OMG! - A Macro lens for my S5!

It's no secret that I've been struggling with photographic motivation over the last few years. My image production, and time spent out and about doing photography, has reduced insanely!

But if there is one genre that has pulled me slowly and inexorably back into the picture taking process, it's been fungi/macro photography.

Over the last two or three years, whenever I've posted on my blog (and no, dear reader, that hasn't been frequently), it's mostly been about macro/fungi photography. Therefore, not surprisingly, whenever I've gone out to take photos, it's to do fungi photography. I've even kept a Sony A99 around to shoot with because it has a specific 100mm macro lens. If I was going out fungi hunting I would leave my S5 at home, since I only had the 20-60mm 'kit' lens and standard 50mm f1.8.

That was, until very recently.

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art

I had always hoped that I would one day get an L-mount macro lens for my S5, but given the price of them, I thought that 'one-day' would be a long way off! I had been keeping an eye on the Panasonic 100mm macro lenses on the second-hand market here in NZ, and a good copy is going for around $1300.00NZ (and about $1850.00NZ new). Yikes!! Too rich for my blood!

Fortunately for the L-Mount system, Panasonic (and Leica) aren't the only game in town. Sigma is also part of the L-Mount alliance, and bring another option to the table. And with their 'Art' range of lenses Sigma produce some of the best lenses in the world. As a third-party manufacturer, they also tend to be 'slightly' cheaper than the maker's own lenses. The Sigma 105mm f/2.8, brand new, is around $1100.00NZ - some $700.00NZ cheaper than the Panasonic. This is definitely a savings, but still a lot of money for a poor boy like me.

But recently, while looking through a New Zealand second-hand photography Facebook group, I came across the bargain I had been waiting for. A used Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Art Macro L Mount lens, at a very reasonable price. It was, in fact, for about the same price I thought that I could get for the Panasonic GH3 kit that I had sitting around unused. I'd purchased the kit at the start of the year when I thought I was going be doing a lot of real estate videography, but this never actually happened (don't get me started).  

Long story short, I sold my GH3 kit to a local photographer, contacted the seller of the Sigma on Facebook, and a few days later I was the very excited owner of a mint/like-new 105mm macro lens! It would be a month later before I would have the chance to get out and shoot with it, and pickings were slim this time of the year, but I did manage to find some fungi to shoot in my local area.

Coal Creek Fungi. Lumix S5 and Sigma f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art. f/18 @ 0.5 sec, ISO 400

The Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art is a beautiful lens -both in its construction and in the images it produces. It is packed with all the latest technology - as opposed to the Panasonic version which is very much a bare-bones offering. Both lenses have a focus limiter (fairly standard for macro lenses) and a MF/AF switch, but the Sigma also adds an AF lock button, an aperture ring, an aperture ring click switch and an aperture lock switch. The Sigma also has a dust and splash resistance structure, with water and oil repellant coatings.

Fade to Black. Lumix S5 with Sigma 105mm macro. f/11 @ 0.6sec, ISO 400.

Although it is a reasonably hefty lens at 715grams (over twice the weight of the Panasonic), it still balances well on the S5. The front half of the lens consists of a ribbed soft-grip to aid in manual focusing (important for a macro lens). The lower half is mostly smooth metal with aperture ring (yes, an actual aperture ring), and the aforementioned buttons. It's an elegant and practical design, making the lens a joy to use.

As well as being twice the weight of the Panasonic, it is also twice the height, especially with the provided lens hood attached. Despite this, the front element filter size is smaller than the Lumix offering (64mm for the Sigma and 67mm for the Panasonic). This, for me, is the only unfortunate thing with the Sigma. It would have been ideal if the filter thread was the same as the Panasonic so that I would only have to carry one set of filters. I do, however, already have a 64mm polariser - which is probably the only filter I'll need to use on a macro lens - so in the end its not a huge issue.

Stand out from the Crowd. Lumix S5 with Sigma 105mm. f/18 @ 1/6th sec, ISO 400.

As a first outing with the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art lens, I'm very happy (ecstatic) with my purchase. From the moment I got the S5 and decided it would be my 'forever' camera, I've wanted to get a macro lens for it. I thought it would take me a lot longer than this to get one if I'm honest, so I am very grateful that the planets aligned and I was able to make it happen sooner.

