Bag Change Forces New, Better Thinking (or Maybe A Wrong Move Avoided)

I have been using the F802 bag for the last few months with the paper.

Something that has become a bit of a pain is the shallow profile of the bag. It is deep, but when loaded, the smaller lens partitions become squashed in. The reality is, my gear has gotten shorter and in some cases wider.

The F3x Ballistic was possibly the answer, but it failed to come and on chasing it up, it is waiting for replenishment with no ETA. The distrubutor does have an F2 in Ballistic, and even though it is bigger, it is cheaper. Bigger may be a blessing.

The F2, the original Domke “shooters bag” or as I call it the “Lunch Box” has the dual distinctions of being my first Domke and one of the few I have not had multiples of.

My problem with it in the past was its “boxy” design, but I get it now. If you have 2 bodies with smaller lenses on and do not need the extra height for long lenses (something that has changed in my kit since ordering the F3xB), then this bag makes lots of sense and I know from owning one still, that it does not collapse in and sits down safely**. It is basically the footprint of the F804 without the height, so everything is at “first layer” access. No fishing around in the depths trying to find lost little bits.

If I go with an all primes day kit or small zooms and primes, this layout is ideal.

Unlike the F3x, which is taller but smaller overall, it will accomodate 2 bodies with lenses lying on their side without issue and have room for 2x2 small lens inserts* (in the F3, one camera sits against the back wall which can be uncomfortable), and have room for several smaller bits. Unlike the taller bags, it will not fall over when put down, which is one of those things that wares over time. Also, unlike the F3x, it has a hard base option.

My existing F3 ruggedware is probably the better form for this bag anyway. The body hugging form factor really suits the thin canvas style.

Compared to the Crumpler Muli, it also offers two large end pockets. The Muli is limiting in that regard. My mics, lighting and flash kit go into these, saving space on the inside for just lenses and cameras.

The zipped pocket is on the inside of the top flap. This is less prone to accidents than the F802’s outside ones (I slip the lid out of the way when working, sometimes spilling bits of gear out if the zips are undone).

I also like the idea of the small front pockets for a note pad. This is mandatory now and ironically, the F802’s huge pockets are a pain here also, because they either go sparsely filled and wasted or stuffed and things get lost.

The F2’s little open pockets are note pad sized. Funny that, being a reporters bag.

Why another when I still have my first?

Same reasons as the F3xB purchase. The Ballistic version is softer inside and out, lighter coloured inside and can take gear with more handling comfort than the canvas. My original is also an older design.

The original shooters bag again after all these years.

Who knew?

*My base kit now is the EM1.2 with 40-150 f4, G9 with the Pana 9 and 15mm, Sigma 30mm (or 12-60 if speed is not needed) and possibly the 75mm for low light. The F2 can take all of these without too much effort. This gives me a full range outdoors kit (18-300 equiv), and a decent low light primes kit (9, 15, 30, 45 or 75, which is an 18-150 equiv). An option I may go with is the 9/15/30/45/75 all primes kit.

**It did roll off a back seat the other day, but landed the right way up and all was good.

Still Not Keen Even After A Fair Go

I have been trying to find a reason to use the expensive and comprehensive Nikon SLR kit I have been issued.

No really, I have.

The reality is though, every time I pick it up and try to find a valid space in my work flow for it, It just falls down.

Take this comparison for example. I was trying to find a happy place for my near new 70-200 FLED on the D750. Ignoring the fact that it alone weighs as much as my 40-150 f4 and EM1 mk2 body combined, I thought for small jaunts, close work or the jobs where you really do not want to be flogging your own gear, it could be the best option. AF was good, but the results were less impressive (I blame the D750 camera).

The 24-70 f2.8, bit old, bit batterred, does not impress at all. It reminds me far too much of older Canon lenses that needed work every file and had “points of consideration” in their range. With several MFT lenses in the wings to cover both of these lenses, I guess they were bound to come up short. I would even put my kit 12-60 up against it.

The base D750 image. RAW (this time), ISO 4500 to achieve 1/200 at f2.8. There is a massive depth of field difference here as well as the good old SLR “guess the exposure compensation” issue. Don’t get me wrong, I used to be ok at that, but why go back?

After some light processing. Very shallow depth of field, quite sharp, little hazy (have applied de-haze) and the white balance was a little yellow that I failed to fix completely.

EM1 with 40-150 f4 image ISO 1600 f4 1/90th. Exposure and white balance are spot on.

More depth of field, razor sharp, well exposed with near perfect white balance (and 100mm closer). This had less processing than above! This is not supposed to be my best tele lens. remember also, this is a 20mp MFT vs a 24mp Full Frame.

I am not cheating, pushing one over the other, just trying to get to the bottom of this. In an ideal world, I would use the work gear, but see no reason yet to compromise.

I could use the Nikon gear at a pinch and honestly thought processing through C1 would make all the difference, but if anything it pushed them further apart. When I compared the 24-70 to my Leica 12-60 in Lightroom, the Adobe programme actually bought them down to being quite close. In C1 they were streets apart.

More tests, with ISO not a consideration.

Oly file, Nikon file and uncropped base file.

Now putting weight into the mix.

No I am not going to use gear over twice the weight and size of mine, especially is it is less reliable to use. I carry without issue, two bodies (saves mucking around), 16-300 range with several fast prime options. With the Nikon I would go 2 zooms and 1 body only and still be behind. What if I need a wider or longer lens? Immediately 1kg+ gets added.

This goes to one of my biggest frustrations, something I hit reguarly in the shop. Only the major brands get proper support from Adobe and unfortuantely most reviewers use the industry standard Adobe RAW as their base line. Bit like using a standard Toyota to try out a race track.

If you shoot Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus or even until recently Sony, look somewhere else for best service. Adobe will “normalise” your images down to their level making them become their stereo-type. Fuji will have weird artefacts, MFT will be overly noisy and Sony will have crap colour.

Does not need to be that way.

Until I switched, I thought ISO 1600 was my upper limit. With C1, I use ISO 6400 regulalry and with ON1 No Noise, I even push to 12,800 with decent results.

Cricket, The Gentle Game That Proved A Challenge

Cricket is quite unique. It is a gentle sport, genteel even, but as sports go, it is a surprise packet to capture.

I have always assumed, more fool me, that it would be an easy sport to shoot, making summer the lazy season. I think I shot it a total of three times for the school, with mixed success.

Over the first two days of competiton this season, I began to realise, this may be one of the tougher sports.

On the first day, I shot a womens match and must admit, I only just got enough shots to make it work, but I was shadowed by the senior photorapher, so we netted plenty.

Day two and the mens match, I was on my own, but lessons learned, I had a better time of it.

The first challenge is selecting the right lens focal length. Longer is better, to a point, but thanks to the different dimensions of the grounds and the reality that the pitch in the centre shifts during the season as different strips are used, there is no perfect choice.

Angle and timing, oh and luck, tons of luck.

I shoot with a 600mm (FF equiv), which is too tight at some angles to get both the batsman and the up to the stumps, wicket keeper in the shot.

Only on some angles could this be taken. The wicket keeper is to me one of the most predictably dramatic and active characters in a game.

Paul, the senior photog at the paper uses a 400mm and crops, but I still also have to crop, so to me, the longer lens is more appealing.

The other option, but not one I have attempted yet, is to have a second shorter lens on a body for close action.

Quite a heavy crop from a 600mm file, but still plenty of quality for paper or internet use.

It is long enough for length-ways shots of the keeper.

The golden shot. It can be frustrating to keep an eye on the keeper, but just once in a while, it comes through (who missed by a mile).

Next is timing. I am still less than keen on high motor drive blitzing, but cricket is a game of short bursts of fast action, so I was open to it at first. I tried some 15fps technique, but did not see any great results. The fact is, the first shot is usually the one, timed well or not, otherwise you are just blazing away and relying on luck which will only give you a full card, hours in front of a screen and probably the same hit rate.

First frame, a result of timing, not saturation bombing.

Shooting with the intention of never seeing the ball is the secret. If you wait to see it, you are too late. Basically time your shot with the batsmans’ swing. I settled on a 5-7fps low rate, which allowed me a slightly faster follow-up series than single button pushes, but I can always limit it to one.

It is easy to get lost in trying to capture “the” image, but it is actually more important to tell a story, so mixing up angles and concentrating on different aspects of the game is important.

Is this bowler regularly getting the better of the batsman? Focus on the keeper.

I felt it was coming and got lucky, unfortunately from the back, so not perfect, but still.

Is the batsman getting the better of the bowler and favouring the off-side? Line up the batsman playing a stoke, but allow yourself the option of shooting past them to the fielders in the background. or ideally, get the batsman looking at the ball after it is hit on the other side.

The first rule of any sport is having the ball in shot, but it is not possible to rely on the batsman hitting at you every time, so sometimes the best shot is without a ball.

Bowlers offer several points of best action. I like the follow through, which is best shot facing straight on. This shot breaks the ball in shot rule, but Is still like it.

The more traditional bowler shot.

Once you have a clutch of the required batsman mid-stroke or bowler following through shots, it is time to look for something new. Tough turf for this, as there are limits and most roads have been taken, but there are still options.

The next hurdle is patience and time. If you have the time, you still need to be patient, but with a plan. Like a good hunter, you need to decide to get a shot or cover an angle and stick to it. This also means trying to predict the flow and momentum of the game.

Not a genuine game changing moment, but interesting in a mix of shots.

If you do not have much time, then you need to be creative and take what you can.

A good way of capturing faces that are either concealed behind helmets when batting or if they do not bowl, is the stalk them in the field.

What ever you do, don’t forget to keep an open mind.

Like football, cricket also has its flower friends. The Oly 300mm really does make a good super macro.

Ed. On arrival at work today, the sports editor cleared up a few things from his perspective. Story is king. He liked the shots, using the ones that showed the most about the game in one shot for print and a small gallery on line. Overall a win.

Back page and large. All drama and anyone with an eye for the game will know exactly what has happened.

New Lens Happiness

The f4 40-150 is a winner in every sense.

The f4 lens runs the risk of replacing both of my other 40-150 lenses. It is not noticeably heavier than the plasticky kit lens and the consistant f4 through the range is handy. It is substantially lighter than the f2.8, as sharp, as fast in focussing and at least as weather proof. It is also $1000au cheaper to replace.

Apart from the performance difference between it and my copy of the 35-100 Pana lens I have respect for, but suspect I got a low end copy, the lens is delivering very much the same performance as my f2.8 with only the one stop of difference.

Something special about the look. Like the 17mm, the Bokeh transition point is hard to pick, making it look natural and contrast is punchy. Unlike the f2.8, I did not have too much trouble with high contrast images, something it shares with the 300mm f4. The f2.8 lens is the master of making the dull look brilliant, the f4 pair are kings of controlling high contrast blow out.

Shooting a junior school athletics day, I missed probably 3-5% of my images all day and put most of those down to me. I was using an EM1 mk2, so the EM1x would have gained me a couple of points. While waitng for the next group of runners, I chased Swallows.

Really very impressive image quality. Bokeh is less troubling than the occassional oddness of the faster lens. A tool, not a consideration.

The reality is one stop is actually not that much benefit.

As a rule, if f4 is not fast enough at all, probably f2.8 will not make enough difference (an extra ten minutes in fading light or a slightly higher success rate with a still too-slow shutter speed). I find that f2.8 for me is simply a matter of depth of field control. If I am struggling at f4, I will likely switch to f1.8, because in most cases I can.

This lens and my 75 f1.8 have a combined weigh and cost that is less than the f2.8 zoom, so overall better options.

F2.8 is stretching it in this light (6400 at 1/500), f1.8 allows for 1/1000th at ISO 3200 and some nice “cut out” depth of field. I go from quite useable, to genuinely high quality.

The f2.8 will be the one lens option for sports under lights or smaller fields, the f4 zoom for brighter light and the 300 for larger field sports. For indoor sports, I will turn to the f1.8 primes.

A news paper front cover image on a slow day (dumped chickens and noisy roosters slipping through the legislative cracks, who knew?).

For travel, the kit lens is still king, because weight and replaceability are all important when travelling.

My New Mantra

I have cracked an easy to remember mantra for news paper imaging.

C.I.A.

Easy to remember, but more importantly, not just a set of convenient letters, it is a set of the right terms that coincidently make up a very recogniseable label to remember.

C

C is for Control, which may mean Communication, Connection or finding a Composition depending on whether you have to deal with a person, random element or an inanimate object. This is where you formulate the image idea, determine how many pepople will be in it and any props that will be used. This often means putting down your camera and dealing with the elements of the image.

With people, up front honesty is the key. Tell them you are there for them, not just you. It is hugely important that you control the space, but without being pushy or aggressive, lacking empathy or being intrusive.

After explaining what I was looking to produce, moving in close did not put the subject off. Sigma 30mm f1.4

I

I is for Interaction, Intensity or Interest. No stunned mulletts, no limply hanging arms, no lack-lustre poses. Get the subject doing something, even if it is just crossing their arms and looking purposeful. Apart from a lack of a smile, nothing says lost-disintrested-confused more than limp arms and an expressionless face.

