Sunrise/Sunset Times for Photographers

Phoenix times now updated.

SunI’ve just updated my calendar of sunrise and sunset times for the Phoenix area. I’ll be keeping this up-to-date as a published calendar. Subscribe at webcal://ical.me.com/mlanger/Sun.ics. I know you can subscribe with this link using iCal, but I think you can also subscribe with other calendar formats such as Google Calendar.

If you’d prefer to download and import the files, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 are currently available.

If you’re a photographer or pilot, you know how helpful it can be to have this exact information. Every year for the past ten years or so, I’ve been updating iCal with this information so it’s always available on my computers and other electronic devices (think BlackBerry, iPad, etc.).

The last time I offered to create these files for photographers, I had a lot of folks ask for them but no one seemed willing to cough up a little dough for the time it takes me to create the files.

So here’s the deal: If you want sunrise/sunset times for 2011-2015 — that’s FIVE YEARS WORTH — in ics format, you’ll need to use this Paypal link to send me some coffee money. Be sure to include either the GPS coordinates for the place you want sunrise/sunset times for OR the Zip code. I’ll try to get the resulting files to you in e-mail within 72 hours. (Keep in mind that the more coffee you buy me, the more motivated (or caffeinated) I’ll be to send those files quickly.)

And no, I won’t add you to any e-mail list. I have way better things to do with my time than bother strangers who were kind enough to buy me coffee.

A Trip to Tempe Camera

Or why I will not be buying a new camera this week.

Yesterday, while in the Phoenix area, I finally brought my camera in to Tempe Camera to get its sensor and related electronics inside the lens hole cleaned. I’ve owned my Nikon D80 since May 2007 and it had never been professionally cleaned.

(A side note here: New York City photographers may remember Nikon House in Rockefeller Center. One of the services offered there was a free camera cleaning to Nikon owners. You’d walk in with your camera, hand it over, and while you browsed the gallery, they’d professionally clean it for you. I didn’t have a Nikon in those days and those day are long gone.)

The D80 was my first digital SLR. It had been on the market about a year when I bought it and had gotten lots of good reviews. At the time, it was probably considered Nikon’s top of the line consumer model DSLR. The reviews and the fact that it would work with my Nikon 6006 AF lenses is what sold me on it.

AtlasSince buying the camera, I’ve put a lot of money into lenses. I buy Nikkor lenses and I learned early on to avoid the low-end models. My favorite lens is a super multi-purpose 16-85mm DX lens. Sure, there’s some distortion at the widest focal length, but I like the effect for some of my shots. I also have a 10-24mm, 18-85mm (from my film camera days), 10.5mm fisheye (what a bunch of funky photos that makes; see example here, coincidentally shot less than a block from where Nikon House was), 70-200mm (also from film days), and 105-300mm (I think). And an f1.2 50mm lens (also from film days; came with one of my 6006s. (I have two if anyone is interested in buying one.)

The point is, I have a lot invested in what can now be considered a mid (or possibly low) end, dated camera.

I’m not very happy with the quality of the camera’s photos lately. They seem to lack the clarity I’m looking for in photos. I bring them into Photoshop, zoom to 100% magnification, and check the details. No crispness. The situation seems to be getting worse, but in reality, when I compare them to photos to the first trip I took with the camera — Alaska in 2007 — I don’t see much of a quality difference.

Of course, it could be my eyesight, which is definitely worsening as I age.

Or it could be that I simply wasn’t as picky several years ago.

I’ve been trying hard lately to eliminate the possible causes of the problems. A photography seminar at the Desert Botanical Gardens last year with Arizona Highways editor Jeff Kida gave me a place to start. His advice was to always use a tripod. I’d always pooh-poohed photographers who used tripods in the bright Arizona sun — mostly at the Grand Canyon, where they gather like lint in a dryer screen along the walkways at certain viewpoints at sunrise and sunset. Even with plenty of light to get shutter speeds in excess of 1/500 of a second, they’re positioning their tripod legs, adding what looks like a lot of effort to each snapshot.

View from atop Doe Mountain in SedonaI have no shortage of tripods, so I started using them. The results were not much better, although just using the tripod forced me to think harder about every shot — mostly because of what a pain in the ass it is to set up a tripod. I actually bought a new ball head for my good Manfrotto tripod just to make setup easier.

Cleaning the sensors seemed like the next step. I’d done a dumb thing a year or two ago: I’d used canned air to try to blow dust out. I should have realized that propellant could also come out with the air and that propellent might stick like glue to the sensors. After thinking about this for a good six months, I finally had an opportunity to take the camera in to get it done professionally.

