon D3x, a body I have lusted after for years.

If you look at the D600 sample images on DPreview, you can see that the high ISO images demonstrate a fine grain, with mainly luminance noise, and little color noise.  In my experience this cleans up very easily with Photoshop.  The D800 images reveal considerably more color noise to my eye.  This is certainly expected, given the smaller photo sites of the higher resolution imager.

Given this, and because I believe the 24 megapixels is all that I all that I really need, I chose the D600.  I’ve begun to shoot with it, and hope to post my experiences in the near future.  

If its capabilities match its performance on the camera review sites, then I may have a lightly used D700 for sale on Ebay.  Given the quality of the D600 imager, the money from that sale had better be spent on good Nikon glass.

Stand by. I’ll have more in a bit.

 

From a photographic standpoint, If not meteorologically, autumn 2012 has come to an end in this part of the Northeastern US.

Aesthetically, it was a pretty good season this year. Some of you may recall my complaints about the foliage last year.  I think last year, the fall colors were adversely affected by the very wet conditions we experienced in the late summer and fall in 2011 (remember Hurricane Irene).

 This year was much more normal, with maples and oaks producing strong red foliage to compliment the yellows and oranges of other species.

 

The foliage turned fairly early this year. Our usual peak, here in Northeastern Pennsylvania occurs in mid October.

 I started shooting up on the Pocono plateau in late September, and finished in the valley in late October.

The fall shooting came to a rather abrupt end with “super storm” Sandy. In our region, fortunately, that storm’s impact was quite modest (our hearts go out to those who are still struggling to rebuild). It did however strip the remaining leaves from the trees and thus abruptly end the autumn shooting season.

Not even the river valleys had any residual color.

And then, I travelled to Boston, so that my son could visit prospective colleges. There, autumn was still very much in progress. It was like a reset.

 For now however, in the Appalachians of Pennsylvania, shooting opportunities will be limited until the first snow falls.

Last year at this time, I was in the middle of a photographic slump. 

 I wrote about the problem here.  In brief, I felt as though, at least in my usual haunts, I had captured everything photographable.  This plus some environmental issues, rather drastically lowered my photographic output over the Summer of 2011.  I began to wonder whether I was actually losing interest in photography.

 This year it’s different.  My interest in capturing images is back.  And I hate to admit that I think it’s due to a new equipment purchase, in this case  the Fujifilm X 100.

 Roughly a month ago, I published my initial thoughts on the camera after several weeks of usage.  I have now been carrying it for roughly six weeks, and I think I have developed a better sense of its strengths and weaknesses.

 I do recognize that the novelty involved in any new equipment purchase, can reignite an interest in the activity connected with the equipment.  But that increased enthusiasm can quickly flag, if the results one obtains do not reinforce the initial burst of enthusiasm.  I do think of camera gear that I bought with great enthusiasm, only to be disappointed in the results.  Actually, I made a new gear purchase early last summer.  My disappointment with it probably added to my summer slump.

 This year it’s different.  I find myself looking for reasons to shoot with this camera.  There is something liberating about are relatively compact and discreet camera that produces excellent image quality.  My initial impressions of this camera have only been reinforced.  It has excellent resolution.  The combination of the excellent imager and the fine 35 mm equivalent lens produce rich detail which allows relatively generous cropping when necessary given the limitations of the lenses focal length. It’s not 24 mp, but it’s very adequate. Prints are gorgeous up to the 16”x 22” sizes my printers can handle.

 I love the bokeh this lens can produce.  I find it useful for both shooting portraits, and for landscape work, particularly in close quarters.  At f2 the lens has excellent quality with great sharpness in the center of the field.  Nonetheless, one still has the advantage of an APS sized sensor, which gives wonderful depth of field when stopped down.

 It’s low light capabilities continued to delight.  I still have yet to take the camera off of the auto ISO setting.  I have increased the minimum shutter speed somewhat to 1/60 to reduce motion blur during indoor shooting. I do love the low light capabilities of this camera. I continue to notice luminance noise at high ISOs, but it is relatively fine, and adds a charming graininess to the images  especially when converted to black and white. There is very little color noise visible up to ISO 3200 if exposures are right.

