« September 2007 | Main | November 2007 »
Singletrack magazine interviewed me for their latest issue, alongside a couple of other mountain bike photographers. I'm not sure there are any pearls of wisdom in there, but (as usual) there's plenty of other bike-related stuff to look at, and a few nice pics too. Go check it out.
In case you're wondering, no, you can't read it if you open it in a new window...
Can't be bothered with the hassle of downloading pics from your camera's memory card to your computer? This company claims to have the answer (if you live in the US and own a camera that takes SD memory cards, at least). For just under US $100 you can be the proud owner of a 2Gb SD card that, apparently (I only add the qualification because I can't quite believe it), includes built in wifi to enable instant wireless transfer of your images from camera to PC. Of, if that's not sufficiently on-demand for you, direct to a photo-sharing website.
Given that Nikon and Canon's pro-level wifi units cost many times the Eye-Fi's asking price and are the size of a couple of decks of cards, that's quite some engineering feat...
The guys at Radiopopper have just updated their website with more details about the impending early '08 launch of their industry-first radio slave TTL units (in case you missed it first time around, I first wrote about the concept here).
There are (still) no pictures, but a few more details to flesh out what we already know. The idea is to solve a problem I've written about before - to free Nikon's (and Canon's equivalent) clever infra-red based remote TTL flash system from its reliance on line-of-sight. The Nikon system, for example, allows you to control and trigger umpteen remote flash units from the camera in both fully manual and TTL modes... but only within a limited range and only if there's clear line-of-sight between all the units. In practice that rules out its use in all kinds of situations, and certainly most of the flashgun-hidden-behind-a-tree setups that I use.
I thought I told you to hide behind that tree? One of my slaves pops out to say 'hello' as Andrew Shandro rips past
Nikon D200, 12-24mm f/4, 1/80 sec f/5.6 @ ISO200, two radio slaves
Clearly I wasn't the only photographer frustrated with the mismatch between the system's potential and its performance in practice. The Radiopopper acts like a radio bridge between master and slave units, converting infrared signals into radio waves and back again to allow (theoretically) seamless communication. The big deal about this is that radio doesn't need line-of-sight. So, in theory, we have the best of both worlds: wireless freedom and full control from the camera.
The latest website update answers one of the questions that had been bugging me: how are the IR signals picked up from the master flash (and transmitted back to the remote flash)? The answer's simple: a short length of fibre optic. Whilst it's an obvious and, in its own way, neat solution, it's not quite the streamlined approach I'd hoped for. But without radio built into the flash - a solution which for global radio licensing reasons alone is likely to pose a considerable manufacturing and inventory headache for both Nikon and Canon - it's all we've got. And at US $350 for a pair of units, the price is comparable with existing radio triggers that don't offer TTL and full remote control. So, as soon as the European version is available, I'll be giving it a go.
Assuming it works as advertised, it should reduce the number of times I have to run backwards and forwards adjusting light output on remote units, which means more time to actually take pictures. And I'll have TTL back if I want it. Win, win.
Buried in the website updates is one other interesting nugget that may get lost in all the TTL hoopla: a baby, stripped-down-to-basics radio trigger that looks set to retail at around US $25. Yes, you read that right and no, I can't quite believe it either. But there you go: on the face of it, remote flash is about to get an order of magnitude cheaper and more accessible. More than that, Radiopopper is pledging to plough the profits from the sale of these units into a kind of photographers' hardship fund, to help bail out pros who get themselves into financial difficulties.
Seems like I've complained an awful lot this year about the weather. So, by way of redressing the balance, let's hear it for crisp autumn (/fall) days with gert big domes of blue sky, low sun and the crunch of freshly-fallen golden leaves under-tyre...
Nikon D200, 12-24mm f/4, 1/200sec f/5.6 @ ISO100
I'd read about Nikon's legendary - and unique - 300mm f/2 before. This was a manual focus, ultra-fast aperture lens produced at a time when bragging rights were all about the size of your front element rather than the number of pixels on a chip. (Sports photography back then was for real men: manual focus on film. Great technique was essential; the technological crutches of autofocus and instant preview hadn't been invented).
