Seb Rogers: mountain bike photography

Alpine high

I love it when a plan comes together. Last week's Alps photo course was, by all accounts, a huge success. Amongst the comments and feedback I've received are these:

'I thoroughly enjoyed the course, and I learned a lot, and had great fun too!'

'The whole week was a wonderful experience, and it was a major disappointment to return home'

You can read more first-hand experiences from the whole week here.

To be honest, I'm breathing a small sigh of relief. Although I was certain I'd picked the right location and had every confidence in our hosts, trailAddiction, it was a new venture for me: new location, extended hours and an (intentionally) small group size. We were usually first out of the door and last back in, grabbing food with our fellow chalet riders before huddling over laptops for the rest of the evening... and then doing the whole lot all over again. Intense.

But the results were well worth the effort. Early mornings, late nights, sunburn and far too many chocolate croissants are all a small price to pay for the images that David, Niels and Linda brought back. There's already talk of a repeat course next year...

Can you say 'just one more time?'

Nikon D300, 14-24mm f/2.8, 1/2500sec f/4 @ ISO200

That'll be Mont Blanc, then...

Canon EOS 1DIII, 70-200mm f/2.8, 1/250sec f/10 @ ISO200

Niels ladles on the cheese

Sony A100, lens unrecorded, 1/200sec f/16 @ ISO200

Linda gets acquainted with her camera's dynamic range. And the pic's not bad, either...

Nikon D80, 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6, 1/200sec f/5 @ ISO200, single radio slave

Digital paper cuts

I've been going through some of my pre-digital images recently as part of a couple of projects I'm involved in. Whilst most of my business is now generated through commissioned work or sales of digital images shot over the past three or four years, I also have a huge back catalogue of film shots from the previous decade. And much of it is still generating income.

What's interesting about going through these older images is how different they are from my current output. Although I've made no conscious changes to my approach or style, I can see several significant ways in which my film images differ from my digital work.

There are subtle differences in framing, composition and what, for want of a better turn of phrase, I'll call 'adventurousness'. Digital's instant feedback loop has undoubtedly enabled me to nudge boundaries a little. Whether it's getting closer to the action, dropping shutter speeds lower or shooting with wider apertures in lower available light, many of my older film images look positively staid next to what I'm shooting now.

Remote flash and film: been there, done that. South Wales circa 2003

But I'm also fascinated by the technical differences. Shots that I would have regarded as razor sharp five years ago now look, to my 12Mp eyes, distinctly soft. And Fuji Provia's once uncannily accurate colour rendering now looks cool and unbalanced with blue-tinged greens.

It's all relative, of course. There are still dozens - no, hundreds - of rectangles of celluloid of which I'm proud. But the ability to shoot an action shot and instantly check whether (for example) the rider's eyes and the bike's head tube badge are both sharp (no, really - i do that) has undoubtedly changed the way I work. I'd like to think the change is for the better, but for an unbiased view you'd have to ask some of my long-standing clients. Many of them shared the agony of waiting for the film to come back from the lab to find out what we'd really captured...

Choosing the right lens

'What lens(es) do you recommend?' is one of those questions that crops up fairly frequently in my inbox. Given that I own more than a dozen and use most of them pretty regularly, it's one of those 'simple question, not so simple answer' scenarios.

it's worth establishing a few baselines. First, there's no such thing as the 'right' lens. Sure, I have a few favourites. But although I'll always try to choose the best lens for the job, that's not always possible. I may have chosen to leave the 'right' lens at home because of space or weight restrictions, for example. And in any case, the lens I pick for a particular shot may not be the one picked by another photographer faced with the same situation.

Decisions, decisions

Second, it's easy to get caught up in the 'range at all costs' doctrine. Simply put, this gear-headed approach holds that the best lenses are the ones that cover the greatest possible range from wide to long, preferably with no gaps. Woe betide the photographer who skimps by leaving a lens at home. Now, I know pro bike photographers who ride everywhere with the gamut of lens choices from fisheye to 300mm f/2.8 (and get amazing results). But there's a heavy price to pay for this approach... literally. Unless you have the fitness and sheer bloody-mindedness to carry a 35lb-plus pack around with you all day, it's not a setup that's likely to work for you. It doesn't work for me, most of the time.

