Nature Photography FAQ

Here are some direct answers to questions I get frequently asked. I will continue to add questions and answers to this page, over time. If you have any unanswered questions that you'd like for me to address, below, please email them to me.

Why use an L-plate when my ballhead already has a drop-notch to vertically flip my camera?

When you use a drop notch to vertically flip the camera, the camera is shifted to the side of the ballhead and downward. When you use an L plate to vertically flip a camera, the camera is rotated from horizontal to vertical on its axis, while remaining in the same position atop the ballhead. When the drop notch is used to flip the camera between horizontal and vertical, the lateral and downward shift necessitates completely recomposing the picture from scratch. When the L plate is used to flip the camera between horizontal and vertical, the maintenance of the camera's original position, simply rotating on its axis, makes recomposing unnecessary (or, at least, less necessary). Thereby, the L plate allows for greater speed and efficiency.

Also, using the drop notch to vertically flip the camera moves the camera and lens's weight off-center as it laterally shifts it, making the set-up less stable and more vibration prone. Using the L plate to vertically flip the camera allows for keeping the weight centered above the tripod's apex, which helps maintain stability and minimize vibration.

Lastly, adding an L plate to your camera gives your camera an exoskeleton of solid metal, armoring your camera from knocks and drops, adding significant protection from accidental damage.

How do you protect your ballhead during transportation?

I don't bother. I know that many people carefully wrap them up in padding or put them in specially made neoprene socks, but I've never taken any special precautions. I've even beaten mine against an ice-encrusted metal box to chip the ice off of the hasp (among many other rough uses), and my ballheads haven't been damaged yet.

If the purpose of a tripod is just to hold your camera gear steady in the position you set it, then what do you get in an expensive, high-end tripod that you don't in a cheap, low-end tripod, to justify the price difference?

The particulars will depend on which specific brand and model of cheap tripod and which specific brand and model of expensive tripod, but here are some of the likely differences you'll find in a high-end tripod:

1) more stable

2) less vibration prone

3) more rigid leg locks

4) lighter than an equally sturdy, but cheaper, tripod

5) more leg angle adjustability

6) individual leg angle adjustments

7) will set up lower to the ground

8) better ergonomics for faster set-up

9) will last a lifetime of rough use

10) adjustable tension on all moving parts

11) foot options [metal spikes, rubber pads] for different ground types

12) rust proof materials

13) options between a center column and a center plate

14) either better resistance to filling with water, or better drainage

How do you avoid eye damage when including the sun in your picture?

My main technique is avoiding looking at the sun. I take pictures of the sun, without looking at the sun, in a few ways. One way is to predict where the sun is going to be, before it is there, and set up my composition when the sun is not in my picture, then wait for the sun to move into position. Another way to do this, when the circumstances don't allow for the first way, is to stand back a little bit from my viewfinder, and look through the viewfinder obliquely from the side, so that part of my view (the part where the sun is) is blocked. I then compose my picture from the edges, without ever looking through the middle of the viewfinder, at the sun.

Another technique is to photograph the sun on the very edge of the horizon, through a thick layer of atmosphere, partially obscured by fog, clouds, etc. The sun's intensity can be considerably less under these circumstances. Nevertheless, the fact that I use this technique should not be construed as advice that it is safe for you to do this. Do so at your own risk.

A third possible technique, which I have not employed, is to buy special filters designed for safely looking at the sun.

Do you keep a UV/skylight filter on your lens for protection?

No, I don't. I will (rarely) use a UV filter for protection when the specific situation necessitates (salt spray, sandstorm, etc.), but I do not keep them on all the time for general protection.

There are several reasons why I don't:

By placing another piece of glass in front of the lens, the potential for flare is increased. The extra piece of glass makes another surface that can reflect light back into the lens barrel. This can lead to more circumstances where flare occurs, and more extreme flare when it does occur.

Also, when a filter is put onto a lens, besides the glass creating another reflective surface, the lens's ring also extends opaque material slightly forward of the front edges of the lens barrel, potentially blocking some light from entering the sides of the lens. This can cause vignetting, especially if stacked with another filter, such as a circular polarizer.

Further, no glass is optically perfect. To some minor degree, any extra glass will decrease transmission, decrease contrast, increase aberrations, cause color casts, etc. As minor as this increase is likely to be with a high quality filter, I'd rather not have this added imperfection at all, so I don't add glass in front of my lens unnecessarily.

In short, if lens designers and manufacturers had intended for a protective lens to be part of the optical design, they'd have built one in (as is the case on the Canon 600 f/4 IS L); and if they did not intend for a protective lens to be part of the optical design, then I'd rather not add one unnecessarily.

Besides the optical considerations, I am not convinced that protecting lenses with filters is financially sound. Good quality filters aren't cheap, themselves, and if I was to buy one for each of my lenses just to keep on at all times as protection, the cost would be as much as getting two or three damaged front elements replaced. Since I have never yet damaged a lens's front element, I am convinced that it is a rare enough occurrence that paying the replacement cost several times over for protection would be unwise.

Further, the protection that a UV filter provides to a front element is, for most situations, less than the protection that a lens hood provides to a front element. Add in the facts that lens hoods already come with lenses as part of the original cost of purchase, and they reduce flare instead of increasing it, thereby increasing a lens's optical quality instead of reducing it, and you will see why I choose to use lens hoods to protect my lenses, instead.

Do I need a UV filter when photographing at high altitude?

In my experience, shooting up to about 13,000 to 14,000 feet above sea level, it makes no difference, and is not necessary.

Is it true that long exposures are less affected by mirror vibrations, and don't benefit from mirror lock-up? If so, why?

I know that it seems to some that a long exposure should be more affected by mirror vibration, because the exposure records the full duration of the mirror's vibration, instead of just a small fraction of it. Nevertheless, as enigmatic and counterintuitive as it may seem, it is true that long exposures are less affected by mirror vibration, and do not benefit from locking the mirror.

The reason is because the amount of light that hits the film/sensor throughout the duration of the vibrations is not enough to be a noticeable part of the exposure.

Suppose you set your camera to a 1/2 second exposure. The mirror will vibrate the camera for that whole time, so 100% of the exposure is going to be affected by mirror induced vibration. Now suppose that you have your camera set for a several minute exposure. Only a small fraction of a single percent of the exposure will be affected by mirror induced vibration. That small fraction of a percent is, indeed, blurrier than the rest, but it is too little of the overall exposure to notice, because–assuming you are exposing correctly, not overexposing–a slower exposure is letting in the same amount of light over a longer period of time, compared to a short exposure.

Think of it this way: Suppose that you meter the light, and see that (with your selected aperture and ISO) you'll need a five minute exposure. But this time, instead of setting your camera for the five minutes required for a proper exposure, you set it for a 1/2 second, and take the picture. What do you think the picture is going to look like, when you develop/process it? It will look totally black. This is 1/600th of the amount of light that the picture required for proper exposure; and it will be so underexposed that you probably won't even be able to notice any exposure at all.

Now imagine that you take another picture under the same conditions... but this time for five minutes. The first 1/2 second–the first 1/600th of the exposure–will be blurred by mirror vibration, just like in the half second exposure you took; but it will be an unnoticeably small amount of the total necessary exposure, also just like in the 1/2 second exposure you took. However, this time, the following vibration-free 599/600ths of the exposure is superimposed on top of it.

Why buy multiple lenses to cover a range of focal lengths instead of one zoom with a larger range?

Speaking very generally, smaller range zoom lenses usually have better performing optics than larger range zoom lenses do, and fixed focal length lenses are better yet. They tend to be less prone to such things as vignetting, pincushion distortion, barrel distortion, chromatic aberration, flare, poor resolving power, poor contrast, color casts, and so forth.

Why does my histogram on my camera's rear LCD screen look different than the histogram when I open up the file on my computer, and what can I do about it?

There are several reasons, some minor and inconsequential, and others significant and pernicious.

The most inconsequential reason is simply that your camera is likely to use a different graphical interface than the conversion program you use on your computer, making the graph appear different even when it is showing the same data.

Another reason is because different converters use different algorithms and interpret the data differently, so that the software in your camera may see the red channel as blown out in a picture file, while the converter on your computer may see the red channel in the same file as fitting well within the limits. Similarly, you will get slightly different results if you convert your file with Adobe Camera Raw than you will if you convert your file with Capture One or Raw Shooter Essentials.

