Can we talk about drones and photography again? Oh let's.

I recently plunged in and researched ( a lot) about using drones in commercial photography. And when I say I researched it's not because I was trying to find the best performance or price; no, I was trying to find out what the rules, regulations and laws are regarding the use of drones to take images for commercial (money paid to me) use. And what I found out was a bit startling considering how many stories I read about professional photographers and videographers using drones in public areas.

My interest had nothing to do with me wanting to fly a drone and get a different point of view. You want a good picture of your neighborhood from the sky? Hire a helicopter. And a licensed pilot. And get an approved flight plan. That's my way of thinking. But no, I had a client who was interested in doing the drone copter thing and I wanted to come into this part of the business with my eyes wide open.

I had no desire to own or operate a Phantom or a some other brand but if I hire a sub-contractor for a project it's important to me to know what my liabilities are going to be. And my client was not a small, under the radar, sort of enterprise that was interested in flying now and asking forgiveness later.  They are a large utility provider operating under a  regulatory microscope.

So, here's the deal. If you are an amateur you can operate your own drone as long as you are not charging for images or imaging services. You are limited to a ceiling height of 200 feet and you must have line-of-sight on the drone at all times. There are plenty of places you can't fly your drone for issues of public safety. These include (but are not limited to) over streets,  within (seriously) five miles of an airport, over public gatherings (outdoor concerts, protests, marches, races) and, while not everyone knows and abides by these rules they are in place and enforced (though enforcement is variable).

The game changes with professional use. You can fly higher but...... You need an FAA (Federal Aviation Agency) operator's license and you need an FAA exemption (form 333? for each event) in order to make any flight for commercial use. Any flight except on your own private property. But even if you are flying on private property you need to enforce a 500 foot diameter exclusion zone around your drone position to ensure public safety. While, from a copyright and privacy point of view, you are allowed to photograph people or property that is viewable from public airspace, in order to overfly private property for the purpose of commercial photographic drone-ism you MUST get signed releases or waivers from every single property owner in your flight path. The penalties are big.

The rules are still in flux but  sources in counter-intelligence say that the small drones one can buy from camera stores, video dealers and online for around $1,000 are destined to be the favorite weapon of terrorists for the next ten years or more. The breaching of the White House airspace by a consumer drone (quadcopter) was a huge wake-up call for intelligence agencies and the people tasked with maintaining our national security. With cellphone control technology advances and ever shrinking bomb and nascent molecular explosives technology their biggest fear is not from a large, lone drone but a swarm of smaller, armed drones. Only one needs to get through the countermeasures to cause real damage and loss of life.  Normal citizens should also fear the ability of close flying drones to carry electronics that can intrude on private information networks and capture vital personal and financial data.

The defense industry is already deep into countermeasures which might include radio white noise fields around key installations. The radio white noise kills the wi-fi connection to the drone, bringing them to ground. The Chinese military is experimenting with mid-powered, multi-spread pattern lasers to kill incoming drones but the energy consumption in mobile field applications is still problematic. An undisclosed government is experimenting with directional EMP (electro magnetic pulse) devices that would kill the silicon in the drones. I favor the fully automatic shotgun for incoming drones. The shorter barrels on the automatics give a wider spread so less range but better kill potential. How about cannons that shoot fine mesh nets into the flight space? It's all out there being worked on.

So what will the first successful terrorist drone attacks on western civilian targets mean for photographers? I think the industry that makes and markets the drones will suffer from a wide range restrictions and licensing. In popular culture I hear people flaunt the current rules all the time and usually without consequences but I think there will come a time when people will respond to the presence of drones in a very negative way and it will be very hard to successfully incorporate them into functional photographic businesses.

My point of view is that the widespread use of drones and the plummeting cost of ownership is akin to putting fully automatic weapons into the hands of children. After doing my research I am amazed that makers of drones have been allowed to mass produce and disseminate them. I think we are one horrific event away from a regulatory environment that will essentially kill this niche----and probably for very logical reasons.

While there are valid uses for drone technology there is also a very valid and long list of reasons to tightly regulate their use. Now I will duck and let the comments fly.

For a more lighthearted approach watch this trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Hhvdpvp5o

And the backlash begins: http://petapixel.com/2015/06/05/1350-camera-drone-whacked-out-of-the-air-by-an-angry-neighbor/

That particular commercial drone was being operated unlawfully. /\

Just wanted to keep you in the loop. I'm hard at work producing a brand new website for www.kirktuck.com. It's not up yet but it's coming along much quicker than I expected.

Candidate for first splash page shot on the new website. 