Related to this last approach is the idea that you'll miss shots if you don't have every base covered. It depends, of course, on what you're trying to achieve, but in many scenarios I'm a big advocate of the 'less is more' approach. A smaller - but well thought-out - selection of lenses can actually help you get better pics by focussing - pun intended - your attention on a limited range of options. It's quicker, less likely to result in pissed off riders as you faff around changing lenses, and it's much kinder to your back.

With the ground rules out of the way, what are the choices? Here's the way I see lens selection, from wide to long. Your mileage may, of course, vary. Oh, and whatever lens(es) you choose, bear this in mind: you get what you pay for. It's better to have fewer better quality lenses than more inferior ones. Modern dSLRs are easily good enough to show up rotten image quality, and there are a surprising number of poor performers still out there. Luckily, they're easy to spot - they're often (though admittedly not always) the cheap ones.

1. Fisheye

Good for

- getting the shot in really tight spaces

- adding a little dynamism

Watch out for

- overuse

- unnatural-looking distortion near the edges

 

Have fisheye, will climb tree

My fisheyes (10.5mm for DX and 16mm for FX) are firm favourites and usually come along for the ride - they're small, light and versatile. It's often possible to get a shot with a fisheye that just wouldn't work on any other lens, but it's important to make sure that you're using it for the right reasons. As a rule of thumb, if the first thing you notice about a pic is that it was shot on a fisheye... it might have been the wrong call.

No, really - the world is flat

2. Ultra-wide (including ultra-wide to wide zooms)

Good for

- getting into the thick of the action

- working in tight spaces where a fisheye will add unwelcome distortion

- adding speed, dynamism and depth

Watch out for

- unwanted distortion, particularly to wheels, near the corners of the frame

- too much background with no link to the foreground

Feel the pull

I seem to see in ultrawide terms. How else to explain the fact that most of my pictures over the past decade have been shot on a 17-35mm, or thereabouts? Used with discretion, the corner-pulling drama of an ultrawide grabs the viewer by the collar and yanks them into the picture. It's easy to overdo, of course, but if you told me I'd have to shoot with just one lens from now in it'd be an ultrawide.

Caution: objects in viewfinder are closer than they appear

3. 'Normal' (including standard zooms)

Good for

- getting used to your camera

- mimicking the way most people see the world

- subjects at close-ish to moderate distances

- not breaking the bank

Watch out for

- the 'meh' factor

It's small and there's not much light: break out the 50mm

Back in the day, 35mm SLRs would come with a 50mm lens as standard. Nowadays you'll find a 'standard' zoom instead, but chances are it'll cover the rough equivalent of 28mm to 70mm, or thereabouts. Or, in other words, a bit wide to very short telephoto. You can shoot most subjects with a lens like this. They're small, light, relatively inexpensive and usually reasonably decent optical performers.

Look into my lens, not around the lens

Why, then, am I not a bigger fan? You'll rarely find me using a lens in the 35mm to 80mm range, unless it's for a specific purpose like a close-up product shot or a portrait in low available light. The answer's simple: I find this range of focal lengths a bit uninspiring. Neither wide enough to be of much use in tight situations nor long enough to really start compressing perspective, it's all just a bit too predictable for my taste.

But don't let that put you off. I spent years shooting with a 50mm (and then a 28-70mm) before graduating to longer and wider glass. And the humble ol' 50mm f/1.8 is still a bargain that should find its way into any photographer's bag: cheap, small, light, useful in low light and probably sharper than most zooms, even at f/2.8.

4. Long (including telephoto zooms)

Good for

- compressing perspective

- isolating elements in a scene

- pulling distant subjects closer

Watch out for

- lack of dynamism in moving subjects

- accurate focus

- over-reliance on autofocus (and centred subjects)

It's just a large rock about 30 feet way. Honest

One of the most popular second lenses is a telephoto zoom. What's not to like? You can stand right where you are, twiddle a ring and bring subjects closer to you without putting one foot in front of the other. But bringing things closer isn't what long lenses do best, in fact. They're more useful for compressing perspective, making a dramatic background even more so and isolating a subject with their inherently limited depth of field.

It's that last characteristic that trips most people up, actually. Long lenses need accurate focussing, so it's tempting to leave it all to the camera. But subjects slapped in the middle of images rarely make the most interesting compositions, so it pays to learn how to prefocus. It's also harder to get a sense of movement in images shot with long lenses.