The most problematic reason why your camera's rear LCD screen displays a different looking histogram than you see when you open up the file on your computer screen is because your camera generates the histogram from the picture's embedded jpeg file (embedded Tiff file , if you are shooting Nikon, but in either case, a file wherein the data has been processed post-capture... tone curve, white balance, black point, and so forth, have already been applied), regardless whether you are shooting RAW. This makes the histogram misleading and far less useful than it would otherwise be (for RAW shooters), since there are often marked differences between the RAW file and the jpeg file. In particular, the jpeg file blows out the highlights well before the RAW file does. This makes it so that a jpeg file which is not blown out in any channel on the camera's rear LCD histogram can tell you that the RAW file is not blown out, either; however, a blown out jpeg histogram on the camera's rear LCD display doesn't tell you much about whether the RAW file is actually overexposed. (This is especially problematic if you "expose to the right".)

There is no perfect solution to this problem, however, there are a couple partial solutions.

First, set your camera to the lowest contrast setting. While this will still produce a jpeg-based histogram that clips the highlights and shadows long before the RAW files is blown out or blocked up, it is much better, and the best you will be able to get.

Second, learn the characteristics of your camera, and the relationship of in-camera histograms to actual RAW file exposures, from experience. Then make the mental adjustments as necessary.

Why do my pictures always look soft on my rear LCD display when I enlarge them to look at the details? When I review the pictures in-camera, I can't tell whether I nailed the focus.

This, too, is because your camera is generating the picture it shows you from the jpeg file, and not from the RAW file.

If you have your camera set to produce only RAW files, it still automatically produces an embedded jpeg file. However, if you don't have your camera specifically set to do otherwise, the jpeg it creates by default will be at the smallest size setting. Then, when you review the picture in-camera, the jpeg file you are reviewing will be, unbeknowest to you, smaller than the RAW file you recorded. When you enlarge this small jpeg in-camera as much as possible, out of a mistaken belief that you can thereby view 1:1 pixel detail in order to examine critical sharpness, your camera will allow you to enlarge the small jpeg file beyond its native size, interpolating it to the larger size of the RAW file, without warning you that it is doing so. This will make every picture look like it isn't sharp.

The solution to this is simple: If you want to review your pictures in-camera at their full size, in order to examine critical sharpness, you need to set your camera to record RAW+jpeg at the largest jpeg setting. Unfortunately, this will take up a lot of memory on your memory card.

Another caveat: once you have your camera set to record jpegs that are as large as the RAW files, if you want to then be able to discern those 1:1 pixel details with as much definition as possible, in order to examine sharpness in-camera, you need to set your camera to maximum contrast. Unfortunately, this is just the opposite of what you need to do to make your histogram as accurate as possible. Accurate in-camera histograms versus viewable 1:1 pixel level details–you can't have it both ways.

The RAW files from my camera vary in size. I thought RAW files are uncompressed, thus all the same size. What accounts for the size differences?

While the RAW files are lossless, they are compressed. Some files can be losslessly compressed more than others, depending upon the amount of information in the picture file, and the irreducible complexity of that information. Some of the most significant factors that influence RAW file size are:

Brightness: The brighter the picture, the larger the file.

ISO: The higher the ISO, the larger the file.

Detail: the more detail there is in the picture, the larger the file.

Do you prefer a handstrap, or a neck strap, or both? What strap do you like?

Actually, I don't use any strap at all. I found straps uncomfortable, prone to getting in my way when I'm trying to change grips and positions, and prone to catching on things and causing accidents. I'm certainly in the minority, about this; so I must assume that the highly skilled photographers who do use straps can work with them better than I can.

When I was using a Nikon F100 as my main camera, I made a retention lanyard of my own design. It worked well, and I may eventually make another for my current camera; however, I have not found a pressing need for a strap, so I probably won't.

My digital SLR can use both CF memory cards and SD memory cards. Which do you prefer, and why?

