Street Racing

I started my love affair with photography by shooting a Rally Sprint event in Canterbury. I had no idea what I was doing, shot far too many rolls of film, and got pretty average results. But I was hooked.

I'm a photographer and not a petrol head (I appreciate that you can be both), but I hold a certain amount of nostalgia for shooting racing events because that is where it all started for me. I don't shoot them often, but when I do I have a lot of fun and, I'm pleased to say, get some OK results.

This Labour Weekend the town I live in (Greymouth) hosted its Annual Motorbike Street Racing event. I had shot the event about six years prior - on film - but thought it was time to 'upgrade' the images and try my luck with digital. I loaded my Canon 5D with a fast 16Gig card, set it to shoot large jpegs (I thought RAW processing might slow me down a little), and moved the autofocus from one-shot to servo mode so that it would follow the action across the frame as it happened.

Shooting in this way is fun, but it requires a total mind shift from how I would normally photograph. For portraits and weddings, even though there is 'some' action involved, I usually have the 5D set on one-shot, single frame mode. This is plenty fast enough, but tends to promote a fairly precise way of composing and shooting.

With sports action photography however, precise composition almost goes out the window. Some of the big 1000cc bikes reached 200km+ going down the straight. That's FAST! When you are shooting things traveling at that speed, you have one chance to nail it and then they're gone. Pretty cool - and a hugh challenge for someone like me who doesn't normally shoot that way.

As you can see, I did manage to nail it some of the time - although it really was only some of the time. I shot about 700 images in the space of 3 hours, and culled it down to about 100 from there, getting rid of the ones that weren't sharp enough or well composed.

The 5D was set on aperture priority, f4 (as wide open as my Canon 70-200 f4'L' goes) which gave me a shutter speed of around 1000sec - plenty fast enough to use the 3 frames per second that the 5D is capable of. I also used the camera with a monopod, and I'm glad that I did because it allowed me to keep the camera at an even level while shooting through the protective wire barrier that is in place around the whole track.

All of my images were taken at the same place on the track - at a hairpin bend where the bikes had to slow down before taking off again down the straight. This allowed me to get great head-on shots of the bikes and riders when they weren't going 'as' fast.

Could I have gotten better results with a 'sports' camera like the 1D, with its 45 segment autofocus and 10 frames per second shutter speed? Yeah, of course I could. But I haven't got one of those have I. The 5D isn't known as a 'sports' camera, but I'm not a sports photographer. It performed well enough for me to get images like the ones above (and several more besides), and boy was it a lot of fun.

Now having said that, if I was to get into sports photography in any serious way, then I probably would be lusting after a 1D Mark 3 (and the Nikon equivalent D3? if you're a Nikon shooter). Faster autofocus and higher frame rate would be helpful if this was my full time gig.

Luckily for me, it's not. My full time gig starts this weekend with my first wedding for the season. It's with a wedding party of 12 (gulp) and surprise surprise - the long range forecast is for rain. Prey it ain't so.

Beauty in the Eye

What is it with the lottery of photo judging?

Now I have to be careful here, for a couple of reasons. First, because I am a judge myself, so anything I say can (and will) be held against me and applied by others to myself (if you follow).

And second, because this could quite easily come off sounding like a bunch of sour grapes - which it isn't - (honest).

But hang on a minute. What am I going on about? Let me explain...

We had our local camera club evening last week, and as is usual for all camera clubs around the country (and around the world I would suspect), our images were 'judged' by an 'expert' from away. Nothing unusual there, and I've had some very good feedback from this type of judging process.

This time, however, we struck a judge (and I'm naming no names) who must have forgotten to put his glasses on and had skipped his medication all that week! He was atrocious. Brief, bizarre, unfounded and horribly dismissive grading then ensued, to the point where he rejected a good 80% of all the images submitted.

Above is the image I submitted for the Set Subject which this month was "Still Life". It was rejected. "Don't like it" was about as helfpul and as informative as the judges comments on this particular image got.

This is where it could start to sound a bit like sour grapes. He rejected my photo - how dare he! But it really isn't like that at all. I don't think it's the greatest image ever taken, and it was a bit of an experiment for me with some gritty HDR photoshop techniques that I'd wanted to try out for a while. So I really didn't expect it to score highly, or get me an honor mark or anything. But rejected! Really?

And trust me, there were images better than the one above who also suffered the same fate. So it got me thinking - what kind of lottery is this whole judging process - and does it need to be?

We all know that judging art is subjective - right. You like what you like, I like what I like etc, etc, etc. But hang on. Do we really want judging to be purely subjective? Or is there some objective elements that can serve as guidelines or principles when judging others work? Well, I believe there are. But who judges the judges? And who gets to be a judge? Is there some test you have to take to determine whether you'll make a good judge (no, there isn't), and if not, why not?

If you're looking for answers to these questions, then sorry, you've come to the wrong place. I could give 'My' answer to the above (having been an Art Critic, Lecturer in Aesthetics, and Camera Club Judge myself I have probably pondered on this more than most), but it's a scope way too big for this blog. Suffice to say that I think the judging (and passing of 'opinion') of others work is not a job to be taken lightly, to be handed out to anyone just because they've been in the club the longest, or who doesn't take the responsibility seriously.

I'm not worried about me - it's the children for heaven's sake, think about the children! Fortunately, my 8 year old daughter didn't put anything in for last months camera club assignment, so she didn't have to be put through the farcical judging process. But what if she had entered...?

Late Night Light

I've often written about late evening light and how it can transform a landscape. In fact my first D-Photo article was on exactly that topic. But often, you only get to see the 'final' shot - the one I want to keep and print - without it being put into context with the other shots. It's only when you do this that you begin to see why late evening light is so special for landscape photography.

So while out shooting last night, I thought it would be a good idea to show how an image progresses, according to the lateness of the evening. All images were taken with my 5D, a 17-40mm f4 L lens, on a tripod with a cable release.

The first image has a 6th of a second shutter speed, using an f-stop of f22. There is some nice light - it is dark enough so that the highlights in the sky have been easily retained by the cameras sensor, as has the shadow detail. Not much was done to this in Aperture, except a slight shadow adjustment and saturation boost. Not a bad shot, but the lake isn't 'glassy' enough for my liking. Better wait around a bit longer.

10 minutes later, and this is the result. Exposure is now 6 seconds, at f22. It's getting more like it with the longer exposure for the water - but to me it still isn't 'quite' there. The Canon 5D can shoot at up to a thirty second exposure before going to its 'bulb' setting, and that's about where I aim for with my long exposures. I could go longer, but 30 seconds seems about right for me in terms of colour and water effects.

And here it is. One of my last shots of the evening - taken with a 30 second exposure on f22. It is really very dark now - almost difficult to see the hand in front of the face, but the camera sensor still manages to pick up lots of detail with the long exposure. I love the saturated 'blueness' that this long exposure gives, as well as the silkyness to the water, which is exactly what I'm after. My landscapes tend to have a simple, serene quality to them, and I can get this kind of effect perfectly with long night time exposures.

To me this last image stands head and shoulders above the rest - although others may think there's only subtle changes. They are basically all the same compositionally speaking, but the largest (and most important) difference has to do with the 'mood' they create. The later the light, the longer the exposure, the more mood is conveyed.

The 30 second exposure does take a little more post-processing work though - I did quite a bit of fiddling with shadow, black-point and levels in Aperture before I got this looking how I wanted. Noise is also a factor with a 30 second exposure, even with the 5D shooting on ISO 100. But Noise Ninja cleans it up nicely, and I could probably get away with some noise from the Canon sensor without it effecting the image too negatively.

Anyway, that's how I go about getting some of the best light for landscapes. I'd get up early in the morning and do it too, if I wasn't so damn lazy...

Pre-Photokina Rant (Prt 1)

Well, Photokina 2008 is almost here - the camera industry trade show to end all trade shows.

'Pre' Photokina releases from Canon (and Nikon) have been very interesting and thought provoking (for me at least) in terms of where the whole DSLR industry is going.

So without any further ado, and if I may hop up onto my soapbox for a while (and since it's my blog I think I may) here's 'some' of my thoughts on the Canon 50D pre-release.

First - 15 megapixels. Wow. Double wow even.

But why? Wasn't 10 big enough for everybody? Who was out there shooting with the 40D and wishing they had more megapixels? I DON'T WANT ANY MORE MEGAPIXELS! MY FILES ARE BIG ENOUGH ALREADY! I'M RUNNING OUT OF HARD DISK SPACE AS IT IS!

Now I realise that it's just because they can. Technology moves on. But we, the consumer, are the ones that have to deal in real terms with the ramifications of such technology. Maybe it's just me? Maybe every other photographer prints A2 and needs bigger files? Maybe 10 megapixels isn't enough? Will 15 be enough do you think? What about 20? How about 40? How many images will you be able to fit on a 1Gig Cf card if we get up to 40 megapixel cameras? See my point...

We don't really 'need' all these megapixels. Manufacturers just tell us that we do.

And speaking of manufacturers telling us what we need -

Second - Live view. Wow. Double wow even.

And again I ask - but why? Who asked for live view on DSLR's? Who was shooting a year ago and saying "yeah, using the viewfinder gets me sharp images, but I really wish I could hold my camera out at arms length in front of my face and take photos from the LCD screen". I mean - SERIOUSLY.

I personally would have kissed someone at Canon if they'd left Live View off of the 50D.

Ah, but no. We demanded it - apparently.

But it gets worse folks. The 50D also has... (drum roll please)... Live View with Face Detection. Aaaaarrrrrggghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!! Shoot me now!

Please, please, please Canon - leave these stupid noddy technologies off of the 5D's replacement (he asks, knowingly in vain).

Don't know about you, but I want to use a camera - not a PS3 game controller.

Just my 2 cents worth... for now.

Evolution of a Scan

Speaking of old negatives and backing up (yes we were, see previous post) - of all the old photos Jackie came to me with, I was most fascinated by the medium format negatives.

Jackie spent the afternoon going through them on a light table, and then handed me 20 that she wanted to have scanned for a book she is writing on her family.

All have been very poorly stored, badly handled, and so are not in the best condition. I wasn't really sure what to expect, but I must say that at the end of the exercise I was presently surprised at how they turned out. These images weren't taken by a professional photographer (that I'm aware of anyway), and the exposures were all over the place. However, the level of detail and final product I was able to achieve through even basic enhancements in Photoshop, was pleasing.

Above is an original scan of a medium format (8x6cm) black and white negative. I have no idea of the camera or film used, but as you can see, the initial result wasn't much to write home about.

Opening up the 'Levels' in Photoshop and moving the left and right sliders inwards to create a real black and white has helped tremendously. Far more than I thought it would, in fact. It's not brilliant, but it's a heck of a lot better, and more like we would expect a well exposed image to look.

The photo still wasn't quite punchy enough for me, so I also opened the 'Brightness/Contrast' control and gave the scan both a brightness and contrast boost. Normally I wouldn't suggest using brightness/contrast in Photoshop, as the results aren't particularly subtle and detail tends to get lost. However, in CS3 the Brightness/Contrast control has had a huge makeover, and now I used it all the time. The engineers have managed to keep the very basic slider setup, but have also allowed it to be used more subtly - without blowing out highlights or blocking up shadows. Brilliant. (Just don't tick the "Use legacy" box or you'll get the horrible old Photoshop results).

Finally, I gave the image a slight 'Curves' adjustment, fixed up some of the spots using the 'Clone' tool, and used a moderate 'Unsharp Mask' setting (Amount 150, Radius .5, Threshold 0) and viola - finished photo.