5. Superzoom (the one box, do-it-all solution)

Good for

- times when space or weight is really (really) restricted

- avoiding lens changing

Watch out for

- mediocre image quality

- indecisive framing (zoom zoom syndrome)

Why not ditch the bag full of lenses and just buy one do-it-all superzoom? It's a fair question, and the best answer is this: for my money, superzooms impose too many compromises to be worthwhile except in situations where a single lens is the only practical solution. image quality tends to be mediocre, manual focussing is usually all but impossible and the huge range tends to stifle creativity and encourage a fixed position, turn-the-ring approach to framing.

What to buy?

So... if you currently have a dSLR with a standard zoom, what should you buy? Most people will opt for a telephoto zoom first, but I'm not convinced that's the best option unless you particularly want to shoot events. Mountain biking's one of those rare sports where it's often possible to get in close (and use flash), so an ultrawide zoom would probably be top of my list.

If you must have a telephoto zoom, buy the best - and fastest - you can afford. Entry-level zooms usually feature f/5.6 apertures at the long end, which quickly becomes limiting as light levels fall. Go for at least f/4... and f/2.8 if your bank balance (and back) will stand it.

Don't forget prime (non zoom) lenses, either. Often overlooked, they offer amazing optical performance, brighter apertures and often lower bulk and weight. Watch out for 85mm or 135mm second hand bargains as a faster, lighter alternative to a slow, bulky zoom.

Want more info? You can read more about all my lenses and the different combinations I use in different circumstances here.

Photo course October 2009: book now!

There are still a few places left on my October 16th-18th photo course... but don't hang about, because demand tends to outstrip supply. FAQs in brief:

What?

- a long weekend of riding, photography, instruction, discussion, cake, tea, beer and good food.

Who?

- yours truly, ably assisted by Bikemagic's Mike Davis of Pro Elbows (TM) fame.

Where?

- Somerset's stunning Quantock Hills.

How much?

- £375 including bed and breakfast, packed lunch and all guiding and accommodation. £75 deposit secures your place.

Why?

- so that you can learn to take pictures like these:

Nikon D300, 14-24mm f/2.8, 1/400sec f/8 @ ISO200, two radio slaves

Nikon D300, 14-24mm f/2.8, 1/250sec f/7.1 @ ISO200, single radio slave

Drop me a line for more information or to book a place.

Testing, 1, 2, 3...

Always a good idea to check the lighting first... and sometimes your model is off round the corner chewing the fat / fixing a flat / stuffing their face / whatever. Which is where a little improvisation comes in handy. A skin tone is a skin tone is a skin tone...

A cautionary tale

Every old-skool pro (by which I mean those of us who've been around long enough to have shot a few miles of film) has a tale to tell about the time they forgot to rewind the film before opening the back of the camera. Yep, including me. In fact, I think it happened more than once, in spite of the F5's various interlocks and and catches which were specifically designed to stop that kind of thing happening. 

It's easy enough to do. Brain is otherwise occupied doing something else, fingers go into autopilot to change film. Back opens... oops. Not rewound. Best write off at least half that roll, then...

Today, for the first time, I managed the far more difficult feat of pulling off a similar piece of ineptitude - with similar consequences - with a compact flash card. 

Now I'll be the first to admit that you've got to be pretty unlucky - or cack-handed, or both - to corrupt files on a CF card. But that's what I managed to do. And, having worked out at least some of what happened, I'd like to pass it on by way of a cautionary tale.

So. I put my Mac to sleep before heading out to shoot some pics this afternoon. Mistake number one: I pulled a card from the card reader, still plugged into the Mac whilst it was sleeping, without ejecting it properly first. I formatted it in camera, which was fine. But in putting it back in the card reader when waking my Mac back up, some of the data must've got scrambled. Before I pulled the card it had been used in my D300 (and showed on the desktop as 'D300'). When I plugged it back in it was still showing up as 'D300'. So I ejected it and plugged it back in, at which point it showed up correctly as 'D3'. 

But four of the raw files were corrupted in the process. They're there on the card, but two of them are unrecoverable and, to be honest, it's easier in the long run for me to go back and re-shoot. Ironically, if I'd shut down my Mac and rebooted before inserting the card, I'm pretty sure it would've been fine. It clearly got confused going to sleep with a 'D300' card mounted, only to find when it was woken back up that it was a 'D3' card with different data on it. That, at least, is my completely non-technical explanation.

So the lesson is: be methodical (as I usually am, honest). Always remove cards and drives properly. And above all, THINK.

I am, of course, mostly aiming this lecture at myself. Once bitten...

