"Walkaround" photography.

Picos de Europa, Spain. Pentax 645.

I've seen posts asking for recommendations for a small camera or outfit for holidays. Plus the ever popular phrase, its "my walkaround lens"

The vast majority of my photographic output is taken from places that can only be reached on foot, in places that I've often had to travel a long way to get to and outdoors.

Alps, France. Nikon F4.

If people are looking for small cameras and cut down camera systems for travel, walking outdoors etc., then just what are they using their "serious" cameras and lenses for? Isn't the thought of travelling halfway across the world and photographing new, exciting and exotic places a reason to pack every piece of photographic equipment you own? I know it is for me.

Calanques, Cassis, France. Pentax MZ-5.

"'I'm going on a train trip across the Andes, stopping at Machu Piccu, can anyone recommend a small compact camera to take with me?" OK, that might be an exaggeration, but I've seen pretty similar posts.

I'm not talking about the other extreme however. There was someone on a Nikon forum, who was taking a trip hiking through the Grand Canyon. He was going to take his Nikon D3, D700, 14-24mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8. His question was, "Should I take my flashgun?" !!!!!

Cornwall. Pentax *istD

One of the reasons I've always been so enthusiastic about m4/3 is that it goes some way to solving the problem of quality versus bulk. In the days of film cameras it was far less of a problem. Even cameras like the top of the range Nikons were light enough to carry up mountains. Nowadays with AF motors, fast motordrives etc. DSLR's can be pretty big. I once photographed the Pennine way here in the UK with a Nikon D3, and it wasn't a pleasant experience.

Mont Blanc, France. Nikon F4.

Local Landscapes

Like many landscape photographers we're not roaming the world constantly photographing exotic locations. Much of the time we are working in our own local environment. 





Indeed some of our best selling shots are taken within a few hundred yards of our home.





The nice thing about working close to where you live is being able to photograph through the seasons, and to be able to anticipate great lighting conditions. Travel photography with its new locations is exciting and stimulating but usually you only get one chance at it. Many of us get to photograph these faraway places only in summer but the thought of how they might look at other times of the year is often only a matter of speculation since we won't be there to experience it.








It is worth remembering however that our local landscape, while seeming familiar and often mundane to us, is an "exotic location" for someone who lives in a totally different environment halfway round the world. We may have been there many times, but for someone else its an insight into a different world, and deserves to be photographed accordingly.





Words - D
Images - D & A

Photographers and smaller cameras.

An article by David Muench - Landscape Photographer.
http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/columns/natural-connections/stormlight.html


A quote from National Geographic and Magnum Photographer Steve McCurry
"I continually see photographers walking around with huge camera bags on their shoulders and I just wonder how can you stop and smell the roses and observe life when you have a 20-pound bag hanging off your shoulder. It just mystifies me."


A quote from another photographer:- 
"don't try and tell me that a smaller sensor is superior to a larger format! Because that isn't, and never will be, true."


We're into another of those photographic controversies about new v old, small v large. The 35mm versus medium format and digital versus film debates of the past have been replaced by a small camera versus large camera debate. In all of these there is one theme. Can something that makes our life easier as photographers give us comparable quality to something that is more difficult to use? As ever there are people who embrace the new technology, and those who resist it.





It goes without saying that when two cameras give the same performance the smaller, lighter and cheaper alternative becomes very attractive. But what about when thats not the case? A Nikon D3X has incredible resolution, will do virtually anything that a camera can, is built like a tank and produces image after image that will satisfy the most demanding of users. So why when I had one, did it sit on the shelf most of the time? If I am serious about my photography, and I am, then why didn't I use it all the time? As has been written here many times, the answer is that it was way too big, and way too heavy for me to use for any length of time. 



Mercantour National Park, Provence, France. 35mm film.


Its interesting, but no surprise, that landscape photographers are in the forefront of this move towards smaller, lighter cameras. Those of us that make our living doing it have been carting huge amounts of equipment around for many years, and in my case are starting to to suffer the consequences. In my own case I have a body that has to be "managed" rather more than it used to be. Hauling a medium format camera, lenses and a tripod up hills is no longer an option I can consider, and my enthusiastic embracing of camera systems such as micro four thirds is a matter of self preservation above all.



View from the Quiraing, Isle of Skye, Scotland. 6x4.5 film


The photographer quoted above is correct when he indicates that a larger sensor is superior to a smaller one. There is no doubt that my D3X produced images that were of a higher quality than my m4/3 cameras in almost every way. But the fact is that I would never have carried the D3X the distances that I can carry my m4/3 cameras, or indeed my Leica M9, which certainly can stand comparison with the Nikon.


We all make our decisions based on what works for us at any given time. I'm no longer prepared to have my photography become an endurance test. It seems more and more photographers are coming to the same conclusion.


D



Chartreuse, Alps, France. 6x4.5 film

Small cameras, tripods and f16.

In a article I've referred to before - 
http://www.davidclapp.co.uk/blog/reviews/43-panasonic-gf-1-in-the-landscape.html 
one of my favourite UK landscape photgraphers, David Clapp, talks about using a Panasonic GF1 for landscape work. In the article on his website he used this phrase:-
"I began questioning the point of anything but this camera as the weapon of choice for long distance walks and mountain climbs. Its certainly not a compromise. If I was pushing myself to the limits high on a ridge, I am starting to think that the GF-1, 14-45 and a decent tripod system is all I would ever need."


I've been wondering about doing this for some time. Following on from my piece on the Olympus E-P2 and its kit lens
http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/2010/08/taking-stock-3.html 
a couple of days ago, I decided to try the Olympus E-P2 with 14-42mm kit lens under similar circumstances to David. While he used the Scottish Highlands, I had a sunny afternoon in the Cotswolds. I certainly wasn't "pushing myself to the limits high on a ridge" though carrying a tripod around for several hours is something I've not done for a long time & I certainly suffered the consequences after doing it, with a complaining back.





Firstly it must be said that, for a tripod-mounted outfit, the whole thing was very compact. The E-P2 plus kit lens is a very light option. Its also very easy to use. The screen worked well even in sunlight and the 2 sec. self timer worked very nicely in the absence of a cable release. I used f16 throughout the day. There were occasions when I could have used a wider aperture, but I was interested to see the results in full landscape, maximum depth of field mode.


As David Clapp found with the 14-45mm kit lens on the GF1, the optimum aperture on the Olympus 14-42 isn't f16. The results were certainly softer than those obtained at f5.6 & f8. Diffraction takes it toll at these narrow apertures. However this doesn't mean that the images were bad by any means. Some sharpening in Photoshop yielded perfectly acceptable results.
I was however slightly disappointed by the following shots. Both were of subjects close to the camera and would normally be expected to produce very sharp results.








At these web sizes its difficult to see the difference, but the 100% version on my screen needed a fair amount of "smart sharpening" in Photoshop to get the images crisp. 


As a comparison I used the camera hand held at wider apertures later in the day.











The three images above are all very sharp and crisp. Apertures varied from f4 to f11.


I had also taken the Leica X1 with me, as a comparison. The results were similar. I used f14 on the Leica as it has a minimum aperture of f16.


The tripod mounted shots were marginally sharper than the Olympus.





Again there was a slightly disappointing result from a close to the camera subject.





Again I tried the camera in hand held mode at wider apertures.








These were excellent. In the shot immediately above the flowers are incredibly sharp and crisp.


So what did I learn from this?


Yes its possible to use a small m4/3 camera in tripod mounted landscape mode at small apertures and gain acceptable results. There would be no problem in printing these images at large sizes or for magazine reproduction up to A3.However I would only ever do this if I had to. Its certainly not a way of working that I would want to be doing a lot. 


Yes you can obtain better results with wider apertures but certainly the kit lens on the Olympus performs well enough at f16 for it to be considered a usable option.


I've always had positive feelings about the 14-42 Olympus zoom. No its not as sharp as the X1 lens, but a small amount of Photoshop sharpening brings it to comparable levels for reproduction.


Cameras like the E-P2 and X1 are designed to be used hand held at wide apertures and that is where they perform best. There is no advantage in using them on a tripod at small apertures. However if thats what you need to do then they will perform satisfactorily. If I was looking to do what David Clapp does, then I would agree with him that a m4/3 camera with kit zoom is perfectly capable of doing the job.


For me, its not something that I would do very often, if at all these days. Yes I've carried medium format film cameras, lenses and a tripod up mountain slopes, but not for many years. These days, with digital cameras and their superb higher ISO performance, its often not necessary, and for me I only use a tripod when light levels are so low that hand holding the camera is impossible.


A useful experience and one that adds to my knowledge of what two of my cameras are capable of. 


Words - D
Images - D & A

Pembrokeshire - Leica M9

Unfortunately due to the dust spot problem with the sensor, the M9 was used more sparingly than we would have liked, during our recent trip to the Pembrokeshire coast in West Wales. We had wonderful deep blue skies and the thought of cloning out dust spots from the images was not appealing. Due to a problem at the company that cleans our sensors, Calumet, they are unable to do this until next week, so we had to use the Leica with its current proliferation of spots.


As a coastal National Park, it has truly breathtaking scenery, much of which is only accessible by foot. Consequently we spent much of the time walking. Our decision to take only light, non-DSLR cameras and lenses proved the right decision.





The two pictures above were taken around Wooltack point, on the Marloes peninsula. The cliffs are very high and care needed to be taken as there were many sheer drops. The temptation to get just a little bit further forward to get the shot had to be resisted!





The ponies shot is one of our favourites from the whole trip. We happened upon them "posing" in this group. Couldn't have really been better if we had placed them there ourselves. They kept this grouping until we had taken the pictures we wanted & then they drifted away.





The final picture was a test shot taken with our 45 year old 135mm F4 Tele-Elmar lens. This is a lovely, though heavy, lens. It is pretty difficult to focus, because of the small size of the 135mm frame in the M9's viewfinder. If focusing on a distant landscape, which is where its very useful, it can be difficult to find something suitable for the rangefinder focusing. Consequently we tend to use the smallest aperture we can, so that we can be sure that we have our subject in focus.


Considering its age we are always amazed by the sharpness of this lens. A real bargain.

The long and winding road

If you believe the media, the western world is split into two kinds of people. Those who waddle between the fridge and the sofa and are setting new limits as to how big you can make a pair of elasticated tracksuit bottoms and those stick insects who run a marathon before having a breakfast of a raisin and 4 grains of organic rice.


Like many normal (i.e. not on television) people however we believe in healthy diets and exercise, while declining the pleasure of snorkeling the entire length of the amazon wearing only a swimming costume and an iPod.





You may have noticed that the bulk of images posted on this blog are taken outdoors in usually scenic surroundings. Often this will include a footpath, canal towpath or road in the image.





As is apparent by now, many of these images are shot as picture library or stock images, but its more than that. We actually love being out on some footpath or track and can think of nothing better than getting paid for wandering the highways and byways of the British or European countryside and coastline. Its a rotten job but somebody has to do it.





True there is a question of degree here. The youngest and fittest of us thinks nothing of pounding the length of the Offas Dyke long distance footpath, or walking the ridge of the Malvern Hills and back before descending to a scenic hostelry for a pint or few of "Old shepherds socks" or some other tasty beverage. Those of us who are on the steady road to decline take a more sedate approach but still manage to clock up enough miles to relish a hot bath and an early night.

People become photographers for many reasons. Some to photograph their families, others to document the world around them. Many like to record the places they have been and to try to capture and preserve the pleasure of being out in the landscape. Some travel the globe in search of the spectacular and unique. Others develop a relationship with their local area, often in the process rediscovering some of their roots.

While not advocates for comparing painting and photography, we would recommend the work "A year in Yorkshire" by the artist (and sometime photographer) David Hockney.

Though working in a different medium, his transformation of the familiar, the commonplace and the unnoticed into works of art can give inspiration to us all.

Priorities.

I have a member of my extended family, who whenever he visits, looks at my camera gear and says things like, "Bought another toy then?" "Nobody needs that many cameras"

He then proceeds to tell me how much he would like to do this and that but that he can't afford to do it.

Every Saturday night he goes off to one of those new chrome covered pub come nightclubs in the local city centre and spends around £100 on alcohol and taxi fares, and having a "good time"

When I mention to him that he's spending £5000 a year on these weekend jaunts and with that money he could start to finance some of his creative ambitions, he dismisses this with some monosyllabic grunt and the advice that I should "get out more" and stop sitting around buying cameras on the internet.

Priorities.

Words - D

Images - D & A