Captain Video Gets an Upgrade

I’m going HD.

Captain Video is one of my “personal nicknames” — a name I apply to myself when I do something that’s silly or dumb or, in this case, an attempt to explore something new that’s currently beyond my skill set.

I’ve been interested in video for the past 10 or 15 years. I write for a living and I always thought it would be interesting to be involved with a video documentary project. Although one of my dreams has been to work on the research and composition of a documentary’s narrative, I really wanted to be part of the project throughout the video acquisition process, watching the cameramen and other professionals at work, seeing interviews conducted, listening to the director explain his goals for each shot.

I also toyed with the idea of doing my own video. We’ve owned various video cameras from the time the first shoulder mounted VHS machines hit the scenes. Cameras have been getting better, cheaper, and smaller. Over the past five or six years, I bought two different Canon video cameras. I used them a lot when I first bought them, then put them aside. Now their batteries never seem to be charged when I want to use them.

But earlier this year, I did make the big plunge into video production. I did it what I thought was the smart way: I hired a production team. Their job was to acquire the video that I could not shoot — mostly because I was flying a helicopter while the shots needed to be made. They would then take the video and put the best shots in the proper order using the proper transitions and adding the proper music and narration. The result: not one but three final broadcast-length/quality videos.

I won’t go into detail on how this is working out. It’s still to early in the process to say. In general, we have a lot of good footage — almost every bit of it in true high definition taken with professional video equipment. But there are gaps in the footage — scenes I need to tell my stories. And I simply can’t afford to get the video crew back up on location for a few days to get the shots I need.

HandyCam.jpgEnter the Sony HDR CX12 video camera. It’s small, lightweight, easy to operate, and shoots true high definition footage on Sony memory sticks. My production crew has one of these cameras and a lot of the footage shot with it was very usable. While not exactly cheap, it was affordable. I ordered it on Amazon.com yesterday, along with a spare battery and an 8 GB memory stick.

In December or January, Mike and I will head up to Page, AZ to pick up the video clips we need. We have some other business up there to attend to anyway, so we’ll be able to kill two birds with one stone. We’ll watch the weather and pick a weekend with calm winds and clear skies. We’ll fly the helicopter up with doors off on a Saturday, picking up needed clips along the way. Then we’ll do some late afternoon flying over the lake, spend the night in a motel, and follow it up with some early morning shots. Mike and I will take turns shooting, using the camera on the side of the aircraft with the best view of what we need to shoot. Then we’ll fly home, where I’ll put all the footage on a hard disk or series of DVDs and send them to my production crew for inclusion in the final videos.

At least that’s the plan.

Realize that I’m very worried that once this project is over, this camera will sit in a drawer with the others. The power will drain from its battery and I’ll be frustrated every time I take it out to use it. It’s going to take real effort on my part to keep using it. Probably a few small projects. None of those projects require HD, but it will be nice to save the footage in that format for future use.

I do need to mention here that I’ve been sitting on the fence about buying this camera since I first heard of it. My fears of not utilizing it and the price tag were the main things holding me back. But the need for HD video to complete my projects was a big motivator. It’s a lot cheaper to buy the camera and get the footage myself than to transport a video crew from San Diego to Page, AZ and back. To be honest, I’m also worried that they won’t get the footage I need on this second try, either. (You know what they say about wanting to get things done right.)

The thing that convinced me was the September 3, 2008 review on Amazon.com by Allen C. Huffman. It’s the first review that appears — probably because everyone who voted on it said it was helpful. He gave the camera 4 out of 5 stars and then provided some extremely helpful details and advice about using the camera with a Mac. He listed pros and cons about the camera, comparing it to another Sony model he owned and liked. This “real life” review by someone who is obviously not easily impressed helped convince me that this was the right camera for me.

Anyway, I’ve taken the plunge. Let’s see how much use I get out of this new piece of equipment.

Dawn at the Grand Canyon

A few photos.

I was at the Grand Canyon on Monday for part of the video shoot we’re doing to help promote my Southwest Circle Helicopter Adventure. We spent the night and, early in the morning, I was up at dawn to watch the light come up over the canyon. Here are a few of the photos I took from the Rim at Grand Canyon Village. I’ll be putting larger versions of all of these in my Photo Gallery.

Lookout Studio at DawnLookout Studio at Dawn

The Grand Canyon’s South Rim village is packed with historic buildings. Lookout Studio, shown here, is one of the more striking, with its stone walls and bright blue window trim. Perched on the side of a sheer cliff, it looks out over the canyon, offering striking views (and the usual collection of tourist shop items) to all visitors. I think this shot is made a bit more interesting by the slight distortion of the very wide focal length (16mm).