I know you are a very curious person and the fact that I am making a new website is probably a lot less interesting to you than a discussion of which software program I am using and how I am making the whole thing simpler and more compact. So I thought I would tell you right now. 

I put up my first website back in 1996. It was pretty good for 1996. I designed the look and a bright, young kid coded it for me and helped me figure out how to get it hosted. When flash sites were cool (for about six months) one of my advertising friends designed a site for me and his partner did the coding. It was also great---except for one thing; I couldn't change stuff on the site by myself. I couldn't update images, etc. without going back with my checkbook in hand and enduring the process. 

When Apple, Inc. launched iWeb I was ecstatic. Finally, a drop and draggable WYSIWYG web building application that didn't require me to learn how to code. I've been using it for years and I liked the way the basics of my site looked. It was also very easy to make changes to everything. Which I probably did too often...

Eventually Apple pulled the plug on iWeb and I've been living in anxiety trying to prepare for the moment when the OS would no longer support my favorite web design program. My anxiety was so complete that I more or less stopped changing the site because I feared I'd screw something up and not be able to go back and repair it. Irrational? Yeah. But that's just the way my brain works (or doesn't). 

But we all hit some sort of tipping point in our decision making processes and when my friend, James, launched a new website and recharged his marketing I started searching for my new web tools. 

I wanted a drop-and-drag, no code needed, simple to use application that would allow me to make dynamically resizable galleries. I didn't need templates or themes but would welcome help if it was included. I'm trying out a program called, Sparkle, that is engineered for easy use on the Apple OS. I first stuck my foot into the water with the free trial but after a couple of days of (non-crashing) fun and easy designing I went ahead and bought the program. 

A quick aside: I had a problem with the install and I e-mailed the software company's support people. I had an answer back, which fixed my problem, in less than fifteen minutes. I liked that.  

Now I am confronting the bigger issue which is: what to show?

I wish I could just put every image I've ever taken up on the web in some sort of art director portal and crowdsource the final selection. Maybe pare it all down from 7500 or so favorites to maybe 25 or 30. Occasionally, my award winning graphic designer wife looks over my shoulder and gently says, "You don't have to include everything...." Or, "Bigger type isn't necessarily better type..." But she's left me to make most of the rookie errors no doubt thinking that she'll drop in and help me clean it up before we launch.

I love the month after re-launching a website. You then have good reason to market the hell out of yourself and maybe even re-invent parts of your business. 

We'll see how it goes since I live my career so publicly. But do me one favor, if you really hate the new site maybe just send me an e-mail with suggestions. I actually have good reading comprehension skills---they are much better than my picture editing skills.

I came across a black and white portrait, shot long ago, that I had almost forgotten. I like it.

Joe McClain. Austin Lyric Opera.

I'm racking my brain to remember exactly why we were photographing Joe. He was one of the founders of the Austin Lyric Opera way back in 1986 and I remember this being shot around 1992 or 1993 for one of the city magazines. The image ran big and well printed at the time and later the ALO used it on their printed collateral without my permission. I didn't make a big deal out of it. I knew that the organization had been started and was operating on a limited budget and that Joe was working overtime to get the organization moving forward.

While the web mythologizes nearly everything having to do with photographic assignments this one was typical of the times. There was no art director on the location. Nor was there a make-up person or a second assistant or even a first assistant. I called Joe and asked when we could shoot and if he could suggest a location at the Opera. They has a big storage area full of stage props that we both agreed would be visually interesting. It was. 

I met Joe there at the appointed time, we chatted for a few minutes and then I saw the chair and asked him to sit. I reacted to the interesting pedestal hovering over his head the the matching diagonal of the   furniture on the right of the frame by standing up and aiming the camera down include everything I wanted. We tried a few different expressions and a few different gestures but this one was just the right combination of stuff for me.

I didn't light the scene because it looked just right to me for a black and white image. I just metered Joe's face, handheld the camera and fired off as many frames as I needed to get an image in the finder that I liked. 

This was shot on Tri-X black and white film and no doubt processed in D76 diluted 1:1. Since it was an assignment for a magazine I printed it on resin coated paper to save myself a long wash time and an even longer drying time. 

Funny in retrospect to think that so much of the work we were doing for editorial clients was so unstructured. The only two questions I asked when I accepted the job (by phone -- no e-mail back then) were: "Can I shoot this in black and white?" And, "Do you want a horizontal or a vertical?"

The art director trusted me to deliver something that would work so when I showed up with just the one print no eyebrows were raised. 

We worked. We delivered. We billed. All of the drama seems to have arrived recently, and I'm not sure it helps the process very much...

Another Austin Summer is Upon Us and Once Again I'm Getting Ready to be a Tourist in My Own Town.

