Paul Lester Photo

At the start
It’s been almost a month since I have returned from White Sands National Monument and about two more months to go before I head for Zion National Park. I find myself both looking back and looking forward. Looking back to see how my photographs morphed from day one to day last. Looking forward to Zion National Park and thinking about the approach that I wish to take when photographing Zion.

When I go somewhere like on vacation, or to photograph, I have no predetermined plan. I just love to go with the flow; however, in looking at Google Earth and doing some research, there are so many things to see in within a 3 hour radius that it is tempting to “flit about”. I’m not prone to flitting, but the urge seems to be there.

I’ll be spending May 24 – June 1 there. Mind you Saturday, the 24th and Sunday, June 1 are travel days; however, I should be able to shoot on Saturday evening, as I will arrive in Las Vegas at about noon on 5/24, add to that a 1 hour time difference + 1 hour to get suitcase/rental car, etc. and a 3 hour drive, I should arrive in Hurricane, UT at about 6:00 PM. Never mind, no shooting on Saturday!

Near the end

Now, about that flitting. In the area there are many things to see: Bryce Canyon, Zion National Part, North Rim of Grand Canyon, and a host of other smaller desert parks around St. George that I have discovered from visiting Utah twice before! Overload! My initial thought is to spend some time in each of them, but I know myself and that will lead to a bunch of superficial shots for me. I won’t get sense of place, but will probably have some pretty pictures. I won’t take much time to explore. I have been to Zion before, but it was a one-day thing with my family. I netted only a few snapshots.

While at White Sands, I started with my wide angle lens, progressed to an 80-200mm zoom, then took lots of pictures with the 50mm. Also, it started with the grand landscape, if you will, and ended with individual plant studies. There was no intention, but it’s just how it happens. I find that the same thing happens when I visit a place over and over again. I just start looking closer, closer, and closer still.

At both ends of the range, wide and close, I got some shots that I really liked; however, I think that if I just stick with the big picture, the grand landscape, I’ll come home with a feeling that I’ve missed something. Something intimate.

As for this last picture, to the right, I call it understanding. It was taken on the last evening where I started to get an understanding of how these plants survived in this harsh desert environment. Having not been there on three consecutive days, I think that I would have missed this.

So, it’s still not decided what I will do. Honestly, distance will play a huge factor. Bryce Canyon is a 3 hour drive from where I’ll be staying. The North Rim, about 90 minutes, and Zion, 25. I’m sure that I’ll spend most of my time getting to know Zion.

How do you approach a new place?

For those of you who are not savvy on the drummer’s vernacular, a paradiddle is a drummer’s rudiment, or practice element that is the basic foundation of drumming. In my former school days, I wanted to become a drummer. First, one learns how to hold the sticks, then read simple music consisting mainly of quarter notes, then begins with the rudiments: the various stroke drum roles, paradiddles, double, trip, and paradiddle diddles! When I first started, of course, I didn’t know a paradiddle from a pair of socks!

I was never a good drummer. I just didn’t have the passion for it. I wanted to play, but not necessarily to practice. All of these thoughts of paradiddles came about when I was watch my son, Tony, practice his basketball drills the other day. He was practicing a, what to me was an enormously complex, behind the back dribbling rudiment. It took him many, many, tries just to get it partially right. He still needs to practice it. Yet, all the while, he was totally concentrated on learning this new skill and enjoying every moment of it.

Photography is a lot like that, to me. It’s endless repetition of the basics, or the foundation, until they become second nature and not a thought. It’s about experimenting with shutter speed, aperture, different lighting conditions, weather, angles. All of this preparation so, that at the moment of truth, when that lovely scene that you wish to capture is presented, you’ll know exactly what to do without so much as a second guess. Perhaps you’ll respond by doing two or three things because you can’t capture the entire dynamic range of the scene with one shot, but you will respond.

My sports paradiddles are done during practice time. I like to go to his practices and do a bit of practicing my self. I practice telling the story by trying to catch the players’ interaction with the coach. I practice catching the action at its peak. I practice anticipating where the action might occur. It’s a good time and well worth the effort, especially at game time, because I will know exactly what to do, including how to set up my camera for a particular situation and which lens to use. Here, it’s fun to experiment with rear-synch flash, longer exposure times, etc. I can get a feel for what it might do. The game is not a place to ‘play’.

So, how do you do your paradiddles?

Better weather – Nikon D2x

Here in Charlotte the weather is a bit dismal; however, it is a great day for sleeping as well as musing about certain things. Add to that that my wife went on a girls-only vacation for a week and I just have all types of idle time!

I just read an interesting post by Thomas entitled: Do you need a camera for photography? Just barely…. It’s a fun read. The post basically compares, for the most part, a couple of articles posted by Ken Rockwell vs. Michael Reichmann and their views about the importance of the camera in making the shot. On one side, Ken Rockwell says that it doesn’t make a difference, on the other side, Michael Reichmann says:

It’s about the Equipment – Stupid
–Michael Reichmann

Personally, I lean more toward MIchael Reichmann. I used to lean more toward Ken’s thinking until experience kicked me in the head! So, my musings lead me to compare two cameras that I have, my Nikon D2x and Nikon D300, not necessarily direct feature for feature comparisons, but on the differences between the cameras that technology has provided within a 3 year window and how they affect my shooting or ability to capture the picture.

Upgrade Steps
First, a small trip into the past. When I started in photography, I started with a Minota SRT-101. This camera was fantastic for my purposes, which was landscape and portrait photography. It was fully manual and did what I asked of it. Next along the upgrade path was a Minolta XD-11, this camera had several modes including shutter priority. Now, I could extend my repertoire to include sports, on some level. After I bought a 3 FPS winder to go with it, my sports pictures improved. I always lusted after the Nikon F3 with the 6 FPS motor drive, but, alas, one cannot afford caviar on a Chicken McNugget budget! Fast forward (almost) back to the present.

My first serious digital camera was a Minolta Dimage A1. Again, great for what I needed, but when I started to photograph sports, it failed miserably. You can talk all you want about the camera not being important, but go to a basketball game or soccer game with a camera that has slow auto focus and 2.5 frames per second shooting ability. When you get back, tell me that the camera doesn’t matter.
Nikon D2x
OK, time to upgrade again. This time to Nikon’s flagship camera, at the time, the Nikon D2x. Now, instead of missing those shots at the game, I came home with some stunners! Wow! 5 FPS at full resolution (12.1 MP), 8 at cropped (6.x MP). I rarely missed a shot. Also, the ability see through the viewfinder instead of an electronic viewfinder was a relief.

Well, now you have (had) the flagship and it can do everything that you need it to do, why upgrade again? Well, technology just keeps getting better. Sensors clean themselves, they have better color fidelity, less noise, and there are better displays on the back of the camera, etc. This means to me that, thanks to technology, I have an even better chance to get the picture that I want and have to spend even less time in post-production work to do clean up, etc.

Nikon D300
So, in walks the D300. It has all of the features of the D2x, a better display, better sensor, can do 6 FPS at full resolution, can clean its own sensor, is weather-tight just like the D2x, has ‘smarter’ auto focus tracking, and costs about $3,200 LESS than the D2x did when it was new. Wow! A quantum leap in technology at a lower price. Does this make the D2x an inferior camera? Far from it! It simply means that now it may not be the better tool for a particular job. The picture at the right is from the D300.

Depreciation or ‘lack of appreciation’

I recently tried to sell my D2x on eBay, which is in Excellent+ condition, for $1,500. No sale. People are looking for a real deal. Technology has simply made this camera worth much less than a D300.