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...

 

'Action' landscape photography at Punakaiki

We are slowly coming out of Lockdown here in New Zealand. Auckland is still at complete level 4 Lockdown, but the rest of the country has moved to 'Delta' level 2. At level 2, you can start to travel a little further afield, and businesses can re-open (while still maintain strict social distancing and mask-wearing). I'm still working from home, and probably will be for at least another two weeks. The weather has also been rotten this week - wind, rain, thunder and lightning - the works. My wife and I have got a touch of cabin fever.

So when we discovered that Saturday looked promising weather-wise, we decided to pack a lunch and head out for the day. Yay! But where to go?

The Chimney Pot. OM-D E-M1 with Panansonic 12-35mm f/2.8.  f/5.6 @ 1/1000th, ISO 200

A quick check of the tides, and I knew exactly where I wanted to go. High tide was scheduled for 1.00pm, and it was likely going to be very dramatic. The country had been issued with a high-waves warning earlier on in the week, and from our home we can hear, and see, the waves as they crash into Cobden tiphead. With tides, and waves that dramatic, there's really only one place to head to if you're a photographer - Punakaiki and the Pancake Rock Blowholes.

Yours truly ready to capture the action. Photo: Joanna Lorimer. Nikon D70 with Nikkor 18-55mm

The Pancake Rock Blowholes at Punakaiki, are a very famous tourist destination. The 'pancake' rocks are formations that began 30 million years ago, when lime-rich fragments of dead marine creatures were deposited on the sea bed. These were then covered by layers of soft mud. Thousands of years of rain, wind and sea spray have etched the softer siltstone into horizontal grooves, which look like giant layers of pancakes.

Earthquakes have raised them from the seabed to the level we can see today, as well as creating a maze of underground passages and open caverns facing the sea. When there's a big swell and a high tide, the ocean surges into these caverns and water is forced through the passages. Huge geysers of spray can then burst spectacularly skyward - under the right conditions. The sorts of conditions we were likely to have on this very day...

Pancake Rocks Blowholes, Punakaiki. E-M1 with Lumix 12-35mm. f/6.3 @ 1/1250th, ISO 200

We were not disappointed. I've lived on the West Coast for most of my life, and have visited - and photographed - the Pancake Rocks Blowholes dozens of times. I've never seen them this good. They were, as the young kids say, 'Epic'! In fact, they were so good, and so powerful, that the spray from the really big geysers was reaching the viewing platform and drenching everyone. Very exciting - but not great for camera gear and lenses.

For the hour or so that we were there photographing the blowholes, I adopted a 'burst and hide' style of shooting. I would wait for the really big blows (you could hear them coming), shoot a rapid-fire high speed burst of about a dozen images, then quickly point my camera down and into my chest as I turned my back to the spray! It helped to keep most of the salt spray off of the camera, but I would still need to wipe the front of the lens every 10 minutes or so. Note to self - use a UV filter over the lens next time.

Surge Pool. E-M1 with Lumix 12-35mm. f/6.3 @ 1/640th, ISO 200

Fortunately, both the Olympus OM-D E-M1 and the Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8 are weather-sealed and can take some pretty serious punishment from the elements. But salt water is salt water, and probably not great for lens coatings or metal, weather-sealing or not. I was, as mentioned, trying to be careful and not get my gear drenched.

Having said that, it was pretty difficult to keep anything dry with all the spray from the sea floating around. As someone who wears glasses 100% of the time, it didn't take long between wipes until the lenses of your glasses (and camera) were needing a wipe-down again. Annoyingly, the really big geysers seemed to happen every time I stopped to wipe clear my glasses and lens. I must have missed at least half a dozen really big blows while wiping glass clear of water spots. But as maddening as that was, I knew if I was patient, it would only be a matter of time before another big gush came around.

Thar she blows! Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Lumix 12-35mm. f/6.3 @ 1/1600th, ISO 200

This is the big one! The biggest geyser I have ever seen come from the Pancake Rock Blowholes. And as impressive as it looks in the photograph, it's ten times more impressive being there and seeing it happen. The sheer volume and power of the water is - in a word - awesome!

