Tech Tips - Photography Advice from George Lepp

Art Vs. State Of The Art. Lepp offers two floral images—one is scanned film with soft effects and one is tack-sharp from edge to edge, front to back—as fodder for the discussion of nature photography as art. ABOVE: A California poppy photographed in 1998 with a Canon film camera and EF 100mm macro lens on Kodak E100S Ektachrome film. BELOW RIGHT: A rain-spattered tulip, photographed in May 2014 with a Canon EOS 5D Mark III and Canon EF 180mm macro lens on a tripod, 23 captures at different focus points and composited in Zerene Stacker software to render the flower sharp from front to back.

Photography As Art

Q Toward the end of a recent seminar, you were emphasizing the importance of tack-sharp focus in an entire image (from the center to all the corners, from foreground to distance). I think I heard you say, almost as an aside, that you can leave the edges blurred, or selectively blur a part of an image if you want to do so, but "that is art"—and by implication, not photography, or not the photography you do and teach. Do you draw a distinction between photography done "as art" from the nature and landscape photography you do?
L. Rankin
At A Seminar

A I sometimes poke fun at the notion that photography can be called "art" only if it's technically deficient—that is, out of focus, devoid of color, lacking any compelling or even recognizable subject, design or compositional integrity, or created with outdated and limited media (that is, film). If your logical sense resists the notion that only bad or technically outdated photography has artistic value, just do a little research about what's being exhibited in art museums, being reviewed in serious publications, and being taught in some college and university art departments these days. So, when an unmoving subject, such as a flower, is portrayed with blurred edges, is it (a) an indication of the photographer's lack of skill or inadequate equipment, (b) an attempt at capture to achieve creative interpretation of the flower, (c) a digitally altered sharp image intentionally blurred to create a softer and presumably more interpretive image, or (d) a digitally altered blurred image intentionally rendered even more blurry to disguise the lack of technique (i.e., save it in Photoshop)? Which of these is art? Is art the more or the less manipulated image? Does it make a difference if the result is a 60x60 print on the photographer's gallery wall or an 8x10 matted print on an art museum wall? Is it art if the photographer looks like an artist, or refers to his/her work as, well...art?

Actually, the concept of art is very inclusive and invites participation by creator and viewer at every level of our experience. Most simple definitions of art use the terms "skill" and "emotional response." That is, the creation of the work is deliberate, and viewers feel something when they see it. As anyone who has been in my classes will know, I value technical skill and feel that it empowers photographers by giving them the tools to realize their photographic (okay, artistic) visions leading, when successful, to the viewer's intense response to an understanding of that vision, be it beauty, humor, folly, tenderness, grief, science or horror.

That said, I don't undertake photography with the idea that I'm creating art, and I've never been much concerned with the idea of being an artist. I have a vision and I'm compelled by my nature, my training and my habit to turn that vision into something that others can share. My primary objective as a photographer is to convey a subject to viewers in a way they've never seen it before. Applying this criterion has always produced my best photography, from my years with Car and Driver Magazine, to nature and wildlife, street photography, outdoor action, portrait photography, and my current obsession with high-magnification macro subjects in the studio. Still, it was easier to achieve the goal of unique perspectives four decades ago when I undertook my professional career, when the field of photography, and I, were younger, the tools of the trade more precious, the opportunities to travel more limited, and access to the market controlled by gatekeepers who, presumably, knew and applied artistic and quality standards.

So, back to the seminar you attended, where I was pushing the idea of sharpness in every dimension of the image. Unlimited depth of field is a technique that speaks to skill: It enables the photographer to convey intense detail and color, and lots of information about the subject. If you've been spending much time in art museums lately, and you've actually seen photography there, then you know that tack-sharpness is also a style that should generate at least one emotional response: Surprise! But, is it art?

Let It Go! The spring flower displays at The Butchart Gardens on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, look like the grounds of a "Frozen" ice palace when captured in infrared using an IR-converted Canon EOS-1DS Mark II and EF 24-105mm lens. The exposure was 1⁄180 sec. at ƒ/16 with an ISO of 200. (Yes, we're grandparents to princesses.)

IR What I Am
I love the look of infrared photography; it's such an interesting black-and-white interpretation of landscapes. Digital sensors are especially sensitive to infrared light, which is invisible to us, but degrades color images. However, images perceived in infrared light alone can be extremely creative. Blue skies intensify to nearly black, foliage is rendered a ghostly white, and a full tonal range is present with unexpected black-and-white renderings based on original colors. I once captured infrared images with IR film, but in the digital age, there are more options: inexpensive post-capture software (faux infrared), external filters and, for those with true commitment, camera conversions.

Faux Infrared
Any RAW color image can be "converted" in post-capture software to approximate an IR look. Some images lend themselves well to this Photoshop exercise, while other images don't come close. It's hard to predict the end result, so you just have to experiment. Russ Burden's OP "Tip of the Week" article at www.outdoorphotographer.com/how-to/tip-of-the-week/bw-adjustment-layer-explore-infrared.html#.U5XSlijYMso uses an IR Adjustment Layer. If you're into nostalgia, Steve Patterson takes it all the way to approximate the look of the old IR film, with a bit of softness and grain, in his tutorial at www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-effects/infrared-photo/.

If you want it done quickly and easily, just purchase Fred Miranda's Photoshop action at www.fredmiranda.com/shopping/DI for $8.50.

IR Filters
I've worked on my DSLRs with Singh-Ray's I-Ray infrared filter (www.singh-ray.com), which passes infrared wavelengths from 700nm to 1100nm, and Hoya's R72 and RM90 infrared filters (www.hoyafilter.com), which pass infrared rays above 720nm and 900nm, respectively. Place one of these very dark filters over your lens, and the only light that will reach the sensor will be IR wavelengths. If only it were that easy!

All of today's DSLRs and compact digital cameras have a filter over the sensor called a "hot mirror" or "cut-off" filter. Its purpose is to impede IR from getting to the sensor, which, as noted above, degrades a normal color image. In fact, some IR does get through, and because of this small amount of available IR, filters like the Singh-Rays and Hoyas will give you a real IR image. Be warned that the exposure will be long and a tripod will be necessary. With my Canon EOS 5D Mark III and an EF 24-105mm lens and the Singh-Ray I-Ray, I needed an ISO of 3200 and a 15-second exposure at ƒ/8. A Canon EOS 70D had identical exposure times. My colleague Robert Agli used a Nikon D800E and needed 15 seconds at ƒ/8 and an ISO of 800. These aren't recipes for quality images.

If you want better quality and more versatility in infrared capture, the best choice is a camera converted to specifically take IR.

George Lepp photographed this cactus patterned with fine needles and tiny flowers with a Canon EF 180mm macro at 1⁄45 sec. at ƒ/11. Nineteen stacked images rendered the subject needle-sharp from front to back when composited with Zerene Stacker software.

Diffraction Distraction

Q To get more depth of field in my macro shots, I've been using an aperture of ƒ/22. I'm seeing a larger area of sharpness, but the overall image just isn't sharp. I'm using an expensive 100mm macro lens with disappointing results. What's going on?
R. Renaldo
San Diego, California

A An optical phenomenon known as diffraction is affecting your image quality. The sharpest image is formed by straight rays of light, that is, rays that aren't impeded or bent as they enter the lens and reach the sensor. The wider the lens opening, the sharper the image. The downside of this is that, at higher magnifications, depth of field is minimal; efforts to increase it by choosing a smaller aperture result in an image that's being formed by rays that are bent as they enter the lens diaphragm.

As an example, I often use the Canon MP-E 65mm ƒ/2.8 1-5x Macro lens. At 1x, I can use ƒ/16 and get good results in sharpness. When I extend the lens to attain 5x, I need to open up the aperture to at least ƒ/4 to minimize diffraction, but I get less depth of field. If I use ƒ/16 at 5x, the image won't be sharp at any point. This is a real problem because, at the higher magnifications, I need as much depth of field as possible. The best that can be done with a single shot is to compose the image so the area of sharp focus is positioned to emphasize the message or most important feature.

A total solution is a technique called focus stacking. With the lens set at its optimum aperture, the photographer captures a series of images, moving through the subject and overlapping the depth of field at each position. A post-capture program such as Photoshop (www.adobe.com), Helicon Focus (www.heliconsoft.com) or Zerene Stacker (www.zerenesystems.com) assembles the "slices" of focus into one completely sharp image. The programs miraculously keep the sharp areas of each image in the stack and ignore the out-of-focus areas. Stacking can be used in many photographic situations, from macro to landscape, and it's a technique I highly recommend and teach in my seminars and workshops.

Flickering Time-Lapses

Q I'm into creating time-lapse movies with my DSLR, but I'm having trouble with a sort of flicker in the movie when it plays back. What's causing this, and how do I get rid of it?
K. Howard
Via email

A Flicker is a common problem in time-lapse (TL) compositions; it's caused by slight variances in exposure from one capture to the next. Even though your exposure and shutter speed are manually set exactly the same for each capture, the lens diaphragm doesn't open and close precisely the same amount each time it cycles from the preset aperture to wide-open between captures. A better process would leave the aperture closed down to the preferred aperture during the whole sequence, eliminating the opening between captures, but today's lenses don't do that. An older, completely manual lens (when was the last time you saw one of these?) remains at the set aperture between captures. Some TL photographers compensate for this by setting their exposure to the widest aperture possible to minimize the movement of the diaphragm. The drawback to this strategy is that control of exposure and depth of field are limited, and a fast shutter speed is required.

Nice And Slow. George Lepp's rendition of White Branch Falls in the Oregon Cascades shows milky, flowing water where, in fact, the falls rush, sparkle and spray everywhere. Canon EOS 5D Mark III, EF 24-105mm ƒ/4L at 47mm, 3 sec. at ƒ/16, with Singh-Ray ND filter.

Classic Tech Tips
Those of us who have reached a "mature" age often gather at the Old Photographers' Home and talk about how dramatically the field has changed in the last two decades. While some might say it all began with digital imaging, I'd place the pivotal moment earlier, at the time auto exposure and autofocus were introduced in the mid-'80s.

Just for fun, we recently spent some time leafing through Volume I of Outdoor Photographer, which premiered with the May/June issue in 1985. Yes, "Tech Tips" was there from the very first, and we found it interesting that the questions you asked then are very similar to the questions you ask now. But the answers are so, so different. Here's a sampling:

Go With The Flow

Q I've admired the photographs of streams and waves in which the water's movement is streaked instead of frozen. What shutter speed is necessary to accomplish this technique?
N. Boisvert
Bozeman, Montana

This flashy picture of Lepp appeared in 1985 with his first column in Outdoor Photographer.

A The answer to this question is still to lengthen the exposure. But back in the film days of 1985, long exposures came with a host of problems to solve. Calculating accurate exposure was hit or miss, and the longer the exposure, the more color changes showed up on the film (reciprocity failure). Early digital sensors were also fraught with problems; color changes and inconsistency were exacerbated in long exposures.

With today's digital capture, long exposures are much more controllable. On a regular basis, we use them to smooth water, shoot in low light, capture the Milky Way in 30-second exposures and follow star trails for hours, as they slowly render their paths on the sensor.

