BrianRicePhoto.com Blog

Wordpress from now on...

2010-10-31T12:14:00.000-07:00

All, I will probably very rarely be updating this blog from this point. Check my new blog--with every entry here imported--at http://brianricephoto.wordpress.com for new posts.

First weekend out with the D700

2010-10-26T19:12:00.000-07:00

So here are some sample shots of the Nikon D700 in low light situations, at very high ISOs. Personally I’m blown away by the image quality the D7oo produces, at all ISOs but especially the higher ISOs. Even on the Canon 5DM2 I was reluctant to shoot above 3200 ISO in these circumstances; on the Nikon I have practically no need to reduce the noise at 3200. And images at 6400 and above, all the way to 12,800 were progressively grainy, but in a much more appealing way than the Canons. I would never use anything above 6400 ISO on the 5DM2, and rarely 6400. With the D700 I have no problem using 12,800 for online usage.

Tracii Guns (foreground) of LA Guns, ISO 3200

100% crop of above pic, ISO 3200

The Nikon D700

2010-10-21T11:26:00.000-07:00

So I've had the D700/24-70 for a couple of days now. Haven't done any jobs with it yet; just been putting it through its paces shooting things around the house. This weekend I'll be taking it on three different shoots, so I'm looking forward to that.

Justice is coming.

The Canon gear has all been shipped out with the exception of the 17-55 lens while a hold on the sale gets straightened out. Not sure what the deal there is as the buyer seems legit (and the money is in fact in my PayPal account, but "frozen" until they receive the lens), so I'm holding off on shipping it until I get an all clear. Other than that I'm keeping an eye out to make sure all the buyers are happy and leave positive feedback so I know the Canon sales are wrapped up.

I've also purchased an SB-900 flash and an SB-600 flash. For now I'm holding off on a second SB-600 given my budget constraints (a necessity caused by the decision to get the more expensive D700 and not the D300s). That's fine as I still have the Vivitar 285 as an alternate flash (activated in my wireless flash set up by the RadioPopper Jr), not to mention the fact that the D700 has a pop up flash to act as the trigger...which really means I have up to three different off-camera light sources already.

Finally I'm preparing to order a Tamron 70-200 2.8 lens to be my telezoom, and a refurbished D90 to be my backup/second body. Again, the more expensive D700 is causing me to cut corners on my backup camera--no D300s--but the D90 is a fine camera in its own right that can get me through a shoot if the D700 suffers a hamstring injury or something. I'm eyeballing reviews of the new D7000—seems it might be having the same sharpness issues the Canon 7D experienced on its release; maybe they really are pushing the bounds of physics by insisting on cramming too many pixels into a crop sensor; maybe 12 MPs really is the optimal number for those—plus waiting for a body only to finally be in stock, which I'm hearing won't be for at least a month (which takes us into the holiday season, so who knows; could be after the new year before it's widely available). If I decide to get the D7000 to be the backup, I'll sell the D90 (even though I'd have only owned it for a month or two; I ran the numbers and it'll still be cheaper than renting for any significant length of time.

UPDATE: The refurbished D90 has been placed on order for overnight delivery. I'm holding off on the Tamron for now; I might rent a different second lens for this weekend instead.

UPDATE 2: Just reserved a Nikon 17-35 2.8 lens for a two week rental at Rentglass.com. This should be very interesting to get a feel for that lens on the D700. The 17-40 on the Canon side was great on the 5DM2; I imagine this will make for some incredible interior photos over the next couple of weeks.

UPDATE 3: Got the refurb D90 delivered today. TINY compared to the D700. It might become more useful than I'm anticipating for that very reason; it's lighter. The D700 with the 24-70 and SB-900 are heavier than the 5DM2/24-79/580EXII combo. No more one handed shooting with a beer in the other hand.

The Switch from Canon to Nikon is in progress

2010-10-12T20:07:00.000-07:00

So I have, indeed, committed to switching from Canon to Nikon, recently. After further reflection/internal debate/countless budget calculations, I ultimately decided on the Nikon D700 paired with the Nikon 24-70 2.8. Not the cheapest scenario--believe me, I tried really hard NOT to decide on this solution--but having shot with the Canon 5DM2 for the past year and a half and Canon's own 24-70...I ultimately realized I couldn't walk away from the stunning image quality that both a full frame sensor offers and that the pro grade 24-70 2.8 can deliver. It's like the difference between HD TV and standard antennae broadcast. A crop sensor camera is certainly pretty good and more than acceptable...but it's like comparing a brand new Honda to a brand new Jaguar.

The only reason I began to consider an alternative to Canon was the 5DM2's horrendous autofocusing. The image quality of that camera is outstanding, with great looking shots at 3200 ISO and even 6400. The D700 is said to be even more impressive than the 5DM2. The only thing the D700 lacks is the ability to shoot video. But even though I tried dabbling in video and even shot and edited a couple of promo clips for some bands, my energy is probably 95% to 99% directed towards stills. Plus, my eventual backup/secondary camera will most likely be the new D7000, which is expected to be the best dSLR for video from Nikon to this point.

Now, realistically, for a large majority of work that I get paid for, I'll be honest, since most of it is just for the internet at sizes of usually 600 pixels by 400 pixels...the average lay person is not going to "see" the difference. But I do. Unfortunately, lol. But there's been the occasional time when I've shot portraits or publicity/modeling photos, not to mention weddings, where this format will serve me especially well. Did I say how much I demand high quality high ISO performance? A ton of what I shoot is in especially dim and poorly lit environments that demand a combination of high ISO, fast aperture and slow shutter speed. The only thing the lens lacks is VR (vibration control; Canon calls it Image Stabilization). A well performing high ISO can negate the need for VR; ie can shoot at perhaps 1/60th or 1/80th at 3200 ISO whereas at 1600 ISO it would require a 1/30th or so. Doable, but requires two steady hands.

But again, the poor, slow autofocus and glacial frames per second rate (less than four seconds) were two huge factors in leading me here. I tried to stopgap it by purchasing the Canon 7D as the 5DM2's companion, but have had issues with it to some degree from the moment I bought it. I gave that camera so many chances, and it's still a great camera, but the allure of what the D700 can offer me is too great. When I rented the D300s I was not impressed by its high ISO performance (in fact distinctly disappointed, especially compared to the 7Ds, which turned out to be fairly impressive after all, although not at the level of the 5DM2), but once I learned the nuances of the Nikon, especially its continuous AF mode, I was blown away. The D700 isn't as fast as the D300s, but it's significantly faster than the 5DM2.

So at this stage I'm in the process of selling my Canon gear in order to pay for the Nikon stuff. With a sigh I shipped off the 24-70 2.8 L, and I'm waiting on the money to clear before I part with the 5DM2 once and for all. Since the D7000 seems to be pre-sold out, it may turn out to be a high demand item that's never in stock, forcing me to hold on to the 7D as my backup camera just a little longer. (I'm pretty set on the D7000 and not the D300s as being my second camera.) The logistics involved are just frustrating because I'm in a slow developing "wait" mode while auctions run their course, money is sent but is on hold pending shipment of the item, etc...(I prefer eBay/PayPal as my method of selling equipment because of the security).

Hopefully I may be able to scrounge up enough to at least buy the D700 body and maybe rent the 24-70 for this coming weekend's shoots (and a flash, too). I anticipate owning a full set up (camera body, lens, flash) by the end of next week, or the week after.

Nikon d300s Impressions from a Canon 7D and 5DM2 shooter.

2010-10-04T13:24:00.000-07:00

I've rented the Nikon d300s this past week, along with the Nikon 17-55 2.8, the SB-900 flash and the SB-600 flash (to experiment with off-camera lighting). I've been considering a switch from Canon to Nikon for a long time. Here is a link to some pics I shot with the Nikon. Below are my impressions:

What I like about Nikon:

• Auto ISO. You can set your ISO range based off a specific shutter speed you select. I wish I had realized this sooner in my rental period (it's due back tomorrow after having it for a week) to get the most out of it with live shots, but I "discovered" it's ability just in time to get extensive shots with it yesterday. With Canon's Auto ISO, well...it just seems to set the ISO on its own volition, based off nothing I really understand. Oh, and if you're shooting with a flash it automatically sets to 400 with no variation (the Nikon seems to prefer 800, which, while I couldn't determine if it varied, is still more usefull to how I shoot, in low light situations where I want to bring out details in the background). You cannot adjust max ISO for Auto mode on the Canon, nor can you adjust the minimum shutter speed before Auto ISO kicks in, which is why I initially ignored this feature on the Nikon, assuming it was similar and useless to me; knowing how it works now is a gamechanger.

