Fritz Pölking

Sharp Photographs

- Thoughts in Preparation of Wildlife Pictures and of the Technical Possibilities at Present –

Wildlife photographers do live in their own world, but certainly not in outer space. Our work is also influenced by tendencies, the spirit of the times, and a fast – immensely fast – changing world, in our case, the world of media.

Presently there is a revolution in the land of media in Germany, which certainly touches us as well: Die Natur, Sielmanns Tierwelt, Die Welt der Tiere, Abenteuer Natur, BBC-Wildlife (German), Kosmos, Wildlife-Observer, Das Tier – practically all "neutral" magazines on wildlife/animals have disappeared and been taken off the market. .... Only the magazines for "nature users", for instance hunting, fishing, cat, dog (domesticated animals) or travel have a stable count of consumers. There seem to be less and less people willing to pay Euro 5.- a month for an altruistic animal/nature magazine at the newspaper stand or as a subscription, that means for an edition which reports of an exciting and fascinating world of animals and nature, but which is not really efficient for the consumer.

After the great perishing of these magazines in Germany, SINRA, the big Japanese wildlife magazine is being discontinued in Japan and in France TERRA SAVAGE is fighting for survival and the concept of "humans and animals". Even in all of the USA with 250.000 million inhabitants there is no magazine for the public about animals (but certainly more than a hundred on computer science). NATIONAL WILDLIFE is the only magazine that comes close to that which we would like to see, but it is a rather "thin" organ of this society, and rarely found at newspaper stands. Apparently the –unspecified - demand by the audience for information and reports on wildlife and open nature is filled through the numerous television shows.

We need to find new and other markets on short/medium terms in order to publish, since the markets we have used up to now seem to continue to disappear . But on the new markets we find ourselves in competition to the fashion and advertising photography and their aggressive reflections, that the public has become so used to, with our nature and wildlife. On this new platform we also seem to have to compete with digital pictures, computer animation and the changing views mediated through MTV, VIVA and consorts, which certainly will not pass wildlife photography without leaving any traces if we want to establish ourselves on the new markets or if we have to deviate to such markets, because the old familiar ones are losing more and more ground.

It is not possible to just simply take pictures as in the times of Herman Fischer. The photo market today demands that the pictures are thrilling, emotional, of surprising perception and expression, that sweep the audience or the beholder off their feet, to be of a modern design and accordingly up to date.

This forces us continuously to seek and sound out the possible boundaries of our craftsmanship and to try and feel our way as close as possible up to these borders.

It is not difficult to photograph a rabbit in the bright sunshine. The camera could do that on its own if necessary, with auto focus and a P exposure program.

But these are pictures that no one wants to see any more and if at all, would accommodate a hunting magazine.

If you want to be successful in the present, you have to take different pictures. An amateur without ambition can represent the following point of view: I will take the pictures I want to, the way I want to, period. Right.......

But, whoever wishes to publish, be it as a main source of income, just a little on the side or as a hobby, has to check and see what is in demand at the time.

The points of view have changed. People have become spoiled through top notch photographs. There is no demand for simple or boring pictures. The consumer is expecting a strong and emotional stimulus. This is what we have to cater to by trying to work closer to our limits: the lighting, the movement, the apertures. By trying to combine or mix, for instance by catching a certain movement during the last bit of daylight, adding a flash for brightness to the second closure and simultaneously moving the camera along.

Then, on the other extreme, perhaps the last bit of sharpness, where it seems almost impossible. We have to start testing these grounds of the utmost limit of our craft and the possibilities offered us as wildlife or nature photographers if we do not want to just fade away or become an odd marginal group of photographers who shoot dreary pictures used only in magazines for the utilization of nature.

For this we have to know what the technical possibilities are and to be absolutely versed in the tools of our trade: the advance shutter release, the flash on the second drape, the pulling along of the camera; the exposure under extreme circumstances when the matrix can´t be measured any longer, or master the technique of longer exposure times with the help of two converters placed directly behind each another.

All this can be brought under control through practice and numerous testing. When the moment to take the picture is at hand, you should know the limits of your tools and be able to completely have them under control and not just trigger at will and hope that with luck everything turns out somehow ..... it won ´t .

