G Dan Mitchell Photography

I recently posted a report on my initial use of my iPad for photography (and other) purposes while traveling. (See “An Itinerant Photographer and His Ipad: A First Report.”) My general conclusion was that you can do some post-processing on the iPad but that – no surprise here – it isn’t exactly Photoshop.

But still… if necessary you can do certain types of real work on the iPad. One of the reasons I was in New York last week was to photograph ‘Così fan tutte: Some Assembly Required’, an interesting combination of opera performance, opera rehearsal, and conversation about the work and its preparation that was presented at the Gershwin Hotel. (As an extra bonus, my wife was playing principal oboe on the first two nights, and her brother was playing bassoon!) You can see examples of the results at the oboeinsight.com blog, where initial photographs from the first night of  are posted. (Note that the last photo in the series was made on my iPhone and uploaded directly.)

After transferring my 5D2 RAW files to the iPad, I used the Photogene app to open the files, edit basic settings such as saturation, brightness, black point, curves, sharpening, and so forth. Then I cropped the files, reduced their pixel dimensions for web display, exported as jpg files, and uploaded them.

G Dan Mitchell :: Aug.24.2010 :: Commentary, Equipment, Technique :: No Comments »

Some might be surprised to find that I take every opportunity to photograph bicycle racing. Although I’m primarily an urban and natural landscape shooter (to generalize just a bit) I also have a passion for shooting a few other surprising subjects. One of these is professional bicycle racing. Although I never raced, I was at one time a very serious cyclist. I trained with folks who did race and for several years I rode as if I were preparing to race, doing over 10,000 miles per year. With that in mind, it might  seem less surprising that I interrupted my photographs of Death Valley, the coast redwoods, and the Pacific coastline to post a week of bicycle racing photos.

During the last few years I’ve been fortunate to be able to shoot stages of the Amgen Tour of California professional stage race in northern California. As I’ve done so, I’ve gradually figure out more strategies that let me get some effective shots. Here’s a quick summary of a few of them.

1. Time trials, especially those on short courses, can be the best opportunity to shoot riders on their bikes. Each competitor rides the course individually, so you can get a clear view of the rider approaching. Because lower ranked riders go first, you can experiment with locations, lighting, and so forth on them… and have your shooting strategy worked out by the time the big names arrive.
   
2. If you want to shoot the peloton (the pack of riders) try to do so at a start in a downtown area that includes “parade laps” – where the pack does a few loops of the downtown area at less competitive speeds before heading out on the open road. You’ll have similar opportunities at the end of a stage that finishes with several downtown loops, though things tend to happen a lot faster at the end than during the parade laps.
   
3. If you try to shoot a sprint finish and cannot be right at the finish line – and you probably cannot – try to be in the area 100-200 meters from the line. At this point there is tremendous action as the final sprint starts to take place and, in my experience, some very dramatic shots are possible – even more so than at the finish line when the race has usually already been decided.
4. In all of these situations, unless you are very experienced at tracking riders close up with a long lens as they fly by at high speed… practice on every rider that comes by. I’ll even practice tracking support motorcycles, police escorts – anything that moves. Eventually you want to pan smoothly while you remain continuously aware of the position of the riders in the frame. To put it mildly, this isn’t easy – and it takes a lot of practice.
   
5. When you track riders moving at high speed, think about putting their torsos/hips in the center of the frame vertically. Unless you are shooting very tight, if you center their heads you’ll get lots of empty space above them and cut off their legs and bikes.
   

   Team Gerolsteiner Warms Up for the Prologue

6. Pick your shooting location carefully. You certainly want a spot where the riders are likely to be in dramatic and dynamic positions. Turns can be good for this, for example. But also carefully consider the background to your shot – who is standing on the other side of the road and what is beyond the riders. (I once shot a series of riders warming up for a time trial… only to realize later that there was a green outhouse behind them!) Also think carefully about the ambient lighting. If the riders are backlit there is a good chance that they will be very dark. I try to place myself in a position where they will be front or side-lit.
7. Counter-intuitively, very high shutter speeds may not be a good choice. Yes, you may stop the action – but you also may end up with very static looking shots. In many cases you’ll more effectively capture the speed and motion of racing if you lengthen the exposure and track the riders, thus allowing some motion blur.
   