The easiest way of course is to observe a person doing what they do, otherwise, making them look like they are doing something is the answer.

Using the interaction between two characters created a dynamic better than the sum of the parts. Using natural poses also helps. A silent camera is a boon here. After a minute or two, both subjects ignored me, so I got video and stills without intrusion.

A

A is for Angle or Action. The first is to get the actual shooting angle, depth of field and lens perspective right, then work the composition. Choose your light direction, decide on light controls if needed, then fill the frame with the above (the “I”) and shoot it as the situation demands. Angles is especailly helpful to me, to remind me to work this. It is amazing how much difference a few degrees makes. The number one no-no, is a wall of people. Avoid flat walls of people, god they look amateurish.

Looking for a Vogue magazine vibe at a school fashion parade preview, shooting slightly up added a remote and regal feel to suit the designers stated intention.

The second is what happpens if control is limited to cpturing the Action.

In an image like this “C” stands for control through reactive composition and the right settings, “I” is for timing the best point of intensity and A is for Angle and Action together.

C.I.A.

Easy to remember and flexible.

The Bokeh Boss

I love Bokeh and all its uses, but I am not one of the new age Bokeh “discoverers”, being more interested in the wholistic effect of Bokeh, not the more specialised modern take.

The Sigma 30mm f1.4 does however give me an outlet when the Bokeh bug hits me (all images at or near wide open).

Real Bokeh for Bokeh lovers.

But still bitingly sharp where needed.

Very clean and well balanced front and back Bokeh. A true creative tool.

The issue is of course, how quickly it gets over used and used inappropriately.

The lens does offer a delicateness that is different to any other lens I own, even ones that are only a hair slower in aperture.

At longer distances, the lens still has the ability to cut-out subjects cleanly.

A strong working kit needs options.

These may be problem solving, creation enabling and are often task specific. A strong Bokeh enabler is a tool like any other, but it does not need to be over done. A single strong example is plenty for my needs, although I do have several lenses that fall into this class.

My 75mm was previously my Bokeh king, but it does require a longer working distance.

The 30mm is a full frame 60, which I feel is perfect for the role. It is a genuine, but short portrait lens, wide enough to do groups are reasonable distances, but any shorter/wider and it would struggle to easily offer Bokeh as a tool. I have been tempted by the 56mm, but to be honest, it is too much of the same it ist sake only and would get squashed between two excellent 45mm lenses (smaller) and my 75mm (longer).

Prime Directive?

I would love to be a prime lens shooter.

One of the advantages of MFT is the small form factor of all their lenses, meaning toting your version (and there are a few ways now) of the holy trinity* is a completely different experience to the full frame shooter.

Two of the trinity compared. The 14-24 is heavier than both of the Leicas together. To be fair, the Oly 7-14 and 12-40 Pro are the true equvalents, but there would still be a massive weight advantage to the MFT pair.

The only area the MFT format falls behind apart from depth of field control, (which has advantages in either format), is in low light. The light at the end of that relatively short tunnel, is that the added depth of field MFT offers, means you can shoot 2 apertures wider for the same depth of field at the same subject magnification.

This means in real terms, you can use a faster lens and because of the MFT sensor to lens advantage, actually chosen with lens design in mind, there are plenty of cheap, fast and high quality MFT lenses out there.

They are of course, prime lenses, because regardless of format, zooms faster than f2.8 are vanishingly rare, with literally only a half dozen available (2x Sigma f1.8’s and 2x older 43 Oly f2 lenses come to mind, but I may have missed a couple).

The power of a 90 f1.8 equivalent in MFT. Plenty of depth of field, sharp wide open and long enough for this shot, all from a lens the size of a nail polish bottle and one at the cheaper end of the range.

I shot with a full clutch of fast primes in Canon full frame**, but the weight of those “L” lenses was prohibitive (read, generally a pretty shitty experience). I tried the beast lenses on dinky cameras with some success and kept my choice limited, then switched back to f4 zoom lenses on 5D’s, but at the end of the day, I had either speed or versatility, but not both and never with a major weight dispensation.

In MFT, two cameras with a handfull of primes is a real kit possibility. Even a three camera kit would be ok (EM10 Mk2).

F1.8 on MFT, which is f3.4 on a FF. Shallow enough for separation, but not so shallow as to be impractical.

I have (in full frame terms) 30, 35, 50, 90 and 150mm covered at f1.8 or 1.7 and 60mm at f1.4. The missing link is a wide and the Leica 9mm (18mm) is on the way. A 24mm equiv would be nice, but a highly corrected 18mm will be safer and as useable for those times when genuinely wide is needed and I do have 12 (24mm) covered several times now.

My core would be the 9 (18), 15 (30), 25 (50), 45 (90) all at less than 200g each and the 75 (150) at about 400g. The quality I can get means I can crop by half or more, so in real terms, so I have effectively 18-300 or more covered, all at f1.8. With a G9 and EM1 mk2 the whole kit would come in at less than 2.5kg. This would also mean I would be able to get away with a little flash like the one the EM1 came with or a small LED.

To be honest, the 8-18 and 40-150 f4 do not add much weight, but they do lack speed for the many indoor horror stories I have to deal with, so I still need a couple of primes.

The other advantage of the 9mm would be for times when the 12-60 is the logical main lens, but something wider may be needed, meaning I still have to pack the similarly sized and largely over-lapping 8-18 just in case. When shooting sport with long lenses I often have to do a victorious team or locker room shot at the wider end. Both these zoom lenses take up substantially bigger spots in a bag than a prime. The 130gm 9mm could be shoved into a jacket pocket, rather than a separate bag.

I could even switch back to a slim-line Domke F5c, which is perfect for a small lens kit. It has room at the top for a couple of cameras with mounted lenses, an opening in the lower front for 3-4 small primes (just avoid the F5CX weather proof, which does not have the front pocket) and two flexible 3-part dividers. This bag, one of my past favourites, is so small, it could be accused of not being the real deal.

Alternately, I have several satchel type bags (Tokyo Porter, Crumplers and Filsons) that could work or the pending F3xB, that could now take a 2 lens divider (that won’t fit bigger lenses).

*Wide, standard and long f2.8 zooms, which replaced for many older shooters, the tight four of a wide (20-24), semi wide (28-35), short tele (85-100) and longer tele (180-200) of the pre zoom era.

**24 tilt/shift, 35 f1.4L, 50 macro, 85 f1.8, 135 f2L, 200 f2.8L and 400 f5.6L. All lovely lenses, but all heavier than anything I would carry now in a prime that did the same thing (except my 300 f4).

The Little Problem Solver.

The new Sennheisser MKE-400 mic arrived today.