Hence my trip to Tempe Camera.

Tempe Camera LogoIf you’re a professional photographer in the Phoenix area, I don’t have to tell you about Tempe Camera. You probably know it very well. If you’re a serious amateur, you should get to know it. It’s a great resource.

The place is basically split into three departments:

  • Sales sells new and used camera equipment, including camera bodies, lenses, tripods, camera bags, lights, light stands, etc. They even sell darkroom equipment, film (remember that?), and photographic paper and chemicals. If it has anything to do with photography, chances are, you can find it on Tempe Camera’s second floor sales area.
  • Repairs does camera repairs. They’ll handle anything from my simple sensor cleaning job to more complex repairs on any kind of camera equipment. You’ll find them on the first floor.
  • Rentals rents camera equipment. Not only will you find a bunch of camera bodies and lenses, but they have a ton of video equipment, lights, light stands, audio equipments, etc. You’ll find them on the first floor, to the left of the Repairs desk.

After dropping off my camera at the Repairs desk and chatting with the folks at the rental desk about my Moitek Video Camera Mount, I climbed the stairs to start exploring the possibility of getting a new camera. Because of my huge lens investment, I didn’t want to upgrade to a camera that couldn’t use the lenses I already had, but I was ready for bad news if it would be delivered.

At the counter, I soon got the attention of a guy not much older than me who, fortunately for me, was a Nikon guy. (Anyone who does photography knows that there’s a Nikon vs. Canon rivalry that’s just plain silly. They’re both good cameras. Anyone who’s heavily invested in one is not likely to switch to the other, so just give it a rest, folks.) During the conversation, I discovered that he’d been doing serious photography and had had photos published for the past 38 years. (He wasn’t some college kid — Tempe is home of ASU — who doesn’t know jack shit about photography.)

Cactus FlowersI told him my situation: I’d owned a D80 for three years, had a lot of decent quality Nikon DX lenses, and was disappointed with the clarity of my photos. Was there a better camera model I could upgrade to without having to toss my lenses? He asked about the kinds of things I shoot. I told him I mostly shot landscapes, outdoors, in natural light.

The cameras were laid out on a shelf under the glass countertop in order of price/feature set with the low end cameras on my left and the higher end cameras on my right. He pointed out the D90 and D300S. He told me that stepping up to either one would make a big difference, since they both used CMOS sensors and had better software. Both would use the lenses I had. He then told me a personal story about stepping up from a D200 years ago to some other newer model (I forget which) and the mind-blowing difference in the quality of his photos. Camera software was very important.

We talked about my lenses. I told him about the 16-85mm and 10-24mm DX lenses. He said the 10-24mm lens I had was probably the second best lens Nikon made in that line. He said my problem was probably not due to the optics of my lenses.

I asked him about the full-frame sensors — and pardon me if I got the name of that wrong, but he did know what I was talking about. He said that they weren’t likely to improve the overall quality of the images. He said that what they would do is make it possible to create much larger prints. Cameras with full-frame sensors could not be used with my lenses, so I didn’t need to explore that avenue much farther.

We talked about a few things that could improve photo quality. The subject of shooting in raw and manipulating in Photoshop or some other image editing software package came up. He claimed that alone could improve image quality by 33%. (No, I don’t know where he got that number from.) I’d been told by others — Ann Torrence comes to mind — that shooting raw would help, but I know nothing about processing raw, so I hesitated to open what would likely be a tangled can of worms. Now I’m thinking about that can and have already started studying up with Camera Raw courses on Lynda.com.

Gunsite ButteI told him my husband already had a D90. He told me I should try it and see if I could notice a difference.

And this is what impressed me so much about my visit. I took at least 5 to 10 minutes of this guy’s time and picked his brain for information. Although I was ready to seriously consider buying a new camera, he didn’t try to sell me one. Instead, he offered some solutions that would take advantage of the relatively expensive equipment I already had. It was a “try this first” approach; not a “buy this first” approach.

So the next time I take a trip, I’ll bring my husband’s D90 along. I’ll use a tripod and I’ll shoot in jpeg+raw. I’ll experiment with raw file post-processing. And I’ll see if anything makes a difference.

One thing I know for sure: if I decide I’m ready to put my D80 aside, I’ll be gong to Tempe Camera to buy its replacement.

Bring the Right Lens

No, a telephoto lens is probably not the right one for aerial photography.