But specific to this question, my ideal exposure for flowing water is only ¼ sec., and this can be achieved by reducing the ISO to 50 (try to find some Kodachrome 25!) to decrease the sensitivity of the sensor, thus increasing the capture time necessary to achieve the desired exposure. In bright conditions, a polarizer or two- or three-stop neutral-density filter will aid in slowing the recording time. I've been experimenting with the Singh-Ray (www.singh-ray.com) 15-stop neutral-density filter to render the ocean waves into a misty fog in the middle of the day.

This chimp loved George Lepp's camera and clearly enjoyed playing photographer. If the chimp clicked the shutter, who owns the resulting image?

The Hand That Rocked The Copyright World
Making the rounds of both digital and print media lately are extraordinary "selfies" of crested black macaque monkeys and heated opinion pieces about just who owns the images. Although a variety of accounts have been published, British nature photographer David Slater maintains that he set up his camera equipment on a tripod in order to capture close-ups of the faces of the critically endangered primates after shadowing a troop through the Indonesian jungle for days and earning their acceptance. The macaques, intrigued by the equipment and their reflections in the lens, began to play with the tripod-mounted camera and, apparently amused by the click of the shutter button, pushed it repeatedly. Because Slater had set up the camera in anticipation of the event, with predictive focus, exposure, etc., and actually had his hand on the tripod during the photo melee, a few really great selfies were captured out of the more than a hundred images resulting from the encounter. Slater's full rendition of the event is fascinating; read it on his website at www.djsphotography.co.uk.

Slater published the images and they eventually found their way to Wikimedia Commons, a U.S. site that hosts over 22 million free photos purportedly in the public domain, and from there to newspapers, magazines, websites and television shows around the world. The editors of Wikimedia denied Slater's claims of ownership, asserting that in each case the monkey had taken its own photograph and that, under U.S. law, nonhuman authors may not claim automatic copyright to their images. While Slater has attempted to keep the focus on the macaques and their threatened existence while at the same time protecting his property rights, publishers and photographers around the world have joined the fray. The British web-based news site, The Telegraph, polled its readers: Of the nearly 49,000 responders, 45% thought the images belonged to Slater, 40% awarded them to the monkey, and 16% thought they were in the public domain. A more thoughtful and knowledgeable opinion was issued by the International League of Conservation Photographers on August 13, 2014. You can find it by searching for "Conservation Photographers Support Photographer David Slater's Copyright in Black Macaque Photograph".

What Do You Think?
Here's where I'll put in my two cents' worth. As I've written in this space before, advances in photographic technology have given nature and, especially, wildlife photographers greater access to elusive, dangerous or vulnerable subjects by enabling the subject or a remote device to trigger the camera. I use a variety of tools to separate myself from my camera while photographing lightning, shy birds, insects, time-lapse video (a thousand clicks) and night skies in dangerous wild environments. Not only that, I've been known to attach a GoPro camera to a dog and send it about its business (most of which, frankly, we'd rather not know about). Natural history photographers have long used tripping setups and/or remotes to gather unique and critical images of rare and/or sensitive animals in inaccessible locations, such as wolf pups or polar bear cubs at their dens. Do I claim ownership of the images I conceive and create, even if, or especially if, I've also put together some complicated contraption to help me capture them remotely? You bet.

Where does it end? I'm not a judge or lawyer, just a working photographer with 50-plus years of experience, but it's my opinion that if you ID the location, acquire the equipment, and set up the image that includes exposure, angle of view and tripping mechanism, you own the image(s) produced on the camera, pure and simple. It has been that way since we coated our plates with a silver solution, and no non-photographer editor or judge should be able to change that (but they might). Depriving dedicated nature and natural history photographers of their work and their income will advance neither the field of photography nor our knowledge of the natural world. And then there's the most basic moral question of taking and using another person's property without permission. Why the editors at Wikimedia need a few more images in their free collection to the detriment of working photographers is beyond my comprehension.
As of the 1st of September, 2014, David Slater's images of the Macaca nigra were still available for free, listed as being in the public domain, on the Wikimedia website. We should be outraged.

Ice By Design. The delicate patterns of ice that form along the edges of small waterways are favorite winter subjects. George Lepp photographed these along a creek in Lamar Valley in Yellowstone National Park. Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III with EF 180mm macro lens, 1⁄8 sec. at ƒ/16 on a tripod.

Let It Snow, Let Me Go!

Q As a longtime reader of your column and one who lives in a very cold environment, I'd like to know what kinds of subjects you look for during the winter months. Do you have any problems with your cameras when photographing in low temperatures?
S. Nick
North Pole

A While the scenes and subjects of spring, summer and fall are seemingly limitless, winter conditions offer some unique opportunities for outdoor photography, and some of these are genuinely amusing. If you're fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to live where it snows, it helps a lot to see each flake as an opportunity to be creative.

To begin with a truly desperate idea, I've been generating some laughs by capturing time-lapse while using my snow blower to clear the driveway. I set up the camera on a tripod, program it to take one image every second and get to work. The end result looks like pure fun, even if clearing the driveway isn't actually that much fun. You can view an example of this type of a time-lapse that I posted on Vimeo (www.vimeo.com/86268199).

My favorite winter subject is probably ice details, from snowflakes to the crystals that form on dried plants and seed pods, and sometimes on windows, and icicles on structures. Look for close-ups of crisp patterns and designs along the edges of streams, rivers and lakes. It can be a bit risky to work on a snowy bank with a macro lens, so I do most of this photography with a telephoto, or macro telephoto, such as the 180mm macro lens, to give some safe working distance. Ice structures are complex; I incorporate a lot of stacking techniques to get the added depth of field these images demand.

Winter is my preferred time to photograph in Yellowstone National Park. No crowds, beautiful landscapes and interesting wildlife images await those willing to don gloves and long johns.

The ubiquitous GoPro is key to documenting fun and drama in the snow. Do you ski? Attach it to your headgear and capture action selfies, or take video of the path you follow so others can experience the ride from the safety and warmth of their home offices. GoPro now offers a dog harness, so if you've got one of those fearless canines that likes to sled with the kids, everyone can experience the ride the way Fido did! I suppose it would work on a reindeer, too.

Extremely cold temperatures can affect camera function, although because I don't usually work in extreme cold, let's say below 0º F, I've had few such problems in the digital age. The things to be concerned about are that batteries don't have as much capacity in low temperatures and LCD screens may be sluggish in really cold situations. Furthermore, the photographer's hands and feet won't function as expected when they get cold and/or circulation is restricted by tight gloves or socks. One of the most frustrating cold-weather issues is that lenses and viewfinders (also your glasses) can fog up and then freeze, making you unable to capture that beautiful buck bounding through the snow. Other than that, winter is a great time to be a photographer!

Some of the best winter subjects, migrating or over-wintering birds, are serendipitously found in abundance in more temperate climates. Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge in central New Mexico is a fabulous setting for geese and sandhill cranes in November and December. Klamath Falls National Wildlife Refuge in southern Oregon hosts geese, eagles and swans throughout the winter. And, if you're really dedicated, you'll need to head south to Florida in February and March for nesting egrets, spoonbills and herons. I know it's hard, but someone has to do it.

Butterflies To Scale: At 4X, this image of a small section of a butterfly wing reveals the fascinating contours of its scales and vein structure. For Lepp, butterfly studies are complex studio subjects perfect for snowy days. Canon EOS 5D Mark III, Canon MP-E 65mm ƒ/2.8 1-5x macro lens at 4X and MT-24EX macro flash,12 stacked images at ƒ/4 captured with a StackShot

Fierce winter weather may interrupt your outdoor photography adventures, but it doesn't mean you have to stop shooting. Actually, it's a great time to take a step back from the cacophony of subjects competing for attention. These are the months I enjoy working in my studio and taking the time to fully explore all aspects and approaches to a single subject, while developing and mastering new capture and postprocessing techniques. Here are a few ideas.

Scaling New Heights With Butterfly Subjects
Butterflies are great to watch flitting among the blossoms, and occasionally we even capture them in the act of landing or nectaring on a flower. But butterflies have a closer beauty found in the designs, colors and textures that make up their wings. Capturing these features requires some real macro techniques and high-quality specimens that were raised for viewing and photography. You need to get to a magnification of 3X or more to do them justice. If you have the Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x macro lens, you're set to go. With an APS-C sensor, this lens will achieve an effective magnification of 1.6X to 8X. Everyone else will have to use some ingenuity to get beyond the common 1X that most macro lenses offer.

Take a 200mm lens (it can be a 70-200mm zoom or a 180mm macro) and a wide-angle lens, such as a 24mm; reverse the wide-angle and place it front element to front element with the 200mm, which is mounted to the camera. You can purchase an inexpensive reversing ring from B&H, Adorama and Amazon, among others, which has the filter size for each lens on the intermediate ring. If you're in a hurry, or don't want to spend the money, take wide black tape (from the hardware store) and use the tape to carefully mate the lenses front to front. You'll achieve a magnification equivalent to the focal length of the telephoto divided by the focal length of the wide angle. For example, the combination of the 24mm and 200mm lenses will yield approximately 8X of surprising quality. Note that the front lens will work only manually, and settings need to be accomplished with the 200mm attached to the camera.

Extension tubes also can help in attaining higher magnification. Inserted between the body and the lens, extension tubes increase magnification at a 1:1 ratio; a 50mm lens needs 50mm of extension to achieve 1X; a 24mm lens needs 24mm of extension for that same 1X. Another great option is your 2X tele-extender. It doubles the magnification with a two-stop light loss, but still gives excellent image quality.

You'll need flash! A lot of light is lost with higher magnification, so bring the flashes in close and either use your TTL flash setting or monitor a manual exposure on the camera's LCD and histogram. It's so much easier than film days, when you had to wait a couple of days to see if the exposure was correct.

Now you can practice your stacking skills. Stacking extends depth of field by combining a number of captures at different focus points into a single image. At higher magnifications, depth of field is minimal. Any image beyond 1X will need to be stacked to have a reasonable range of sharpness. To accomplish the captures, move through the image with very small adjustment of the focusing ring or, alternatively, slight movements of the camera using a focusing rail. A tripod or copy stand will hold the camera very still. You might look into the CamRanger; when used with an iPad or other tablet, it can be set to accomplish stacking and gives you a very large viewfinder (www.camranger.com). Once you get going on this technique, it will keep you busy all winter.

Ice Formations. This Arctic landscape of giant ice boulders is actually a small formation. Lepp achieved extraordinary detail and resolution from a consumer-level camera and lens combination, the Canon EOS 7D Mark II with the EF-S 18-135mm ƒ/3.5-5.6 IS STM lens set to 93mm. The exposures for 18 focus-stacked images composited in Zerene Stacker were 1⁄10 sec. at ƒ/11, ISO 200.

Lens Selection: Con$umer Or Profe$$ional?

Q Do you, as a pro, always buy the best lens available, or can you work with some of the less expensive optics?
B. Dalton
San Francisco, California

A If photography is your business, then you need to make investments in equipment that meet your needs and are cost-efficient, just like any other businessperson. Photographers who are under contract to one or another manufacturer, as I am with Canon, may need to use the latest gear to produce images relevant to the sponsor's needs, but that's another issue. I typically work with a mixed arsenal of professional and consumer-level lenses. But the real answer to your question is another question: It all depends on what you're really trying to accomplish with your photography.

Most manufacturers offer more than one level of lens quality. As an example, Canon and Nikon both market "kit" lenses (these are the basics, packaged with the camera body), consumer lenses and professional-level (read "expensive") lenses, the Canon L series and the Nikon ED series. The main advantages of high-end optics are greater light-gathering capability, improved sharpness overall and to the edges, and better-quality finishing, which manifests in water- and dust-resistance and sometimes speed of autofocus.