I've still got a few technical 'tweaks' I want to make to the S5 when shooting macro images (I'm not sure I've set it up to make optimal use of the manual focusing aids the camera has to offer), but I've got a couple more months to get this sorted before fungi season really kicks in. 

At least my first outing with the lens was a great success! Bring on autumn and more fungi fun!

Playing with aspect ratios on the S5.

For most of my photography 'career' I've been a fairly traditional shooter. By that I mean I don't tend to make much use of the technology that is built into todays cameras. There aren't all that many settings that I change or play around with on a regular basis. Growing up a film shooter, I tend to just focus on aperture, shutter speed and composition. I don't even really move my ISO around that much (mostly using the lowest native ISO setting the camera has).

Rapahoe Pier Structure. Lumix S5 with S20-60mm. f/8 @ 1/100th, ISO 100

Now having just said all that, I'm also not a luddite! I use image stabilisation as a matter of course, and will change the ISO if and when I need to. When I owned Fuji I spent endless hours playing around with film simulations. And of course, I shoot in RAW so I can get the best out of my images during post-processing. But usually, that's about it.

I've said on numerous occasions that I'm not a video guy, and would be more than happy if camera releases came in two flavors - with, or without video. My S5, although now 'old' by digital camera standards, has video features that I will never use. It is, in fact, by all accounts, still an amazing camera for video shooters - being predominantly designed with video shooters in mind (according to the hip on-line hybrid content creators). I don't care. Didn't buy it for it's video capabilities - obviously. Because it is also - for all it's video centric capabilities - a damn fine 'camera' for photography. Who'd have guessed?

Magick is Real. Lumix S5 with 20-60mm. f/8 @ 1/50th, ISO 100

In terms of photography-centric features, the S5 has a few that interest me slightly - and that I will 'play around with' from time to time. One of those is the high-res mode, which takes the 24MP sensor and turns it into a 60+MP monster! This does have some limitations - the camera must be on a tripod, and the scene you are photographing must largely be static (landscapes and not portraits). 

Do I really need 60+MP images to deal with? I suspect the answer is no. In fact I know that the answer is no. But hey, fun to 'play' with - right?

And maybe going out with your camera to 'play' with settings you don't normally shoot with, can be a door back into shooting with your camera a bit more? A bit of a spark to kick-start the creative juices again?

That's how it was for me the other evening when I found myself at a local beach and I decide to play around with aspect ratios.

Rapahoe Xpan. Lumix S5 with 20-60mm. f/8 @ 1/60th, ISO 100. 65:24 aspect ratio

I was watching a review of the S5 on youtube the other night (as you do), and the reviewer mentioned that the camera could shoot in the 65:24 'Xpan' ratio. I kind of knew this already, but hadn't given it much thought. But as I stood in front of a dilapidated pier structure at Rapahoe Beach, stretching out across the sand, I suddenly remembered about the panoramic aspect ratio of the Xpan. This, I thought to myself, would make a perfect subject for it. And I was right.

I really like the above image, and the subject works perfectly in this aspect ratio. Once I switched the camera's aspect ratio over to 65:24 and could 'see' in this format, it was a hell of a lot of fun trying to compose using the wide field of view.

Not that I don't think the subject doesn't work in the S5's native 3:2 aspect ratio - see the first image in this post. But it's undeniably 'fun' and then undeniably challenging, to compose for a totally different field of view.

Something fishy. Lumix S5 with 20-60mm. f/5.6 @ 1/50th, ISO 100. 1:1. Mono conversion

Once I had started exploring the possibilities of other aspect ratios, I started looking for compositions that would fit a particular framing. As an ex-medium format film shooter, I have a love-hate relationship with the 1:1 square format. When I was using medium format almost exclusively, I often struggled with composing in the square format. But every now and again I'll come across a subject and I'll 'see' it as a square image.

I saw the above image of the washed-up fish on the beach not only as a square 1:1 composition, but also as a monochrome photo. I have also added a little film grain when I processed the final image in Camera RAW, to give that familiar film-look. Might not be everyone's cup-of-tea, but I like it.

Standing Tall. Lumix S5 with 20-60mm. f/8 @ 1/80th, ISO 100. 1:1 aspect ratio

Of course the square format also works well for colour. The above image reminds me of the colour rendition of Kodak Ektar 100 medium format film. Has that 'look' with the overall green and blue hues. It's actually very faithful to the scene, and I love the colours coming from the S5's sensor. Even the RAW files look pretty good and don't need a lot of punch added in post.