Knowing the size and weight of my own mini-behemoth, the 200mm f/2, I'd figured the 300 f/2 would be pretty large. Guess what? It is. I stumbled across this set of pictures today whilst on the lookout for a completely different secondhand lens. They don't come up for sale very often, so if you've always lusted after one I suggest you start finding out how flexible your plastic really is...
If you're reading this in the UK and it's still Saturday 27th October, you've got a few hours left to go out and grab a bargain. The Grauniad has a free 'guide to photography' supplement that's full of practical advice and inspiration on everything from choosing the right camera to how to shoot sports, weddings and still lifes.
Although it isn't entirely accurate - apparently film cameras 'don't rely on electricity', and a Canon flashgun is picked out as best buy without mentioning that to owners of any other dSLR brand it'll be about as much use as a chocolate teapot - it's one of the best round-ups of photographic technique and practice I've seen for a while. And it's only £1.50 (with a free copy of the newspaper thrown in. Wahey!). Portrait insights from Jane Bown, sports tips from Tom Jenkins and Eamonn McCabe, buying advice from Dan Chung... all working pros, and more than one a living legend.
What are you waiting for...?
If you're waiting patiently for news of my 2008 photo courses (I know there's a handful of you out there), the good news is that I have one set of dates pinned down. The bad news is that, in my quest to run two courses, the second set of dates is proving more elusive.
I don't really want to release details until both sets of dates are ready to go, so I'm going to have to ask you to indulge me for a little while longer. I'm on the case and hope to have everything sorted out very soon...
Whilst posting this link is in some ways (oh, ok, in all ways imaginable) a bit of shameless self-promotion*, Alex Leigh's account of my recent photo course is worth 10 minutes of anyone's time. Honest.
I've just returned from a (very) brief hands-on look at Nikon's new D300. There are plenty of similar accounts dotted around the web, but for what it's worth these are my impressions:
- BUILD
Just like the D200 and D2X, the D300 has a solid and reassuringly 'engineered' feel in the hand. I tried it with the optional battery grip installed; the grip also has a metal chassis, includes an 8-way joystick and front and rear command dials and feels to all intents and purposes as though it's part of the body. Very nicely done, and the fact that the grip boosts the frame rate from 6 to 8fps gives it a useful purpose in life (other than just bulking out the camera).
- HANDLING
Solidly Nikon. Some things have moved, some of the display options have been tweaked, but it all just works and, if you're already a Nikon user, you probably won't need a manual to find your way around. I was particularly impressed with the 51-point AF, which seemed to me like a recipe for getting lost in a maze of viewfinder AF points. But in practice the familiar pad on the D300's back makes finding an AF point quick and easy, and it's very cool being able to place it (almost) exactly where you want it in the viewfinder.
- VIEWFINDER
Talking of which, it's great. A bit bigger than the D200's (presumably because of the 100% view), it's out-sized by dSLRs with 35mm sensors... but not by much else. Big enough to be genuinely useful for manual focussing: thank you, Nikon.
- DISPLAY
The 900-and-however-many dot display has to be seen to be believed. You've probably already read comments like that, but it really is astonishingly detailed - rather like the difference between SD and HD TV. It makes every other display out there look shabby by comparison. Just fantastic.
- SPEED
Although I'm looking forward to getting back to the 8fps of my old film F5s, shutter lag and mirror blackout are actually more important day-to-day considerations. The D2X is my benchmark here and, whilst the D200's not bad, it is noticeably slower. The D300's specs put it midway between the two, although during my brief hands-on I thought it felt closer to the D2X. That's good - very good, for the money.
