I have to admit something to all of you. I don’t have a flash. I haven’t owned one in three years. I haven’t missed one in five years. I don’t expect I will ever own one or miss one again. Why? Because I find the combination of high ISO photography and the tricks and power of Lightroom have made flash unnecessary. It also helps to be wise and clever enough to find situations to photograph that don’t need flash. Let me explain.

Most of my photography these days has been confined to an old dairy farm. (My book on the farm will be coming out in June) This means that I have been photographing inside a lot in pretty dark places. My results have been spectacular and I have never, ever used a flash. The trick is to use the highest viable ISO (the highest without too much noise) and find a situation with nice light. And then just fire away!

This is a photo of Hugh, the 93 year old farmer. Notice the nice light on his face and the lack of shadows. This is because I waited to take his picture in a location where there was light bouncing off the floor of the barn on to his face. This is why there are no shadows under his hat. There is no flash that I know of that will be able to take this shot as easily as I did without flash.

The little calf was lying in the darkest part of the barn. I didn’t have the option of using flash because I didn’t want to disturb the calf or the cows immediately to my side. So I waited for just a touch of light coming from a side window and with my ISO set at 1600 took this picture. I was also hand-holding my camera. How is that for breaking all the rules and still getting a nice shot?

With Lightroom flash has become unnecessary because the program allows very precise selective lightening of areas. This effect is the same as using the flash in fill mode. Think about it- isn’t fill flash the same as throwing light into a dark area? So if you can selective lighten an area of your photograph in Lightroom why use fill flash? Got me!

This is the time of the year when our thoughts turn to the photographic possibilities of winter. For me that meant getting pictures that looked like a winter wonderland, whatever that meant. But it took me awhile to figure out why some of my pictures looked wintery yet others looked dull and, dare I say, depressing. It wasn’t the quality of light or the subject, they were the same in the good winter photos as they were in the not so good winter photos. And it wasn’t how much or how new the snow was in the photo. Piles of snow sometimes looked dreadful and at other times they looked like a winter wonderland. I wanted the wonderland.

To take a photo that looks like a winter wonderland (in other words, to take a marketable winter photo) there has to be snow on the trees. If there are no trees than there has to be snow on whatever is rising above the ground- grass, bushes, graves, etc. If there is only snow on the ground, no matter how pretty the light, the picture will lack that wonderland feeling.

So when is the best time to get snowy trees? Up north it is during the first snowfall when the trees are still warm; warm branches are stickier than the cold branches of mid-winter. Farther south it is during a storm that starts out raining and then finishes snowing; wet branches are stickier than dry ones. If you go out right after the storm has cleared or is clearing there will be lots of snow on all the branches and you will have a winter wonderland to photograph. If you wait, the wind will pick up and knock all the snow off and you’ll be left with a  ho-hum scene.

It’s 9 o’clock at night and the phone rings. It’s Roger.

“Hello, it’s Roger”

“Hello, Roger. What’s up?”

“When are you coming over to the barn in the morning?”

“It’s usually after I get up.”

“That’s not always the case.”

“Why do you ask?”

“The barn needs a new hoe.”

“You’re tellin’ me. What happened to the old hoe?”

“I couldn’t fix’r. Got all loose and then I broke’er.

“It’ll happen if you use’em hard.”

“So could you pick one up on your way here tomorrow?”

“Where am I going to find a good hoe in Danby that early in the morning?”

“Go to Elby’s, he’s got hoes.”

“Elby’s got hoes?”

“Always has.”

“That rascal, but to a hardware store to get you a hoe?”

“Yes, he’s got some that are strong and wide.”

“Strong and wide? What about good lookin’?”

“I don’t care about good lookin’, I want a hoe that works hard.”

“Its come to that has it?”

“I don’t care about pretty anymore. I want a long handle and a good head.”

“Every man’s dream. Am I paying for the hoe?”

“Yes but I’ll pay you back.”

“So this is what it has come to, I am now supplying you with hoes.”

“Well, I can’t ask the old man, he wouldn’t know what to do with a new hoe.”

“Bet he’d like to try.”

“And I can’t ask Trish to get me a hoe.”

“Wouldn’t be right.”

“She’d get one that was all fancied up.”

“Couldn’t have that.”

“I need one I can handle easily, otherwise it seems like work.”

“Couldn’t agree with you more, Roger. Don’t you have a hoe at the house?”

“Used to have several.”

“You’re a lucky man.”

“Not anymore, they’re all gone.”

“Nothing worse than losing a good hoe.”

“You’re tellin’ me. Its hard as hell finding a good hoe.”

“This is a big responsibility, getting you a hoe you like.”

“Remember, I like a hoe with a thick neck…

“Got it.”

“And a good curve to it…”

“Uh huh.”

“…and sharp blade.”

“Roger, what are you talking about?”

“What are you talking about?”

“I was talking about hoes.”

“Oh, okay, so was I.”

“And drive the truck, it’ll be easier getting’em in the back.”

I call Elby.

“Hello?”

“Hi Elby, it’s David.”

“Why hello, David. What can I do for you?”

“I need a hoe.”

“Claire gone is she?”

“No, it’s not for me.”

“Never is.”

“It’s for Roger.”

“Roger wants a hoe?”

“Roger needs a hoe.”

“So you now supplying him with hoes?”

“The man can’t get enough.”

“Tell me about it.”

“It’s for the barn.”

“He’ll be using the hoe in the barn?”

“Sure between milking and chores.”

“Not much time for a hoe.”

“Roger is very fast. Grabs a hoe, a couple of strokes and he’s done.”

“Gotta admire a man like that. What does Trish think of this?”

“She’s all for it, got her own hoes. They work better for her.”

“Can’t say that I blame her. What kind of hoe do you want?”

“Roger likes’em with a thick neck, a good curve and a wide bottom.”

“It’s a sad state of affairs. So just a plain ol’ hoe?”

“Just a plain ol’ hoe will do.”

“Spray some WD-40 on the hoe before you take it to Roger.”

“You want me to spray the hoe with WD-40?”

“Not where you grab it, just the bottom.”

“You want me to spray the bottom of the hoe with WD-40?”

“Makes it work better. “

“I’ll be darn.”

“And bring your truck. It’ll be easier in the back.”

“Easier in the back?”

“Easier for the hoes in the back.”

“Roger said the same thing.”

“Doesn’t surprise me. He knows his hoes.”

“Yes he does, he surely does.”

Here is a quick way to tell a former film shooter from an only digital shooter. It doesn’t work all the time but it works much of the time and when it does work it opens a wonderful teachable moment. What is this identifier? It’s the ISO. Lots of former film shooters never change their ISO when they shoot digital and if they do they never go higher than what they were comfortable with in film.

This behavior falls under the old dog/new tricks rubric. It is perfectly understandable. In the good old film days a photographer could change the f-stop and the shutter speed to get the desired result. In order to change the ISO one had to change the roll of film. Film shooters either carried an extra camera body with a different ISO film or learned how to roll the film back into the camera and then reload it back to the correct spot. And we all knew never to use film with an ISO higher than 200. Anything higher was grainy and basically unusable.

Then along comes digital photography and along with the ability to change the f-stop and aperture on every shot it was now possible to change the ISO as well. Shooting in low light and can’t get enough shutter speed to stop that animal or child you are photographing in the fading light? Just increase your ISO a few stops to 640 or 800 or 1250 and shoot away! Or are you shooting in nice light but want to use a longer shutter speed to slow down the water in the stream to blur it or you want to soften waves as they break against the shore? Just lower your ISO to 200 or 160 or 100 and shoot away.

Being possible and actually doing it are two different things. Many former film shooters still have in their celluloid brains the prohibition of shooting at ISOs higher than 200 no matter what the circumstances. I have learned through my workshops that when I suggest shooting at a higher ISO many digital shooters balk. Part of the problem is also that these shooters have heard that the highest quality ISO is the lowest ISO so they are reluctant to shoot any ISO that is much higher than 200. While this is true, it is also true that higher ISOs are plenty good enough. I shoot at 640 regularly and have no problem shooting at ISOs of 800, 1250 or 1600. All of these images are high quality, good enough to be published in calendars, books, magazines and to be used for prints and in my presentations.

Now you have to know how high you can go with your ISO before the image begins to break down. When I got my D300 I tested the quality of the images at various ISOs. I learned that up to ISO 1250 the images were fine, at ISO 1600 there was some noise (colored graininess) but not bad and easily cleaned up in the computer but at ISO 2000 the images broke down and they looked awful.

