I might be in Love (Carl Zeiss 24mm 1.8 mini-review)

Carl Zeiss 24mm f1.8 lens for Sony NEX
Image at f1.8
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

We have all read and heard by word of mouth, about the so-called “legendary” glass made by lensmakers, Leitz (Leica) and Carl Zeiss. (this is a gear-review and yet another gear-head blog. So for you artists, you may want to skip on and read this guy’s blog. ).

 

For more than 35 years, I have shot various 35mm SLR/DSLR cameras and lenses. For the most part, I have found the better (“pro”) Nikon and Canon glass hard to beat, with good contrast, color, sharpness, and where applicable, bokeh. Occasionally, one of the third-party manufactures would rise to the top (I owned a Tokina ATX 300 f2.8 prime that I think goes head-to-head with its Nikon-equivalent; and a Sigma 14mm f2.8—likewise). But with the possible exception of my original Takumar 55m and 135mm lenses used with my Asihflex SLR, I have never owned (or even shot) any of the “legendary” glass.

All I can say is, “wow”!

I wasn’t born in Missouri (my younger sister was). But I lived there during my first 2 years of life (formative?). And I have always been “from Missouri” on these so-called “legendary” lenses. Could they really be that good? Could they really be that much better? The price tags certainly suggest that they “should be.” My friend and mentor, Ray Laskowitz, has been telling me how I would like the Zeiss glass and how I would probably relegate the other lenses I have already acquired for my Sony Nex-6 mirrorless camera to “paperweight” status. Since they weren’t particularly high-end (the Sigma 19 and 30 primes I reviewed recently), and not particularly expensive, I didn’t doubt that he was right—about their status.

These images are only “snapshots”

Carl Zeiss 24mm @f11
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Sigma 19mm @f3.2
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

But in spite of the “hype,” what I did not anticipate was my near-visceral reaction to seeing the Zeiss-rendered images on screen! All I can say is: “wow“! On most of the illustrative images here, I did nothing more than to adjust the contrast slightly in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), and in only the case of the Redbud branch, selectively take the “brightness” down just a smidgeon. I also did moderate “capture” sharpening on all except the one labeled “unsharpened.” I have always been one to do some “cleanup” work in Photoshop and some selective sharpening and contrast adjustment and (yes, Al  ), boost saturation in many instances.

With these images I am finding myself resisting any changes to color, saturation and for the most part contrast.  There was absolutely no saturation boost (other than the addition of some “local contrast” adjustment in ACR) to any of these images.  And, they are sharp! The raw, unsharpened image of the Bradford Pear branch illustrates that (remember, it is at f2.8 and was taken handheld).

Sigma 19mm f2.8 @f3.2
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Equally impressive (and expected) is the soft, creamy bokeh of this lens. There is none of the unpleasant, circular out of focus areas I saw in the Sigma 30mm f2.8 when shot wide open. And, these images are pure snapshots. They are all handheld, taken quickly between trips to and from work during the week. I have spent but a few minutes with the lens, but cannot wait to get it out into the field and give it a real workout.

Carl Zeiss 24mm @f1.8; UNSHARPENED
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

This lens is less than a week old to me, and yet, I am pretty sure I won’t take it off the camera very often. And, this is not even a “true” Carl Zeiss lens (though it is supposed to have all Zeiss optics). It is a co-venture with Sony and is marketed and badged as a Sony-Zeiss lens. It has the Sony e-mount and focuses fast and silently on the Nex-6. In ACR, the lens correction is found, not under the Zeiss category, but under the Sony category (threw me for a loop at first, until it dawned on me to search the database for Sony lenses).

I did not anticipate my near-visceral reaction to the Zeiss-rendered images

I have yet to do any “apples to apples” comparisons (if that is even possible). The images here are as close as I can get but are at least a week (maybe 2) apart and so the subjects have “moved on.” But it is enough to be convincing, in my judgment. In fairness, the Sigma image of the Bradford Pear is at f3.2 and the Zeiss, at f11 (I was out “snapshooting” and didn’t have the presence of mind to take an image at f11 with the Sigma. Maybe I will find the time later on to try some of those comparisons. But I don’t really think it’s necessary).