Overall, the camera exudes a feeling of well thought-out useability. The 12mp files should be as detailed as those from my D2X - in other words, they're big enough for the vast majority of uses. The noise handling should be much better (I do have some shots on a CF card, but a dimly lit hotel banquet hall isn't the best test and no, I'm not going to share them. Suffice to say that I'm confident that ISO 800 will be as useable for covers and double trucks as 400 currently is). It's faster. I can remove the grip to make it smaller and lighter for long rides. The viewfinder's better. And it's less than half the price.
I can't wait to get my hands on one. It's the camera I've been waiting for since I switched to digital...
'Why', I'm sometimes asked, 'is it always the same old riders turning up time after time in the magazines?' The reason's simple. Are simple (there are several):
- riders who are technically gifted and look good in pictures are a surprisingly rare breed. I know of plenty of fantastically fast, fluid and skilled riders who simply don't look as though they're doing anything much in photos. It's just the way it is.
- riders who are prepared to put in the graft needed to make a shoot work ('that was great. Can you do it a couple more times?') are equally hard to find. Some people just like to ride, with no interference. That's fine - but it doesn't make for great pictures.
- riders who are available during the week and fit the above two criteria... well, you've got the idea by now. Much as I love what I do, it's a job and I can't just be shooting at the weekends (apart from anything else, it's restrictive in terms of weather windows. If you're reading this in the UK, you'll know exactly what I mean).
So, what with one thing and another, there's a hard core of maybe a few dozen riders who'll crop up time and time again in the mags. It's not a closed shop - I'm always looking for new and willing models - but it's a close-knit community that works well. Know someone who you think would look great in pictures? Drop me a line!
Quick-and-dirty wallride, and...
Nikon D2X, 10.5mm f/2.8, 1/320sec f/8, single radio slave
... woodland bar spin drop. Chris Smith is an MBUK regular: easy to work with, always looks great on camera and will ride until his legs are about to fall off if that's what it takes to get the shot
Nikon D2X, 12-24mm f/4, 1/60sec f/5.6 @ ISO500, two radio slaves
Incidentally, students on my recent photo course will know by now all about the importance of both timing a shot carefully and tracking the subject accurately. This is a good example of both: bars caught mid-spin (I know from an earlier 8fps sequence that the complete spin takes just 1/4 second) and both bike and rider showing plenty of detail in spite of the slow shutter speed. And yes, this was a single, carefully timed frame:
I have no way of knowing who the readers of this blog are, let alone how old, so I don't know for sure if what I'm about to share is going to have the same impact on you as it did on me. But if you're at the sort of age where you have to start buying bigger jeans to accommodate a bit of sag, mortgage interest rates are dull-but-actually-rather-essential info, the '80s seem relatively recent... and you don't want to be thoroughly depressed, close this browser window now and go and do something else.
Still here? Don't say I didn't warn you.
Joey Lawrence is a Canadian-born photographer with an impressive portfolio and an expanding list of clients. And he's only 17. Yep, you read that last bit right (and you really have to click on the portfolio link to understand why I'm hyping the age thing up). Hugely talented, a deft touch with remote flash and - if the interview on Strobist is anything to go by - wise beyond his years.
The vast majority of us will never be that good, at any age. Depressing or inspirational? I'm still trying to decide. But anyway... way to go, Joey!
One of the things that constantly amazes me - and keeps me coming back for more - is how much I'm still learning, more than a quarter of a century after picking up my first camera. Digital has probably helped this process, not only because there's been a whole raft of new skills to learn and graft onto the basic photographic know-how I already had, but because the mechanics of shooting raw has forced me to analyse and refine my technique like nothing before. On the odd occasions when I have to trawl through my film archives for a slide to scan, I'm often amazed that quality that I was happy with five years ago simply wouldn't pass muster today.
The reason this process is working is simple: I'm my own harshest critic. It's partly my nature, and partly a conscious commercial decision: better that I split hairs with my work and improve my technique than let my clients do it for me (and find a reason not to hire me next time around). I have to keep improving; my competitors certainly are.
