Professionalism

What does it take to be a professional photographer?

Here a few things I have picked up over the last few months, added to some “older” knowledge.

Communicate, communicate, communicate.

Just as it says. You can cross a line here, but few if any clients ever complain about too much information or clarity. They may question your ability to make decisions if you nag, but otherwise, more talk equals more clarity.

Have the right mind set.

Professionalism is not a given just because you have a self assigned title, a room full of gear or even a decent income. Professionalism is a state of mind. If you put doing better each time you go out ahead of “just getting the job done”, then you are half way there.

Client needs and perceptions can be a trap. Some will question everything you do, some will take nearly anything, so you have to be the final arbiter of your work and you need to be a critical, but fair judge. To be honest, if you like your job, then getting better comes with the territory, but getting better does not automatically being better than is needed.

Create a realistic, if never satisfied perspective and you may avoid the trap of complacency. Also try to culture a good client-photographer feed back cycle. Clients will forgive the odd failure, but will shy away from an intractable, inflexible image maker.

There is a reason most of the more successful image makers make excellent teachers.

Have the right gear (preparedness).

A no brainer it might seem, but the right gear, not necessarily the “best” gear will get the job done. The cheapest lens around can do a decent job of a controlled group photo with good lighting. The real test is how you handle the extremes. Low light and action equals fast lenses and/or a big sensor. High resolution, usually just needs good technique, but maybe that and some decent post processing or occasionally it genuinely needs a high pixel count camera.

Most photographers have the right gear for their passion. A pro may be able to define their gear quite tightly, but a client’s needs will often throw a spanner in their carefully laid plans.

Have replacements for everything (depth).

So you are geared up well enough, but what is your “plan B”.

This comes in two forms. Repeatability and accuracy are important, but also creativity.

If you need two cameras, take three. Depth is easier than any other fix.

Creatively, can you get what you need, then mix it up with an alternative technique/perspective/angle? If your gear or knowledge of it’s use are just enough, it will restrict your options.

When the shot is done, are you protected from permanent loss or immediate failure? Can you find your work and can you duplicate your results? I have had to say no to all of these in the past and the truth is, these failings were rarely necessary.

Know how to use it (practice).

Having the gear is fine, but are you practiced in it’s use.

The most mediocre, clapped out and aged kit is still a powerful tool in practiced hands. The latest top of the line rig is embarrassing to use if you do not know how. No matter how good your eye, if you cannot control your cameras without conscious thought then you are likely going to be too slow.

Be ready, be fast, be sure, keep it simple and practice, practice, practice.

As an example, it has taken me six months to get used to the menu/replay button placement on the EM1, which is different to previous models. If only that has taken that long, how long would it take for me to learn a similar, annoyingly small change in a newer camera or even worse a whole new brand!

Know when to use it (discrimination).

Not all situations are clearly spelled out so trust your instincts and adjust. I have been using silent shutter for most of my work with the school. My intention is always to stay under the radar, avoiding classroom disruption. I have discovered though that a guy in a corner of a room, watching silently and making absolutely no noise can be as off-putting to some as one making some obvious sounds.

You have to be able to read the room, adapting to what your instincts tell you is needed, and avoid falling into safe feeling habits based on past assumptions.

Something else I have become aware of when shooting for someone else, is the need to keep things fresh. Tried and true is good, because it gets the shot in the can, but what next? Same again over and over, or something different, something fresh. Again avoid falling into habits based on assumptions.

Simple, small, familiar gear, practiced technique and something different (colour and square).

Simple, small, familiar gear, practiced technique and something different (colour and square).

Know your subject (empathy).

A thousand hours with your camera is less useful than one hour spend getting to know your subject. If you have the chance to hear or read about how a National Geographic image maker works, you will quickly notice that they do not talk about gear, nor technique or even post processing. What they first talk about first and foremost is their subject. Some will even spend a few days around their potential subject without a camera, only producing one when they have a good understanding.

The best images come willingly, through understanding, empathy and awareness. Taking an image can be exactly that, theft. “Seeing” an image in the right context and timing it’s best moment comes from a deeper understanding than simply looking and taking.

Be prompt and consistent (reliability).

Exceed client needs with fast turn around. treat a job as one continuous process, not a shoot done, then take your time processing and presenting.

Clients are usually equally stressed and excited about pending work. Make a difference to their day by turning work around within an “immediate memory” time frame. If needed give them a small taster, then take feed back and re-submit. This gives the client some feeling of control and input and opens short and long term communication.

Once you have set an expectation, try to match it from then on. If you cannot, communicate.

I am sure I have missed something here, but I may revisit if it comes to me, otherwise, I hope this helps.

Flash Kits Organised

Looks like I have a problem.

I cannot stop buying flash gear. Mods, strobes, backdrops, little widgets and gadgets, they just keep arriving at my door ;().

This over abundance has though allowed me to be really organised, which is great, because this year, organised is what I need to be.

My resources have developed into two independent kits on three levels, which can be supportive of each other, but really do not need to be.

*

My immediate flash needs, for the basic function getting a workable shot in poor light, can be satisfied by this little rig, but it offers a limited choice (fill, bounce and a little off camera glow).

The “minimum field kit”, which is my take anywhere, location portrait or problem light solving set-up is based around 1x Godox 860, 1x Godox 685 some flagging foams, mini tripod rig, a small 176 LED with gels, a small 5-in-1 reflector and a 16” circular soft box. The flashes can operate in TTL and HSS with my cameras which is ideal for daylight fill, side key light, backlight or the can bounce with the flagging as a giant soft box, using the little 16” diffuser as a reflector if needed.

The LED can go on or off camera as a rim or fill light or light up the background as needed.

The 860’s monster Lithium battery will hopefully provide enough grunt to handle multiple (usually a burst of three) fast shots in HSS. This set-up will fit into my Domke F802 bag with my basic camera kit.

The 685 becomes the master, because it’s slower recharge is ok* for weaker fill or triggering of the main 860 flash.

Missing from the image are some home made gels (plastic folders cut to size), and a spare battery for the 860 and the freshly ordered 20” 5-in-1..

Missing from the image are some home made gels (plastic folders cut to size), and a spare battery for the 860 and the freshly ordered 20” 5-in-1..

*

For bigger outside jobs, have a second kit bag with 2 small stands, a reflector/diffuser clamp, an umbrella clamp, three 33” umbrellas (silver, white shoot through and gold), a 43” umbrella soft box for when I have time especially useful with the LED panels.

This can be supplemented by my Neewer 480 RGB and/or 660 Bi-colour LED panels and any of my reflectors or diffusers.

This has the makings for a truly versatile and quite powerful 4-5 light rig, which if I remember rightly was my desired kit in it’s entirety only a few months ago!

Not pictured are a second LED (not arrived yet), a gold brolly (forgot), 12x5’ diffusion cloth and stand, tools, tape etc and the little kit bag it fits in. The tent pegs at the bottom replace duct tape to hold down the stands on grass. All pictures…

Not pictured are a second LED (not arrived yet), a gold brolly (forgot), 12x5’ diffusion cloth and stand, tools, tape etc and the little kit bag it fits in. The tent pegs at the bottom replace duct tape to hold down the stands on grass. All pictures shot with a mix of tungsten artificial and window light!

Likely additions are maybe another 1 or 2 176/216 LED’s, so the bigger one can be left at home.

All of this fits into my basic camera bag and a small lighting kit bag except for the larger reflectors and LED’s.

*

The “portable studio” kit, which is now well out of hand, but also reassuringly competent, consists of 4 Yongnuo 560 mkIV’s and a MKIII all controlled by a TX 560. These seem to recycle faster than the 685 Godox** and being manual only are ideal for studio use. Powered by Eneloop pro batteries, I can see this outfit handling some serious work.

The LED’s can fix any balance problems, provide effects or fill for the above and the 2 Godox can be slotted in as dumb slaves as well, making potentially a 9 light kit!

Modifiers are many, probably too many, but I am learning and cannot resist a bargain. I think the dearest single modifier, a 72” shoot through brolly, was $60 Australian, making this entire kit (20 odd modifiers, 7 flash units, 3 LED’s, 2 big and 2 small stands and various bits and a 3x6’ stand for my 12x5’ diffuser cloth, which may be single, double or triple layered as needed), a total investment of about $2000au (lost exact count a few orders ago).

The mods cover the full range from tight (7” reflector dishes with 10-60 degree grids) through to very broad/soft (72” shoot-through brolly).

There are better/dearer modifier options out there, but in this case depth can genuinely make up for quality and light is, at the end of the day just light. The only areas these mods fall short are durability and “name”, but they do come with the added benefits of often being smaller, lighter and more easily bought/replaced. Interestingly, a few reviewers have taken the “Parabolic” craze apart, finding it makes little difference, but it sure is hiking up the prices of a lot of mods.

For backdrops, which I have pretty much put on the back burner as I am favouring location control instead, I have a 9’ wide Black and 7’ Grey muslin and a Kate mottled grey 5x7’ microfibre that looks nice (not tried yet). These are held in place by two $10 Smallrig Super Clamps on two of my bigger stands, with a $20 collapsible 9’ K-Mart curtain rail (cheap as chips and is a little sturdier than many backdrop poles).

There are now plans afoot to make a 14x9’ studio space in the old garage/store room downstairs. Not a perfect solution, but plenty for experimenting etc.

The reality is, I may need to do some “school portrait” style images, so this will likely get some use.