All in a Row. Lumix S5 with 20-60mm. f/9 @ 1/40th, ISO 100

I had a lot of fun shooting in various different aspect ratios during the evening, and it did inspire me to keep shooting and find some interesting compositions. But, because I shoot in RAW mode, the aspect ratio I chose to use in-camera isn't set in stone like it would be if I was shooting jpeg. All of the images imported into Lightroom as a normal 3:2 ratio that makes use of the whole image sensor. The aspect ratio is a crop attached in the metedata. So it can be changed or removed at any stage.

So what's the point in shooting with different aspect ratios if you can just crop later on in post? Good question, and I've asked this myself. And I guess there's two parts to the answer. First, as mentioned above, if you are shooting in jpeg mode, then the aspect ratio (crop) is locked in to your final image. So any final jpeg images straight from camera will be as you saw it through the viewfinder.

Second, it's that 'play' aspect - and also the pre-visualisation - that happens when you are composing with the actual crop through the viewfinder. It's a bit like shooting monochrome on a digital camera. If you shoot RAW, then the monochrome setting is just attached metadata - the colour information is still retained in the original file. But the great thing is that you 'see' in monochrome through the viewfinder. I can't stress enough what a massive help this is when learning to shoot black and white images. Suddenly it's not 'theory' anymore, but actual visual feedback.

Have you shot in different aspect ratios in your camera? Do you even know where to go to change them? If you haven't, then go ahead and have a play. It's a lot of fun. It can also be a very helpful compositional aid. And if you shoot in RAW mode, then no harm - no foul. You can always undo what your clever camera has done.

Panasonic GH3 for photography (in 2024).

In my last post I discussed my recent purchase of the Lumix GH3 for shooting video. This will be its main purpose - in conjunction with my Lumix S5 - to supply video and photos for a Real Estate firm. But it will also act as a back-up of sorts, if anything should happen (please no, touch wood) to the S5 while on a shoot. So the IQ (image quality) needs to be 'good enough' to take over photo duty if required (again, please no....!).

Of course whenever you get any new gear, you need to test it out - right?! Nobody in their right mind would take a newly acquired piece of equipment and try it out for the first time on a shoot - least of all an actual paid gig! No - I thought not.

With this in mind, I loaded up my Lowepro backpack with my Lumix S5 and S 20-60mm f/3.5-5.6 attached, and the Lumix GH3 with the G 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 Power OIS, and headed out the door this past weekend (as I write this).

It had been a while since I had been to Dorothy Falls at Kaniere, so that was my destination. I got up at stupid-o'clock on Saturday morning so I could get to the falls around dawn. Turned out this was a little too early, so I wandered down to Lake Kaniere to see if I could capture a few sunrise photos.

As you can see from the image on the right, reducing the exposure to retain highlight detail in the sky (very important with digital sensors) has meant that the landscape itself is underexposed. Looking at this image back home on the computer, I didn't hold out much hope of getting any detail or definition in the trees around the lake, especially since this is from a micro four thirds sensor. 

Lake Kaniere Dawn.  Lumix GH3 with Lumix G 12-60mm Power OIS. f/8 @ 1/50th, ISO 200

Having owned, and used, 16MP Olympus micro four thirds cameras for many years, I shouldn't have been so pessimistic. I've written myself, on several occasions in this very blog, that the ability to extract information from the micro four thirds sensor is actually quite staggering. Micro four thirds sensors are capable of capturing excellent dynamic range - the GH3 itself is capable of around 12.5 stops of dynamic range. 

In comparison, the S5's 24MP sensor is rated by DXO of 14.5 stops. Two stops is certainly significant, but this is a considerably newer - full frame - sensor. 12.5 stops on the GH3 is very, very respectable, and allows it to create images like the one above. What's more, the detail pulled out of the shadows is very clean and noise-free at the cameras native ISO of 200. A very good result indeed.

Dorothy Falls. Lumix GH3 with G 12-60mm. f/8 @ 1/3rd sec, ISO 200 + Polariser

I would have liked to have spent a bit more time exploring Lake Kaniere, but I was being swarmed and eaten alive by the (in)famous west coast sand fly. They like the taste of me unfortunately, and as soon as I set up my tripod I was surrounded by the little biting monsters! I took this as my que to head back to Dorothy Falls where, given the slightly cooler temperatures of the surrounding bush, the sand flies were thankfully (mostly) absent.

This allowed me to take my time, and take two shots of the same subject - one with the GH3 and one with the S5 - for 'comparisons' sake.

I've already discussed the dynamic range capabilities of both cameras, and this can be seen in the 100% crops above. The S5 retains detail in even the brightest areas of the waterfall, whereas the GH3 doesn't quite manage it. On both exposures I was very careful not to 'clip' the highlights, but the GH3 sensor just isn't capable of  retaining the extreme highlight detail. The full frame image is also very slightly 'crisper' than the micro four thirds one - again not surprising given the size and age advantage of the newer S5 full-frame sensor.

And yet, there's not a massive difference between the two - certainly not as much as some would have you believe there should be. I would take the S5's full-frame sensor over the GH3's micro four thirds - of course I would. But if you told me I had to use the 16MP GH3 from now on, it certainly wouldn't hold me back from making amazing images. And as a back-up to my S5, it'll do just fine.

Dorothy Falls Cascade. Lumix S5 with S 20-60mm. f/8 @ 1/2sec, ISO 200

Having just said that, I will admit to preferring to using the S5 over the GH3. For a start, the viewfinder on the GH3 leaves a lot to be desired. It's a little blurry around the edges for us glass-wearers, which makes composition a little tricky. Fortunately, when shooting video, I'll only be using the LCD screen which is perfectly fine to compose from. This was also the case for most of the morning while the GH3 was on a tripod. But take it off the tripod, use the viewfinder to compose and the picture taking experience is diminished somewhat.

I also prefer the weight, heft, and overall handling of the S5. The GH3 isn't bad in this respect, but the S5 is better (IMHO). The GH3 with battery grip weighs about the same as the S5 body. Add a lens to both of them and the weight is similar enough to not be a factor. But the S5 certainly feels better in my hand. That being said, the GH3 is probably the most comfortable micro four thirds camera I've ever used. Far better than the angular and retro inspired Olympus offerings like the OMD EM-5 and EM-1.

Cloud Cover. Panasonic Lumix GH3 with G 12-60mm f3.5-5.6 OIS. f/7.1 @ 1/800th, ISO 200

As someone who has had a lot of experience shooting micro four thirds - especially with Olympus - the Olympus vs Panasonic question is an interesting one. I can see why Olympus embraced their heritage with the retro OM look to their cameras, as much as I can see how it made sense for Panasonic to pursue a more traditional DSLR style to their cameras.

Personally, even though I like the look of the Olympus cameras, I do prefer the Panasonic's DSLR style ergonomics and handling. BUT.... I think that Olympus make the better cameras in terms of functions, engineering and technology. Especially when it comes to the Panasonic's Achilles heal - auto focus. Not that Panasonic's contrast-based autofocus is unusable. For stills photography it's actually very good. But video - well that's another story. Needless to say, I think I'll be using a lot of manual focusing with the GH3. And that's absolutely fine.

Dorothy Falls, Kaniere. Lumix GH3 with G 12-60mm. f/8 @ 1/2sec, ISO 200. + Polariser

Is the 16MP Panasonic GH3 micro four thirds camera a twelve year old obsolete dinosaur that should be dismissed in 2024? No - of course not! In fact, it would be an amazing camera to give to someone who wants to learn photography and grow in their hobby. With great ergonomics, a very capable image sensor, and very good IQ - not to mention excellent video features (if you are happy to focus manually) - the GH3 was Panasonic's flagship camera when it was released in 2012. It was an amazing camera then, and it's a fantastic camera now. Not state-of-the-art, granted. But you're not paying state-of-the-art prices. And yet what you get for your money is above and beyond what you should expect at this price point. Cheap as chips, but oh-so capable. I reckon the GH3 will make a perfect video camera, and an ideal back-up for my S5.

The Lumix GH3 joins my Panasonic family

I have written recently about my mini-resurgence in photography, brought about by my getting involved in Real Estate photography. I've supplied photos and video for a few more properties since then - enough to formulate some ideas about how I can refine the process going forward.