8. Don’t let bad weather dissuade you from shooting. Often rain or clouds or fog can make for some of the most dramatic images. Be careful with your gear, but try to take advantage of these conditions.
9. If you are going to try to shoot the pack in the middle of a long road stage, you need to plan carefully. The road will often close well before the peloton arrives, so you need to be in place well ahead of time – an hour or many hours before the race passes. If possible, scout the area where you think you’ll shoot ahead of time. Look for a dramatic setting – an expansive view, a bridge, forest, anything that can make your shot something other than just “bikes on a road.” Consider shooting on an uphill section – the pack will go more slowly. Try out different focal lengths to see what will work best in your location. Consider having two bodies with different lenses – a telephoto to do long shots as the group approaches and a shorter lens to shoot the pack as it is right in front of you.
10. The pack will pass very quickly. A few motorcycles will pass, then the pack will suddenly appear in a rush of color and wind, followed quickly by the support vehicles… and then they are gone. You’ll have only seconds to shoot. You must pick your spot ahead of time. You’ll almost certainly want to use burst mode – perhaps shooting jpg so that you can get more images before the camera buffer fills. Better to err on the side of using a focal length that is too short (wide) than one that is too long (telephoto) – you can crop later if necessary.
11. The actual race is not the only thing worth shooting – there are many, many interesting subjects before and after the race. I often find interesting subjects among the spectators waiting for the pack or even watching the peloton pass. One of the great things about pro bike racing is that you have amazing access to the riders in the team area before the race. I often spend at least an hour there before the race, shooting like crazy so that I don’t miss anyone. You may look up and see Lance Armstrong riding past you five feet away, or you might see some guy you don’t recognize talking to fans – only to find out later in the day that he was the stage winner. I generally use a relatively long lens in this area and “snipe” – getting close shots of riders. (You’ll generally have far fewer opportunities like this after the race, when the riders quickly disappear.)
    
12. Occasionally try things that aren’t quite so obvious. I once found myself on an inside corner a few blocks from the end of a stage as the peloton came into town. I put on my widest lens – a 17mm zoom – and stuck the camera through the fence down low to the ground. With the camera in burst mode I shot as riders leaned into the turn only a foot or two from the camera.
13. Large apertures are often better than small apertures. Yes, the small apertures give you greater depth of field – but they also force you to shoot a slower shutter speeds (not always a bad idea…) and put non-central subjects in sharper focus. Often the riders will stand out more against an out of focus background than against a busy in-focus background. (It is difficult to generalize too much about this though – if you are already throwing much of the scene out of focus by using a slow shutter speed, there can be advantages to the smaller aperture.)
14. When shooting individual racers, especially in the team area, do shoot a lot of frames – but also think carefully about what the riders are doing and what they look like. I’ll often try to quickly get an initial shot that is serviceable – but once I get that I become a bit more selective. I’ll watch the subjects face for the most interesting expression or better light. I’ll also watch to see them interact with fans – this often creates really compelling moments.
15. Shoot a lot. Things happen quickly, and not just on the course. Not every shot is going to be a great one, but you’ll often have little time to carefully consider each shot – better to work on instinct. (Oddly, I realized a few years ago that the closest experience to this might be shooting certain types of wildlife – birds in flight for example.)

(All photographs and text © Copyright G Dan Mitchell – all rights reserved. No use without advance permission.)

G Dan Mitchell :: May.24.2010 :: Commentary, Ideas, Technique :: 3 Comments »

At about this time every year interest increases in the question of what equipment can work well for back-country photography. Over the years I’ve working out an approach that seems effective for my photography. A few years back I wrote an article here describing this, and I just made a few minor updates to it this morning. If you are interested, take a look at this description of my “Backpacking Photography Equipment.”

Keep in mind that my goals include making photography a primary focus of many of my back-country trips – so I’m perhaps will to endure a bigger load of gear than some might be willing to carry. Also keep in mind that I’m working to create photographs that can be turned into rather large and high quality prints – if your goals are more modest (and for most people, they should be!) you probably want to consider a somewhat different setup. Differences in your subject preferences – wildlife? macro? – might also suggest a different setup than I use.

G Dan Mitchell :: May.23.2010 :: Commentary, Equipment, Technique :: 2 Comments »

As if on cue, right after I posted my “Photographer versus Photoshopper” piece yesterday, in which I mentioned Adam’s “Moonrise…” photograph, I saw this wonderful video interview with Ansel Adams’ son Michael in which he offers a basic description of the extensive post-processing that Adams applied to the original negative to produce the print we know so well.

The interview also reminded me of another topic for the “Photographic Myths and Platitudes” series that I am thinking about, namely the claim that great photographers always carefully compose and consider their subjects before they trip the shutter. Sometimes they do, but quite often it is more a matter of “tripping” over the tripod as one scrambles to capture a moment of beauty that appeared unexpectedly and which may disappear any second if you don’t work quickly. Of course, well-developed technical and aesthetic instincts help when it comes to turning such a moment into a photograph.

G Dan Mitchell :: Jan.18.2010 :: Commentary, Ideas, Photographers, Technique :: 3 Comments »

Read enough online stuff about photography and you eventually begin to recognize certain “common knowledge” assumptions about photography that are frequently repeated, quoted, and stated as truths. Unfortunately, quite a few of them are, at best, personal opinions rather than facts, and a good number are just plain wrong. I have a couple of ideas for serial posts on this blog, and I’ve felt that occasionally dealing with some of these myths and platitudes might be one such thread. So, here goes.