 I have been using the camera with the filter adapter permanently attached.  I bought an inexpensive pinch cap to use on a daily basis, and I am storing the elegant magnetic lens cap so to avoid losing it.  I would like to have it available at the point where I eventually sell the camera.

 I wondered whether I would find the 35 MM focal length limiting.  Certainly this is not a camera for sports photography, but when used as a “walk around” camera,  I’ve not felt the least bit limited by the fixed lens.  Other than cropping, there’s not much of a work around when one desires a longer focal length.  A wider field of view however can be obtained by shooting several images of the same scene and combining them in a panorama which also gives you the advantage of higher resolution for printing.

 There are definitely some quirks to this camera that require a “work around”

 It took me perhaps 5 minutes to capture the image below because I could not obtain an autofocus lock on the flowers in the foreground (the camera kept focusing on the tree in the background).  I did find the manual focusing to be a bit problematic, in part because I had forgotten temporarily how to use the image magnifying feature.  Most of the time however, the autofocus works fine.  When it does not, it most often means that the focus selector button on the side of the camera has become inadvertently repositioned.

Dynamic range in RAW files is certainly adequate but less than my Fuji S-5. There is little retention of highlights; one is more likely to obtain additional information from the shadows, similar to the Nikon D 7000.

Yeah, I know that the battery life is not great.  I also resent the point-and-shoot type battery life indicator which only warns you of impending battery failure about a millisecond before the power quits.  Happily the batteries are cheap and of the same model used by my Fujifilm F31, so it’s not a problem to have several on hand.

I’ve been trying to figure out why this camera makes me want to shoot again.  It’s not nearly as functional and versatile as my Nikon DSLRs which have comparable or even better imagers.  It’s only slightly smaller than my Panasonic GH-1 which at least as a landscape camera has roughly equal image quality.  I have to believe that it has something to do with the quality of the files that the camera generates, which exhibit the rich color palette that I’ve come to expect from Fujifilm imagers.  I think it’s also the characteristics of the lens that I discussed earlier in the article.  I think also I continue to take tactile pleasure in the manual controls and the subjective feel of this lovely little instrument.

I was in a camera shop (remember those?) in Boston this week, and finally got to handle the X100’s bigger brother, the X Pro 1. I actually came away underwhelmed. It felt much less dense and thus, less substantial than the X100, as though the same components were placed in a larger “box”. There no diopter adjustment to the viewfinder, like that on the X100. The shutter on the X Pro 1 is significantly louder. And the difference that I’m seeing in the files is entirely the result of the newer cameras extra megapixels. And of course, the X Pro 1 with a lens, is twice the money of the X 100. For now, I’ll pass.

I’ve been telling people who ask my advice about a camera purchase, that they should not favor cameras because of megapixel count or zoom range, as most often, in compact cameras, those features actually reduce image quality. I now realize that the X 100 is a strong validation of this concept.

This camera bodes well for Fujifilm, and I cannot wait to see what they give us as a follow on product. But for now, I’ll just keep shooting.

This is an editorial of mine published in a local daily, The Wilkes Barre Times Leader on Sunday May 13, 2012. It is here in all its unedited glory.

 

Every spring around Earth Day, my family and I join a group of my neighbors on a Saturday morning to perform “roadside cleanup” along a stretch of highway that runs near our community in Mountaintop. 

We’ve been doing this for roughly 15 years. 

Because we’re creatures of habit, I suspect that each of us gravitate towards one particular section of road that we call our own.  I generally end up policing a roughly 200 yards section that runs along a fairly isolated part of the route. It’s a spot I suspect that people, knowing that they are unobserved, feel emboldened to toss all manner of garbage out of their vehicle windows and onto the surrounding landscape.

 Because of this, over the years I’ve noted several patterns involved in littering and dumping that make me somewhat cynical about my fellow-man.

Some things I guess are just ingrained in you.  I cannot imagine throwing anything out of a car window, or failing to comment negatively if a fellow occupant did.  Yet judging from the volume of roadside debris that I encounter each year, there are many others among us that feel no such restraint.