Update: In other words, you can set the max ISO to be 1600, or 3200, or even as low as 400 or 800, and the Auto ISO will never go above that; while you can set the minimum shutter speed required before the Auto ISO kicks in. Example: You have the camera set to Aperture priority mode, with the Auto ISO turned on and set to a max of 3200 ISO and a minimum shutter speed of 1/125th. The amount of light available tells the camera to shoot at a shutter speed of 1/200th. In this case the ISO stays at whatever base you had it at (probably 200 in most cases). If the next shot tells the camera it needs 1/60th to get the exposure...instead of allowing the shutter speed to do that, it will bump up the ISO from 200 to 400 to compensate, yielding the proper exposure. If the amount of ISO needed for the correct exposure exceeds the max ISO you have set, then it will allow the shutter speed to go below your minimum setting.

UPDATE 2 (Oct 6, 2010): I take it back about Canon's auto ISO being a mystery. Obviously if you're shooting manual it's easy to set the shutter and aperture and to let the camera set the ISO accordingly. I do remember attempting this approach but being unsatisfied with the results, though. Aperture-wise it's hard to tell whether it priorities the shutter speed or the ISO. I still prefer the Nikon approach.

• Easy to use and highly effective Continuous Shooting mode. Granted, I have to caveat that with an admission of dealing with a serious learning curve to become proficient with it, but again, coming from the Canon side--which I've never been able to effectively or satisfyingly use their AF Servo mode--I tended to ignore it initially.

I got a series of 9 shots of this fireblower (the rest can be seen here).
I have never been able to achieve that on the Canon.

• Autofocus was consistent and reliably took in focus shots. Very reliable, especially after my maddening frustrations with the Canon 7D from the moment I bought it.

• Balances foreground and background lighting well. The Canon tends to blow out the background for the sake of exposing the main subject properly, while the Nikon finds a nice middle ground in properly exposing the subject while retaining details in the background.

• Flash exposure is consistent. However, I noticed a tendency to overexpose, especially looking at it on the computer afterward, but I would expect with more time that I'd be able to fine tune it to my liking. Despite that, a great feature on the Nikon flashes are TTL-Balance, which further softens the amount of flash on the subject and balancing the background with the foreground well.

• Nikon's flagship flash, the SB-900, includes a diffuser and colored gels for ambient lighting. This is huge, especially the included gels. What's especially awesome about the gels is that you insert them into the included gel holder and snap it in place, and the gel has two tabs with the flash detects. The camera then automatically adjusts the white balance accordingly. This is amazing. My only caveat is that the pics tended to be slightly over-magenta. Again, this may be something that maybe compensated for with a few tweaks in the settings. Yes, it is about $20 more expensive than the Canon 580 EX 2, but when you spend the money on a separate diffuser and gels, then suddenly you've just spent more to get the same gear for the Canon. And you still have to manually adjust the color balance on the Canon.

Update: This only works on advanced models like the d700, d3 and d300s. Lower entry-level cameras do not adjust the white balance automatically when the SB-900 is attached with a gel.

• Useful customizable buttons. I think Canon may have one or two customizable buttons--and the later models do have custom options on the control dial that you can turn on at will--but something about them never enticed me to use them often. I think a lot of it has to do with me being a more manual settings shooter who likes to switch maybe just one variable at a time. The main example that got me excited was being able to customize the Function button on the front to open the screen to quickly be able to turn the Auto ISO on and off. (It would have been better to set it to directly be able to turn it off just by pressing the Function button, but as it is, it's better than having to navigate Nikon's less-than-great menu system; see my dislikes below.)

What I didn't like about the Nikon:

• Menu system is clunky and inferior to Canon's. This kind of ties into the Multi-Selector button as another dislike, especially compared to Canon. Canon's menu system is more streamlined and its horizontal layout, combined with the joystick (my name for it, Canon calls it a Multi-Selector like Nikon) and rear wheel are two big Canon advantages.

• Nikon's vaunted ergonomic advantage is overrated. At least compared to the Canon 7D, the best ergonomically designed Canon camera to date. I'm not saying it's bad, but different. I like the way the 7D feels in hand, but I also really like the way the d300s feels. It's about equal as far as comfort, although, again, very different feeling. My main problems with the Nikon control layout is with the white balance, image quality and ISO buttons set on the top left control knob. Maybe I'm just not used to it yet, but it's cumbersome to reach up with my thumb or finger (as well as having to look up from the viewfinder) to make sure I hit the correct button before adjusting. With Canon's you hit the corresponding button with your right pointer finger and adjust with with the top dial or the rear wheel, also with your right hand, which is much easier. In this respect the new Nikon d7000 looks to be better designed than the d300s in that its ISO, WB and image quality buttons can be reached with the left thumb next to the LCD screen. I also had a couple of incidents where I'd inadvertantly switch the focus mode from Single Shot to Continous Mode with the left hand while turning the zoom ring on the lens. And another couple of times when I inadvertantly turned off the camera while trying to adjust a setting on the top dial. However, as I got used to the camera this was less of a problem.

• Nikon's image playback was S-L-O-W. Glacially slow, sometimes. There were several times I'd take a pic and go to look at the image and stand there staring at the hour glass icon for several seconds before the image would finally appear. I often had similar problems navigating the menu, with it hanging for a couple of seconds before responding. Again, issues with navigating the Nikon menu system could be Nikon's less-than-great Multi-Selector button not reacting to my thumb pressing. The last time I experienced this slow of a playback was on the Canon 10D when I briefly owned one back in 2004.

• High ISO is inferior to Canon 7D. At images up to 1600 the pictures the Nikon d300s produces are great. So are the Canon 7D's. At 1600 ISO and above, the Canon easily and undeniably separates itself from the Nikon. Despite having a more densly packed sensor (18mp crammed into a slightly smaller sensor than the Nikon's 12mp), the images are cleaner and more detailed on the 7D. I avoided using 3200 on the Nikon, while I am generally fine using it on the Canon.

• The Nikon "set" I used -- the d300s, the 17-55 2.8 and SB-900 -- are quite heavier than the comparable Canon set that I own (the 7D, 17-55 2.8 IS and 580 EX2). Furthermore, the Canon lens has image stabilization, while the Nikon lens does not (Nikon calls it vibration reduction, but it's the same thing). To top that off, the Nikon lens is over $300 more expensive, not to mention the rubber band zoom ring had a tendency to slip off the lens if I wasn't careful while zooming.

• Nikon's video abilities and video quality are inferior to Canon's. Admittedly I only shot a couple of clips with the Nikon, but I could easily tell it's of poorer quality than the 7D. This was one of the biggest potential dealbreakers for me as I've very casually dabbled in video, and the 7D is even better than the full-frame 5DM2 in that regard. If you plan on doing a lot of video, go with Canon or hang on a couple weeks and check out the new Nikon d7000 to see if they've improved their video.

Those are some of the major points I've noticed. Some things are more important than others. I am close to a final decision as to what I'm going to do (make the switch or not), but I am especially curious to see how the d7000 measures up, despite technically being in a lower class than the d300s and 7D. I am also very curious to try out the full frame d700, though it's price may be prohibitively expensive for me.

Here is that link again to the aforementioned gallery I shot with the Nikon.

My Hate/Love/Hate/Love relationship with my Canon 7D

2010-09-14T18:19:00.000-07:00

Over on the Flickr forums I've posted about some of the autofocusing issues I've had with my Canon 7D. This has definitely been the most challenging camera I've owned. To sum up the link above, my 7D had back-focusing/front-focusing issues and I ultimately sent it in to Canon repair twice. In that time I became extremely frustrated to the point where I considered seriously switching to Nikon and at the very least just get rid of the 7D. (My other camera is the 5D Mark II.) What made it even more frustrating was how great the 7D feels to hold, unlike previous Canon dSLRs, so to handle such a great ergonomic camera yet get crap photos was maddening. Having to ship it to Canon twice and wait two weeks for it to ship, get repaired and then wait for it to get mailed back was also maddening. That was from February to early April, and finally Canon seemed to get it right.