But there's a lot to be said for being self-critical even if you don't sell your pictures for a living. Want to improve your photography? Here are a few ideas to get you started:
1. Sharpness matters
The single most common flaw I see in other people's pictures is that they're not sharp enough. If you're shooting a moving subject, it's even more important that the main point of interest is critically sharp. With bike shots that's usually the rider's face: if you can keep that sharp, the rest of the shot can be a blurry mess and you'll get away with it. So use your camera's display to zoom in and have a close look. Is the rider's face sharp? No? Why not? Did you focus in the right spot? Shutter speed too low? Panning technique not up to scratch? Figure it out, then try it again.
You won't be able to see it at web resolution, but the only thing that's critically sharp in this shot is the rider's eyes. And that's all that's needed.
Nikon D2X, 12-24mm f/4, 1/80sec f/6.3 @ ISO100, single radio slave
2. It's not about the gear
I'm as guilty as the next photographer of fetishising gear. But all I really need to get the job done is a camera and lens that functions. All the rest, whether it's water-resistant build quality or fast, expensive lenses, just help maximise my chances of the best possible results in the widest possible range of conditions, because sometimes I can't be choosy. But all cameras, whether they cost £300 or £6000, are just light-tight boxes with a hole in one end. If you feel your pictures are lacking that indefinable something, don't 'upgrade'. Buy a book, go on a course, set yourself some goals, and get the best out of what you already own first. *
3. Think for yourself
The students on my recent photo course were all used to letting their cameras do much of the technical drudgery for them, from auto white balance to auto exposure. But by the end of the weekend they were confidently - and enthusiastically - using manual everything, and getting better and more consistent results. Taking control isn't as hard as you think it is, and with a bit of practice you'll notice an improvement in your results. Don't believe the hype - the camera can't think. And it definitely can't produce great pictures. That's up to you.
* I'm going to put my camera where my mouth is on this one. For my next commissioned cover shoot, I'll use my entry-level D40X in place of my usual cameras. And I'll post the results here.
Given the brouhaha surrounding file sharing, pirated DVDs and the like, you'd be forgiven for thinking that there'd be fairly widespread understanding of copyright. But, as any working photographer will tell you, the opposite seems to be the case. Widely misunderstood and abused, copyright law is actually pretty simple in its application. It's designed to give protection to creators of artistic works (yes, you with the dSLR and the flickr account, that means you) and allow those creators to control how their works are used. Doesn't matter if you're a pro or not, the law applies equally to everyone. And, for once, it's on your side.
Disclaimer: I have no legal training (as will, I'm sure, become painfully obvious to anyone reading this who does). What follows is an explanation based on my personal experience and understanding of copyright law as it applies in the UK. Full details of the UK Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 can be found here.
Here's how it works: you press the button, you own the copyright in the resulting image. The only notable exception is if you're pressing the button as part of your job as an employee, in which case your employer owns the copyright. Otherwise, you need do nothing to assert your ownership of copyright - it's yours automatically under law. The principle is broadly similar in most countries worldwide, although there are minor differences in how the law is applied.
For a simple explanation of UK copright law, see here. And in the meantime, here are some common copyright myths, busted:
1. If I take a picture of someone, that person owns the copyright
False. For images that will be used commercially, it's often a good idea for the photographer to ask the subject to sign a model release form. But this simply indemnifies the photographer and their client(s) from any damages or claims by the model arising from use of the image. The photographer owns the copyright.
2. Buildings and private land are copyright and I can't photograph them without the owner's permission
Copyright doesn't apply in the same way to buildings, sculptures or views (for example), so don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Whilst an architect may own the copyright in the original plans for a building, the physical form itself is on public display and may be freely photographed. If you're standing on public land - for example a public highway - there's nothing anyone can legally do to prevent you from using your camera. If you're on privately owned land, the landowner is entitled to impose restrictions on certain activities. This will often include photography, and is more likely to be enforced if the rent-a-cop mob think you're using a 'professional' camera. They can ask you to stop and / or leave, but that's about it.