Not pictured, a second LED (and maybe many more), several lighting mods (need a whole other photo), two more heavy and two regular light stands, a backdrop cross-bar and 3 backdrops, the big bag it fits in and various tools, clamps, batteries etc.

Not pictured, a second LED (and maybe many more), several lighting mods (need a whole other photo), two more heavy and two regular light stands, a backdrop cross-bar and 3 backdrops, the big bag it fits in and various tools, clamps, batteries etc.

If this turns in to something more serious, I may look at either a couple of the best selling AD200 Godox units, some Godox SL60 mono blocks, more 660 LED’s or maybe I won’t bother.

*

*Eneloops have made the 685 more consistent, but it still has just not quite fast enough recycling to handle my 3x HSS bursts, although it can now help reduce the strain on it’s more efficient partner.

** If I were to start from scratch, I would buy 1 860 Godox and 3 850’s. These all run on lithium batteries, which are better and way less fiddly than AA’s. The 860 offers all of the TTL goodness I would need, the 850’s fit with it seamlessly in manual (but also with HSS etc.).

The Olympus "Hump"

A few weeks ago I was at an historic low point with my gear situation.

Much of the problem was me and nothing more, but a perfect storm of mediocre results at a time when I had money at hand to potentially go full frame Canon or Fuji again, left me stressed and uncertain.

What a difference a few weeks can make.

Choosing the path well trod (again), I found myself putting a decent amount of money into Olympus and a little into Panasonic gear again, really cementing my commitment to that path and effectively cutting out any others. This is my five year plan, which I feel will likely see me out photographically and if it does not, then we will see when we get there.

What changed my mind?

Testing, reality checks and looking back at previous work, plus the discovery (even after the fact) of a superior processing option.

Comparing Fuji and Olympus surprised me with a solid win to Olympus in Fuji’s home playground (low light and jpeg). The Fuji had an ISO, pixel count and lens advantage (2.8 vs variable), but I still responded much more positively to my Olympus quick test images.. Both cameras were shooting jpeg’s, so a fair playing field.

The 300mm revelation, which came in the form of an honest exploration and a reality of my needs while out walking the dogs, allowed this lens, literally right under my nose all these years in the shop where I worked, to float to the top. I have not been in a “what do I really need” situation with the means to follow through for a while now, so it took a shift in thinking processes. Spending that much on a lens is always a tough period for me (and my wife), especially when my first results were poor, but I worked it through.

Mother and Baby Tawny Frog Mouth (the habit is to add “Owl”, but apparently they are not). This is the result of a new lens and processing path, and a little to do with camera and I feel is an unlikely shot for me to pull off only a month ago. The s…

Mother and Baby Tawny Frog Mouth (the habit is to add “Owl”, but apparently they are not). This is the result of a new lens and processing path, and a little to do with camera and I feel is an unlikely shot for me to pull off only a month ago. The shadow and highlight recovery are excellent, noise well controlled (not mushy) and high, natural sharpness a given.

EM1 mk2, firmware 3.0 (then EM1x) jpeg handling of higher ISO’s gave me great heart at a time when I felt that the EM1 mk2’s mushy high ISO quality was a backward step from my previous Olympus cameras.

The EM1x High Res, high ISO performance, showed me that there are more ways to skin a cat…

Finally Capture 1 allowed a similar handling of RAW files, sealing the already done to deal.

Have I been rewarded for my loyalty, or is it more a matter of having been down this road enough times to subconsciously ignore the false signs and battle through?

Either way, I have never felt more powerful photographically.

Two new cameras, two solid new lenses, an improved processing workflow are exciting and reassuring.

Capture One + EM1x = Happy Times

My explorations of C1 (when I have time) are going extremely well.

The Programme just seems more powerful, but at the same time more controlled than Lightroom. My workflow is a little rubbish at the moment (have not read the 766 page manual), but otherwise everything seems intuitive and easy to find.

It seems there is always an answer.

I find I am less concerned with shadow and highlight retrieval, noise and even ISO settings in general. The results seem finished on import, only needing very slight fixes and these are often global, which is a bit of a shame as the fixes available are so clean and powerful, but good news for large jobs.

I wish all M43 users would give it a go, as I feel judging the format on Adobe’s processing is a little like running a high performance car on standard gas. I have been happy enough with their results over the years, but wish that in hind sight I could re-do so many jobs, just to see if C1 would have made a difference.

This is Sid (as you can see). This image was taken “on the fly” with my EM1x and 300 f4, while trying to get a pair of Tawny Frogmouth’s* with their eyes open down at the local dog park. This is tough as staying dead still and blending in is their m…

This is Sid (as you can see). This image was taken “on the fly” with my EM1x and 300 f4, while trying to get a pair of Tawny Frogmouth’s* with their eyes open down at the local dog park. This is tough as staying dead still and blending in is their main skill. It is an exercise of grey on grey until bright yellow eyes appear. Sid on the other hand is just a great, relaxed guy. He is a Greyhound-Alsatian cross, originally bred as a companion dog, but his matched companion was too rough on him.

* like an Owl, but not actually one.

The file above has very little done to it after import. I lightened the shadows, pulled back the highlights and used the layer tool to brush in some sharpness and lighten his eye. Not much at all.

Oh and yeah, loving the lens.

The Ongoing Problem Of Daylight Fill.

Portraiture in bright light is a little problematic.

You want to use your nice fast portrait lens wide open to blur the background. Check.

You want to shoot with the sun in your eyes for subject comfort and pleasant back/rim light. Check.

Need a little sparkle in the eye to literally catch the eye. Check.

So want to use flash to fill the shadows and add that sparkle, but with the above in mind….err, problem.

Wide open lenses in bright light, need fast shutter speeds. Flash generally does not want high shutter speeds unless you use the power in-efficient high speed sync option (fine with powerful strobes, but a real drain on portable flash units), which often limits your output and spontaneity.

There are a few fixes.

The first and cheapest option is a well placed reflector or diffuser. This is often a workable solution, but may need an assistant or complicated rig. Staying where you want to be, while making subtle changes to reflector angle can be problematic, again effecting output and spontaneity.

A better solution and one I have been putting off for too long, is to introduce a constant or fixed light. These lights, usually LED’s have a couple of advantages.

Not a great example, but cute none the less. This image above needed 1/1000 at ISO 100 for an f2 aperture i.e. shallow depth of field. Tricky if not impossible for many flash set-ups. The contrast range is at the extreme end of fixable, so LED’s cou…

Not a great example, but cute none the less. This image above needed 1/1000 at ISO 100 for an f2 aperture i.e. shallow depth of field. Tricky if not impossible for many flash set-ups. The contrast range is at the extreme end of fixable, so LED’s could help bring out that left hand eye.

LED or video lights have been around for a while, but have really come into their own lately for both stills and video use.

The main advantage of constant LED lights for stills shooters is they do not need to “sync” with the camera. You simply turn them on and let them do their thing, while you do yours. In other words, you can set the Aperture and Shutter Speed you want, treating the LED like natural light (that you can control).

Other advantages such as light temperature and power controls build in, running cold, allowing a piece of paper or cloth to be a diffuser or taped on cellophane for colour changes and cordless operation are juts bonuses. Some can even be run from a remote or phone app.

I have been pondering the value of a decent sized LED as a better option to a reflector. They are not direction sensitive nor do they even require any actual sunlight (which they can replace!). They can be placed anywhere more easily than even a smallish reflector and can produce any number of warm through cool tones without gels etc.

Need a background, fill, chin or rim light? Not only do they do this well, but you get a free preview. I have struggled for a while deciding on what expensive and cumbersome clamp arm or similar I would get for a reflector to do these jobs, so a decent LED at the same price seems a bargain.

I have just purchased the Neewer 660 Bead and smaller 176 Bead lights. The smaller one will do the job as the much needed fill light, being camera mounted or hand holdable. The smaller one also comes with two batteries, which will cover both, or they can be run off AC. Once I see them in action I may buy another two 660’s as 2000 beads seems to be critical mass for this type of lighting.

The bigger, probably excessive one, will be a welcome addition to my existing lighting kit and help fight strong sunlight. When shooting groups, the light can provide fill and if I add another one or two, even take some strain off my strobes.

They are not perfect.

They are weaker than flashes by weight and considerably weaker than strobes, but can provide lovely, nearly invisible fill, with more control and that all important preview. If you want to cover large groups, LED’s are probably not practical, so stick to strobes.

A great resource for this lighting is Kirk Tuck’s book “LED Lighting” with a guest chapter by Neil Van Niekerk.

Reviews, Why They Suck.

I will say straight up, I spend way too much time looking at other peoples reviews on subjects close to my heart and not enough forming my own opinions.

Guess what happens when I do form my own thoughts? I form an opinion that is relevant to me.

Camera and lens reviews are often flawed, and many reviewers will spell out their own limitations of process up front and in detail, but we still slog through their findings and accept them on face value.

Lets look at one of the most trusted camera reviewers, DPreview.

They use a well tested and industry relevant process when testing camera sensors, Adobe Photoshop.

I have recently been reminded that there are other choices out there. If you shoot M43 for example, then Adobe is no friend to their slightly higher noise. If you shoot Fuji, there have been years of documented issues with Adobe>Fuji Raw file processing. I have spent way too long poring over minute differences between A and B sensor, when a simple trial out of a new software suite has shifted things seismically for me.

Each brand of camera manufacturer has a “best case” software suite available and it is rarely Adobe as the number one above all, so by using this one (admittedly market leading) programme, people are being forced to accept a hierarchy that is not necessarily accurate.

Lens tests are another area of confusion.

