Ask a photographer...
 

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 :)

"Dual Sport" lens
 

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

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

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!

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.

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?

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?

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).

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.

Filters
 

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....

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:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rQI-YAQm7Z...00/SM365_s.jpg












http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5477/9...d41bc7b5_o.jpg















http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8379/8...c11b387f_o.jpg















http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8376/8...9b7d9049_o.jpg















http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5338/8...ece355b6_o.jpg


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 :(

For CPL, if possible should stick to good brands you mentioned. Also with ND's.

For graduals I am not sure.

Here are some examples of B+W CPL landscapes which cost around 120 + Euros.

Graduals are with 3-5 usd Chinese ones. When I open them 100 %, don't see any problem with them.

IR is with a B+W 93 200+ Euro BW IR filter...

By the way need to aware that Kenko and Hoya filters made in Philippines...
Probably will give a visit to Kenko factory in Philippines next month :thumbup1:

First: sorry for more offtopic!

Very nice landscapes Sami, definitely looks like that 120EUR is well spent IMO :thumbup1:


I wouldn't be able to buy those expensive FF dslrs with equally worth lenses. Well okay I could if I pushed really hard but I would rather travel months in a row for the price of those cameras and lenses you mentioned.

I use an old Pentax 67, which is almost as old as I am. Looks like crap with paint worn, dented, screws missing and other bits falling off. But it has endured over 200 000 km of motorcycle travel, 6 continents, pictured over 80 countries. Worked flawlessly from -35C to +45 and in extreme altitude/humidity conditions, vibrations, dust, sand, crashes and all this on a bike. A fully mechanical camera but still working after some 30 years of abuse. Lot of big-$$$ digital people laugh a lot on my old camera but it has hard-earned my respect so I probably have to take it into my own grave. :)

I'm no pro photographer. Even if I could afford Hassleblad with a digital back the very first thing I'd do is bin the digital back not to undermine this fine camera system. :thumbup1: Nothing compares to film to its artistic yet organic look, and all the digital "film-look"/grain simulations and emulations through software look straight-out rediculous if you ask me. It's like comparing a sound of a digital (-ly emulating) piano to a acoustic grand piano for me.

I work in technology field so while I still use digital camera for documenting I've gotten very tired of digital and the latest/greatest technology trends, to sterile/clinical looks of images, overprocessing in PP till the consumerist philosophy with the digital cameras. So it's my personal "bad" choice (more like a sin, actually). I wouldn't recommend analog photography to anybody looking for a convenience though, since it's a lot more work and patience involved.

As told I'm no pro who needs to shoot a lot of pictures on daily basis so ironically with all the today's convenience of digital I've switched from digital to film so I'm one of those few idiots left who still shoots film as preferred media on my travels and often laughted at. With film the filters are very usable if not mandatory for the color slide work since you don't have the (mathematically cheated-) flexibility of the digital and some slide films have very low dynamic range that just beg to use gradients and since you can observe the MF media with your own eyes against the light with slide film you can immediely make a difference between a good quality or bad optical quality gradient filter.



http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5469/9...863047f7_o.jpg







http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8378/8...6e250b79_o.jpg



I love to work with color negatives on people where cooling or waming filters work depending on lightning conditions:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8226/8...32de7880_b.jpg




Also B&W films I often prefer through color filters, i.e.:
http://yhelteljel.ee/wp-content/uplo...06/SM585_s.jpg







B&W infrared on film looks different to digital IR:
http://yhelteljel.ee/wp-content/uplo...04/SM719_2.jpg










http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2878/9...f02c4a52_o.jpg





Colour infrared on analog film is also possible but this looks very different from any digital infrared weather with or without of digital software emulations or simulations I've seen so far trying to simulate Kodak EIR:



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FL5ChDdNLA...600/sm56_s.jpg
A simple scan from Kodak Aerochrome (EIR) infrared slide film - no manipulations, the frame looks exacly the same vivid-red when you inspect the slide aginst the light with your own eyes.