We all want the sharpest optics possible, but what do you need, and more importantly, what can you afford? I'm seeing a lot of great new optics out there from Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron and Zeiss, to name but a few manufacturers. We need high-level optics to complete the promise of high-resolution sensors, now climbing upwards of 30 megapixels. But I also see photographers obsessing over high-end optics with pretty steep prices when they use their images in low-res ways: posting to Instagram and Facebook, publishing to Internet sites, making an occasional print no larger than 13x19 or even appearing in a magazine (standard maximum of 8.5x11).

Consumer-level lenses today are better than the best optics we had only a few years ago when film was the only medium. I just purchased a Canon EOS 7D Mark II with the kit lens EF-S 18-135mm ƒ/3.5-5.6 IS STM attached, and I've used it on several assignments. This is the equivalent of a 28-216mm zoom on a full-frame sensor. No, it's not an L lens, but it works very well, and I could publish the images from it on the cover of this magazine any day. Take into consideration that many of our consumer DSLR cameras are either 4/3 or APS-C; they crop the image circle of the lens by 1.5x, 1.6x or more to eliminate a possible falloff of sharpness at the edges, thus not taking full advantage of all of the benefits of the high-end lens. These cameras can achieve excellent results with consumer-level lenses, and there are a lot of focal lengths available in this category.

If you're working with full-frame high-resolution sensors (such as those found in the Canon EOS 5D Mark III and 1D X, the Nikon D810 and D4S, and the Sony a7R) and you want to put all their capabilities to use in capturing images intended for high-res captures and very large prints, then you'll need to consider investing in lenses that are up to the task. These are, among others, the Canon L, Nikon ED, Sigma DG and Zeiss Touit. If you want or need the best, and can afford it, then look at these fantastic tools. Your clients may demand the sharpest image possible (even though they publish at 8.5x11 inches like all the other magazines).

If you make very large prints in the 30x40 and larger size, you'll want to use the best available equipment so you'll know that the limiting factor in quality images is you! But whether amateur or pro, I'd rather see photographers working with the range of tools they need to achieve their creative visions than to have only one or two of the expensive top-performing lenses that they can't use to the fullest. Then there are those who just want the best, and can afford to own it all, and who am I to argue with that?

A montage of roses created with nine exposures on a single frame; for each capture, the handheld camera was repositioned within the composition. Canon EOS 5D Mark III, 180mm macro, 1⁄180 sec. at ƒ/8, ISO 400

The Halo Effect
If you're looking for a new approach to spring flower photography, you could try adding a soft "halo" to the blossoms for a whimsical or moody appearance. You can achieve this effect at capture or in postprocessing on the computer.

Many current DSLRs have the capability of capturing multiple exposures on a single frame. Several of my Canon cameras can accomplish up to nine exposures per frame, but I usually take only two for the halo effect. You'll need to work from a tripod. Once you've composed your image and programmed the camera to take multiple exposures on the same frame, capture the first image with the camera nicely focused to give a sharp image. For the second capture, throw the subject considerably out of focus. Usually, it works best to achieve the out-of-focus capture by placing the area of focus in the space in front of the subject rather than behind it. You don't want the background, or any other part of the second image, to be in focus; you want it all out of focus. Look at the result on the LCD screen. You have several ways to modify what you see if that result isn't to your liking. You can adjust the range of focus for the second image to either increase or decrease the "out-of-focus" capture. Or you can change the exposure for either the sharp or unsharp image to emphasize either one. Pixels are cheap, so experiment! The beauty is that you can see the result and make adjustments immediately. From here, your imagination should be working. You might try setting the camera for more than two exposures on the frame to capture the same or different flowers in a montage. If your camera doesn't have the multiple-exposure feature, take two identically framed sequential images, one sharp and another out of focus, and combine them with a Blend mode in the computer.

You can achieve the multiple-exposure effect with a single capture in imaging software. In Photoshop, make a new background copy layer of the subject and then apply a filter blur (Gaussian Blur) of about a 25-pixel Radius. Reduce the opacity of the upper (blurred) layer to about 50%, and you'll have a sharp subject with a beautiful soft look. The result is similar, but not exactly the same, as the effect achieved with multiple captures; experiment with the amount of blur and opacity for different results.

This technique works nicely on portraits—of humans and animals—as well.

Two exposures on the same frame, one sharp, one out of focus, give a tender, soft look—a halo effect—to these hollyhock blossoms. Canon EOS 5D Mark III, 100-400mm zoom at 400mm, 1⁄1500 sec. at ƒ/8, ISO 400

George Lepp captured this four-image panorama of central Oregon's Mount Washington from a Cessna 172 using a Canon EOS 5D Mark III with a Canon EF 24-105mm ƒ/4L lens at 85mm, 1⁄1000 sec., ƒ/13, ISO 400.

Up In The Air
At my recent Canon seminar in Chicago, folks expressed a lot of interest in the lenses, camera bodies and supporting equipment I use for my aerial photography. There's a lot more to aerial imagery than the photo gear, however. Here's some of the information I shared at the seminar, and more.

Safety First. The very first consideration for aerial photography is a qualified pilot. I usually hire a flight instructor at a local airport after discussing what it is I'm trying to accomplish during our flight. The point here is that it's just not a good idea to trust your life to a friend of a friend who occasionally rents a plane and flies. Sometimes, you really do get what you pay for. Serious aerial photography requires the support of a pilot with advanced skills who can position the plane precisely at lower altitude and unusual attitudes.

The next consideration is the plane itself. You'll want a high-winged plane, such as a Cessna 172, that has a passenger window that will open. Trust me, you want the window open. Some small planes have only sealed windows, and shooting through Plexiglas isn't the best way to work for maximum sharpness and true color. The windows that do open will nicely stay up against the wing when you're in position over your subject.

For me, the ideal platform is a slightly larger high-winged plane, such as a Cessna 210, with a removable rear door that offers much greater access and an exhilarating experience. Strap yourself in, and be sure you have a communication link to your pilot! Small helicopters are stable, slow-moving and easy to position; unfortunately, they're also considerably more expensive. With the door removed, the photographer has a nearly 180º view of potential subjects. One very important safety note is that if you drop anything out the door, it has the potential of hitting the rear rotor and taking you down.

Dress appropriately if you're photographing in a cold environment. And handle your equipment with extra care: Dropping a lens overboard means it's gone forever and it could injure a person or animal below. I have friends who have lost expensive lenses in the air; I'm not mentioning names here, but you know who you are.

Photo Gear. Now to the camera info, and rule number one: More megapixels = more detail. Cameras such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark III or 5DS (coming soon!) are ideal. For Nikon users, the D800 or D810 make the most sense. The lens depends on what your subject is all about. If you have small subjects, such as a unique land formation, on the ground that you're keying on, use a 70-200mm zoom. For aerial landscapes, I would use a 24-105mm zoom. It's easier to use the zoom to reframe the composition than it is to reposition the airplane. For landscapes that benefit from the special interpretation of infrared capture, I'll use a camera converted to IR. I seldom use filters for aerial work except for an occasional polarizing filter; the drawback is that it will cost you about two stops of light. These days, postprocessing in the computer should render the polarizer unnecessary.

Technique. I once insisted on using a Ken-Lab gyro to keep the camera free of vibration when working from a plane, but in the digital age, with advanced cameras, I find it's no longer necessary. That's a good thing because hauling and working with that thing was a pain. Still, you need to take care to mitigate the effects of plane vibration and wind stream from the open window. Don't lean against the airframe because this transfers vibrations directly through you to the camera. Choose the lens' best aperture for sharpness, usually ƒ/8 or so. Choose a fast shutter speed, 1⁄1000 sec. or better. A higher ISO will assist in achieving the fast shutter speed and ideal ƒ-stop. I'm generally shooting aerials at a moderate ISO 400 as a compromise. Noise in the image shouldn't be an issue at that ISO.

You can take horizontal or vertical aerial panoramas if that helps the project. Take a quick series of images that overlap by some 30% to 40%. Even though you're moving, the panorama will go together because of your distance from the subject.

Lepp photographed this peregrine falcon (a rehabilitated bird at Central Oregon's High Desert Museum) with the 50.6-megapixel Canon EOS 5DS. Note the high resolution of the cropped image and the photographer's reflection in the bird's brilliant eye. Canon EOS 5DS, Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II lens at 70mm, 1/180 sec. @ f/11, handheld in available light

Q Should I invest in one of the new high-megapixel DSLR cameras? What will 50 megapixels do for me?
Dedicated Photographers
Everywhere We Go

A Lately, this question dominates every venue where serious photographers gather to learn about new techniques and equipment to advance their photography. Several new offerings in the DSLR market challenge our prior conceptions about the limitations of digital photography. But, seriously, you ask, do more megapixels make that much difference? Does it matter for my photography? Will I have to learn new techniques? Are the results worth the hassle and the price?

Since February, I've been working with Canon on the new 5DS and 5DS R cameras that have 50.6-million-pixel sensors, and I've formed some opinions about their use and potential for the subjects outdoor photographers love: landscape, aerials, wildlife, macro, and high magnification. I'll offer some insight on the question of the year: how high-megapixel cameras from Canon and other manufacturers might, or might not, fit into your photographic future.

What's A Megapixel? And Why Do I Want "A Lot" Of Them?
If we can accept in the context of this discussion that a single pixel represents the smallest component of a digital image—that is, a piece of information—then it follows that the more pixels in an image, the greater the information, or resolution. A megapixel is a million pixels. You may recall that early digital cameras offered, say, 3 megapixels, far below the resolution capability of 35mm film. But, in my opinion, by the time DSLRs achieved 12 megapixels, they had matched the resolution of SLRs, as evidenced by higher resolution at 100% on a monitor display, "cropability" and higher-resolution, larger prints.

Now, while 8 MP phone cameras are the norm, several DSLR cameras offer 36 MP and more to give us the option of high-resolution capture. Medium-format digital camera manufacturers gave us the first look at this potential; they lead the field with cameras having digital backs up to 80 MP. Hasselblad has camera combinations from 40 to 60 MP. The Leica S offers 37.5 MP, the Pentax 645Z has 40 to 51.4 MP, and the Mamiya 645 with a Leaf Credo Digital Back Kit maxes out at a whopping 80 MP. There is no question that these medium-format digital cameras offer great resolution and can be excellent landscape tools offering huge files, but they are very expensive ($8,000-$32,000), heavy, have low capture rates, and require dedicated lenses that also are very dear. For the discussion here, I'm going to focus on DSLR bodies with full-frame (24x36mm) high-res sensors in the 36-50 MP range, the lighter weight and faster capture needed for many outdoor photographic endeavors, and prices ranging from $3,000-$4,000.

Here's the field at the moment: From Canon, the EOS 5DS and 5DS R; from Nikon the D800, D800E, and D810; and from Sony, the Alpha 7R II. Most likely you'll stay with the brand you brought to the dance; you've already invested in lenses and previous DSLR bodies from that maker. I often hear photographers talk about changing systems because another manufacturer has introduced more MPs or a higher dynamic range. If that's your strategy, you'll be changing camera partners for some time to come!