Noellia on the banks of Barton Springs.

We've had our torrential rains, our flash floods and our soggy studios. The weather forecast says the next ten days are going to be sunny and bright. We'll get the mold out of the allergy forecasts and the waterways will settle down and get clear. I'm ready to step into Summer and make Austin my personal tourist attraction. I've got my tourist cameras ready. On one shoulder is my dandy still camera, the Olympus EM-5.2 in chrome. Usually sporting some sort of cool, prime lens. Right now it's the 25mm Leica Summilux. Tomorrow it might be something from Sigma. On my other shoulder is my tourist video camera. It's also an EM-5.2 but it's got a 12-35mm Panasonic zoom on it and that lens is sporting one of three neutral density filters that help my video settings cope with full sun. It's also got a little shotgun microphone hanging off the hot shoe. 

Remember Super-8 film from the 1960's and 1970's? Even Lady Bird Johnson was into the "tourist film" aesthetic and took her 8 mm and then super-8 mm camera with her on every trip. That's what I want to do. I want to take the "professional" out of the process and just react to the stuff that comes along. Stuff that's Summer-y. Stuff that's cool. 

I might just start editing a little two minute film once a week and post it here to counteract all the exciting new, cutting edge, super tech stuff we get inundated with. It could work.....

And what would my Summer be without the Western Hills Athletic Club pool?

Get ready to see it from every angle!

I hate working in the Summer. Everything seems to slow down and clients drag their feet when it comes to giving approvals and making selections for images that need to be retouched or videos that need to be edited. I like it best when the pace picks up again in the Fall and we can get into being busy instead of being sporadically poked by projects. 

I shot yesterday with my EM5.2. It was on a job. It reminded me why I like to shoot with the Nikon D810. But today I shot with the Nikon D810 and it reminded me why I like to shoot with the little Olympus. Go figure....

The One Thing Missing from Modern Camera Bags!

Yep. The vital feature I want is missing from this small and otherwise very well designed 

Tenba photo backpack.....

More Tragedy. My Sand Colored Domke canvas bag (best camera bag you can buy....) also lacks this amazingly essential feature. 

Even my old, beat up but fabulous, black canvas Domke bag (which is head and shoulders better (and a better value) than anything made by Billingham ----) doesn't have this must have option. 

All the good bags and packs are well designed, have lots of smart space inside and are great for carrying around most of the stuff we need in order to be successful but not a single rolling case, shoulder bag, sling bag, belt system or waterproof case has a simple attachment that I think is invaluable. None of them have a cup holder. Not a single camera bag is made with real photographers in mind. Because, when your right hand is on the handle of your rolling case full of lights and lenses and your left shoulder is balancing your Domke camera bag and your left hand needs to be ready to open doors and push elevator buttons ----WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO PUT YOUR extra--LARGE CUP OF FRESH, HOT COFFEE???  And if it's a long and drawn out shoot with lots of boring down time then WHERE ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO CARRY IN THAT SECOND LARGE CUP OF COFFEE????

Hey you great designers at Domke! Hey you dandy and effete designers at Billingham! Hey you zany Aussie Kata designers! Get working on the camera bag cup holder. I can (almost) guarantee that it will turn around the DSLR market over night. Finally, we will be able to walk through the client's doorways fully equipped and no longer at the questionable mercy of that Keurig machine in the break room. You know, the one with the Hazelnut flavored coffees and some other vague travesties.....

It's time to boycott all new bags that don't come with cup holders. And I'm counting on the enterprising manufacturers in China to create retrofittable cup holders for older bags. It's an idea and a feature whose time has come. Sign the petition below!

Perfectly sized and packaged for portability. 

From the movie, "The making of coffee for camera bag cupholders." 

Some other notes for a Saturday afternoon:

I thought this camera was long gone but today Ben cleaned out his closet at home to make way for some swanky new shirts. Down at the bottom of the closet was a cool bag (sadly, with no cup holders) that I'd given him along with a Sony a58, the kit lens and a Rode microphone. He handed it to me and asked me if I wanted it. "I haven't used it in a year or so." He said, "I probably won't keep it around." Of course I took it straight out to the studio. I remember this camera well. It's not at all bad, especially for the price. I'm charging the battery right now. 

As to the microphone, I've been looking for that missing microphone for a long time. Glad to have it back in the gear stack. I liked it and will use it. Especially for run and gun stuff where there's no time or opportunity to slap a lavaliere on somebody...

The last time I saw the a58 in my studio. Welcome back little buddy.

Nature has decided that we need more rain so it is currently raining again. 

Ten more days or so and we will have reached that Biblical, "Forty days and forty nights" thing and I'll really start worrying....