Slot Canyon

This is the slot canyon I needed to photograph from the air. The slot is actually wide enough for an ATV to drive through; there were tire tracks in the sand. (Nosecam photo.)

Yesterday, my husband and I took the helicopter out to get some aerial photos in the Alamo Lake area. I’ve been writing for Aircraft Owner Online magazine and have a bunch of stories that don’t have photos to go with them. This flight was a chance for me to do some fun flying while getting the pictures I needed.

I set up the helicopter’s “nosecam” to capture an overall view of the area. The camera has a wide angle lens which does add some distortion to the photos, but not enough to render the photos unusable. In fact, during my recent Southwest Circle Helicopter Adventure excursion last week, I captured hundreds of very usable shots, some of which you can find here. The camera has no controls; it’s set up to take a shot every 5 seconds.

My husband also brought along his Nikon D90. I didn’t pay much attention to the lens he’d bought along. He usually uses my old favorite, an 18-85 (I think) zoom, and that would be perfect for this mission. We took both front doors off and put in the dual controls so either of us could fly while the other took photos.

I took off and we headed west. Once I’d established us in level fight, I offered him the controls. He took them. I reached for the camera.

And that’s when I saw that he’d put on a 70-210 zoom lens.

I felt my heart sink as I looked through the lens. At our 500-foot cruising altitude, it was simply too zoomed in to be useful. Sure, I could take photos of the occasional grazing cow we flew past, but there was no way I’d be able to capture the “big picture” views I needed for my articles. For that, we’d have to gain another 2,000 feet in elevation.

Sorely disappointed, I put the camera down and just watched the desert scenery go by.

Bringing the wrong lens along on an aerial photo flight is something I see first-time aerial photographers do all the time. For some reason, they get the idea in their head that things will be far away and they need telephoto power to frame them properly. In a helicopter, this can’t be further from the truth. I routinely cruise at 500 feet AGL and am willing to go as low as 100 feet (depending on the circumstances) for a photographer to get the shot he needs. Some of the best photos taken from my helicopter have been taken with focal lengths less than 50mm.

Wayside Inn

The Wayside Inn is in the middle of nowhere. And yes, those are parked airplanes in the bottom-right corner of the photo. (Nosecam photo.)

A telephoto lens is a bad choice for another reason: the longer the lens, the faster the shutter speed required to prevent blur caused by a too-low shutter speed. The rule of thumb formula is generally 1/focal length for minimum speed. So a 70mm lens would require a 1/70 second minimum shutter speed. But since our digital cameras have a 1.5 focal conversion (meaning that a 70mm lens is equivalent to a 105mm lens), that ups the speed to 1/105 second minimum shutter speed. Not a big deal on a bright Arizona day, but remember: that’s a minimum rule of thumb and I don’t think it takes into account the increased vibrations of a helicopter. (I wouldn’t shoot anything from a helicopter at less than 1/500 second without gyro stabilization.)

Departing Plane

A bonus shot captured perfectly by the nosecam after we’d landed and shut down. That’s the main rotor blade parked dead center.

When I took back the controls a while later, Mike took the camera. I think he immediately saw what I meant. He was surprised. He did take some photos — among them, some bulls locking horns out in the desert — but not many. The camera simply wasn’t properly equipped for our mission.

Fortunately, the nosecam had us covered.

An Aerial View of the Verde River Lakes

A different perspective.

I flew up the Verde River today with my GoPro Hero camera on, shooting video. As I relax in my hotel room this evening, I’m reviewing the footage.

It’s amazing.

I’ll treat readers to two stills taken from the video. In both shots, I’ve included the dam at the bottom of the photo. It’s a view most folks don’t get to see. The quality of the images isn’t the best — it was taken from video, after all — but I still think they’re nice enough to share.

This is Bartlett Lake, the first lake you come to as you go up the Verde from its confluence with the Salt River. It’s about 10 feet down from full and they’re letting water out at the dam, as you can see in the lower left corner of the photo.

Barlett Lake

This is Horseshoe Lake, the Verde’s other lake. As you can see, the water surface was like glass and there were some really great reflections. This lake is fuller than I usually see it, but still not full enough to reach the dam.

Horseshoe Lake

It was a great day for flying, with smooth air, comfortable temperatures, and just enough clouds to make it interesting.

If I can get my act together tonight, I’ll try to put together a video from Day 1. Stay tuned.

And if you want to shoot real (not from video) photos of these places — or other places around Arizona — you owe it to yourself to look up Flying M Air.