For anyone who, like me, thinks this is a first class lens worth splurging for, there is even better news. Zeiss announced this month that it will offer a series of lenses aimed squarely at the APS sized sensor, mirrorless, market (currently only for Fuji and Sony). These lenses will not be badged or co-ventured. They are pure Zeiss, but will be designed to mount on these cameras and be fully functional with the bodies, including AF. I am in, Zeiss!

The Sony NEX 16-50 “E-mount” Zoom

Barn
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Last week, I reviewed the Sony Nex-6 camera body. One of the interesting features of this line of Sony cameras is the large selection of third party lens adapters available, making it possible to mount almost any mount system lens.  While most of these lenses will use the camera’s auto focus (or any other “auto” features for that matter), they will work perfectly well in manual focus mode. There is some “quirkiness,” though. Neither the camera’s onboard information, nor the embedded EXIF information will give you the aperture value, the focal length or the shutter speed value. I used the manual metering system and the on-screen “real time” histogram feature to estimate exposure. And, it appears that on the lenses which do not have physical aperture settings, the camera will default to the smallest aperture and there does not appear to be any way to adjust that. On lenses with aperture rings, you will be able to set the aperture.  Sony does make an adapter for its own lenses (i.e., the A-mount series that mounts on its DSLR cameras) that will pass the autofocus and exposure information through to the camera body and vice versa.

I purchased the Rayqual adapter for Nikon “G” series lenses (these lenses do not have a physical f-stop selector ring, but are instead all chosen by one of the camera’s “command” dials). The G adapter will work with any existing compatible Nikon “F” mount lens (or any lens fitted to the Nikon F mount).  There are a number of manufactures that offer adapters, and reviews seem to suggest that quality of manufacture is all over the place.  The Rayqual was recommended to me by my pro friend and I thought it made sense to go with something known.  The guy at Cameraquest was very accomodating.

Of course, the camera’s “APS” sensor means you will have to apply the 1.5 field of view factor to the lens. But there are some very sharp, fully manual, older lenses out there (i.e., the venerable 50mm f1.8). I played around with a couple of my own Nikon lenses and found that in reasonable light conditions, focusing (either on the back LCD or in the viewfinder) is relatively easy.

Nikon 24-70; approximately 50mm ( 75 equivalent), f22, 100 ISO

My primary motivation for purchasing this Nex-6, though, was to find smaller, more convenient setup to use while traveling and while out walking around, that would give me image quality like I have grown to expect from my DSLR setups. The NEX has the promise of doing that, in my view. But using an adapter and manual older lenses may defeat that purpose. While they are fun to play around with, I don’t want to be doing that when I am on vacation in new places. I want to shoot and have reliably good quality results.

For that reason, the Sony E  SELP16-50 F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS zoom is a very attractive lens. The 35mm equivalent of approximately 24-75mm is a pretty useful range for “street” shooting and “walking around.” Of course, 28-300 would be nice (and they do offer that option), but it comes at the expense of size, weight, and … well, expense (the E-mount 18-200 is over $800). I don’t intend for this camera to replace my D800 DSLR. It is a significant upgrade replacement to my Canon G12, though and will undoubtedly get lots of use. As such I really wanted the 16-50 to be acceptable. It didn’t have to match up to the performance of my f2.8 Nikkors.

Sharpness:

I am pleased to say, I am pretty impressed, given the challenges the lens faces. The lens, fully retracted, measures only 1 1/2 inches long (there is a serious typo in the dpreview literature – though it would be amazing to have a zoom of this range that measured only 3/16 inches  ). The overall depth of the Nex-6 with this lens attached is a mere 2 1/2 inches! The lens is image stabilized (OSS), with a minimum focus distance of just under 10 inches. Its minimum aperture (depending on zoomed length) is between f22 and f36. It is a very lightweight addition to an already comfortably light and small body.  The barn above, was shot at 50 (75) mm at f16.  You can see that at those specs, the lens produces a relatively sharp, edge to edge result.  But how does it do at wider apertures, and at other focal lengths?  You can see in the image below of the white house that, stopped down, the lens performs nicely at its wide end (note that this was distortion-corrected in ACR using its lens database).  For daylight images, I cannot think of a reason not to stop the lens down to its “middle” ranges (f8-11-16), unless trying to obtain a specific DOF result.

16mm at f16

I will leave the technical specifications, like resolving power, distortion measurements, and other things to the technocrats and pixel peepers. My criteria was whether I was going to be able to bring home some “wall hangers,” using this lens. I think I can.

