Ask a photographer...

[Fonzie]

Hey folks,
I've only just joined the family last fall, for the Cambria gathering and I've only been a lurker since then… but now I'm considering a lecture on photography (at the request of Grant of course) at my next gathering so I come to you to ask; If you could ask a working photographer in the motorcycle industry (test and travel) any question, what might that be? Be it about camera, packing, or gear, ask! Composition to camera settings...

I'm building a curriculum for this and would like to know what you would like to know from me so that I can build that in.
Right now I'm planning to detail what magazines want to see when submitting touring stories and how I make my deliveries, but there's so much more to tell... Thank for your help! -Fonzie

For those that don't know me, you can check out my blog at MotoInsider.com

[Tom Bon 865]

Fonzie,
I have just finished a 2 month loop around east Europe with a first gen Canon DSLR (350d) and the 'starter pack' lenses (18-55 & 70-300mm)

What would you recommend as an all in one travel lens, the "dual sport" lens of the photography world?

Cheers mate
Tom

[Fonzie]

Thank Tom... Some makers offer an 18-200 lense that you might wanna look at. No one makes one that goes all the way to 300 from 18 wide, but we can't have it ALL! 28-300 is also possible if you rather the distance. Quality lacks a bit if you seek such a range in one lens however. As such, I tend to carry two lenses for my full frame Canon, the 28-105 (for walking about) and the 70-300 (when shooing from the bike or I have the time to change lenses walking around).
-fonz

[radusan]

Hi Fonzie,

I'm having a serious concern about gear:
I'm a professional photographer, I have the big cameras and all (Canon 5D mk. 2 & 7D) with the usual lens (17-40, 24-105, 70-200 & more) and I'm planning a 1 month motrbike trip to Nepal & India.
Now, the problem is I'm not sure if it's suitable to carry 2 full size DSLRs with bulky lens and dedicated bags on a bike riding indian roads, or if I should only bring along a small "smart" compact like the Panasonic TZ30.
I'm thinking that just the time needed to take the camera out of the backpack is enough to miss the moment.
On the other hand the picture quality of the DSLR is hard to beat by a compact camera.

I'm not really sure about the safety factor also: i'm a big guy and it's not really likely to be robbed, but a DSLR surely draws much more attention than a compact camera - "bigger is more expensive". (I once met a guy selling two cameras around a dark corner: one was a nikon D3100 and the other a Nikon D3; he was asking for 200$ for the D3100 and 300$ forthe D3 because "it weighs more"... needless to say I pointed the nearest police officer to ask him about his interest in photography.)


Cheers!

[backofbeyond]

Fonzie may tell you what he does but I can tell you what I don't do, which is to take the cameras I depend on for my living on a non work trip. If you're going to take an SLR take one that you can afford to lose or break or have stolen.

I tend to be 60:40 take an SLR on a trip as without exception I've been disappointed in the results from the range of compacts I have available, but it does depend on where I'm going. A quick trip through France would be compact territory (probably :confused1 but overland through Africa or India I'd be taking an SLR. I've got enough last generation lenses lying about that I can pick and choose what to pack but anything physically big is out on a bike trip so no 300/2.8 in the tank bag.

Looking back over the trips I've done in the last 20yrs or so the best images (with a couple of exceptions) have all come from SLRs that I've taken the trouble to use (as opposed to leave in the pannier and pull out the compact in my pocket). Things could be worse though; I used to take a Mamiya 6x7 on trips in the 80's.

[Hemuli]

Hi Fonzie,

On a biketrip there is dust everywhere. How do you keep your lenses clean? Do you clean them all the time or do you remove imperfections in Lightroom/Photoshop?

[Samy]

Hemuli you asked that question only to Fonzie or anybody ?

I assume you keep your DSLR + lenses with you on your trip !

First point, I am sure you already know is, have protection filters on the lenses like UV i.e.

Have an air blower in the ease...

Be careful to change lenses in the wind and dusty surrounds...

About camera, better to have a dust and air proof one !