The piles of debris along our roadsides are sadly, too me, another indictment of this region’s people and their attitudes, in some ways as damning as those being handed down in our Federal courtrooms.  Travel for instance, to State College, the Hershey area, or out to Western Pennsylvania and the amount of roadside trash vastly decreases or just disappears. .  I honestly do not know whether this is because of more vigorous cleanup efforts occurring elsewhere in the state but I doubt it.  People in those regions I think, just aren’t as callous about their surroundings as we are.

 Over the years I have decided that there are three main categories to categorize those that litter our roadsides.

The first group is those who dispose of random objects tossed at the point on the drive when the food or beverage it contained is either consumed or no longer desired.  In an unscientific sampling from this year’s cleanup I would say the most popular item to toss is a coffee cup, followed closely by empty beer cans, generally brands that are so cheap, I haven’t even heard of them( malt liquors cans are very common).  You rarely see an empty Stella Artois, or a Magic Hat bottle alongside the road.  Not to be a snob, but I think this says something sociologically about people who throw their crap out on our roads.

I did find a lot of energy drinks this year, particularly the Monster brand of beverage so popular among the youths.  This does not bode well for the future. 

A new item in the last several years is quarter full bottles of water and sport drinks. This also discourages me.  It suggests that even people intelligent enough to be at least, mildly health, conscious, still think it’s OK to toss trash out of their car.  They are at least intelligent enough to leave some liquid in the container so that it can be lobbed reliably from their car to the surrounding woodlands.

I did find less this year of what was once a common phenomenon, the quart plastic iced tea bottle, filled with human urine.  This was certainly a welcome development.

Then there are the serial litterers.  For many years, in one 100 foot stretch of my assigned roadside I would find perhaps 40 of the same size coffee cups, of varying stages of decay, bought at a vendor whose closest store is in Wilkes Barre. One could easily imagine this thoughtless individual finishing the beverage in roughly the same place, every day on their way to work, and then adding the empty cup to our local landscape.   

This year, there was no such pattern.  It makes me wonder whether the closure of the nearby CertainTeed fiberglass plant recently, means that my coffee-drinking nemesis has lost their employment and no longer needs to travel that stretch of road.  Perhaps the plant closure also explains the loss of the urine bombs, said to be the spoor of over-the-road truck drivers. 

The last and most egregious group of litterers is the dumpers, who think our roadside is an appropriate place for their unwanted household garbage. I suspect that one reason that this problem exists here is for lack of municipal dumps, which elsewhere in the country, give people a place, maintained by their taxes, to discard unwanted items. We commonly find plastic bags full of family detritus, along with old tires, furniture, and inoperable electronic devices. This year, we found the carcass of someone’s dog in a plastic bag sentimentally discarded among the Mc Donald’s bags and Power Aid bottles.

“…Mommy, where’s Fido?”

At least some people have the courtesy to save their garbage until after our cleanup, placing their bags next to ours to await pickup.

So for several days at least, our stretch of road will be fairly neat and tidy. The white garbage bags will be collected, leaving only the emerging greenery of spring. In about a week as I drive past, the glint of a fresh beer can (or a fresh case of beer cans) along the road will once again catch my eye.

Thus is the cycle of life in Northeastern Pennsylvania.

A Pretty Good Little Lens.

I think we all understand the advantages of larger camera imagers. Really we do. On SLRs, “full frame” imagers the size of 35mm film (FX imagers in Nikon speak) can provide cleaner output particularly at high ISO settings.  They allow wide angle, short focal length lenses to have their full field of view. They allow us the shallow depth of field many photographers, particularly those shooting portraits, tend to desire.

Much is also written about the subjective quality of images produced by larger chips.

For landscape photographers, shooting DSLRs, these characteristics are less compelling.  Most of the time, we are looking for lenses with a larger depth of field so that more of the scenery we are shooting is in focus. The ability to go wide is not unappreciated, but there are many “DX” lenses that offer a wide field of view.

The burden of full-frame imagers includes larger, heavier lenses which need to be toted around in order to obtain the full measure of quality the sensor can produce. These larger lenses tend to be more expensive.  The cost of a Nikkor 24-70 mm f 2.8, arguably the finest mid-range zoom offered by that manufacturer, is roughly $1900 US, at B+H Photo as I write this.  Price aside, this big, beautiful optic weighs almost 2 pounds. This is significantly more than the weight of the D700 to which it would be attached.