Every digital photographer should know where the ISO line in the sand is for his or her camera. Do a test and see at what ISO you get a little noise and at what ISO the noise is unacceptable. And then feel free to use any ISO below this threshold.

ISO is a new third tool in the basic digital photographer’s bag. Use it with f-stop and shutter speed and you will extend your photographic possibilities. And that is a good thing.

I had the great pleasure to photograph with my long time friend, Gail, a few days ago. Gail started taking workshops from me in the early ‘90s and despite all my teaching she remains a very good photographer.

What was interesting was comparing how things were back then, in the days of film, and how things are now, in the days of digital. Most of the conversation revolved around how Gail and I shot differently now and how we never would’ve done back then what we routinely do now. Let me explain and give some examples.

Twenty years ago I shot manual exposure, manual focus and spot metered most subjects. I rarely shot above 100 ISO and if I did I never went past ISO 200. I had a number of filters I used regularly- 2 warming, 10CC & 20CC magenta (pink), polarizer- and I always carried a flash. I had big clunky lenses that were magnificent but heavy and I carried them all on my back in an equally big, clunky photo backpack.

Now I shoot aperture priority, autofocus mostly and I use matrix (evaluative) metering. I shoot every ISO below 1600 with my standard being 640 and I change my ISO all the time depending on what I am shooting or the effect I want. I use only a polarizing filter these days and I haven’t owned a flash in three years. And I mostly use a couple of zooms that are neither clunky nor heavy that I carry in a small shoulder bag.

But why the difference? Well, it is called technology and it is something I have embraced. Let’s go through the differences and I’ll explain why I am doing things differently.

Aperture priority and matrix metering work 99% of the time for me. I would say 100% but I am sure there is one time in the last five years when I shot using spot metering but I just can’t think of it. I use autofocus now because I have so many autofocus sensors (21 or 51) to choose from there is always one where I want to focus. And now I can group the sensors to be even more accurate.

On my D300 I can shoot up to ISO 1600 without debilitating noise. That is my ISO ceiling that I won’t go past. But I will glady shoot anything less. For most of the last 5 years I have shooting handheld working on my farm book so higher ISOs allow me to shoot at a faster shutter speed and thus get sharper pictures. Even when I am on a tripod I will often shoot at ISOs of 400 or 640 if I am doing moving subjects to get faster shutter speeds. Conversely, if it is a relatively bright day and I want a slower shutter speed (to soften water in a stream say) then I will go down to ISO 100 (or Low 1.0 on my Nikon). The ability to change your ISO with every shot you take is one of the great advantages of digital photography versus the old days. Take advantage it.

I no longer use colored filters because now if I want to effect a color I do so in my computer during processing. I can vary the color temperature to effect the overall appearance of the image or I can go in and just tweak a particular color. I can do this much more precisely in the computer than I ever could do with a filter. The effect of a polarizer can’t be duplicated in my computer (at least by me) so I still use it on my camera.

I use less expensive, slower zoom lenses because, well, they are plenty good enough for what I do. Sure there are sharper Nikon lenses that are thousands of dollars more (that I would love to own) but the ones I use (12-24, 16-85, 18-200) are fine. They are good enough for me to use in calendars, books, posters, prints and presentations and get paid so by my thinking that is good enough. I could pay more for the top of the line Nikon lenses but I wouldn’t get paid more and there wouldn’t be any new markets suddenly open to me.

You see, I haven’t gotten lazy over the years, I have gotten smarter.

Okay, a pretty picture to soften the last rant. Rant still stands but I didn’t want you to leave with that rattling around in your head.

Taken in Acadia National Park between workshops. Looking south toward Otter Cliffs. Handheld because I was out for a wander. 16-85mm Nikon lens. Just after sunrise. Not bad. Not great. Okay. I guess I’ll have to go back and do it right!

I don’t get it. I just don’t get it. Why would people pay to go on a workshop where the leader actively photographs? They are subsidizing the leader’s photography at THEIR expense!!! Workshops are teaching opportunities, participants are supposed to be there to learn. And, at least the way I understand it, it is the leader who is supposed to be teaching. How can they teach when they are photographing for themselves?