Also now some dust and air proof lenses too.

[Hemuli]

Originally Posted by Samy

Hemuli you asked that question only to Fonzie or anybody ?

I assume you keep your DSLR + lenses with you on your trip !

First point, I am sure you already know is, have protection filters on the lenses like UV i.e.

Have an air blower in the ease...

Be careful to change lenses in the wind and dusty surrounds...

About camera, better to have a dust and air proof one !

Also now some dust and air proof lenses too.

Hi Samy,

This is for everyone.
I keep my camera all the time in a tank bag, inside a carrying bag. All my lenses are inside Lowepro lens cases and yes all my lenses have UV-filters.

It is just this small dust on top of the UV-filter and sometimes between the lense and UV-filter that is annoying. I have brush and microfibre cloth (no room for blower). I try to clean the filter surface really often, but still this dust comes from somewhere... I guess it cannot be avoided...
All my lenses are weather sealed, so this is not a problem for me.

One another question:
Any suggestions for graduated filters? My panniers are quite full so would need suggestion of brand and carrying case. 2- or 3-stop?

[Samy]

Originally Posted by Hemuli

Hi Samy,

This is for everyone.
I keep my camera all the time in a tank bag, inside a carrying bag. All my lenses are inside Lowepro lens cases and yes all my lenses have UV-filters.

It is just this small dust on top of the UV-filter and sometimes between the lense and UV-filter that is annoying. I have brush and microfibre cloth (no room for blower). I try to clean the filter surface really often, but still this dust comes from somewhere... I guess it cannot be avoided...
All my lenses are weather sealed, so this is not a problem for me.

One another question:
Any suggestions for graduated filters? My panniers are quite full so would need suggestion of brand and carrying case. 2- or 3-stop?

Spend crazy amounts for best filters for all my different MF and DSLR lenses... Now I regret it. Try to stick to Hoya, Kenko or Tiffen brands. Even sometimes I go for Chinese ones. If it works it is ok for me.

Marketing tricks such as a new name of coatings each time! Huh, am I going to sell my pictures to National Geographic?

Searched and bought a filter case from ebay.

If you buy cheaper lens, no need to keep them in their own plastic case.

In the end we don't need much filters: CPL, for me warming, one or two graduating, may be 2 ND...
We don't need much more than that... no need to be moving studio...
And always can touch to images with Photoshop (if you shoot Raw of course).

[Hemuli]

Originally Posted by Samy

In the end we don't need much filters: CPL, for me warming, one or two graduating, may be 2 ND...
We don't need much more than that... no need to be moving studio...
And always can touch to images with Photoshop (if you shoot Raw of course).

Hi Samy,
Yes, I travel also with CPL and ND filters. Do you carry graduating filters on a bike? I do not want to spent massive amount for gradient filters which are quite sensitive...

[Samy]

Originally Posted by Hemuli

Hi Samy,
Yes, I travel also with CPL and ND filters. Do you carry graduating filters on a bike? I do not want to spent massive amount for gradient filters which are quite sensitive...

I used to carry only one, next time may be 2 : brown (coffe) and grey.

[Margus]

Don't want to spoil the Q&A thread but IMO: your chain is as strong as the weakest link in it. Chinese filters would do allright with cheap lenses. Yet when you have decent (i.e. fullframe camera and high-end lenses) equipment you'll definitely degrade if not kill the overall quality with cheap filters. Then you'll see how bad those cheap filters really are. Been there done that.