Many of the better testers will show you wall chart resolution tests. Field curvature is present in most lenses, making a flat test prone to revealing flaws that are not always real world relevant. To make things worse, some manufacturers will correct this simply to satisfy testing regimes, not actual field results. Fuji made an 18mm that I really liked, but testers had a problem with it. The lens was really sharp across the (curved) frame, losing some edge sharpness after the camera artificially flattened the capture.

If I was photographing walls close up at F2 with a wide angle lens, then sure, that is relevant (as relevant as a review of my mental well being), but for most subjects the lens was designed for, there would never be an issue worthy of note.

Noise, CA and many other factors are stringently pulled apart, when the reality is a large print will rarely show these issues on paper. Maybe sitting too close to a high res screen will reveal all of the images dirty secrets, but why do that to it or your self?

Consistently the lenses I keep coming back to are the ones that are poor tests candidates*.

Why is that? It is because lab tests rarely show a lens and camera’s image making character. Liken it to a thorough medical examination, ignoring the subjects personality, poise and natural grace.

I have no idea where I took this, but meta data can provide when what and how. Still like it even if it was a mistake.

I have no idea where I took this, but meta data can provide when what and how. Still like it even if it was a mistake.

DXO for example rarely gives Canon good marks over Sony or any other camera sporting a Sony sensor (not to mention their inability to even measure Fuji). So how do they explain either brand’s market share and loyal following?

Images are never measured by the camera that takes them, only the viewers response to the end result.

My little secret and one I like to remind myself of regularly, is that my largest reproduced images have all been made on my least expensive lenses and are often technically flawed in some way!

*Olympus 17mm f1.8, Canon 28 f1.8, Olympus 75-300 and 40-150 kit.

Some Thoughts On Capture 1 After 100 Images.

Capture 1 is working well. Some things I would like to share straight up;

It loads a lot faster than Lightroom, but this may be partly due to the library size disparity, or maybe not. C1 seems to load within a few seconds and the library loads as a separate entity. Lightroom has been taking a minute or so to load from off for a while now.

The standard files are cleaner, more finished and more mature looking.

The tools are more numerous, seem stronger and more predictable.

The above two result in a faster work flow because I don’t have to do as much.

It is highly customisable.

It has a brilliant masking/layering tool that is infinitely more versatile than my favourite LR tool, the brush.

Every time I ask a question of the programme, it seems to have an answer.

The answers are easy to find through linked tutorials, a free manual and simple intuition.

It is not an exaggeration to say, I feel like I not only have another arrow in my quiver, but an upgraded bow also. M43 has satisfied me on the whole for the last ten years, but it has gone from giant killing in the early days (EM5 mk1 vs D700 Nikon and 5D2), but has slowly lost it’s main advantages to the bigger guns. For me cleverness is the answer, I am just not sure they will not eventually be swallowed anyway.

I have so far found the wealth of easy to apply options mind blowing. It really is like Lightroom with skates on. The image above responded to C1 with a better, cleaner base file, showing me what it wanted (some clarity around the eyes). This is esp…

I have so far found the wealth of easy to apply options mind blowing. It really is like Lightroom with skates on. The image above responded to C1 with a better, cleaner base file, showing me what it wanted (some clarity around the eyes). This is especially evident in under exposed files. I honestly cannot remember the last time I was this excited about a foundation function of photography since (searching memory banks…), maybe the first time a saw a startlingly clear file from an EM5 compared to my earlier Canon “smooth and soft” images.

C1 has given me effectively a sensor upgrade in comparison to what I have been seeing. I have liked the Olympus-Lightroom dynamic mostly, but mushy noise at higher ISO settings, especially from my workhorse EM1 mk2’s has been an issue. C1 has driven away those demons.

The same file developed in Lightroom a few weeks ago. Nice enough, but I can already feel I am responding differently to my files. Notice the way the Bokeh is rendered more smoothly around the books in the background. Nothing was done specifically t…

The same file developed in Lightroom a few weeks ago. Nice enough, but I can already feel I am responding differently to my files. Notice the way the Bokeh is rendered more smoothly around the books in the background. Nothing was done specifically to either file here, only localised clarity “brushing” over the eye and lightening globally. The limited options in Lightroom’s tools had not bothered me before, but the potential and logical application in C1 is eye opening.

The EM1x, the camera that forced me to look elsewhere when Lightroom and my older computer refused to catch up, has really impressed, but it has taken C1, both technically and functionally to see that.





Quick HHHR test

So what do you do on a cold windy day in summer?

Pick up your longest lens, newest camera and try the most unlikely of things.

Hand Held High Res. ISO 400 1/20th F4 300mm (!) lens. Raw, no extra processing from C1. This arrangement was about 20 feet away.

Hand Held High Res. ISO 400 1/20th F4 300mm (!) lens. Raw, no extra processing from C1. This arrangement was about 20 feet away.

Closer

Closer

And closer until pixels are showing.

And closer until pixels are showing.

A different JPEG shot, ISO 1600 1/90th. Basically no noise!!!

A different JPEG shot, ISO 1600 1/90th. Basically no noise!!!

One of the reasons I stuck with Olympus, despite it’s possible demise and the possible limited potential growth of the M43 sensor, is the clever tech they are offering now, that may stave off obsolescence* for a while.

Think about the above scenario in Cannon, Sony or Nikon terms;

A hand held 600mm f4 with 2 stops less depth of field, that costs $10,000au+ mounted on a 45+ mp camera (another $5,000au +), at 1/20th ISO 400? A lot of money for a cute exercise in Bokeh management. Up the ISO to engage the Full Frame advantage (and mitigate it’s disadvantages) and the HHHR may still beat it for noise!

HHHR is a likely candidate for indoor group portraits. The higher ISO will effectively triple available lighting** power, which when added to the DoF benefit I have with M43 (2.8 being equal to 5.6 full frame) gains another two stops, giving me a 4-5 stop advantage over a full frame rig.

In the right circumstances I will have both better ISO noise control and higher resolution than some of the best cameras on the market, all for a dirt cheap $2500au total (EM1x Black Friday special and any decent standard lens). To top it off, I then have a top tier sports camera to boot.

With some light processing to the RAW. Loving C1!

With some light processing to the RAW. Loving C1!

*Real world obsolescence, not reviewer scorn.

**No flash in HR modes as it cannot fire with multiple captures, so LED’s or ambient will have to be it.


Gear Retrospective Or An "In The Bag"

After a short year of working in a professional environment with M43 gear, I feel like doing an “In the Bag” style recap of what has worked and what has not.

Personally I have always loved these, usually found in magazines, since I started this journey (in the ‘80’s) and find the little details are sometimes the one thing you the reader may want to know, or not.

Cameras

EM1 Mk2 (x2)

Love the AF (even original firmware). For someone who has shied away from completely trusting AF, Olympus/M43 first opened my eyes to the potential of amazing one-shot speed and accuracy. When I tentatively dipped my toe into the full AF tracking world, even with a lens only slightly better than a kit lens (see below) and an older firmware prime (75), I was not expecting such a high hit to miss ratio.

Excuse the hurried images, not my best work. The Front Row including the new EM1x.

Excuse the hurried images, not my best work. The Front Row including the new EM1x.

If you get yourself sorted, it gets the job done almost flawlessly. I now have a new body with 3.0 firmware, which seems to be more sure footed again and on a par with the EM1x that arrived this week. Combine these with the 40-150 and the new 300 F4 Pro and I am looking forward to an even more exciting year.

EM10 Mk2 (x2)

My “shutter savers”, picked up new on clearance for $700au total. Each time I push the button on one of these, used primarily for lower stress situations, it saves a wasted frame from a more powerful camera. They are fast, accurate and pleasant to use. If they take 100k shots between them, they have paid for themselves over and over.

I like to use them in classrooms or for social events, where the smaller form factor tends to relax people and the gentle shutter is quiet enough if the electronic one is not practical. I would love it if the electronic shutter was usable at higher than ISO 1000, but that is really all. Add a nice prime for a perfect combination.

My intention is to keep adding cheap 10, 5 series or mid-range Panasonic bodies as fillers over the next few years, again to save unwarranted use of 1 series bodies.

_C110016.jpg

Pen F

This one is really kept for personal use, but it is wheeled out when I am doing a portrait specific job. There is something about this camera and a 45 or 75mm lenses. It’s just magic. I do believe it takes the sharpest files I can produce at lower ISO’s (EM1x not yet compared), but there is something more. It’s like this is the ultimate iteration of the original OMD’s sensor (probably down to having no phase detection on sensor).

EM5’s (2 ok, 2 a bit dodgy) and Pen Mini

It is truly a luxury when you can claim to have 5 older cameras lying around for personal projects, but that is the benefit of choosing to flog older cameras to death rather than off loading them earlier.

Effectively worthless now and all nursing one issue or another, they have earned their semi retirement. If we get to go to Japan again soonish, I will be tempted to use them one last time, but if not, the last five years of trips there with these little cameras can reach a logical and fitting end point.

The front two are still useful, the rear ones a little “twitchy” and the Pen, a street favourite as no-one takes it seriously, is hardly used (in comparison). The middle one is the most trustworthy, but lost a strap lug, surviving a 3 foot fall! The…

The front two are still useful, the rear ones a little “twitchy” and the Pen, a street favourite as no-one takes it seriously, is hardly used (in comparison). The middle one is the most trustworthy, but lost a strap lug, surviving a 3 foot fall! The original silver one is on my 60” Gordie strap.

