For the Birds

Long ago in a land far away (upstate New York), I was interested in birds. I had received a bird guide for Christmas (or was it my birthday?) and spent many an hour in the woods, identifying birds. I even took a few photos of birds, including one shot of a bird on a telephone wire. Of course, since I was on the ground, and my little 110 camera had only a wide angle fixed lens, I took a picture of a dot on a line in a featureless overcast sky.

Well, at least I knew it was a bird...

I've since lost interest in birds, mostly. I've also forgotten pretty much anything I had learned. But lately I've had my interest rekindled, at least in part due to the wide variety of interesting birds around Stanford. Stanford residents see hawks, herons, and hummingbirds daily. I'm not kidding, I've been seeing the hawks pretty much every day (as the little birds, their meals, chase them around) and the great blue heron has been hanging out a lot lately, eating gophers. Hummingbirds constantly visit, but I've yet to catch one of them on silicon. Soon though, soon...

The Canon 70-200mm F/4 has contributed to this revival -- finally a lens good enough to get some good telephoto shots. It is a really sharp lens, astonishingly sharp. Take the following shot of a hawk... flying overhead... with no sharpening, just RAW conversion:


Did I mention that that is a 100% crop, with no sharpening?

Which brings me to the primary weakness of the 70-200 when it comes to shots of birds: it is not nearly long enough. The opening image was a crop from the full frame shot at right. As you can see, 200mm (320mm with the Rebel XT's 1.6x crop factor) isn't enough magnification to get close enough to small birds. It works well for larger birds (like herons and hawks, if they are near the ground) but nothing smaller.

Quality long lenses cost big money though, so it is unlikely I'll get a birding lens soon. $600 is probably the minimum you'll pay for anything semi-decent that is 400mm or longer.

I borrowed a book on bird photography from the library which has also helped rekindle my interest. Yesterday, while at work listening to KZSU (I need something to drown out my lab-mate when he digs into his crunchy nuts) I heard a public service announcement about birds. I didn't catch all the details, but a quick search found the Birds of Stanford site, a repository of species seen around Stanford. Very informative, and now I have a resource when I see a bird I can't identify (which is most of them).

The site seems to be somewhat abandoned, but I found out a little more info. There's a Stanford Magazine article by Don Kennedy which references the site. There's a set of galleries which includes a small gallery of photos. One of the photos features a great blue heron, and happens to be by one of my neighbors, Carlos Rodriguez-Lluesma. In fact, when I got my heron pictures, I was outside of his home. His son used to be in my son's class! Small world, huh?

No offense to Carlos, but my photo is technically better (his was taken five years ago, so considering digital camera technology, that isn't at all surprising). Since there is a photograph submission form on the site, I figured I'd submit one of my heron images and see what happens. I don't expect much, since the site looks like it hasn't been touched in a few years, but I figured it was worth a try.

I'll keep you posted if I get any interesting bird shots or hear back from whoever is managing Birds of Stanford.

My Next Camera: an EOS 20D

It has been said that it is not the camera that takes the pictures.

And I very much believe that is true. But I'm still going to get a new camera body, and that camera will be the Canon 20D.

Luckily, my 350D has recovered somewhat and is only acting up occasionally, so I feel safe waiting for mid-July when I'll have a little extra cash in the checking account (related to the release of some money used in my other hobby, poker). I'm also going to sell everything around the house that isn't absolutely necessary (do I really need two kids, or could I get away with just one?). If I'm going to take a shot at this photography business, it has to happen now.

But, back to my choice of camera. I've given it some more thought, and I really want to upgrade from the Digital Rebel line to a mid-range Canon body. A big reason is ergonomics and durability improvements. The 20D also has a few features the 350D doesn't, which are nice, but not essential. But the biggest reason is probably explained with a story:

Near the end of my second TFCD shoot (as seen in Quick Tip #7), I was packing up my gear and chatting with D. D. was telling me that she used to be interested in photography and took some classes in school, but didn't really have any time for it anymore (she is employed full time and mother of 1.5, to be 2.0 in a couple months). I suggested that low-end DSLRs (like my 350D) are getting relatively inexpensive and give a low cost of entry to the hobby. She replied, "Oh, yeah, I already have a Rebel XT."

My next thought: Then why do you need me?

