Freedom.

Posted on January 3, 2010 by Michael Willems

Free yourself from the lens cap tyranny.

You need lens caps when the lens is in the bag, or off the camera:

But do not feel bad if you do not want to use the lens cap when you are using your camera. Pros seldom do; amateurs almost always do.I can instantly see how experienced someone is by checking whether they walk around with a lens cap on their camera.

Why pros do not use lens caps? When you are using your camera, the lens cap is in the way. It prevents pictures. To prevent damage, use a lens hood instead, and perhaps a filter on the lens – although even filters are seldom used by the pros. You use filters when you are in the rain or snow or at the beach. Otherwise, use the lens naked. Better quality, no hassles, and you do not lose those $30 lens caps.

(If you do, or even before you do: buy brandless $6 lens caps. That way an inevitable loss does not hurt as much).

Question of the day

Posted on January 2, 2010 by Michael Willems

A reader recently asked this:

I noticed in a forum that you much like the Pentax k-7. I am wondering whether you have used the Pentax K10D before and under what low setting should this or a any digital Camera take a photograph without the results being blurred. ie: 50mm 1.4 lens and at ISO 100. Are there any differences between film or digital sensitivity, should the results be the same and do you forgive digital cameras for its own idiosyncrasy. if it was film would digital cameras be better designed today. And finally, how is it possible for a camera to register a photograph out of focus when what you see is in focus?

My reply:

Yes, I have used both those cameras. They’re great, as are most all digital cameras today. The results should never be blurred if you do not want them to be. But with an f/1.4 lens set to f/1.4, you need to focus very carefully. Depth of field is minimal and even a very slight movement after focusing makes the picture blurry.

Also, use one focus area that you choose and move that over the part of the image that should be sharpest.

Sensitivity is the same: 100 ISO is equal to 100 ASA. Noise is not much different either. And you will find most experts agree that a modern sensor of, say, 10 Mpixels or more is at least as good as a negative. Beyond that, better. True, the dynamic range of film is greater, and it drops off gradually at the end, but sensors can be more sensitive. If you shoot in RAW, you minimise that difference.

When what you see is in focus, the image should be sharp. But what you see is small, and perhaps you are moving the camera? Could it be motion blur? Or “slow flash” bluer due to slow shutter speed? Or are you perhaps moving the camera slightly after focusing?

You may want to (re-)read this post here on why studio shots are sharper. And perhaps post an image you think is unsharp.

Here’s one I took yesterday, of my niece’s cat:

Click to see it in its full sharpness.

Dumb and dumberer

Posted on January 1, 2010 by Michael Willems

As a photographer who travels, I would like to dispel a couple of myths.

When I was a child, I would have laughed at the suggestion I would one day have to remove my shoes and belt on a regular basis. Unless I am a jailed criminal, that’s not going to happen! And having to hold my hands visibly above my lap? Being interrogated about bathroom use, and no bathroom visits allowed for an hour? Not allowed to touch my belongings? No dystopia I could have dreamt up would have contained militaristic measures quite so extreme. Being seen naked every time I travel? Now I would have really pinched my arm, convinced I was having a very unrealistic nightmare.

And yet, this now happens every time we board one of these:

So the first myth I would like to dispel is the myth that my “slippery slope” arguments are fearmongering. It’s like when something bad happens and you mention the Nazis, that somehow invalidates the argument. I have never understood quite why: Nazism is a great lesson to us all in “how not to let things happen”. Similarly, every time you express displeasure at increasing silliness of our air travel security, the argument is dismissed with “oh, it’s that slippery slope argument again”. Well, the slipperly slope is not in the future: it is here; and we have already slid down it into the lake.

The second myth is that our “security” efforts actually do anything to enhance security. Of course they don’t.