It is amazing to me how often they still produce the goods. On a couple of recent jobs where the second body was not necessary or was in one case effectively a sacrificial option while climbing, they got a go and have actually taken the best files on the day. Truth be told, if they weren’t so old and twitchy I would use them even more.

Lenses

Primes (4 or 5 if you count my second 45)

The f1.8 primes covering 17, 25, 45 and 75 (35-150 equiv), are reserved for low light or shallow depth of field as necessary. The 45 and 75mm’s get the most use, but the 25 is starting to get more as I am reminded of it’s specialness each time I use it. To be honest, there are times when only these lenses will do the job. I am often restricted to silent shutter, no flash available light indoor work and these lenses used wide open (remember that is equal to f2.8 on a full frame), give me sharp, accurate and beautiful results.

The only one that does not get much use is ironically my favourite lens for personal use, the 17mm.

My only real failure this last year was a series of shots taken in a large school gym at an awards ceremony, where a combination of bad backlight light, an older EM5 and the 17mm created some files I would only show as decent black and whites, due to fringing, muddiness and poor colour.

Notice the lack of original hoods. Cheap ebay metal ones are way better and way cheaper.

Notice the lack of original hoods. Cheap ebay metal ones are way better and way cheaper.

The Pro Zooms (2)

The 12-40 and 40-150 are my work horse lenses. Where would I be without them? Probably not working as a successful photographer. The longer lens in particular, the one I procrastinated about buying back is just getting better and better for me the more I use it. I miss the 12-100 I sold at a low point, simply because it was a cracker simply because it was a good lens, but getting the 40-150 back has made all the difference.

I have only used it once, but the recently added 8-18 looks like a winner, giving me a wider range and a good standard back up to the 12-40.

Oh look, two has turned into three and a super tele! Only one ringer hood here, which is sometimes used inside the collapsible one for handling convenience and internal reinforcement for the original.

Oh look, two has turned into three and a super tele! Only one ringer hood here, which is sometimes used inside the collapsible one for handling convenience and internal reinforcement for the original.

The Other Zooms (3)

The 75-300 has done me (and Olympus) proud. That lens effectively carried the can for me for all outdoor sports, performing better than I thought it should. The EM1 mk2 with it (both early firmware) caught more than they missed, occasionally fighting failing light and poor weather. I have moved up in the world, but the little 75-300 will still be grabbed confidently on those occasions when the big bruisers are not needed.

The two kit lenses, good enough that I would happily do a paid job with them (in decent light), have paid for themselves many times over. Reserved for travel, gear dangerous jobs or for packing light, both can mix it with the best when used sensibly. I will use them until they break, which may be longer than I expect.

More cheapo hoods.

More cheapo hoods.

Bags (7, because no bag is perfect)

The Domke F802 is my main bag. It will take two lens mounted cameras (any combination without battery grips), several more lenses and any amount of accessories in the two huge pockets and optional pouches. On my review page, this bag shows how it not only swallows gear, but rides well also.

The Filson Field Camera Bag. I love this bag, but I use it sparingly. When full it tends to sag in the middle, making it difficult to extricate gear. It is often worn when only small kits are needed.

The Filson Field Bag. Not strictly a camera bag, this one is my “dressy” bag. The capacity is fine and it is practical enough (pockets are small but secure), that when working “gear out” it makes a comfortable and ignorable extras holder.

The Domke F2 Original. My wife hates this bag and I must admit, it is looking a little ratty, but I cannot deny, when nothing else works, I go to the F2. It is especially good for bulky rigs like a camera with flash and modifier fitted or camera with grip and long lens. Like the F802, it has generous pockets and seems to hold a serious amount of kit with a reinforced base (no sag).

The Domke F3x Rugged. This one has a dual role as my “hip hugging” low profile bag or best weather proof option. I have several bags that are weather proof, but I trust this greasy skinned one the most. I felt that it’s big SLR and lens holding design had lost relevance, but it has proven otherwise.

Think Tank Turnstyle 10. This is my sports bag. I arrive camera and lens in hand, with my second option and accessories in the TT, which is my most “invisible” bag. It can hold a small kit, I Pad and lots of bits, which still surprises me. I almost grabbed a TT 20L recently, but may hold off as the design seems to make the most sense smaller, other bags doing the bigger way better, but we will see.

Low Pro Pro Tactic 350 (original). I have a love-hate relationship with this one. This is my “getting there” bag especially useful for aircraft travel. The rigid body makes it a good head or foot rest, a useful lens support when lying down and it holds bigger lenses safely on or off camera (as well as pottery purchased while travelling).

I have never found it very comfortable (maybe it’s too small), but it is just barely more comfortable than other options so it has had a stay of execution a few times. This one is still up for review as I find it is a little small, especially with the new tele, so a bigger Neewer heavy duty back pack (a bargain at $80au) that gets great reviews is on order to replace it. I will keep the Pro Tactic for travel haulage. The Neewer came up in some comparison videos with Flipside 400 Lowepro’s and the like and did well as well as one review that pretty much proved it was the same as a 3x dearer Polarpro model.

Other Stuff

My various tripods have had no use. Who knew. I will investigate this though as I feel that separation from the camera while organising people is a good thing.

My extensive, but not expensive Yong Nuo based lighting kit is itching for a another go after the school ball and I intend to use it whenever I can. Batteries have been an issue, so I bit the bullet and ordered some Eneloop Pro cells (30) and charger.

The TTL Godex has proven useful and I do need to use it more often, but old habits….

If I get more call for heavy jobs I will invest in either Godex 60w, Neewer 960 LED wall/batt powered or Godox AD200 portable lights. Ed. turned into an 860 Godox and Neewer 660 LED.

Basic cards have done fine so far (the benefit of not shooting video).

My intention this year is to be far more organised.

Better card discipline, 2 16gb cards per day marked “Monday, Tuesday etc. which are only cleared the next week and stored in one of those 7 day pill organisers, which will fix my perilous daily scramble for a clean card. A set of older “spare” cards always carried and 4 high speed sports/video cards. I rarely need speed for most work, even sports as I try not to blaze away with massive bursts, relying more on timing, so basic 16gb U1 cards are fine and dirt cheap.

A charging station (done) has already fixed the multiple dead battery embarrassment I suffered once.

Finally, some work on my processing work flow. This includes introducing Capture 1 pro and expanding my Dropbox storage, both sorely needed and will likely be the most beneficial changes made this year.

The looming year of the Ox is unforgiving of the disorganised and unfocussed, so I will be more diligent than usual.

My Core Work Kit

On any given day, my likely kit will be;

EM1 Mk2 (no grip) and 2 batts for longer lenses (EM1x if low light),

EM10 Mk2 (hand grip) and 2 batts for shorter lenses,

1 card for each (see above), with a set of reserves,

12-40 or 8-18 depending on potential width needed,

40-150 Pro or 40-150 kit or 75-300 depending on light and reach needed,

75 and 45 or 25 portrait lenses always,

Godox 860 flash, 176 LED, Godox off camera controller, mini tripod, flash small reflector & flagging foam

All packed easily into my F802.

or

For sport;

EM1x and 300 F4 (outdoor) or 75 (indoor)

EM1 Mk2 with grip and 40-150 or 75-300 or other depending on subject.

12-40 or 8-18 as needed,

faster cards, lots of batts.

Carried in a Neewer Back pack or TT Turnstyle 10 with EM1x out if no travel is required.

EM1x Angst Solved By Capture 1 Bliss?

So I have an EM1x. Lovely camera, so far poor files.

Lightroom (updated as far as it will go on my 7yr old Mac) will not open the RAW files and the JPEG’s so far have left me with mixed feelings. ACR will open them, but that adds a another level of annoyance to the process.

When choosing where to put my money recently, I made a lot of choices based on blind processing assumptions, although I did question that occasionally, I failed to follow through until my hand is now forced, well after the choice was made. Fuji and FF Canon both had a look in, but I stuck with Olympus/M43, placing faith in the system that got me here in the first place. The major issue was noise, which I felt confident the EM1x would reduce slightly, even if jpegs had to be used. I spent too much time ignoring my little voice that was saying “the camera system is not the only factor here”.

For a while I have been feeling that maybe Adobe alone is not the best fit for my Olympus system. Too much noise at even base ISO, and sometimes just flat-mushy higher ISO files. This is a good thing though, as processing is a modifiable step, not a technical foundation such as a poor sensor or format choice.

Time to look at the options.

The two that floated to the top (as usual) are DXO Lab 4 (winner for best noise reduction) and Capture One 21 (better base RAW conversions, but similar workflow to a Photoshop/Lightroom love child (looks like a built in layers option to a Lightroom work flow).

I am trialling C1 first, with a likely option of DXO for higher ISO noise (or not) and NIK suite for options.

Elusive little bugger, the EM1x at it’s best.

Elusive little bugger, the EM1x at it’s best.

Basic import with a layer (brush) of some more clarity and some global shadow work. This is beyond print sharpening needs and over-done (trying to find the file again to re-work it :) ), but it’s a finer rendering regardless. From a slightly underex…

Basic import with a layer (brush) of some more clarity and some global shadow work. This is beyond print sharpening needs and over-done (trying to find the file again to re-work it :) ), but it’s a finer rendering regardless. From a slightly underexposed ISO 400 RAW file, no noise at all with no noise reduction used. Wow.

Ok. I am just getting the feel for it (used it for 10 mins and I am a computer dummy), but already I feel like I have upgraded my whole kit, even my perspective on quality.

Is my 300mm sharp?

You betcha, I can finally breathe easily there.

