During a raft trip down the Marsh Fork of the Canning river, a long day hike up into the mountains led me to some vociferous plovers that nest in the region. While I have a number of Plover photos that I consider better than this one, I did photograph the bird because of the specific location in the ANWR. But what is surprising to me and the reason I’m including it here, is that I did a little experiment and shot the picture with a lens configuration that I don’t normally use. Generally, I would have my trusty 500mm lens but I hiked 4000 vertical feet, so I packed light and chose the 100-400mm lens for versatility. 400mm is not really powerful enough to pull in many birds, and just for grins I thought I’d try it with a 1.4x for a little more reach. The 5D Mark II camera will not autofocus with this lens configuration because the aperture is f/8 at the widest, introducing a challenge of its own. However, I was very, very surprised at the sharpness of this image, all things considered. The camera and lens were mounted on my tiny gitzo tripod, and shot in less than ideal conditions. There are obvious limitations to this configuration, but some obvious benefits also, and based on this real-time-field-test, I’ll be doing some more experimenting with that set up in the future. I’ve included a crop of the original capture to show the sharpness of the image.

I mentioned my trip into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in a recent post, and I have a few more photos to share from that journey. In a land that exhibits dramatic and distant vistas, it is not surprising to find compelling subjects close at hand as well. While hiking along the Marsh Fork of the Canning river, the elegant paintbrush was a very common wildflower present, and a beautifully colored and textured one at that. Because I was traveling light while backpacking, I chose to leave my 100 f/2.8 macro lens behind. As an alternative, I took the Canon 500D close up filter which is a magnifying glass filter that screws onto the outside of a lens. While there is a slight loss in quality, it is pretty minimal and easily worth the trade in weight for this kind of travel. The 100-400 lens offers versatile framing functionality for the tedious composition often intrinsic to macro work. I chose 1/200 sec. exposure due to a slight breeze that was blowing along the river bar, and it therefore captured a sharp image. The medium depth of field for macro adds enough eye focus control, but lets the main blossom be interpretable. Selecting a position that renders a fairly clean background can be a challenge, but the pink distant flowers work well in this picture. I used a tiny gitzo tripod with an RSS mini ballhead.

I’ve had a canister of bear pepper spray for a long time and fortunately have never used it. Before replacing it with a new one, I decided to see what kind of spray range it retained. It functioned surprisingly well, although I did not test the efficacy of the solution. The new one came with a smaller holster which I decided to use thinking I’d save space and a little weight. The old one had a velcro cover, the new holster had a little elastic strap that stretched over the protective cap of the canister. Using the new holster was mistake number one, and there were a few to follow…

One day while camping in the Utukok Uplands of northwest Alaska, I had prepared all of my gear for the daily/evening photo trek. This consisted of loading my Kiboko camera bag with two cameras, lenses, extra clothes, water, a little food, tripod, and pepper spray, which sat accessible in the left hand exterior elastic side-pouch of the camera bag (If you have been following this blog, you have read about my reach for that canister during a grizzly bear encounter).  Just before departing camp, I found the view looking through my tent doors interesting and bent down to take a photo. I unzipped the tent door and  leaned in to get a better angle, and like the standard process of composing a photo, kept changing views slightly, leaning further into my tent in order to frame the view outward appropriately. That’s when I heard a hiss, which was not my thermarest decompressing. In a weird but perfectly positioned series of movements, the tent door fabric got hung up on the pepper spray safety cap, pulled it off when I leaned in, and then discharged a spray. That little spray ejected me my from the tent in a heartbeat. Half wondering what happened and half realizing what happened and wondering how bad it would be. If you have had a similar experience, you might be smiling…or not. My face was burning and my nose and nostrils were steaming.

After quickly removing my contaminated clothes, I went about cleaning the tent and my camera bag with soap and water. I was on a super-hydration plan, and the need to relieve myself was growing irresistible, and that was mistake number two, or three, or whatever. That experience provoked hands free peeing for a few days, for fear of a repeat experience. I ended up doing a quick and not completely efficient bath in a nearby tussock puddle. Cold water does not lather well with soap.

In summary, I thought I’d share a little field advice about pepper spray. First of all, DO NOT use the cheap holsters. Use the ones that have a complete velcro wrap that covers the top of the canister.  See the photos below for comparison.