With the digital I wouldn't bother much with less used filters at all (warming, GNDs, etc), especially when shooting RAW. Doing multiple different exposures will do the trick, even most semi-pro cameras have this AE+/- as a built-in function anyways. Glue them thogether as layers later on in post-processing and it'll look like a shot with a graduated filter, not as good as with a decent optical filter, but close enough. Ditto to warming filters - this you can do in PP (Post-Processing). It's cheating allright, but so is most of digital photography anyways since the very limited information coming from CCD/CMOS goes through massive complex in-camera processing engine of mathematical calculations, de-bayering, noise shapings, multiple levels of signal processing and other visual cheating anyway to make it look "real" for a human eye (have you ever seen a direct-Bayer image from CCD/CMOS?). Other than increased pixels the sensors haven't evolved as much as the mathematical processing engines inside the cameras we don't hear much about other than versions/generations (i.e. "Digic V" etc). Lot of people don't know there's a massive "Photoshop" already in-camera without you knowing about, so doing some dramatic Photoshoping later doesn't make much difference in terms of cheating. But the big pro for all this in-camera manipulation and cheating is that the digital RAW is a finely prepared and very flexible and easy to use medium to work with in PP - this and also the digital PP itself has evolved a lot making usage of optical filters less important IMHO.

All IMHO of course,
Margus

[Samy]

Originally Posted by Margus

Don't want to spoil the Q&A thread but IMO: your chain is as strong as the weakest link in it. Chinese filters would do allright with cheap lenses. Yet when you have decent (i.e. fullframe camera and high-end lenses) equipment you'll definitely degrade if not kill the overall quality with cheap filters. Then you'll see how bad those cheap filters really are. Been there done that.

With the digital I wouldn't bother much with less used filters at all (warming, GNDs, etc), especially when shooting RAW. Doing multiple different exposures will do the trick, even most semi-pro cameras have this AE+/- as a built-in function anyways. Glue them thogether as layers later on in post-processing and it'll look like a shot with a graduated filter, not as good as with a decent optical filter, but close enough. Ditto to warming filters - this you can do in PP (Post-Processing). It's cheating allright, but so is most of digital photography anyways since the very limited information coming from CCD/CMOS goes through massive complex in-camera processing engine of mathematical calculations, de-bayering, noise shapings, multiple levels of signal processing and other visual cheating anyway to make it look "real" for a human eye (have you ever seen a direct-Bayer image from CCD/CMOS?). Other than increased pixels the sensors haven't evolved as much as the mathematical processing engines inside the cameras we don't hear much about other than versions/generations (i.e. "Digic V" etc). Lot of people don't know there's a massive "Photoshop" already in-camera without you knowing about, so doing some dramatic Photoshoping later doesn't make much difference in terms of cheating. But the big pro for all this in-camera manipulation and cheating is that the digital RAW is a finely prepared and very flexible and easy to use medium to work with in PP - this and also the digital PP itself has evolved a lot making usage of optical filters less important IMHO.

All IMHO of course,
Margus

Hi Margus,

Already said the same with the rest except Chinese filters at prior reply. If shooting RAW, not really need much filters.

About the Chinese filters I agree and disagree. Have huge numbers of : Hoya, Kenko, B+W, Kenko and Chinese filters. Chinese filters since 2 months only.

If shooting a general scene/landscape, with Chinese gradual and B+W, do you think image quality is 10 times better quality with B+W? But price difference is: 5 $ vs almost 120 Euro ! Difference is almost 20 times.

For critic filters like CPL, warming and ND need to stick at least to Hoya, Tiffen or Kenko. But for gradual I don't think it is needed to stick expensive ones.

Even B+W not 4 times better quality than Kenko or Hoya when the price is almost 3-4 times more expensive.

IMHO of course....

[Margus]

Originally Posted by Samy

Hi Margus,

Already said the same with the rest except Chinese filters at prior reply. If shooting RAW, not really need much filters.

About the Chinese filters I agree and disagree. Have huge numbers of : Hoya, Kenko, B+W, Kenko and Chinese filters. Chinese filters since 2 months only.

If shooting a general scene/landscape, with Chinese gradual and B+W, do you think image quality is 10 times better quality with B+W? But price difference is: 5 $ vs almost 120 Euro ! Difference is almost 20 times.

For critic filters like CPL, warming and ND need to stick at least to Hoya, Tiffen or Kenko. But for gradual I don't think it is needed to stick expensive ones.

Even B+W not 4 times better quality than Kenko or Hoya when the price is almost 3-4 times more expensive.

Samy,

I know what you mean but the price is never equal to the quality. I'm always amazed in the fact that by going to the high-end side there's a certain point in around 80% of the best possible quality where the price will start to grow exponentially while the quality still grows linearly. The same phenomena is almost in every field I know: audio, video, racing equipment, military electronics etc etc.

I.e. relatively speaking to have some 90% of the best possible quality it will cost multiple times of the 80% quality. Basically you only gain 10% quality for rediculously high price, and to get 95% you'll pay even more! It's always like that and probably will be like that. A sad fact of life.

While for an average person this 10% gain for a rediculously high price is laughable yet for a field-fanatic who use the stuff to the full capability this 5-10% gain makes a world of a difference! Hence everything is relative.

I've run cheap Chinese (Tiyan-Ya and others), medium price range (Cokin, Tiffen, Hoya) all the way to high-end (Heliopan SH-PMC-coated, B+W MRC-coated versions).

I can tell chinese filters degrade the overall sharpness and reduce contrast quite a bit (especially shooting against the light will dramatically reduce the contrast) but the worst of all is that they create a noticable color cast, especially their GND filters I've been annoyed alot with since it is hard to correct in PP "twisted" colours being gradually over the image. Single cheap filter is managable, but if you run multiple filters then it'll grow into a big problem with the degraded sharpness, reduced contrast and different color casts.

While the better filters I have never have those issues. The colors are clean even running multiple filters and you can shoot against even a strong sunlight w/o any noticable flare or haze problems.

Cokins have been something in between. Hence it really comes down to 'what you pay for'. So everything being relative for sure you don't need to buy the most expensive ones, just the ones that fit your personal demands on quality.


Some of my lousy film scans using multiple filters on each shot:

































































Again, all IMHO of course,
Margus

[Samy]

Originally Posted by Margus

Samy,

I know what you mean but the price is never equal to the quality. I'm always amazed in the fact that by going to the high-end side there's a certain point in around 80% of the best possible quality where the price will start to grow exponentially while the quality still grows linearly. The same phenomena is almost in every field I know: audio, video, racing equipment, military electronics etc etc.

I.e. relatively speaking to have some 90% of the best possible quality it will cost multiple times of the 80% quality. Basically you only gain 10% quality for rediculously high price, and to get 95% you'll pay even more! It's always like that and probably will be like that. A sad fact of life.

While for an average person this 10% gain for a rediculously high price is laughable yet for a field-fanatic who use the stuff to the full capability this 5-10% gain makes a world of a difference! Hence everything is relative.

I've run cheap Chinese (Tiyan-Ya and others), medium price range (Cokin, Tiffen, Hoya) all the way to high-end (Heliopan SH-PMC-coated, B+W MRC-coated versions).

I can tell chinese filters degrade the overall sharpness and reduce contrast quite a bit (especially shooting against the light will dramatically reduce the contrast) but the worst of all is that they create a noticable color cast, especially their GND filters I've been annoyed alot with since it is hard to correct in PP "twisted" colours being gradually over the image. Single cheap filter is managable, but if you run multiple filters then it'll grow into a big problem with the degraded sharpness, reduced contrast and different color casts.

While the better filters I have never have those issues. The colors are clean even running multiple filters and you can shoot against even a strong sunlight w/o any noticable flare or haze problems.

Cokins have been something in between. Hence it really comes down to 'what you pay for'. So everything being relative for sure you don't need to buy the most expensive ones, just the ones that fit your personal demands on quality.


Some of my lousy film scans using multiple filters on each shot:

































































Again, all IMHO of course,
Margus

Hi Margus,

Totally Agree with you.

I consider cheap filters for carrying on M/C trip. If I am travelling in my car and carry camera bags, no need to carry cheap filters... Same like, can you easily carry a D800E or Eos5dII in your tankbag?

By the way very nice MF pictures and good scans. What MF camera you have?

I have a Hassy but will need a digital back in few years