Photo Details:
Camera: Nikon D80
Focal Length: 16mm
Aperture: f/7.1
Exposure: 1/200

Tree-Framed Dawn at the Grand CanyonTree-Framed Dawn at the Grand Canyon

The view into the Grand Canyon from the south rim is unobstructed in many, many places. But sometimes a view can be more interesting with foreground items framing it. That’s what this photo is all about.

Photo Details:
Camera: Nikon D80
Focal Length: 52mm
Aperture: f/6.3
Exposure: 1/125

Grand Canyon DawnGrand Canyon Dawn

I can’t tell you how many photos I have of the Grand Canyon. I’ve been going there for years. In fact, I have so many photos of the place that I often don’t even bother bringing a camera when I go. But I have very few vertical shots of the canyon. In general, its wide view does not suggest turning the camera on its side to shoot. Although I think this photo can be improved, I also think it’s a reasonably good example of what how a portrait shot of the Canyon could work.

Photo Details:
Camera: Nikon D80
Focal Length: 38mm
Aperture: f/4.8
Exposure: 1/30

A[nother] Trip to Lower Antelope Canyon

I finally make time to do a photo walk in the sandstone canyon.

For the past month and a half, I have been living less than two miles from Antelope Canyon in Page, AZ.

Lower Antelope CanyonIf you don’t know what Antelope Canyon is, you’ve probably never read Arizona Highways or seen any of the “typical” Arizona photos out there on the Web. As Wikipedia states, “Antelope Canyon is the most-visited and most-photographed slot canyon in the American Southwest.” Its reddish sandstone walls glow with direct and reflected light at midday, emphasizing the texture of the swirling patterns on the walls.

There are actually two Antelope Canyons: Upper and Lower. Most people go to the Upper canyon, which is upstream (south) of the other area. Upper Antelope Canyon is a short 1/4 mile stretch of slot canyon cut into a huge sandstone rock in the middle of Antelope Wash. It features cool, swirling sandstone walls and hard-packed, almost level sandy floor. I’ve written about it at least twice in this blog: “Antelope Canyon” (September 2006) and “Four Tips for Great Antelope Canyon Photos” (April 2007).

Entrance to Lower Antelope CanyonLower Antelope Canyon is downstream from upper. It has far fewer visitors. I think it’s more spectacular — with corkscrew-like carvings and at least two arches — but I also think it’s harder to photograph. It’s also far more difficult to traverse, requiring climbing up and down iron stairs erected at various places inside the canyon, clambering over rocks, and squeezing through narrow passages. For this reason, the Navajo caretakers don’t really limit your time in Lower Antelope Canyon. You slip through a crack in the ground — and I do mean that literally (see photo left) — and are on your own until you emerge from where you descended or from the long, steep staircase (shown later) that climbs out before the canyon becomes impossible to pass.

Lower Antelope CanyonI went to Lower Antelope Canyon with my next door neighbor and fellow pilot, Robert, today. It had been a whole year since my only other visit. After paying the $26/person entrance fee, I told the woman in the booth that I’d been there before. She told us to go on down, without waiting for a guide.

I had a few things with me that I didn’t have on my last visit. First and foremost was a tripod. I’d left my tripod behind on my last visit, thinking the light would be bright enough not to need it. Wrong. This time, I had a sturdy tripod I’d borrowed from Mike just for this trip. The only problem was, the tripod was old, its legs could not be spread independently, and the tripod was stiff from age or disuse. I also had two lenses I didn’t own last year: my 10.5 mm fisheye lens and my new 16-70 mm zoom lens. I packed light, bringing just the tripod and the camera with those two lenses. Rather than use my camera bag, I put the lens that wasn’ ton the camera in a fanny pack, along with a bottle of water and a lens brush.

Lower Antelope CanyonWe arrived at about 11:20 AM and the place was unusually crowded. But Lower Antelope Canyon is large and everyone spread out. Most folks only made the walk one way, taking the stairs up and hiking back on the surface. We would have done the same, but we ran out of time. We were in there until 2:30 PM; Robert had to be at work by 4 PM.

Robert in Lower Antelope CanyonWe made our way through the canyon slowly, stopping to take photos along the way. Positioning the tripods was extremely difficult sometimes, as the canyon floor was often only wide enough for a single foot to stand in it. My tripod really hindered me, but I made it work. I think Robert (shown here) had an easier time with his. We were two of dozens of photographers, most of which were very polite and stayed clear of other photographer’s frames. This is the biggest challenge at Upper Antelope Canyon. I find it stressful up there, as I told a trio of photographers from Utah. Lower Antelope Canyon is much more relaxing.