Quick visual paean to the 100mm focal length. 

Gotta finish up and get over to the sporting good store. 

Wanna buy some rubber boats before it's too late.

Brand Agnosticism. More fun or more work? One Afternoon of Kirk's Street Photography in Austin, Texas. Shot with a Sony Nex 6. Black and Whites.

Click on any image to start the slide show....

Someone in an interview on Fstoppers.com called me, "Truly gear agnostic." I think they meant it as a compliment. At least I took it that way. The context of the statement was a discussion about how people get locked into brands and are loathe to change even when the change may benefit them. I was cited as an example of a person who largely rejected brand loyalty and would generally seek to match the camera to my project, my point of view----my mood. I like to play with different systems because it keeps my mind and fingers from getting bored. The flip side of the equation is that you have to learn a lot of different menus in order to play camera roulette. I suck at memorizing menus...

At one point a few years ago I decided that I really liked the Sony Nex-6. The price to play wasn't very steep so I bought one and the little kit lens, and a 50mm, and went zooming around taking photographs. Over time I found out what I didn't like about the camera and moved on but it was refreshing to go back through a Lightroom catalog and see what that little camera could do. These images were all taken one afternoon in downtown Austin. At the time I was obsessed with peoples' obsessions with their cellphones. But I did veer from that theme when I came across other images that begged to be taken. Camera set to black and white. Phasers set to stun. Go. 

Modern dating.

"...and it can teleport things..."

Modern meeting.

The winning lens at yesterday's shoot? A dinosaur optic that continues to be just right.

The ultimate portrait lens? 

Shooting portraits has been the mainstay of my business for many, many years. I'm not picky though; if you want me to shoot some landscapes or buildings for an annual report I'm happy to oblige. If you've got some sort of process that needs documenting you can count me in for that as well, but the bulk of what I get hired for is portraits. 

And like most photographers who have come to this business from other professions I suffer with issues of self-confidence. After all, there's no formal licensing, no tests to pass and no real rules that regulate how we go about doing our work. It's highly subjective. You eat by making images that get approved by clients. You get the clients by doing your marketing right. 

But most of us consciously or sub-consciously think that having the "best" gear gives us an advantage over our competition (even though we all have access to, and end up buying pretty much the same basic inventory). I know from talking to lots and lots of guys who either do photography for a living or love photography as a hobby that most of us are looking for magic camera bodies and lenses that will give us a leg up on everyone else. Super-charge our vision. Leave the less well inventoried in the dust. How else do we explain the ability to rationalize the $4000+ Zeiss Otus lenses which offer a bit better quality, wide open than lenses that cost half or even a tenth the purchase price? Especially when experience shows us (time after time) that we're stopping down out of the need to get enough depth of focus, most of the time. And we're pretty sure that the wide open advantage of the most precious optical systems generally evaporates compared to more pedestrian lenses as we hit the well used range of f4.0 to f8.0.

Being an anxious person who is largely self-taught in photography I have all of the problems with self-confidence that most other people struggle with. Maybe more so than beginners because I am only now coming to grips with just how much I don't know...

So I rush to buy the cool optics. And the cool cameras. Sometimes it actually pays off. The Nikon D610s and D810s actually make beautiful files that have everything a working pro could want: lots of good detail, low noise and crazy good dynamic range. But most of the time it's a crap shoot. 

I've recently bought a Sigma 50mm Art lens and I must tell you that the images generated at it's widest apertures just smoke everything else I own. I keep trying to use it on jobs but I keep finding out that the wide open performance is, for the most part, a chimera that goes unused in day-to-day work. I tried to use it at the theater on Tues. but it was just not a long enough focal length. When I did use it I could easily see that the limited depth of field at the money apertures was nowhere near enough to keep two actors, separated by just a few feet, in sharp focus. We need f5.6 to do that.....

I tried to use the lens in a shoot yesterday that consisted of environmental portraits but again, it was too short. Even my very well regarded Nikon 85mm was a bit short to corral the background in just the right way. All the fast f-stops in the world are more or less meaningless if the focal length isn't right for the shot. I guess you could crop your frame but....

The lens I keep reaching for is probably the cheapest lens I've paid for in years. It's the Nikon manual focus, 105mm f2.5 ais. Yesterday I fought and fought to use the 50mm and the 85mm but the 105mm kept floating back and solving my need to create shallow depth of field while keeping cluttered backgrounds at bay. The perspective is just right for portraits. I mean just right. 