Because of these issues, over the years, I have developed several workarounds for using my full-frame cameras in the field.

The first work around is that I don’t actually use FX very much for landscape work.  My D7000 body for instance, is more compact and has more resolution.  The smaller DX sensor utilizes lenses that are lighter and less expensive.  I think in particular of my Tamron 17-50 mm f2.8, or my Nikkor 16-85 mm f3.5 both of which are excellent landscape choices.

The second work around is my use of “prime” lenses when I do venture out with full-frame. This appeals to both my lazy, and my cheap side, as these lenses tend to be inexpensive and light.  They also tend to be very high quality, especially at the modest price point at which they can be acquired.  Their small size and weight has made the D 700 very manageable for hiking.  There is however the need to carry multiple lenses, and the problem of changing them in the field, sometimes during conditions that might tend to foul the sensor.

So I’ve been looking for a small FX capable lens, a midrange zoom, of reasonable quality, but small and light enough to keep things manageable on the trail.  Preferably, it should be a modest cost.  And I think I’ve found it.

The Nikkor 28 – 70 mm F3 .5 is a small AF-D lens made in the 1990s.  It is an old school design, of polycarbonate construction, with a metal lens mount, but like many of the AF-D lens line of the time, well made and finished.  It is very reminiscent of my Nikkor 50 mm f1.8, and my 85 mm f1.8 in terms of build quality.  It is slightly smaller in size compared to the latter.

I became interested in the lens when I saw it on multiple websites reviewed quite favorably, especially given its astounding price point.  (I bought mine for roughly $70.00 on EBay).

Now I love a deal..  For $70.00 I’m definitely willing to “take a flier” and see whether it could be a useful addition to my photo kit.

I try hard not to be a “lens snob”.  Certainly there is a minimal quality level that a useful lens has to meet.  I believe that the right scene, the right set up, and the right shooting technique, tend to trump ultimate lens quality.  If the optic has reasonable center and peripheral frame sharpness, with decent contrast, it will not be the reason your photographs sucks. You may have to shoot at F5-F8 for the lens to perform well, but hell I tend to do that anyway, even with better glass.

I took the lens with me this week on several hikes.  I was easily able to carry the D700, with the zoom attached in my small camera bag.  It focuses using a screw drive, and so it requires one of a higher-end Nikon bodies for it to properly auto focus.  On the D700, it focused quite quickly and accurately.

One anachronism about this lens is its rotating front element.  This means that the front of the lens spins with the focus ring. This makes the use of a polarizing filter somewhat awkward in that one has to constantly readjust the filter every time the focus is changed by the photographer, or by the autofocus.  The lens is also unusual in that it tends to shrink and grow with both with zooming and focusing.

An advantage regarding filters on the 28-70 mm is that they are only 52 mm in diameter and thus considerably cheaper than the 77 mm filters on the pro-level lenses.  The rotating front element problem can be dealt with by focusing manually (so nothing moves without your permission) and carefully adjusting the filter to maximize the colors in the viewfinder.  I quickly got used to this technique.

So for the ultimate issue… what is the quality of this $70.00 lens? Actually, it’s quite good.  Obviously an f3.5 lens is not as “fast” as more extravagant models.  For a landscape photographer used to shooting in a reasonable light and on a tripod, this is not much of an impediment.  I find that the optical quality lens is quite good.  I’ve included in this article some sample images shot with this lens both in the field and indoors.

By way of comparison I offer the same image acquired with a similar vintage Nikkor 50 mm f1.8 which is well known to be sharp, and have low distortion.  I shot both at 50 mm and f 5.0 with the camera bench mounted. All processing was the same.  Here is 100% magnification of a peripheral portion of the scene shot.  I think that you can see the differences between these two lenses are fairly minimal.

Now I have no doubt that bigger pro-level Nikkor glass may be better quality, but the tradeoffs of weight and bulk mean that this diminutive midrange zoom is rather useful in its own way.