Ok, so it's not going to win too many awards. But look where we started from, and where we ended up, and you've got to say it's a vast improvement. Yes, I could have spent a lot more time tweaking all sorts of other controls in Photoshop - but I had a lot of these to do in a small space of time, and so I was looking for a quick - but pleasing - result that would give Jackie most bang for her buck.

And just to round out the technical information (for those of you who care), the negatives were scanned on an Epson V700 Flatbed Photo scanner, at a dpi of 1200, which gave a final image size of 'roughly' 30cm x 20cm at 300dpi.

Digital as an Historical Record

A friend was recently given a suitcase full (literally) of old letters, photos, and medium format negatives that had belonged to a great uncle from the 1920's. They eventually found their way to my friends mother who didn't know what to do with them, and was about to throw them out. Fortunately, Jackie salvaged them, and contacted me wanting to know what she should now do with all these images.

It's still a fairly common scenario, but it got me thinking. How common will it still be in 100 years from now? Will a great nephew of mine inherit a suitcase full of my digital images archived on DVD? And if they do, will they know what to do with them? Will they be able to open them and view them? Will they still be readable, or will adverse storage conditions have destroyed them beyond saving?

I don't know about you, but I find these pretty important questions. Trouble is, I'm not sure I've got very satisfactory answers.

Do you back up all of your digital files? I hope so. But if you do, exactly how should you do it to be as 'future' safe as possible? Is backing up to DVD enough? Should you also back up your important files on an external hard drive? Is just one back up enough - or should you keep another copy at another location in case anything happens to your first back up? And what about hard copies of all your best images - don't forget to print them out.

Printing as we know it today throws up another bunch of issues though - issues that a lot of photographers aren't even aware of. How are most digital images printed at home? No prize for guessing that it's done on an inkjet printer. Best case scenario on how long those prints will last? How's a couple of years - if you're lucky!

Inkjet printers use 'ink' based dyes for printing (duh) - trouble is, these dyes aren't very stable over time, and start to break down (very quickly) when exposed to even moderate levels of UV (sunlight). They just won't last.

Manufacturers such as Epson, Canon and HP are combating this by bringing out new ranges of inks that have their 'molecular structure' fortified to give a longer-lasting print, especially if used in conjunction with their own photo papers that also have better structural properties for holding and retaining the ink. But at best you're still talking about maybe 20 to 25 years with a print that is kept in an album - out of direct sunlight.

If you are looking for 'archival' quality prints that will last 100+ years, then your only option at the moment is to go with a 'pigment' based printer. Not surprisingly, these are much more expensive than their inkjet cousins, but you definitely get what you pay for in terms of permanence of the final print.

Pigment based printers use a pigment similar to paint, and not the traditional dye based inks. They are far more impervious to UV light (just as is normal paint), but again care must be taken when exposing them to direct sunlight. NO artwork should be placed in direct sunlight - full stop! Why do you think all those art museums and gallery's are fairly low-lit, temperature controlled vaults? It isn't for their visitors comfort - trust me.

So how do I archive my precious images. Am I any better at this than you? Probably not. At the moment I back-up my own work 'reasonably' regularly onto DVD, and external hard drive. Both of these copies are kept at my home. Not good enough. I should really make two DVD back ups (at least) and keep one off site. That is what I do for my design work, and it's what I should do with my own images. And it's what you should be doing too.

As for future proofing, well, it's crystal ball gazing stuff - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least be thinking about it. What we 'can' say for sure, is that DVD will be replaced by 'something else' in the future, and we will then all have to migrate to the new format. But what will that mean for all of our files saved on DVD?

I'm optimistic enough to think that, just like I can with the suitcase full of negatives today, someone will be able to open - and then convert - my 'digital negatives' in the distant future. Will my optimism be rewarded 100 years from now? Only time will tell.