Well, obviously, it is really hard to take a family picture when you are part of the family! And, ideally I'd bring some expertise they are lacking with me (although sometimes I wonder).

Digital SLRs are so accessible now, and since most people think the camera matters more than the photographer, using an obvious (silver!) entry-level camera, even if it is a really nice camera, doesn't look... professional enough. So if I'm going to upgrade, and a new XTi is only slightly less than the 20D, the credibility I get from a pro camera is worth it. And who knows, maybe it will make me feel more professional; confidence is never a bad thing.

So, that's how I ruled out the 300D, 350D, and 400D. So, how to choose between the 10D, 20D, and 30D?

Well, the 30D is obviously my top choice since it is the best. But, at $500 more than the 20D for minor improvements outside of the larger LCD and spot-meter, I'm better off putting that $500 to better use (like another lens, or food for my kids). That leaves the 10D and 20D.

I really tried to like the 10D, I really did. A $200 savings on a used camera is really nice. But there are a few deal-breakers for the 10D, at least for me. The biggest is that the 10D was designed before the EF-S lens mount was invented, so my beautiful Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 won't mount on it, and it'll be a cold day in hell before I try to mod that lens to fit a 10D. My plan was to buy a Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 ($250 used) along with the 10D, and then I could use the 28-75 as a portrait lens on the 10D for about the same price as a 20D. Even with a 28-75, I don't like the idea that one of my best lenses will not mount on primary body.

A few other things swayed me towards the 20D:

• First, the 20D is only $200 more than the 10D. Not a huge difference, and it gets me a body I can stick with for a while.
  
• A big draw is the 8 Mp sensor which has less noise at high ISOs (how much is debatable, but it is definitely better). I've found that shooting at sunset often requires ISO 800 or more and high ISOs are a great help. The increased resolution is nice, too.
• A better autofocus system with on-the-fly choice of focus points. I'll often just leave the 350D restricted to the center focus point, but this new system might help me. Plus, the 20D center autofocus point is a more-sensitive cross-type.
• The improved shutter is a big deal. A top speed of 1/8000 second isn't that important for me, but the increased sync speed (1/250 vs 1/200 sec) is. It makes overpowering ambient just that much easier, and if I want to use flash on a regular basis, that's important.
  
• Instant start-up. This is one of those things that I use all the time on the 350D (pop it on and shoot), and I know it would annoy me to no end on the 10D. Yes, I could adjust my shooting strategy, but I guarantee you I'd miss some shots initially because it didn't turn on fast enough.
  

So, the end result is I will purchase a used (or reconditioned) 20D in July. Possibly a new one, if I can find a good price, but there aren't many new ones left anymore. Eventually I'd like a Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 to go with it, but I'll probably just get a used kit lens to stick on the Digital Rebel XT when I need the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8. Once I get the 20D, I'll fix the 350D if it hasn't miraculously recovered, and then the 350D will serve as a nice backup to the 20D. Also, two bodies will allow me to carry both a wide and telephoto at the same time, which could be useful if I shoot sports or events.

[The image at the top of the entry was borrowed from Canon's 20D page. I don't think they'll mind.]

Photography And The Law

I heard about Photography and the Law / Photo Law News from a DPC forum post, and I thought I'd pass it on. So far, it is just a bunch of sorted links to essays on photography law. Not that interesting you say? What if I told you the linked authors are mostly lawyers... catch your interest yet?

If you are at all interested in the business of photography or legal concerns in photography, check it out. I don't know who runs it (it appears to be a new affiliate site since it isn't even indexed in Google yet) but it has about double the links it had when I first saw it a week ago.

This super short blog entry was brought to you by the letter 'S'.

How to Print Portraits Correctly (or Not)

I finally got my first TFCD shoot CD to the client last weekend. The editing wasn't that complicated but it was time-consuming deciding what I would do, why, and how I'd do it. It took me about four hours total to edit 15 pictures... But now that I have the routine down, it should go much faster.

RawShooter Essentials 2006 was indispensible for the editing and it really is designed with workflow in mind. As I get better with it, I realize just how good of a tool it is. I'm so disappointed Adobe has since acquired RSE (and no longer distributes RSE) but there are plenty of copies floating around on the internet which still work (and are legal!).