One last issue.  Apparently this lens is someone obscure.  When I developed photos in Camera Raw shot with the lens, the automatic lens correction defaults to the 70-200mm f2.8 settings. On the PTL Lens plug in for Photoshop, the corrections ar based on a Sigma 28-70mm f2.8. I have no idea whether this is deliberate or accidental, but the lens is not mentioned on the  former software’s Nikon lens list.  Regardless, the corrections in terms of distortion and vingnetting seem modest.

In summary I think for myself shooting this is a worthwhile little optic.  It’s small and rugged enough and frankly, if I drop it off a cliff, or into a pond, I can afford a $70.00 I will require to replace it.  And I think it has sufficient quality that it should never get in the way of capturing an excellent image.

After all, isn’t that what we truly require of any lens?

My thoughts on the D 800 have generated lively discussions on the Forums at Dpreview and FM.

Now before I start sounding like certain other self-important people on the blogoshere, I want to say that: #1 a lot of the discussion centered on what an idiot I must be to not see the grand plan, and #2 my ignorance regarding  lens choice for this camera. One person was kind of “stalking” me on the points I made in the article, posting multiple reformatted versions of his critiques. It was a little creepy.

All this aside, I learned a lot hearing from people on the Nikon FM forum and the Dpreview  forum dedicated to pro Nikon DSLRs, which is why I post there. A lot of professional, knowledgeble photographers contribute, which can make it challenging to “wade in” with an opinion.

We’ve long been told that the reason that the larger-sensored high res bodies can cost so much is that the cost to manufacture the sensors is high, and the yield is low. This was said to justify the US$3000 difference between the D3 and D3x. Now we have a 36MP FX chip  in a US$3000 weather-sealed body. What happened?

I can only presume that either:

A. they lied about the extra cost of the D3x chip, or B. more likely, something’s happened to make the cost of manufacturing the imagers go way, way down.

Maybe it has something to do with how they’ve refubished their manufacturing  status post earthquake/tsunami.

Perhaps we’re getting to a point where sensor cost will be less important, and that the camera bodies features will be the cost driver. Sort of like in the film era, when a new F5, the most premium Nikon film body made, cost  US$2000 (but the derivitive 6mp Kodak DCS 660 cost US$30,000)

I think we got a flavor for this first with Canon and their  5D series, and then later when Nikon placed their brand new 16mp sensor not in a D300s replacement, but (according to some) “wasted it” in a prosumer body (albeit a very good prosumer body).

If this is true, then in the future Nikon higher-end bodies, you could put any sensor in any body style. Want a smaller, lighter camera, and only need 150,000 shuttter clicks then there’s a Dx00 with your choice of FX sensors available. Ditto if you need a more rugged, longer lifespan instrument.

Maybe, given the price of the D800, there can be a D4x with 36mp, the body and shutter of a D4 and with 8 fps shooting speed…for US$6500.

We’re entering a new era of digital photography. I think I’m going to like it.

I’m still gonna need better lenses.

Every year in the Northeastern U.S.,we are lectured by meteorologist types about the linkage between the climate, and the quality of the fall foliage.

Now, it seems to me that most fall seasons are reported to be
drier than normal. This tends to result, we are told, in attenuation of the
colors of autumn leaves, and thus a dull 3^rd season.

Now it seems that whatever happens, the fall colors suffer.

This year, the spring summer and early fall were much wetter
than normal. Seasonal totals are significantly higher at this point in the year that an
entire years precipitation from as far back as 1951. It has rained a lot in the last 6 months.

And interestingly,  the foliage has suffered. Issues became apparent in mid
September when Maples, and some Oaks, did not assume their usual autumnal display
of reds and crimsons, but turned brown, and shriveled on the tree. Apparently
the wet conditions caused a normally inconsequential fungus to become a
problem, injuring several tree species, and causing their leaves to bypass the
fall colors we look forward to.

This affected mainly the reds of the season. The birches,
beeches, and some maples still turned yellow or gold. The deep crimson of many oak species less affected by the fungus, were also dulled looking, definitely more brown than red.