The Pros And The Cons
Let's look at what these new cameras are really good at: producing large image files, excellent for detailed landscapes, aerials, macro, and high-magnification subjects. Big files are good for two reasons. The first is high resolution to make very large prints or other outputs that demand lots of sharpness that doesn't disappear as the image is enlarged. I have a 44-inch printer and often make large prints, especially panoramas, so MPs are important for me. The other benefit of high MP counts is the ability to crop. Back in the film days, you had to fill the frame because cropping wasn't an option. And, in the early stages of DSLRs, at 6, 8, 12 MPs, cropping wasn't advised because the image would fall apart and become pixelated. Even at 20 MP we don't do very much cropping. But at 36 to 50 MP, cropping is viable, especially if your output is a projected or online image. Think of what this means for approaching nature subjects such as birds or wildlife—you can stay back and still get the close-up portrait.

What are the high-res cameras not so good at? Higher ISOs, for one thing. If your landscape venues include the night sky, or you're a photojournalist who works under low-light conditions, a lower-res camera with noise-controlling properties might be a better choice. The lower frame capture rate also can be a drawback in certain situations. For example, at 5 frames per second, the EOS 5DS R is not my first choice for photographing flying birds, even though I like the ability to crop to bring the subject closer. For active bird photography, I usually use the less expensive Canon EOS 7D Mark II, with its 10 frames per second. Its autofocus matches the exceptional capability of the EOS 5DS R and the 7D II's APS-C sensor has a cropping magnification of 1.6X. But with bird and wildlife portraits, I'm back to using the EOS 5DS R to capture the highest resolution.

Working With High-Resolution DSLRs
Technique always matters. But with 50 million pixels, controlling camera and subject movement is really critical. One reason for this is that our expectations for high-megapixel performance are understandably greater. We look more closely at the final prints, from inches away. We make bigger enlargements, or crop out a section and blow that up even more. When I've got a 50 MP image on my monitor, enlarged to 1:1 as I work on it, any element that isn't "on the money" in terms of sharpness raises its ugly head immediately. If you have a low tolerance for random unsharpness, as I do, a greater effort must be made at capture to achieve everything a high-res DSLR has to offer: sturdy tripod, higher shutter speeds when handholding, and a conscious determination to minimize any camera vibration, especially in long exposures. To eliminate camera vibration, I use Live View and Mode 1 Silent LV on my Canon cameras whenever possible. In an aerial shoot with the EOS 5DS R, I used Image Stabilization and a Kenyon Gyro, and got superb results at an elevation of 500 feet with a 400mm lens and faster shutter speeds.

I seldom photograph at ISOs over 1600, but have been known to go to 6400—the upper limit of the EOS 5DS R—in a pinch. My clients and large-format printers don't like noisy files. There are a number of cameras in the 20 MP range that have better ISO capabilities than the high-res cameras, and they might be a better choice in low-light or fast-action situations. But in my macro, high-magnification, and some wildlife imaging, I add flash to augment light, so the ISO limitations of the EOS 5DS R are not an issue for me. There are rumors of new generations of cameras coming that will have fabulous high-ISO capabilities, but my guess is that they won't be high-MP cameras.

Here's the escalation clause: I've heard from enough of your spouses to know that you often blame the expensive facts of digital life on me, but it really is not my fault. I'm just delivering the message. While any of your lenses will perform better with a higher-resolution camera, be aware that they also can be limiting if you are looking for the very best resolution possible versus just better resolution. And, finally, no technological advancement exists or functions unto itself, so you may need to improve your computer power to manage the mega-files that high-megapixel cameras produce. A 50 MP camera produces a finished 16-bit TIFF or PSD file in the 200 MB area. Bring it down to 8-bit and you're still at over 100 MB. You know you shoot hundreds of images every time you go into the field. You say you do composite panoramas? High-res cameras will do an awesome job, but you should anticipate considerable increases in file sizes, processing power, and storage space. I have one of the fastest Mac computers available (the little black trash can), but I can see a noticeable slowing of my workflow with these files.

So, Should You Do It?
I have to tell you, for much of the photography that I love to do, a 50.6 MP sensor makes a huge difference in quality and creative options. But you'll need to go through the same process I did before you decide to spring for a new rig and possibly better lenses and more computer power to process those huge files. Consider the subjects and the environments in which you work, your tolerance for precise technique, and your need or desire for high-resolution/large files and prints. Then, whatever your decision, just go take pictures. In today's photography, the photographer is the limiting factor, not the equipment!

For more examples and discussions, including video of George Lepp's work with the new Canon EOS 5DS and 5DS R, see his website at www.GeorgeLepp.com and Canon's Digital Learning Center (www.learn.usa.canon.com). To watch a video of George's recent day-long class on Creative Live, "Innovative Techniques for Outdoor Photography," visit www.CreativeLive.com.

TOP: 11mm, 126 Degrees, Rectilinear Lens; ABOVE: 15mm, 180 Degrees, Fisheye Lens. I prefer a rectilinear lens, one that's corrected for both the verticals and horizontals in the frame.

We get a lot of questions about lenses. You want to know how to get the most from those expensive tools and how to choose new ones for maximum performance and versatility. So let's dedicate this column to talking about lenses in the superlative sense: most, best, sharpest, widest and, of course, longest.

Get The Most From All Your Lenses
Beyond using that tripod I'm always nagging you about, there are a few other basic tasks you need to take care of for best lens performance.

Calibrate the Autofocus. Sharpness depends on the focus being where you expect it to be; but what you see in the viewfinder might not be what's happening at the sensor. When you're following all the rules but still missing the focus, it's time to check the calibration of your camera's autofocus/lens combination. If your DSLR has microfocusing capability, head for michaeltapesdesign.com to check out LensAlign. With your camera/lens mounted on a tripod, photograph the LensAlign targets and calibration charts with autofocus and wide open, then review the resulting capture on the camera's LCD, with a loupe or enlarged on your computer. The chart will tell you if the autofocus is on the money, front-focused or back-focused. Adjust the focus position using the camera's menus, and test again. Once you've found the ideal combination, the camera will remember the adjustment for that lens and correct automatically each time the lens is mounted. I've tested all of my lenses, as well as a number of my colleagues' optics from a variety of manufacturers, and I've been surprised at how many are slightly off; even a minute difference can become critical when using a medium-to-long lens at wide-open apertures.

Use the LCD. The image displayed on the camera's LCD in Live View comes directly from the sensor and shows you exactly what's happening with the focus. For an even bigger view, use a loupe (I use the Hoodman HoodLoupe) and the display magnification feature on your camera. This strategy is especially useful when working on night sky subjects such as the Milky Way and star trails. You want the stars to be pinpoints.

Stop It Down. Sharpness is improved with any lens when it's stopped down a couple of stops. (Caution: If you go too far, you'll lose sharpness due to diffraction.) Use ƒ/22 only if depth of field is more important than a tack-sharp image. For maximum sharpness and depth of field, I often employ focus stacking with a sharp aperture such as ƒ/8.

Adjust the Diopter. This seems basic, but when did you last check your camera's diopter setting? It needs to be customized to your eyesight, whether you're 20/20 or wear corrective lenses, or don't want to wear your glasses when you're photographing. Loan your camera to another photographer for a few minutes, and it's likely to come back to you with a completely different diopter setting, and then you'll be trying to correct focus that has nothing to do with your camera and lens, but everything to do with looking through a viewfinder that's set for someone else's vision. Use the autofocus to attain correct focus on a subject, and then adjust the diopter setting until the data display in the viewfinder and the image are perfectly sharp.

Get Long!
Let's get on to the good stuff. Need to reach out? Start with a good telephoto and take it to the next level with tele-extenders; 1.4X, 1.7X and 2X tele-extenders are available from most of the lens manufacturers. I'd advise staying with a matching converter from the company that made the lens. Yes, some image quality is lost with each converter, but with today's quality optics, you can do some amazing things with a teleconverter—or even two teleconverters—and still have very good sharpness. The 2X will lose a little more sharpness than the 1.4X.

Here are the secrets to maintaining image quality at the extreme focal lengths. Start with a good lens and matched converter, use a sturdy tripod, lock up the mirror or, better yet, work from the LCD using Live View and a loupe. If your camera has Silent Live View Mode (as in Canon), use Mode 1. Precise focus is critical because the depth of field will be minimal with telephotos, and if you miss the focus by an inch or two, the resulting image isn't going to look sharp. Fire the camera using an electronic cable or a wireless unit so you don't touch the camera at the moment of release. The very best system I know is the CamRanger, which operates the camera wirelessly via an iPad or other tablet. You can set your focus using a magnified image, change camera settings, and fire the camera without touching it. I've successfully used a Canon EF 800mm lens with two Canon 2X tele-extenders (3200mm) on a bald eagle nest and obtained publishable images by using the CamRanger. I also use a 500mm lens with 2X and 1.4X tele-extenders to achieve the same excellent results. For more on extreme lens photography, see our article in the April 2014 issue of Outdoor Photographer.

Get Wide!
Any lens that offers 20mm or wider on a full-frame camera is an extreme wide-angle, in my opinion. On a smaller APS-C sensor, extreme is at about 12mm. The widest lenses are fisheye types that offer a 180º angle of view. Some record a circular pattern in the center of the frame and others cover the full frame. Obviously, while a fisheye lens gives a fantastic angle of view, it comes with considerable distortion. Unless the horizon is precisely placed through the middle of the frame, it will bend upward if you point the camera down and be bowl-shaped if you point the camera upward. Photography from within a room will produce walls that are distorted outward. It's fun, but it's not real. I prefer a rectilinear lens, one that's corrected for both the verticals and horizontals in the frame. The most common extreme wide-angle rectilinear lens would be the 14mm, with an angle of view of 114º. A new rectilinear lens that I've just started to use is an 11-24mm zoom. At 11mm, the angle of view is 126º, with breadth and clarity that amaze me.

The most common extreme wide-angle is a 16mm, usually part of a wide-angle 16-35mm zoom. The APS-C-sensor-equivalent lens would be a 10-22mm lens. The 16mm angle of view is 108º, which doesn't seem that much less than 126º until you experience it comparatively, looking through both lenses.

In addition to the distortion you'll see in extreme wide-angle lenses, you should be aware of two other shortcomings: light fall-off and chromatic aberrations at the edges. These now can be corrected within the camera and/or with imaging software. Light fall-off is most noticeable when a wide-angle lens is used wide-open. Stop the lens down and it becomes less apparent, and around ƒ/8 should be nearly gone. The software of some cameras actually corrects for light fall-off, but if it's noticeable in the computer, imaging software such as Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom and DxO can quickly balance the lighting. Chromatic aberrations are seen as colored fringing (usually magenta/red and green/cyan) in the extreme edges of the image. Photoshop can minimize this phenomenon, to a degree, but I've found that, with Canon lenses, the DPP software that comes with every Canon camera does a magnificent job of eliminating it. Each lens has a profile, and the software automatically optimizes the capture. Any chromatic aberration I found in the EF 11-24mm lens was magically eliminated!

Magnify!
The greater the magnification, the harder it is to get enough light and a sharp image. Most camera and lens manufacturers offer a 100mm or similar lens and a telephoto macro, such as a 180mm or 200mm macro. These lenses offer a life-size, 1X, or 1:1 capability without any accessories. If you want to go larger than 1X, you'll need extension tubes or tele-extenders. Each time you extend the lens by the equivalent of its focal length, you'll gain 1X. For example, 200 millimeters of extension will bring a 100mm macro lens to 3X. This is a bit unwieldy. Another option is to add a 2X tele-extender to any macro lens to double its magnification. Canon's MP-E 65mm ƒ/2.8 1-5X lens will take you to 5X on a full-frame camera and 8X on Canon's APS-C cameras. You can even add a 2X tele-extender and get excellent 10X and 16X results. You'll need a flash system coupled with this or any macro lens when you go past the 1X magnification.