The hardest part of the editing was getting the color balance correct. I did other editing too (levels, some cloning, some other tweaks) but I spent the most time puzzling over what color a babies skin should be. Without a well-calibrated target (plain white paper reacts too much with UV outside) I had to adjust each image by hand, especially since I was shooting in mixed shade and morning sun. For more on color balance/white balance, see Quick Tip #5.

Hand in hand with this, even if it looks right on my monitor, it may not look right when printed. After all, there's the ambient color of the room (when viewing the monitor and/or the print), the monitor color balance, and the printer calibration. If any of those are off, what I see when I edit the image on the monitor will not be what I see when I view the printed version. Not only that, but the printed version varies a lot by where you are viewing it -- ever get handed a photo in a dark restaurant and then spend two minutes puzzling how to actually see it well in the dim lighting?

As a test, I uploaded two images, this fuchsia shot and a shot of L., to Costco and printed two sets of 4x6s: one set with autocorrecting on, one set with autocorrecting off. The baby shot ended up looking a lot better with autocorrection since the uncorrected version looked too blue and too dark. On the other hand, the fuchsia ended up looking much better without autocorrecting (although it was still a touch dark) since the autocorrecting caused the highlights to blow out. I have to assume the autocorrection is calibrated for skin-tones. For now, I'll be printing all portraits with autocorrection on to avoid mistakes on my end.

In an inexcusable violation of the scientific method, I used luster for the non-corrected and glossy for the corrected shots. I was able to compare the glossy and luster looking at the advertising photos Costco put in (why does Costco throw in two ad prints and a proof sheet into the envelope when you just order one print?). It appears the luster coating caused the images to be slightly darker and lose a little resolution (as might be expected), but it may also be that Costco runs the autocorrect algorithm on their ad prints too.

But, lets say money isn't an object, what is the right process for controlling my color and printing?

1. Situate my monitor in a room with carefully controlled ambient.
2. Calibrate my monitor with a Spyder2 Express (DPNow review) or a similar device ($60 at Amazon).
3. Shoot using custom color balance based on a calibrated target. PhotoMedic gives a good description of how he uses a Balance Smarter ($60 for 12") to set his color balance at the time of the shoot, then he doesn't even need to mess with it later. I've been searching for a cheaper alternative, but haven't found anything yet.
4. Download ICC profiles from Costco (or whatever printing shop you use). That link (and this one) also gives a ton of information about how to use them even if you use a different lab.
5. Convert the image (which is correctly color balanced for sRGB) to the ICC profile of the given printer. Paint Shop Pro XI cannot do this, but there are stand alone utilities that can (Costco/Dry Creek Photo has a TIFF converter). Photoshop CS2+ can do it also.
6. Upload and print with autocorrect off. Make sure to request the printer that corresponds to the ICC profile!
   

So, for $120 I could get everything I need to have a calibrated workflow from capture to printing. Not bad, but I'd still have problems with controlling ambient (my photo computer is in the living room, we have a large window right next to it, and my wife likes to watch TV in the dark). But there is a larger issue, which makes me draw the following conclusion after a few hours of research and a few experiments:

Perfectly calibrated printing isn't critical for my portraits.

Yeah, I know, that's not what I expected when I went into the editing process. But lets look at the primary problem: no matter how carefully I adjust the color and control the processing from capture to print, once it is printed and framed, I have no control over where and how it will be hung. And when the ambient changes, so does the color balance of the image. Our eyes compensate pretty well, but not if the lighting on the picture is significantly different than the ambient... like a wall that is anything but pure white or gray.

I suppose if I really wanted to get high-end, I could figure out how to color calibrate to different types of ambient then coordinate with my clients to make sure they hang it in the right place. But I'm not nearly high-end enough to do that... yet.

For now, I'll just let Costco correct any color issues, and focus on the more important stuff: pose, expression, technicals, etc.

Business Resource: www.DanHeller.com

I've mentioned Dan Heller's blog before, but in all honesty, I hadn't had a lot of time to dig deeper. Now that I have, I've found Dan Heller also runs a very useful website (with tons of his pictures!) at www.DanHeller.com. And he has written a few books on the photography business!

Heller's site is a great place to start understanding how to make money at photography and how to run a photography business. The best place to start is his FAQs, either his general FAQ or his business-specific FAQ. In his site he covers everything from model releases to technology to printing technicals. The most useful page for me was his explanation of legal business incorporation, including tax concerns.

Check his site out, you won't be sorry!