My non-scientific testing involved setting the camera up in my basement, mounted on a tripod using the same image, from a stationary position. I also used the IR remote to ensure no camera movement was involved. I am still trying to master the settings and particularly the AF technology on this little unit. To the best of my observation, the IR remote did not cause the camera to try to re-focus (which is a good thing).   However, as I glean more knowledge about the AF technology in this camera, I wonder if that is really what is happening.  From what I read, the default AF system in the camera works with “contrast detection” (as opposed to “phase detection” on most DSLR cameras).  What I am learning this means, is that the camera, when set to its AF setting, is constantly searching for a sharp exposure.  So, it may just be that in good light, the AF performance is just that good, and  and locked on when the remote triggered.

What I generally concluded was that there is little difference in sharpness from wide to small aperture and from short to long focal lengths. This is particularly true (as might be expected) in the center of the lens. But I am pleasantly surprised at the edge to edge performance. Granted, this combination is not going to be an architectural setup. Nor will it be up to the standards I generally expect from a “grand landscape” image shot with a “pro-specs” lens. But for its intended use, the results were very acceptably sharp and pleasant.  All images were at 100 ISO.

50mm @ f22

50mm @ f8

55mm f5.6

Since a common concern is whether these lenses are sharp at their longest lengths, I started there. I then tried some additional, varied settings of the same image:

16mm @ f3.5 (wide open with this lens)

16mm @ f3.5 cropped for center

16mm @ f22

23mm (approximately 50mm 35mm equivalent) @ f4

23mm @ f8

Distortion:

Sony 16-55 “uncorrected” at 16mm
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Other reviewers have noted that this lens suffers from significant distortion and some vignetting, particularly at the wide end.  The “before and after shots” here confirm this.  Both images were adjusted for contrast in my ACR raw image converter (Adobe Camera Raw), run through Dfine’s noise software and the default settings Pixel Genius’ “capture sharpening” engine.  They are otherwise uncorrected except that I applied the “lens correction” facility (again at its default settings) in ACR before opening it in Photoshop.  Some of the curvature can, of course, be attributed to the user.  A higher camera position would help here, if possible.  But you can see the pronounced curvature in the first image and the somewhat “tamer” curvature in the corrected version.  You can also see noticeable vignetting in all 4 corners of the first image and essentially no trace of it in the corrected image (no filters were used in this example, by the way, so this is the “bare” lens being demonstrated).  Sony is aware of this issue.  Again, I am not an engineer (and the world is a better place because of that ) but it is my understanding that this is a design issue that cannot be overcome at this point (somebody will figure it out some day).  This is physically a very short lens for its zoom range, and also small, working on a larger sensor than many of these smaller lenses have used in the past.  To “combat” these issues, Sony has firmware in the camera that “corrects” for this.  For Nex users that are using one of the earlier models (Nex-3, 5 or 7), it is my understanding that it will be necessary to upgrade the firmware to take full advantage of this.  Caveat:  the Sony firmware correction will only work on jpg files.  For those of you shooting jpg (there is a 10-step program for you out there ), I understand from what I have read, that this works very well indeed.  For the rest of us, some correction in post-processing will be necessary.  Adobe has done a great job of incorporating lens correction algorithms in their Light Room and ACR modules, including this lens.  I don’t have any familiarity with other raw converters or post-processing software, but it would not surprise me to find something there.  I consider the “corrected” image somewhat “normal” for this type of image, at the selected focal length of 16mm (24mm at 35mm-equivalent).

Sony 16-50 “lens-corrected” in ACR
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Bokeh:

For the few who don’t already know this, the word actually comes from the Japanese, “boke,” and refers, in loose translation, to blur.  For photography purposes, it is usually referred to as the aesthetic quality of the out of focus areas rendered by the lens.  With regard to this particular lens, I can only really refer to the last 2 letters of the word in describing my reaction to the 16-50′s Bokeh:  ”eh.”  :-).