Back-up for the Back-up

Remember that EOS 1N I got recently as a backup to my 5D for Weddings? And remember how I said I was also tempted by the 10D as another Digital option? Well yep, you guessed it - I've now got a back-up for my back-up.

I only got it recently - second hand from a camera dealer - but I've had a little play and formed a few opinions on it already. The body is a little worse for wear, but everything functions as it should (except perhaps for the 'occasional' sticking of the control wheel on the back).

First impressions after using it a few times? It's a solidly built camera with excellent heft (weight) and nicely laid out controls. It's lighter (but not much) and smaller than the 5D, so I will try to get a vertical grip for it as well to give it a little more 'body'. The LCD screen on the back is 'tiny' (1.5" I think?), especially after using the one on the 5D. The image processing engine is a little on the 'slow' side as well - taking about 2 seconds to show a full-res preview with histogram after taking a shot. This isn't necessarily a problem, as long as you're not wanting to review each and every shot after you take it (you shouldn't be anyway). The screen might be tiny, but it is clear, and the images are still easily viewable - just not very big.

Shot-to-shot speed isn't a problem though, it's plenty fast enough so that you're not waiting to take the next shot (although as already mentioned reviewing them is another matter altogether). The shutter is beautifully soft and quiet - next to Nikon's F80 film camera the quietest shutter I've experienced. This could be quite important during the Wedding service, and the 10D may become my 'go to' camera for these times when quietness is of the essence.

Autofocus seems quick and accurate - especially set up for my shooting style with the central sensor active, and it has a nifty programmable button that you can push to go straight to your selected focus point. There are heaps of custom functions available, and you can set every parameter imaginable so the 10D fits your own personal style.

One slight 'quirk' with the 10D is the way it handles shooting RAW files. Set to RAW, you don't get an option to tag a Jpeg file (or not), it automatically creates a jpeg file as well. You do get to select the size of the tagged jpeg - and to be fair it doesn't add that much to the file size, but I do find it odd that there is no straight RAW option. I've never shot RAW + Jpeg on any of my other cameras, but I guess I don't have a choice with the 10D. Odd.

Another 'quirk' of the 10D that most reviewers pick up on is the 'softness' of its image files. And yes, I can attest to the fact that the 10D does take 'soft' images at the default settings. Seems that Canon's engineers were a little 'light' with the in-camera sharpness settings of the 10D, but again, this isn't really a big issue. Either bump the sharpness settings 'in camera' to +2, or sharpen later on in Photoshop (which I do anyway). I can also attest to the fact that the Canon 10D's images sharpen up beautifully with moderate settings of the 'Unsharp Mask' filter (I use Amount: 150, Radius: .5 and Threshold: 0 for a lot of my images to create a little more 'pop'). And notice that it's a radius of 'point 5' (or a half) and NOT 5 - that's way too much radius.

Is the 10D the best camera ever made - well of course not. Is it a solid, well made photographic tool capable of taking stunning images of great clarity - you betchya. Does it have a few 'quirks' that may require some thought - absolutely. But its 6.3 Megapixels is plenty big enough for Wedding Album images - even double page spreads at a push - and it's only a back-up to my 5D (and EOS 1N) after all.

Canon 10D with 24-105mm f4 'L' set to 50mm, f8 @250th sec. Taken on an overcast day, with moderate sharpening applied in Photoshop.

It may be a few years old now, but Canon didn't hold back with this solid little digital SLR. If you were looking for a 'cheap' second-hand introduction to the Canon DSLR system you could do a lot worse than the 10D (the 300/350D springs to mind). In fact, I'd go with a 10D over any of the new plastic 'prosumer' DSLR's out there any day. Slap a cheap 50mm f1.8 on the 10D (which will give you an 80mm f1.8 equivalent due to the 10D's 1.6x 'cropping factor' from the smaller sensor), take some photos with the sharpness set to +2, and go WOW!