3. I have to say that my picture is copyright, otherwise it doesn't apply
Nope. Your pictures are your copyright, regardless of whether there's a copyright symbol attached to them or not. You pressed the button, you own it. Simple.
4. Pictures on the internet are in the public domain and are fair game
Nuh-uh. Remember the principle that whoever pressed the button owns the copyright? Just because there's no copyright symbol or name attached to an image, it doesn't mean that it's available for free use. Always assume the opposite - unless clearly invited to make free use of an image, the copyright belongs to somebody. Personally, I'm a great believer in 'do as you would be done by' in these cases. Don't steal other people's images - next time it might be you!
5. If I commission a photographer to take some pictures, I own the copyright
Not unless there's a written contract stating that the photographer transfers ownership of copyright. And even then, most photography buyers don't need copyright, they just think they do. This is where licensing comes in. A license gives the image buyer rights to use the photographer's image(s) in certain circumstances, which can be agreed by both the photographer and the buyer. But by retaining copyright, the photographer keeps the right to control use of his images, including the right to use them in his own portfolio or for promotional purposes. Rule of thumb for aspiring pros: don't relinquish copyright, even though many clients will insist on it. They probably don't need it... but you most certainly do.
If you don't earn a living from your pictures, you may not see the point in understanding how copyright applies to you. But consider this. The explosion in dSLR ownership along with the growth of microstock and photo-sharing sites means that almost everyone with a camera has the potential to earn money from their photography: the boundaries between pro and amateur are blurring. Blue-chip companies have taken to trawling sites like flickr looking for imagery that they can use. And they do so because they know they can obtain it cheaply or for free, partly because so many photographers are ignorant of copyright and how it applies to them.
One of the questions that turns up most frequently in my inbox is 'I want to earn a living from photography - do you have any advice?'. To which the succinct (and unwanted) answer is 'don't give up the day job'.
In roughly the same way that not everyone grows up to be an astronaut, most aspiring pro photographers never make the grade. Well, alright, perhaps that's not an entirely fair parallel. There are, after all, considerably more photographers than astronauts in this world (at least, there were last time I looked). But still, photography isn't a safe, easy or lucrative career choice to nearly the extent that most people imagine it is (for more de-motivational truisms, I can do no better than refer the over-eager wannabe astronaut / photographer here).
Of course I would say that, wouldn't I? After all, it's hardly in my interests to encourage competitors to tread on my riding shoes. But if you're still not convinced, consider this:
- It's a buyer's world
Pre-flickr, pre-broadband, pre-budget dSLRs, pro photography was already in trouble. Buffeted by falling circulations, the fallout from the dotcom bubble and general post 9/11 market jitters, media organisations and commercial buyers of photography were all going through an extended period of belt-tightening anyway. Prices froze or dropped, extended rights were demanded and contracts locked down. And then the prosumer explosion came along, and photography was well and truly commoditised. Suddenly the market was over-saturated, almost overnight, with millions of images. Many of them were (are) available for free or a pittance, their creators only too happy to allow usage in exchange for the short-lived golden glow that comes with seeing their work in print. With the market chasing ever-cheaper imagery, it's tougher than ever for an individual to earn a living from the images they produce.
- The herding instinct
You've bought a dSLR, you're enjoying the whole thing, everyone says your pictures are good. Think you're the only person to have considered making money from them? Given that dSLR sales have been growing at double-digit rates for a while now, chances are there are thousands - if not millions - of people just like you. The market's already over-saturated (see above). How are you going to rise above the rest?