Seriously, as I have said previously, it is a multi-purpose zoom in which Sony is trying to accomplish an awful lot of engineering, including a wide focal length range, reasonably wide apertures, and above all, very small footprint.  Given its modest price and versatility, I think they have done admirably well.  I think it would be unrealistic to expect it to stack up again virtually any prime lens and particularly the Zeiss glass or any of the Leica, Nikon, Cannon, Zuiko, Voightlander, or other “legacy” lenses that can be fitted via an adapter.  As part of my overall purchase, I picked up the pair of Sigma-manufactured e-mount f2.8 primes (19mm and 30mm).  When I get a chance to get in the field and do some real world testing, I hope to report on them. for now, here are two “test” examples.  Images are not very exciting, but given the time of year here, they are what I have to work with .  The first image is at the widest end of the lens, wide open.  The second is at the longest focal length, again, wide open.  I did not do any sharpening on these two images, so they are pretty much what you see is what you get (other than whatever PS did during the jpg conversion and resize, and I can say they looked pretty sharp on my screen as they came out of ACR).

Sony 16-50 @ f3.5; 15mm
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Sony 16-50 @ f5.6; 50mm
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

I used the same default “capture sharpening” using Pixel Genius’s “Photokit Sharpener,” and identical contrast and local contrast adjustments in ACR on all the illustrated images.  I did not do any other sharpening.

While the light was not quite as nice on the final image, I wanted to include it to show that the lens is decently sharp at the wide setting and its wide-open aperture, too.  With appropriate “creative” sharpening in post-production, I can see that this lens will produce very acceptable images.

16mm @ f3.5

Noise Reduction with NIK Dfine

Port Everglades Cruise Port – No Noise Reduction
Copyright 2012 Andy Richards

I continue to be impressed with parts of the NIK™ suite of software. In the beginning, I was prepared to find that it was a gimmick for “lightweight” users and not for Photoshop Purists. I have acknowledged the error of my ways (and my own narrow-mindedness) in a couple of recent blog posts on Viveza and Color Efex.

I continue to be impressed with parts of the NIK™ suite of software

I fell in love with the power of Viveza 2, and its ability to achieve the color and “look” enhancement that I have not been able to consistently duplicate with Photoshop and “conventional” methods such as selections, masks, etc. I have used Color Efex Pro to a lesser extent, but still, really like the simple power of its digital graduated neutral density filter (GND). While I have occasionally used the other filters in Color Efex, I could have been perfectly satisfied to have had it as an option in Viveza and skip the whole download and install of Color Efex. But now that the tool is there, I do find myself using it more than I might have thought.

For my limited HDR needs, I’ll stick to Photomatix for now

I have not tried SilverEfex, and probably won’t in the near future. For whatever reason, the whole B&W think just hasn’t tweaked my interest. I tried the HDR Efex and after playing around a bit, uninstalled it. I find its effect to be too blunt and “in your face.”  It might “just be me,” but I am not a fan of the “cartoon-like” imagery that many “HDR” affcionados tend to showcase. My HDR usage has been more of a sophisticated blending tool, to try to get the dynamic range my eye could see that technology cannot yet attain in a single image capture. For my limited HDR needs, I’ll stick to Photomatix (for now).

When I first downloaded Viveza 2, I also downloaded Pixel Genius’ Photokit Sharpener, which was recommended by my pro friend, mentor, talented photographer and post-processing guru, James Moore. His take was that the Photokit software was ever so slightly better. I have no doubt that Jim knows of what he says. I have seen his work (and you should, too). But I have come to find a comfort in the U-point technology which all of the NIK software has in common. The more I use it and the more familiar I get with it and its effect, the better I like it. I especially like the degree of localized control you have with it. So I thought it was worthwhile to try the NIK sharpening software, Sharpener Pro. And as I have used it, studied it, and learned its nuances, I have become a believer.

I have come to find a comfort in the localized control offered by U-point technology

Pixel Genius’s Photokit uses the algorithms, masks and processes that Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe and company have explained in their Real World Sharpening Book and their white papers. These guys were (and those of them remaining—sadly, the world lost Bruce Fraser to cancer a year or two back—a great loss for his friend and family, and for the digital photographic community) still are, the gurus of sharpening. And with the choice of either a white or black mask always present, it is possible to brush the effects of the sharpening in and out very effectively and to control the opacity of the mask.

Port Everglades Cruise Port – ACR noise reduction applied
Copyright 2012 Andy Richards

Having said that, I think the NIK software “control points” (using U-point technology) give me more control, especially with localized work. I have them both on my computer and will continue to use both, as I think may be most appropriate. But I can see that the workflow and consistency of method will probably continue to steer me to NIK’s estimable software programs.