Lower Antelope Canyon StairsNear the end of the canyon walk, I was worn out. It wasn’t the hike as much as the struggle to find the right shots and get the tripod into position. I felt as if I’d had enough. So when we reached the last chamber before the canyon got very narrow (and muddy) and I laid eyes on those stairs, I realized it would definitely be better to take the easier route back. I took this shot with my fisheye lens, which was the only way to get the entire staircase in the shot. If you look closely, you can see Robert’s head poking out near the top.

Lower Antelope CanyonI took about 95 photos while in the canyon. Some of the better ones — along with some to illustrate the story — are here. There’s a better collection in my Photo Gallery’s new Arizona section. I’ll probably add others — as well as shots I’ve taken around Lake Powell lately — soon.

If you’re ever in or near Page, AZ, I highly recommend taking the time to visit one of the Antelope Canyons. Even if you don’t take a single photo, a walk through the canyon is something you’ll remember for a lifetime.

Digital vs. Film

Has the ease of digital photography eroded the craft?

AZ Highways CoverThe September 2008 issue of Arizona Highways magazine proclaims that it is “The Photo Issue.” If you know Arizona Highways, that might seem a weird idea. After all, Arizona Highways features truly extraordinary photos of Arizona in every issue. What makes this issue different?

The main difference is a pair of articles highlighting the work of two professional photographers, George Stocking, who works with digital equipment, and Jack Dykinga, who works with film. There’s also a portfolio of black and white images, many of which appear to have been taken relatively close to where I live in Wickenburg.

My Change from Film to Digital

But it’s the digital vs. film argument that intrigues me. I used film for years and continued to use it for what I considered my “serious” attempts at photography until 2003 or 2004. Back in college, I took a semester-long photography class which introduced me to photographic composition and gave me basic darkroom skills. When Mike and I moved to New Jersey and had a basement, we set up a darkroom. (We still have the enlarger and other equipment in storage.) I had (and still have) two Nikon 35mm SLRs — a matched set of N2002s that can share lenses. I’d put black and white film in one camera and color in the other.

I’ve had a digital camera since the mid 1990s. (Yes, I was the owner of an Apple QuickTake.) As technology improved and prices came down, I upgraded regularly — at least once every two or three years. I bought pocket-sized point-and-shoot models — mostly Canon PowerShots — that I’d carry in my purse and use when I wanted a decent-quality photo when I was out and about.

[At this point, I’d originally written a summary of our experiences with a Pentax 67 for aerial photography. In an effort to shorten up this post, I pulled it out and posted it separately: “Our Foray Into Aerial Photography.”]

Years went by. I realized I was using my pocket-sized digital cameras more than my SLRs. A lot more. In fact, for a while I wasn’t even sure where those SLRs were.

Then we planned a trip to Alaska in June 2007. I wanted to be “serious” about photography. So I bought a new camera, my first digital SLR: a Nikon D80.

I picked the Nikon because it would use the two lenses I already had: a 50mm and a 28-85mm. I brought it all along on the trip and took some photos. They came out okay. I realized that I was just snapping away, as if I were using one of my pocket cameras. I wasn’t thinking about shooting. I was being a tourist and taking tourist photos.

MercuryHere’s an example. This photo, which I call “Mercury,” is one of my favorites from the trip. The light is bad, but I really love the reflection of this boat. When you consider I snapped over 300 images in two weeks on this trip and I saw some amazing things along the way, I find it odd that this should be one of my favorites.

In my defense, we had a relatively tight schedule and limited means of transportation. We covered a huge area in about 2 weeks. It was an area we didn’t know, so I had no ideas of where to go for a photo shoot. The weather was overcast with bad light for a few days. And then there was Mike, who hadn’t come to take pictures. He wanted to see as much as we could. So we didn’t really have the best conditions for photography. It was more like a scouting trip.

But having the camera and knowing its capabilities, prompted me to practice the art of photography. It’s become a serious hobby again.

Jack Dykinga’s Thoughts on Digital Photography

And that brings us back to the Arizona Highways articles.

From the article highlighting Jack Dykinga:

Dykinga thinks the ease of digital photography has contributed to an erosion of the craft. “Just because you can, you do,” he says. “The images are completely disposable. You can keep shooting digital all day, even through the worst light, and although none of it might produce great pictures, it might still be marketable. You can correct it all in Photoshop. That starts compromising your values. Where, if you’re really going after just one or two shots a day, you’re concentrating all your efforts into one thing, like throwing a shot put.”

This is an interesting twist on something I’ve been saying since starting to use my digital SLR. I’ve been arguing that the ease of using a digital camera gives you the power to experiment. Unlike Mr. Dykinga, I’m not a professional. I’ve never sold a photo and don’t expect to. I’m still learning and I expect to continue to learn forever.