Is the EM1x or any Olympus camera capable of sharp, noiseless files at regular ISO’s?

You betcha, up to 800 as standard.

How about sharp and clean files at ISO 3200+?

Looks like!

The natural looking noise is closer to bigger sensor camera rendering in Lightroom (almost identical to some ISO 6400 test files I made in Lightroom with a D610 Nikon). The noise is there, but smoothed and natural looking. The odd colouring in the in focus portion of the image below is my poor processing.

_C100004.jpg

Quick observations. It seems to be a “sharper knife” than Lightroom, with more and more refined tools to use. I could not find Noise reduction, so I right clicked on the tool bar and 30+ more options appeared, including the Library organiser!

Some tools are the same, some better (halo suppression in sharpening that I noticed too late to fix the above!) and some exist where they did not in Lightroom. I am looking for something I will miss, but so far….

A cleaner and more natural version than the Lightroom one.

A cleaner and more natural version than the Lightroom one.

Now all I need to be truly happy, is a similar work flow, which it looks like they have when I can work the catalogue out. The free 766 page manual is….helpful!?

Olympus Till I Die! (well...mostly)

I started a gear retrospective the other day, you know a “what works and what doesn’t” look at the last half year, for me and others to learn from.

Before that though, some new stuff has entered the stables.

EM1x. The second EM1 mk2 was to be the specialised sports camera, freeing up the older one (hardly broken in yet) to be my work horse for low light and fast shooting day to day. An EM1 and a lesser camera (EM5 mk1 or EM10 mk2) are fine for most things, but I felt thin in the top end for sports or major events.

Buying the EM1x effectively doubles the life of my kit and adds further useful features such as hand held high res (including very good noise control) and learning AF. Hopefully there will be a slight step up in JPEG quality for high volume work*. It also represents a commitment to Olympus and M43.

So far I am semi impressed by the JPEG’s, but very impressed by the camera on the whole.

The thing is a beast!

Faster in all ways (menu and button navigation, as well as shooting), slightly bigger and definitely more solid feeling, it weighs surprisingly little in the hand.

*

The 300 f4 (with 1.4 teleconverter).

This is a handful in more ways than one.

So far I have had mixed success with it, for which I will take the lions share of responsibility, but also the lens I bought was the demo one from where I worked, so the firmware is out of date. It looks like there have been at least two more updates, both mentioning AF speed and accuracy.

At first I thought I had a dud (only looking in front of the camera, not behind!). Fast shutter speeds, but not fast enough and poor placement gave me a patchy return from a short stint at the Cricket. The files were soft and “blotchy”. Part of this may be the lens-focus, but part the camera’s settings (new camera in JPEG).

The EM1x and 300 are meant to be my ace team, but nothing much good came from it first time out.

Testing time. I won’t bore you with all of the files, but I am satisfied it is as sharp as any lens I have and noticeably sharper than the excellent 75-300 at 300 (where it is needed). For the files below I used the tried and true EM5 mk1 in Lightroom because I just know what to expect.

The next day, I repeated the same process at the cricket with the same results (definition of stupid comes to mind). Then I changed my shooting angle. No longer was I chasing a fast front on image, but following a wider target side on. Success! Lots of keepers (some I can show below as there are no student faces).

Every bowler, batsman and the keeper were well represented, including a catch (bottom), a bowled (top set) 2 stumpings (1 in the second set below) and a run out. I cannot show the bowling images due to faces showing, but they are sharp and crisp with a gorgeous flattened, but layered look.

What I do know though, is it is hard to use well. AF is going to have to be top tier as well as technique. The depth of field at 300 f4 (600 f8 equiv) or 420 f5.6 (840 f11) is very shallow especially at small bird distances.

Bokeh is a little busy and even acting as a 600mm it is still only a 300mm in FF terms so background separation is not going to be as buttery as a full frame combo (which I cannot justify and do not need), but it is clearly better than the 300 f6.7 I have been using.

No room for error, especially at close range.

No room for error, especially at close range.

So far the files are very good on the eye, crisp and brilliant, especially after a light touch with the clarity brush. To be honest they are more than is needed for school reproduction work. I would like them better still and more consistent, but that is going to needed some firmware updates and fine tuning. I would have no issue cropping the JPEG files heavily or blowing them up big.

The teleconverter at the moment is only exaggerating my issues with the big lens, especially AF (and makes it too long for most applications), but it sits well with the 40-150, which I am beginning to really love as a pairing. This gives me a genuine 400 f4 equiv, filling the gap between the two lenses.

All of the left hand files below are the 40-150 with TC vs the 300mm on the right showing the difference in reach, contrast and sharpness (nearly identical). The final shot is to show it is not just good up close (the trampoline is in our next door neighbour’s yard).

Notice how quickly the DoF falls away in the top image from the 300mm.

First up, I am not a birder.

The images below were from a walk this morning with the EM1x (JPEG) and 300 with converter (840mm eq). Hard combo to use, surprisingly quite often too long, but comfortable to carry. I had about a 10% success rate, often missing shots I felt I had due to very shallow depth.

On close inspection, I do not like the JPEG harshness and crunchy noise reduction except at high ISO’s where it is much the same and better than RAW’s, so it looks like RAW still for the very best quality, although for many applications, that will only bother me.

Something I have to get used to is the different dynamic. My 75-300 would sometimes pull off some real Hail Mary shots, but the shallower depth of this lens gives me little room for error, even with all the help it gives.

*

The Panasonic-Leica 8-18.

This one is my one ringer. Had to happen eventually.

It is such a practical choice compared to the Olympus 7-14, that it just had to be. It takes 67mm filters, not a “rig” of expensive square ones, it is about the same size as the 12-40 (with metal hood) and it covers both super wide (rarely used, but occasionally mandatory), but also a decent standard wide 18mm (36mm FF). I felt a little thin in both these areas with only the 12-40, so some overlap is comforting.

This lens was not bought because I wanted it, but because I felt I should round off my options, but I can already feel it will be a favourite. It also does not hurt that it offers a slightly different colour palette and contrast.

Wouldn’t you know it, the first day I had it, I needed “as wide as you can go”, so my rarely listened to little voice saved me. It is sharp and pleasant to use, as long as you remember to zoom the right (wrong) way.

*Turns out I shot the bulk of the big end of year event in L/SF JPEG by mistake on the newer EM1 mk2 with 3.0 firmware. They are good enough that no one, including myself noticed at first.

Balance and Predictions

Making decisions can be tough. It is a first world problem I know. I am lucky enough to be able make choices, which is the definition of freedom, but I still find them tough.

Warning; this is a self indulgent work-through post, but it may be helpful to others, so here goes.

I have come into a little money (an inheritance), which though a (mixed) blessing, has come at the best/worst time with literally one day of the Black Friday-Cyber Monday sales left.

Looking at where I am now.

Balance;

I just purchased an EM1 Mk2 on pre BF sale, which has given me balance in my Olympus kit.

Balance is good, balance is important.

2 EM1 mk2’s for action, 2 EM10 mk2’s for static (shutter savers I call them , for when an EM1 is over kill), a Pen F for portraits (‘cos it’s magic at that), 2 ok reliable EM5’s (see EM10’s) and 2 twitchy EM5’s for testing etc and a near new Pen Mini 2, just for me. Probably 1,000,000 frames there with maintenance and enough to see through this vein of good fortune with photography.

My lens stocks are nicely balanced with my cameras. 2 Pro f2.8 zooms covering 24-300 equivalent (work horses), 4 F1.8 primes (very low light/shallow depth from 35 to 150e.) and 3 trustworthy light weight kit level zoom lenses including a long option.

Now first up, I have to say, the school I work for has NEVER complained about the technical quality of my images, but I have personally been “too close” to them and have struggled with the results from some higher ISO work, which tends to be common when I want to shoot silently (= no flash).

If I do not pixel peep, or even if I just give myself a little cooling off time, things are fine. The schools needs are mostly for online, small print or the occasional big print/sign, which is the result of either controlled effort or selecting an already outstanding image.

So the question is;

Will I feel stranded in a few years, lamenting my choice as other’s grow and grow, or is this enough to go on with?

ISO 800 and 75mm f1.8. “Beige” light and flat surroundings come up fine at this viewing distance.

ISO 800 and 75mm f1.8. “Beige” light and flat surroundings come up fine at this viewing distance.

Closer inspection is mushy and lacking detail, but does that matter to anyone but me? Too picky? In these days of clean ISO 3200, maybe I can do better or would the exercise just end in an expensive mathematical impasse. Some softness may be from su…

Closer inspection is mushy and lacking detail, but does that matter to anyone but me? Too picky? In these days of clean ISO 3200, maybe I can do better or would the exercise just end in an expensive mathematical impasse. Some softness may be from subject movement also.

Now if you do the math, I would have to increase high ISO quality by at least 2 stops, preferably 3 before it makes a any real difference, because the ability to use a faster lens aperture without losing practical depth of field (f1.8 on M43 = f2.8 on a full frame) is one big advantage of M43.

The second contributing element is the immediate future of Olympus.

Do I put more money into a possibly “dead” system*, or do I start a migration into another system, assuming I will be working in this industry long enough for it to matter?

*

So, the options.

Option 1 stick with Olympus.

Get an EM1x at BF prices ($2500au-so cheap). This would effectively double my working kit’s life (400K shutter fires), increase my overall capabilities slightly, adding hand held high res, slightly better again AF and better high ISO sharpness** and more of everything useful like batteries and chargers etc. It would also allow the addition of the Oly 100-400 or maybe a premium prime and still retain that precious kit balance. Probably the most important thing, often forgotten, is the very real advantage of practiced familiarity.