Before going out on my last gig, it suddenly dawned on me that I was only going with one camera. That's something I would never do if I was shooting a wedding. And while taking photos of houses isn't exactly a one-off event, going back another day because your gear failed and you don't have a back-up is hardly a good look.

Also, as stated above, I have to supply both stills and video. So on each shoot I find myself juggling back and forth between video and photo settings on the one camera. It would, I decided, be better to have two cameras (back-up, back-up, back-up) - one for stills and one for video. 

Another S5 would be lovely - but even second hand it's out of my price range at the moment. So I started looking around for a good second body, video-centric camera. Enter the Panasonic Lumix GH3.

My 'new' Lumix GH3 with 12-60mm

Now before you say anything, let me explain. Yes, I know it's a twelve year old camera. Yes, I know it's micro four thirds and not full frame. And yes I know there will be a difference in image quality. But, as I've explained, this will be my video camera. And as a video camera, shooting 1920x1080p @ 50fps, it will be perfect for what I need (don't need 4k).

The lens I have with it is the Lumix 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 Power OIS - a very good kit zoom with a decent range. At the wide end it gives me 24mm (full-frame equivalent) - not as wide as my S5's 20-60mm coverage, but again, this will be for video, not stills. And if all goes well with the Real Estate photography, then I could maybe add a 7-14mm f/4 in the future? But for now, for video, the 12-60mm should do just fine.

I also managed to find a brand new battery grip for the GH3 at a price I couldn't refuse. I'm a big battery grip fan, and may even end up getting one for the S5 - although the ergonomics on the S5 are already great, and the battery grip would add more weight. But on a 'smaller' camera like the GH3, the battery grip enhances the ergonomics, and a little more heft is a good thing when trying to keep things stable hand-held. Because that's one down-side of getting a twelve year old camera - the body doesn't have in-built stabilisation. Although as noted earlier, the 12-60mm lens does. Times have, however, moved on. And the stabilisation of the S5 is notably (or should that be substantially) better.

As for the GH3 camera body itself - well, lets just say I can't quite believe my luck. I got it for a very good price ($250 for the body and two batteries), and when it arrived it looked brand new. And I mean absolutely brand new! Not a scratch, mark, smudge, smear or fingerprint on it anywhere!! It's the newest looking twelve year old camera I've ever seen. 

A quick Google search showed me how to find the shutter actuations on a GH3, and when I had gone through the process, I could not believe the result. I still can't. But, as you can plainly see for yourself, the camera has only taken a grand total of 97 photos! 97!!!! Un-be-lievable! So even though it may have been released in 2012, my particular copy of the GH3 is basically brand-spanking-new!

I have avoided video for most of my career - although I did immerse myself in it somewhat when I was running my (brief ) YouTube Channel. How ironic is it, then, that I have specifically purchased a camera exclusively for video use! But this is also part of the reasoning behind getting an older camera like the GH3 (apart from the consideration of budget of course).

The Panasonic GH range is known as being video-centric, and the GH3 is still talked about by videographers as a good 'budget' film makers option. Yet because of its age, it isn't packed with too much technology as to be overwhelming for a newbie like me. The menus are simple to navigate, the options are reasonably straight forward (unlike those on my S5), and the actual process of shooting video on the GH3 is fairly straight forward. Even I should be able to manage it 😀

So I now have a micro-four-thirds camera in my arsenal again. And trust me, that's no bad thing. If Panasonic's iteration of the 16MP micro four thirds sensor and IQ is anything like Olympus's (and I have no doubt it will be), then the images (and video) that come out of the Lumix GH3 will be fantastic! Can't wait to take it out and clock up some more actuations on that shutter!

Sunny sky photography - in defence of the 'record' shot.

'You can't always get what you want.'

Sir Mick and his Rolling Stones were right. We can't always get what we want. And this is certainly true in photography. As a landscape photographer, I'd love to have amazing golden light every time I went out to photograph. But that ain't ever going to happen. In fact, it rarely ever happens!

Most times, the golden light doesn't eventuate, even if you're at the right place, at the right time. Quite often, however, we're in the right place - but it's definitely not the right time. Mid afternoon in summer, for example. Do we just put our cameras away because the light isn't right?