Mountain bike photo courses 2009

Suffering from post-Christmas blues? Need something to look forward to? Hey, I know how you feel. How about this, then? Not one, but two mountain bike photography workshops to choose from...

1. The classic Bikemagic / Seb Rogers Quantock course

 

It's back! My popular long weekend course in the UK's beautiful Quantock hills, in association with Bikemagic.com, is running in both March and October 2009. The March dates are already fully booked, but I have still availability in October. On the basis that you can't mess with a winning formula, the course looks much the same as it did last year. Oh yes, and the photos illustrating this post were all taken by previous course attendees.

What?

- learn how to dramatically improve your riding pictures, and take away the skills to keep improving

- fantastic, bike-friendly b&b with secure overnight bike storage, a communal lounge for post-ride slideshows and Mary's legendary tea and cake

- ride from the front door straight onto the trails

- superb Quantock singletrack

- 10 minute walk to the village pub

When?

- October 16th-18th 2009 (start @ midday Friday; finish around 4pm Sunday)

How much?

- £375 (£75 non-refundable deposit secures your place). Price includes 2 nights b&b, all guiding and instruction, lunch on Saturday and Sunday and afternoon tea and cake. It excludes lunch on Friday and evening meals on Friday and Saturday.

Questions?

- to find out more or to book a place, please drop me a line.

2. Shoot the Alps

New for 2009, I'm offering slightly more experienced photographers the opportunity to spend a week riding and shooting on pristine Alpine singletrack. I've teamed up with Les Arcs trail guiding experts and all-round nice guys TrailAddiction to put together a great package.

What?

- a week of TrailAddiction's second-to-none guided riding in the Les Arcs area of the French Alps, with four days of photo tuition and feedback. The mix of photo tuition and riding is designed to balance riding with shooting, ensuring you get the best experience from the amazing Les Arcs trails

- lift-accessed trails and mountain scenery to die for

- singletrack trails to suit intermediate to advanced riders, with everything from flowing paths through Alpine meadows to steep, technical, forested rock gardens

- fully catered chalet accommodation

When?

- the week beginning August 22nd 2009

How much?

- £895 (£95 non-refundable deposit secures your place). Price includes full board accommodation plus all guiding for a week, and photo tuition for four days. It excludes flights, airport transfers (£20 per person each way), lift pass (approx. £49 per person) and accident insurance (compulsory).

Who's it for?

- photographers confident with the basics of exposure, composition and capturing moving subjects. If you've previously attended one of my courses, you're in. If you haven't, please contact me to find out whether this is the right course for you.

Questions?

- to find out more or to book a place, please drop me a line.

Keeping on keeping on

Having just finished a weekend of supervised wet-weather shooting, it occurred to me that I've spent a fair bit of the past two years - thanks to the lack of two consecutive summers - keeping water and grit out of my cameras. Given that most people put their cameras away at the first sign of a few spots of water, I thought it might be time to pass on a few tips to keep you shooting come rain or shine (but mostly the former).

Disclaimer: what follows is general advice based on my experience. Bear in mind that all equipment varies in its ability to cope with water, dust and grit ingress. These approaches have worked for me so far but I have a fairly pragmatic approach to equipment damage (if it breaks, it can usually be fixed). Follow my advice at your own risk.

What's the problem?
First, it probably helps to know what mud and water can do to your gear. Contrary to popular belief, cameras generally won't stop functioning the instant a few water droplets land on the body. Once water starts working its way into unsealed openings (around buttons and dials, for example), all bets are off. Whilst a camera that's had a good soaking may continue to work for a while, shorted circuits will eventually shut it down. In brief: a bit of water's fine; too much is more likely to cause problems than not.

Mud and grit are more likely to cause mechanical than electrical issues, but they're potentially far more problematic than a few water droplets. If something feels gritty, or a big dollop of wet mud has landed on your gear, it's far better to stop shooting than risk further damage.

Putting things right
What, then, do you do if your efforts to keep your gear dry and mud-free have failed? By far the best approach to most water and grit-related problems is to let everything dry out thoroughly before you attempt anything at all. After a rain-soaked shoot I lay out a clean sheet of newspaper on the floor in my office and spread out all the gear I've been using (front lens caps off but camera body caps on) and leave it to dry overnight. Gear that's just wet - but not muddy - gets a brief wipe-down with a soft cotton cloth before I leave it there; anything that's muddy doesn't get touched until it's dry.