Many leaves just fell. By mid-October which is usually “peak
leaves” in these parts of Pennsylvania, the canopy was almost completely open, its leaves brown, and trampled underfoot.

As a landscape photographer, you do what you can to find beauty,
when nature conspires against you.. You look for isolated scenes with good
color. You include geologic or man-made artifacts into images. Or, you look for
patterns and texture.  Black and White can work when the foliage is dull. You try to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.

Finally, on the 28^th of October, nature lobbed a softball to those of us that shoot outdoors. The Pennsylvania Mountains received nearly a foot of snow, while there was still some color on the trees. The snow created a new canvas
on which to depict the fading autumnal display, and grab a few more images
before things fade  to the dull façade of November. The white stuff lasted several days before succumbing to the late October sun.

Now, I look out my window to view a scene cloaked in the
browns and grays of the early winter. It’s early in the morning as I write this;
a heavy frost clings to the fallen leaves and grass.

There are still things to photograph in a Northeastern
Pennsylvania November. I’ve written about it here and here.

But for me, this weekend, I will put away the camera gear
and break out the leaf blowers and rakes to deal with the remains of last year’s
fall scenery,  a good bit of which now covers my lawn.

Soon, the snow will fall, and hopefully stay.

As I have written in the past, there is something cruel about early spring in the highlands of Pennsylvania.

 The winter of 2011 will be remembered in these parts, not for the large amount of snow we received (actually only 50 or so inches here where I live) but for the relentless cold that maximized its impact, and kept the ground, sidewalks and at times the roads, covered with the white stuff.

 In the forests, the snow cover was between a foot, or maybe two, for much of the winter. There was no true “January thaw”, like we usually experience.

It was so relentlessly “winter” here, that I decided to forgo my usual March Adirondack trip, and went to Florida instead.

Even there, the season’s grasp had not relinquished. We had cool temperatures during our travels, mainly in the 50s and 60s.  

There had been multiple freezes in January and February, injuring the subtropical vegetation. From Jacksonville to Cape Coral, we encountered cold-injured palms, their fronds brown, and falling to the ground. In the estuaries and tidewater areas, the mangroves were lifeless when we were told that they should have  been lush and green.

Because of this, several scenes I shot seem to work better as monochromes rather than in color.

 

 Back at home, at least for some of us, there was an upside. We had reliable cross-country skiing and snowmobiling from early January until the first week of March.

On the downside, I burned a lot of firewood and of course, heating oil.

Photographically at least , snow and cold are helpful,  shrouding what would be a brown lifeless landscape with season appropriate trappings ,  decorating the farms and forests.

Winter however, was starting finally break. Last Sunday afternoon, I walked a local trail, called “Frog Pond Way” named for the multiple permanent, and “Vernal” ponds, that it encircles.

It was a clear day with the bright spring sun warming to me to a degree beyond what the 50 degree air temperature might suggest.

The cries of a flock of newly arrived robins, the distant call of a pilated woodpecker, and the cooing of mourning doves filled the air.

In every suitable body of water I encountered, a pair of mallards paddled together, occasionally tipping their heads down to the muddy bottoms to search for food. I surprised a pair of cormorants resting at one of the larger ponds.

And at one particular pond I encountered what I consider the truest sentinel of spring. As I approached I could detect the first tentative chirping of wood frogs, beginning to search for females.

I knew that there was some mixed precipitation forecast for the overnight, but not something that should slow spring’s progression. Or so I thought. One Monday morning we awakened to find two inches of snow on the ground. Twenty four hours later, eight more had fallen. We’ve had daytime temperatures in the low thirties since, with lows in the teens.

 I cross-country skied again yesterday, the scenery once again resembling what is seen in late January.

As always, March is full of surprises.

 

Pennsylvania Winter Farm (Nikon D7000, Nikkor 16-85mm f3.5)

 

Occasionally, a budding photographer will approach me for advice on how to capture better images.

I think that my answer must disappoint them. I’m sure most beginners really hope that I can direct them towards the purchase of a particularly sexy piece of gear, such as a camera body, or a particular lens that will set their photography afire.

They want to talk about gear. I want to talk about composition, and technique. Particularly, I want to talk about rather mundane basics such as the nature of optics, shooting discipine, and camera, and lens support.