Here’s how our kneejerk-reaction security thinking goes:

Mohammad Atta used box cutters: Quick, ban all wine glasses and pocketknives. Stare intently and suspiciously at travellers’ belongings. Give travelers plastic forks, too. Epi-pens (and I carry one regularly) are still allowed, by the way (would-be terrorists, take note).
Richard Reed used shoes: Quick, take off shoes. (Remember to shout at your clients in an authoritative manner if they do not do this quickly enough).
UK terrorists used liquids: Quick, ban all liquids! 100 ml is OK though, but only if in a one-quart plastic bag (sucks to be you, metric people). Make mothers drink breast milk to ensure it’s not poison.
Mr Abdulmutallab used explosives hidden in his underwear: Quick, let’s hand-search all carry-on bags! (The logic kills me, even if the bombs don’t).
Better, let’s ban carry-on bags, as Canada has done! That’ll really help! (Oh and no more camera use before landing – guess I took my last ever aerial shots recently. Oh and no more iPod use. Oh and no more navigation display.)

Let me help our authorities out a bit by suggesting some logical next steps:

Mr Abdulmutallab used explosives in his underwear: So quick, ban all underwear! Commando-style only – and we will check!
A recent Saudi attack where the bomber had the explosives up his anus: Quick, mandate rectal (and vaginal, for those of us who have one) searches for all!

Not so far-fetched: Amsterdam has already mandated that the “naked scanner” is now used on all US-bound travelers. How far are much expanded cavity searches? Let’s at least do them for all 500,000 people on that secret American watch list (the one that is so secret it is not even shared with the authorities). That’s a lot of cavities to inspect!

So OK. Is any of this contributing to security?

Of course not. If someone is determined, they will find a way every time. Interrogating Greek grandmothers will not stop religious fundamentalists who are willing to kill themselves. It’ll be explosive fillings next, or explosive material wigs, or whatever.
Of course not. Air travel is already very safe. The chance of being killed by a terrorist is many times smaller than being killed by a sandwich on a flight or by a drunk driver on your way to the airport.
Of course not. 100 ml of liquids, but you can have at least five bottles of 100ml in your quart sized bag, and if there’s 5 terrorists that’s 2.5 liters of liquid.
Of course not. No getting up for an hour before landing? This is a magical 60-minute period, somehow, and terrorists will be foiled? Or, having read the new rules, will they simply set off their bombs 65 minutes before landing?
Of course not. Even in the unlikely case we can make air travel terrorist-free (by allowing buck naked, anesthetized passengers only), the Mohammed Attas will simply switch to attacking ships, bookstores, or McDonalds Restaurants.

The measures will give the terrorists what they want – in fact, it has already – by instilling a climate of fear and by showing cowardice – which Arab culture is very sensitive to. They won, we lost, as we cower ineffectively in the corner, trembling with fear.

It will also discourage travel. And I mean, really.Why do we want to subject ourselves to virtual strip searches, shouted militaristic commands, manual luggage checks, long lineups and limitations in carry-on?

Take me. When I traveled to Phoenix last month, I had this in my carry-on luggage:

Canon 1D MkIII
24-70 2.8L
70-200 2.8L
16-35 2.8L
35mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.4
Two speedlites
Macbook Air
and on my other shoulder, a Canon 1Ds MkIII

Total replacement cost of the above: Around C$27,000. And airlines want me now to check that? And if it is lost or damaged, their liability is $250, if I remember right? That’s not going to happen.

What we really need is an end to kneejerks and instead, to move to Israeli-type security. Having travelled there repeatedly, I can assure you that Israel’s security is effective, and the Israelis use two things we lack in our efforts. They use (a) intelligence, and (b) respect.

The Star gets it right, here [link]. A must read, and I agree with it entirely.

I am not holding my breath. And until the silliness is restricted, I just don’t fly.

Happy New Year, everyone

Posted on January 1, 2010 by Michael Willems

Today, I wish you all a very happy new year.

May 2010 bring you lots of health, happiness, wealth, laughter: and especially, lots of photography and continued expansion of your photographic capabilities (to which I shall continue to add through my daily teaching blog and through my courses at Henry’s and for pros at Cameratraining.ca).

Happy New Year!

The best camera…

Posted on December 31, 2009 by Michael Willems

…is the one you have on you. And it does not have to be an SLR with a 70-200 f/2.8 IS Lens, like this one I am carrying here in Sedona:

Even the iPhone takes nice pictures. Even of my morning coffee.