Once it's all dry I'll gently brush dust and grit away from camera and lens bodies with a soft paint brush. Lens elements get the blower bulb treatment first; any remaining particles are brushed away very carefully with a lens brush. If there are any spots from dried water droplets, I'll carry out a wet lens clean with lens cleaning fluid and a disposable, lint-free cloth.

Preventing problems
Now that you know the sky is unlikely to fall on your head just because your camera got a bit mucky, how do you best go about protecting it in the first place? Well, it's largely a matter of common sense. The simplest way to minimise water and mud-related problems is to keep the camera and lens covered while you're not using them, even if that means just tucking them under your jacket. If you're going to be waving them around for any length of time, stick 'em in a clear plastic sandwich bag (with an extra hole for the viewfinder). And make sure there's a hood on your lens - because that's the best way to keep stray water droplets from ruining your pictures.

Anything that gets a bit wet while you're working can usually be sorted with a quick wipe, but make sure you use separate cloths for exterior parts and lens elements (to prevent scratching). And don't, whatever you do, attempt to clean a muddied lens. Grit will scratch the coating if you attempt an on-the-spot cleaning - better to let it dry and tackle it back at base.

Above all, don't let fear of a bit of water prevent you from taking pictures. Life's too short - and the weather lately has been far too damp - for that.

Class of '08

The last of my 2008 photo course weekends passed in a blur of riding, wet socks, beer, tea, too much haddock and cake (you had to be there)... and lovely diffuse light. Could've done without the rain, though.

Canon 1DmkIIN, 70-200mm f/4, 1/80sec f/4 @ ISO400, single radio slave

Thanks, as always, to Mike Davis of Bikemagic for guiding, enthusiasm and Pro Elbows (TM); to Mary at Chilcombe Stables for cheerfully accommodating eight soggy riders for the weekend and keeping us plied with tea and cake; to Martin at Iron Horse and Matt at Mud Dock for supplying another excellent rental bike; and to Mark, Andy, Phil, Matt, Jeff and Neil for never letting a bit of wet grit get in the way of having fun. Or, indeed, making some cracking images. You can read more about the weekend, and see some more pictures, here.

Missed out this time around? Drop me a line to be one of the first to know when the '09 dates are finalised... and watch this space.

Nikon D700, 24-85mm f/2.8-4, 1/60sec f/14 @ ISO400

Canon 30D, 17-70mm f/4-5.6, 1/60sec f/5.6 @ ISO640, single radio slave

Summer shootin'

Summer finally appears to have arrived in the UK, so here are a few random tips for better sun-drenched riding shots:

- Ditch the shades
They may look cool, they may keep the bugs out of your eyes, but they screw up your perception of colo(u)r and contrast. And that's enough reason, if you're riding to shoot, to leave them at home - or at least in your Camelbak. Polarising or tinted lenses are the worst offenders, giving every landscape an almost ethereal glow that even the heaviest hand will find tough to emulate in Photoshop.

- Clean that sensor
Bright light means small apertures, big expanses of sky, and lots of potential for all the gunk that's accumulated on your sensor to ruin your shots. Not sure if your sensor needs cleaning? Stick a wide(ish) lens on, close down the aperture as far as it'll go and take a shot of empty sky. Now zoom in... see all those black spots? That's muck on your sensor. Not sure how to go about it? There's a good how-to here.

- Start early, finish late...
... and keep the camera in your bag in between. Harsh midday sun is the worst time to shoot, creating harsh shadows everywhere you don't want them (on your subjects' faces) and nowhere you do (everywhere else). Avoid shooting between 10 and 3 if you can. And if you can drag yourself out, absolutely the very best summer light is before 8 in the morning and after 5 in the afternoon.

- Work those speeds
Students on my photo courses will know that I advocate using the slowest practicable shutter speed in any given situation, so as to maintain at least some semblance of subject movement. In bright light that means keeping an eye on things to make sure that speeds don't creep to action-freezing levels, and working the aperture and ISO settings if necessary to keep everything where you want it.

- Ice cream and cameras don't mix
And not just for the obvious reasons. I suffered my most expensive equipment damage ever whilst buying an ice cream. My attention wandered (mmm.... sugar and carbs...), the lens I was holding slipped, I grabbed at it as it fell but oops! Too late... the 18 inch drop to the floor resulted in a £500 repair bill. Luckily my insurance picked up most of the tab, but filling in the claims form was interesting. 'What steps will you take to prevent a similar loss from occurring? Put any camera equipment I'm holding down before attempting to eat an ice cream...'