I've always been a bit nervous about using manual focus lenses on DSLRs because the cameras aren't really set up to manually focus well. I worry that the green confirmation spot is too generous, too willing to say "yes" when the real sharpness is saying "no." I got burned by the focus shift of the "vaunted" Zeiss 85mm f1.4 (MF) on the Canons when I shot with them. The image would always look good in the finder but when I looked on the computer screen it was obvious that a small bit of stopping down shifted the focus back too far. It was a nightmare.

Since I read too much on the web and I hear so often how much better current lens design must be I am always inclined to believe I am leaving some quality on the table when using older lenses. Especially older, manual focus lenses. Without the latest miracle glass and massive computational design assistance how can they stand a chance???

Well..... I shot so many images with the 105mm yesterday just because it was the right angle of view for the vision I was following. I got home and started zooming in to 100% to make sure I had nailed focus and I marveled at how sharp the lens was at f2.8, f4.0 and f5.6. It gives away nothing to the Nikon 85mm f1.8G lens at any aperture and if there is a sharpness difference between the 105 and the Sigma art lens at f4.0 I sure can't see it. Get the focus right and this $125 used investment really brings home the visual bacon. 

I seem to be having a recurring epiphany. It goes something like this:  Older lenses were perhaps more carefully made and more painstakingly hand calibrated, and even with older designs they can perform as well as the newest optics, especially when both are used two stops down from wide open. 

The real reason I like the 105mm is that this is the angle of view at which I feel that I have control (total control) of what is in my frame and how it's all arranged. Some lenses just speak to you. This one says "hello" while for my money something like a 28mm never says much more than "Doh!"

Final observation? The 105mm plays well with the green focus confirmation dot in both of my D610s. Nice.

Scary to be on the other side of the camera. I was a model for an interesting assignment.

Kirk Tuck by ©2015 Frank Grygier.

My friend, Frank, is taking an online course from photographer/teacher, Don Giannatti. As part of the workshop the students are trying to figure out how to light and shoot in the styles of a number of great photographers. The most recent assignment for Frank was to work in the style of portrait legend, Albert Watson. Watson is most popularly known for his iconic portrait of Steve Jobs but I have admired his portrait lighting; especially in his black and white work, for many years. When Frank mentioned his assignment I shamelessly volunteered to sit for the portrait. 

I have become comfortable meeting strangers and asking them to pose for me but when the shoe is on the other foot it's a bit scary. I know that photographs will point out all the things about me I want to avoid; that I am getting older. That a little hair sticks up from my left eyebrow and makes me look unbalanced. That my skin has become rugged and flawed by time and the elements. That the backs of my hand are hairy. That my barber missed a little bit of hair on the back of my neck that becomes a white flag against a black background. That my nose has gotten bigger. All these things make up a collage of my own frailties. But what the hell ---- it's interesting to see myself through the eyes of another. 

We decided to shoot the portrait in my little studio. I had the space to work in and extra gear if Frank needed something beyond the kit he was bringing. I set up a dark background for Frank and then settled into some post processing while the clock ticked closer to my engagement with portrait destiny. 

Frank did his lighting homework well. He used a small softbox from high up and left of frame. He used it in close to take advantage of fall off. While not apparent in this image he also used a second light on the backdrop which is more evident in other versions of the portraits.

While we waste a lot of virtual ink talking up the advantages and disadvantages of various formats for portraits most of it is silly and meaningless as the pluses and minuses of the formats can be trumped by the skill of the photographer. Frank managed to get a (technically) wonderful portrait with a smaller format --- he was shooting with the (exquisite) 35-100mm f2.8 Panasonic lens on a GH4. But the camera is almost meaningless compared with his clear intention and his well-crafted and well thought out lighting. 

Frank and I work in different ways. He is much more assured in his methodology and shoots sparingly. When he has what he wants he wraps up and moves on. I am less confident or less able to commit so I shoot and shoot in an almost promiscuous fashion. He is a "ten perfect frame" portrait shooter while I am a "one hundred frame--I'll know it when (if) I see it shooter. Sometimes fate conspires to make me lucky. Sometimes not. 

Frank shot with battery powered, electronic flashes and didn't have the advantage of modeling lights. It didn't matter, he knew how his lighting should be designed and followed his plans and instincts. I knew the image would be well done otherwise I would have never volunteered. I just didn't realize that I might like a portrait of me as much as I do like this one, warts and all.

I don't know about Don G. but I'll give Frank a solid "A." It's a real learning experience to be on the other side of the camera. I'm glad I wore the navy blue, linen shirt. And I'm glad I grabbed an old pair of glasses ---- I forgot how much I liked those frames. 

My advice to everyone who wants to shoot better portraits? Go out and start shooting them. The practice on both sides of the camera is invaluable.