On several occasions I’ve seen writers attempt to draw distinctions between “photographers” and “photoshoppers” – in fact I just saw another today. The underlying assumption seems to be that if you are really a “photographer” you’ll be able to do everything perfectly in-camera and won’t have to do anything in the “post-processing” stage, and that “photoshopping” is a form of non-photographic cheating or tweaking that only has the purpose of making a poor photograph less poor. Further, quite a few who hold this view attempt to build their case on photographic history, often suggesting that “Great Photographer X” fully and accurately “pre-visualized” the image in its finished form, carefully calculated composition and exposure in such a way that the final print would be inevitable, pressed the shutter release, and captured a perfect image that could not be improved in any way by further work.

Of course, with the exception of a few genres of and approaches to photography, this is generally nonsense both as history and as a practical description of how photography is done. Continue Reading »

G Dan Mitchell :: Jan.17.2010 :: Commentary, Technique :: 11 Comments »

Here is the answer to the questions I asked in the little experiment that I posted earlier today. (see “Experiment #1: What do you see?“)

Examples A and C are completely identical – two copies of the very same file. To be clear, there is literally no difference between them. One is a simple copy of the other file with a different name. Here is a 100% magnification crop from the source file used for A & C:

Example B came from a different source file. The blur was added to the original file in post, so it is uniform across the entire image both in the source file and in example B posted here. This source file was then converted to jpg in exactly the same way that the other file (e.g. – the other two examples) was converted. Here is a 100% magnification crop of the source image used for example B:

So, A and C are literally identical. B came from a source file that was so blurry that it looks like it was shot with a defective lens.

Thank you to all of you who took the challenge and looked long and hard at the  sample images. I have three more little tests planned for sometime in the near future.

Dan

G Dan Mitchell :: Dec.06.2009 :: Commentary, Equipment, Ideas, Technique :: 7 Comments »

Yesterday I posted a series of three images in a couple forums I frequent along with a request that a few people try a little experiment with them. Here it is for anyone else who would like to participate.

Below on this page are three images presented at a typical web viewing size. The question has to do with what you see when you look at them in your browser. (Please read some additional material further down that explains why you must only look at the photos in your browser for the purposes of this exercise.) Considering all aspects of the presentation of the images, in the end there are three possibilities:

1. all three images seem identical – e.g. there are no perceptible differences among them.
2. all three images seem different from one another – e.g. each is visibly unique.
3. two images seem identical but one seems unique – e.g. one is visibly different from the other two, and those two seem visibly identical

Before you give it a try, there are a few “conditions and warnings.”

• You could easily cheat by opening the files and looking at EXIF or other data. But don’t. Or if you cannot resist, please keep your observations to yourself. I’ll stipulate that you could find differences in file parameters by looking there – but that isn’t the point in this case.
• You should not assume that I am incapable of modifying EXIF and file size and so forth in ways designed to trick those who “cheat” and inspect the files directly. Nor should you assume that I have. Or that I have not. Or whatever… :-)
• The question is not “are they three separate exposures or one exposure,” so if, for example, you think that the water looks exactly the same in all three images that, in and of itself, isn’t relevant to the question – and your assumptions may or may not necessarily be correct.
• The question is not whether this is a good, bad, or indifferent photograph – I make no claims beyond the fact that it is used here as a test image.
• The question is not “what would they look like at 100% magnification?” Interesting question, but here the question is just about what you see in the images as presented.
• If you think that you see differences among them, the followup question concerns the nature of the visible differences. Note that the follow-up question is not “how might the differences have been produced?” Just describe what you think you see.
• There is no “point” inherent in the exercise, though when I explain more after getting some responses you might or might not draw some of your own conclusions. For now, just compare what you see.

(Follow-up observation. Having access to server logs, it is interesting for me to note the percentage of people who share a response versus the number of page views… ;-)

I have set this up so that clicking on each image will open it in a new window or tab – though it is a bit awkward in that you’ll need to manually return to this window after doing so. Once they are open in three tabs (best) or windows you can click between them to compare more carefully if you wish – but do stick to viewing them in your web browser since that is part of “the question.”

After viewing, leave a comment stating which option (1, 2, or 3) best describes what you see. In addition, if you select option 2 you might offer a brief explanation of differences you see. (Again, not analysis of downloaded files please! That isn’t the question and it spoils the “game” for other participants. ) If you select option 3 tell us which one is different from the other two and perhaps what you observe about the visual difference.

Here are the images (Click to open each in new windows if you would like – you’ll have to manually return to this window each time – or feel free to view them here “in line.”):

A.

B.

C.

Thanks for participating!

Dan

G Dan Mitchell :: Dec.06.2009 :: Equipment, Ideas, Technique, Tests :: 30 Comments »