But, remember, no matter how extreme (and expensive) the optic, it won't do the job unless you use good photographic techniques! See above.

Learn about George Lepp's upcoming workshops and seminar opportunities on his website at GeorgeLepp.com. To watch a video of George's recent daylong class on CreativeLive, "Innovative Techniques for Outdoor Photography," visit CreativeLive.com.

“Copter View”: The red lechwe, an elusive, swamp-dwelling antelope, is difficult to photograph in its own environment. A gentle approach from the air and long reach (400mm) captured this beautiful animal at sunrise in Botswana’s wildlife-rich Okavango Delta. Canon EOS-1D Mark IV, EF 100-400mm at 400mm, 1/750 sec. at ƒ/5.6, ISO 800

The subject of humans and their fascination with wildlife has been a hot topic lately. As the mainstream media feasted on the topic of big-game hunters wasting threatened species for sport and profit (most specifically, Cecil the Lion), wildlife photographers rightfully expressed horror and congratulated themselves for their harmless pursuits of the same subjects. While we’re truly unable to fathom the concept of killing for sport, at the same time, we observe that hordes of photographers, in hot pursuit of meaningful images of wild creatures, can cause their own kinds of harm, despite their benign, even loving intentions.

First, Do No Harm
The truth is, both sport hunting and wildlife photography, particularly of big game, are usually conducted within the same, highly monetized, public and private spheres around the world: reserves, public lands, national parks and game farms. Hunting and photography feed an enormous public and private economic system throughout the world. There’s an obvious, but essential difference between the two pursuits, of course, which we’ll state here for the sake of clarity: Hunters maim or kill their subjects and remove them from the environment and the gene pool; photographers take only photographs and, ideally, leave their subjects unscathed by the experience.

But do we? Let’s take a hard look at ourselves, the impacts we have on wildlife subjects and practices we can adopt to achieve the goal of wildlife photography as a harmless and sustainable practice. Here, we’ll discuss just three aspects of wildlife photography that are receiving considerable negative attention today. (There’s much more to be said about this subject, as we did a few years back in our book, Wildlife
Photography: Stories from the Field.)

Stressing
“When you encounter an animal in the wild, you represent all of that individual’s cumulative experiences with humans, and you are adding to that experience with your own actions.” We’re quoting ourselves here, from a description of an encounter with a very aggressive African elephant in Botswana a few years ago. The issue of cumulative stress on wildlife subjects is more important than ever, as there are far more photographers now than there were when I took up nature photography 50 years ago, and there are few remaining inaccessible locations on Earth. I’ve always photographed under the premise that no photograph is worth the life of the animal that we wish to capture with our cameras. With that said, over the decades, I’ve observed that those we ask to manage wildlife act with varying degrees of intensity, depending upon the venue and the philosophy, to keep photographers from disturbing “their” subjects.

The details of wildlife management are often murky and illogical. As an example, I recall a Yellowstone Park Service study of human/elk interactions. Researchers placed heart monitors on some of the elk to associate levels of stress (as evidenced by elevated heart rates) to close approaches by humans in the winter season. The results indicated that the animals’ heart rates increased, indicating stress, when humans approached even from a great distance, and before the animals indicated any observable response, such as lifting their heads to look at the people. My problem with the study was that the elk in the study had been pursued, darted and collared by researchers, and at least one of the animals died during the procedure. I think those elk might be a bit sensitive to humans after that experience! I would also think that an elk’s pulse would be elevated with every intrusion into its space, whether it’s a photographer, or a wolf, or even a vehicle along the park roads.

Nonetheless, I keep this study in mind when I do photograph in Yellowstone and similar venues, especially in winter; since I don’t have access to elk EKGs, I continue to base my proximity on their observable response to my presence. When photographing a wild subject, use cameras, lenses and techniques that allow you to reach out without getting close. Watch from a distance to establish a baseline understanding of normal behavior. Then, as you approach, you’ll be able to discern changes that indicate you’re causing a disruption. And, of course, we must follow the directives within the jurisdictions in which we find ourselves.

Pushing
While photographing wild animals from the air once was a relatively rare occurrence limited to research teams and BBC cameramen, the helicopter experience has become a routine aspect of African photo safaris. Two specific, contrasting flights come to mind. One pilot, a grizzled military veteran with lots of experience, moved fast, zoomed around the animals at close range and aggressively approached herds of elephants and giraffe. In every case, the animals ran in panic; I couldn’t use a single photograph from the flight because they all documented inexcusable harassment of the subjects. The following year, our group worked with a younger female pilot. She was sensitive to the animals, her approaches were much less aggressive, and while the animals were certainly aware of the helicopter, they continued with their normal behavior and demonstrated no adverse responses. Technique matters, whether approaching animals by plane (or drone), on foot, by boat or in a snow machine. Being aggressive and pushing too close and too quickly will seldom yield desirable photographs and will often be detrimental to the subject.

Baiting
There has been a recent resurgence of the continuing discussion about baiting animals to entice them closer to the photographer or into a more favorable location for photography. One of the more serious early debates concerned polar bears near Churchill, Manitoba. At the beginning of winter, the hungry bears hang around Hudson Bay, waiting for the sea to freeze so they can reach their primary food source, the ringed and bearded seals that live out on the solid ice. Some 30 years ago, a few photographers were setting up camp with Tundra Buggies at a good distance from the primary bear-viewing area. When word got out that they were placing blocks of lard to bait the bears into photographic position, there was a huge protest from some conservationists. When I look back at it now, I don’t think it was so terrible. The incidents were isolated; as soon as the ice was ready, the bears left for their preferred wild food sources and weren’t being habituated to an unsustainable environment. The photographs attained by these photographers are now being used to call attention to the effects of climate change on the bears’ environments. Would this work today with the great number of tourists that now come to this area? No.

But let’s admit that baiting, by other names, is an essential strategy for both wildlife photography and sport hunting. A prime example is the planting of grain fields in or near wildlife refuges to augment or create habitats for migrating waterfowl that are accessible to hunters and photographers alike. On a smaller scale, I’ve been feeding small birds in my backyards in California, Colorado and now Oregon for many, many years. While some suggest that backyard bird feeding alters bird migration patterns, my observations don’t support that theory; the birds come in for some free fast food, then move along on schedule. While they’re in the neighborhood, I’m pleased to capture head-and-shoulder portraits of small birds from 3.2 feet away, using a blind and my new Canon EF 100-400mm Mark II zoom with a 1.4X tele-extender on a Canon EOS 7D Mark II. The angle of view is 896mm at 3.2 feet! Some types of baiting look more natural than bird feeders, but the effect is the same. We create desirable environments such as butterfly gardens and ponds to draw wildlife close to us so we can observe them, learn about them, photograph and remember them.

Understanding
While there always will be critics, we, as nature photographers, are part of the wilderness, and we have the potential to advance knowledge and understanding of our wild subjects and their environments. The best practices we can adopt as nature photographers are to pursue knowledge of our subjects before we photograph them, respect their environments, and do what we can to limit our impact as individuals and as a group. We believe that the nature photography community needs to engage more broadly in thoughtful discussions about human/wildlife interactions and, as individuals, we need to carefully consider the costs our passions may impose on others. Finally, we need to make discerning choices about the institutions, both public and private, that our photography dollars are supporting, and to be sure that their standards are consistent with ours. Don’t be an unwitting accomplice to unwise breeding, the importation of wild animals from their natural environments, inhumane treatment or the canned hunt.

We were pleased to learn this magazine will introduce a new column that focuses on wildlife photography. “Wild by Nature,” by our colleague Melissa Groo, will appear in the first issue of 2016. Congratulations to OP and Melissa on this important new feature.

Bristlecone Pine in Snow. This image of one specimen in an ancient grove was captured in a remote area of California’s White Mountains, where Lepp was camping. In field locations such as this, auxiliary power is mandatory in the digital age. Canon EOS 5D, Canon EF 15mm ƒ/2.8 Fisheye lens, 1/125 sec. at ƒ/16, 100 ISO

A Shameless Plug for Plugless Power
Back when we all had SLR cameras that ate film, only the meter required battery power, and one lasted many months. If you had a motor drive, you carried a few AA batteries to power it; they also lasted a long time and were easily changed out. It almost seems too simple!

Now we live and die by the battery. Our DSLRs have rechargeable batteries, as do all the other technical necessities of our lives and our craft: smartphones, tablets, GPS units and laptops. If we head out to a location without a recharge source, we have a limited time before we’re powerless to continue photography and communication. But, fortunately, there are even more techno-gadgets that can charge you up again and extend your time in the field.

The question of how to recharge digital tools off the grid has been posed to me many times over the last 12 to 15 years, but the answer, like our technology, continues to evolve. The camera manufacturers offer AC adapter kits that power the camera directly from a wall outlet, but when you’re in the field, you can connect it to an inverter attached to a 12-volt battery. The inverter converts the battery’s DC power to the 110-volt AC needed to support camera battery chargers, cell phones and similar tools. I’ve typically used a deep-charge motorcycle battery as my DC source, but they aren’t that portable; they’re mostly of a lead-acid type that’s very heavy. But there are other options.

Quantum Instruments (qtm.com) makes portable battery systems designed to power flashes. I’ve used the Quantum Turbo 2X2 for that purpose, but it didn’t make a significant difference for the camera’s run time. The latest version from Quantum Instruments is the Turbo 3, which will run a DSLR for a considerable time, and even extend video capture to five hours. The Turbo 3 weighs two pounds and costs over $600 without the cable to the camera.

If I’m working close to my vehicle, I plug the inverter into the vehicle’s accessory plug (formerly known as the cigarette lighter). As long as I can run an extension cord from the inverter to where my camera is, I have plenty of power. Obviously, it’s important not to run the vehicle battery so low that you can’t start the vehicle later. If fuel, noise and emissions aren’t an issue, start the engine to use the power being generated off the alternator. This technique has been useful for doing long time-lapses on cold nights in locations that allow me to park near where I want to photograph, but it doesn’t earn me any points in the outdoorsman department, especially when I turn on the heated seats.

What about being really in the field? Say it’s a trek through the jungle, or a hiking expedition on the Pacific Crest Trail, or climbing a peak in the Andes, with no wall plugs, no vehicles and more important things to carry than a heavy 12-volt battery. Here’s where solar power has finally come of age for the nature photographer. In the past, I tried several versions of solar panels, but they mostly were intended for cell phones and useless for higher-voltage batteries in cameras and laptops. What we’ve needed is a small, efficient battery that holds a charge from the solar panels and a small inverter that converts that power to a system that accommodates plugs from battery chargers or accessories.

Say it’s a trek through the jungle, or a hiking expedition on the Pacific Crest Trail, or climbing a peak in the Andes, with no wall plugs, no vehicles and more important things to carry than a heavy 12-volt battery. Here’s where solar power has finally come of age for the nature photographer.