Well, yes, that can be an option. Especially if it's a location you can return to easily. But what if it's not? What if it's your once-in-a-lifetime opportunity? Maybe you're traveling and will likely never return? Do you put your camera away because the lighting isn't right? No, of course you don't. You take some photographs anyway. And get what many refer to (somewhat disparagingly) as 'record' shots.

Truman Track, Punakaiki. Lumix S5 with S 20-60mm lens. f8 @ 1/1000th sec, ISO 200

I took the above image of the Truman Track Beach at 1.30pm on a sunny, blue sky day. The time of day when many other tourists and visitors were out-and-about experiencing nature and taking photos. If I were a tourist on that day, just passing through for my one and only time in Punakaiki, would I be happy with this photo of the Truman Track? Of course I would!

For a start, I'm very happy with the composition. I waited for just the right time when the white sea foam had made it halfway up the beach to take the photo. And I nailed it. So composition-wise there's nothing wrong with this image. And yes, I even like the tiny bits of flax sticking up from the right hand corner at the bottom of the photo. I think they help to 'ground' the photo and keep your eye from wandering. A little bit like a 'natural' vignette 😄

I also like the colours in this image. they are vibrant and 'pop'. And yes, that includes the blue sky. What is so wrong with blue skies? I've watched many a photographer online (some who I even respect) talk about how much they hate blue sky days. And many refuse to photograph them.

Does the simple fact that the above photo has a blue sky, and was taken in the middle of the day, immediately reduce it to merely a 'record' shot? No, damn it! I think not....

Truman Track, Punakaiki. Lumix S5 with S 20-60mm lens. f8 @ 1/800th, ISO 200

Here's another - same day, same time, same subject (just down on the beach this time). And I really like this shot. Because of the cloud formation - and the blue sky. Would it be a better photo if I had been there at sunset and captured a pink sky with golden light. Maybe. But then wouldn't that just make it a 'record' shot with nice light? Isn't any photo just that - a record of a particular time and place? Irrespective of the light you captured it in?

Surely what we want in our photos is to capture the feelings we felt when we were there? To somehow recreate the essence of the experience we had, in a single frame (let's not get into video - seriously, let's not). And the above images, taken in the harsh summer afternoon light, do just that for me. They take me straight back to that time and place, and I'm right there again - hearing the pounding of the waves, smelling the ocean and feeling the hot sun beating down on my neck. Mere 'record' shots? Whatever...

Truman Beach Waterfall. Lumix S5 with S 20-60mm. f.8 @ 1/250th, ISO 200

Shooting in the mid-day sun does have its challenges though, given that you are dealing with the harshest light of the day. With the sun large, bright, and almost directly overhead, shadows can be very deep and highlights very blown-out. It's often for this very reason that photographers will tell you to avoid shooting at this time of the day. And it's generally good advice. Although with the digital camera sensors we have nowadays, the extreme ranges of light and shadow (referred to as dynamic range) can often be recovered in post-processing.

Modern cameras like my Panasonic Lumix S5 can capture a staggering dynamic range in a single image - about 11 stops! Compare that to the 5 stop range you used to get with slide film, and you can see why slide film shooters avoided mid-day light like the plague! Whereas with the technology we have available now, there's almost nothing you can't recover in post if you have a well-exposed RAW file to work with. And that's not even taking other processing tricks like digital blending or HDR imaging into account.

With a digital sensor capturing harsh light, it's important to keep as much highlight detail as possible in your original RAW file (and yes, shoot RAW to get the best file to work with). Often this means under-exposing by a stop or more and letting the black shadows go black. You will be amazed at how much detail can be recovered from a densely black shadow, without sacrificing too much in the way of detail or noise. 

Deep, black shadows make sense to us as humans, as our eyes constantly adjust to the bright light and naturally let the shadows go black. So this is what looks  more 'realistic' to us in a final image. If in doubt, just let those shadows go black.

Punakaiki Rock Forms. Lumix S5 with S 20-60mm. f.8 @ 1/200th, ISO 200

Let's finish with a true 'record' shot. A close-up of the strange rock formations found at Punakaiki. Surely this is a true record shot. Or is it? Of all four images in this post, is this the one with the 'best' (softest, contoured, gradual) lighting? Is it purely lighting that elevates a photograph above a simple 'record' shot? Or are photographers simply using the term to de-value shots they've taken that they don't like? I've heard it time and again from the mouths of photographers - 'Yeah, it's ok. Just a record shot.'