Not that there aren’t some great photographs blurred by subject motion, or camera movements.

Most great images are sharp, even if it is at a narrow point of focus selected by the shooter.

 Generally, for an image to be sharp, the camera and lens need to be still relative to the subject, as the shutter is released.

Now, there are many ways to properly stabilize a camera.

My first rule would be: the human body unaided, is at best, only a fair camera support.  Now true enough, a practiced pro shooter can hand-hold, and certainly achieve great results, usually far better  than an amateur. There are reasons for this. First, the pro is practiced at taking still images, much in the way a fine marksman, can draw a bead and hold very steadily on his target. It takes concentration and lots of repetition. There are places to learn this: here, and here.

 Most amateurs have lousy technique. They think that they can hold a camera, arms akimbo, far out from the body, trying to shoot a telephoto shot through a slow zoom lens, at an impossibly slow shutter speed, and still achieve Sports Illustrated quality shots of their precious soccer-playing offspring. It doesn’t work that way.

A pro understands that the proper shooting technique is to hold the arms close in to the body elbows braced against the chest or abdomen, and the viewfinder pressed against the face. Holding as modern digital camera out away from you while you frame with the viewfinder, is generally going to lead to fair snapshots, but lousy fine art prints.

Also, often pro camera gear, is heavier. This means that the poke of the finger on the shutter, and the movement of the mirror and shutter, on an SLR, is working against the greater mass of, for instance,  a heavy, metal-bodied  camera such as a Canon 1Ds mark II, rather than a diminutive plastic consumer grade Digital Rebel. It thus creates less blur-inducing movement.

 Most landscape purists use tripods… period. Many shoot large-format cameras that are too unwieldy to be practical for anything but tripod mounting.  The true purist would use, very heavy tripods with equally beefy camera mounts that add mass to the camera body and couple it rigidly to the floor or ground, essentially eliminating camera movement.

Tripods are great for detailed images. They are less useful when for hiking long distances, for discreet shooting and sometimes, for spontaneity.

 Obviously, there are available, stabilized lenses, known as IS lenses for Canon,OIS for Panasonic, and VR lenses for Nikkor. These can partially make up for camera shake. Modern Sony, Olympus, and Pentax SLR lenses are generally stabilized by the camera body itself. Whether in the lens or body, stabilization is a useful feature, but can only be counted on to compensate for modest camera movements at reasonably fast shutter speeds.

Combining a heavy tripod with a remote shutter release (or releasing the shutter by using the camera self timer) is still the best way to obtain sharp, enlargable landscape prints.  This is especially true when shooting moving water, or in low light situations.  We should probably all do this, all the time.

In fact, good technique and less megapixels, will sometimes trump bad technique with more megapixels in terms of fine detail reproduction.

I have walked, snowshoed, and skied many miles with a tripods strapped to my pack. In a target-rich photographic environment, I sometimes leave the body and lens attached to the tripod, and travel with the combination over my shoulder, much like the way Huck Finn would carry a fishin’ pole.

 Lately though, I have changed tactics.  I found that sometimes setting up all the gear to work as a purist means that there are shots you won’t take because, it’s too much trouble. I still do use a tripod on formal shooting days. But for more casual opportunities, or for situations where I think that the neighbors will react badly to my presence, I use other techniques.

Cross-country skiing is one example. I have two ski poles in hand, and often, no where convenient to carry a monopod. I will then have to improvise.

Holding crossed ski (or hiking) poles with my thumb and third to fifth finger, I can improvise a bipod with the pair. My index finger can then encircle the barrel of the lens which rests in the cross. This works pretty well.

Trees when well located can be used to stabilize things, either by leaning against them, or bracing the camera hard against the bark. A small sandbag in your bag is helpful to facilitate the latter.

Any firm stable object can be useful. Fence post and bridge rails make fine camera supports. With SLRs, it is useful to press the camera into the support, to damp the movement of the mirror. Again a sandbag is useful to position the camera on a hard surface.