There IS Such a Thing as Too Much Business

When that business is being conducted at a loss.

I’ve been deeply involved in the Groupon debate for the past few days.

Earlier in the summer, I’d bought a Groupon from a Twitter friend and had used it to buy some jewelry at half price. Later, in August, I was approached by a Groupon clone company and got the details on what they really cost a small business. I did some math, realized it would never work for my business, and blogged about it .

Only a week or two later, I heard a story on NPR about Groupon in which a friend of mine with a business similar to mine was interviewed. He seemed to say positive things in the interview. When I called him, he gave more concrete information that didn’t seem too positive. I spent half a day crunching the numbers again and still couldn’t see how Groupon could benefit me.

I put that aside and got on with my life.

Back into the Debate

Yesterday, my attention was captured by a story on Plagiarism Today about a photographer who had been caught apparently passing off professional photographers’ images as hers on her Web site. The whole thing blew up in her face when she offered a 1-hour portrait sitting with print and CD of images for $65 through Groupon. She’d sold over 1,000 of these — far more than any photographer could complete in a year — when someone pointed out that photos on her Web site belonged to other photographers. She attempted to say that her site was hacked, but it was pointed out that the same photos also appeared on her Facebook page. Then her site and Facebook page went down; when her site reappeared it had a collection of crap photos that my mother could have taken with a Kodak 110 camera. (My mother is a horrible photographer.)

If you’re interested in seeing how the situation developed, read the comments from the Groupon thread, which were preserved by Petapixel after Groupon cancelled the offer, refunded the money, and deleted the thread. (A little too late to put out that fire.)

This story was picked up by many other sites, including TechCrunch. Their focus was on the ability of a business to effectively service Groupon customers, Groupon’s apparent failure to properly vet the services it features, and the hardship incurred by at least one Groupon merchant, Posie’s Diner. Since I’ve always thought that the Groupon model could be potentially harmful to a small business merchant using their service to advertise, I went to the Posie’s Diner blog post and read the story. It’s an honest and rather sad account by the restaurant owner who wound up having difficulties meeting payroll expenses while accepting the Groupons she’d sold. Each one had a face value of $13 but she’d received only $3 for each one. That meant she’d have to sell $13,000 of product for only $3,000 in revenue. The blog post explains the other related problems, which are mostly customer related.

Some Commenters Are Jerks

To make it clear, Posie’s Diner does not blame Groupon. She admits she made a mistake and takes full responsibility for it. But that didn’t stop the usual bunch of jerks from making nasty comments on her blog post. This one really pissed me off:

Businesses that complain about too much business should not be in business.

Wow. This guy needs to get a clue. If every sale you make comes at a loss, then even one sale is “too much business.”

That’s the situation I would have faced if I went with the Groupon clone — or Groupon. My margins are so low that I’d lose money on every single sale. I didn’t need that kind of business. No business does.

Is Groupon a Problem?

I admit that I resent the idea of a company making money off my hard work while I lose money on deeply discounted sales. Posie’s might have made a mistake going with Groupon, but it’s a mistake they won’t make again. I just won’t make that mistake at all.

To be fair, I read both good and bad comments all over the Web about Groupon from both merchants and customers. Clearly, there are possibilities for using the service with success. I just can’t figure out what they could be for my business. But there’s also a lot of pain in the Groupon model: the financial hardship of businesses with too many Groupon sales, the difficulty for customers being able to redeem Groupon goods and services due to crowds and overbookings.

Back to the “Photographer”

The idiot “photographer” who unknowingly pulled me back into the Groupon debate is truly a fool. Not only did she commit fraud when attempting to use other photographers’ work as examples of her own to sell her services, but she sold far more Groupons than she could ever expect to accept. If she hadn’t been revealed as a scammer in time to cancel the sale, she likely would have been out of business before long. After all, she was making less than $35 on each hour-long session at a client’s home. Between transportation costs and materials costs, she would have been in the red from day one. Would 1,700 sales at only $35 each have been “too much business” for her? I think so.

Then, when customers starting seeing the dismal quality of her work, would Groupon have refunded their money? And what would they have done when the fraud claims starting coming in and Groupon was called out for not properly vetting the offer?

Or maybe she was a true scammer who never planned to do any Groupon work. Perhaps she planned to just take the money and run.

Clearly, there’s some kind of problem with Groupon that needs attention. I’ll continue to watch from the sidelines. But I certainly won’t be giving Groupon any business in any form.