Aerial view of Chicago

It was thrilling to shoot Chicago from the 94th floor of the John Hancock Buildling. There is an observation floor there, and I waited until twilight and night to get the best shots. The biggest problem was paying attention to, and eliminating, reflections in the glass from lights in the interior. I used my hat, my arms , and my body to block those reflections. I used a tripod, of course, and it was a pleasure that no one stopped my wife and I from using them. I used a daylight white balance and a 200 ISO.

When Enough Depth of Field Isn't Possible

Too often the laws of optics conspire against us photographers, and to get what we want artistically we have to outsmart these annoying limitations.

For example, on a photo tour to Kenya in 2007, our group spotted this beautiful leopard sleeping in a tree. It was a great shot -- except for the fact that the large branch that was about 5 or 6 feet in front of the cat wasn't sharp. I was using a 500mm f/4 telephoto, which meant that depth of field was very shallow. I was shooting wide open -- f/4 -- because the light level was low and in the vehicle a tripod is impractical. Out of focus foregrounds are usually very distracting, so I solved the problem by taking two pictures.

First I focused on the leopard and took a photo, and then I focused on the foreground branch and took a second shot. I tried to be as precise as possible in not moving the lens from the time I took one shot to the time the second one was snapped. The camera and lens rested on a bean bag, so while it wasn't a perfect match, it was close enough.

When I got home, I used Photoshop to combine the two images. I meticulously cut and pasted the sharp branch (using the Pen tool in CS4) over the out of focus branch. Now both the foreground and background are tack sharp and the picture works. It looks like what I saw with my eyes.

A Formula for Classic Travel Images

The way you can guarantee that you'll get great shots of people when you travel is to set up shots. I do this on all my photo tours for my group. I preconceive the type of image I want (like a model in an arched window, for example), and then I talk to local people about the best way to set it up.







Attached are four images that show you what I'm talking about. In each case, I made the arrangements to make these happen. In the case of the three young boys painted black and wearing shell costumes, I arranged this with the hotel concierge in the Philippines. The rearing horse photo was arranged at a festival in India, and the costumed models in a gondola were set up in Venice. In Cambodia, I hired four dancers through a taxi driver and they posed for me throughout the ruins of Angkor Wat.

Serendipity is great, and when you are lucky enough to get awesome shots by happenstance it's a wonderful experience. This doesn't happen often, of course, and therefore I make things happen with a little persistence and a preconceived notion of what I want.

If you come on any of my photo tours, you'll benefit from this kind of photographic opportunity. At the moment, I'm planning a photo tour to Ireland in 2010 (dates to be announced), and I'm working on arranging a model in a 19th century nun's habit and also a knight in armor. I really want these shots for my group, so hopefully I'll be able to set them up.

Tv versus Av: Which is the best choice?

Many photographers religioiusly shoot on aperture priority -- Av -- when they are hand-hold their camera. They do this so they can control the amount of depth of field they are getting, and usually they want as much dof as possible. I feel in many instances this is a mistake.

My rationale is that depth of field is irrelevant if the picture isn't sharp. What happens too often is that it's very easy to get so involved in the subject that when you close the lens down for increased dof, you lose sight of what the shutter is doing because it's being adjusted automatically based on your f/stop choice. If the shutter speed gets too slow, the picture will be blurred. At that point extensive depth of field won't matter at all.

I contend that first and foremost, you must use a shutter speed that gives you a sharp picture. This is generally 1/60th of a second or faster unless your subject is moving very fast and/or you are using a telephoto lens. In those cases, you need a faster speed such as 1/250th or more.

Then, and only then, can you decide on how much depth of field you can have. If you are shooting at, say, 1/250th of a second and you decide you want more dof, your only option at that point (assuming the shutter speed doesn't get slower) is to raise the ISO or put more light on the scene.

If you are using a tripod, on the other hand, and your subject isn't moving (like a landscape), then you have the luxury of using apeture priority and choosing a small f/stop like f/22 or f/32. The slowness of the shutter doesn't matter since there is no chance of blurring a subject.

There is only one exception to this. If you are hand-holding the camera and you want the fastest shutter speed possible for a particular situation, then you can choose Av and select the largest aperture on the lens. This, in turn, forces the camera to choose the fastest shutter speed possible given the lighting and given the ISO you are using.