Smaller than I was expecting, it is really the right mic for a Domke bag pocket. Having the stabiliser and wind suppressor inside the mic cage or “blimp” is brilliant. Even a little Boya or Neewer pencil shotgun, once you add a rycote and fluffy is a little big and fragile for my bag pocket, but this one, a mic of a different level, is ideal.

The forward facing cable is inspired, although mine crackles a little on the camera end (still need to check what the culprit is). This allows the shooter to use the camera to the eye, a mirrorless advantage, without cables sticking into their forhead and I am guessing reduces cable snagging and clutter.

It may not be a versatile as the F1+SSH-6 combo, but it is at least 50% smaller and removes the fragility and/or excessive ware and tare of constant disassembly.

A completely differnt creature for storage.

In use on a G9.

Used to Zoom analogue dial gain controls, a three option switch was a bit more of an adjustment than I guessed. On neutral or flat gain, the G9’s mic volume needs to be set at about +0 db or more (tested against music played at talking volume), but with the +20 db high setting applied, it works best at about -6 db or less.

When the music peaked on the high gain setting, it blew out quickly, but was still loud-comfortable to the ear.

So, outdoors or at some distance, high gain with -6db is a good start, inside, closer or with good subject volume to work with, normal gain and +0 is the go.

There is audible background noise at the high setting, but it is in balance with the gain in volume applied. In other words, if you need it, use it and it will likely go unnoticed, but if you are in a quiet space, use the normal setting and get closer if you need, or in the case of the G9, turn the camera volume up, because it is not too bad by comparison.

Quality was very nice, about the same as the SSH-6.

I will be using this in conjunction with a Boya M-1 LAV (when room echo is an issue) and H1n Zoom (wider coverage and ambient sound), so I will have options at hand, but the whole kit still comes in under the Zoom kit above (basically a Domke bag pocket full).

The Pro's and Con's Of Burst Shooting

Burst speed is often quoted as a feature of sports and action orientated cameras.

This makes sense as there is litte excuse for these days for going home without the shot, especially in the digital era, especially with cameras that can often shoot 10+ images per second.

Personally, I feel the modern cameras available today can actually offer a very different benefit.

The three images below were not taken in burst mode. They were all taken as discreet single files, one after the other, but with a single shutter button push for each.

Why?

Because I feel that hitting the subject with a high speed frame rate shutter is (as I tried to say previously), a little like the scary and out of control feeling of a roller coaster dropping. It is exhilarating, but lacks control, connection and saturates rather than selects.

This is not necessarily a style that is available to everyone, but with instant firing cameras, with little or no blackout, continuous focus tracking, stabilising and smooth-gentle fire (silent even), you can enter sniper, rather than machine-gun mode.

Each shot keeps connection and each can be claimed as a selected take, not down to manufactured luck. By manufactured luck, I mean all the usual care and experience were applied to get into a space where a good shot could be taken, but the actual winning frame is one taken from a bunch of “blind” frames.

If I take 200 images, I hope that they represent 200 potentially useful images, not the best one from each batch of 5-10 images. They are not of course, because I am not that good, but they are all intended to be. The ultimate goal is to shoot a game of football, with less than 100 images, 15-30 being “A” grade, the rest nearly good enough or used for number comformation. Minimum waste and ware, minimum processing time, maximum productivity and efficiency, maximum job satisfaction.

Monkey Business

The little 40-150 f4 Pro continues to impress.

After a mixed experience with the 35-100, I have stumbled across possibly the nicest and most balanced imaging tool I have ever owned.

Super crisp and punchy, without being overly aggressive.

Stunningly crisp with nothing needing to be added, so over processing is avoided. Just super sharp. I have several lenses that could have taken this image, but it is reassuring to know I also have this one.

Lovely Bokeh and general feel. Nothing brings attention to itself other than the clarity of the subject.

Crisp edges, just on the edge of focus softness, contrasting with a pleasantly soft background.

Focussing is on par with the other pro 40-150, which is a s good as I have.

Beautiful colour and contrast.

Long enough for the odd bird up a tree.

With plenty of cropping power. Even at f4 on a MFT camera, onlt the beak tip is perfectly in focus.

I think what I am responding to most, is the balance this lens offers. I have several lenses with some very commendable properties, but few that have a little bit of all of these in one. The colour of the 75-300 or 75 prime, the sharpness of the 300 f4, the form factor of a kit lens and the AF of my 40-150 f2.8.

A Story Of Three Work Horse Lenses

I now have three 40-150 lenses.

Excessive?

Maybe, but it does not feel like it. I really enjoy the depth and choices I have. I have a super light weight, a light weight and a big bruiser option, two with weather sealng, one fast aperture.

Only a few small digits apart.

Lens number one is plastic down to the mount, feels cheap, weighs nothing, costs less and is the “slowest” of the three at f4-5.6. It is however very fast focussing, sharp and contrasty and offers a high level of micro contrast. It even feels tightly made, if a little fragile.

The second, a very new lens for me, probably has the nicest Bokeh, is also super sharp and contrasty and has a constant f4 aperture. It weighs twice as much as the first lens, which is still not much at all and less than half as much as the bigger one, which is why I bought it, to give me a pro-grade lens that keeps my bag light in tandem with a fast prime.

The last lens is a pro through and through. Fast in all respects and sharp through the range, this lens has one minor flaw, showing slightly nervous Bokeh in some situations, but other than that, it just rocks. It also takes the two matched tele-converters, so it is the most versatile overall. I would take it everywhere, except that it sits on the outside of the MFT comfort envelope.

So, three very different lenses, with very different reasons for being in my kit.

The only time they are hard to split it turns out, is when comparing their optics.

Using decent enough Bokeh balls for effect. Kyoto train station.

Hollywood movie set lighting. Kanazawa alley way

Candid moments taken nearly instantly. Kyoto aqueduct.

A stand-in macro lens, although the spider was not exactly minute (about 4” across). Kyoto roadside.

More glowacious light. Tokyo landscape.

Edge to edge sharp, detailed and near perfect aberration control, a really fine art grade file. Kanazawa train station.

All of the above, speed, control and glow. Kanazawa street-scape.

Seeing as I have only had the f4 lens for a day and the big lens would never be taken on a trip, I guess you may have realised that every image above was taken with the $150 bit of kit junk. Long live kit junk (though probably unlikely).

Not a bad starting point for a trio of work horse lenses.

Something Cool Out Of The Blue And A Six Month Retrospective.

The Telstra Australia 2022 Annual report is out and they have used my board portraits and a couple of other shots.

Andrew Penn CEO and Managing Director. I gave them background options. Options are good, options show you care.

What is really cool is, they went with one of my coloured backgrounds matched to each person (blue for above) , something I only really supplied as samples, but obviously went down well. I tried to match the colour to the colouring of the subject and outfit, then did several higher contrast, warm and cool takes on their look, so plenty to choose from.

This is a win on multiple levels.

It proves to me that a simple non-textured grey background is enough for most cases, using digital re-colouring or lighting to change the tone. Textures etc are fine, but are far less flexible after the fact (still tempted to get the Pewter/Walnut Lastolite though).

It proves also, that my technique and skills are up to serious scrutiny, because I also supplied the RAW files and they went unused.

I have been published in a major company publication as a true portrait photograher and have the originals to prove it.

My M43 kit, a Pana-Oly hybrid on the day to be exact, passed muster. No reason it would not, but always nice to be able to prove the point at the pointiest end of the wedge.

I have now managed National level political candids, corporate portraits, serious large school group images and AFL level sport with my “toy” cameras. Bring it on.

(un-edited extra file) Previously, a professional school photo company used full frame cameras at f8-11, and multiple lights, which tended to look flat and produced busy shadows (4 for every leg and head). Looking for something cleaner, the school approached me to give it a go. Using the increased depth of field M43 offerred, I managed natural light at f2.8 for this group and even hand held for the smaller groups in a later shoot. In the original file, your can read some of the badges.

Australias’ deputy treasurer Stephen Jones. The 75mm wide open is a perfect match for face-depth at these distances. The same lens on a full frame is less powerful, forcing a crop and losing half your pixels or a longer lens (if available) is dangerously shallow in depth of field.

My first and the seasons’ last AFL game at UTAS stadium in Launceston. Of the half dozen photographers there, I was the only one able to wander the edge of the ground, not laden with a monster lens, mandatory seat and other bits. I actually walked to the ground. Still amazed at the height these guys achieved.

A studio kit that cost less than $1000 is more than enough*. In fact lens, camera and studio kit came in at about $2500 total and I had tons of options in reserve (I could have done it all again and some). Being small and portable, I was in and out in just over half an hour.

The job paid for my relatively expensive Manfrotto/Lastolite portable back drop and bracket, so I now have no pressure on to use them again (but I will).

Big year so far.

*2x 42” Godox Brollies, 1 small soft box for rim light, 3x YN 560 IV flash units and controller, 2 medium and one small Neewer light stand and a larger Neewer stand for the Lastolite foldable backdrop, which is by far the dearest item.

In The Bag, Latest Revision

After a little while, I have settled into a basic day bag kit for my news paper work. The school, soon to be heavily reduced in load is less of an issue as I now know I can take what I need for the task at hand, but the paper is harder.

Not actually here yet, but a known dynamic (have another in khaki rugged-ware). Yes, in a MFT world, this can carry a full day kit covering 16-300 with fast primes, video and flash. Ironically, the bag was origionally designed for a full film era (full frame) kit, like an F3 Nikon, 20, 35, 85 and 180, film and flash.

Stage 1 the little day bag;

• Domke F3x (Nylon)

• G9 for wider lenses and video

• 8-18 Leica (the 12-60 is the ideal one lens option, but it is not wide enough for all jobs)

• Em1.2 for longer lenses

• 40-150 f4 (the new shiny), or occassionally the 75mm if bad light is expected.

• 15 and 45 f1.8’s for video, low light, subject separation and Bokeh (these are mounted on cameras as the first optons)

• Godox 860 flash and controller (covers stills light). This is in one end pocket.

• Black foamy things for the Godox

• Sennheisser MKE-400 mic and small headphones (covers sound). This is all in the other end pocket.

• 140 Andower RGB LED panel (covers video and stills light)

• A short cable for the mic in case closer is an option

• 46mm filter set (var ND, Black Mist)

• Small super clamp and elbow joint for the mic or light

Stage 2 expanding on this and switching to the f802 or f804 bag for longer trips;

• The Godox 685 and off camera controller

• 12-60 Leica (better video option than 8-18)

• Switch to the 40-150 f2.8 and tele converter for more speed/reach

Sports kit;

• EM1x with 300 f4 or 75 depending on sport (worn with Black Rapid strap)

• EM1.2 with grip and 40-150 f2.8 (worn with shoulder strap)

• TT Turnstyle 10L (for those extras you may need)

• 12-60 for groups and close work (one of the extras)

• Godox 860 (another extra)

Video kit (based on school use, but we will see how my needs grow);

• G9 rigged with 12-40 standard

• Sigma 30 f1.4, because I like how it does video

• 62/72mm filter pack (lots of ND, softener, polariser etc)

• Mics etc as needed (Zoom kit, Lewitts, connection to systems)

• Llights as needed (4 COBs, 5 LED’s)

• The Neewer back pack

Back On Track

After an unsettling experience with the little Panasonic 35-100, I have just this very hour received the Olympus 40-150 f4 Pro.

Thanks to Claire and Bronwyn at Teds cameras in Australia for their excellent, efficient and friendly service. I went with them originally on price, but will be a repeat customer based on service (comments not sponsored).

First impressions were good. It seems heavier than the Pana, but is not by much and the odd mechanical design is out-weighed by the solid metal quality. Not sure, but it feels lighter even than the 75-300 kit lens in the bag.

This thing feels every bit as nice as the f2.8 lens, just half the size, price and weight, all for the cost of just one stop.

After a bunch of very un-scientific hand held, 1/15s, low contrast, ISO 1600 images (above), I decided to give it a fair chance to impress and went outside into a wet, but glowacious back garden.

Sharp, contrasty and pleasant looking, it instantly felt right. Colour in particular is attractive considering the cool spring light.

Very sharp.

Very.

The better close focus and reach are also appreciated. I noticed the close focussing limit of the 35-100 after a few shots, this lens with it’s extra reach seems to hit a sweet spot.

Bokeh, in front and behind the focus plane is very nice, better I feel than it’s bigger sibling.

No misses.

Macro lens sharp, seriously impressive (you have to remind yourself this is a tight crop)..

Left and right sides are also perfectly usable and CA free, unlike the Pana.

The lens it reminds me most of is the 75 f1.8, which can’t be a bad thing.

I am looking forward to the weight drop in my day bag, but also the possibiities this opens up for good light sports shooting. Matched to my 300 f4, I now have a lighter weight alternative for long football games.

Some Lazy Comparisons

I took a few shots with my D750 and 24-70 the other day, jpegs it turns out, at 12800 no less.

Impressive noise control, but not bitingly sharp and white balance is a little off.

Tonight I had the 15mm Leica on the Pen F and luckily my muse was handy. ISO 1600 this time, because the lens is faster.

Not a fair comparison I guess, but the Pen files are sharp and white balance is slightly more realistic.

After a pass through No Noise. The Pen F is probably my weakest 20mp camera noise wise, but has bags of clarity and nice character at higher ISO’s.

A couple of reasons for trying the 15mm on the Pen.

The aperture ring is problematic on a Panasonic. Nice idea, but really too light and hard to trust. It refuses to stay on “A” for more than a few shots and cannot be disengaged. On an Oly camera it just does not work, so problem solved.

A Missed Opportunity

I recently had the pleasure of photographing an interview with Indira Naidoo, an Australian journalist, turned writer and very inspirational speaker.

Clickity-click I went (well, silently anyway) and felt I had coverred some of the subjects many expressions so my journalist could choose the one that best suited his angle.

Only afterwards did it dawn on me, I had missed the perfect opportunity for a short video interview. We are not a TV station, but we do have an online presence, something that gets a lot more room and allows a diversity of output to deliver our news. What we can do, that the TV guys generally don’t, is a longer, more intimate sit down interview with lesser known locals.

It had all the elements. Clear questions answered in an articulalte and engaging maner, in a semi-controlled environment with decent (ish) light and background and in the perfect time frame of 2-3 minutes.

What went wrong?

Lets ignore the obvious one, an unprepared photographer not thinking outide the box and look at technical things.

I still need to take stills images, so I would have needed a small tripod or handy table to rest the video cam.

I did have some basic mics, but would have liked to have had something better like the F1 and SSH-6, a LAV or a condenser boomed.

Lighting is often an issue, but maybe one that I need not worry too much about.

So, a tripod.

I have a smaller Velbon Sherpa tripod with a very basic monopod head that I use for video. It is normal length three section unit and light, but sturdy and tall enough. Maybe a smaller one would be good, something I can strap to or maybe even put inside a bag? The minimum length (10-12cm) with a decent maximum (50cm+) is hard, but there are tons of options around so we will see.

The other, much simpler option to the tripod dynamic is to simply shoot stills, then do the video, then get some more stills again. Stills and B-roll can be used to make up a more interesting video than just the straight interview.

Option three, an option favoured by the other photographers, is to record sound separately, then shoot B-Roll for fill with stills. The problem with this is any synching of sound that is in line with the interview, but interrupted.

I do have a little Manfrotto table top tripod and maybe a monopod for the video rig to free up my right hand.

Sound?

For mics, I decided to get the one that has been hovering for a while, the Sennheisser MKE-400. This is basically the same sound quality as other similarly priced mics, but has an “X” factor. It is small and compact with a built in shock bracket and is surrounded by its own wind shock/pop filter “blimp”. It also has a forward facing cable socket, is self powered with a low pass and gain controls.

Compared to similar mics like the D3 Diety or various Rodes, it is smaller, more robust and far more convenient to use, while providing similar sound quality (less bass-muffled than many). As a Domke bag user, it is ideal for a front or side pocket.

My F1 and SSH-6 combo is still the better option for more controlled setups especially when some degree of ambient sound is desired*, but assembled it is really long (long-lens long) and quite deep with the shock mount connected and I am not keen on continually dis-assembling it between jobs as I want to avoid excessive handling.

This gives me a balanced approach. One semi-studio kit for big static set-ups when I am using a dedicated video kit and one for run and gun out of my day bag, but I will also add the H1n for environmental sound recording and backup. Both run off AAA batts, so logistically they are handily aligned.

Basically I have too many mics now, the lovely Lewitts are yet to be employed regularly, but I hope they will soon get a run with some drama recordings, otherwise, my two lives seem to have all other opportunities covered. The thing I have realised too late about sound is, it is easy to get up to a good standard for most uses, but anything more is often wasted. My maximum sound recording potential is probably now at the equivalent of 4k vision, but like 4k few output sources can tell the difference. My 1080p grade sound equivalent is probably going to be the MKE-400.

I have a few really good little shotgun mics so why another? Basically the quality, which is a level up (the MKE-200 is more their equivalent and noticeably thinner sounding than the 400) and form factor. The Neewer mini shotgun for example, with a rycote, wind muff etc is actually as big, but sacrifices some quality and is less robust.

Lighting?

It is easy enough to carry a small LED panel, just enough to add some contrast to a flat scene, but this needs a stand or clamp, which is another hurdle. If I can get a small and light weight tripod that fits in a small bag, then maybe one of my very light light stands and a 176 LED would do? Off angle, they are enough to at least reduce flat light and light very dark spaces. It can even be camera mounted, but I would rather more control.

If this becomes a thing, I may get something like the battery operated mini Aperture Amaran 60x light I came across recently and a little soft box (which I have), maybe some of the little Smallrig/Lume cube or Joby mini box lights or a bigger LED.

Thinking outside the obvious, probably to the more obvious, I could use reflectors, diffusers etc.

Like a lot of things, this runs the risk of getting out of hand, so first step, a good hand held rig, then the tripod and light option as a “step up”, then maybe more, but as I can actually go full on, it needs to be looked at as a series of logical steps. I am a bit sick of finding solutions to problems that may not exist or I may already have answers for.

*I did look at the MKE 440, a stereo shorgun option, but decided that the MKE 400 is more practical and does not risk cutting the zoom outfit out of the picture as an all too easy option. I have two X/Y, a pair of condensers and several shotguns, so another option is not needed. Balance.

What To Do Next

I sent the 35-100 f2.8 Mk2 back and I am totally comfortable with that. As a working pro, I could have made the lens work by avoiding the things that do not work well, but for the money paid, why should I have to.

I have had a great run with lenses, so I was due a dud. Lets hope that is out of the way now and my next move sorts the problem.

Speaking of the problem (weight), I now have a chance to re-think what I need.

The Olympus 40-150 f4 is top of the list. It has a good rep, is basically the same bulk as the 35-100 and effectively gives me a lighter weight version of the 40-150 f2.8 lens, which is the point and feels right. The extra reach is I guess an inevitability.

The speed and versatility of the 40-150 is hard to ignore. In good light, a lighter version would simply make life easier and a perfect match for the 300 f4, leaving me the heavier f2.8 for lower light shooting. It also adds a nicer Bokeh option than the sometimes twitchy f2.8.

Another 35-100, assuming I would have better luck, also makes some sense. The lens on paper was the right choice, but jitters abound. It felt good, but it just did not deliver reliably. The stop of speed means I can use it as a one lens solution, the f4 Oly would need one or two f1.8 lenses in reserve, which partly negates the point of a lighter weight lens. The Oly does share the same filter thread as the 12-60 and 12-40, has better close focus and possibly better weather proofing.

The reality is, the f4 Oly or the 100mm limit are both a compromise. The above image could have been taken with an f4 lens with little or no problem, or cropped slightly at f2.8, but either way, slight allowances need to be made and I do have the 75 f1.8 and 40-150 f2.8 anyway.

The Oly 12-100, a lens I loved, already owned and sold too cheaply, makes a lot of sense as well. It could conceivably be a one lens solution, maybe with a pair of small primes for Bokeh and speed? As a video and stills all-rounder it seems ideal (but I have several other “ideal” lenses). On its own it is heavy, but it effectively replaces the 12-60 and 35-100.

The Leica 50-200 is the last option. The dearest and possibly the least useful, it would give me a slightly lighter version of the Oly lens, with a little more reach, but a vaiable aperture.

An outlier is the 100-400 Leica. This lens is actually as fast as the 50-200 over the same range, then gives a heap more reach as well. It is like the 50-200, reasonably large and heavy, but otherwise could work. I have read several negative reviews about this lens, especially regarding its long term reliability and incompatibility with Oly cameras, so probably not.

A Good Lens?

The 35-100 got a run today along side my 40-150 on an EM1 mk2 at an all schools equestrian event.

Focussing was a nice surprise on the whole. It was smooth and responsive and seemed to be pretty much as accurate as the Oly lens. This was better than expected.

At 100mm it is sharp and contrasty, but not as contrasty as the Oly lens. Bokeh on the other hand is smoother and more natural.

At the short end, it is much the same.

There were misses, but there were a few with the Oly lens also, so aside from yet un-foreseen behaviours, I am confident to use this lens for work on either brand of camera.

The Oly lens sometimes has a weird look to just out of focus areas, almost a fringe-like glow. The Pana lens seems to do much the same with near misses, a bit CA like, but I am also aware this may be a silent/electronic shutter issue.

Busy and slightly disturbing, but simply out of focus areas, just out of salvageable range, or something worse?

The stunnig sharpness of the Oly lens, but notice the nervous Bokeh in the trees.

The reason for the added question mark above is some less than confidence inspiring results from a lecture shoot in poor indoor lighting. Even with dual stabilising, I failed to get as many keepers as I thought I would using the G9 in continuous focus. More testing needed. I think that in single shot focus it may be more reliable, or maybe even continuous on the EM1. If it fails to impress after a day or two more, I will possibly return it, but I know how some lenses need a settling period.

I am due a dud, but it looks like apart from some early jitters and learning each lenses character, all is well across the board (a lens is as good as the best images it takes, but also how often it produces them). Incidentally, I have spent $3500au on a pro Leica standard, kit standard, pro short tele, Sigma super fast portrait and fast Leica semi wide. None of these lenses were mandatory buys, but they add options and depth, which is also part of the MFT advantage.

I took a bunch of images on the way to work, all within a few minutes and the same location roughly. In each, at longer distances and close inspection, there is no discernible point of focus down the right hand side, the near pole being closest. This did not seem to show up at shorter distances, but when I focussed specifically on the right side, the rest was quite out, much more than DOF would suggest.

ed. This has been returned as it looks like there is a decentering issue. It can produce nice files especially close up, but interestingly, most of the horse jumping files I shot on the weekend were able to disguise the issue because they were mostly shot left to right and on an angle. Brick wall and other field tests have shown it to be “twitchy” to say the least. The other effect seems to be the lens offers effectively shallower depth of field than the same settings on the 40-150 Oly. Not sure what to go for in exchange, but the Oly 40-150 f4 is appealing.

The Last Lens I Needed.............

Weight.

When it all comes down to brass tacks, weight is the limit of your comfortable kit. It determines what you have at hand on any given day, how your bag handles and your maximum potential creative capabilities.

The big Nikon kit reminded me of the bad old days, days when limiting options due to physical limitatins was simply a reality. Want your big lens, leave most everything else behind and concentrate on it and it alone. Zooms remove the need to carry several primes, but often weigh as much as many of these combined anyway (the original 180 + 85 combo vs the 80-200 “stovepipe” Nikon is a classic example).

I went another way.

After only a few weeks with the paper, a very different dynamic to my school duties, I have become keenly aware of weight. At the school I tote to a place, often with just exactly what I need, then work from a dropped bag. With the paper, mobility is key. No dropped bags, no multi camera and lens setups, just lean and mean.

A G9 and EM1.2 carried together give me more depth and speed than the other guys who go out with just a single full frame Nikon DSLR and need to change lenses, but my size and weight advantage has been lost here slightly. Lenses are the only way.

In my recent post, I compared the lenses the the paper issued me with my current kit. Huge differences in size and weight with little or no difference in performance make it a no brainer (a no back strainer), to stick with the road I have taken.

So, I bought the 35-100 f2.8 II, a lens that by even MFT standards is small. Compared to a Nikon (Canon, Sony etc) 70-200 f2.8. It feels like a toy copy, but it is the real deal.

There are plenty to choose from, but overall, this one makes the most sense in my densely populated MFT arsenal so why this lens?

The new Olympus 40-150 f4 is much the same size, price and weight, but with a the full stop less light and an extending barrel, as well as the opportunity lost to get a long Pana lens into the fold. I think I would still feel something would be missing in my kit. The option of carrying one G9 only would be nice, but without a dedicated tele, it is fragile, limited.

The 50-200 Leica is only a third dearer than this lens, adds more reach and metal build, but it is really a duplicate of the Oly lens, so it is a bit bulky and is actually slower in aperture at the shared longer end (100mm) than the little Pana lens. It would fit into my F3x bag, but not as neatly as the Pana.

The 75mm, which has been my go-to up until now is roughly the same size, but lacks range and weather sealing. This lens will be kept for special occassions and tasks like indoor sports, the 35-100 will be the day to day work horse.

My 40-150 plastic fantastic is probably close to this lens in sharpness, but lacks the Bokeh quality and is so very slow in comparison. F5.6 is workable in many situations, but not the ones the Paper sends me into. The other issue is weather proofing and build quality generally. When it comes to travelling, I will be torn here.

So, in summary, the Pana lens offers a genuinely small, consistently fast, tough and robust short tele option with quality, but more importantly pleasant imaging qualities, which no other lens I have or can get can offer.

Would it be my only option?

If I only had this, many sports will be out of reach, literally, but it would be fine for a travel or street kit.

Like my poorly 12-40 f2.8 Olympus lens (must get that fixed), this lens has a smoother, gentler look than the 40-150 f2.8 and very nice Bokeh. If the Oly 40-150 has one flaw (apart from weight), it is slightly nervous Bokeh which seems to come with the sharpest of their lenses.