I have done a fair amount of low light shooting. In fact the biggest factor that pushed me toward the so-called “full frame” technology offered by Nikon’s FX sized sensors was image quality, and low noise performance was clearly a selling point. Because of the really good low light rendering ability of these Nikon sensors (and even my D200 DX sensor was pretty darn good), and the in-camera noise reduction, the issue of noise was not something that seemed to be a problem for me.

Workflow and consistency of method will probably continue to steer me to NIK’s estimable software programs

But when I carried only my compact, Canon G-12 with its small sensor during my Caribbean cruise in 2012, I saw first-hand, the loss of image quality when noise becomes a problem.  A combination of factors, including low light and very high ISO on a small sensor (that is admittedly getting a bit long in the tooth), make for seriously damaging noise conditions.  The images here, of the Norwegian Cruise Lines “Allure of the Seas” taken from the deck of our own Ruby Princess (Princess Cruise Lines) in the early morning twilight at Ft. Lauderdale’s Port Everglades Cruise Port, couldn’t better illustrate the disastrous effect of noise on an image. All three images are from the same canon proprietary raw file. In every case, I left it at the native resolution of the G12, with no capture sharpening and no cropping. In each image, I made some basic ACR adjustments to set white and black points, squelch the highlights a bit and ad mid-ton contrast and saturation with the clarity and vibrance sliders. Once in Photoshop I boosted the saturation a bit in NIK ColorEfex Pro. I used NIK Sharpener Pro to do some localized sharpening on all 3 images.

The first image posted here is straight from the camera, with only the adjustments noted above. There were no ACR adjustments for color or contrast noise and no ACR sharpening. As you can see, it is just plain “ugly.” In the second image, I used the localized adjustment brush and added a generous amount of noise reduction in ACR (note that noise reduction generally softens the areas it is applied too; hence the adjustment brush to try to keep those areas that didn’t really need noise reduction sharp). You can see the effect of the raw converter’s noise reduction (and on a less disastrously noisy image, I have found that it is actually quite good). But it is still very visibly noisy. This is an image in which, in particular, the color (chrominance) noise is simply unacceptable.

Port Everglades Cruise Port – NIK dFine Noise Reduction
Copyright 2012 Andy Richards

In the last image, again, zero noise reduction was made in ACR. Instead, I put it into NIK Dfine and really cranked up the global noise reduction (I am still learning how to use the software to apply localized adjustments, but this is an image that is just—overall—noisy). I am impressed. While I am not suggesting this is an image under any circumstances that is acceptable in image quality as a photographic image (it may have some “artsy” potential, using some of the painting filters in Photoshop—but not as a photographic quality image), I was surprised at how “acceptable” this result is. While it is an extreme example, it demonstrates to me the value of having Dfine as part of my post processing toolbox and learning it use it subtly to increase the end result of post image processing.

A significant concern is whether new owner, Google will continue the quality and detail established by the NIK software company

I have one significant concern about NIK’s future—whether its new owner will continue the quality and detail that the NIK team established. As most are aware, software and internet giant, Google purchased NIK software sometime in 2012. When I first downloaded Viveza2, I have a couple of email exchanges with the NIK software folks. They could not have been more responsive, courteous or helpful. Not so, Google! It kind of dismays me, as I have been a Google “groupie” for some time, using iGoogle as my primary homepage (until in 2012, they unceremoniously announced they would be discontinuing it some time this year), Chrome as my main internet browser, a first adopter of Google+ (seemingly to me, a bust), and making Google my primary search engine. I communicated with them recently and got an auto responder message telling me they were “pretty busy” and responses would be 1-2 business days. That was a week ago.  No other response–whatsoever.  Are you trying to tell me something, Google?

The NIK software does lack a bit for documentation. There are two print books and an eBook out. I reviewed the original print book a while back. It was written by a former NIK employee and seems to be the best of the 3 for “getting under the hood.” I’ll review the newest offering by John Batdorf in an upcoming blog and compare the 3. But in terms of its implementation, I think NIK originally hit a solid base hit. While I would not find use for the entire suite of software, my own toolbox will continue to include, Viveza, Sharpener Pro (both of which will get regular and consistent use) and Dfine and Color Efex Pro.