All pics from the same around 30 years old Pentax 67 camera,
Margus

Strangely enough I was just talking to a fellow photographer on that very subject just this morning as we were in the process of knocking out about 7-8000 photographs at an event. I was telling him that good though the files from his D800 are there is something about the tonal quality that I used to get from medium format film in my Mamiya RB67 that I've never seen in digital. He couldn't disagree as, as a bloke in his 20's, he'd never used a medium format camera and shooting any type of film was nothing more than a distant memory.

He did point out though that we'd have got through a fairly large number of rolls of film if we'd been shooting on medium format this morning and that putting them on the internet by 9.00am tomorrow might be a little difficult, especially as they have to go through a service company in New Zealand overnight to construct a searchable database. That's the reality of a lot of professional photography nowadays. The days when I used to run my own processing lab and came back with 15 -20 rolls of film from an event are long gone. Neither do I miss the worry of keeping 20-30 rolls of exposed E6 film cool enough to prevent colour shifts in the middle of the Sahara.

Also long gone is the infrastructure that underpinned professional film photography. Every single one of the professional labs within about 30 miles of me have shut down. Medium format film is now close to three times the price it used to be and only available from a few specialist suppliers. The last batch of 120 size Ilford B/W film I bought was supplied from Israel. I used to able to get it in the local High St. Unless you're operating in some unique backwater of the photographic universe (as I occasionally do) film is dead and pretty close to buried. These days I can hear people audibly gulp on the phone when I give them a quote to shoot their wedding on film compared to digital. Retro chic is only popular when it doesn't cost any more.

Some (most) of the m.f. images that people have scanned and posted above are really great shots and I'm both impressed and jealous - but - the problem is they've had to be scanned to put them on here. Even when I was shooting a lot of film for magazines, advertising etc I never saw the result of a scan - even a high end drum scan - that didn't degrade the image compared to what you saw in the original. Sure, digital is processed to within an inch of its life, either in camera or via Photoshop but the world is now set up to deal with those files and maintain some sort of fidelity either in printing or press pre production. The craft skills that were common to do the same with film 15 -20 yrs ago are going the same way as heavy engineering etc (in the UK anyway) - only a few older people can remember what to do.

Don't hold a grudge against me but funny, I keep hearing the same BS almost on daily basis how film is dead and impossible. In fact I've heard that same exact story already some 5+ years in a row while I've kept calm and just shot film :) Nothing's changed much. I have first hand experience to say the film is dead but it just won't lay down. Meaning it's still a working alternative and dirt cheap (and equipment that used to cost zillion dollars you get almost for free) for those few who dare.

Let there be said I'm from a younger generation who started with digital and used to be a very-pro digital person but ironically somehow ended up working with film as a preferred media. (I still shoot digital though, but much prefer the looks of film over digital any day of the week)

It looks this "buried" "no-infrastructure" talk mostly come from people who do not shoot film on a daily basis so all they do is speculate without their own first-hand experience and logically they ignore experience from those few who still work with this medium and still keep speculating how bad it (well more like in their own minds: "supposed") to be. This is what I've seen and heard in those years under the "film is dead" slogan. beer

While I do carry a small digital with me on travels for documenting it's a good thing I'm not a pro. Just a humble guy. I do not need to shoot thousands of shots, I shoot just few. I.e. one good photo from one event is enough for me. And I don't like too many photos to choose between. I develop myself (even both C41 and E6) when I'm home, when I was travelling for 3 years I sent the rolls home every 3-4 months to a friend who developed them for me. Scanning and posting to internet for me to DL done there as well. The same could be done through labs that still work. Never lost a roll on shipping. Also it's funny, I've never had problems with film even spending a lot of time in Sahara, even with the fragile E6 films :) Never had sourcing problems either, there's a lot of analog webshops (i.e. I've been working with those depending where I am 1, 2, 3, 4 and there are many others analog-specialized shops WW) with all the produced film available and they're shipping worldwide, express (just couple of days when you're in a hurry) or normal, I used the latter by planning ahead. Although I did carry all the rolls with me sometimes I used local shops as well i.e. when I was in Kuala Lumpur or shipped film from Europe to Oman when I was travelling there. In my 3 years of RTW there was not a single case I was out of film or having problems with it.