If stretched, this combo should be able to give me fully useable, high quality ISO 3200 files at f1.8 (thanks to better af speed and accuracy), which is as enough to deal with the worst light I will encounter. Maybe these files will even be acceptable to me on a pickier level.

The issue of kit longevity would largely go away for me, even considering the unknown future for Olympus. Lots of shutter life, especially in the critical fast af camera class, enough quality and control to do anything I realistically need and full cross compatibility.

Another area I have not explored is processing. My blind adherence to all things Adobe is likely reducing my maximum potential quality, so maybe a specialist noise processing programme like Topaz would sort this anyway. Maybe even more familiarity with Photoshop, not just Lightroom would help.

All of the images above were shot at f1.8 on the 75mm at ISO 3200. The top pairs are jpegs (LSF with low noise reduction), the bottom ones are lightly processed RAWs. The second images would be as big as needed relative to enlargement format (high for smaller prints, low for posters and signs etc).

Acceptable?

Option 2 move partially to Fuji.

Fuji does give about two levels of high ISO cleanliness, especially in jpegs files. I have always responded well to Fuji “glassiness”, which is to my eye the geometric opposite of an Oly file. One gives a sometimes gritty, but detailed sharpness, the other a glassy smoothness. Another thing I have noticed is their ability to make ordinary light look good which when you come down to it, is the the problem.

Fuji is cheap enough to get a full “mirror” kit together in many forms within my budget***, adding depth, creative options and (hopefully) growth through future camera upgrades. The XT4 (cheaper than EM1x on special) is newer, has more pixels, a 1-3 stop ISO advantage, realistic jpeg workflow, great colour, a 300k shutter and is an excuse to do the same differently.

The down sides are not to be ignored.

Two sets of menus and handling interface, two sets of choices at bag level (even mirrorless gets heavy eventually), no cross-compatibility, forcing/adding duplication, some size issues and lastly, ironically too much choice. I have also had some difficulty adjusting to Fuji view finders and handling is a mixed bag.

*

So….I went to town to my friendly local brick and mortar and played with all of the options (buying blind online to save few bucks is crazy, you need to see and feel to truly know). I was leaning towards Olympus, but the 100-400 failed to impress me (even on my own camera). Maybe a bad copy, which does not seem to be a thread with these, but the long range images seemed to be a little soft especially down the left side. Closer, things were great. The lens also did not sit nicely on the camera, showing a little play (a first with an Olympus lens for me).

So I gave the Fuji a go. The 100-400 was nice but really big, so I gave the 50-140 a go.

It felt great on the camera. Looking at the jpegs I have at home, the difference in quality is not mind blowing. The Oly RAW images from the EM1 mk2 are a little flat as I have become used to, something that the helpful drab shop light, similar to my tough light at work helped provide. The jpegs from the Fuji were fine, but the Oly ones were not bad either and that is from the EM1 m2 not EM1x. In truth I had no real control over the Fuji, using it set as it was, I found the files did not have that “glassy” brilliance I remember from my previous Fuji experience.

In shop jpeg’s from Olympus with the 100-400 at 265 f6.1 ISO 2500 vs Fuji (XT3) at 140 f2.8 ISO 3200. WTF! I like to Oly more! The Fuji is smoother, but the Oly seems to have more punch and visual sharpness and that was with a lens I liked less. An EM1x would be even better?

ISO 3200 Lsf  jpeg from the new firmware 3.0 mk2 as a follow up test at home. Maybe the answer to my low light woes lies in the jpeg processing from Olympus. Basically what I would have used with Fuji.

ISO 3200 Lsf jpeg from the new firmware 3.0 mk2 as a follow up test at home. Maybe the answer to my low light woes lies in the jpeg processing from Olympus. Basically what I would have used with Fuji.

And a closer look, clean and sharp. I should have tried the firmware 3.0 jpegs before I got too excited about new horizons. What an afternoon! This would print at 12x16'“ cleanly.

And a closer look, clean and sharp. I should have tried the firmware 3.0 jpegs before I got too excited about new horizons. What an afternoon! This would print at 12x16'“ cleanly.

The plan as of writing is to grab the EM1x at the sale price then sit and watch. Pana lenses work well with Olympus cameras (but not as well the other way around), so there is no need to rush a lens purchase. Ideally I would like the Oly 100-400, but a better one than I played with.

The 200 F2.8 Pana is also tempting (x1.4 extender included) as it is considered to be the best telephoto available for M43, even with the converter very close to the 300 f4 in performance. This would give me F2.8 from 24 to 400 equiv and F4 at 560 equiv and even 800mm f5.6 with the 2x.

*

*This is a poor term to use I guess, because there will be millions of Oly cameras and lenses around for years to come, but there may not be much advancement unless Panasonic does it, which is still problematic because of the patchy AF compatibility Oly lenses have with Pana cameras.

**Looking at (too many) reviews and comparisons, the EM1x with dual processors does seem to retain better sharpness at higher ISO settings and also has better dynamic range. The mushy EM1 mk2 high ISO RAW files, partially fixed in jpegs by firmware, are a known issue for me, but the EM1x seems to share the original OMD’s ability to retain sharpness/detail at high ISO’s allowing for noise reduction to taste. Part of me wishes they had retained the 16mp sensor for this one and increased noise reduction capability.

***XT4 and 16-55/50-140 f2.8, or XT4 18-55/100-400/90, or XT4 18-55/14/100-400 etc.





Just Use It!

So I did a couple of jobs today, determined to just use the 40-150 as needed and what do you know. In the field the lens proved again how good it is to use.

_B250070.jpg

Taking out the odd flaring (?*), the lens shows the usual qualities of an Olympus lens, high sharpness, good micro contrast and an ability to render a nice image. An image that suits the design ideal of the specific lens.

_B250115.jpg

A few things need to be kept in mind before you go down a dead end path like this.

1. The effect of depth of field, focus errors and atmospheric conditions are easy to underestimate even with M43. A 150mm f2.8 is a shallow depth rendering instrument, especially at closer distances, in any format.

2. The end product will rarely be scrutinised by anyone as closely as you will when “testing” gear.

_B250040.jpg

3. You will tend to find what you are looking for, especially in the short term, so don’t trust those observations when they come too easily. You need your observations come and in their own time before you are sure. In the mean time, you get your images taken.

*The problem, if there is one may lie with a damaged filter, the same one it has had on since day one, which seems to have a light smudging or smokiness on its surface.

The Enigma That Is the 40-150 Pro

I must admit to a love hate relationship with my 40-150 pro.

This stems from the dual problem of buying it untried (which I don’t usually do, often purchasing when working in the industry) and some troublesome early results.

My first professional use of the lens resulted in some oddly “hazy” sunny day files and nervous Bokeh. The Bokeh was my issue, as no one else cared, but the haziness sewed a seed of doubt.

I put it down to a new lens on an older camera, sometimes missing focus combined with iffy Bokeh transition. Not a complete answer. My greatest fear is a lens with a de-centring or focal length specific issue that is hard to predict, so equally hard to control. It seems very sharp across the frame when stopped down a little and can perform well at it’s extremes (where I need it).

Subsequent images went a long way to reducing this doubt and I sold the lens confident there was nothing wrong with it and I even bought it back based on reviewing some of my old files.

The problem;


The two images above are both roughly 300% crops of the same subject at a similar angle, facing the sun at the same time of the day. The same settings (150mm at or near wide open). The distances are different and the shutter speeds are also very different (the focus point is the same). The left image falls into the normal range (1/4000) at about 10m. The right hand is 1/16000 electronic at 50m.

Maybe the electronic shutter is the issue although my first images were taken on an EM5 with normal speeds? If the issue is electronic shutter related, then the answer is easy. Don’t use it.

Two parts of the focal point of the same image, not pointing at the sun. There was a lot of smoke haze also, but nothing obvious in this image. Again a high electronic shutter speed at higher ISO.

At pixel level (medium format thumbnail?). Still sharp at a high ISO wide open and at 150mm and very clean at normal sizes.

At pixel level (medium format thumbnail?). Still sharp at a high ISO wide open and at 150mm and very clean at normal sizes.

I have replaced big hood, because i think it is either the electronic shutter or flare where the issue lies. The only reason I removed the hood was because of it’s fragile nature. I have an early one, prone to breaking.

I replaced it with a screw in metal one for a couple of reasons;

  • The metal one allows the lens to go nose first in a bag without retraction or removal.

  • The screw in one allows a polariser to be used, rotating the filter and hood together.

  • The metal hood is smaller helping the lens fit (on camera) into a couple of bags, that the retractable one is either too fat for or needs a cap also and makes the lens look a little less obvious.

    The solution for now is to leave the metal one on for the robustness it offers and the retractable one also, which fits around the outside. The metal one allows safe storage, it reinforces the plastic Olympus one and gives me the option of removing the bigger one if needed without any fuss.

The third variable is distance. Most of the poor images are of subjects at over 50 meters. This is a real issue if it is the problem , because I bought the lens to do field sports.

Again wide open at 150mm and almost pixel level (400%+). The subject is a chimney two houses down the road. Contrasty and sharp enough to max out 13x19” print’s resolution and a good distance for sports.

Again wide open at 150mm and almost pixel level (400%+). The subject is a chimney two houses down the road. Contrasty and sharp enough to max out 13x19” print’s resolution and a good distance for sports.

Of course, longer distances may have atmospheric considerations.

More testing required.

Ok…..back from some quick tests.

The reference image left, then a processed RAW, then a LSF jpeg just for comparison. The Raw file has more fine detail, but the jpeg looks fine at normal size or up to 100%. The Raw was a little hazy (dull overcast day?), but a little clarity and de-haze brushed on fixed that. I think I have a 85-90% copy, which is fine for what I need.

I think that the reality is, I have a good enough lens, even a spectacular one in some circumstances, but it does have a slightly erratic nature in as yet undefined circumstances. Do I trust it? I have already for a couple of jobs and it has done as needed (with few exceptions).

For pro work, as odd as it sounds, my standards are less strict. For almost all applications the lens takes a very nice looking image suitable for publication, enlargement for the occasional sign or poster.

If used carefully I know it can bring home fine art grade files, but so can most of my lenses.

Another Raw jpeg comparison at 150mm f2.8. In this set the added colour and cruder, but effective sharpening of the jpeg (right) do make a difference. Again, some slight softening in a hazy direction, fixed by the Lightroom sliders.

The simple solution may be to avoid electronic shutter for now, and set up a preset for the lens to apply as needed with a little clarity, de-haze and deeper blacks.

Am I being too picky?

Probably. Bad habit pixel peeping that should be avoided early on with new gear because “he goes looking for trouble usually finds it”. We (I) should let a lens first show it’s best, not look for it’s worst.



Cycles

For many spring is a time of new growth, release from the hardships of winter and anticipation of the warmth to come.

For some it is the all too brief, ending too soon with their failing to grasp life.

A few days later, this little one was host to a myriad of other creatures only born because of it’s death.

A few days later, this little one was host to a myriad of other creatures only born because of it’s death.

There are often reminders of the fragility of life around spring time and through to summer.

Flowers come and all too quickly go, newborn animals that don’t make it, leave sad reminders for us in their wake.

I have always been drawn to this cycle, aware of it or not.

I have always been drawn to this cycle, aware of it or not.

Everything is slave to cycles. Nothing stays the same.

We can embrace that rhythm or fight it, but it goes on regardless.

This also takes the form of growth triumphing, but as part of the cycle of decay for something else

This also takes the form of growth triumphing, but as part of the cycle of decay for something else

I think photography has given me a tool to deal with this cycle of life, when I may have avoided it otherwise.

Things Are Starting To Hum

I really appreciate the work I am currently doing.

Being a part of something, especially something that potentially effects so many people, then being good enough at it to pass muster gives me a greater sense of completeness than I have felt in a long time.

One of the things that excites me so much is the variety of work on offer. I cannot think of any other environment or line of photographic employment other than maybe newspaper work, that gives you the opportunity to do so many different types of photography, all under the one umbrella.

Of course the onus is then on the practitioner to be all of those photographers, but that is the challenge that makes it worth while.

*

Today I did a quick portrait of a work colleague and friend*, needed for her winning entry in a graphic design competition. This shoot and another I did recently for the school leadership group, reminded me of two things;

Firstly, I need to remember that even with all of my newly re-kindled artificial light technique, natural light is always the best starting point for a successful portrait.

I have shot with natural light only for the majority of my time behind cameras. This entire site is the product of a “no artificial preservatives added” ethos, but the reality is, when working in a semi commercial environment, you need to be able to use lights, because you cannot control everything. The trick is knowing when not to.

The second point is that being prepared makes the work seem like fun, which in turn increases everyone’s feeling of success.

Portrait sessions can be huge fun, or they can be a strain for all involved. The main things the photographer can do to help things run smoothly are nailing the technical side (know your processes and keep them simple) and location control, which often go hand in hand.

When things come together, it just goes to prove the point.

Kate deserved the services of my personal camera, the Pen F and the proven 75mm at f1.8, both specialist at portraiture. One camera and lens, one subject, nothing else.

Kate deserved the services of my personal camera, the Pen F and the proven 75mm at f1.8, both specialist at portraiture. One camera and lens, one subject, nothing else.

The shot above was pre-visualised in the days before the shoot. The location was scouted** as the best place to get depth, a clean enough, yet interesting background and reliable light. On the day, we had plenty of light, but near gale force winds to deal with (hair, what hair?).

The first location tried was outside on the sheltered and shady side of the building and worked well enough. We could have walked away, but I felt there was an element missing.

Two minutes later and the gantry of a new student building had that element.

Light.

A large window lighting a dark indoor space, especially on an overcast day, offers gentle and controllable contrast.

This could have been manufactured using artificial light by underexposing the ambient light and using strobes for fake side-sunlight, but if it can be pulled off without, all the better.

I need to remember that the choice to use artificial light must make a shot better, or it should not be used at all. The habit of going to lighting gear first, outside of a studio situation, is a trap. After-all aren’t strobes simply trying to replace natural light?

The other image that made my cut. In studio terms this is “split lighting” , meaning the face is 50/50 light and shadow. The image above is “short” side lighting, meaning the light is on the side of the face facing away from the camera.

The other image that made my cut. In studio terms this is “split lighting” , meaning the face is 50/50 light and shadow. The image above is “short” side lighting, meaning the light is on the side of the face facing away from the camera.

This does not mean a wholesale reversal away from artificial lighting for me. It just means that my process has been better defined, first falling back on reliable old techniques, but keeping a mind to newer ones.

*Thanks Kate for letting me use these images.

**A few weeks ago, I took a walk around the campus and made a photographic record of any possible locations. This then has notes made about best light or as importantly light and times of day to avoid. When Kate asked for this image, I went to my location bank and chose three spots, one for each possible circumstance we might encounter. This has been a godsend for me, as I am personally so much more relaxed when this side of things is taken care of.

The Perfect Camera Bag

Seriously? No such thing.

I have been reminded by necessity, that there is no perfect camera bag, but, their is often the perfect bag for a specific situation.

My bag stocks are embarrassingly large.

Even after years of selling of and gifting, I still lay claim to a dozen or so real camera bags and thanks to M43’s size factor, several non camera specific bags that do the job.

What do I Use?

No single one. Not even a small selection. I use anything at hand, depending on what I am doing (purchasing back my 40-150 Pro has also forced a re-think).

If getting there is more difficult than being there;

LowPro Pro Tactic 350 AW (1st edition). Not my favourite bag to wear (I find it too small and uncomfortable), but great for travelling or simply hauling a decent amount of gear from here to there. I often use this for stage photography, placing the bag in a handy location, because I tend to use several cameras with primes on them, which is impractical with any other bag except maybe the F2. It also goes on a plane with me (remember those?), because it is quite rigid, making it ideal as a foot rest or occasional pillow on lay-overs. (Not reviewed yet)

If being there is as difficult as getting there;

Domke F820 Satchel. This one has just been promoted back to my every day bag. The 40-150 pro, on a smaller camera like an EM10 or 5, fits perfectly in a ready to go configuration (with screw in metal hood fitted). The 12-40 fits on another and with a few other bits (or as many as I like with the extra pockets fitted), and I am ready for most situations. This bag has that magical ability of taking weight and making it feel relatively lighter. Some bags actually feel heavier than they are, this one, with its all around strap, postman’s shoulder pad and semi-rigid top does not. Testing the theory, 2 huge add-on pockets can be attached and the thing can take a ridiculous amount of gear. My only complaint is that it will not comfortably take a bigger camera like the EM1 with grip and a larger lens. (Reviewed).

If being there is more difficult than getting there;

Domke F2 (original). 35+ years old and going strong. This one most often takes odd shaped kits like a camera with flash and modifier fitted, a camera with grip and big lens or lighting gear. It is still a classic, made by a professional, for professionals and it shows. Gear has changed over the years, but this bag, sporting a new insert and strap just works. My wife hates it (it is a little ugly) and I must admit the ancient grubby-chic look has worn thin with me also, but when nothing else works…. . (Reviewed)

If being there is about moving fast and light;

Think Tank Turnstyle 10. When shooting sports, I use this in conjunction with a slung camera. It holds a second camera and lens option, spare bits and my phone in a “get out of the way” configuration. Invisible and low profile until I need it, this thing holds an amazing amount. It also takes a water bottle pouch in the strap without effect. (Reviewed)

If it is important to blend in when you are there;

Filson Camera Field Bag. This a sentimental favourite and my favourite bag when something a little nicer is called for. It has a flaw (fixable if needed), in that it sags in the middle when packed tight. This tends to make it annoying when working fast from the hip. A rigid base would help or careful packing, but that rarely works in the heat of the moment. If I am travelling with a small kit and other things, it is nice and if my kit needs are minimal it works fine, but no Pro lenses or multi body kits. (Reviewed)

Domke F3x Rugger Wear (olive-very rare). Great when it is wet and I need to keep working, the F3x Rugged is ideal. It hugs my hip and the flap sits properly covering the main compartment, meaning it actually does keep water out. It smells a little (oil), looks 80’s style Army disposal-worn out, but like the F2, it does what it is designed to do. Many of my other bags are weather proof, but usually with a catch. The other Domke’s are not as water proof (they make this line), the TT and LP need their water proof sleeves, making them impractical and the Filson, made of a similar cloth, is not as good at wrapping up it’s insides. (Reviewed)

There are many others that fit into to this anti-camera bag niche (Filson Field Bag, Timbuk2 satchel, Tokyo Porter tote, Crumpler satchel etc), but these are the “A” team for work.

Could I work with only one or two?

One only; A Domke (someone else would probably have to choose though).

Two; As above and the Pro Tactic.

Three; As above with the TT.