I prefer CF cards to SD cards. SD cards are a little too thin and seemingly prone to snapping, a little too small and fiddly to easily handle, a little too hard to find in a pocket or camera pack, and the SD cards' exposed contacts concern me. Also, since both CF and SD use the same type of internal memory, it stands to reason that, since CF cards are larger, they will always be able to fit more memory hardware than SD cards, and will always have higher maximum capacities.

After saying all of this, I should add that the choice is relatively unimportant, and the difference would be unlikely to matter often nor much.

Do you prefer solid-state CF cards, or microdrives?

I prefer solid state CF cards. Microdrives are more easily damaged from being dropped or knocked. For the type of outdoor photography I do, this is a concern. Also, microdrives rely on air pressure to function properly, and do not work reliably at high altitude. For a studio photographer at sea level, microdrives may be a more sensible choice, because they are less costly. For my needs, solid-state CF cards seem to be the best choice.

Is the battery door on my Canon flash defective? It's hard to open, and, when I try to open it, it seems like it is about to break off.

No, it's not defective. It's just a bad design which feels awkward to use. Mine hasn't broken off, yet.

How do I set my Canon digital SLR to name its files differently (with a different prefix)?

It would be convenient if you could set the file prefix, yourself, but it can't be done. The prefix is set in the factory, in the hardware, and each individual camera has a unique prefix to identify which camera produced the file. If you want to use a Canon digital SLR, the unwanted file prefix is an annoyance you will just have to get used to.

Is full-frame vignetting really an issue for landscape photography with wide angle lenses on digital cameras?

It hasn't been a notable issue for me. In most cases, the vignetting is negligible; in some cases, the vignetting is desirable; in all cases, the vignetting is easily corrected with ~2 seconds work during the RAW conversion process. Vignetting has never caused a final landscape shot of mine to be detectably worse.

In my opinion, based upon my experience, the issue is overblown.

Will the 1Ds Mark II autofocus with a 600 f/4 lens and a 2x teleconverter?

Yes. It's a little slower, but it works fine.

Will the Image Stabilization on Canon's super-telephoto lenses (500 f/4 & 600 f/4) work properly when the lens is mounted on a tripod?

Yes. These lenses are made to work with IS in conjunction with tripod use.

What is the advantage of IS when the lens is already mounted on a tripod?

Super-telephoto lenses are especially prone to vibration. In use, they are quite cantilevered, and the majority of the lens's weight is toward the front end. They have so much surface area that they catch breezes like a sail. And every bit of vibration of a 600 mm lens is magnified 12 times–24 times, if you are using a 2x teleconverter.

Super-telephoto lenses quite often vibrate regardless of good camera support, and photographic sharpness with super-telephoto lenses still benefits significantly from IS, even when the camera and tripod are sturdily supported.

My camera manual states that the camera can operate between 32 degrees and 113 degrees Fahrenheit. Will it work below or above these temperatures? Will it be damaged? What issues will my camera have?

I have operated my camera in ambient temperatures from 2 degrees to 119 degrees. My camera worked fine, and sustained no damage. I have also read many accounts of people using the same kind of camera I use in temperatures far colder than I've experienced.

The main issue in cold weather is that the batteries won't last for as many pictures per charge. Just as a rough guess, I'd estimate that a battery charge will last for only about 1/3 as many shots well below freezing as it does in warm temperatures.This can be ameliorated by taking the battery out of the camera, and warming it in your pocket, between pictures. It works well to have two batteries–one in camera and one warming in your pocket–and switch them frequently. By warming the batteries between pictures, the batteries can be made to last for about 3/4 as long per charge as in warm temperatures. Another option is to use a remote battery, kept in your warm pocket, attached to the camera by a cable.

The other main concerns pertain to condensation. If you breathe on your camera when it is very cold, your breath will condense on your camera and freeze. It can be a bother to have the controls for your camera, or the front element of your lens, rimed with ice from your breath. You have to learn to hold your breath when you bring your face near your camera. Another potential condensation situation is when you bring your camera inside, somewhere warm and humid, when the camera is freezing cold from having been used outdoors. Doing this can cover your camera with condensation. It is best to keep your camera in its case, and let it warm slowly to the ambient temperature, before removing it.

Digital camera sensors will actually perform better in extremely cold weather.