Even with developing or remote place shipping I consider shooting film dirt-cheap considering the unique (from artistic point of view in today's digital-dominated world) analog results I get and comparing the costs of buying i.e. decent D800E or 5DmkIII etc with equal lenses, let alone a proper digital MF gear. My ancient MF camera gear is worth probably couple of hundred euros tops, it's highly dependable yet expendable when you lose it or gets stolen (good thing none want's this oldschool PoS). So I never really understood the fuss about shooting film being expensive.

Storage: ironically I've lost way more important digital files from my SD or HD than I've ever lost film (i.e. bad development or a lost/damaged roll) so rather than being virtual it being a physical entity I consider the storage is actually a pro for film since the media will outlive me while if you'd speculate like digital guys about film the other way around: it takes just one average Sunspot towards Earth to take down all servers, cloud systems and personal computers to destroy most of digital data stored. We all can speculate about things we don't know much about, right!? :)

Not trying to say everybody should shoot film and I already said above I don't recommend analog photography to anybody looking for convenience. Let this not be another pointless "digital vs film" BSing. For an average person a digital gear is hands down the best and most convenient choice in practice. But what I'm saying is in the end of the day the medium is a tool for artistry and a personal choice to be fit in, i.e. like digital pianos dominate in today's world the "absolete" acoustic piano still holds a valuable niche in the creation of music today, and it's similar situation for film. Thus, IMHO, the film still is definitely a working and very interesting alternative for those keen artists or enthusiasts who want to be fundamentally different in their artistic approaches or for the people who are just tired of all the endless running, digital hype, manufacturer's lobbying and "you just need the latest model" mentality or consumerism.

IMHO again,
Margus

I agree - film isn't dead but it isn't dead in the same way that vinyl isn't dead or bikes from the 1920's are kept going by a band of enthusiasts. I still shoot film, I still have a collection of old LPs (plus a record deck to play them) and a collection of older bikes / cars but when it comes to making my living 99.9% of what I produce comes from a digital original. The 0.1% comes from the occasional job I have for an events agency where the team challenge is to build a set and use genuine 1860's camera equipment to shoot a calendar picture. That involves me hand making / processing glass plate negs - after a day spent doing that even roll film looks state of the art.

It's probably wrong to say there's no infrastructure for film these days. I'm sure there are suppliers of film and labs around to process it but they are far far fewer than they used to be - certainly round my area in the south of England. When I was using large quantities of film I ran my own lab for about 10yrs and there was also a back up world behind the scenes doing quality checks on your chemistry, daily deliveries of paper, chemicals etc. Just about every single company that I dealt with in these areas has closed down. Film processing is now pretty much a craft skill rather than an industry employing technical staff. I've not yet seen evening classes in c41 processing advertised but that's the way it'll go (= cynical comment).

Like the demise of horse drawn buses when petrol powered ones came along digital cameras have enabled people who make their living in this area to do more, more quickly and far cheaper than what was possible previously. You would not believe the difference in the economics of my working life when I changed from film to digital. The cost of the cameras was almost small change in that equation - the £4500 I spent on my first digital SLR was recouped within three months on one job alone. That's the reality of it - whether I like using film or not (I do) is irrelevant, if I want to make a living these days I shoot digital unless I can find a corner of the market (like the example above) where the film and chemistry skills I honed over twenty years can be used in such a way that someone will pay me to practice them. For me these days any film I shoot has the cash flow usually going in the other direction - it's not a problem as I enjoy it as a hobby.