Caribbean 2013

Old San Juan Fort El Morro
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

It may seem like bad timing to write a “happy” post about a cruise right now. But I am going to anyway.  I do think it is appropriate to comment on the events of the last couple weeks, however:

You would have to be pretty “out of touch” not to have seen some of the numerous recent “news” shows exposing the negative side of the cruise industry. For those passengers and their families who have experienced it, I have no doubt it is every bit the “nightmare” the media have dubbed it. I am truly sympathetic to them. And it goes without saying, that the gutless and criminal acts of the captain last year, whose irresponsible acts took the lives of passengers is reprehensible. We cannot excuse such conduct. But at the same time, we cannot stop living our lives. In the past week I have wondered why the cruise industry as a whole hasn’t taken a hard inward look at their safety and disaster response programs. Wouldn’t it be feasible, for example, for the industry to coalesce to build and jointly own a small fleet of “rescue” ships, dedicated to responding to these situations?

There is a lot of “good” news in the cruise industry, too. For each of the disasters we have seen in the past couple years (and I have no doubt there have been numerous, previously unreported – or lesser reported situations – after all, these are man-made mechanical contraptions being run by imperfect human beings), there are hundreds of “event”-free cruises. Far from veterans yet, my wife and I have been on 3 cruises in the past 3 years and are headed on what might well be the most exciting one to come, in the Mediterranean, in September. More (lots more) on that later. So far, ours have been all of what we expected. Maybe if we have a bad experience, I’ll sing a different tune, but for now, we will keep participating.

For the traveling photographer (and probably for lots of other travelers), cruising has its pros and cons. The main advantage in our minds is that we get to see parts of the world we have never seen. In some cases, we may see parts of the world we might not otherwise see (without being on a boat of some description, we could never see some of the things we did during our Alaskan “Inside Passage” cruise). A secondary advantage is the existence of nice quarters which do not require us to repack and move our luggage several times. Having a 5-star restaurant aboard, with “regular” reservations is an added plus.

For the traveling photographer, cruising has its pros and cons

We had formerly cruised on one cruise line (Princess), partly because we have been very pleased with their accommodations and the way they handle things, and partly because we thought it made sense to gain the “status” that repeat cruisers get. But this year, we were given a unique opportunity to join nearly 100 other members of a private “wine club” we joined on our 2011 visit to Napa Valley, California. Bart and Barb Obrien, the proprietors of O’brien Estate vineyard and winery, became our gracious hosts for a week long Caribbean Cruise adventure on the Celebrity Reflection. They offered a package, which included a (not surprisingly) several wine-oriented events during the week, as well as all the other expected cruise amenities, and ports of call. This third cruise for us was the first time my wife and I ventured on a cruise without knowing any other passengers. We are glad we went, and we made some great new friends. It was great getting to know you, Bart, Barb, Lou, Penny, Jay and (the other  ) Lou, John, Agata, Mike, Susan, Mike and many others. We had so much fun, I barely had time to devote to photography.  There were lifelong memories and hopefully, lifelong friends gained from this cruise.

Old San Juan Artisan’s Market
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Our Cruise Ship from the Fort San Cristobal; Old San Juan
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

For photographers, there is the proverbial “good news and bad news.” The bad news, is that you are often (usually) in ports during the worst shooting light (arriving in the early morning and usually departing in the late afternoon to early evening – precisely the times when most of us want to be set up and on location). Along with that, ports of call are commonly no more than a day, during daylight hours. This means very little time to find, and shoot scenes. The opportunity for night shooting on shore is rare. And, most cruises (it’s the nature of the thing) have some days when you are “at sea” between destinations. There is not much to point your lens at off the boat (unless you like vast expanses of open ocean), and only so much to shoot on board. Once you have “been there and done that,” it may be time to put the camera down and just relax and enjoy a little downtime and your family.

There were lifelong memories and hopefully, lifelong friends gained from this cruise

On the other hand, there are some unique opportunities from the deck. We have spoiled ourselves. I have never been in an “inside” berth and cannot see the point. If I am going to pay the $ for a cruise, I want my own balcony deck. On the inside passage cruise, my tripod lived on the deck and much of the time, I was out their behind the lens. That deck could be seen from some folks on higher decks, and I got to be known as “camera guy” by some of our neighboring passengers as they would ask what I was seeing. We try to do our homework and make sure we are in the right side of the ship to see things we may cruise by.