It’s here. I recently came across the company Goal Zero (goalzero.com). They have a number of light systems made for photographers that use a solar panel to charge a small, highly efficient storage battery and inverter so that a regular 110 AC plug can be used for recharging. The company’s Sherpa 50 and Sherpa 100 Solar Kits are ideal for recharging camera batteries, as well as cell phones, tablets and laptops. The price for the Sherpa 50 is $429.95 (weighs 3.15 pounds), and the more powerful Sherpa 100 is priced at $599.95 (weighs 5 pounds). You can clip the lightweight solar panels to the outside of your backpack to continuously recharge the storage battery tucked inside. Later, when you make camp, you have a completely recharged battery system. The price sounds pretty steep until you consider that if you’re serious about photography in remote locations, you need reliable power.

One other company that I came across while researching this column on solar for photographers was Voltaic (voltaicsystems.com). Their products are similar to Goal Zero, and their prices lower, but the design isn’t based around having a 110 AC plug to use for charging, which I think is very important.

When a Smartphone Isn’t Smart
So you’re going to a place that’s great for photography, but it just isn’t feasible to take along the backpack with the DSLR, the tripod and the lenses that you’d love to have. It could mean that the family is the focus and not the photographs. It might be that the locations will be tight, crowded or restricted, as in a butterfly aviary, or an architectural treasure, or a small tour boat.

Another all-too-familiar scenario involves the non-photographer partner/spouse of the pro or enthusiast, together on a once-in-a-lifetime African safari or similar adventure. The partner wants no part of a backpack full of cameras and lenses, although often is drafted to carry part of the enthusiast’s gear as part of his or her weight allowance or carry-on. (We speak from experience.) Still, everyone on such a memorable trip wants the opportunity to document it from his or her own perspective, and needs a camera that will reach out and capture wildlife from a distance. Or perhaps you’re traveling with a young person just beginning to enjoy photography, and you want to encourage that pursuit without making a huge investment in money and gear.

Some would say, “Just use your smartphone; it gives good images and even video.” But the readers of this magazine want more than a single-focal-length lens around 28mm and minimal quality. Don’t you? And if you’re the photo-maniac partner of that patient and helpful person who’s helping you carry your gear, you’re well advised to read on, as we’re offering you a great idea for the next birthday/anniversary event.

There are a number of small, lightweight cameras out there that have a built-in zoom with ample focal-length range, a sensor larger than the phone camera’s, and the capability to capture video and even time-lapse. With a few cards and batteries, they travel light, take up very little room, and are always ready to work with no fuss or drama. They’ll produce a good 11x14-inch blowup, and have a range of focal lengths similar to what’s in our serious camera bags, and that includes a telephoto that will capture wildlife up close and personal.

Here are some general specifications: The camera’s weight, with memory card and battery installed, shouldn’t be much over 1.5 pounds, and it should fit, along with extra batteries, memory cards and battery charger, in a small bag. Cost needs to be less than $1,000. The lens must be a part of the camera (no lens-changing necessary) and offer a focal-range equivalent at least to a DSLR’s 24-600mm. Many of these cameras actually have a much longer range; one reaches an equivalent of 2000mm! The camera must capture HD video. In order to produce good-quality images, the camera’s sensor should be from 16 to 20 megapixels and the size of the sensor larger than a cell phone’s 4.54x3.42mm. A one-inch sensor (which would be ideal) measures 13.2x8.8mm. A point-and-shoot camera sensor measures 6.16x4.62mm, with, typically, 16 to 20 megapixels.

Here are a few examples that fit the bill for that next trip where you can’t take the backpack. Canon has the PowerShot G3X (1” sensor and 24-600mm equivalent lens, HD video), PowerShot SX60 HS (smaller 1/2.3” sensor, but 21-1365mm equivalent lens, HD video) and PowerShot SX50 HS (1/2.3” sensor, 24-1200mm equivalent zoom, HD video). Panasonic Lumix offers the DMC-FZ330 (1/2.3” sensor, 25-600mm equivalent zoom, 4K video) and DMC-FZ200 (1/2.3” sensor, 25-600mm zoom, HD video). Nikon has the CoolPix P610 (1/2.3” sensor, 24-1440mm equivalent zoom, HD video), CoolPix L840 (1/2.3” sensor, 22.5-855mm equivalent zoom, HD video) and CoolPix P900 (1/2.3” sensor, 24-2000mm equivalent zoom, HD video). Sony’s offerings are the HX300 (24-1200mm equivalent zoom), HX400V (24-1200mm equivalent zoom), H400 (24.5-1550mm equivalent zoom) and H300 (25-875mm equivalent zoom); all have 1/2.3” sensors and HD video. Go to the manufacturers’ respective websites for more details.

Oh, yes. If you buy this camera as a gift, you may be tempted to borrow it back. From experience, I don’t advise you to do that.

To learn about George Lepp’s upcoming workshops and seminar opportunities, visit his website at GeorgeLepp.com.

Lupine and Goldfields. In these two examples, Lepp used a longer lens (the Canon EF 180mm Macro) to photograph wildflowers at different ƒ-stops. At ƒ/5.6, 1/1000 sec., and ISO 200 (above, left), the subject is isolated from the out-of-focus background and foreground, while the faster shutter speed facilitated handheld capture and mitigated windy conditions. At ƒ/16, 1/125 sec., and ISO 200 (above, right), background detail overpowers the subject.

Background checks for photographers, really? No, this isn’t about putting you on the “no shoot” list, or keeping you from buying a really long lens or a high-capacity CF card, or registering your drone. It’s about cleaning up your composition—not just from left to right and top to bottom, but from front to back—to make sure that every element in the image supports, and doesn’t detract from, your photographic message. Fields of spring wildflowers offer abundant opportunities to practice and perfect these compositional techniques.

As we write this, we’re looking out the office window at fields of snowflakes. But by the time you read this column, the desert in the southwestern United States will, we hope, be bursting with blooms inspired by this year’s El Niño event. Photographers will flock to the meadows and many, many flower images will be captured. And, of those, a vast number will have terrible backgrounds. The fact is, the vast majority of wildflower images that we see are completely discredited by their bad backgrounds. Most are just too busy, some have intrusions into the frame that confuse the composition, and others contain competing subjects that subvert the message, if there is one.

Fields of flowers in bloom are really exciting! Worthy subjects are all around us, everything is beautiful, and it almost seems too easy. But photographers often concentrate so much on their chosen subject that they don’t properly consider what’s behind it. In my workshops, I advise participants to look into the viewfinder or LCD as if they were critiquing a finished image. Consider the overall composition, and at the same time, check for debris, dead foliage or other distractions poking in from the edges. Watch for bright spots of light or color in the background that draw the eye away from the center of interest. Once you have a clear concept of the composition you seek, some simple (and, okay, some not-so-simple) techniques can help you achieve it.

Minimize Depth of Field
A beautiful way to separate the flower from the field is to capture the subject sharply, while throwing everything around it out of focus. This technique yields an image with a clearly identifiable floral subject against a wash of soft color. One simple way to do this is to identify a subject that’s somewhat separated by distance from the background. A low angle of approach might eliminate foliage backgrounds altogether by placing the subject against a beautiful blue sky.

A lens of greater focal length—135mm or more—will help to achieve this effect. I like working with my 180mm macro lens because it focuses close and blurs the background when used close to wide open. A 70-200mm zoom telephoto can be an excellent wildflower lens, especially at 200mm. You may have to add an extension tube if the focus of the lens isn’t as close as you’d like and you can’t get back from your subject. I’ve been known to use my 100-400mm zoom telephoto at 400mm with an extension tube to really throw the background out. The new Canon EF 100-400mm MK II focuses to 3.2 feet, so it will be my go-to lens for this coming spring’s flower-field photography.

The telephoto lens doesn’t have to be a fast version, such as an ƒ/2.8, to be effective. An aperture of ƒ/4 or even ƒ/5.6 will minimize depth of field at a telephoto focal length. You might want a fair amount of the blossom(s) to be in focus while still throwing everything else out. A longer focal length, such as 400mm, will keep the flower sharp at ƒ/8 and still render the background soft. An advantage of the wide aperture is that it enables a fast shutter speed, which facilitates handheld techniques when working in awkward low-level positions.

Another technique to soften the background and sharpen the subject is selective focus-stacking. Here, you’ll need to use a tripod and telephoto at a maximum wide aperture like ƒ/2.8 or ƒ/4 to minimize the depth of field. Frame the image, then capture a series of exposures without changing the composition, moving the in-focus area of each capture from front to back of the subject flower in small “slices” of sharpness. Don’t move the area of focus into the background; because of the wide aperture and longer focal length, the background stays out of focus in each focus-stacked image. Composite the captures later in software such as Zerene Stacker or Helicon Focus to create a beautifully sharp image of the complete flower in soft, out-of-focus surroundings. If you had captured the whole flower in a single image stopped down to, say, ƒ/11, you could achieve a similar, but far less precise effect; without absolute focus control, the background would become defined and distracting.

Gardening is Allowed—Within Limits
Some nature photographers believe that everything must be photographed exactly as it exists, without any adjustment or intervention from the photographer, either before or after capture. I believe that, at least in the case of a field of wildflowers being photographed for creative as opposed to scientific purposes, neither harm nor misrepresentation is caused by removing or relocating minor distracting elements such as dried sticks or perhaps a small light-colored rock that shows up as a bright spot, as long as we leave the area intact and without noticeable alteration. The Mini-Leatherman knife I carry in my pocket has small scissors that I occasionally use to clip out a couple of dried-up flowers that aren’t necessary for the composition. Adjacent plants can be gently bent to the side without damaging them to include them or remove them from the frame.

Remember that it may be possible to improve the background with a simple adjustment of the camera’s position. Work the edges of a group of flowers instead of flopping down in the middle of them and making a nest of smashed plants. Keep in mind that all the flowering plants you trample won’t finish their goal of blooming and setting seeds to offer up new flowers in successive years. That’s why I’ve been so angry when I’ve returned, several times, to high basins of the Colorado Rockies where in the past I had photographed fields of columbine, larkspur and paintbrush, only to discover a flock of sheep decimating the meadows, leaving nothing but excrement in their wake, destroying sustenance for the small mammals, birds and insects that once lived there as part of a balanced ecosystem, and eliminating all possibility of future blooms.

Finally, a note about enhancing the scene. Many years ago, it was rumored that a certain landscape photographer carried with him gardening tools to relocate flowers, placing them in strategic positions for improved color and composition. Staging a natural area by moving plants seems wrong on two counts: first, it tampers, even if mildly, with the environment; and second, it misrepresents the scene. In the Photoshop era, this manipulation occurs post-capture, which results, in my opinion, in a photo-illustration rather than an accurate depiction of nature.

Artificial Backgrounds or Light Modifiers
With projects that involve isolating a particular species of flower, I take along my own white or black background. The objective is to keep the image natural looking, but to eliminate all distracting elements. It’s important to keep the background out of focus in order to obscure its texture or any wrinkles or flaws and render consistent lighting. This is a special way of capturing flowers, and I don’t use it often because I prefer natural subjects in their environments; it’s more of a textbook approach.

Small light modifiers, such as fold-up reflectors and diffusers, can be useful for opening up shadows or softening harsh midday light. Using the diffuser in the Alaskan tundra on a bright day, for example, simulated overcast-like lighting that revealed the natural colors of the foliage. Reflectors are available in both white and gold colors; the gold will add warmth to the image. Some kits have both a white and a gold side. Because they fold easily, you can carry both a reflector and a diffuser in a pocket of your camera backpack.

Take Your Time
The key to excellent composition is to work deliberately, to view possible subjects in their environments as finished compositions and to improve the capture before committing the pixels. In the case of fields of wildflowers, using a low tripod is highly recommended, as it allows you to fine-tune your composition and enables you to implement stacking techniques. When working at low angles, remote viewing can be very helpful: Some cameras have WiFi that transmits the image to your smartphone, and I’ve been known to hook up a CamRanger to the camera so I can comfortably view and fine-tune an image on my iPad’s large screen. That’s a great tool, by the way, for teaching a field workshop on flower photography.

Learn about George Lepp’s upcoming workshops and seminar opportunities on his website at GeorgeLepp.com.

Balloon Classic. Lepp captured this panorama of a scene from the Colorado Springs Balloon Classic using a handheld Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III with a Canon EF 24-105mm ƒ/4L IS USM lens at 50mm. The composited panorama consists of five vertical images captured at ƒ/13 and ISO 400. The panorama was possible due to the slow movement of the balloons and speedy capture of the five overlapping images. A small amount of correction was necessary in Photoshop to match the ripples on the water from image to image.

The Panoramic Option

Q I don’t recall anyone at OP discussing shooting panoramas from a moving platform. What techniques can you pass on that will allow a handheld method for panoramas from both moving and stationary positions?
R. Behrstock
Via email

A The potential for capturing a panorama is almost always present; for the most part, we see in panoramic mode. While consistently good results are best achieved from a stationary tripod base, that’s not always possible. What if you’re not carrying a tripod, or if you’re shooting from a moving platform, such as a boat or plane? If the subject is compelling, it’s worth giving another method a try.

Photographing a panorama by handholding the camera isn’t that difficult. First, identify a stationary point of reference, such as the horizon, to line up your captures; if the panorama is vertical, find something on the left or right to serve as a constant point of reference. Then, it’s important to rotate the camera around the center of the lens as you capture the sequence; that is, keep the camera in the same place, as if it were mounted on a tripod, and pivot it to reframe each image in the sequence. In your framing, give yourself some extra room around the main subject, either above or below in a horizontal pano, or to the sides of a vertical, because you’ll need to crop the assembled pano to square it up.

Sometimes I use an aerial mapping technique to capture a handheld panorama from a unique perspective. It’s the same concept as used by satellites to photograph the earth below. The photographer/camera is moving before the subject at a consistent speed or pace, and the image sequence is captured at regular intervals, with each capture overlapping the previous by about 50%. I’ve used this technique to capture panoramic landscapes from an airplane, or from a boat moving parallel to the scene, but you can apply it on the ground, as well. Maintain a consistent distance from the subject as you move along before it, stopping regularly to capture images with 50% overlap. This works best if you can move back from the subject enough that a medium telephoto can be used. The edge distortion of wide-angles makes them hard to stitch.

Let’s say you’re in the bow of an advancing boat and the scene cries out for a panoramic capture. Lens choice matters. A wide-angle probably won’t work very well, as you’ll be imaging the moving water directly below your position, and distortion at the edges makes matching and stitching the frames much more difficult. Focal lengths from a normal lens through a medium telephoto will work best in this situation. Overlap the captures by about 50%, and take the series very quickly so that the repositioning of the camera caused by the movement of your platform, the boat, only minutely changes the composition of the panoramic image in the distance. Eliminate the foreground, because it’s changing much more rapidly as you advance. Panoramic sequences captured in this way should merge together without significant difficulty.

Changing from a single-image format to a panorama really is about understanding the principles involved and implementing them, whether from a tripod, handheld or even from a moving platform. The advantages of the panoramic format are higher resolution, more detail and larger prints; while it may not work every time, it’s always worth the effort.

Photo Contest Lottery

Q Is it worth my time and money to enter nature photo contests? Some have excellent prizes associated with them, even money, but what are the odds of winning?
J. Fitzgerald
Via email

A There are two essential questions to ask before you submit your images to a photography contest: “What’s in it for them?” (the contest sponsors), and “What’s in it for me?” Consider the following factors:

• Is the sponsor a reputable organization, with a strong record for upholding principles that you share? Would you want your name and images to be associated with that organization’s mission?

• Is there an entry fee? Recognize that, with few exceptions, a portion of any entry fee will be diverted to funding the sponsoring organization’s activities. Your participation in the contest is part of their fund-raising strategy. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing; participating in a photo contest and thereby helping to fund an organization that’s consistent with your principles of volunteerism, philanthropy and/or activism can be a very satisfying experience.

• What image rights are you granting? Note carefully the contest terms and conditions. These terms may be in conflict with other usage of the image you’ve already granted. Some contest sponsors claim ownership of winning images, or even of all submissions. If there’s an entry fee coupled with relinquishing the rights to your submission, then you’re essentially paying them to use your image, in any way and for as long as they want.

• What’s your motivation for entering any particular contest? “For the money” isn’t a good answer, as there are few winners. “For the exposure” is a good answer, especially if placing well in the competition gives you a sense of validation, puts your work in the company of other accomplished photographers and publicizes your work in a context that makes you proud (being published in Outdoor Photographer, for example). And, as discussed, participation can be especially rewarding when the sponsoring organization is one that you strongly support.

The odds of winning are, of course, highly variable, depending on the number of entries, the number of prizes, the abilities and predilections of the judges, and the sponsor’s objectives. I’ve judged many, many nature photo contests, from local to international in scope, and I’m always amazed by the creativity and skill demonstrated by entrants. My fellow judges and I may not completely agree on which images are the best, and that’s where subjective judgments come into the mix; it’s what I like to think of as the “pull” of the image, that is, how intensively it calls to the viewer.

My colleague Wendy Shattil (DancingPelican.com) is a top-notch organizer of photographic contests for nature-oriented nonprofits, including the North American Nature Photography Association (NANPA) Showcase and the Audubon Society of Greater Denver’s Share the View competition. Wendy won the Grand Prize of the most prestigious wildlife photography contest in the world, the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year (nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy.html). For the purposes of this column, Wendy has shared some statistics from recent contests in which I participated as a judge.

The 2015 Share the View contest (denveraudubon.contestvenue.com) received 1,850 entries from around the world; 1,350 images made it to the judges: Miriam Stein, who has worked as a photo editor for the National Geographic Society and The Nature Conservancy, among other nature and conservation-based organizations; John Nuhn, photo director at the National Wildlife Federation for 34 years; and yours truly. The entry fee of $10 per image, or 6 for $50, funds a prize pool of $2,500 for the top 10 finishers, with a grand prize of $1,000, and supports the organization’s activities, including promotion of the 250 highest-rated images.

The NANPA Showcase is of very high quality. The contest typically generates about 2,500 entries. Each NANPA member may submit one free entry; additional submissions are $10 each, or 6 for $50. Of these, about 10% receive recognition, $3,400 in prize money is shared among 15 winners with five top prizes of $300, and the best 100 images are featured on the NANPA website (nanpa.org).

The Windland Smith Rice International Awards Competition is another highly respected contest. Organized by Nature’s Best Photography (naturesbestphotography.com), the website reports some 25,000 entries are received each year. Photographers may enter up to 20 images for $25, and the winners are honored by publication in the Special Collector’s Editions of the magazine and exhibition at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. No prize money, but winning sure can make you (and your mom) proud!

Learn about George Lepp’s workshops and seminars at GeorgeLepp.com.

Lilac-breasted roller. With birds, you never know when a close-up and personal opportunity will present itself. Lepp was working from a vehicle in Botswana, using a monopod-mounted Canon EOS-1D Mark III and a Canon EF 500mm ƒ/4L IS II USM telephoto with an EF 1.4X tele-extender (700mm), when a usually elusive lilac-breasted roller perched closer than the lens would focus! Adding a Canon 25mm extension tube between the lens and the tele-extender brought the bird into focus range, yielding this headshot portrait. Exposure: 1/350 sec., ƒ/11, ISO 400

Long-Lens Balance

Q I’m planning a trip to Namibia and purchased a fixed-focal-length 400mm “L” Canon lens (f/5.6) in anticipation of great opportunities for wildlife photography. I use the lens with a Canon EOS 70D body, and in first trials with wild birds near home, I experienced too much lag time in getting the subjects sighted. In addition, I found that mounting the camera/lens to a monopod via the camera mount to be frighteningly unstable. The lens came with a removable metal collar, but I don’t use it because it gets in the way when I’m handholding the setup.
E. Torch
Atlanta, Georgia

A There are two main reasons why it’s difficult to “find” the subject when working with long lenses. First, the longer the lens, the smaller the angle of view. If you’re looking for a bird in a big sky, and you can only see a tiny bit of sky at a time, and the bird is moving, it’s a real challenge to get the bird in the frame. It works better to sight over the top of the lens to get into the general area, then move to the viewfinder to compose, focus and capture. There’s always a bit of awkwardness with a new lens, especially if the reach is much longer than you’ve experienced before; quickness will come with practice.

The second challenge of long-lens photography is the focus. The longer the focal length, the smaller the depth of field—that is, the range of focus. If you’re using autofocus, the focus may “catch” on objects closer or farther away from the camera than the intended subject, and if your area of focus isn’t close to the subject, you’ll never find it. I usually set my autofocus on an area close to the distance I expect the subject to be at before I try to find it.

Successful long-lens photography is really a matter of being ready in several ways. I also preset the exposure on an area that’s close to the lighting on a possible subject. If you simply meter on aperture priority, you risk picking up a dark or light background rather than the right exposure on the subject. This is especially true with birds, often backlit against a bright sky. I’ll often preset a manual exposure that I know is right for the bird, and then I can ignore the backgrounds. Consider using a higher ISO to maintain the same shutter speed while stopping down to achieve greater depth of field.

Whenever possible, you should work with long lenses from a tripod or, in some situations, such as a boat, a monopod as an alternative. The heavy camera/lens setup should be attached to the support head via the tripod collar provided with your lens, rather than the camera’s tripod thread. Keep the lens collar on at all times, and rotate it to the top when working handheld, or use it like a handle when carrying the lens/camera off the tripod. I want to emphasize that working from a tripod is critical to attain the consistent sharpness of which your lens is capable, and to provide the quality of file needed to crop the image and/or produce larger prints. Handholding a long lens exacerbates problems of sharpness, focus and locking onto the subject, not to mention being ready for the next opportunity as the subject moves into a better position or does something biologically important.

The close focus of long lenses such as yours is typically 11 feet or more, and this can be frustrating when the photographer is in a fixed position and the subject is just inside the close focus of the lens. The solution is to add a 25mm extension tube between the telephoto and the camera body. On my Canon EF 500mm ƒ/4L IS II USM lens, the extension tube reduces the close focus from 12.4 feet to 7.5 feet. Then, if you add a tele-extender between the camera body and the extension tube, you’ll maintain the close focus distance while increasing the magnification.

4K Screening

Q I have a new large flat-screen 4K TV that I’d like to use to display my images in the living room. How do I go about sizing my images and then getting them to show on the TV?
R. Agliara
Portland, Oregon

A The new high-def 4K televisions are awesome venues for digital images. This is the large-display technology we quality geeks have been waiting for, and here’s why: 4K displays exceed the quality of most of our high-resolution computer monitors (4K monitors are now available, however). While using TVs to display images isn’t a new idea, options available prior to 4K have been disappointing. I’ve experimented with Apple TV to view content from my computer hard drives via WiFi, but the early Apple TV had only 720 dpi resolution, and the images looked terrible on an HD TV. The latest Apple TV outputs to full HD TV (1920x1080) resolution, but that’s still not 4K. Even the best digital projection achieves, at most, 1920x1200 resolution, and that’s nowhere near the 4K (4096x2160) we’d like to see. What you view in a movie theater is usually 4K.