When I used film, I’d go out and shoot and come back and get the photos developed — or do it myself in a darkroom. It could be days or weeks between the photo shoot and actually seeing the images. There was a cost involved, too, and the more I shot, the more it cost. These are not good conditions for experimentation.

But when I shoot digital, I can immediately see, in the back of my camera, a tiny version of the image I just shot. I can check exposure at a glance. I can zoom in to check focus. I can turn on automatic exposure bracketing and let the camera make multiple versions of the same image so I can see which exposure works best. I can also snap various images of the same subject from different angles to experiment with framing, focus, and exposure. Because it costs the same to shoot 300 photos as it does to shoot 3, I don’t have to worry about cost.

This is, of course, what Mr. Dykinga is saying. But while he’s talking about professional photographer getting lazy by shooting a bunch of stuff without really thinking about it, I’m shooting a bunch of stuff to learn more about what works so I can think about it.

I do agree with what Mr. Dykinga says. But there’s no way that could convince me to go back to film. I can’t afford it — in time and money — if I want to be a better photographer.

Mr. Dykinga has the ability to go to a place and see the shot before he even unpacks his camera. He’ll spend a lot of time with his complex and somewhat archaic equipment to make a handful of photos. They’ll all be incredible masterpieces of fine art. This comes from a lifetime as a photographer, doing it every day for a living.

Me, well I’m just trying to learn how to increase the quality on a higher percentage of what I shoot. I’m at the point where I won’t take a photo if I know it won’t come out good without a lot of help from Photoshop.

I think what Mr. Dykinga is trying to say is that serious photographers should not get lazy about photography. We should think about every shot and try to make every single one a high quality work of art.

I’d like to do that. I just need more practice to learn how.

A Final Word about Arizona Highways

Arizona Highways is a great magazine about Arizona. It’s published by the Arizona Department of Transportation, and other than ads about Arizona Highways publications, it’s ad-free. It features excellent photography and articles about Arizona history and activities.

If you’re interested in photography or Arizona, I highly recommend subscribing — or at least picking up an issue at the newsstand. It’s only through our support that this fine magazine will continue to be published, as Arizona faces budget shortfalls that threaten its existence. Be sure to check out various books and other publications listed in the magazine and on its Web site.

Our Foray into Aerial Photography

A side note to my Digital vs. Film blog Post.

[I’d originally written this as part of my post titled “Digital vs. Film,” but pulled it out in an effort to shorten-up that post and keep it more focused on the topic. You might find it interesting if you think you might want to try your hand at commercial aerial photography.]

Pentax 67 CameraI think it was in 2003 that Mike and I decided to try our hands at aerial photography. I bought a book about it (as I usually do, when I want to get a jump start on learning something) and the book said the best kind of camera for this kind of work was a Pentax 67. The camera was huge and heavy and took 126 film, which could not be processed locally. But that didn’t stop me from plunking down $1,500 for a used one. You gotta spend money to make money, right?

The Pentax 67 turned out to be a huge mistake. Although the camera had an internal meter, it did not have automatic exposure. So each exposure had to be set using its meter before snapping an image. Since I was doing the flying, Mike did the photography. He’s set the exposure on the first shot and use the same exposure for the entire shoot. You might think that would work, but it doesn’t. As the helicopter approaches the target from different angles, the sun hits the target differently. Some images were under exposed while others were overexposed. 2/3 of the images were not usable. And because we didn’t know this until nearly a week after the shoot — after the film had come back from the out-of-town processors — we didn’t know until then how bad the results were. We did two reshoots — at my cost — before I decided that camera was not for us. I sold it for $1,000, swallowing a $500 loss after owning it for about a year. Ouch.

I bought a Canon G5 camera. This was a regular digital camera that looked a bit like an SLR. But although it had all kinds of automatic, program, and manual settings, it did not have interchangeable lenses. It did offer 5 megapixel resolution, however, and that was a huge number in those days. We tried our hand at aerial photography with that. The results were better — at least the exposures were good and we could see them immediately — but my photographer was having trouble properly framing the subjects and our clients evidently had different ideas of what their property looked like from the air. I decided to give up on providing photography services. If a client wanted aerial photography, I’d be perfectly happy to do the flying for them, but they’d have to come up with their own photographer.

I’ve since purchased a Nikon D80 with multiple lenses. We’re playing with aerial photography again, but I’m still not interested in taking on any commercial assignments with either Mike or me snapping the pictures.

You can see some of our aerial photography efforts (with more to come) in the Flying M Photos gallery.