Old San Juan Harbor
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Being up on the high vantage point a cruise ship affords and out in the water, you often have unique views. The image of “Old San Juan” from off shore, could only be obtained by a boat or a plane. And a small boat would not have given us the high vantage point (the downside is that you are moving rather fast, relative to your subject).

Being up on the high vantage point a cruise ship affords and out in the water, you often have unique views

One of my favorite images (myonly regret is that it was taken handheld with my Canon G12 P&S—the only equipment I had with me) is the (2012) dawn images of the boats moored in St. Thomas, with the lights of Charlotte Amalie up the hillside in the background, as our cruise ship came into port early in the morning. This kind of “birds-eye” view perspective could only have been accomplished from the unique vantage point of a large ocean vessel that could get me high above the water—like a cruise ship.

St. Thomas Harbor
Copyright 2012 Andy Richards

This year’s Caribbean Cruise took us to Old San Juan, Puerto Rico, back to St. Maarten, and to St. Kitts, as our ports of call. The old fort(s) on San Juan were the highlight, photographically, in my view of this year’s Caribbean adventure. San Juan is a major starting cruise port for the Southern Caribbean, and I can see spending a day or two back there before boarding the ship on our next Caribbean cruise (which will likely venture into the Southern Caribbean). We arrived in port a about 3:00 in the afternoon, and were back on the ship by 10:30, so it was a different time frame than we were used to. There are colorful buildings and narrow streets in Old San Juan, and I am sure there were some night shooting opportunities. We went ashore with our new friends Lou and Penny and focused (pun intended), tripod-based shooting was not in the cards. We did get nice images from the high view of the San Cristobal Fort, however. I think the colorful, pastel palate of much of the Caribbean is made to order for color photographers.

Old San Juan from San Cristobal
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

The old fort(s) on San Juan were the highlight, photographically, in my view of this year’s Caribbean adventure

In 2012, I fell in love with the laid-back, “island feel of St. Maarten.” However, we confined our day to Philipsburg, on the Dutch side, and I wanted to “explore” the rest of the island this year. This year, we took a tour of the entire island, spending an hour or two in the French capitol city of Marigot, and seeing most of the other sites. We ended at the relatively famous bar that skirts the beach at the Princess Juliana International Airport, where I have my on major regret of the trip. I really messed up here with one of the things I have preached and preached on this blog—the old “Boy Scout Motto,” be prepared! This is the beach where the planes land coming in directly overhead. It is a pretty awesome sight, and one which, while hackneyed, would be nice to have in your portfolio. We were there for only an hour and only one jet liner was scheduled to land. We had about 45 minutes to its scheduled landing, so we sat at the bar and ordered a drink. We were at a major tourist destination with hundreds of people, so I left the camera in the backpack I was carrying to be more discrete. The plane arrived and landed 20 minutes before the scheduled time, while I sat and watched, my camera still in my backpack! . Of course I know planes are often ahead and/or behind schedule. I will probably be on St. Maarten again, and will probably go back better prepared.

Somewhere in St. Maarten
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

It’s hard not to like the Caribbean Islands

Our last stop was St. Kitts. The islands of Nevis and St. Kitts are an independent sovereignty. The population is very diverse, but appears to be very British influenced, with English being one of the main languages spoken. They also drive on the (“wrong” ) side of the road there, which can be an unnerving experience for us “ugly Americans.” Up until 2005, the main economic engine of St. Kitts was its state-owned sugar cane industry. Due to economic conditions, including the removal of subsidies by the EEC, they closed down this industry in 2005. Our guide told us there were refineries, rum distilleries and the like in St. Kitts until that time. Now, their primary industry is tourism and they have been in the process of gearing up for the Cruise line industry. They only have docking facilities for at the most 3 cruise ships (when we were in St. Maarten, there were 8 ships in port), at this time. There are several towns in St. Kitts and its diverse geography includes beautiful sandy beaches and a complete rainforest.

Abandoned Sugar Plantation; St. Kitts
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

It’s hard not to like these Caribbean Islands. Its warm, the people are friendly, and the food and drink is good. I know I’ll travel back to explore those places I haven’t yet seen, and to return to some of them I have.

St. Kitts
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards