richard_barron

<p>What hacks me to the bone is when some super-new-DSLR owner strides up to me on The Plaza at Santa Fe and says something condescending like, "Still shooting with the old XYZ, huh?" Sometimes I'm temped to say, "Yeah, and I won photographer of the year with it last year," which I did.</p> <p>I'll say it again because it needs to be said over and over: you can't buy mastery; you have to earn it.</p>

<p>Sarah, upon taking a look at the images you posted here on a calibrated monitor and a calibrated laptop, I will weigh in and say that neither of them looks "very" anything. Also, since seeing them on the screen is only one step in the process, have you had any of these printed, and how did they look?</p>

<p>Not to sound like a salesman here or anything, but if I were running my own business (photography or other) I would buy a LegalShield membership. It's not terribly expensive, and will cover your legal needs in the same fashion as medical insurance covers your medical needs. <br> <a href="https://www.legalshield.com">https://www.legalshield.com</a><br> Abby and I have Legalshield and it is definitely worth it.</p>

<p>I shoot raw files and set a custom white balance. The look I wanted was similar to some of your images, with white foliage and deep skies. I'm not saying I didn't get interesting results, but I wasn't getting the results I had hoped.<br> That particular camera is notable for its off-the-chart moiré, so no, the purple fringing wasn't deliberate.<br> Here's another frame from that camera that was full of surprises. The gate is painted deep red and the bush in the background is true green.<img src="http://richardbarron.net/photoblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/lock-ir-01.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I've still got a Kodak DCS 720x in storage, and it was always my hope that its ability to remove the IR filter by taking out just two screws would lend itself to IR imaging. Despite having a set of three opaque IR filters and a deep red filter, no combination delivered the look I wanted, even after extensive editing. It's possible the CMY sensor isn't suited to desirable IR response. Thoughts?<img src="http://richardbarron.net/cameras/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/tree-ir-01.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Keith, I enjoyed looking at your portfolio. Nice stuff. I see that you have some infrared imagery. Can you share your technique and equipment for making them?</p>

<blockquote> <p>I own Nikon f1.8G lenses (20, 28, 85) and Sigma ART lenses (35,50).</p> </blockquote> <p>Seriously? My only advice would be to go shoot.</p>

<p>I used a 25-50mm f/4 for years during my last fling with black-and-white film, often with a deep yellow filter on it. I found it to be optically excellent for that use. My biggest complaint about it was that the focus throw (the amount you rotate the ring from infinity to the closest focus setting) was very long, so the lens didn't "pop" into focus the way other lenses do. It also only focused to 2 feet, which was somewhat limiting.</p> <p>http://richardbarron.net/cameras/2009/09/09/a-rare-and-beautiful-classic/</p>

<blockquote> <p>the image quality is shit, on all of those</p> </blockquote> <p>I've got some 13x19s hanging on the wall next to me made with the Nikkor 18-200mm on <a href="http://richardbarron.net/traveller/2015/04/10/off-the-map-april-2015/">my last hiking trip in March</a>, and they are dazzling. If you know their strengths and limitations, superzooms can rock.</p>

<blockquote> <p>wouldn't a smaller smaller camera with a small but superb lens be a better choice</p> </blockquote> <p>Agreed. My "small" is different from my wife Abby's "small." For most of my travel and adventure imaging, I carry a Nikon D7100 with the Nikkor 18-200 and a Tokina 10-17mm fisheye. <a href="http://richardbarron.net/cameras/2014/10/28/traveling-cameras-and-how-i-use-them/">Great combo</a> - couldn't be happier. Abby, on the other hand, brings just the Fuji <a href="http://richardbarron.net/cameras/2013/04/13/trial-by-trail-the-fujifilm-hs30exr/">HS30EXR</a>, which is much lighter and smaller. <a href="http://richardbarron.net/traveller/">When we travel</a>, we're not trying to score the Photo of the Year, we just want to have fun and make pictures along the way.</p>

<p>I shoot news, sports and magazine for a living. Big, heavy f/2.8 glass for that is irreplaceable.<br> When my wife and I travel and hike, <a href="http://richardbarron.net/cameras/2014/04/07/the-long-and-the-short-of-it-superzooms/">superzooms</a> are irreplaceable.<br> It's all about picking the right tool for the job.</p>

<p>For news and sports, Tri-X was king. T-Max wasn't without its charms, but Tri-X, in most developers, was the best.<br> For shooting the American West, no film gave me the tonal values I wanted the way Verichrome Pan did. <img src="http://richardbarron.net/traveller/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Pecos-storm.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>>>the price of the gear is largely nitpickery<<<br> I am working press, so a nice new camera is nice for about the first five minutes I've got it. Besides, my newspaper doesn't have the budget for new gear, so I make used gear work, and work well.<br> As far as working with three cameras goes, I got used to doing it before the zoom era, so I've got a system worked out. But for me, the big downside to three cameras now that I am old is fatigue. Lighter loads are working better for me in recent years.</p>

<p>Here's <a href="http://richardbarron.net/cameras/2014/12/20/the-backup-camera/">my backup strategy</a> (link).</p> <p> </p>

<p>Q: What makes a digital SLR camera “professional.”<br> A: You do.<br> Q: What can I do to my camera to make it take better pictures?<br> A: Wear it out.</p>

<p>As much as I wanted the old AF-D version to be a great lens, it just wasn't. It was noted for focus hunting, or locking on to a subject when it was slightly out of focus. At apertures larger than f/2.8, it was only adequately sharp, but I got an f/1.8 to shoot at f/1.8, so that was a disappointment. Bokeh was kinda ratty. On the other hand, it did make nice 18-point sunstars.<br> I've only had my hands on the AF-S version a couple of times, but when I did, I was impressed. Both times I was shooting basketball action wide open. Focus was fast and dead-on, and the results were decently sharp. It's definitely not in the same class as the f/1.4, but if I were in the market for an 85mm f/1.8, the AF-S version is the only one I would consider.</p>

<p>Carl, my apologies for getting off-topic. To bring it back a bit, my 85mm f/1.8 AF of 1993 vintage just died. It wasn't the greatest lens in my bag. Those advising you to consider the AF-S version are correct. It's a much better item.<br> Regarding bounce flash: I almost always shoot in manual mode so I can finesse the mix of flash and ambient light as needed. The above image mixes flash from an older SB-24 in 1/2 power manual, bounced off a blanket, with a desk lamp over her shoulder to highlight her hair. It took just a couple of test frames to get the balance right. In the first frame or two I wasn't getting the golden highlights I wanted, so I changed to a longer shutter speed to bring them out without effecting the exposure from the flash.</p>

<p>Rodeo Joe, I agree with that completely. I used an off-white blanket as a bounce target for this image of my wife. It created incredibly natural-looking light...</p> <p><img src="http://richardbarron.net/cameras/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/abby-dec-09-a1.jpg" alt="" width="437" height="648" /></p>

<p>One big reason I come down so hard on direct flash, and pop-up flash in particular, is to discourage my students, many of whom just bought their first DSLR and know little about it, from letting the camera take over and pop up that flash when it gets dark. They need to learn a drillion better lighting solutions before they come back around to any kind of creative efforts with direct flash.</p>

<p>I haven't made a direct-flash image on purpose since high school.<br> http://richardbarron.net/cameras/2014/02/03/worst-lighting-ever/</p>

<p>Honestly, chromatic aberration isn't a key point for me. More important in my work is build quality, which is off-scale low in the 18-55mm, and versatility, by which I mean that I have less than no use for a 55mm f/5.6 lens. I've got three 18-55mm lenses sitting around gathering dust - I can't give them away - and each one has a different image quality problem, meaning each has a different area of the frame that is unsharp because of cheap construction. You can take hold of the focus ring on that lens and wiggle it back and forth over a millimeter, even on the new ones - believe me: everyone in my classes has that lens on their cameras on the first night.</p>

<p>Unlike the glory days of Nikon's amazing manual focus lenses, the very cheaply-built lenses of today aren't made for the ages. It doesn't take a drop to the ground or a slam into a door to throw the tiny, delicate lens elements out of true. In fact, things like riding in a car for a long period or bringing your gear in from the cold over and over can unseat these elements.<br> The good news, of course, it that there are scads of affordable replacements out there. The 18-55mm lenses from Nikon, Sony, Canon and others are so cheap they are almost disposable. Do yourself a favor and move up to a better wide angle.</p>

<p>I agree that the tonality with silver prints, particularly when I can print them myself, are in a class apart from digital. To me, that is the strength of film.</p>

<p>To me, shooting film to then scan it to a digital file makes little sense in the era of the Nikon D810 class of cameras. I've paid big bucks for film scans, and none of them ever satisfied like actually printing it myself with an enlarger. So what does that leave? To me, the only way I would return to film is if I could print. I don't see that happening, so I don't see a place for film in my work.</p>

<p>I have a small, fast internal SSD in my iMac just for system and apps, and keep everything else on USB3 externals. Performance in this configuration is outstanding. </p>