steven n fettig's Jitterin' Thoughts

Lately I've been obsessed with photography. It is something akin to computers and small internet devices for me. There's always something new to learn, to see, to play with. There are a few things I'm obsessed with in life and they always seem to come full circle (and this is outside my obsession with work): cars, triathlon/training, photography, reading, and computers/technology. Thank goodness in the case of photography, the analogy stops with the “something new” part - i.e. in photography, you can take the same stuff and simply look at it from different angles and doesn't require spending hard earned money on a new gadget that will eventually end up in a junk drawer.
Take the screen shot of the page that got me thinking:

I don't even know whether or not this shot was taken inside or out on a street. Either way, if I can imagine what the rest of the structure looks like, I don't think I would have taken the time to think, “hey, there's a great shot to be made... the lighting, the shadows...” It makes one sit back and realize (if one even likes this stuff) that even in the most ordinary circumstances, there might be something extraordinary to behold. To me, this picture is an example of that.

For the past few months, I've been going nuts (collectively with my brother, Dave) on buying books. We've been buying everything from books on oil to wiring diagram design to politics and to photography (me). The obsession with photography continues and there is a photographer on flickr whose photos I really enjoy. Ying Tang put together a book of her photos from San Francisco that can be bought at blurb.com. I can't wait to get my hands on it. Her photography is a perfect example of telling a story that can carry meaning for any person viewing them. (Nothing is too avant garde, nothing too simple. For my sensibilities, she delivers a perfect mix.)

One of the struggles I'm having with managing my photos - i.e. taking photos and displaying them the way my mind intends to see them - is providing the viewer the type of detail I see on my screen when I look at the photo. For example, I'm viewing the photo here:
The problem is that you see this picture as a thumbnail on the screen and may or may not go to flickr to view it in one of the six modes available. I'm looking at it on a 24“ monitor in all its glory (and if you are a mechanic buff of any type, you realize how amazing some of these old workhorse tractors are considering the use and abuse they have seen). This photo really doesn't evoke much emotion in the 3x2 cm square I'm currently viewing. Blow it up and it takes on a whole new meaning. I recently changed the layout of my flickr page to show larger versions of the pictures automatically, but they still aren't in the format in which I see them. This one, too,
is much better as a larger version. Ode's eye is relatively sharp and it looks like he's concentrating on something (not that I know or believe that animals concentrate on things like humans). Without seeing the image in the right setting, it is hard to get across the emotions I want you to feel as the viewer.
Flickr is the greatest photo tool currently available. It has an ”extensible“ API that allows developers to make plugins for programs like Aperture or iPhoto and subsequently, makes it easy for people like me to check in, modify, and upload our photos with little hassle. The problem is that I can't tell it to display photos the way I want you to see them. I don't mean that I want to control what file size you have access to, but I would like to control the background and how they are displayed initially. I'm not trying to set down a complaint here. I'm trying to explain how hard it is for us to really convey a point or statement without controlling the context in which something is seen. And isn't context everything?*

*No, really... I don't know and now am wondering...

Just an odd comment/question that (perhaps) someone can answer some day: why would you try to photograph a football game with a Leica M8 and what looked like a 50mm and 135mm lens? I have yet to use one personally, but in research when I was considering buying one, I was under the impression (I stress impression) that they weren't the best for action shooting (mainly because of how focusing works). I don't feel comfortable asking this in a forum somewhere, but if you happen to have an idea of why someone would do this, drop me an email (address to upper right on page). I wish I had taken a picture of the chap. He was an older gentleman and I couldn't really tell whether he was even there to photograph the action or close-ups of the players or random people on the sideline. Perhaps the question is less relevant, considering I don't know what the guy was using it for. Coulda', shoulda' asked...

   After the last few sporting events I attended (the last of which was the Badgers vs. Wolverines Football game last Saturday) I realized that I did far too little research when I went ahead and purchased the Nikon AF-S Zoom 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. Don't get me wrong, I am far from regretting that purchase. I love everything about the lens and the only problem I ever have is making stupid mistakes with setting the camera incorrectly (i.e. shooting in S mode at a tiny f-stop opening and with the shutter speed far too high). The pictures, when I'm using my brain, are fantastic. The problem is that I am often too far away from the subject to get the type of shot I want. I know that I can zoom and crop to get the same effect, but the reason why I went to a higher resolution body (besides the massive improvements made between the D200 and D100) was to get higher resolution shots because I wanted to be able to crop some without losing quality. The problem is that if you are throwing away 60% of the image due to cropping, it somewhat defeats the purpose of having gotten a camera with greater resolution. (Plus, a quite obvious side effect is that visual quality of the image, once cropped, can be drastically impacted.) The argument could be made that I really don't need to worry about a cropped image for print purposes. This would normally be true. Say I take a 6MB image and crop away half of it (i.e. less than my claimed usual 60%). I am still left with a 3MB image that should suffice for a 4x6" print. (I know the relationship isn't necessarily linear - i.e. that an image cropped 50% is 50% of the original size. Sometimes it is smaller and sometimes it is larger. But for the sake of argument, I'm purposefully using simple numbers.) The problem is that I almost never view my pictures as a 4x6" print these days. Usually, the picture is blown up to a 17-20+" screen, where resolution of the final image actually matters. In the rare case I have made a print, I like them to be on the order of 8x10" to 8.5x11". (My opinion is that you get so little of the photographic effect in a small print for most of what I've been shooting. Plus, bigger is better, right???)

     So, with the above and numerous other arguments in mind, I decided I'm going to find a 300mm+ lens for sports (and some nature). With the appropriate teleconverter, this could easily put me in the 500mm range and I can't think of any items of personal interest that would require a larger lens. With a bit of research, I narrowed it down to a 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 AF VR lens, a 300mm f/2.8 prime, and a 200-400mm f/4 AF-S VR zoom. The 80-400mm seemed the best in-between lens because of the price (in comparison with the other two quoted lenses). I wasn't all that enthused with the speed (vis a vis the f-stop), but most of what I have a chance to shoot that would require that size lens is under bright lighting. I read somewhere last night, though, that the lens's autofocus can sometimes be irritatingly slow. (I wish I could find the link to the comment I read.) Because I've often found that my immediate needs don't match those of people commenting on the product I'm considering, I wanted to take a look at it myself. Tonight I had the chance to stop by Mike Crivello's in Brookfield and take a look at one first hand. It took me 20 seconds to realize this one wasn't for me. In trying to shoot something as simple as Steffi riding (where I'm relatively aware of future direction and movement and can plan), there is no way the autofocus would be able to keep up with the constantly moving target and changing distance from myself. When switching from an object at 75ft away to one at 50ft, it would take a full second to re-focus. The vibration reduction was fantastic (especially at the longer lengths), but it wouldn't have helped if the photo was completely out of zoom. The long wait to focus didn't occur every time, but enough times for me to realize it wasn't going to cut it. My first 35-70mm zoom AF Nikkor lens I bought off eBay for the D100 has the same issues. That lens is an oldie, but goodie, and I learned to live with it because I couldn't afford anything else, but I also found that because it was difficult (and slow) for me to use, I used it less than had it been a faster focusing lens.

     I realize that some of this may be completely obvious for people with experience out there, but for people like myself, who have little academic understanding of how cameras function and why certain lenses are suited for one thing over another, it is a revelation to learn these things. When you simply can't afford something, your choices are limited. In my current case, I still can't afford the 300mm or 200-400mm zoom, but I know that if I plunked down the money for the 80-400mm (which I can afford now), I would have used it a lot for a little while and then realized I had wasted the money.

     If you are in the market and want to get a few good sports shots (i.e. dressage, football, basketball, soccer, etc.) without taking 1000 pictures (which isn't a bad option if you don't have another choice), then I would recommend staying away from this thing. I'm not certain what someone would use a slow (literally and light-wise) lens like this for, but it won't work for me. I'm better off better learning how to use the 70-200mm and let time be my guide in figuring out which of the two left on the list will become the next lens purchase.

I really want to understand what is going on when I fiddle with f/stops, increasing depth of field, but further limiting the amount of light that hits the film or sensor. I also was having a difficult time understanding the concept of focal length considering that a lens labeled as 300mm, isn't necessarily 300mm long. Somehow, this afternoon, I stumbled across A Tedious Explanation of the f/stop. What a godsend. For issues with depth of field (which has been hitting below the belt on a lot of my pictures) and speed of the exposure (heavily impacting the clarity of my pictures), Matthew explains:

"You need to know the doubling/halving relationship and how it works with shutter speeds in exposure. This is key since the shutter speeds and f/stops you choose have implications in how your final photograph will look in ways other than purely the amount of light on the film. You need to know that as you stop down you get more depth of field. You do not need to go around calculating aperture areas for your lenses and f/stops. If you're like me, it's worth doing it once to see that it works, then forgetting about."

Thank you, Matthew, for taking the time to write down your notes. After a third read, I think I finally get what I'm doing wrong and now know how to clear up many of the problems I've had.