So there’s the why. Now here’s the how. There are at least two ways to view your images on a 4K high-definition flat-screen TV. The first, and easiest, is to look at the back of the flat-screen TV and find a USB input slot. My Samsung 4K actually has three of these USB inputs, all of which work the same way after you use the remote controller to select the source.

To prepare your images for 4K display, within your image-editing software, set the image parameters to be JPEG, 100 dpi and a top-to-bottom resolution of 2160 pixels. That’s the pixel height of a 4K resolution TV. The width of 4K is 4096 pixels, but our single-frame images are in a 2:3 format, so to retain all of the vertical content, use the maximum height of 2160. At that aspect, the width won’t fill the TV display, but the space to the left and right of the image will be black, which works fine. Save the images on a USB thumb drive, insert it into the TV’s USB slot, use the remote controller to select the USB input as the source, and then select from the display/play options offered by your TV.

It works the same way for video capture. Load the video file onto the USB thumb drive, and after setting the TV input source to the USB slot, the video will play full-frame on the TV. I can hardly wait to be able to download 4K video from the new Canon EOS-1D X Mark II and watch it in all its glory on the large-format flat screen. All we have to do now is capture something worthy of 4K! Note that the new Nikon D5, as well as a number of other DSLRs and camcorders, will shoot 4K video, too. A huge bonus here is that you can take any single frame from your 4K video and it will look fabulous, standing alone, on a 4K TV—as good as any still frame that you’ve captured in the traditional way and downsized to the 4K format. (As exciting as this prospect is, I’m still grappling with the implications this technology holds for professional still photographers. Watch this space.)

Another way to view images, video and presentations such as PowerPoint on your 4K TV is to connect your laptop computer to the TV via an HDMI cable. Not all laptops have an HDMI output, but there are all kinds of adapters to HDMI out there, so this shouldn’t be much of an issue. Prepare the images for display as if you were going direct from the USB thumb drive. An advantage of working from the laptop to the TV screen is that you can easily access Internet content. Save storage space by placing your videos on YouTube or Vimeo, then watch them on the large flat-screen TV. 4K TVs upscale the video HD input and it looks great, even on a 60-inch screen.

While working on this column, I experimented with adapters of many types and was able to view images from my iPad, iPad Pro and iPhone on the 4K TV. (Yes, some folks would call me an Apple fanboy, while Kathy says, “If it works, why change it?”) Be aware that your ability to achieve full 4K resolution display will be limited by the capacities of various devices, software programs and connectors; even the HDMI cable falls a bit short of 4K. I’d recommend using the USB thumb drive as the easiest and highest-quality method to look at your image content on a high-resolution TV screen.

On a precautionary note, remember: Garbage in, bigger garbage out. Displayed at 4K, your images are open to intimate scrutiny. Aim for quality in content, capture and processing.

Get A Free Subscription!
Submit your Tech Tips questions to TechTips@GeorgeLepp.com—if your question is selected for publication, you’ll receive a free one-year subscription to Outdoor Photographer!

Learn about George Lepp’s upcoming workshops and seminar opportunities on his website at GeorgeLepp.com.

Eyeshine On A Rufous Hummingbird. Photographed with a long lens and projected flash attached to the camera’s hot-shoe, this hummer shows some serious blue eyeshine, predictable when the light source is on the same axis as the lens. Canon EOS 5DS, Canon EF 800mm ƒ/5.6L IS USM with Canon Extender EF 2X (1600mm), 1/180 sec., ƒ/16, ISO 400, Better Beamer Flash X-Tender

The Eyes Have It!

Q I’m using flash in my wildlife photography both as a fill and as a main light source. Sometimes I get eyeshine, and sometimes I don’t. What’s the answer to consistently get rid of it?
B. Jamison
Salt Lake City, Utah

A Eyeshine is a problem when light enters an animal’s dilated eye; the intensity and color depend on the size of the pupil and the anatomy of the eye. It is, of course, more problematic in low-light photography since the animal’s pupils are more likely to be dilated and the photographer is more likely to be using flash. But it’s also possible when using projected flash in daylight to open shadows or expand detail.

Here, we can take a lesson from wedding photographers who are always fighting the red-eyed demon bride. You’ll notice that the pros position the flash on a tall arm above the camera. Getting the flash as far as possible off the axis of the lens is the answer, for brides and all the other wild creatures.

Some species, especially night hunters, are very susceptible to eyeshine, and others seldom exhibit the problem. In a stationary setup, position the light stands on either side of, and away from, the camera. Don’t mount a flash on the camera’s hot-shoe. If you’re working with a flash attached to the camera because you’re moving around, get a system where the flash is raised as far as possible above the camera, higher than the standard wedding photography rigs. Or, have an assistant hold the flash and position the light on the subject from an angle away from the camera. You’ll need a focusing light on the camera to show the assistant where you’re focusing, and to actually focus. If you have the chance, get into a zoo or find someone who has a pet animal that normally would show eyeshine, so you can try out your system in a controlled situation.

Photoshop, Lightroom and Elements all have tools to eliminate red-eye in people, and they do a reasonable job on some animals, as well. Or, dust off your Photoshop skills to convincingly remove that red, green, white or yellow reflection in the animal’s eye.

Animals and Flash Photography
At my recent Salt Lake City seminar on wildlife photography, the question of whether animals in the field are affected by electronic flash was raised. I’ve used flash for decades, both as a fill and main light source, for bird and animal photography, in daylight and darkness; in that time, only one animal has actually rejected me and the flash. The big silverback gorilla at the Miami Zoo was pretty clear about it: After the first shot from my projected flash (to fill in all the black on his body), he turned away from me with a disgusted look and wouldn’t show me his face again.

I’ve used flash at close range and projected flash from a distance on subjects as diverse as big cats in Africa, big-horned sheep in Yellowstone, polar bears in Canada, grizzly bears in Alaska, marmots in the Rockies, and foxes and black bears in my backyard in Colorado, and a huge variety of birds on all continents, all with no reaction whatsoever. Flash directly into the dilated eyes of night hunters can disorient them; for this reason, flash photography often isn’t permitted in African reserves in darkness. While flash photography is still banned at all times in some controlled locations, the biologists in charge have never been able to provide me with a reason, except in the Galápagos Islands, where the purpose is to minimize the litter from flash bulbs, clearly, a long-standing rule.

Here’s the rule I’ve established for myself: No photograph is worth jeopardizing your subject, and some subjects just aren’t meant to be photographed. Be alert to reactions to your flash (and your presence), especially when photographing vulnerable subjects such as nesting birds. Back away if feeding is disrupted. Discontinue the use of flash if the animal repeatedly reacts to it, changes behavior, gives you some form of the one-finger salute or tries to leave.

Be respectful. After all, we’re nature photographers, not paparazzi.

How Far Can You Take It?

Q I’m about to start a photo project where higher ISOs will be needed. I’m photographing early in the morning and later in the evening. I hope to publish the results and maybe even enter the images into contests, so I need good quality. How far can I take the ISO and still get excellent image quality, and what camera might I need to accomplish the highest ISOs possible?
G. Brent
Via email

A Everyone has his or her own standard of quality when it comes to images. In this case, we’re talking technical quality, and your intended use of the images for publication and competition narrows it down a bit. Of course, editors and photo judges also have different ideas about what constitutes “good quality.”

Each new generation of cameras offers expanded ISO capabilities—that is, improved sensitivity of the image sensor. With increased sensitivity (higher ISOs), faster shutter speeds are possible, improving capture in low-light situations, but increasing the grain, or noise. While our ability to use higher and higher ISOs and still maintain acceptable noise levels in our images improves in each generation of cameras, some cameras are particularly designed to best accomplish this. I work primarily with Canon DSLR cameras and will use Canon’s latest cameras for my analogies.

If you’re looking for a camera mainly designed for studio and landscape work (unmoving subjects), the ISO isn’t that critical. You can expect incredible image quality, but you’ll use lower ISOs. These cameras aren’t designed for going after the very fastest shutter speeds for sports and other action. I use a Canon EOS 5DS R, and with 50 megapixels, I can easily go up to ISO 800 and make huge prints showing no noise. But because I do make large blowups, I’m conservative in what ISOs I use. Now I’m testing the new EOS-1D X Mark II, at 20.2 megapixels, which is designed for speed in sports and wildlife imaging, and the camera is incredible at ISO 1600, and still very good at ISO 6400. Keep in mind that we’re talking about the criteria for publication and competition you mentioned. In the Nikon area, these criteria would be covered by the just-introduced D5. Other manufacturers also have excellent cameras with a high ISO capability that allows for “good quality.”

All the cameras available to us have ISO capabilities far greater than what I actually use, and in many cases, an ISO of over 100,000 might solve a problem and yield an excellent image that otherwise couldn’t be captured, but not within the quality standards you seek. Some noise mitigation can be accomplished in post-capture software; I use Canon’s DPP software and also “Luminance and Color” noise elimination in Adobe’s Raw Converter found within Photoshop. There’s always a trade-off; if you use software to minimize noise, expect to lose some sharpness.

So the answer to your dilemma is to purchase a camera designed for the work you’re trying to accomplish (still subjects, or subjects in motion), perfect your technique, and become proficient with the software to help you get just a bit more quality out of those images with a little noise. In either case, even slightly expanded ISOs will improve your low-light options.

Sharing a Bunch of Images
Q I’ve scanned about 400 portraits of family ancestors to TIFF, because I plan to clean up the files in Photoshop. The files and the folders have descriptive file names I wish to keep and economically send to 15 cousins and brothers. Is there a way to put them into a program and/or send them by email?
Skeet
Via email

A My suggestion is to do your cleanup in Photoshop and save the work in TIFF somewhere on your computer system (be sure to back up the files) and then convert the files to JPEGs in either Photoshop or Lightroom. Keep the compression at a lower level (JPEG image quality 8 or higher) so the people receiving the files can print them with good results. You can organize the files in folders in any way that you wish.

When I send out a number of large files, I use Dropbox (dropbox.com). The first 2 GB of space is free; you won’t use that much with this project. You upload the folders and enter the email addresses of the folks with whom you want to share the images. Dropbox sends a message to each of the recipients, who then can download the folders to their own computers, even if they don’t have their own Dropbox account. Once all the downloads are completed, you can delete the files off your
Dropbox account and use the space for other projects. It’s all very simple and secure.

Get A Free Subscription!
Submit your Tech Tips questions to TechTips@GeorgeLepp.com—if your question is selected for publication, you’ll receive a free one-year subscription to Outdoor Photographer!

Learn about George Lepp’s upcoming workshops and seminar opportunities on his website at GeorgeLepp.com.

In The Eye Of The Beholder

The Spectrum Of B&W

Not So Sharp?

The More Things Change

To Chimp, Or Not To Chimp

Winter’s Sparkles

Work Around The Weather

What’s The Best?

The Look Of Spring

From On High

Pixel Wars And The High-Res DSLR: Pay To Play

Look Sharp!

Keeping The Wild In Wildlife

Gear To Go

Background Check: Spring Cleanup

Worth The Effort

Telephoto Technique

Light On Wildlife