The trick with the 7D is that it's got a new, revamped autofocusing system that seems to work somewhat counter-intuitively to what I got used to on previous Canon dSLRs (I've owned the original silver Digital Rebel, the Rebel XT, the 30D, 5D and the 5DM2; the last which I still own). I don't know where to begin or quite how to describe it because I'm not really technical. There have still been times, including recently, where the photos seem slightly out of focus. However, I've recently "discovered" the merits of Zone Autofocus, one of the several autofocusing modes on the 7D. Usually I preferred to shoot with either Single Point AF or more usually Spot AF Point. But what I think I've discovered is that if you're not properly homed in on a suitably contrasty part of the subject it will try to lock in on the nearest contrasty point and hence, I'd often find the background in focus perfectly and the subject not. Or the subject with be slightly soft.

So recently I began to use Zone AF, where you choose a "zone" (of course) of focal points and trust that the camera will find an appropriate part of the subject to lock in on for proper focus. The key, which for some reason took me a long time to really "get", is to understand that the camera will always choose whatever object is closest to the camera within that zone. This can be problematic if, as I often am, I'm shooting a musician and don't want the microphone in front of the subject in focus while they are soft--I think you really do need Single Point AF for that, still--but for people/group pics, since I've began trusting Zone AF more and more, it seems to be working fantastic.

Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC versus Canon 17-55 2.8 IS

2010-05-15T10:59:00.000-07:00

Two weeks ago I rented the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS, and am now renting the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC. I haven't actually taken the Tamron out into the field yet, but first impressions testing it around the house are very favorable. Yes, 2.8 is softer compared to 4.0, but definitely nothing a little sharpening can easily fix without degrading the image quality. I also wouldn't say it's prohibitively soft in its own right; in fact it's only apparent when you compare it to 4.0 and higher. Compared to similar test shots taken when I had the Canon, I can't honestly say there's too much of a difference; maybe the Canon is sharper...but $500 sharper??? Hmmm.

So that's the big question. I'm finding the Tamron online for $620 while the cheapest Canon is $1100. Don't get me wrong; the Canon was awesome, and the Tamron is a lot louder when focusing, especially with the VC turned on, which can be disconcerting, especially when it sounds like it's "unwinding" after you take a shot. It seems slower than the Canon, but so far I haven't been in a situation where the low light will challenge it, so I won't find that out for a bit.

If the Tamron lives up to this initial impression, there's no way I can justify spending the extra $500 on the Canon; the Canon may legitimately be the best EF-S lens out there but the Tamron doesn't have to outdo it, just be pretty good. BUT, the proof will be when I take it out in the field.

UPDATE: Bokeh seems pretty good, too. Certainly isn't bad.

This is an update to my update...I have to say I'm VERY impressed with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC. Maybe it's the way I shoot or the subject matter that doesn't "expose" any deficiencies, but I think it's a winner. At $620 versus the $1100 for the Canon 17-55 IS I just don't see any way you can justify the Canon, as great as that lens is. Unless you subscribe to the notion it's always got to be about Canon lenses above all else (which I admit I've been susceptible to from time to time).

Here's a link to a gallery I shot last night:
briantium.smugmug.com/Galleries/Events/Jones-Pool-VIP-Par...

Now, it's tricky because I had the 5DM2 with the 50mm 1.4 slung over my shoulder and was switching back and forth, but the file names that start with a 5 (ie, IMG_5433 and up) were taken with the 7D and the Tamron...while the ones that start with a 3 (IMG_3627 and up) were with the 5DM2. If you click the "Info" button that appears over each pic when you hover the mouse over it, you will see the camera settings. You'll see many photos taken at 1/8th (and you can view larger sizes to see the detail and sharpness).

UPDATE 2: (July 13th, 2010)
Well, after owning the Tamron 17-50 VC for just under two months I have to say I'm considering getting rid of it and ponying up the extra dough for the Canon 17-55 IS. My initial enthusiasm for the lens was perhaps wishful thinking for the sake of saving money.

My major issues with the lens are it's not-so-great bokeh (which is HUGE for me), it's jittery loud almost broke sounding focus motor when VC is turned on, it distorts badly at the wide end, and finally its 17mm really doesn't feel like 17mm...more like 19mm or 20mm. The Canon shoots 17mm MUCH wider. I've gotten to the point where I avoid using it. Not really worth it to save $400 off the Canon only to never want to use something I already spent $700+ for (I bought it from a local camera dealer for retail, not online; I like to support local dealers when I can plus it's nice not waiting for it in the mail).

If I had some direct comparisons between pics taken with both lenses (ie the same subject) I'd post examples about what I mean regarding the pseudo-17mm wide on the Tamron. Suffice it to say it's not an ideal lens for me.

UPDATE 3: (July 14th, 2010)
So I went and exchanged the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC for the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS just now. The camera store I bought it from let me return the Tamron minus a 15% restocking fee so I ended up paying a lot more for the Canon than if I had bought it in the first place. I choose to look at it as a two month rental fee :)

For reasons stated in my previous post I just never really liked the Tamron. Never liked shooting with it, never liked the photos in general. Like I also said above, it doesn't really feel like 17mm on the wide end, certainly not compared to the Canon (or even the non-VC Tamron 17-50). When I reviewed the pics I took from when I rented the Canon I realized I loved all the pics I took with it as well as loved shooting with it. Odd that the difference between the two lenses was so profound. If I had to make a recommendation now I would say stick with the non-VC Tamron and save the money, or bite the bullet and spend more on the Canon.

Lots of visitors

2010-05-09T13:28:00.000-07:00

My website at brianricephoto.com had over 41,000 views in the last 30 days (April 9th through May 9th). Perpetual Change at the Bsider in April topped all galleries at 3867 hits. That's how many photos have been viewed by people not including myself (otherwise it'd probably be double that).

The ZEROS in Parkville, Missouri

2010-05-01T10:37:00.000-07:00

Full gallery here.

Frans Photo Shoot, April 1st, 2010

2010-04-30T11:44:00.000-07:00

For this shoot I used the Canon 5DM2 with the 24-70 2.8 L lens, the 580EX2 flash as the master controlling two 430 flashes (an EX and EX2) on stands, the key light being one of the 430s with a medium sized soft box while the other flash was gridded and used as an rim/back light. The 580 flash head was turned off and only used as a controller. Radiopoppers were used to remotely control the off camera flashes.

Full gallery including behind the scenes and post-shoot drinks at:

http://briantium.smugmug.com/Galleries/Miscellaneous/Frans-Photo-Shoot/11698710_dXWpr#825502612_LuT2p

Lenses

2010-04-22T10:18:00.000-07:00

I'm interested in hearing others thoughts on the kind of lenses you use to shoot. For the past year I've shot with the Canon 24-70 2.8 L lens on the 5DM2 and the 5D. Before that I split time between the Canon 24-105 4.0L IS and the Tamron 17-50 2.8 on a 30D. I think all have been great, although the Tamron is a touch slower focusing...although both 5Ds are pitifully slow in low light. (I also have a Tamron 70-200 2.8 which is the slowest focusing of all my lenses, and a Canon 50mm 1.4.) That slowness on the 5Ds is a big part of what led me to replacing my old 5D with the 7D (and all the focusing issues and trips to the repair center it entailed, although I think it's finally fixed; even after a month I'm still leery of giving it a final thumbs up even though it probably is fine now).

One thing's for sure, the 24-70 and the 7D don't seem to like each other. While it focuses well at 50mm to 70mm, at 24mm it tends to be out of focus (it works great on the 5DM2 at all lengths). I brought my Tamron 17-50 out of retirement for a test run and it seemed to do pretty good. But one thing that's really been in the back of my mind is Image Stabilization; none of my current lens lineup has it (I sold the 24-105 4.0 IS to finance getting the 24-70). I've considered switching back to the 24-105 but now that I've got a 7D I'm considering instead either the 17-50 2.8 IS or the 15-85 IS...although I wouldn't be able to use either on the 5DM2.

So I've rented the 15-85 IS. After a few preliminary test shots at home it seems great; will find out more in the field this weekend on a couple of shoots. The main downsides are that it's not a vaunted L lens nor a fixed aperture (as you zoom from 15 to 85 the aperture narrows from 3.5 to 5.6, or more than twice as less light reaches the sensor with the corresponding increase in the depth of field), although it is a more expensive lens than two of Canon's own L lenses (the 70-200 f4 and the 17-40 f4).