Second, get a canister that has a large volume of contents. Strong winds can introduce some challenges using the spray, and having a little extra won’t hurt. If the wind is blowing strongly toward you, you might weigh the odds of using the spray and try something else as a deterrent like a fog horn in a can. I have not used the spray on a bear yet, but if I do, I’ll try my best to hold off  until the bear gets good and close enough for an accurate shot. One guy I spoke with last summer had an encounter with a bear in the Brooks range and was able to fend it off with spray, but only after it chewed on his leg for a bit. It took him a while to overcome the psycho issues, but is back hiking again and carries two canisters of spray on his longer trips.

Interestingly, after my own bear spray experience, I’ve talked with two other people who have been sprayed by pepper spray, and in both cases it was because of a poor cover on the canister, and accidentally triggered.

As a follow up to my previous post “wolf pack kills moose calf” last week, in which a colleague and I photographed a predator/prey scene in Denali National Park, I thought I’d make a few comments on the photographic equipment and technical side of that shoot, and then share a few pictures taken following the attack scene.

Cameras

I used a pair of Canon 1Ds Mark III cameras, one with a 500mm f/4L , and the other with a 100-400mm f/5.6L . I shot a total of 562 pictures, which could have, and would have been a lot more if I had a faster frame rate and a better buffer (oh how I wish canon would increase the buffer on the 1Ds series full frame camera!) While I did not fill up a media card, I certainly could have with a faster frame-rate camera. I can just imagine having to change out a media card in the middle of this scene. Also, things like this happen so fast that unless you are always fully prepared, and have your media cards next to your body (which I don’t always do), you could easily end up without them. I use 32GB flash cards since they offer a lot of captures. Some argue that large flash cards increase the risk of loosing too much material by having it all on one card. That has yet to happen to me in my career, and I think the risk of running out of media space poses the greater risk for missed shots.

Lenses

We were about 25 yards from the scene to the near edge of the pond. The 500mm was tight for the overall scene, but I knew it could deliver some cool close up views (as in the picture above), so I used it hand held initially, I grabbed the tripod later (it is amazing how much I use that 500mm  hand held with outrageously sharp images). The 100-400 sings its true song in this case with total versatility. It is the lenses shining attribute. And while I know much argument exists over image quality in this lens, the one I now use is quite sharp and very satisfactory. If anything in the shooting process, I tended to frame tighter rather than looser, which excludes some of the surrounding points of interest like the wolves on the outer edges of the frame. But hey, things happen fast and at this point, you operate more out of habit than critical thought.

Exposure

I use manual and automatic exposure modes with a preference for manual for ultimate control. In this case I shot in AV mode because the light was changing due to some passing clouds. It worked pretty well overall, but sometimes large back lit water tricked the meeter a little bit. Because I wanted high shutter speeds given the intense action, I shot 400 and 800 ISO. I really did not have many throw away exposures, and very few that I did not keep.

My one regret is not getting my 5DII out sooner and let the video run, but the shooting area was tight and partially blocked by willows. For some of the post kill shots, I was able to add the 1.4x to the 500 and frame some tighter stuff that was happening at a bit of distance.  While the “kill” event only took 10 minutes, the wolves took a while to eat and and eventually carry off the carcass. Meanwhile, the angry cow moose stomped around the willows and chased the wolves. As things calmed down, I was able to get a few shots of the wolves as they dispersed across the landscape. These are less intense and capture the animal in a different context. In the end, they probably have a greater future for publication.

Perhaps there are some of you out there who have wondered about getting a housing for underwater, or over/under photography. I have used the ewa-marine U-BXP100 plastic bag housing for years, and decided to break into a system with more control, and therefore purchased the Ikelite housing for my Canon 5DII. I took the housing to the Galapagos and used it for the first time while snorkeling there on about 6 or 7 dives.

Let me begin by saying that my underwater photography experience is restricted to snorkeling, and I’m not even going to venture into the issues surrounding scuba, as that is a totally different league of gear and activity. For, me, snorkeling is gear-simple and is an easy and flexible way to explore the underwater world, with the obvious limitations of one breath per dive. The photographic pursuit and options are equally limited by this “one breath”, but nevertheless, they can produce some good results, and a lot of fun.

My first reaction to the Ikelite housing when it arrived at my office was “WOW” the thing is huge! The 8″ dome port won’t even fit in my Kiboko camera bag. It is also heavy, although not an issue when underwater since it has just a slightly negative buoyancy. All of the control knobs are fantastic, giving you access to every button on the 5DII except the little toggle button on the back. In comparing my previous trip snorkeling in the Galapagos, where I used the EWA marine housing, to this trip, with the Ikelite, here are a few pros and cons I’ve gathered:

PROS of the Ikelite

• Easy access to all camera functions
• Off camera flash system available (although better utilized when doing scuba)
• Control of lens zoom is easy allowing for versatility
• If people see you with it, they will think you are a real photographer

CONS of the Ikelite:

• It is huge
• It is heavy
• You are restricted to use with one  specific camera
• The use of different lenses requires additional parts
• Some lens restrictions (like the 16-35mm f/2.8L, wont work, for example)
• If people see you with it, they will want to ask you questions

PROS of the EWA Marine housing

• Super light weight
• Packs very small
• Fits a variety of camera bodies and lenses without extra parts
• Can fit a pocket wizard receiver inside the housing to fire the body remotely (I have used this to place the camera underwater and watch from above to fire the shutter (i.e. for bird and fish photography)
• It is 1/4 the price of the Ikelite

CONS of the EWA Marine housing

• You need to add weight for neutral buoyancy
• Much more of a pain to get the camera in the bag, seal it and suck the air out.
• Once in the housing, camera features are hard to access, and can be very difficult to change (especially in cold Alaska waters). Sometimes you need to open the housing up to make the dial changes.
• Not as easy to hold on to as the Ikelite (but reasonable)

In summary, as long as my underwater work is restricted to snorkeling, I am likely to stick to the EWA marine housing for size, weight, and versatility. (or explore some other housing options in between like the Delmar surf housings) While the individual controls of the Ikelite are attractive, you really don’t have the luxury of air/time, to make a lot of camera adjustments when snorkeling. Scuba is a different story altogether however. My travel seems to include underwater as an add on bonus more than a serious focus, and therefore the addition of a lot of specific underwater camera gear becomes an obstacle for me. Both of these housings have their appropriate use and your choice will depend on specifically what you seek to accomplish.

Sky control is fundamental to landscape photography. The term refers to ways in which a photographer manages the disparity in exposure values between the sky (which is often bright) and the foreground (which is often dark). The “balancing” is necessary because film can’t record the full range of tonal value (dynamic range) that the human eye is able to distinguish.  Filters called split-graduated neutral density filters, are used to help balance these differences. I used them frequently when I shot film, but in shooting digital, I’ve found they are often not needed. If you use these filters I’m not saying to get rid of them completely, since there are times when they can still be used, but I’d like to show a few examples of when I would have previously used them, but chose not too, and ended up with a very pleasing looking image without them.

Since the edge of a split grad ND filter is straight, they work best when an edge in your scene is equally straight.  I shoot mostly in Alaska and with all the mountain and glacier scenery most of my compositions lacked that necessary feature. I found it often ineffective using  the split grad ND filter.

Today, getting by without one is largely due to the excellent noise-free low ISO of digital camera sensors, and the option to apply a digital split grad filter in a RAW processing software like Lightroom. I’ll use 3 examples from my recent trip to South America, since it is a current subject. Two of the examples below are reasonable candidates for the old physical split grad ND filter, since the demarcation line in exposure difference is pretty straight. The last one however, of Machu Picchu, would present some problems.

I prefer to shoot landscapes with the camera in manual mode so I can carefully tweak the exposure to a slightly overexposed state, yet recoverable within the RAW processing software. I do this in order to maximize detail in the shadowed areas. It is ideal to shoot at a low ISO, and with my camera’s that is usually ISO 100. In Lightroom, if you click on the little white triangles at the top corners of the histogram in develop mode, it activates the highlight and shadow warnings. The red color represents highlights that need to be recovered (they would be blinking on the back of your camera LCD, and are depicted in the histogram as touching the right hand wall. The blue represents shadows that are black and lacking detail, and are touching the left hand wall of the histogram. You will soon learn to ignore your camera LCD monitor and pay attention to your histogram. And you will also learn what can be restored through basic exposure adjustments.

This screen capture represents slight tweaks that let you control the highlights and shadows of your file. You can see with a few minor adjustments, the highlights and shadows are appropriately recovered. Nothing is touching the wall in the histogram now.

After that, the application of digital split graduated filters within Lightroom, in conjunction with some specific burning and dodging using the brush tool,  contrast, clarity and vibrance, the image comes to life. Note that I did not use the saturation slider.

Because the sky is slightly overexposed in this image it looks washed out and featureless. Again, you have to ignore your camera LCD monitor and trust that you can recover the detail in post production. Reducing the brightness in the sky will bring back the color and clouds.

This screen captures represents all the adjustments made to balance the image. I used a split grad in the sky to reduce brightness, and a reversed split grad on the foreground to increase brightness.

At the time of the image capture, I prefer to push the exposure as far to the “bright” side as possible, as this gives the greatest ability to recover the shadow areas without introducing noise or posterization. It’s a style of shooting called “expose right”, which proves useful in situations like this. To show how well both the shadows and highlights held up with the adjustments applied to this image,  I’ve included this 100% crop of the center of the frame which shows smoothness in the shadows, even after significant fill light adjustment.

In this scene of Machu Picchu, the center mountain precludes the easy use of a split grad filter, even in Lightroom, so I used the brush tool which enabled me to create the filter in the shape that corresponds with the landscape.

A few basic adjustments correct the exposure and balance the brights and darks of the histogram. In images which require a fair amount of  post production exposure adjustment, it is all the more important to begin with sharp lenses, and have your depth of field appropriately set. Blurry edges, either due to poor lens quality, slightly out of focus, or chromatic aberration, will enhance any edge oddities when stepping hard on the Fill light, or other adjustments in Lightroom.

Once the overall exposure is balanced, then its time for tweaking contrast, clarity, and vibrance, etc., to meet your desired result. There is usually some back and forth tweaking with overall exposure and brightness, once localized brushes or split grad filters are applied.

The degree of exposure balance achieved within just one photo is amazing. Of course, you can always blend two or more different images, but that gets more complicated when there are moving objects in your frame, and the workflow is a bit different, since a .psd or .tif file will need to be generated and worked on in Photoshop. I like the clean and simple method of one file, whenever possible. When absolutely necessary there is the option to blend images or enter the world of HDR.

If you have been tracking the development of RAW image processing programs, then it should be getting increasingly more clear that the need to generate derivative .tiff or .psd files of your master RAW files is getting increasingly less necessary. In the beginning days of processing RAW files, it was cumbersome, slow, and in general a painful experience. I used to generate tiffs from RAW files and finalize them in Photoshop. But that took a lot of time and hard drive space. Furthermore, with each successive advancement in RAW processing algorithms, tonal control and other global and local correction options, I found myself redoing files over and over.

At this point I use RAW files almost exclusively as master files, the exceptions are for blending multiple images or stitching panoramas. I use a two stage process:

1. A general processing effort aimed at making the file look excellent on my website–at this stage it is not necessary to stamp out every piece of dust, correct chromatic aberration, etc.
2. “Perfecting” the file happens when the image sells as a stock photo or art print. This lets me capitalize on the newest and latest RAW file processing techniques and algorithms available at the time the image leaves my office. Read more about my digital workflow here.

I use Photoshop infrequently these days, and often for correcting lens distortion–something not fixable in the current version of Lightroom. I shoot with zoom lenses often because I like the flexibility they afford in composition. They are often notorious for various types of lens distortion and chromatic aberation.  The ability to fix this on a RAW file has been on my wish list for a while, and I’m excited to learn that Lightroom 3 will offer this very useful feature. I’ll be able to correct for things like pin cushion, barrel distortion, and other optical nuisance within the RAW working environment! . Watch Tom Hogarty, Adobe Systems Product Manager, in this short demo of the upcoming Lens Correction feature that will be part of Lightroom 3 and Camera Raw 6.

These new lens correction tools, in conjunction with the existing ability to maximize dynamic range from one single RAW file in Lightroom, will make it an even more powerful tool in effective, creative and efficient RAW file management. The latter three reasons are why I think every digital photographer should use it, or it’s equivalent in some other platform. Next post I’ll discuss a technique I use to maximize the dynamic range of a single image, avoiding the need for an in-the-field, split graduated neutral density filter.

It’s going on six weeks since I had shoulder surgery, and I have not taken one photo in Alaska in 2010. That is the longest photo-free period for me ever. However, that is happily ending as I’m pushing equatorial boundaries again for the second time in three months, with travels to Peru (Machu Picchu-if the proper repairs are made to the railway access by the time we arrive) and the Galapagos Islands. I’ll be in a relative degree of disconnect during the first two weeks of April, so posting here may be slim.