It is also sharp as shown in this limited set of images. To be honest, the number of lenses I own that could produce this image is getting ridiculous, but none have the ergonomics of this one.

Swirly Bokeh, an old school gem!

Minimum focus is good, but not great.

Sharp enough to crop though, but to be honest, this lens has opened up my thinking a little, reminding me there is more to a lens than passing a sharpness test.

AF is interesting. The rippling effect is there in spades on the G9, but it is plenty fast. The effect is less obvious on an EM1, but is also very fast and smooth. I am getting better with this. I realise that within the chaos that is the DFD focussing process, sharp capture is usually nailed, you just have to go with it. I can’t focus 240+ times a second.

This is important. I need a lens that will work better on both platforms, something that does not seem to happen as well the other way around, although if pushed, I know I can manage.

Nice colour, again attractive Bokeh. This is stable, prime-like behaviour, as has the 12-40. The very colour accurate Lime green wall is a Panasonic thing.

An issue I need to get to the bottom of is the red stabiliser warning on the camera when the lens I.S. is disengaged. It seems if I turn it off on the lens, I loose it all together. Need to research this.

Without testing, the colour and contrast look to be a good match to the Oly cameras. Mixing the two brands can have benefits. The more organic, richer look of Olympus files and the lighter, brighter Pana lens look gives me a balance that sticking to one brand only, lacks.

The same works with Oly lenses and Pana cameras, but I must admit to liking the formar most*. Just this morning I shot a Fathers day function with a G9 and Sigma 30mm and EM10 mk2 and 15mm Leica. There was something about both sets of images, but the Oly/Pana ones were a touch more stable.

Yep little one, almost getting boring. Buy a lens, test it, get great sharpness and dig a little deeper until you find what ever little bugbears are hiding in there and move on.

I have bought a lot of lenses lately with generally a growth in my capabilities.

The 15mm Leica. Total win. Mounted on my G9 as the first go-to option for close work involving people.

The 12-60 Leica. Another win and a good replacement for the 12-40 Oly. My core “one lens” option. I will get the 12-40 serviced, but it will still likely be my video standard.

The kit 12-60. An eminently sensible purchase and surprisingly reliable. My core travel lens. In good light, it handles anything the Leica can.

The Sigma 30. A fun addition, less practical and stable than the others, but very powerful when applied logically. This is my “cut-out” lens at closer distances. It has a very delicate rendering with Bokeh in bucket loads, but I am not super keen yet to trust it in critical situations.

The 35-100. An itch scratched and sensible need fulfilled. My EM1 kit tele for the every day kit, trading a 50mm reduction in range for a 50% reduction in weight and size compared to the 40-150 Oly.

*My order of preferrence is roughly this;

• Oly cameras with Pana lenses (depth and balance and on older EM5 mk1’s a delicateness)

• Pana with Pana (bright and light, good in poor coloured lighting)

• Oly with Oly (rich and deep colour, struggles a little in bad lighting colour)

• Pana with Oly (some function issues and colour similar to option 1).

Please keep in mind though, the EM1x and Pen F are slightly different to the rest of the Oly stable, so micro climates abound.

Pisa And The Art Of Interaction

My career as a news paper photographer has been short, comprising in total less than twenty days, spread over a couple of months of two day weeks with my other photographic hat* being worn the rest of the time, but when your editor says “This story may be the front page, no pressure”, you need to rise to occassion.

The story was a box in a town square on a rainy day.

At the time, I slipped into “get the principals near the object and compose decently” train of thought, which to be fair is part of the PICS** tool I use for these occassions, but unfortunately it lacked enough of the the “I”, which is interaction. Pinning all of your creative needs on three faces and a box is a big ask. Few people carry that kind of pictorial “grunt”, even when they are two local artisits and the City Mayor and box, even one filled with artwork, is still a box.

I left thinking, and this is the unforgivable part, that I had little to work with, so a fairly straight, painfully safe take would uphold the integrity of the paper, the people and the context of the story, even if it did not set the world on fire.

Connor from the cast photos for the school production I shot yesterday, playing the part of the butler in “Clue”. It is rarely this easy.

So how come I can think of at least seven more creative options now, at 2 in the morning?

Looking at the problem from a damage control perspective, simply stole away my creative thought stream, which in hind-sight needs to be revisited. I think I need to come up with a more detailed and potentially fruitful process.

National Deputy Treasurer, Stephen Jones taken earlier in the day. Candid can get the pic, but it is hard to rely on.

What did I have to work with?

Two friends who had not seen each other in quite a while, both artists, one with a photographic background, who were reluctant to stand in front of a TV camera, but seemed more relaxed with stills.

One mayor, who had recently announced his retirement so was relaxed and is a decent sort if a little stiff in front of a camera, as most of us are in the moment.

A modified shipping container in all its stoic glory, complete with art, rain covered and with a reflective glass front on an overcast day. Not exciting in itself.

Plenty of room to move.

Time, I had time.

If this type of job is handled using the following formula, I feel there is hope.

Take the people and create an interaction.

Make the interaction interesting and contextural.

Compose for the subject(s).

This interaction can be done physically (the two artists and maybe the Mayor collaboratively “pushing” the 2 ton box into place, or looking around the corner “finding” it and its treasures), using perspective tricks such as the classic Leaning Tower of Pisa foreground tourist holding up the toppling edifice, or holding the box in their hand(s), or even a little more mystically, using refected faces (a bit of clarity brush work could hold detail in the glass and beyond).

If none of these work, maybe a more artistically contemplative take one using the two artists, one resting" her head on the others’ shoulder looking whistfully at the contents from side on close, or from behind compressed with a long lens. Lets also not forget angle, light, lens perspective, but you get the idea……..think, intuit, create. Look at the elements and let them help you.

Bugger, the more I think about it, the more I come up with!

My favourite would be the most invested and photo aware artist “holding” the box confidently in her hand using a near-far perspective trick, Pisa style. The artist in question was impressively tall with long elegant hands, so all the elements were there and she would have sold the feel of it, it just needed the photographer to man up.

PICS is a good enough mantra, but more emphasis is needed on the “I”.

Interaction in context is all. Someone holding something like a loaf of their own baked bread is fine. Holding a bunch, or holding it on a tray or peeking out from under a pile of loaves can get cheesy (context), but adds that element of connection, which is a triangle formed by you between the subject, their interacion with the object and the viewer.

With this in mind I have changed my mantra slightly to PICCS;

Person, Interaction, Context, Composition then Shoot, with the “I” writ large.

Next time.

*School photographer, which is in many ways a lower octane, but more intimate take on news photography.

**Person, Interaction, Composition, Shoot.