But I got to thinking about how I shoot. The majority of pro photogs rely (I imagine) on prime lenses. They deliver superb quality and open WAY wide open to up to f1.2 (or up to 8 times more light than a lens at 5.6). But I've never been much of a fixed length shooter and have always felt constrained by not being able to zoom in and out as I like, which is why I always get ansty to remove the 50mm whenever I'm using it ("Okay, did I get the shot I want? Good, let's switch back to the 24-70 and relax and have fun now"). Same feeling I had when I owned a 10-22 ultra wide lens, or rented the 17-40 or 16-35 and tried using either as an ultrawide lens on my 5DM2.

But the 15-85 IS. Same feeling I had as when I rented the 24-105 again for my 5DM2. LOVED the flexibility and convenience of being able to zoom in and out at such a great range. Almost enough to overlook not being able to open up the aperture to 2.8. Damn close. Sometimes I still think about it. I think I can live with a zoom lens not going to 2.8. If I like the 15-85 after this weekend I might follow through and sell my Tamron 17-50 to help pay for one and use my 7D more often (remember I got the 7D for it's better autofocusing system, and if I can finally accept that Canon's repair center really did fix my copy this time it may become my lead camera, at least for party pics).

When I shoot party pics I like to drag the shutter...as low as 1/8 to 1/15 if I can get away with it. Image Stabilization will enable me to do that with greater confidence as opposed to not having it and hoping the flash freezes the main subject enough that any camera shake is negligible with the 24-70. Another thing I realized is that in shooting group pics, usually from five to seven feet away, it's just not viable to shoot at 2.8 (let alone anything faster) because inevitably somebody in the shot, usually someone at one of the ends, is going to be out of focus, so I've found myself setting my aperture to 4.0 or 5.6 or even 8.0...so the main point of having a 2.8 is kind of moot (and even a cheaper consumer lens produces good quality stopped down). And having to drag the shutter to compensate is alleviated by IS, to say nothing of cranking up the ISO to 1600 or even more (which I've lived off of since the Rebel XT) to help out. (Although I've recently settled on staying at 1600 if I can help it, even though the 5DM2 in particular is really good at 3200 and even 6400.)

So I'm going to find out for sure this weekend just how well the 15-85 IS works out on the 7D. Should be interesting.

UPDATE: Well, as it turns out I just can't live without a fixed 2.8 on my zoom lens. While the range on the 15-85 was fine, it drove me up the wall to be stopped down at 5.6 zoomed in. While my reasoning above in support of the 15-85 bore out somewhat (shooting groups at smaller apertures), being able to open up to 2.8 for ambient shots without switching lenses is critical for me. So after I sent the 15-85 back I subsequently rented the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS and so far it's awesome. And I realized that if it's just an indivual or even a couple, I can shoot them at 2.8 and if I mind my depth of field they can both still be in focus (ie, keep them on the same focal plane). And the bokeh on the 17-55 is gorgeous. Chances are I will also rent the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC (Tamron's version of image stabilization) to compare. I'd prefer the Canon, but it's nearly twice as much ($1100+) as the Tamron (about $620).

The rest of my Top Ten Photos of 2009

2010-02-10T18:53:00.000-08:00

Okay, so I never finished posting my Top Ten Photos of 2009 to this blog. It was actually easier and more convenient to just post everything to my facebook photo page (http://www.facebook.com/brianricephoto). Here they all are. If you want to read my thoughts from each photo you can go to the facebook page above and click on the Notes tab to read them. (If you're not on facebook, well, um...I'll have to get back to you on that...)

10) TIE

8) TIE

7) TIE

The BPR Top Ten Photos of 2009: Number Ten

2009-12-30T17:26:00.000-08:00

When I decided to put together a list of my top ten personal photos from this past year, there were a handful of obvious photos that I had in mind, of which none should come as a surprise to anybody who has followed my work. What became difficult was picking the rest, as well as simply remembering some real gems that may have gotten lost in the shuffle. So I didn't rush to publish the list so I would be able to have time in case any of those gems "popped up" in my head. A couple did, and I was also reminded of a few on Facebook after I announced the list was forthcoming.

The important thing to remember is that this isn't necessarily a list of the "coolest" or most popular photos I've taken. These photos each represent something of a milestone for me as a photographer who's been developing my skill set non-stop since I bought my first digital camera in 2003. I didn't go to school to study photography; in fact I've only taken one photography class and that was Photography 101 (with a film camera and using darkrooms) as I was studying for my graphic design degree. I didn't learn anything about lighting or composition or anything beyond the basics of operating a manual film camera. So everything for me has been learning on my own for the most part except for brief stints assisting a couple of wedding photographers (Joshua Hoffine and Kevin Sisemore) in 2007. As such mainly these photos represent me achieving something skill-wise and maybe even a couple of them will be "dull".

Of course there are exceptions -- especially towards the start of this list -- and some live music photography is represented. And as I've actually logged in a couple of "ties", it's really a top twelve list and not a top ten ;) For the other photos that barely missed the cut, I will have an Honorable Mention list.

And so...

Number Ten

TIE. Rattle and Hum at the Brooksider, July 25th/Tyson Leslie at the Brooksider, May 30th.

So after all that preamble about milestones and pushing my skill set, I open with two live shots. But live music photography is such a huge part of the work I do these days that I can't ignore it completely. If there was any "skill" in nailing these photos, it was being in the right place at the right time, and always being on the lookout for a great shot. And that's what both of these photos represent, in addition to great composition. Lasers help, too.

Next post: Number Nine.

The Week that Was in BPR Photography

2009-09-14T20:35:00.000-07:00

So the past week was quite an adventure shooting several bands/events. I really felt that the overall quality of the photos was above average with some really special highlights (the 90

Minutes publicity photos). Glad to see such a wide range of familiar faces at each stop.

The guys from Pogey were fantastic. They played the KC Irish Fest last year, opening for The Elders, and that was first time I took photos of either band. And in fact I was just messing around; I really didn't plan make an impression with either act. But I got backstage access thanks to Shawn from the Zeros and ended up taking some of the best live photos of any show I'd taken pics at. And that led to Pogey buying all the pics I took and the Elders hiring me for future gigs and eventually some new publicity photos. And shortly after last year's gig Pogey asked if I would come back and shoot them again when they returned for this year's Irish Fest and that's what happened. I really didn't meet them last year except to briefly introduce myself, but this year I got to chat with the guys and they were great.

I dunno, there's just something about all musicians that seems to be universal in how friendly, enthusiastic and above all appreciative of what I do with the photography. I mean, every band I'm associated with or have worked with is exactly the same. Maybe there's some sort of respect as artists for another another artist. Or maybe they recognize how hard I work to produce the best quality photography for them every time they have me come out and shoot. Or maybe they just love how I make them look like larger than life Rock Stars ;)

The Elders, what can I say. The next day I took some extra photos of Pogey during their second performance at this year's event, then went over to see the guys who gave me a tremendous opportunity by hiring me to do their publicity photos this past summer. I hadn't seen them since that shoot and as always, some of the classiest and friendliest gentlemen I have met. And again, they pack the KC Irish Fest year after year; something to the tune of 25,000 turned up to catch their amazing live show.

And so I had a short three days after that great weekend before I headed out on Wednesday to Lee's Summit and Jerry's Bait Shop to capture Tyson Leslie's 35th birthday event. Tyson's band, 90 Minutes, is one of the more recent bands I've fallen in with this year, and again, like all of the bands, incredibly incredibly supportive of what I do and they're definitely a favorite of my to shoot. I told them once that they were my favorite band to shoot, period, but then I realized that it wasn't fair to several of the other bands who I actually equally enjoy shooting. That doesn't take away anything from them, but each band that I shoot is exciting and enjoyable so you can't really say there is any single favorite; I guess it's like loving all of your children equally, lol.

But the big thing about the 90 Minutes gig this past week was twofold: many guests players from other bands were on hand to celebrate Tyson's birthday and fill in for a song or two, which created a great atmosphere and lots of great photo ops. But other big thing, and for me something I've been pining for ever since I did the Elders publicity pics...was doing some new publicity pics with other bands, and I got to do that with 90 Minutes.