Hello Margus,

Can you say me which pictures are shot on film in my prior post ?

I still keep my LF, MF and 35mm cameras, lenses and film backs... But I don't shoot film. You know why? It is not logic ! Can't find different films I need easily here where I live. And can't have films developed in quality that easy and cheap like before.

Ok, agree, film has better quality, toning and color depth. How much different to digital? % 20? % 50?

Come on, digital is easy. Easy to store, retouch and FAST.

I still have many films I didn't scan yet... many... and it is time consuming... crazy time and effort. Though I have a professional scanner at home. Also need to caliber it sometimes....

Don't know if I will ever use those film cameras again... and huge number of lenses which cost me a fortune... Happy with digital system. But miss my MF and LF pictures...

That's life... We will have difficulty to walk someday... and die too. We have to accept and face that... ;) :thumbup1:

Happy shootings whichever you like...

And still best cinematography is shot on film, 35 mm and 4x5" (IMAX).

Though there are 4000x6000 shooting digital camera systems (EPIC & RED).


In movie sector, still, film is the best !

I carry a Canon 5D mkiii, & a Canon FX 105 as I do alot of film as well, lens: 50mm Prime, 11-16, 24-70, 70-300 (+extender) My wife carries a 7D. As for filters after my first trip I left them all at home as you can do everything & more in post these days. We also carry a couple of mics & a Zoom. A carbon fibre tripod is a must if your serious. If you are a photographer you will kick yourself for taking crap gear whether it is for work or play, if you are passionate about it work & play are the same anyway.

Just my 2 bob on the subject !!!

Cheers
paul

This sums it up just nicely I reckon :]

(also good to hear I'm not the only idiot in the (overlanders-) village who travels with film these days)

Need lots of space and cash to have and carry all those gear ;)

:thumbup1:

Hello everyone I don't know if Im posting in a right thread but I've read ask a photographer so I'm asking. can anyone give me an advice about ZENIT cameras? I want to buy old zenit camera and I don't know which is a good model or what I must know not get cheated by a seller? can I test lens somehow?

Its been quite some time since I last had a Zenit but I do remember them as being the perfect multi purpose travel camera; not only can you take pictures but you can use them as a hammer - for knocking in tent pegs for example, or for propping the bike up on soft ground etc :thumbup1: :rofl:

Any particular reason why you particularly want a Zenit? The couple I owned (back in the 70's) were very solidly made but with somewhat variable quality control. They were quite crude compared to the Japanese opposition but their main advantage was that they used M42 screw lenses that were cheap on the secondhand market so it didn't cost much to build up a usable set. Ok in a retro Lomo sort of way would be my conclusion these days but really don't pay much.

I want exactly zenit because of ot's quality of pictures it's got some natural noisy effect that I like so much, it does focusing really good, some of my zenit photos has such a good bokehs I love them, so it's photos need retouching in photoshop very rare I like it's natural quality very much and somehow I'm more photogenic with Zenit :D
lol about using it as a hammer good idea :D

Ask a photographer...
 

To be honest it's almost certainly the film which gives you the 'noise' (called grain in analog terms, noise is more to describe distortion from digital sensors), if not then it is from either under or over exposing, or from doing something wrong in the lab (or right if grain is your thing).

I'm almost sure that the camera you use will not affect grain, even my 12 dollar Holgas will throw out perfectly smooth photos with the right film and exposure. As for bokeh, using a fast lens (ie 2.8 or lower), generally gets you nice bokeh though some lenses are better than other. My 1932 Leica IIIa has wonderful bokeh with its 3.5 lens.

Indeed, if you just feel more of a photographer with a Zenit I would say that is a perfectly good reason to buy one. There is not a lot to go wrong with the old film cameras and your biggest concern should be if the shutter speeds are firing correctly. You can measure this accurately down to a certain speed by recording the sound with computer software and then working out the pattern in the sound wave, but you'll need to get it serviced to know for sure. Just running a test film through it will work too.