If you use an iPhone, get yourself a great little app called Best Camera, and edit your pics with a few simple filters. That leads to this more punchy image:

Have fun:

And yes, that was also taken on my iPhone, and slightly finished with Best Camera. See – you don’t always need a $10,000 camera.

More reliable PW connection

Posted on December 30, 2009 by Michael Willems

In my post earlier today I noted that Pocketwizards aren’t always reliable when they have a wire plugged into them. That, and you need to keep them away from 430EX flashes, and point the antenna on the receiving side the same way as that on the sender, ideally.

The “a cable plugged in makes the receiver unreliable” phenomenon is presumably due to some of the RF going into that wire. So a possible solution should have been obvious to a radio amateur/electrical engineer like me:

Yes, that’s is: the little RF choke I put on the cable. And indeed, my testing shows that this type of choke seems to keep the receiver significantly more sensitive. Problem solved (or at least, problem alleviated: the other recommendations still stand).

Ceiling Cat, where art thou?

Posted on December 30, 2009 by Michael Willems

Actually, it was “Catnip, when do I get thee?”

Two 250 Ws monolights, one each side 45 degrees up, and one 100Ws strobe with grid lighting up the background.

Remember, studio flash shots are sharp shots.

Pocketwoes

Posted on December 30, 2009 by Michael Willems

Nah, I exaggerate. Pocketwizards (specifically, the non-TTL model, namely the Pocketwizard II Plus, of which I own five) are great. But I do want to draw attention to two issues to watch out for.

First: what am I doing. I am firing a Pocketwizard, as in my post a few days ago. Meaning I have this setup:

The camera contains a TTL flash, plus from the PC-contact (the X-contact) I am firing an additional flash, set to manual at low power.

I even have three brand-new Pocketwizard-to-hotshoe cables [link] from Flashzebra – recommended, both the equipment and the company. My order arrived promptly via US mail (as did the mounting brackets that you see under the PW – these allow neatly mounting the PWs onto lightstands). No UPS ripoff.

The Gel on the flash above is a Honl Photo blue gel, to add a splash of colour to a photo I was working on.

To my surprise, I have found this Pocketwizard setup to not always be reliable.

When I mount the PW onto the top of the camera hotshoe, no problem. But when I use the PC connector on the side of the camera, and a cable supplied with the Pocketwizard, no go sometimes. I can fire the camera or even press the local PW’s button, and I get intermittent remote flash firing.

I have so far narrowed the issue to the following three causes:

Bad X-sync contact. I needed to use contact cleaner and squeeze the connector a bit to ensure good contact.
Antennas need to be polarized equally (if the sender is vertical, ideally the receiver needs to be vertical as well).
Maintaining the distance from the speedlite is a good idea: Speedlites can interfere.
Radio signal: when I continuously press the sender’s test button, the receiver’s LED should stay on. Normally this happens. Even when I hold my hand by the sender’s antenna, the receiver normally stays solid. But when I attach a cable to the PW, even when it is dangling in mid air and not connected to the camera, it is much less reliable.

I mean this:

With that cable, whether connected to the camera or not, the sender seems to send out less power than without. This is not surprising: the wire probably affects radiated power and pattern. But it is good to be reminded this is a radio transmitter and radio is black magic (and I am a licensed radio ham, VA3MVW, so I have some appreciation of this).

The moral of this story: Watch out, the rock solid reliability of Pocketwizards, which I had always taken for granted, is not guaranteed. Especially when not using the hotshoe.

But by watching all factors above, I think I have it down to a reliable setup -and when I have issues at least I know what they are and how I can address them.

Update: see the post I wrote a few hours later about RF chokes

Juxtapositions

Posted on December 30, 2009 by Michael Willems

Are always good. And surprises. And reflections. And “filling the frame”.

Or all four, like in this picture from Nov. 2, which although it doesn’t work very well at small size, does illustrate the point. Do you like the CN Tower’s reflection?

Juxtapositions can be opposing colour. Or old/new. Ugly/beautiful.Large/small. Funny/serious. Curved/straight. Liberal/conservative. Traditional/modern. Fast/slow. Soft/hard. You get the picture.

Always carry your camera. This was a snap, taken handheld with the Canon 7D. From the car. Another example, of a similar subject: