The Martini Bar Celebrity Apex [Copyright Andy Richards 2022 All Rights Reserved]THE NEXT scheduled port was Helsinki, Finland. But first, we had another day at sea. Our ship, the Celebrity Apex, was “new” to us. The second in the “Edge” class (there are now 3 of them, the 3rd being the Celebrity Beyond, with a 4th under construction) line, it was essentially identical to the “Edge” which we had cruised on in the Mediterranean in 2019. The only differences that I could perceive were some of the sculptures and the addition of the Craft Social Bar.
it occurred to me that some of the things around the ship might lend themselves to – well – “playing” with the fisheye lens
WHEN I changed up to the Olympus m4/3 setup, I picked up a third-party, inexpensive manual, 7mm wide-angle lens (14mm 35mm equivalency). I have a similar one for my Sony gear, which I use for extra-wide landscapes and some night shooting. I carried the new Olympus-fitted lens with me in Portugal in June, for some street and architectural shooting. I didn’t do my homework. 🙂 The lens was essentially the same as the Sony-fitted lens, including the manufacturer. So I thought (or perhaps better said: “didn’t think). The m4/3 7mm is a “fisheye” lens. The Sony-fitted one is not (wide lenses that are corrected for distortion are known as “rectilinear.” I have a rectilinear wide-angle lens for the Olympus now 🙂 ). I had a “fisheye” lens years back for my Sony NEX-6, just to play with. The fisheye creates round distortion. Substantial distortion. When I got back from the Portugal trip, I spent a lot of time in perspective correction (more than I think it is worth). I replaced it with a rectilinear wide zoom. Much better. There is still distortion (a completely “flat” rectilinear lens is all but impossible to create, and the engineering and technology makes them very expensive – especially if you are looking for branded and autofocus lenses). But the fisheye was cheap, so I kept it. I thought (I still think so) it might be fun for some “creative” shooting. As I was packing for this cruise, it occurred to me that some of the things around the ship might lend themselves to – well – “playing” with the fisheye lens.
Fisheye vs. Rectilinear Lenses Celebrity Apex {Copyright Andy Richards 2022 All Rights Reserved]
IN THE deck image above, you can see the difference between the perspectives of these two lenses. They are not identical in focal length, but as close as I have. The fisheye is 7.5mm and the rectilinear is shot at 9mm. You can see that just that 1/5mm difference includes a lot more in the photo. But if you don’t like the distortion, by the time you correct it in post-processing it may even show less in the image. I don’t think I would be disappointed in either of these images from a perspective standpoint (as long as you accept that one is clearly distorted from reality). The only thing I am slightly “bothered” by is the sea/horizon. I would probably play around in post and see if I could level that up. Tilting a fisheye lens can either ameliorate or exacerbate the inherent distortion in the lens, depending on circumstances. In the Martini Bar image at the beginning of the post, tilting the camera underplayed the fisheye effect enough that the image is not an unpleasant wide-angle result. But my experience has been that that is unpredictable. Here, I was well back from the subject and that, too, helps.
I TRIED to play around with some other subjects around the ship, but mostly, I am just not “feeling” the results. The image below is kind of reminiscent of those shots you see where the photographer lies down on his back and shoots upward into a tree canopy. interesting. But no “wall-hanger.” Lots of blue space. And check out that horizon on the ocean in this one.
Celebrity Apex [Copyright Andy Richards 2022 All Rights Reserved]ONE THING I have observed is that this kind of lens is best if it is extremely close up (in the image below, I cropped my feet out of the bottom), or back far enough that the effects of the fisheye are not as pronounced (as in the Martini Bar image). I think there are instances that lend themselves to the fisheye lens – particularly, whimsical subjects – but it is definitely a limited and special purpose lens.
Modern Sculpture woman looking in window [Copyright Andy Richards 2022 All Rights Reserved]W
HEW! I got that out of my system. 🙂 Now on to the next port and maybe some better images.
Douro River Valley Pinhao, Portugal [Copyright Andy Richards 2022 All Rights Reserved]WE SPENT our first full day of our 4 “Porto days,” . . . well . . . not in Porto. Porto is the namesake of Portugal’s most famous wine: Port (one of my vivid childhood memories was of frequent Sunday dinners at my grandparents’ house, in the city where I grew up. My grandpa was a great influence in my life. In addition to the many life-principles he imparted over the years, there were two things that always stood out in my memory. Grandpa smoked a pipe almost non-stop. His tobacco was Prince Albert. I loved the smell both before and after ignition of his pipe tobacco.
Taylor’s Bottling and Packaging Facility Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal [Copyright Andy Richards 2022 All Rights Reserved]MY SECOND memory of Grandpa was that after dinner, invariably, he would bring out his bottle of Taylor’s Tawny Port. When I got older, I thought it was cheap wine. In Portugal recently, I was surprised to learn that Taylor’s was not a “Ripple” lookalike, but a respected British vineyard which produces high end port wine in Portugal. Who knew? Thinking about it, I should have (Grandpa always had discerning taste). And, while in Portugal, I actually learned the meaning of “tawny” port. While there are certainly other iterations, the primary categories of port wine are: Ruby, Rose’, and Tawny. The Ruby is the most common and considered the lower quality of the wines. The Tawny is aged in wooden barrels (unlike the others) and is considered the premium. It also tends to be the sweetest. Surprisingly, The longer port wine ages, the lighter its color. Often, when whiskey tasting, we associate very dark color with age and quality. With port, it is generally the opposite. Another thing we learned. You often see port wine described as “fortified.” I used to think that was how they accomplished higher alcohol content (and perhaps taste better). What they are actually doing with fortification is stopping the fermentation process. This is a defining characteristic of port wine. There. Now you know everything I know about port wines. And it’s not much. In fact, I am certain the true experts will find a lot of error in my descriptions. 🙂 There are large facilities in Porto, including some pretty well-known ones like Taylor’s and Sandeman.
Douro River Valley Vineyards [Copyright Andy Richards 2022 All Rights Reserved]BUT FOR port wine, the real deal is east of the city, in the Douro River Valley. And that was where we were headed on this day. Our driver/guide, Jorge, met us outside our hotel in the morning, for the 2 hour drive out to the Douro Valley. We had scheduled stops, including lunch at a vineyard, and wine tasting at two vineyards. We also took a short river cruise and stopped at one of the high viewpoints. Before our first destination – the river boats – Jorge stopped at a local bakery and coffee shop. Very out-of-the way, it was obvious to us that this was a place where local residents shopped and gathered. The fresh bakery had some wonderful looking (and smelling) loaves of bread on display. I wish that I had a way to keep it – or even use it, but we were staying in hotels.
Douro River Valley Tour Boat Minhao, Portugal [Copyright Andy Richards 2022 All Rights Reserved]AFTER OUR quick pit stop for coffee, we headed to the dock in the tiny little town of Minhao, where we boarded one of the river tour boats. We took about a 45 minute down and back cruise on the Douro River. Jorge did not join us on the boat, and there was no guide or narrative, so we were mostly sightseeing. It is not difficult to see why the valley is such a popular touring spot. And, I suppose there is a fair amount of vacation traffic there, too. Most vineyards, as far as the eye can see, it is not the typical, flat, river bottom land I am used to seeing in the American mid-west. The foothills rise rapidly on both sides of the river but are well terraced and planted with a mix of grapevines and olive trees. It is very picturesque. These boats, by the way, are essentially copies of the boats used to ship the grapes/wine down the Douro River, to Porto, for processing, bottling and marketing many years ago.
Douro River Valley Vineyards [Copyright Andy Richards 2022 All Rights Reserved]
THE VALLEY is large geographical area, but not very densely populated. Many of the local residents travel a way to shop for necessities like groceries, and also to commute to work. There is a local commuter train that runs on a pretty regular schedule along the river on the valley floor.
Commuter Train Douro River Valley [Copyright Andy Richards 2022 All Rights Reserved]AFTER RETURNING to the dock, we moved on to two different vineyards. Our first stop included tasting of several wines – more or less in the traditional fashion, starting with a white and moving on to a couple of their more complex reds. I thought the aging barrels in this vineyard – traditional wood stave, but still in use – were unique by their size.
Douro River Valley Vineyard [Copyright Andy Richards 2022 All Rights Reserved]AT THE second vineyard, we tasted two of their wines – a white and a red – along with a very nice meal of pork and risotto. One of the indoor dining areas was kind of cool. It was built around the old stone tanks where the family, friends and workers at the vineyard stomped the grapes back in the day.
Douro River Valley Vineyard [Copyright Andy Richards 2022 All Rights Reserved]T
HERE IS lots to see in this lush, green river valley. For the landscape photographer, it is a place that invites exploration, and the desire to be there during early and late golden hours. We weren’t able to do that, but I know Jose’ Manuel Santos (who you will learn much more about very soon) through his Pictury Photo Tours, leads extended tours into the Douro Valley. Maybe I will go back one day and take one of Jose’s tours. In the meantime, I will have my memories of the valley – mostly made from the river boat, to keep.
Douro River Valley Minhao, Portugal [Copyright Andy Richards 2022 All Rights Reserved]Douro River Valley Minhao, Portugal [Copyright Andy Richards 2022 All Rights Reserved]
[While I generally do not post more often than weekly, I am going to stick a couple of these “interlude” posts in between my normal Saturday (ish) schedule. Traditionally, I have posted a “Fall Foliage Time is Here” post, with some thoughts about preparation – both physical and mental for this very special photographic season. I am, of course, in the middle of a series on my trip to Portugal (and that will be rather closely followed by recounts of trips to the Baltic region, and the Mediterranean this fall). My “fall color” will not be foliage this year, but I will be living vicariously through my friends who will be out shooting the foliage – particularly in Vermont. I have had this post queued up for a while now, and have been trying to think when it would best fit in. I think, given that the very busiest season for most of my photographic acquaintances is almost on top of us, it is now or never. Indeed, since this involves some items of equipment, it may even be too late (there is always Amazon and overnight delivery). For a more foliage-specific preparation piece, I posted one hereon the Vermont Foliage Fanatics FB Page.] 🙂
THIS IS not a new topic for me. It is a bit of a reprise of a similar post I wrote a few years back. So much has changed in the photographic world since I started shooting seriously in 1997. While I am not sure that much has changed about the essentials I will cover below, I do think it is an appropriate time to have another conversation about it (or maybe I just ran out of fresh, new topics to write about 🙂 ). We have spent thousands of words and hours talking about the changeover from film to digital capture – and then within the topic of digital capture, from the DSLR camera to mirrorless technology. At the same time, technological advances that would have come with or without the advent of digital capture (like image stabilization and autofocus) have also driven change. With this new camera technology came lens design changes, first, to accommodate the image-circle changes of APS and M4/3 sensors, and then to take advantage of the rear element to image plane distance changes resulting from mirrorless. And we haven’t even said anything about so-called “computational photography.”
WHILE THIS quantum change has been taking place among camera, lens and image media, it seems to me that the accessories I think are essential in the field, haven’t really changed much. Rather, they – and their usage – have only enjoyed perhaps more subtle changes. Tripods have largely moved from aluminum construction to carbon fiber. They have become lighter, and in some cases smaller and more streamlined. But their essential design and function remains unchanged. Camera bag design has not really changed a whole lot, though there has been a pretty much universal move away from the traditional reporter/messenger style bag to backpack styles. But in terms of changes to bag design, the only thing noteworthy is that their organizational components now reflect the newer “gadgets” we carry around, like memory cards, card readers, battery chargers and laptop/tablets. There are many, many accessories that photographers carry around today. Some of them are specialized and reflect the shooter’s particular needs or interests. Others are gadgets. They may or may not be worth the money and effort of carrying them around. I personally think “bags” are an area that could use some innovation. I have owned many of them (though I am sure not as many as a lot of others have), including reporter-style and backpacks. I currently have the smallest available LowePro backpack – but never carry it in the field. It is my travel-carryon bag, and what I keep in the car to work out of. But I hate carrying a heavy and cumbersome bag. So, as “dorky” as it may look, my plain old Eddie Bauer vest is still my preferred “carry.” There are, however, some accessories that are – I think – fundamental to the process of sound photography. You may not agree with me on my list, but the following are things I consider simply indispensable to my success in the field.
You don’t need a Lexus or Mercedes
Tripod. You might wonder if, in this day of in-body, multi-axis image stabilization in modern cameras, a tripod really is necessary? The very short answer: yes. There are many reasons to have – and carry – a tripod (even for your smartphone!). To be sure, IS and IBIS (image stabilization technology) have substantially decreased –but not eliminated – those uses. The ability of today’s sensors to handle very high ISO speeds has also put some limits on the need for a tripod. And there have (and will) always been circumstances in which using a tripod or other fixed platform is impractical, impossible – or at the very least, undesirable. There have certainly been some very talented photographers over the years who have shot mostly handheld. But they understand both the necessary technique and the compromises that are often involved. But there are still situations that call for (or at least recommend) a tripod, and in my opinion, it is a fundamental (perhaps the fundamental) accessory. Aside from the situations where a stable camera platform is a necessity, there are times when its just a good idea. If – all other things being equal – you are in a situation where you can use a tripod and there is a chance it will enhance your shot, why wouldn’t you? I appreciate the downsides. They are clunky to set up and attach your camera to. Slow, too (which – it can be argued – might just be a positive). They are heavy to carry and ungainly to transport. I address some of that by owning a couple different tripods these days. Both carbon fiber, my “workhorse” tripod is medium-large, and made of carbon fiber. I believe from some unscientific testing of my own, that carbon is stiffer, than aluminum alloy, at any given same dimension. It is also lighter. My primary tripod fits inside my medium checked luggage. Because of the head I use (see below), I do have to take my very short center-column out of the legset). But when shooting with my landscape gear (Sony A7rii and lenses), I would not make a trip, or venture into the field, without it. I also have a much smaller, also carbon fiber, tripod. It is so small that its stability – when compared to a full-size tripod – is compromised. But with good bracing and technique, it serves well as a stable platform in instances when a tripod is necessary and carrying the full-sized rig is just not tenable. That means about 95% of my travel these days. The compromise works because I use much smaller and lighter equipment with this one.
I don’t give you advice because I think I am smarter than you. I give it to you based on all the stupid things I have already done 🙂
Best Use: This is going to sound wildly counter to my advocacy, but the best way to use the tripod, in my view, is to not use it. 🙂 At first. I know many photographers who believe that the fixed nature of the tripod inhibits their creative approach to composition. Perhaps it does. Unless I have pre-scouted a location or am acting on information learned from research or others, I frequently start my shooting process with my camera in hand and off the tripod. This way, I can look at different approaches and then upon finding my spot, can bring the tripod to that place. I think too often, that we just want to set the tripod up at standing eye-level. While I can’t argue that eye-level probably the most comfortable level to shoot from, it is not necessarily the best. That is why they are adjustable. 🙂 We get lazy. I see that often in two forms. The first is when we just leave the camera attached and set up our tripod at eye-level. I confess I am altogether too often guilty of this infraction. The second is that we don’t bother to use the tripod. In both cases, we may well be compromising our best work!
Quality: Aside from the move to carbon fiber, and the innovation of the ball and gimbal heads, tripods today do not significantly differ from the tools used by photographers during the last 50 years. They remain, to steal a cleverly named company’s words: a “three-legged thing,” that we use to support our camera equipment. While less expensive carbon fiber and machine tooling from China has revolutionized the industry in terms of purveyors as well as manufacture, old line companies like Gitzo and Manfrotto (Bogen) still have high quality entries in the marketplace. While Gitzo has always held the position of top-of-the line, though, relative newcomer, Really Right Stuff (to the best of my knowledge, manufactured in the U.S. – but it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that parts are sourced outside the U.S.) has come on strong. Indeed, I view it as the Lexus to Gitzo’s Mercedes Benz, when Lexus hit the scene some years back. And there are many other competitors that make good-quality, affordable equipment. It is easy to find a reasonable-cost alternative in today’s market.
Don’t “Cheap” out: There are also some very cheap alternatives available. And by “cheap,” I really mean not very well made and not very durable. I owned 2 or 3 of them before sound advice and experience led me to my first well-made Bogen leg set. Here is my advice on tripods (and I recently read something I really like: “I don’t give you advice because I think I am smarter than you. I give it to you based on all the stupid things I have already done.”) 🙂 If it is being sold at Best Buy, K-Mart, or the like, you are probably wasting your money. You don’t need a Lexus or Mercedes. But you do need a solid, well-constructed unit. Don’t buy the $45 special at best buy. Be prepared to spend minimum of $200 for a good tripod (perhaps more for carbon fiber). I don’t think of carbon fiber as an absolute requirement. But it is demonstrably stiffer and lighter. I have moved to it and don’t regret it as I get older. If you aren’t in a positition for whatever reason to acquire a good quality new tripod, there is also a good used Market. You can still find quality aluminum tripods (in fact, if you are going to go that route, I recommend you look out there on the eBay type sites for a good set of used Bogen legs (classics are 3001; 3011), which can be found for less than $100, and then attach your own separate head. These are some very good, reliable tripods. The old adage is that if you buy a cheap one, you will ultimately buy (at least 2) because you will eventually buy the better one. Just do it once, is my advice. 🙂
. . . think about your purposes and style of shooting
Tripod Headsare also an important consideration. There is going to be some divergence of opinion here. My own view is to go back to my premise on another post (Evaluating Your Gear) and think about your purposes and style of shooting.
3-way. My first Bogen tripod came with the venerable Bogen 3-way Pan-tilt head. It was large, heavy, and like the rest of the tripod: inconvenient. It was especially inconvenient to pack for flights (I usually removed it from the legs and removed the 3 adjusting levers from the head; a cumbersome and annoying process, which of course meant re-assembling everything when you arrived and then repeating the process on return). But once assembled it was also very easy to use and to adjust, especially for landscape photos and other “stationary” subjects.
1980’s era 3-way Pan/Tilt Head with Bogen/Manfortto Hexagon Quick Releas Plate
Ball-head. For moving subjects, though, it was cumbersome. The three-way head was the traditional head on all tripods for a long time. Then (astonishingly, a 20-minute Google search did not give me the answer to when the ball-head first became available), the ball head was introduced, and it has become the most popular and ubiquitous head in use today. It is easy to use, moves omni-directionally for moving subjects, and tension can be adjusted, making it easier to move and react to those subjects. By comparison to the traditional 3-way, the ball-head is very compact. Earlier models required the ball portion to be large in order to firmly hold the camera, and its biggest negative has always been what is referred to as “ball-creep,” meaning you would get your composition adjusted, tighten things up, and the weight of the camera/lens, would creep everything downward. Ican also be difficult to make the small moves you often want for precision in a stationary subject. It can be frustrating. Probably the best head I ever had was a very large ball. No ball creep. Locked down solid. Also seconded as an anchor for my canoe. 🙂 It was probably the heaviest piece of gear I had.
Modern Ball Head with Arca-Swiss type dovetail Quick Release Mount
Gimbal. At some point, bird-in-flight shooters realized that this still wasn’t the best solution for moving targets – especially with a long, heavy lens attached. Someone invented the gimbal mount. Usually, the lens has a built-in foot that mounts in the center of the gimbal. It works very well, with smooth, easy motion – again generally omnidirectionally. But it seems to me to be a specialized mount, which for most of us is, in addition to being expensive, is large, and cumbersome to pack.
Gimbal Head
Geared-Head. A variation on the 3-way pan/tilt head, I have found my own “nirvana” when it comes to tripod heads: the geared 3-way pan-tilt head. My tripod shooting is 99% fixed subjects. My composition often means that I find an adjustment and want it to stay (no ball creep) or want to be able to fine-tune it with very small movements. It works for me wonderfully, with the ability to make micro moves in all three directions (but still have the ability to easily make large moves). It is solid. The one I use is magnesium and as such is relatively light weight. And on the tripod, it is also relatively compact (compared with the traditional pan-tilt head). It works for me, but like all photography equipment, there are compromises. It is still cumbersome to travel with; considerably more compact than the traditional 3-way, but less so than most ball heads. I remove the center column (I use only a very short one), head attached and pack that and the legs separately. There are very few models available (in contrast with the ball head, of which there are many). They are not inexpensive (they range from about $200 to well into the $1000’s, for the high end, Arca-Swiss Model). For years there were only 2: the very expensive Arca Swiss, and an expensive, but considerably less so, Bogen model. The downside to the Bogen was that is was cast with Bogen’s less-than-optimal, proprietary quick-release mechanism. In the past few years, Benro ($200) and a company called LeoPhoto ($450 – 500 and only appears to be available directly from mfgr. or on eBay) have offered models. I use the Benro. It is not the greatest fit and finish, but it works exactly as described and was a reasonable-cost alternative for me. The LeoPhoto looks very nice, well-built, and is slightly lighter weight.
Benro 3-way Geared Head
I suspect the majority of you will settle upon a good quality ballhead.
Camera Plates. The quick-release camera plate has become a ubiquitous accessory for most shooters who use a tripod. Traditionally, it was required that you screw the base of the camera (most had a threaded socket) directly onto a fixed plate on the tripod. This was not only cumbersome but did not always have the positive hold on the camera that is really needed especially in the “portrait” orientation. With physically longer and heavier lenses, the screw could loosen, causing the camera to rotate. And if you shot multiple bodies, or had to remove it for some reason, it was time consuming and annoying. Of course, this combination probably made it less likely that a lot of people would even use their tripod. Eventually, someone came up with the QR (quick-release) concept. There are a couple different styles available. Probably the two most common are the “Arca-Swiss” design, and the proprietary Bogen hexagon plate. Of the two, the Arca-Swiss (subject to some controversy) has probably become the standard to which most manufactures build. It is disarmingly simple (a dovetail plate with female dovetail accepting clamp). This makes it easy to manufacture, and a very sure, solid attachment (assuming you remember to tighten the clamp properly). The Bogen is – in my view – less effective. It involves a more complicated spring/clamp arrangement that I think is less secure. I owned Bogen tripods with the hexagon plate and clamp arrangement for many years. I have to confess that I never felt as secure about the attachment as I do now with Arca-Swiss style clamp and plate.I would only recommend the Arca-Swiss style QR today.
Dovetail L-Bracket
The L-plate is an indispensable camera accessory in my opinion
L-Plate. Second only to the Tripod, this is an indispensable camera plate in my opinion. One of the things I noted above was the tendency of the old-school direct screw mount to slip and rotate in the portrait position. Unless you have a dedicated plate (designed to fit the body), this also happens, unfortunately, with the QR plates. It is essentially the same issue – the screw loosens and the weight of the gear rotates the camera downward. Having a dedicated plate with a lip which fits the camera body partially fixes this issue.
The “Axis of Equal.” (see what I did there?) 🙂 But there is still a problem: axis. Using any tripod head to photograph in the “portrait” orientation is an awkward process. The design of the head in its “normal” position, is to hold the camera/lens straight up on the same axis as the center of the tripod. Rotating the head to portrait position requires moving the body off-axis and hanging it to the side of the tripod. In addition to losing some of the range of movement of the apparatus, this partially defeats the “three-legged” stability of the tripod and creates just an overall inconvenient situation. Enter the L-plate: a really ingenious piece; and something I never am without. The L plate has Arca Swiss style, QR dovetails on two axes. This means that you can shift from Landscape to Portrait orientation quickly, efficiently, and securely, while the camera remains on the same axis. This means you rarely need to change positions for composition, other that perhaps some fine-tuning. It also gives you the full range of motion for your tripod head. On my Sony, (which rarely gets used without a tripod), the L-plate stays permanently attached. On my travel camera, I leave it off unless I am using it on a tripod, as its bulk begins to defeat the purpose of the nice small body. That camera is probably being handheld 90% of the time anyway. There are a couple negatives to the L-plate. Perhaps the most vexing is that the axis arm for portrait shooting can cover up the electronics accessory ports. Some of this may be a design issue. Unfortunately, brackets are made (and designed) by third party companies, and I doubt there is much communication between them and the camera companies. 🙂 Some of the better designed brackets include cutouts for these ports. One particularly vexing issue for me is that the L-bracket for my Sony A7rii covers the only port I would be inclined to use: the plug-in for a wired remote. Fortunately, Sony cameras support wireless remotes. Unfortunately (including their own branded wireless remote), they don’t work really well. On my Olympus, they accommodatingly put all the ports on the opposite side of the body. But because it is old (and, I suspect because it is probably more of a handheld user’s camera), there are not many brackets made to fit it. The marketplace has plenty of competition for Nikon, Canon and Sony. For the older Olympus models: not so much. Really Right Stuff made one. Their stuff is really well designed and made. And it is really expensive. I have been able to find functional and affordable alternatives. Finally, if you have the Bogen hexagon QR, there is only one alternative for the L-Bracket, made by Bogen. I am not sure it is still available, and I had to work hard to find one even years back. And it is clunky, heavy and – like the entire QR apparatus, just not great.
L-Bracket – Axis is same in both Landscape and Portrait shooting modes
Dedicated Fitting Critical. Like the QR plates discussion above, it is really important that you find and purchase an L-Bracket that is dedicated to your camera body. They will contain a lip, or step or some other means of locking the bracket to the body to avoid rotational movement. The so-called “universal” L-brackets are – in my opinion – a complete waste of money. They will rotate, and, as such completely negate the value of the L-bracket. Unfortunately, one of the things this means is that you will need a dedicated bracket for each body you intend to use on the tripod (in order to take advantage of the convenience the QR system offers). It also means that you will generally find yourself purchasing a new one each time you acquire a different body, as they change, even within models, for the most part. Market forces can make this an expensive accessory. This is unfortunate, as it is one of the least complex accessories, and should be easy to manufacture and sell inexpensively. Because they must be dedicated in order to really be effective, and because there are many different camera bodies, and many new ones being released, the market is small, enabling higher pricing. But it is one accessory I would not go without. I truly believe that after you use one, you will feel the same.
Remote Shutter Release. While this isn’t as critically essential, in my mind, as the above accessories, it just makes sense. The primary purpose for a tripod is to provide an immovable base for your camera. There are three ways you can get blurry images: focus, subject movement, and camera movement. With proper tripod accessories and technique, we can eliminate the camera movement component. So, it stands to reason that you would not want to go to the expense and trouble of the tripod and accessories above, and then chance camera movement by touching the otherwise rigid setup. I used a remote most of the time. Having said that, it is possible to work without. One way is to use the camera’s self-timer mechanism. I never do that. I don’t like that you don’t have control of the precise time to trip the shutter. The other is – in spite of all I have said about a rigid support – sometimes you actually can improve the stability of the support by having hands on the setup. If the wind is blowing things around, sometimes leaning on the rig with good technique helps and in that case you can probably trip the shutter by hand. But all-in-all, remotes are a relatively inexpensive, and well-invested item.
Hot Shoe Bubble Levels
Level. Seems like a small thing. Maybe also seems gimmicky. It’s not. It’s essential. And inexpensive. And it never lies. This is an accessory I still keep on my camera. When I first started shooting, a bubble level (costing just a couple dollars), attached to the camera hot shoe, was an essential item. I once thought my “eye” was good enough to see level through the view finder. Time and again I proved myself wrong. Then I reasoned that the “rule-of-thirds” guidelines (going all the way back to my Nikon film cameras) would allow me to determine level and perpendicular. Again, I was wrong more often than I liked. The level was almost always right (sometimes you will get a composition where nothing is – or nothing is supposed to be – level). Today, many of the modern EVF cameras have a level built into them (generally both on the screen on the back and in the viewfinder). Properly calibrated, they work. If your camera has one, turn it on. Oh, and by the way, the bubble levels should be “calibrated” too. They are generally cheap, and they can be “off.” I used to buy 2 or 3 of them and use my accurate carpenter’s level on a very flat, level surface to check them. The same thing can be done with the in-camera level. Trust me – if you use one of these, you will spend a lot less time straightening in post processing.
On-Screen/viewfinder level
There are two schools of thought about filters
Filters. Filters have always been a mildly controversial topic. Indeed, I have my own strongly held views on filters. There have long been two schools of thought here (and like many things in life, neither school is right – or wrong). One school says why would you spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a piece of quality, sophisticated glass and not have some protection on the front of it? It is a view that has merit, I guess. It is also a view that plays into the hands of the camera stores. “You need a skylight (or similar) for that expensive glass you just purchased.
The other school. Why would you spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a piece of quality, sophisticated glass designed to help you make great images, and put a cheap (or perhaps any) additional piece of glass in front of it? I am from this latter school. And sometimes, I have an answer to the question. My “better” question is: is there a reason to put something on the front of the lens?” I can think of 3 instances. First, if I am going to use the lens in a “dirty” environment (think salt-water shooting, or sandstorm conditions, for example) and want to keep the front element from getting damaged. Second, I may use a neutral density filter in order to control overly bright lighting, when I may want to have slower shutter speeds. And here is one of the changes that modern digital technology has brought. It is often possible to manipulate settings in a more extreme way than we could “back in the day.” It is much easier to make in-camera exposure adjustments (in ISO, shutter speed, etc., with today’s modern digital cameras). It is also much easier to make multiple and blended exposures digitally. And third, I use a polarizing filter to cut glare in certain conditions. If I don’t have a reason to do so, I never put anything on the front of my precision ground glass. The most common use for me is a polarizing filter. I cannot remember the time, recently, when I put any other filter on. But that’s just me. 🙂
A “better” question is: is there a reason to put something on the front of the lens?
You still need a Polarizer. When I started making digital images, it was a rather easy conclusion for me to think I didn’t need a polarizing filter. I was wrong about that (mark that down – I don’t admit it often 🙂 ). The polarizer actually filters unwanted stuff out before it hits the sensor. While you can sometimes simulate that in digital processing, it is generally not going to be as effective. This is particularly true for glare on reflective surfaces (particularly water). It also works to enhance better contrast (and therefore, often more vivid color and color separation) in images containing things like fall foliage. So, the Polarizer is the most important filter and the one I would never be without. There is some “lore” about polarizing filters. The first one I ever owned was part of the “kit” my dad gave me in 1976 with his Asahiflex SLR. This was a completely manual camera, with a waist-level viewfinder. But I could immediately see the effect the polarizer had on glare and have been a believer ever since. When auto-focus came about, these polarizers (called linear polarizers) interfered with the AF mechanism, and we had to buy (much more expensive) circular polarizers. However, the newer AF mechanisms (particularly on the newer mirrorless cameras) are no longer affected by this issue. So go ahead and buy the cheaper linear polarizer (if you can find one). Notice I said “cheaper.” I didn’t say “cheap.” Unfortunately, there are some very poorly designed and manufactured filters out there. They add color casts. They don’t work the way they should. In keeping with the idea of not putting a cheap piece of glass in front of your expensive, precision optic, spend the money for a good quality filter. I have been partial to the B&W brand over the years. It is not inexpensive, but it is compared to the cost of your lens.
While you can sometimes simulate the effect of a polarizer in digital processing, it is generally not going to be as effective
Compass. This tool is perhaps in the same camp as the bubble level. I won’t go so far as to call it essential. But to me it is a pretty important (and relatively inexpensive) accessory. I spend a lot of time on Google Maps, The Photographer’s Ephemeris, and my stand-alone DeLorme (now Garmin) mapping software, planning and calculating details about locations. The Photographer’s Ephemeris – particularly – is an invaluable tool for learning where the sun is going to be on any given day of the year, at any given time of the day, in any location; worldwide. Butonce you are on site, you need to have a reference for at least the cardinal points (N-E-S-W) of the compassin order for the information you have about the sun to have any relevance. And, I have found that it is pretty easy to get confused about directions once on the ground. Like the level, the compass (used properly – remember it is magnetic) never lies. I am talking about a stand-alone, mechanical, handheld compass here – not the compass “app” you have on your phone, tablet or watch. They work off of GPS coordinates, and only really simulate the action of a true magnetic compass. And because they work from GPS, you must be moving, generally, for it to work at all.
Headlamp. I have a headlamp in my shooting vest pocket all the time. I don’t use it very much. But when I do, it is invaluable. I also keep a small flashlight in the camera bag. But the headlamp is more useful, as it allows you to have both hands to do other things. I buy the ones with the red and white light capability. I haven’t done much night photography where it is perfectly dark (most often I shoot in partially lit areas like cities). But I have a few friends who like to shoot the milky way, star trails and such. That requires being in an area where there is near-complete darkness. In order to see well in such conditions, you need to give your eyes a chance to adjust to the darkness. Then just turning on a flashlight can ruin that adjustment for several minutes. I am told that the red light has a much lesser effect on night vision. So I have both. But if you are out at night (or even get caught unexpectedly out in the dark) a light will be a pretty welcome accessory. Oh, and don’t forget to check – and keep extra – batteries. This should be part of your “inventory” of items to do when planning a trip.
“Digital Items” is the area in which essentials have changed
Tool Kit. I keep a small tool kit in my camera bag. Every camera, lens and accessory seems to have screws. Most often they are “allen-key” or “phillips” head. Occasionally, they are a straight, flathead type screw. But there are screws. And they are of varying sizes. And tripods and head often also have bolts and nuts. So I keep an assortment of small tools designed to work with these parts, and some screws. I always have to remember to remove this from the bag and put it into my check bag when I fly, as things like a knife and screwdrivers are probably going to be confiscated otherwise. One item I have recently added to my bag is filter wrenches. These days, especially with so much plastic being used in manufacture, it is pretty easy to get a filter stuck on the lens front.
Digital Items. Here is the area where the development of digital imagery, cameras and related equipment has changed the “essentials.” It used to be that we needed to carry batteries for electronic cameras, flash, etc., and extra film. That has changed in a big way. Indeed, it may be the one area that the digital age has taken us negative. A photo trip today entails at least the following extra equipment, unthought of just 25 years back:
Batteries (freshly charged – at least 3 or 4) for each camera body we carry
Charger
Cables to connect chargers to electrical/USB outlets
Memory Cards (on the positive, they have replaced film and are much smaller, less bulky, and less prone to radar destruction). The number and size of the cards depends on the size (in megapixels) of your camera. It may also depend on your philosophy (I carry a number of smaller cards, to “spread the risk” of contamination/data loss)
Card Reader and backup device. Good practice dictates that in addition to your memory cards, that you back up the cards (perhaps even redundantly) after each day/take
Laptop Computer. I use the computer to move my files – one copy on the laptop HD and another copy to a stand-alone, portable HD. I also use it to review images on a larger screen during periods of downtime in hotel rooms, VRBO’s, etc. Of course, cables and adaptors for the computer needs to be in the mix. There are other, less bulky methods of moving files to backup, but they are not only expensive, but not particularly versatile, in my view.
Miscellaneous. Some of this will change depending on the outing, but I like to keep an assortment of things handy, including gloves, earmuffs, raingear, kitchen and larger size garbage bags, and old towels.
EVERYBODY IS going to carry their own items that they consider essential to their successful shooting. I would be interested to hear what some of those things are that you consider essential (and that I may have missed here).
Portland Head Light Cape Elizabeth, Maine Copyright Andy Richards 2022 All Rights Reserved
LAST JULY, in “Do You Really Need Anything Other Than Your Smartphone?“, I opined that, while “smart” phones have moved lightyears beyond their humble beginnings (think from Maxwell Smart’s shoe phone to today’s phones), and that they are very close, smartphone cameras are still not on par with dedicated high-end digital cameras and lenses. I did get some responses that moved my personal “needle” even further, but I am still in the “not yet” camp – they are close and creeping inexorably closer every year. But they are still not “there.” In spite of my own opinion, I have been using my Galaxy s21 phone camera more than I ever have. All the images on this blog post were taken with the Samsung S21.
Queen’s Bedroom Kensington Palace London, England [Copyright Andy Richards 2021]ON MY Vermont foliage photography trip last October, I resolved to shoot an image or two with the phone camera at each major stop. I wasn’t completely consistent, but I did make a fair number of them. Under the right circumstances, the results were impressive. And more than that, while the earlier post was based on limited experience, I now have a lot more phone-camera examples under my belt with which to make comparisons and observations. My bottom line: I am more impressed than I expected to be. But I am still “not there.”
Vermont Northeast Kingdom Barn [Copyright Andy Richards 2021]FOLLOWING MY Vermont experience, I used my phone camera a lot of the time during our trip to London. One area where I find it convenient (and pretty good) is indoors. The “auto” features of the smart phone camera mean generally better results achieved more easily in these low and often artificial light environments. It got to the point where I put the Sony in my pocket when we went indoors and used the smart phone. If I could do things right, with flash, tripod, etc., I would still probably use the dedicated camera. But these are generally tours and move rapidly, without allowing for flash – and certainly not tripods.
Writing Desk Kensington Palace London, England [Copyright Andy Richards 2021]LIKE ANY photographic equipment – and I have said this before – you must be familiar with its workings and practice with it before thinking you can just automatically achieve good results. I have a long way to climb up the learning curve with my phone camera. I think, though, that I need to start that slog. After having held SLR/DSLR style cameras in my hands for over 50 years, I do not find the smartphone camera controls “intuitive.” The small, thin body, with a large and sensitive touchscreen is a recipe for frustration for me. I did recently purchase an arca-swiss type mount for the phone. But even that makes it difficult to shoot the way I am accustomed to from a tripod. The clamp covers much of the phone screen, when mounted. I don’t know of any good way to use a remote release with the setup. I still don’t see myself using it for anything serious – probably well into the foreseeable future. I know that the point is not to have to use a tripod, of course, but that is another discussion for another day.