And how do participants let the leader photograph? How do they tolerate that? They paid good money to have the attention of the leader, to learn from the leader’s experience and knowledge. None of this can be done when the leader is taking their own pictures. No workshop participant should tolerate the leader taking his or her own pictures. It is wrong and indefensible.  Participants should demand a refund based on the amount of time taken up by leader photography.  Leader photographing 25% of the time? Demand a 25% refund. Half the time? Demand a 50% refund.

Now I am not talking about teaching photography where the leader uses photography to demonstrate a technique  or show participants a certain composition. But when a leader starts photographing without any teaching it is wrong. And when a leader steps in front of everyone to get their own pictures or to get them first it is doubly wrong.

So before you sign up for a workshop ask if the leader is going to be photographing. Then ask them to justify that. When they stumble around say thank-you and find a workshop company that won’t tolerate this nonsense. Don’t pay for someone else to take pictures. Leaders are there to help you get the pictures they would’ve gotten. Simple as that.

I know I never get sunrises on my workshops. That is true. But this wasn’t on my Acadia workshop, it was two days later.

I used a Nikon 12-24mm lens at 12mm and put my tripod flat with the camera 10″ from the puddle. I used f22 and focused two feet from the camera (about twice the distance than the closest point in my composition). Then I waited for the sun to clear the clouds and fired off a few shots.

This is about as lazy as I can get and if I put my mind to it I can get pretty darn lazy!

So here is the situation- For the past several weeks I have noticed all kinds of birds coming to the crabapple trees in my front yard eating the ripe fruit. When I first noticed all the activity I saw warblers, woodpeckers, flycatchers and thrushes in the trees. There was so much activity that it would’ve been hard not to notice. In fact, the three trees are right in front of my house and I walk and park by them every day. But I was so busy doing workshops that I didn’t have any time to do any photography.

I finally got a chance to try to photograph the birds a couple of days ago. By now most of the birds that I had seen previously had migrated through but there were still robins in the trees. Not just one or two robins but up to a dozen at times. But how to get close and not spook them?

My friend, Jeff Wendorff suggested I use my car, a Toyota 4Runner, as a blind. So I put the back seats down, lowered the back window and set up my tripod with my Nikon 200-400 facing backward out the window. I was still several feet inside the car so I was invisible to the birds. I then backed up the car about 20 feet from the tree with the best background, crawled in the back and waited.

It really doesn’t get much easier than this. As soon as I got in the car robins started showing up. At times there were 5, 6 or 7 robins in the tree, moving around, gobbling up the berries, posing nice as can be. As soon as one or two left another one or two flew in. There was constant activity so there were constant opportunities for pictures. I would’ve like a cleaner view, there always seemed to be something in front on a bird, but I liked what I got. The bright orange color in the background of the vertical shot is from a sugar maple 40 feet behind the crabapple tree.

Thanks, Jeff for suggesting my car as a blind. It certainly is my kind of blind…cup holders, radio, CD player, power windows, 4-wheel drive. I wonder where else I could park and photograph?

I just came back from a PAW workshop to Glacier National Park with Moe Witschard. I was an observer, helping Moe and giving him some feed back on his teaching and workshop skills. I now have become the old codger leader, sharing my wisdom while gumming my food. But because I wasn’t teaching I was able to photograph (PAW leaders don’t photograph on workshops) and got to enjoy the park through my viewfinder for once.

Moe took us to a falls on McDonald Creek and I was playing with a little riffle in the big falls as a foreground element. I took a vertical and horizontal shot using the riffle to lead the viewer into the composition. I particularly like the vertical composition- using my 12-24 Nikon lens to get just a foot away from the closest part of the composition.(By the way, I focused 2 feet from my camera. The rule for focusing in a hyperfocal landscape is- focus 2x to 3x the closest part of your composition. I was 1 foot away so I focused 2 feet away) 

Back in my room, I converted the horizontal to black and white in the grayscale part of Lightroom. I think I like it better in black and white. This is unusual for me…I generally don’t like black and white conversions of color scenes because I see the world in color and like the world in color. I think I like this shot of the waterfall because the scene is pretty close to black and white already so it is not much of a conversion for me to see it in black and white. I’ll let you decide.