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that light doesn't matter. I started out this post by stating that I would love to have golden light every time I shoot. Although upon reflection, I'm not sure that's entirely true. Because I think it's important (and rewarding) to be able to shoot in all kinds of lighting conditions and still come away with images you can be happy with - or even proud of. Blue sky days included.

So please, don't be one of those photographers who only shoots under 'ideal' (whatever that means) lighting conditions. Even in the middle of the day, at the height of summer, there are many amazing photos to be had...

 

Facing photography burn-out. Will 2024 be better?

It's late January, and this is my first post of 2024. Hardly something to brag about. I only wrote 7 posts in 2023 - which makes it my second-worst year (my worst was 2014 when I only wrote 4). That should tell you something about my photography mindset for most of 2023 (and a good deal of 2022 if I'm honest).

It's ironic really. Since 2023 was also the year that I finally, FINALLY, got a brand new camera. The Panasonic Lumix S5. I've wanted a new camera for well over ten years, and spent most of that time with second-hand gear, trying to figure out what I actually wanted in a camera system. And in 2023 I got it. A small (relatively speaking), full-frame 24 MP camera with excellent ergonomics, outstanding optics, and a tonne of features - some of which I may actually use. If, that is, I can be bothered using my camera at all!?

Late Bloomer. Panasonic Lumix S5 with S 20-60mm 3.5/5.6. F8 @ 1/60th, ISO 3200

For someone like me, for whom photography has been more like an addiction than a passion, that last sentence above is quite alarming. My wife has, in fact, asked me if I may actually be depressed? For somebody who has lived and breathed photography for the last 30 years of their life, to be so uninterested in any of it, is certainly rather strange. 

But I'm not - depressed that is. At least I don't think I am? I think what has happened is something akin to burn-out. Saturation point was finally reached a couple of years ago, and I think it's required time-off to work through it. Something similar may have happened, or may end up happening, to you?

Clearly Defined. Lumix S5 with S 20-60mm. F5.6 @ 1/60th, ISO 200

If this does happen to you (photography burn-out or whatever you want to call it), then my advice is to just let it. Don't panic. Don't rage against it. Don't try to 'push' through' regardless. Just let it take its course. However long it takes. Give yourself the time you need work through it. Do something else. Find another hobby. Put your camera away. And eventually, when the time is right, your passion for photography will start to come back. Probably....

Sunny Bight Track, Kaniere. Lumix S5 with S 20-60mm. F6.3 @ 1/80th, ISO 800

I'm no expert, but speaking as someone who has gone (is going?) through this myself - I can only give my personal experience. Initially I did fight it. I tried everything I could to 'ignite' the passion again. Nothing really worked. Not even a trip away down South to Dunedin - although I did enjoy the trip and got a few good images.

In the end, I put my camera away and focused on other hobbies. After all, what's the worst that could happen? Would it be so bad if I never enjoyed photography again? Gulp.....

But then, as it so often does, fate stepped in and began to turn things around. 

We are thinking of selling our house and moving to a more central location in the town where we live. And so we have been talking to real estate agents, have gone to a few open homes, and have had some agents look at our house.

One of those agents remarked on all the photographs up in our house, and so my wife told him I was a photographer. He got very excited at hearing this, because he was looking for a photographer to do some Real Estate work for him. I think you can see where this is going....

Sunny Bight, Kaniere. Lumix S5 with S 20-60mm. F8 @ 1/200th, ISO 100

So Real Estate work has rekindled my passion for photography! Who'd have thunked it!? Certainly not me! But it has. And now I'm watching YouTube photography videos again, taking my camera out and getting familiar with it once more - and even thinking about investing in an ultra wide angle lens!

And the great thing about this resurgence of interest is that it hasn't been forced. I didn't find photography again - photography found me!

It's early days, for sure. And yet the above images were all shot today, because I wanted to go out and take photos! It was the wrong time of the day, with the wrong kind of light, in an area I've been dozens of times before. But it didn't matter. I just went out with my camera to enjoy the experience. And enjoy it I did.

So if you are in a photography funk - or any other kind of funk for that matter - my advice would be - just let it be. Don't push the issue. Drop it. And in time, God willing, your passion will return. Sometimes in the most surprising and unlikely of ways....