The real lure of the Galapagos for me is the underwater world. Ever since I dipped my young head in the pacific ocean at 19 years old, and saw the magical aqua world full of life, I’ve been keen to explore it further. I’m far from a skilled underwater photographer, and my novice experimental efforts have been with a less than ideal housing, and very limited time. But this time around I’ve got an Ikelite underwater housing for my 5DII, along with an 8″ dome for use with extra wide angle lenses. It just arrived in my office. While I’m a minimalist in a general sense, the gear begins to add up when you plan to photograph both above and below the water. In a few weeks I’ll have some comments to share about my forays in the relatively warm waters of the islands. After that, I promise to get back to Alaska imagery as the summer is beginning to frame some exciting trips and photo adventures.

What’s in my photo bag for this trip is yet to solidify, but so far:

• 5DII
• 1DsIII
• fisheye
• 24mm f/2.8
• 17-40mm f/4L
• 24-105mm f/4L IS
• 100-400mm f/5.6L IS
• 400 f/5.6L (non-IS) w/1.4x or the 400mm f/4L  DO IS – post surgery, I’m trying to go as light as possible.
• Ikelite housing and 8″dome with ports for 24mm and 17-40mm
• Gitzo tripod w/bh3 Hallhead

And I’m giving the new Dust-Aid, Dust-Shield a try on my 5DII. Thanks to Ron Niebrugge (a talented Alaska based photographer) for bringing this to my attention. Others who have used it say it works pretty well on managing dust. I’m not endorsing it yet, since I have not used it, but we shall see. Hopefully, it will blow a gentle dust-free breeze of emancipation over that troubling problem. My last trip to the Galapagos turned out to be a dust nigthmare, but much progress has been made in sensor cleaning since then.

So, with thoughts beginning to drift to warmer places–this morning was minus 2 degrees in Fairbanks–I thought I’d share a few shots from my previous Galapagos trip, way back in 2003 (the year of the 1Ds I).

Today on www.spaceweather.com there is a link to an interesting graph denoting the geomagnetic activity on a monthly basis.

Spaceweather says: “Statistically speaking, March is the most geomagnetically active month of the year; October is a close second. Although the reasons why are not fully understood, there is no doubt that equinoxes favor auroras.”

The activity on the sun has been in a pretty low state recently, but things are getting more active. A CME (Coronal Mass Ejection) may produce some good auroral viewing if a few variables line up. Be on the alert on March 16-17

This is also a good time to mention an article I wrote on how to photograph the aurora borealis with a digital camera. And, its a good time for me to review that article as well. Its amazing how easy it is to forget something on a dark night. Especially remember to take your filter off (if you have one on the lens), and do a focus accuracy check, either using the stars or some other bright solar object. These two are among my most popular mistakes. The latter in particular with Canon’s finicky focusing 24mm f/1.4L.

If any Nikon users have the new 24 f/1.4, I would be very keen to hear some feedback on its performance specifically with aurora or astrophotography.

People often ask when is the best time to view the aurora, and the chart shown here shows geomagnetic activity. However, the factor of weather will play a role as well. It would be interesting to see a chart that showed which months had the most clear nights, per a specific location. The arctic photo tour that Hugh Rose and I guide in October has yielded aurora photography every year for the past 8 or so, although some years are better than others. Still, working around cloudy skies and hunting for holes is not a small task.

My advice if you want to catch some possible action on March 16-17 is to plan on spending a 4 hour block of time outside, with camera ready. Statistics say that in general, from 10:00pm to 2:00am nets the best results, but in reality, you just have to be there and be ready!

I have not touched my camera since shoulder surgery, which was four weeks ago, and I just might give it a try during this potential aurora show.

Its time for a Sierra Club Calendar Submission. I used to submit to them for many years when I shot film, but there was a huge gap in time for them to catch up to the digital world, and just last year they began accepting submissions of digital photography. While that was a big step forward, it is still one of the most time consuming submission I prepare, due to the specific forms required, which is basically analog. It would be nice to see some sort of thumbnail reference form, as that is more in line with the many digital asset management programs that all us photographers use. Getting them a preview resolution file, and renaming them appropriately is not problem, but itemizing each on a sheet of paper is a clog in efficient workflow.

Below is my submission for 2012, which is basically a print out of a lightbox on my website that has embedded links to the preview image. It looks nice on my website but the style sheet here won’t let me control the layout without lots of work. This is not what I send them, but rather the environment I work in to collect the images for inclusion. I then make a catalog set in Lightroom and export the files as 1000px jpegs for their review. Including the paperwork as necessary.

You can see any image larger by clicking on the thumbnail.