I'll be posting links to all of the galleries I mention in this blog at the end, but these publicity photos really helped me take it to a new level that I've been really hungry to achieve for a long time, but just hadn't quite gotten there before. For me it was about utilizing my lighting rig (Canon flashes triggered by RadioPoppers, stands and softboxes) effectively and creating really cool lighting. The live photography is fun, but this is what I want to do more and more of in the future. My goal is to do less (free) live photography and more studio/posed/publicity photos. If you see me out at an event with the camera, whether it's a band or a VIP party, chances are I'll be there because I was hired and not "just for the fun of it"...although of course, there will be special exceptions.

Friday night...got to see the guys in KC/DC again and shoot a 9.11 event at Fuel in Overland Park. Again, great event, terrific turnout, and some rather, um..."edgy" pics of some pretty excited female fans on stage during "Shook Me All Night Long". When you go to the link you'll see. But for now:

And finally, Saturday night. Quixotic Fusion at the Nelson-Atkins. This act is the single most unique act I've seen and it's amazing that they were founding and are based here in Kansas City. Seriously, this is something expect in New York. It's an ensemble of performers: ballet-trained dancers, musicians, high-wire gymnasts who collaborate to present an incredible, ethereal show. This is an act that everybody who values a great show but also can appreciate the obvious forethought and preparation and planning that goes into this act should make plans to see.

So that was it. Amazing week to be part of.

Links to galleries:

Pogey at the Irish Fest

The Elders at the Irish Fest

90 Minutes Publicity Photos

90 Minutes Live Pics of Tyson Leslie's Birthday

KC/DC at Fuel

Quixotic Fusion at the Nelson-Atkins

Some Ground Rules

2009-08-23T12:08:00.000-07:00

So this something of a follow up on my previous note about watermarking. In some ways I've adhered to it, and in some ways not and I need to get back on track. These rules update that note regarding my business practices:

1) I don't mind that people use my pics for their myspace or facebook pages It's actually pretty cool and is great for promoting me. I DO appreciate people leaving my watermark in the photos, or at least noting in the caption my website address. (See below for watermarking policy as it pertains to this.)

2) If I get paid to shoot an event, I put my watermark in the lower right corner when I post it to smugmug or facebook That still enables me to put my own personal stamp to the pic without being too obnoxious.

3) If I don't get paid to shoot an event but still want to shoot for fun, I use the larger version of the watermark over the center of the pic I know, it's annoying, but I've got to put a value on my work, especially in respect to the bands/people who DO hire me and pay me. Note that the watermark DOES NOT appear on any prints that are ordered from my site; it's just a web thing.

4) For every print that's ordered from my site, the buyer gets an 800x500 web-res version of that pic with no watermark For your facebook, myspace, emailing, etc. This is a new policy and hopefully motivates people to order prints.

5) PRINTS ARE HANDLED BY SMUGMUG, NOT ME I don't make the prints myself, and I never see any credit card information from your order. I've gotten this question before, at least the part about whether I make the prints myself. That's all handled by smugmug; they process the order from one of their printers and mail them directly to you. I just get notified when a print order is made.

6) Copyright info Just like a musician retains copyright ownership of their songs even when someone buys their CDs or downloads mp3s from iTunes, so I retain copyright ownership of my photos. When you order a print or hire me (or any other photographer) to shoot for you, you're basically paying for usage. Hence I can continue to field orders for prints or use those photos in my portfolio.

6b) Typically usage rights for the buyer includes a CD of high-res jpgs to make as many prints as you want for personal use (framing to hang up on the wall of your home, scrapbooking, giving as a gift) and as promotional material if you're a band (posters, flyers, press kit, myspace and facebook pages, website, etc). Other uses must be vetted through me.

7) Typically I charge by the hour, but am considering alternative methods for being paid based off what I provide at a given rate On the face of it being paid by the hour is simplest, but I typically find I end up shooting longer anyway (because it's fun, usually). One alternative I'm considering is that I would provide a limited number of high-res, printable pics depending on our agreed rate. As in, five photos for $50, 20 photos for $100, 40 photos for $150, 80 photos for $200, and all of the photos, unaltered and altered, for $250. You'll notice it's a scaled system, where you'd get more for your money at the higher rates. Contact me if you are interested or have other questions about it. THIS IS A BAND/EVENT RULE; portrait shoots and weddings are priced differently.

That's it for now. I'm sure that leaves out a lot of details and other relevant issues, so in that sense it's still a system that's a work in progress. Any questions with these rules please ask me for clarification.

Annoying Watermarks vs Locking Galleries

2009-07-09T22:20:00.000-07:00

Well, having locked all of my galleries that I shot for free last month, I've reconsidered (for now, anyway) and created a new watermark that I'm laying across the center of the pics in those galleries and have unlocked them, making them viewable again. I'll be honest, I can't make up my mind as to how to the right way to address this concern. I want to place some value on having them posted, but I don't want to hide away the photos and prevent them from seeing the light of day (and, um, well, some of my best work happened while shooting for free; go figure).

So I decided to created a new watermark, specially designed to be placed directly over the center of each pic. Now, surveys of photo websites have shown that people really dislike watermarks being placed like this (but they don't mind them along the edges, where I place my regular watermark); in fact, I tested out a different (albeit even more annoying logo) with a friend and he called it "obnoxious"...but hey, again, there's got to be some kind of value to these photos. I guess the fine line is protecting my work while at the same time not driving away people.

Below is an example of the new watermark:

For now, this will be the watermark I place over all galleries and future shoots for which I don't get paid up front. I kinda like it, but I'm not sure of the reaction it will get from people used to the more subtle lower right watermark I've been using for the past couple of years. The bottom line is that I'm trying to find a happy medium between displaying my work for everyone to enjoy while protecting it and encouraging print sales. (Some have suggested not shooting at all if I'm not getting paid, but there are times when I just feel like shooting and I enjoy doing it, so if I'm not booked with another band that night, why shouldn't I?)

Pocket Wizards, Radio Poppers...or just Canon's native wireless...

2009-06-26T08:23:00.000-07:00

For the past couple of months I've been trying to get the hang of Pocket Wizard's new Flex TT5/Mini TT1 radio triggers. If you're not familiar with what I'm talking about, it's basically a wireless system to operate flashes off camera. There are several different products available using different approaches to operating said flashes, and some are more reliable than others, some are more expensive than others, and each have their pros and cons and unique limitations. What's amazing is that I've finally just come back to Canon's native wireless system that's already built in to their flashes.

So why did I get away from it in the first place to spend (a lot) of money on gadgets that turned out to be worthless to me? Simple. Line of sight. Canon's system, while the easiest to use in my experience (high speed sync, remote control of off-camera flashes so that you don't have to walk over and adjust manually), requires the sensors on the off-camera flashes to "see" the master flash (or ST-E2 controller) that's on-camera. Meaning if the line of site is blocked, by furniture, people, a wall or whatever, it won't go off. And outside it's alleged to be even worse in sunlight because the sun overpowers the ability of the off-camera flashes to see the master (although, as I'll explain below, it's not nearly as bad as it's made out to be). The Pocket Wizards circumvent the line of site issue by using radio signals. At least, they're supposed to.

(There are two sets of Pocket Wizards: the old system that's more reliable and the new Flex/Mini system. The problem with the old system is that you can't get high speed sync, nor can you control the output from on camera, in addition to no TTL control. So you're limited. For me the lack of high-speed sync is a deal breaker as I demand to be able to open up my aperture for good depth of field in daylight while keeping the sky dark by setting the shutter speed to a 4000th of a second or whatever, and still lighting the subject with flash. The old PWs don't allow this. The new Flex/Mini's, however, do allow it, and that is why I bought them. However they've turned out to be horribly susceptible to the RF noise most Canon flashes emit and are terribly unreliable.)

So having the Mini/Flex set up and trying to figure them out for the past few months, I've decided to ditch them in favor of going back to Canon's native wireless with an eye towards eventually getting the Radio Poppers (after I sell the PWs). I just got tired of the seemingly endless troubleshooting the PWs required and their frustrating unreliability. I want something to work consistently and not have to wonder what's wrong THIS time. The Radio Poppers have gotten near universal praise for their reliability; they just work. I guess the reason I didn't go that route instead of the PWs is that the RPs are a start up company while PW are established and have (or used to have) a solid reputation.

Yesterday I decided to test Canon's native system in direct sunlight (albeit at 6:30 in the evening, so maybe it's not as prone to interfering with the Canon system as, say, noon) and I discovered--with the 580 as the master on camera and a 430 both alone and through a white umbrella--that, as long as I made sure the sensor was pointed in my direction (therefore having to tilt the flash head where I wanted it to light), I could get the 430 to shoot from 45 feet away. On second thought that was through some shady areas. If the sensor was in direct sunlight it wouldn't go off more than 10 feet away...until I shifted the sensor just a wee bit, and then I regained the longer distance.

That may seem inconvenient on it's face, having to account for the sensor's direction visa vi the master flash -- and I used to think so too, which is why I tried the Flex/Mini set up -- but it's far less inconvenient than the flash suddenly not going off at all less than fifteen feet away, and wondering what the h*ll is wrong this time.

Having said all that, I did purchase a 430EX II and I can verify the lack of RF noise that particular model emits does make a difference in reliability. I tried both my 580EX II and then my regular 430EX across the room 30 feet away on a Flex right next to the 430EX II on its own Flex, and while both of those were inconsistent in their firing, sometimes shooting for several clicks but suddenly not going off for several more, the 430EX II shot every time with no worries.

So it seems to me that if you want consistency, you'll have to switch over to the 430EX II (and therefore lose the power of the 580s, not to mention the money and time spent in buying however many 430s you need, but also the hassle of selling the 580s if you wanted to make up the money), or go out and buy the $70 cord to separate the Flex from the RF noisy flashes, not to mention a ferrote (sp?) choke (and maybe more than one $70 cord depending on how many off-camera flashes you use), or get the VeilShield to wrap around the flash, or get the forthcoming shield (or two) that PW is developing, or...

Starting to seem like more trouble than it's worth, to me. Especially when Canon's native system will work just fine if you can work within its limitations and the not-so-inconvenient-after-all effort of making sure the sensor is turned toward the master flash (and even if the off camera flash is behind or to the side of the master, I've found that simply turning the master head backwards or towards the offcamera works, although that means sacrificing the master flash as a fill, which is generally fine with me). And eventually getting the RPs will eliminate the line of site issue, but for now I can happily live with it. I also agree with other photogs assertions that PW rushed it's new Flex/Mini system onto the market too fast, without proper product testing, primarily to compete with the Radio Poppers.

Now I realize that method won't work for a lot of shooters depending on their needs. And maybe the old PW Plus IIs are the more reliable option, although I have a set of those, too, and had my own issues with inconsistency and at any rate I demand the high speed sync and the old PWs simply don't allow it, not to mention the ease of being able to remotely control the power output without having to walk over and change it.

Gallery Posting Policy Changes

2009-06-05T01:15:00.000-07:00

I've been meaning to implement some posting changes regarding my photo galleries for some time now. I've been shooting bands (as well as other events) for three years now, and so there are some galleries currently viewable that are pretty old, and I've always liked keeping them posted and for public viewing. However, as I continue to steer my photography into more of a business-oriented endeavor, it's becoming apparent that I need to treat the availability of my work as a commodity. I do get paid often to shoot, but at the same time I also shoot a lot without getting paid, but for fun. The challenge now is to find a balance that's fair to both me as a photographer and the clients who pay me.

It's a hard choice because I love leaving all the photos up for everyone to see indefinitely. And I also know not everybody can afford to pay, not to mention I'm a little too easy and enjoy it when I see people use my work as their facebook or myspace profile pics. So I'm trying to figure out what to do about it. I don't want to just not shoot if somebody can't pay me, especially if it looks like it's going to be fun. But at some point I have to be compensated.

So what I'm going to be doing is figuring out some kind of new pricing structure that will enable people to perhaps pay a cheaper price for web-res only pics and a higher price for the hi-res printable pics. And maybe introduce a shooting fee that's lower than what I've been asking. ie, show up and shoot for $50 or $70...but then the client will have to pay for either web-res files for like another $75 or hi-res files for $125 or something. (None of these are set in stone; just examples.) But ultimately I prefer just one set fee that's all-inclusive; easier that way, if higher overall.

What it all boils down to is that, for all the galleries I've shot that I did not get paid for, I will probably be removing from public view in the very near future. Recent ones within 30 days will stay up until it's been 30 days since posting, then they will be removed. Well, not really removed; just password protected, and somebody wanting to view them again I can give the password to and let them view it for a week to decide if they want to order before I change the password.

This is tough thing to figure out and it's completely a business decision. So I'm hoping that nobody takes it personally or is offended. I mean, I provide a service, and I'm pretty good at what I do, and I think that should be worth something.

Ordering Prints

2009-05-09T10:39:00.000-07:00

Recently, I took some prints that I had ordered from my site to a some of the bands that I shoot. For KC/DC it was part of my rate/offer/whatever to go down to Ft. Scott to shoot their performance last month; six 8" x 10" copies (they were actually 8x12). And then later I ran into the singer for 90 Minutes and showed him some other prints of his band that I had also ordered with the intent of promoting prints from my site. A week earlier I gave a 12" x 18" print to Zach from Shots Fired.

They were thrilled with the prints, which is great. It basically confirmed my feeling that to see a photo in print -- and a great quality print at that -- has a more profound impact than seeing the same photo on a computer screen. Something makes it more "real". Especially when it's printed at a larger size, like the 8x12s and especially the 12x18 print of KC/DC that I made (I think they're all arm wrestling over it to see who gets that one).

But I also realized people aren't fully aware -- or are only aware of it in the abstract -- that they can order prints and that I myself don't actually print them on my inkjet. When the order is placed a professional print shop in Georgia processes the order and mails them directly to the customer. I myself never see the credit card numbers or whatever. It's a totally secure billing system. In other words, they can order as many prints as they want.

And like I said, the quality is great. I have to option of featuring matte prints and glossy prints, but I don't use them because lustre prints are the best and that's the only type I feature.

I've pretty much decided on including an 8x10 or 8x12 print (one per band member if it's a band; probably five or so if it's a individual/couple portrait) as part of my rate/services, in addition to a CD of the pics. And they can order copies of extra prints from my site, although they could (kinda/sorta) save the money and make the prints at home with the CD or take it to Walgreens. On the face of it those are cheaper options, I guess, but the cost of ink and paper (and even Walgreens) means it's not exactly free...and the prints from my site are far far better.

But essentially this is a shout at that you can order prints from my site. So do it! :)

Jimmy Jam, Part 2

2009-05-04T09:00:00.000-07:00

It's been a while since the last post. I had meant to do a follow up on Jimmy Jam, but over the course of time did not get around to it. It was a great experience and seeing so many great bands who are all my friends jam together at the same time was fantastic. Everyone involved loved it so much that all the bands signed on to do it again later this summer at another venue (although not necessarily as a benefit for Jim per se, but as another All Star Band Show).

(Above: David, background; Bill, kneeling; Jim--the man of the hour--one being knelt to.)

So I shot the entire event and the photos were great. The gallery can be viewed here. Originally the idea was that I was going to donate all the proceeds from print orders from this event to Jim. And I was going to push--hard--to motivate and get people to order said prints. But then in emailing Jim on the subject he insisted that I did not need to donate any profits to him but instead to consider it in trade for a proper photo shoot of the band. Which put me in something of a bind because it wasn't an empty gesture I was making to donate the profits and make myself look good.

It also took the steam out of the campaign I was planning to promote print orders; saying the profits would go in trade for a photo shoot of the band isn't nearly as compelling as donating the money to Jim and his family. So the whole thing kind of stalled.

But I'm not complaining or in any way intending to express any negative vibes. I'm simply laying out a conundrum I've encountered as a quasi-hobbyist-freelancer-wannabe-pro-in-training. I want to make a sincere gesture and legitimately contribute to helping Jim out, but he has a good solution to dealing with it, and one that plays precisely into my efforts to hone my studio lighting/posed photography pretentions/ambitions. (And considering I hadn't pushed the print sales, there is very little on the money side at this point, anyway.)

But anyway, all that aside, it was truly a great night for everyone involved and Jim was extraordinarily touched by everyone's support. I felt great to be a part of it and capture the event.

"Jimmy Jam" at the Brooksider this weekend (March 28th)

2009-03-27T09:26:00.000-07:00

I've been pretty excited about this event for a while now, as it's set to feature an all-star line up of some of Kansas City's best cover/tribute acts, who all happen to be friends of mine. "Jimmy Jam" was conceived of due to Perpetual Change's guitarist, Jim Parker, undergoing major surgery for a ruptured appendix a few weeks ago, leaving him out of commission to perform Saturday's already-booked date for PC. So the rest of the band decided to turn their gig into a benefit for Jim featuring the Zeros, Rattle and Hum, a reunion of Symetrix, Lin Buck, and more, in order to help out Jim and his family as they cope with the medical bills, etc.

I decided to get in on the act by offering to shoot the event, as well as donating the profits from any print orders of this event from my website to Jim. I know a lot of people who have been meaning to order prints from my site, and this would be the perfect event and the perfect time for everyone to order, because not only will you get great prints of the event, the proceeds will go to a worthy cause. I'd love to be able to announce I did like a grand in print orders that I'd be donating to Jim.

The pricing for print orders will be as follows:

4" x 6" prints = $4.99
5" x 7" prints = $9.99
8" x 10" prints = $14.99
8" x 12" prints = $19.99
11" x 14" prints = $24.99
12" x 18" prints = $29.99
16" x 20" prints = $34.99
16" x 24" prints = $39.99

Again, the profits of all print sales from this event will go to Jim. I'll be taking pics of the entire event's festivities including band performance pics, party pics of the crowd, various acts of debauchery that those involved in are sure to regret, and more. And I'm hoping to get a big group shot of all the bands together in order to produce a giant 24" x 36" framed print for Jim. (Major fingers crossed that one actually happening...)

The lame weather forecast notwithstanding (allegedly 8" of snow all day, ending a few hours before the event), I'm really hoping people still brave the road conditions to get out to the Brooksider to show support for Jim Parker and his family. Jim has been one of the most enthusiastic and encouraging supporters of my photography out of all of the people that I've met, and that's saying quite a lot given the incredible numbers of people who still introduce themselves to me based solely off of what they've seen of my work online. That's a pretty profound feeling. And Jim as always been right up there at the top in his encouragement.

Hope to see you all there...

B

Shots Fired at the Record Bar

2009-03-08T14:19:00.000-07:00

Last night I shot an original band called Shots Fired, who were playing a reunion show at the Record Bar in Kansas City. It was a rare case where I was able to set up my so-called lighting rig in order to take some group shots with off camera lighting. Typically bands don't have time to sit down for more formal shoots, or rather they are all off individually wandering around, mingling, etc -- "herding cats" is the term I've heard applied -- and it's maddeningly frustrating to corral them all for a shot. It was also a rare case where I've shot an original band.

One of the conditions I insisted on/begged for when I agreed to shoot was that I have time with the whole band before the show so I could work with my rig. My rig is basically two umbrellas on stands. A 32" umbrella which I chose to be my key light since it seemed to focus the light more tightly, and a 42" I used for my back/edge light in some of the shots. The 42" was going to be my key light but it seemed to throw way too much light all over the place so I switched it. I'm still not sure it's right for edge/backing light due to its massive size (and unfortunate tendency for me to capture it in the background of some of the pics), but it's what I brought, so I dealt with it.

Now, I was going to shoot with my 580 Speedlite on-camera, activating my 430 on the key light, at least for the first set of shots with the band seated on the couch (which was going to just have one light):

And then afterward, for the individual band member shots I was going to switch to my Pocket Wizards and have both flashes off camera:

Gotta love that umbrella.

So anyway, I realized it made no sense to use the 580 on-camera to start with, only to switch everything out after the first set of shots while the band was standing around waiting (cats, you see). Luckily I had a few moments before the band arrived (not to mention smart that I got there early enough to scout the room and plan how I was going to shoot it) so I switched out my gear at that point, putting the 580 on the umbrella and attaching the Pocket Wizards, etc. I guess I should have used the 580 as my key light and the 430 as my edge light since the 580 is more powerful, but the 430 was already on the umbrella stand with the 32" umbrella, and since I wasn't shooting at full power on either flash anyway, I guess it wasn't necessary.

So the band arrive and we start working, then we switch over to the individual shots with the back lighting (and my umbrella making a guest appearance), when the band members decide to make my original individual shots into another imprompu group shot:

And so this is where it all really comes together. One thing about bands is that they know how to mug for the camera. Especially bands who have made records and done photo shoots before. And they're inherently photogenic, which makes it easier on me. Now the best part about this last photo is how well the edge lighting works in relation to the key light (main light coming from behind the camera-right). Note the way the edge light outlines the right side of Zach and Billy's faces (the two in the middle). And the way that edge lighting segways into the hard edge of shadow which then gradiates into the key light is a look I have been developing ever since I got into off-camera lighting:

For full-time pro photographers who do this sort of thing for a living it's old hat, but for me to achieve this in a PLANNED setting, and not a happy/lucky accident where I was just winging it and hoping, was a breakthrough for me. I planned it, set it up, tweaked the power settings on the flashes as we shot, and nailed it.

As for settings, for the group shots I was in the f8.0 to f11.0 range in order to maximize the depth of field. For the couch shots where they were up against the wall, I saw no need for a narrow depth of field, although on the individual shots in the doorway I turned it down to 4.0 (the max my 24-105mm goes) to get some bokeh in the background.

Shutter speed I kept in the 1/30th second range to pick up the background, shadow areas. The image stabilization on the 24-105 helps out there. ISO in the 400-800 range for the same reason (noise is not an issue at that range on the 5D). The power settings on the flashes were about 1/4th to 1/16th on the 430 Speedlite at 28mm and about 1/8th on the 580 at 24mm (the 580 being the more powerful flash I need the 430 at a higher mm setting in order to line up their guide numbers so they are starting from the same baseline). Unfortunately I don't have the time to write down each setting for each shot, obviously, as I'm tweaking the power settings while I shoot, but that's about the range I'm working in. I also amped up the contrast in Photoshop afterward.

What pleases me the most about the shoot was how I was able to make everything work the way I wanted it to, and not flail around hoping something stuck to the wall. There've been many shoots with off-camera lighting where I didn't truly understand what I was doing but somehow I'd always get lucky on a couple shots. That was encouraging in the beginning because it showed I wasn't totally clueless, but the control and consistency wasn't there.

Here is an example of a pic I took the very first night I owned my off-camera lighting rig, with another original band, Leaded:

Didn't know what I was doing, just winging it based off what I had read about power settings, etc. Not too bad, but it's great knowing I know how to take this shot without desperately flailing about anymore.

Website homepage changes

2009-02-24T12:33:00.000-08:00

Once again I have changed the layout and content of my main website's home page (www.brianricephoto.com). I received an excellent survey via a colleague, Eason Pritchard, that showed some fascinating data on what consumers think and look for, and especially what they do not like, when visiting websites (or at least stock photo sites, but it seems like it applies to just about any website). I was happy to discover that I seemed to be doing quite a lot right based off what I read, and got really good info on what could use changing. I highly recommend clicking the link above and reading it.

So I went ahead and made a couple of cosmetic changes, mainly removing the flash slideshow. I'll be honest; I was glad to see that Flash-based sites seem to annoy people, mainly because they take a while to load, even on high speed internet. I never really "clicked" with Flash; I was always content to just use Dreamweaver mixed with a good dose of Fireworks (or Photoshop) when it comes to designing websites. So to have the perfect excuse to continue to ignore flash is...fortuitous :D

I'm also adding the first paragraph of each new blog I post here to the home page in order to increase the visibility of this blog. I started this blog nearly three months ago and have sparsely updated it, but I think that's because it's so remote and isolated from my other online interests (Facebook, Myspace, main site) and I needed to find a way to push it.

New Camera: Canon 5D and the 50mm f1.4

2009-02-23T09:32:00.001-08:00

So I finally made my decision and bought a new/used Canon 5D from a fellow KC photographer named Mike Varel (www.mikevarel.com). Funny how small the world is: I posted a listing on Craigslist stating I was looking to buy a used 5D, and Mike emailed me to say he was looking to sell his, and when I googled his name and found his website it turned out he shot the engagement photos of a co-worker of mine.

I was relieved to close the deal with somebody I shared a common acquaintance with, both for peace of mind and convenience. He had only bought the camera this past Novemeber and used it really for one destination wedding, but had decided to upgrade to the 5D Mark 2 at some point so that was why he was selling the 5D. So I basically got my hands on a practically brand new Canon 5D for an amazing bargain.

So of course the camera is great, but I also decided to rent a Canon 50mm 1.4 lens to see if it would be worth it to upgrade from my 50mm 1.8. With the full sized sensor on the 5D I have been able to find far more use and convenience with using a 50mm prime lens. In fact, I've owned the 1.8 for five years now, since I got my first Digital Rebel in '04, but the 1.6 crop factor proved stifling and it basically sat stuffed in my bag with very little use, but the 5D has enabled me to truely discover the value of a prime lens. But I also began to discover the limitations of the 1.8, including the harsh bokeh and ESPECIALLY the poor, flat colors. Of course, it only cost $90 so it has that going for it, but I wanted to know if the 1.4 would be worth the $400 price tag (the 1.2 sells for about $1500...um, no).

The answer to the 1.4 was yes, definitely. There is no contest between the 1.4 and the 1.8. I fell in love with the 1.4. I'm also considering the 85mm 1.8 as another prime lens, as well. It's interesting that after five years of shooting with a dSLR I'm finally coming around to primes. Here's a shot I took over the weekend with the 1.4 rental:

I just love how sharp the lens makes the subject and the beautiful bokeh (background blur). However, it seems this is quite a popular lens and therefore sold out in at least one local store, so getting my hands on a copy to buy might be challenging...

UPDATE: February 24th. I bought one :) I am now putting up my 1.8 for sale on eBay, as well as my Sigma 10-20 wide lens that I will not be needing anymore.

New camera, or new lens...or both...

2009-01-23T11:41:00.001-08:00

It's been a while since I posted to this blog, so I'm going to update my current dilemma: Do I get a Canon 5D used, or a new Canon 40D, the 50D or even shell out for the new 5D Mark 2?

I've had my 30D since August 2007, so roughly a year and a half. And in that 17 months, I recently estimated I've taken over 50,000 pics with it. That's an average of 2,941 a month. Wow. In contrast, in the two years, four months (28 months) I was using my old D-Rebel XT I had taken less than 15,000 (or 535 pics per month). Of course neither camera (and I still keep the XT as a backup) is anywhere near it's expected "die off" limit (30Ds -- and the 40D, 50D and 5D -- have a shot life expectancy of 100,000 before the shutter can expect to go kaput (the XT's is 50,000). So I've gotten a lot of mileage out of my cameras.

So it's not urgent I get a new camera. I just want a new toy :) Seriously, the big upshot of the newer cameras is that they all (with the exception of the original 5D) have in-camera sensor cleaning to shake off dust, and live view. The extra megapixels are neither here nor there (although the 50D's 15MP seem overkill for a cropped sensor), and from all my research the ISO on the 40D and even 50D is very similar to the 30D. Now the 5D, on the other hand, and especially the 5D Mark 2...wow. I can get a 5D used on both Craigslist and eBay for around $1200...but it doesn't have sensor cleaning and I hear it's a dust magnet. The 5D Mark 2 is just way too expensive for what I'm willing to pay right now. So I'm leaning towards the 40D which I can get for less than $800 ($650 for a refurbished model).

And there's also this idea that I might take that money I wouldn't be spending on a 5D and putting it into a new lens, maybe the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS, and selling my Tamron 17-50 2.8. (I'd sell my XT if I get a new camera and make my 30D the backup). While I've liked the Tamron for the most part, recently it seems like it's not sharp enough at 2.8 for my needs, and shooting in low light the Canon's IS would be very handy; I often shoot live bands and events where my standard settings are 1/25 shutter, f2.8 and ISO 1600 or even 3200; that IS would go a very long way to helping my shots be sharper (except when the band members are rocking out, then there'd be nothing to be done about the blurring of them moving).

So that's where I'm at right now. Trying to decide....

Anatomy of a Photo

2008-12-05T13:19:00.001-08:00

So after a week of constant practice with the mannequin (see previous blog), I finally had a chance to implement what I had been doing with live people. Last weekend I took my gear out to a popular bar that the bands I work with often play and I managed to get a couple of moments with everyone's favorite bartender Carly and had her pose for me:

If you can get over the fact that, "Hey, it's a hot chick. Cool, huh huh", and realize that she IS wearing shorts underneath her shirt (ahem)...and look at the photo in my previous blog you'll see right away I tried to implement the same concepts here as I practiced with on the mannequin. Below is a diagram of the lighting set up...although the print might be a bit too small to read the info.

So I have a 42" umbrella with a Canon Speedlite 580 above and to my (Camera) left. Behind the subject and to the right of the shot is the small softbox, 16"x12" with a Canon Speedlite 430. In order to match the relative guide numbers of both flashes, since the 580 is more powerful, I set the 580 to 24mm and the 430 to 28mm to achieve a base GN of about 92' each. Unfortunately I don't remember the exact power settings on each, but I think the 580 was set to anywhere from 1/4th power to 1/16th power, while the 430 was set anywhere from an 1/8th to 1/32nd, but generally less power than the main, key light of the 580. Shutter speed was 1/25th, aperture f4.0 and the ISO was 640, in order to pick up the background, which is lit by the bar's houselights.

Here's another shot, this time with a very happy Matt (who helped me out setting up the light stands):

So overall I was pretty satisfied with the results of the live shot. I wish I had more time with the live subjects to fine tune what I was doing, but the bar was closing so she needed to get back to work counting down the cash registers, etc. (Oh, and it was a pajama-theme night, which explains her lack of, um, pants.)

The Mannequin

2008-12-05T12:12:00.000-08:00

It's taken me a long time to get the hang of flash photography. Ambient light, natural light like a late-afternoon sun and artificial lighting for bands has always been easy for me. I remember one of the wedding photographers I assisted last year, Joshua Hoffine, telling me it took him over a year to get the hang of flash photography and off-camera lighting, and I realized it's taken me something like 15 or 16 months to really begin to feel I had a consistent grasp of it.

Note, I say "consistency". I've always been able to get one or two "lucky" shots out of dozens as I tried my luck with off camera flash and radio slaves. But getting the same results every time was elusive. And I felt it was critical to advancing my skills.

For a couple of the weddings I shot this fall I went with Canon's flash system, with a Canon Speedlite 580 mounted on the camera triggering my Canon Speedlite 430 off-camera. The results were promising and definitely convenient. I even considered selling my Pocket Wizards. But then I found "her"...

I always remembered another thing Joshua told me: He practiced his lighting skills on a mannequin. I very briefly considered buying one until I discovered how expensive they are; a good one can cost $400 plus. So I shelved that idea until last month, when I was driving home one night I noticed someone in my neighborhood was actually throwing out a mannequin for the garbage truck to take away.

I hesitated as I kept driving home, then thought, what the hell. I circled around and went back, and asked the owner if they were tossing out the mannequin and he said to go ahead and take it. Crazy.

Of course that wasn't enough. After a few test shots I quickly realized I needed to dress up the mannequin and to find a wig to complete it. So after doing that, the other week I finally set out to start practicing my lighting, and with the pocket wizards.

In the course of one week of shooting for a couple hours a night I went from, say, Level 2 to Level 7 as far as beginning to grasp what I was doing, and more importantly, getting consistency. Setting my flashes, accounting for the distance, ISO, gels, etc...and getting the same result over and over again...the way I intended when I set up the shot. It was immense. Before I used to just set the timer and run into the shot to be the practice subject, which took forever. And using a mannequin was a lot better than even having someone just stand there while I practice because you don't have to worry about them getting impatient.

So with the shot above, you can see the key light illuminating her Rembrandt style (light positioned 45 degrees from where she's facing. I think that's the official term), and another light outlining her from behind her and to the right. I'd call that the backlight but I'm not employing it the way I've seen online, with it lighting a backdrop directly behind the subject. Slow shutter speed, about 1/25th or 1/30th, and 400 ISO to pick up the background. What I really love about the results is how the "backlight" (for lack of a better term) outlines the shape of her face on her left (not to mention the wig). In my next blog I'll show the results with a "live" human subject.

So I guess the moral of the story is, if you want to practicing lighting with off-camera strobes/flash/whatever...find yourself a mannequin. Be prepared for people to look at you weird and say "that's creepy" when you try to explain it to them, however...

Welcome to Wherever You Are

2008-12-03T17:38:00.000-08:00

Hey, this is my initial blog. I have both myspace and facebook accounts, of which I already post blogs to, so I don't know if I'll utilize this one much. Most likely this will be photography-exclusive content that I will post to this blog. Stay tuned.