- Quality matters
In the days of film, most people simply didn't take the time to learn how to consistently produce the sharp, well-exposed transparencies that most editorial and commercial users demanded. The long and relatively costly learning curve acted like a natural filter, ensuring only the most determined individuals endured the disappointment of roll after roll of sub-par results. Digital's instant feedback loop both speeds the process and gives the illusion that a higher proportion of shots have 'come out'. But wait - are your pics really up to scratch? Are they really sharp? (lack of sharpness is the most common shortcoming that I see in amateur pics, whether of mountain bikes or any other subject). Whilst some clients are happy to accept 'good enough' standards of photography, there's no future in being a bottom-feeder. If you can't consistently produce technically and aesthetically top-notch images, to order, in a range of conditions and circumstances, you're in trouble before you start.
- Do the math
... because most photographers don't. As a group, photographers are notoriously bad at running businesses. The ones that succeed tend to be either vastly talented, extremely well connected or, more often, simply ok at basic arithmetic. It's simple, really - you need to earn more than you spend. Hardly rocket science, but it's amazing how many people get blinded by the lure of shiny toys, then go on to market their work poorly / hardly at all and under-charge when they do find a buyer. Know the value of your work, understand your market, spend time on a business plan and then stick to it.
- It's not (just) about the pictures
Plenty of extremely gifted amateurs are capable of turning out consistently great images, but that's not enough to earn a decent living. No-one is likely to beat a path to your door, even if you do have a great flickr gallery (and if that's the extent of your marketing, it's likely that anyone that does go down that route will be looking for free or cheap usage). To succeed you need to spend more time running a business than being a photographer. Selling your work is key, and you can't necessarily rely on the quality of your images to do all the talking (though if they're great, that helps).
- Self-employment blues
The relative isolation, need for self-motivation and complete lack of job security mean it really doesn't suit everyone. Oh, and did I mention no sick or holiday pay and irregular cash flow?
Tough love? Maybe, but the reality of professional photography - rather like running a restaurant or writing a best-selling book - seems to be far removed from the popular perception of it. And if that hasn't been enough to put you off, you just might stand a chance. Good luck!
Update: here's another view on How To Succeed as a Photographer.
The sight of the students on my recent mountain bike photography course working in perfect unison was, at times, strangely comical:
The results, however, were anything but. All these images were taken by the students:
(In case you're wondering where the usual caption info is, much of the EXIF data for these images appears to have disappeared into the ether somewhere along my import to iPhoto / export to external hard drive / open in Photoshop workflow. Er, sorry, and all that...)
UPDATE: more images from the weekend - and discussion about them - here.
I set very high standards over the weekend and everyone stepped up to meet them, improving their technique in leaps and bounds. Special mention should go to Kate, who'd never used a dSLR before this weekend but, after two days, was confidently juggling ISO settings, shutter speeds and histograms. Thanks also to Mike Davis at Bikemagic for the pro elbows, tireless 'just one more time' riding and all-round good humour, and to Mary at Chilcombe Stables b&b for the cake mountains, bottomless teapot and unfeasibly large breakfasts.
In summary: great big helpings of singletrack, a smattering of sun (yes, in England, in October), more cake than we could eat, a hard drive bursting at the digital seams with images, and lots of good company. If you're thinking it sounds like everyone had a good time, you'd be right. And yes, there'll probably be another one in the spring. Watch this space for dates...
Regular visitors (there appear to be at least a couple of you) can't fail to have noticed the lack of posts over the past few weeks. There's a simple reason: I've been enjoying a well-earned break from bikes, computers and yes - even cameras. After two weeks of sun, sailing, trail running and beer (waddya mean, that's an odd combination?), I'm back in the saddle. Which means that the usual mish-mash of ill-informed comment and half-baked opinions will continue until further notice...
You wouldn't think it'd be possible for an Intel Mac-friendly software release to take longer than Adobe took to launch CS3... but I'm here to prove otherwise. An Intel Mac-compatible version of my screensaver is finally available for download on my portfolio site (in the downloads section, natch). Yay! The PowerPC version is still there, too, so whatever variety of Apple hardware you're running you can now enjoy the dubious benefit of staring blankly at a constant rotation of mountain bike images instead of doing whatever it is you were supposed to be doing in the first place...