As I said earlier, I've photographed the blowholes dozens of times. And I've captured some pretty decent geysers in my time. Or at least I thought I had. Until today. 

I really don't think it could get any more impressive than this. The photograph above of the biggest geyser I've ever seen at the Pancake Rocks Blowholes, is a 'bucket list' photo for me. It's one of those "if I never take another shot of this in my life I'd be happy" kind of photo. It's the 'action' shot of the blowholes that I've always wanted. And now, I've finally got it.

Does getting the image fill me with a sense of accomplishment. Heck yeah! Of course it does. The above image is probably a 30+ year image in the making. I smile every time I look at it. Why wouldn't I?

The aftermath. Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Lumix 12-35mm. f/6.3 @ 1/1600th, ISO 200

Does that mean I will stop going to Punakaiki to photograph the blowholes? No, not at all. I will still head to the blowholes if the weather and photography gods line-up again. And who knows, maybe there's an even bigger geyser in store for me in the future? 

But I doubt it. And as I said, if I never get the same conditions ever again in my lifetime, I can die happy, knowing I got 'my' image of the blowholes on a good day.

I also couldn't think of better gear to capture it with either. The Panasonic Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8 is creating beautifully crisp, detailed, sharp and vibrant images - with very impressive edge-to-edge sharpness at the apertures I'm shooting with (around f/5.6 to f/8 mostly). And the Olympus E-M1 is blazing fast, wonderfully responsive, fantastic to shoot with, and the RAW files are a joy to process. I've only had this combination for a few weeks, and it has already netted me a 'bucket-list' shot. What more could I ask for? 

B&W Landscapes with the Fujifilm X-T1

The Fujifilm X-E2 (and briefly the X-E1) is quickly becoming my go-to camera - for everything! Trust me, this is a huge surprise to me - so much so that I can't quite believe it and am starting to second-guess myself.

How so? Well, as much as I like the look of a range-finder style camera like the X-E2, I've always actually preferred the handling and feel of a more traditional SLR styled camera body. So I figured that if I like the X-E2, I'll love the X-T1!? So yes - you guessed it. I brought one.

Carters Beach tree stump. Fujifilm X-T1 with Fujinon 16-50mm XC. f/5.6 @ 1/240th, ISO 200. Polariser

I've had it for a couple of weeks, but haven't had a chance to get out and shoot with it until yesterday (as I write this). The X-T1 uses a more 'traditional' SLR design, with a few more knobs and dials (it has a dedicated ISO dial), but as can be seen in the comparison photo, it's not actually that much bigger than the rangefinder-esque X-E2.

And actually, that's my first gripe with the X-T1. It feels a bit cramped, and not quite big enough. It's been a regular complaint of mine with all mirrorless systems, not just Fujifilm. When I had the Olympus OM-D E-M5 I had to attach the grip before it felt comfortable in my hands, and I ain't got big hands! I feel exactly the same way with the X-T1. I'm sure it would feel better with the vertical grip attached. Oddly enough, the X-E2 doesn't feel as cramped. It actually feels more comfortable in my hand. Partly I think, due to the thumb grip I have attached. But also partly because it doesn't feel crammed with knobs and dials that are all squashed in together.

Carters Beach driftwood. Fuji X-T1 with 16-50mm XC. f/5.6 @ 1/480th, ISO 200

My second gripe is with said knobs and dials. While I understand what Fuji has done with the SLR styled X-T1 - giving us all the main exposure controls directly on the camera itself - they are a bit too fiddly for my liking. The ISO dial on the top left annoys me because it's automatically locked, and has to be unlocked every time you want to change the ISO! (Arrgghhh).

Also, the front and rear control wheels are very small, and quite recessed. I have difficulty accessing them simply by 'feel' with my eye up to the camera. Whereas the control wheel on the X-E2 seems a bit 'chunkier' and falls nicely under my thumb.