Logs, the hood of your car, your mountain bike seat, even rocks in the middle of a stream, can offer a shooting platform, as well as a non-intuitive, but unique shooting viewpoint. The Panasonic G 1-G1h- G2h-series cameras are great for this as they have an articulating view screen for framing at weird angles, are physically small, and have no mirror, and thus no “mirror slap” to dampen.

Finally, most often lately, I use a monopod.  Mine is a steel Bogen-Manfrotto unit with a sturdy ballhead mounted, a ballhead similar to, if less robust than the one on my good Gitzo tripod. Both ballheads use the same camera shoe so that I can switch back quickly between support options.

The monopod is a solid, heavy steel unit. The weight is an advantage when mechanically coupled to the camera, and then to the ground. There is a rubber foot, which can be slipped off to reveal a metal spike.

It makes a robust hiking pole. I keep it in my car wedged between the passenger seat and the console where it is readily available for “grab shots”. I have also suspected it would make a formidable self-defense weapon.

For landscape photography, I extend the monopod to the length I need. I make sure all of the joints are tightly locked. I position the camera with the ball head and then lock it down tight. I find that placing some weight on the camera-monopod assembly and making sure it if firmly engaged with the ground before tripping the shutter, allows me to take very sharp images even at marginal shutter speeds. I can grab good shots very quickly with a monopod in situations where a tripod would be slow and cumbersome.

If you aspire to create photographic images beyond the average, you need to spend time learning the basics. 

These methods may seem tedious and even stifling. Always remember that good camera technique and save you from opening your compositional masterwork, the one you hiked hours to capture, only to find is a blurred, unprintable mess.

Take the time and trouble.

It’s worth it.

 

When I posted “A Rebate Tale”,  I was concerned that the topic would be:

#1 Too dull.

#2 To seemingly selfish.

I did actually post the story to be a warning so that could avoid the modestly annoying situation I find my self in.

I was unprepared for the response that this post has received.

I did post a link to several photography forums that I am known to frequent.

I  subsequently had the single day record for the largest number of visitors to the blog .

And the robust readership continues several days later.

The responses which occurred in the forums were varied. Some people ridiculed me for not being careful enough and failing to fully understand the terms of the rebate.

Others told me of their similar predicament regarding the Nikon D-7000, and the Epson rebate.

Still others mocked me, for moving from pro-level Nikon bodies to what some see is an “advanced amateur” body (I continue to believe that a “pro” camera is any camera you can make money with).

Most interestingly, there was a theme among some posters that the whole issue of product rebates should be viewed with suspicion, if not outright distrust as many rebates legitimaty applied for, are never realized by the consumer.

I had a fascinating post on the site from Helen Oster who is the “Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador”. She works for a (the biggest?) competitor to B+H Photo, where I purchased the merchandise in question. She suggested that I contact Henry Posner, who is her opposite number at B+H. What a classy thing to do.

Henry was waiting for me. He already knew who I was and understood my predicament. Apparently he has the ability to scan the web for mentions of his employer and to intervene when necessary to protect the fine reputation B+H enjoys. And he found my little blog from two mentions in text, of his store. It’s a little scary.

We had an extremely pleasant conversation. He offered to check with his camera buyer to get read on when I might see the Nikon delivered (two weeks, as it turned out). He also extended he window when I may return the printer. He explained that the rebate business has been at times a problem, as companies like Epson often use outside contractors to process their rebate applications. The quality (and motivation) of those contractors affects how many rebates are issued (my summation, not Henry’s exact words).

I also talked the person in charge of rebate issues at Epson. She told me that all that needed was the invoice from B+H with the Camera and the printer shown as purchased. She reminded me that Epson has no way to track other manufacturers serial numbers, or UPC codes anyway.

I don’t trust this. Apparently the “contractors” processing claims tend to be stringent about applications or they kick them out. I also know that having the physical UPC code cut from the box prevents multiple rebates on the same purchase. I’m not going to bite on this one.

If I do get to apply for that refund, the application will be letter-perfect, with all the requirements met. It will be sent certified mail, return receipt requested.

Meanwhile, but the box is still sitting here. It’s getting a bit dusty now, but remains otherwise untouched.

Unlike me this year, it may be taking a trip back to NYC for the holidays.