Last year I had the good fortune to go to Hawaii and tie the knot with my wife, Teresa. But we didn’t just get married. We were also able to explore places like this.

Haleakala - The House of the Sun

More than any other shot I took during the trip to Big Island, Oahu and Maui this photo keeps grabbing my attention in the collection.

I tried to remember some landscape shooting basics and make the best of the moment. Some have commented to me about this and that; maybe the rocks in the foreground can go or the shot as a whole is a bit cliche but, in the end, this shot makes me remember that great experience standing there and seeing a surreal stretch of almost impossibly beautiful terrain. It really feels, to me, like being there. And that’s what photography’s all about, right?

I’ve been thinking about the business of photography and small business as a whole a lot lately. Reading a new blog I found out about called ProPhotoLife I learned about this handy calculator, created by the National Press Photographers Association.

If you’re thinking about starting any small business, including pro photography, this is an eye-opener. Many businesses fail because they fail to take into account the true expenses of operation.  Putting some numbers in the calculator really showed me just how much things like business insurance, equipment costs, travel, etc can all play into your final price.

So why are there people out there shooting weddings for $350? In my opinion, they simply haven’t thought about all the actual costs of operation. Others think about expenses and then forget to pay themselves for labor. In any case, don’t make the mistake of charging very little to get more work. It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that you must have the lowest price out there, but if you can’t afford to operate, it’s all for nothing. Most photographers who have been in the business a long time agree that raising prices to more reasonable levels did not result in a loss of work.

Anyway, just thought the calculator could open a few more eyes to the real issues of cost vs revenue.

Just a quick post… found this web site called simply Digital Photography Tips and Techniques while searching for information on flash sync speed, something I truly just don’t understand and amazingly found an explanation written in plain english. I’ll quote a little bit without spoiling their article:

The picture shown on the right is where the flash is used as a complementary light source to fill the shadows (fill light) in outdoor shooting. In a sunny day, the shutter speed is ~1/100s at f/16 @ ISO100 based on the “sunny f/16″ rule. For many shooting situations, it is desirable to shoot at wider apertures to have a nice background isolation. So 1/200s at f/11, 1/400s at f/8, 1/800s at f/5.6, 1/1600s at f/4, … oh wait, this may already far exceed the maximum flash sync speed of your camera!

Incredibly easy to understand… you might need to raise your shutter speed above your flash sync speed, thus the importance of higher flash sync speeds. Compare this writing to Ken Rockwell’s article about the same subject:

Example one: You can’t reduce the required flash output by increasing the ISO. You will need to use a smaller aperture to keep the ambient exposure constant because you can’t increase the shutter speed above the sync speed. Because of the smaller aperture at the higher ISO you still need the same flash output. A higher ISO can’t get you more range or better battery life.

Example two: A lower ISO can let you use larger apertures for portraits, but it won’t speed up recycle time (and thus frame rate) or increase range. If you set a lower ISO and use a larger f/stop you still need the same flash power output. A faster sync speed would give you more range or require less power from the flash when using the larger aperture.

I know they are covering two different aspects of the issue, but the clarity of writing in both examples is evident. I’ve enjoyed much of Ken Rockwell’s writing in the past, but I have to say I don’t understand a word he is writing about flash sync. More correctly, I understand all the single words like ISO, f/stop and sync speed, but I can’t understand his overall point.

I’m not laying the blame specifically on Ken, though. I’ve read a lot about flash sync and just didn’t get any of it. Thanks to Digital Photography Tips and Techniques for putting it so simply.

Disclaimer: as usual my poor writing has led some people to believe that I am trying to say that you can’t use Lightroom or that Lightroom somehow opens RAW files the “wrong” way. Nothing could be further from the truth. RAW images are simply a dump of the RAW camera data when the photo is taken, and this data can be interpreted infinite ways to make a final image. Lightroom has it’s own way of doing it (by default) and that’s perfectly valid. The point of this post is simply to say “look, there are many ways a RAW file can be interpreted at the default settings by various software packages.”  So, I’ve re-written parts of this post to better communicate this message.

Nikon holds the secret formula for what they believe to be the best way to decode their own RAW files.   It doesn’t mean it’s the right way or the only way, but it’s the way Nikon has set up their camera and software to produce images.  Adobe Camera RAW, the key to both Photoshop and Lightroom RAW editing, is not using this formula. I can’t speak much for Canon and the other camera makers (There are others? Kidding… don’t spam me) but I’m fairly sure it’s the same story everywhere. If you are not using the maker’s own software, you are not getting the same results. Usually people discover this by realizing that their RAW files don’t look the same as their JPG files. But the real reason is the RAW editor software, not any difference between JPG and RAW. A RAW file opened up in Nikon’s Capture NX will look the same as a JPEG shot in the camera. The same RAW file opened in Lightroom will look different. This is because that “secret sauce” formula for your Nikon camera is only programmed into Capture and not other apps.

That’s not to say you can’t create the same image using Lightroom or Photoshop. But it can be a pain.

Two Different RAW Applications, Two Different Results

Here we have crops of two typical scenes: a portrait and a landscape. Nikon’s version is on the left and Adobe’s is on the right. Both applications are set to default settings and a JPEG has been exported. As you can see there is quite a difference in color and brightness. I think most people would prefer Nikon’s version as it’s got more color values and skin tones are less blown out.

Does this mean you should use Capture and not Lightroom? Absolutely not. Lightroom RAW images can also be made into anything we want and Lightroom runs faster, works better and has much better options for sorting and organizing images.

Lightroom has many, many options that can be adjusted and saved. A collection of tweaks can be saved as a preset and then exported. I’ve created such a preset to help my Lightroom D300 RAW files look a bit more like Nikon’s settings. If you are curious you can download that preset here. (right click and save as) I haven’t tried the preset with other Nikon DSLRs but it can’t hurt to try.

This preset doesn’t match the Capture settings 100% or even close, but it does get closer (for me) to a good starting point. It’s mainly comprised of changes to color hue and luminosity, as well as minor camera calibration changes. It’s definitely an art and not a science, so I make no guarantees that it will work well for everyone. Here are the same photos with this preset, in Lightroom:

Skin Is Not Blown Out

Sky Color Restored (somewhat)

I’m not sure why Nikon, Canon and the others can’t give Adobe Camera Raw their custom settings. Perhaps they are trying to protect what they feel is their formula, or perhaps it is a technical impossibility. If anyone knows the real reasons, I’d love to hear. For now, there are many presets that emulate and create a certain look, and that will just have to be good enough. I would recommend that you take a series of images that represents what you usually shoot and come up with settings that work for you. Save those settings as presets or even Lightroom default settings. There is no need to stick to what Adobe, Nikon or anyone else thinks is best.

Filtered Light on the Trees

Small Cluster (Click to enlarge for a bonus spider)

Big Island, Hawaii

Just some shots showing some of the more delicious things the world brings us.  The first two were taken at the Washington DC Cherry Blossom festival this year.  I had also just worked on the Hawaii photo and decided to post that, too.

Asia Trail

One great thing about living in the DC area is that we have easy access to the National Zoo. There are a lot of great outdoor exhibits and the zoo is camera friendly. Recently, they added a section called Asia Trail for animals from the eastern parts of the world.

It’s always a challenge to take photos in a zoo, especially when trying to achieve a natural look. Wires, bars, cages, cables and feeding paraphernalia all conspire to get in the way of a natural looking shot. Here are some tips I came up with:

1. Use a fast lens - Lenses that have a large aperture like f/2.8 or f/4 will be able to capture action without resorting to high ISO. It’s also a good tool to blur backgrounds and obscure man-made objects which may be behind the animal.

2. Zoom in tight - Tight portraits of animals help to avoid background junk and engage the viewer with the animal.

3. Focus on the eyes - No matter what, the eyes should be in focus. Carefully choose a focal point that is based on the eyes of the animal.

4. Shoot early or late - Just like most other photography, the soft light of dawn or dusk is much more pleasing for most shots. Color in fur, feathers or scales will also show up much better at these times.

5. Learn Photoshop - Nothing beats photoshop’s layers and clone tools to remove a stray fence or wire.