Old Friend Revisited.

After much soul searching and flip-flopping, I have decided the easiest path to kit completion (for now), is the buy the 40-150 Pro back.

As I have said before, the lens is not demonstrably better optically than my current lenses, in real world terms anyway, but it does offer several fixes to my current options.

Compared to the 75mm F1.8 it is longer and reasonably fast. F2.8 and 150mm is in reality the “dream” lens from my past (a 300mm F2.8 equivalent). There are times, especially when I am looking to get images of all of the children in a class from limited locations, that 75mm is too short and my longer lenses are too slow.

This is a relatively rare situation, but common enough to feel like I am short changing my current employer.

From a personal perspective, I made my peace with the limitations of my kit a while back, but this is different. This is the world of professional expectations. No excuses territory.

The other two lenses I have (40-150 kit and 75-300 kit+) always punch well above their weight. Comparing them recently, only the obvious things are relevant.

A lack of aperture choice, weather proofing and durability are why the big pro lenses are bought over well performing lesser options. AF on the 75-300 surprises, so that one will be used in good light for field sports.

At 75mm I have four lens choices, almost indistinguishable in sharpness. Well done Olympus. Looking there is pointless.

At 75mm I have four lens choices, almost indistinguishable in sharpness. Well done Olympus. Looking there is pointless.

Indoor sports are, I have found, easier to do with the 75mm and the extra reach of a longer lens is better for field sports, but that is when light allows. The 40-150 is the ideal other option in both situations. It also has the classroom, stage and court sports range nailed.

The ability to stand off and separate subjects is core to it’s application. Bokeh is usually pleasant with occasional ni-sen  or “cross-eyed” look, but reliable enough.

The ability to stand off and separate subjects is core to it’s application. Bokeh is usually pleasant with occasional ni-sen or “cross-eyed” look, but reliable enough.

The lens impressed in the past, providing some really sharp files stopped down or wide open. Early on I accused it of being a little patchy sharpness wise, but……

on closer inspection.

on closer inspection.

The QC team found it was often user error and unusual Bokeh transition of near misses rather than actual lens softness to blame. Even with M43 format, F2.8 can be unforgiving.

A JPEG from the almost too sharp Pen F at F8. Recovery of highlights is easier with this lens than some others I own.

A JPEG from the almost too sharp Pen F at F8. Recovery of highlights is easier with this lens than some others I own.

The sleeper though, is contrast. Shooting Football on a dull day highlighted the crisper and generally brighter look of the images. In good light I actually prefer the 75-300’s smoother and gentler rendering, but when it counts, the Pro lens is designed to, and does deliver.

The contrast, or more likely micro contrast of the lens allows for many genuine keepers where other lenses may lose the ability to impart impact.

The contrast, or more likely micro contrast of the lens allows for many genuine keepers where other lenses may lose the ability to impart impact.

At ISO 3200 and 6400 on an EM5 mk1, I found the micro-contrast produced sharper looking files, allowing for noise reduction to be done to taste rather than in desperation. The 75-300 on the other hand is a poor performer in low light as much for it’s smooth and gentle (read; post-plasticky) files, as it’s obvious slow aperture, which forces heavy handed processing more often than not.

On even closer inspection…..

Seriously, I live with goofballs!

Seriously, I live with goofballs!

I have found the lens offers very finely detailed and flexible files. Olympus weaving their magic? Maybe so.

Regardless, the files are ideal for a working pro who appreciates occasional brilliance, but needs dependable goodness.

A lens that will produce this type of pleasant and beautiful image in any circumstance is a blessing. Comparing it to too many other lenses, in far too many and different circumstances, really is a recipe for unsettled dissatisfaction. Take it for w…

A lens that will produce this type of pleasant and beautiful image in any circumstance is a blessing. Comparing it to too many other lenses, in far too many and different circumstances, really is a recipe for unsettled dissatisfaction. Take it for what it offers and move on.

No small thing is the lenses performance on my “lesser” cameras. In the early days of owning it I successfully shot indoor sports and swimming with old EM5 mk 1’s. Remember, these cameras have no tracking capability. The lens and camera combo was quick enough to get near instant first grab keepers at f2.8 (just do not hesitate).

I am looking to add a camera to the mix soon (another EM1 mk2 or EM1x) partly to handle my current and future volume and to deepen my pro camera stocks. This lens will likely jump again in capability and help finalise the Olympus journey for me. The 100-400 is still in my thoughts, but is now really a luxury item.


Getting to Know New Dogs

Both of our girls are over 18 months old now.

Daisy is a bit of a mystery to us. She has many Smithfield traits, such as an independent streak, strong herding instincts and is a very visual communicator. She swings from brave protector of our property, tenacious herder of her sister and others when out running, to timid wall flower, with triggers we do not yet fully understand.

She has taken recently, to sitting in our Agapanthus plants. It is cool (she likes that), hidden (likes that to) and allows her to keep an eye on a likely exit point, the side gate, which is much like her habit of laying in the hall near the front door (another very Smithy trait, old Jack shared).

I often think of dogs as coming in two broad forms; complicated and simple (not dumb, just simple and easy to read).

Daisy is very complicated.

Sometimes knick-named “help yourself”, Lucy is on the other hand as straight forward as they come, just ask her.

Both show bullet proof tendencies, bottomless loyalty to us and each other, and are very affectionate. After playing together full-on for an hour or more, then are then found cuddling up together, but they do see life very differently.

The Further Adventures of "Flash man"; Resources Stocktake

This flash thing has taken off some. From very humble beginnings (a pair of Yong Nuo flashes and two circular mini soft boxes “just in case”, it now boasts enough power to cover large groups or a constant production line of subjects.

It has come to the point where I need to take stock of my capabilities and what to add (if anything) from here.

Flash Units

  • 4x Yong Nuo 560 IV’s These are the work horse units, about the same strength as the second to top units from Canon etc (GN 50+). Having 4 means I always have 2-3, with the ability to double or triple mount them in modifiers as needed. They can also act as controllers if my TX dies. Two of these and 2 brollies managed to handle a school ball where 500+ shots were taken with groups as wide as 15 people.

  • 1x Yong Nuo TX Controller for all the YN units.

  • 1x Yong Nuo 560 III. This unit can be slotted in to the above, but is set up (easily changed) as a slave for hair or splash light. The III’s can overheat, so I use this one more gently.

Modifiers*

I will rate the modifiers from 1 to 5 (5 being best/strongest) for softness (coverage without strong shadows) and control (control over light spill).

  • 72” White umbrella. 5/1 Shoot Through, or Reflected. Big and heavy but the softest light by far. Needs 2-3 units to fill evenly. Great as a single light for medium groups.

  • 2x 40” White umbrellas. 4/1 shoot through or reflected. The work horse group shot units.

  • 43” Umbrella soft box. 4/2 reflected only.

  • 43” Reflector/Diffuser panel. This can be used for a variety of purposes, like adding gold (warm) reflectance.

  • 3x 33” Silver umbrella. 3/3 reflected only. A little more controlled, efficient and brilliant than the white ones.

  • 37” Soft Box. 4/2 . This is the most controllable soft modifier, but is a relative pain to set up quickly.

  • 24” Soft Box. 3/2, 3/4 gridded. More directional and with options (baffle/Grid), this is a creative light.

  • 8x36” Soft Box. 3/3. A mighty pain to assemble, this one allows for angled light, like mimicking an open door or window.

  • 7” Cone with Grids. 1/4-5. Ideal for spot lighting or selectively lighting a background with gelled colour.

  • Flagging foam and bag of hair bands. 1-3/1-3. Used to flag a flash head more or less, these can selectively control or snoot.

  • Gels (2 packs, 6x silicone holders) for colour correction or creative lighting (especially back grounds). With a grey background, I can create any colour or shade from white through to black.

Utilities

  • 4x 8’ Neewer heavy weight light stands (actually heavy, not just “heavy duty” as all stands claim to be). The thinnest stem of these is thicker than the widest on a regular light weight stand and I confidently use then in light wind with a soft box mounted. These can also take a backdrop.

  • Neewer Grey Muslin 6x9 backdrop with home made pole. May get some “Kate” microfibre textured ones also.

  • 3x 6’ Neewer light weight light stands. Good for small side lights, reflectors, travel or just in case. At a pinch they could take a muslin or microfibre backdrop..

  • Double, triple and single cold shoe umbrella mounts.

  • 3x Neewer Bowens S-Mounts. These are faster mounting and much more stable than the ones above, but cannot do multiple units.

  • A medium sized Velbon tripod with tilt head, which can be used for any purpose.

  • Clamps, mini tripod, adapter threads, multi tool, mini flash light, duct tape etc.

  • Optionally Heavy Manfrotto tripod with Pro Master Arca Swiss head.

  • Various bags (1 for flash units, 1 for utilities and a $12 K-Mart duffle to carry it in). I do need a Cricket or Hockey bag for the bigger light stands.

Believe it or not, the whole lot cost less than $1000 au.

*The over zealous collecting of modifiers is simply due to curiosity and a bit of creative depth, after all this is all a bit new to me.

I feel reasonably capable now (in gear, not necessarily skill), so I tend to say yes and work out how later. Could I light 100 people evenly if four rows deep or a full stage? Yes I could. The flash units would be working pretty hard, but they could manage (the Godex as a 6th slave unit is also an option).

There is potential for stronger lights to be added (60w Godex continuous), but to be honest, the 560’s are cheap enough, that I could add a few more for a lot less than one Photopro or Godex studio unit.