Westminster Abbey Westminster, England [Copyright Andy Richards 2021]IN SPITE of arguments to the contrary from some very smart, knowledgeable folks, I think the big issue, continues to be quality. Pixels, pixel dimensions, noise, and raw capability are still areas where smartphone cameras have comparative weakness. Apple and Samsung (the industry standards) have both made significant “enhancements” in their software. The iPhone 12 and the top-end Galaxy S22 provide for raw image capture. The Galaxy S22 raw capability is “cobbled,” for lack of a better explanation. From the “get,” the either lack of – or “cobbled” raw image capability is a non-starter for me. A little research suggests that other phones (Google Pixel, Sony) may have raw capability. But as I understand it, the raw capability on all of these is cobbled (for example, on the new multiple-camera phones, raw will only record on the “main” lens). Will they “fix” all this stuff? Undoubtedly. But we aren’t there now.
Millenium Bridge London, England [Copyright Andy Richards 2021]ADD TO the above concerns the fact that the sensor size on smart phones is as small as they come. I am not the first to point this out, but I still think there are lots of folk out there who don’t appreciate the nuance here. Megapixels are not equal! My Samsung actually has a higher megapixel count than my micro 4/3 Olympus mirrorless camera. The diagram below has shown up here before (and probably will again). It illustrates something very important about image quality (at least currently). The size of the sensor carrying the pixels on the most popular dedicated cameras (4/3, APS-C, and 35mm-equivalent) are all a substantial magnitude larger than the smart phone sensor (the red, 1 2/3″ sensor is typical for smartphones). In order to get the same number (or more) pixels on the smaller sensor, the actual pixel size has to be smaller. With smaller pixels comes less dynamic range, less detail, and usually significantly more noise – especially when packed tight together on the small sensor.
Comparative Sensor Sizes
WHEN I downloaded my Samsung S21 images after the London trip, I was surprised at how large the files were. But, as good as they look on my Facebook Page, when I started to look more closely, and to “process” them, they began to deteriorate much more quickly than even my Sony RX100 with the 1″ (purple rectangle) sensor. Imagine the comparison with the “full frame” on my Sony A7rii. The Millenium Bridge image is a good example. It is reasonably pleasing at so-called “web-res” display, at the size shown here. But when you begin to “work” it, its weakness in quality immediately begins to show, especially when compared to images from a “more capable” camera.
Having said all of the above, the photography “cookbook” built into the Samsung and iPhone is pretty impressive
OCCASIONALLY, I just plain old “miss” with the smartphone’s autofocus mechanism (user error, of course, but the reason for the error is important to me). Unlike my other cameras, which have autofocus feedback, again, I find the phone interface unintuitive. The sign for the Kennebunkport Democratic Headquarters is something it should have gotten tack sharp 99/100 times. I just took a quick cell phone snap of this one, while walking by. But I wish I had used my other camera. I liked the irony of this sign, so prominently hanging in “Bush” country. Maybe the Republicans could use my image to accuse the Democrats of “lack of focus” (and, that’s as political as I will get here). 🙂
Kennebunkport Democratic Headquarters [Copyright Andy Richards 2022]B
UT HAVING said all of the above, the photography “cookbook” built into the Samsung and iPhone (the only phones I have experience with – I am sure others are equally good) is pretty impressive. Standing on the rocky ledge south of the Portland Head Lighthouse in Cape Elizabeth, Maine, I made the opening shot here on my Galaxy s21 smartphone. On that trip, the widest angle lens capability I had was my 24mm Sony. The phone camera image here was made at approximately 15mm. I think the wider angle is pretty compelling, compositionally. But what really blew me away is that this image was made with Samsung’s jpg “recipe,” right out of the camera. Virtually no adjustments have been made. I found that to be the case mostly throughout the trip. I am impressed in terms of color, depth, and sharpness. And it seems to almost always get exposure right.
Lobster Boats Southport, Maine [Copyright Andy Richards 2022]
IF YOU had asked me as little as 3 years ago if there was a phone camera that could make images like the Portland Head shot and the lobster boat shot above, I might have laughed condescendingly at you. But the depth, color and dynamic range of these images are just downright impressive. The world mostly uses these cameras (as well as online technology) to make, display, and “share” their images. For these purposes, we are clearly there (and continuing to move beyond). One of my good photographer friends who is not only a talented photographer, but is very good with Photoshop and post-processing, recently told me that for his “travel” gear (like me, to him that means a non-dedicated photography trip), he is planning to carry only his iPhone 12. He has a small tripod and a tripod mount for the phone, as well as some add-on software designed to accomplish a couple of the things our cameras can do that phone cameras don’t (yet) do. I know I sound like a broken record, but I am not there yet. I have carried at the very least, my Sony RX100 on every trip (stay tuned for a change in that strategy in an upcoming blog). For the present, I still think it depends a little bit on what your goals are. I still harbor the (perhaps naive) thought that I will occasionally sell a large print from my website. I also still like to “work” my images in post-processing. This includes not only (sometimes substantial) cropping and enhancements, but also compositing. I think there may still be some buyers out there who insist on higher “quality” (more and deeper pixels) digital files, too.
LightCentric Photography Blog 