Carters Beach Driftwood 2. Fujifilm X-T1 with Fujinon 16-50mm XC. f/5.6 @ 1/105th, ISO 200

On the far right on both cameras sits the exposure compensation wheel. I use this wheel often, flicking it around to add or subtract exposure while my eye is at the viewfinder. The dial on the X-E2 has just the right amount of resistance (to me). Just enough that it spins freely, but not too much so that it could be knocked and changed accidentally. The X-T1's exposure compensation wheel is a little tighter, requiring just that little bit more effort to move. Not a big thing, and I get why they may have made it slightly stiffer, but as I said, the compensation dial on the X-E2 just feels better (again, to me).

Truman Track Beach, Punakaiki. Fuji X-T1 with Fujinon 16-50mm XC. f/5.6 @ 1/550th, ISO 200. Polariser

Wow, that sounds like a bit of a dump on the Fuji X-T1! And I guess, in some ways, it is. I really do find it a bit cramped and too small, even for my smallish hands - especially without the vertical grip attached (which I don't have). Oddly enough, on such a compact SLR, the one thing I really love about the X-T1 is its evf (electronic viewfinder). It's massive! I mean really. It puts most full frame camera viewfinders to shame. I thought the viewfinder on the Olympus E-M1 was big, but the X-T1's in next level. So there's that.

And also, take a look at the black and white images in this post. Of course they were all taken with the X-T1. But they were also all taken in the middle of the day, when the lighting was pretty harsh and not the best for landscape photography. The dynamic range in most of these was off the chart, so I exposed for the highlights and let the shadows block up in the harsh lighting conditions. Surprisingly, there was still plenty of shadow detail left that I was able to recover later in Lightroom - even though these are all jpegs!

Truman Track Blowhole. Fuji X-T1 with Fujinon 16-50mm XC. f/5.6 @ 1/550th, ISO 200. Polariser

All the landscape images for this blogpost were shot using my 'Acros' film simulation recipe (click here for a previous post on this setup). Yes, there has been some post-process tweaking of shadows and highlights (plus my usual Clarity and Dehaze adjustments), which I would expect even with the RAW files. The point is, there was enough data to recover, even with the jpegs, in less than ideal lighting conditions. So I've got no complaints about the x-trans II sensor used in the X-T1 - which really isn't surprising, since it's the same sensor as in my X-E2.

Punakaiki Coastline. Fuji X-T1 with Fujinon 16-50mm XC. f/8 @ 1/140th, ISO 200. Polariser

Of course I wouldn't suggest that anyone shoot landscape photos in the middle of the day, in full sunlight. But sometimes, when you are a 'tourist', you are only in the location once in your life and you can't control the time of day. It is what it is. If this was the only time I was ever going to be at this location (fortunately for me it's not), I'd be very happy with the photos I was able to get with the X-T1.

Pancake Rocks, Punakaiki. Fuji X-T1 with Fujinon 16-50mm XC. f/8 @ 1/125th, ISO 200. Polariser

So absolutely no complaints with the images that you can get with the X-T1 and the Fuji x-trans II 16MP sensor. They are brilliant. Even as jpegs processed in-camera. I've been incredibly impressed with the x-trans sensor from the very first image I took with the X-E1, and I continue to be impressed.

What it boils down to for me, in the end, is handling. Pure and simple. And, as much as it surprises me to say it, I much prefer the handling of the range-finder styled X-E1 and X-E2, that I do the SLR styling of the X-T1. And that really is a shock to me, since it was exactly the opposite with my Olympus mirrorless gear. With the Olympus cameras, I much preferred the E-M5 and E-M1 over the compact Pen series, especially with battery grips attached to the OM-D's. I get the feeling that I would like the X-T1 better with a grip attached too. But then there would still be the issue of the cramped and fiddly knobs and dials, which just feel a bit too small.

Rock Stack, Punakaiki. Fuji X-T1 with Fujinon 16-50mm. f/8 @ 1/220th, ISO 200. Polariser

Having gone a bit mad initially, buying up everything I could find that had 'Fujifilm' on the front of it, I've now had a little time to use the gear and for the dust to settle. The X-E1 has given way to the X-E2 - which wasn't a straight forward decision in the end. You'd think 'upgrading' to the newer model would be a no-brainer, but I actually really struggled to justify keeping the X-E2 over the X-E1. In the end, it really just came down to one or two extra features that the X-E2 had that I would make occasional use of (wi-fi and intervalometer).

I was very keen to get my hands on the X-T1, since SLR style camera bodies have always been my 'thing'. I grew up with cameras like the Minolta X700 and Canon AE-1, so the Fujifilm X-T1 looked the bees kness 😉

Surprisingly, the reality turned out to be somewhat disappointing. Please don't get me wrong though - the Fujifilm X-T1 is a fantastic camera. Of course it is. It just doesn't feel quite right in my hands. Stick a grip on there and I'm sure things would feel better. But then size, weight, and price, would go up. And it still wouldn't fix the 'fiddlyness' issue.

So yes, I'm going to be selling the X-T1 and keeping the X-E2. That will now be my only camera! For everything! And trust me, there's no one more surprised about that than me...

Punakaiki Pancake Rocks - Tourist for a day with the OM-D E-M1

Autumn has started here in New Zealand, and the weather has been glorious! This weekend just passed (as I write this), my darling wife and I decided to make the most of it, and go for a drive. We initially considered heading South to Hokitika, but then remembered that the Hokitika Wildfoods Festival was on. Far too many people heading that way!

So we decided to head North instead, to Punakaiki, and check out the Pancake Rocks Blowholes. The tides were favourable (high tide), the sun was shining, and there was really no wind to speak of. We arrived at around 2.00pm - not quite the middle of the day, but not too far from it. Not really the ideal conditions for award-winning photography!?  But that wasn't what this trip was about. It was just about us getting outside in the sunshine - playing 'tourist' for the afternoon, and seeing what sort of images we could get. What if this was the only opportunity we were ever going to have to take photos at the Blowholes (fortunately it's not)? What kind of images can you get in the middle of the afternoon if, as a tourist, this was your only chance? Let's see shall we....

Nikau Palm, Punakaiki. Olympus OM-D E-M1 with 12-40mm f2.8 Pro. 1/100th @ f5.6, ISO 100 (Low). Polarising filter

We were travelling 'light' - me with my E-M1 in a Lowpro Slingshot 100 (that can easily carry the 12-40mm f2.8 Pro, 40-150mm f4/5.6 and 8mm bodycap) and Joanna with the Pen E-P3 and 14-42mm kit lens. I kept the 12-40mm f2.8 lens on most of the time, with a polariser attached - but as you'll see later on, I did 'experiment' with the 8mm at the blowholes. This is exactly the sort of kit I would travel with - light, portable, but extremely high quality (yes, even the 8mm bodycap).

The Pothole, Punakaiki. Olympus OM-D E-M1 with M.Zuiko 12-40mm f2.8 Pro. 1/250th @ f6.3, ISO 100. Polarising filter

Because the day was so bright, I decided to leave the polarising filter on all day, and began by shooting with the E-M1's 'Low' ISO setting (ISO 100). The E-M1 shoots at ISO 200 at its lowest native setting, unless you unlock the 'low' option in the menu. This effectively gives you an ISO 100 image. Tests on-line and reviews I've seen indicate that ISO 100 does give a very 'clean' image, but you need to be careful not to blow out the highlights. Good advice at any and all ISO settings I would have thought. Considering the above images, ISO 100 (Low) looks pretty good to me!

Punakaiki Blowholes. Olympus OM-D E-M1 with 12-40mm f2.8 Pro. 1/400th @ f7.1, ISO 200. Grainy B&W Art filter

Because I was 'playing' tourist, I decided to 'play' with the Art filters in the camera as well. Grainy B&W has always been my favourite art filter (mode II with an orange filter - border added), although in such bright conditions it can be a bit tricky to get the exposure right. The filter is very high contrast and blows the highlights and shadows together very quickly. In the above image the sea spray has a few areas of blown out highlight detail - but this is very much the 'look' of this filter. Highlights and shadows can be controlled to a certain extent with the highlight/shadow curve adjustment controls built into the camera - but in such bright overhead light, you're fighting a loosing battle.

Punakaiki Blowholes 2. OM-D E-M1 with 12-40mm f2.8 Pro. 1/400th @ f7.1, ISO 200. Silver Effex Pro2.

Fortunately, since I shoot RAW, when you use the Art filters it creates two images - the Grainy Art filter as a jpeg, and the original RAW colour image. I used the RAW image of the same shot and processed it in Nik software's Silver Effex Pro2 - to get a similar black and white result. I actually like this image better, but of course you have to go through the whole processing of the image yourself - whereas with the Art filters, the camera does it all for you...

Thar She Blows! Olympus OM-D E-M1 with 8mm fisheye bodycap. 1/250th @f8, ISO 400.

The fun didn't stop with the Art filters either! Because of the high tide, the blowholes were putting on a decent display. But at the front of the railing, with the 12-40mm lens at 12mm (24mm equivalent in full frame), I wasn't getting enough of the scene in. Fortunately, I'd decided to throw my 8mm fisheye bodycap lens in the bag before leaving (it weighs practically nothing), and I'm so glad I did! I'm thrilled with the new perspective I was able to get of the blowholes, and I love the fisheye effect on the horizon. Hands-down my favourite image I've taken of the blowholes at Punakaiki.

E-M1 with 12-40mm f2.8 lens. 1/800th @f6.3 

We had a fantastic day wandering around the Pancake Rocks, being tourists for the day, and enjoying the beautiful weather and amazing scenery. The light was harsh - full on mid afternoon autumn sun - but we still managed to get some 'keeper' images that I would be happy to show off to friends and family - and one shot that I'd even consider printing and framing!

It just goes to show that good photos can be made at any time of the day, even if you find yourself at a once-in-a-lifetime location with less than ideal lighting conditions.

If your camera has art filters, and you've never used them, why not have a 'play'. You might stumble on a filter that you actually quite like. And remember, if you shoot in RAW mode, the camera will create two files; the original RAW file and a jpeg processed with the filter effect. So you can get the best of both worlds.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1 (and micro four thirds in general) is a perfect travel camera. Small and lightweight - even with the all metal 12-40mm f2.8 Pro lens and battery grip attached - with excellent image quality, and packed full of advanced features. Even the Pen EP-3 was up to the task, and Joanna took some beautiful images on a super small and lightweight system.

Yours truly with the E-M1. Photo by Joanna Lorimer

Much has been said (and written) recently about the future of micro four thirds now that full-frame mirrorless cameras are all the rage. Some (so called) 'experts' have claimed that micro four thirds is already dead - but with the release of Olympus's E-M1x and their roadmap for future lens releases, I believe that nothing could be further from the truth.

Photographers have a real thing about size. Most truly believe that 'bigger is better'. I used to be one of them. But since moving to the OM-D E-M1, I don't believe I've 'compromised' on image quality one bit. I couldn't be happier, and intend to immerse myself even further into the system. I'd love an E-M1x, and hope to get one someday. But until then, I'll quite happily use my E-M1 (and maybe a MkII). For me, and I suspect for many other photographers, it still happens to be the ideal system.

Punakaiki Blowholes with the Canon 40D

My run of good weather on the weekends is continuing, despite a very wet week and a very stormy Friday. I had resigned myself to a wet weekend spent indoors (catching up on some film scanning), however a quick look at the forecast on the interwebs late on Friday night suggested otherwise. Saturday looked promising, with some clouds around - always an exciting prospect for a landscape photographer after a passing storm front.

I decided to try my luck and head out Saturday morning - but where? A quick check of the sunrise and high tide times (sunrise was at 7.20am and high tide was 8.20am) and my decision was made for me - the blowholes at Punakaiki.

I've photographed on the West Coast for a very long time (about 20 years), but I have never managed to be at Punakaiki at the right time of day (high tide) to capture the blowholes in action. With a bit of planning, and a lot of luck, I was determined that this was about to change...

Punakaiki Blowholes at Sunrise. Canon 40D with Canon 10-22mm f3.5/4.5. 1/160th @f5.6, ISO 800. 0.9 Cokin Grad

I arrived at Punakaiki at 7.00am - 20 minutes before sunrise. The 10 minute walk to the blowholes meant that I was setting up my tripod 10 minutes before sunrise and a full hour before high tide. After such a stormy week with torrential rain, I was hoping for an aggressive incoming tide to create lots of action at the blowholes. I wasn't dissapointed.

Smoke on the Water. Canon 40D with Canon 10-22mm f3.5/4.5. 1/125th @f8, ISO 800. 0.9 Soft Grad

Having used the Olympus OM-D E-M1 for my last few outings, I decided this time to give the Canon 40D DLSR some love. I also thought that the 10-22mm ultra-wide lens would give me a better view of the blowholes than the Olympus 12-50mm. The Canon at 10mm gives a traditional field of view of around 16mm, which is very wide. Whereas the Olympus at 12mm achieves a traditional 24mm angle of view. So the Canon will get me wider - right?

Unfortunately, no. I also decided to shoot with the Cokin 0.9 Soft Graduated ND filter on the lens, to even out the exposure and tone down the sky - which it did brilliantly. But it also meant that I couldn't zoom the lens all the way out to 10mm because I was getting some of the filter holder visible at the edges of the frame. Doh! Best I could do was to start the lens at around 15mm which, when you add the x1.6 crop factor of the 40D, becomes a... 24mm field of view. Exactly what I would have achieved with the Olympus at 12mm (which doesn't show the filter holder on the edges of the frame). Oh well, never mind...

Punakaiki Blowholes. Canon 40D with Canon 10-22mm f3.5/4.5. 1/400th @f8, ISO 800. 10mm focal length

I did, however, get a chance to shoot at the lenses full 10mm ultra-wide range a little later in the morning. To begin with I shot on a tripod, at the same location, for about an hour and a half to capture full tide. Once I knew I had the shot(s) I wanted, I then removed the camera from the tripod, took the filter off the lens, and moved around to a viewing platform so I could shoot down and into the blowholes. At 10mm this has exaggerated the perspective, creating a dramatic image. Since it was later in the morning, with a bit more light, hand-holding the wide angle wasn't an issue. Shooting at ISO 800 gave me a fast enough shutter speed, and the extra weight and bulk of the 40D provided a stable base to shoot from.

Chimney Pot, Punakaiki. Canon 40D with Canon 10-22mm. 1/800th @f5.6, ISO 800. 14mm focal length

I had a fantastic morning at Punakaiki and am thrilled that I have finally - after 20 years - managed to capture the blowholes in all their glory. I also enjoyed using the 40D and Canon 10-22mm, even though I couldn't use the ultra-wide end of its range most of the time. Then again, I'm not really an ultra-wide kinda guy. I've always thought that 24mm is plenty wide enough for most circumstances, with an ultra-wide lens presenting more problems than it solves. It can be dramatic (as in the shot of the blowholes mentioned above), but it also means a bit more work in Lightroom to eliminate the distortion and vignetting inherent in these types of ultra-wides.

Eventually I would like to get a wider lens for the OM-D E-M1 - probably the Zuiko 9-18mm f4/5.6ED, which equates to an 18-36mm focal length in traditional film terms. I know that many 'serious' landscape photographers opt for the Zuiko 7-14mm f2.8 PRO, but at twice the price, and with an extra 2mm at the wide end that I probably wouldn't use, I think I would be better served with the Zuiko 9-18mm. It also happens to share the same 52mm filter thread as my other lenses, which simplifies things in terms of filter holders etc. In the meantime, if I want ultra-wide, then I guess I'll be reaching for the Canon 10-22mm and 40D.