An example: Just about everyone knows of the lynx preserve in the Bavarian Forest National Park. These lynx are fed every morning somewhere between 7.30 and 8.00 am. An hour before that, they are already expecting the cart with their food. While doing so, they sometimes sit at the edge of the forest , about 50 Meters away under large dense trees, on top of boulders. There it is – especially so early in the morning – very dark. Besides that, for certain types of expressive pictures you have to work with a 1,4 x or even 2x converter in order to bridge the distance.

On the other side, it offers a motif which is a perfect symbol and reflects the essence the lynx, which is a shy and almost invisible forest cat. No justice is done by her if she is photographed in large format and broad daylight.

So now in order not to take this picture on a lucky strike and botch it because I am not really familiar with the exposure limits of my new camera equipment, I experiment with it at home, to see what exposure times I need with certain focal lengths for vertical or horizontal shots during highly difficult conditions.

Upper picture: 500 mm with 1,4 converter, stabilizer, 1/6 sec.
Lower picture: 500 mm with 2.0 converter, stabilizer, 1/3 sec.

Here some additional information which, besides the object of it, brought a bit of interesting, surprising and maybe even up to now unknown, results and realizations:

EOS – 1 V with a 4.0/500 mm lens and 1.4x and 2.0x converter, on a Gitzo carbon tripod nbr. G-1349 with a Kirk ball head BH-2.

Chart 1 : 4.0/500 mm, horizontal format

In reference to Chart 1:

To work with 500mm while shooting horizontal pictures is not such a great problem. You can go up to 1/15 sec. without worrying. According to the chart you can see the different possibilities of having quality pictures working with either a stabilizer or with the mlu - (mirror lock up).

Chart 2 : 4.0/500 mm, vertical format

In reference to Chart 2:

Now you see the dramatic change with 500mm while shooting vertical pictures. Who would have thought, that with 1/125 sec. you are already at the limit of your possibilities while using "normal" lenses; that slides turn out extremely blurry even if you use a cable trigger at 1/60 sec.

Chart 3 : 5.6/700 mm,horizontal format

In reference to Chart 3:

It is very interesting to compare 500mm and 700mm while shooting horizontal pictures. While the sharpness is still extreme or good at 500mm, it somewhat restricts the possibilities of getting quality drastically while using a 1,4x converter. Then, if you use the mirror lock up , you are able to take extremely sharp pictures.

Chart 4 : 5.6/700mm, vertical format

In reference to chart 4:

A vertical shot with 700mm is practically only possible with regular lenses and if you do not go below 1/250 sec.

Chart 5 : 8.0/1000mm, horizontal format

In reference to Chart 5 :

This chart was the most fascinating for me: It is practically an impossibility. How can pictures with 1.000mm turn out sharper than with 700mm? The explanation I found was the stabilizer. Sometimes you hardly hear him at all, sometimes he is very quiet, but at 1.000mm you can really hear him working: he grumbles and roars within the lenses. It is most likely the greater activity of the stabilizer that brings the better sharpness while using this rather shaky unit.

Chart 6 : 8.0/100mm, vertical format

In reference to Chart 6:

Here again, you can clearly see the amazing difference - which I did not expect to be so great – in the sharpness between horizontal and vertical shots. A simple realization: In order to take pictures with 1.000mm at 1/125 or 1/60 sec. you need a stabilizer of the second generation (that will also work from a tripod), and for extremely sharp pictures you need an mirror lock up.

Chart 7 : 11.0/1400mm, horizontal format

In reference to Chart 7:

It is pleasing to know that you can take extremely sharp pictures with 1.400mm, meaning with two consecutively placed converters.

Chart 8 : 11.00/1400mm, vertical format

In reference to Chart 8 :

As expected, it looks rather bad while shooting vertical pictures: it would be possible to get extremely sharp pictures here, if you use 1/250 or 1/500 sec. Certainly a second tripod would help if you can´t get minimal shutter times because of the light situation and you are not able to use very sensitive film.

In general:

First of all, I have to say that these findings are the result of my own equipment and working conditions. They can only be used as a guideline and any other equipment or situation has to be tested by itself, since the results rely on the type of tripod and ball head, the extension, the type of underground (concrete will give you different results than working on grass or moss). It would also be interesting to see how stabilizers work from out of the car, early in the morning with 1/8 or 1/15, while driving along in order to shoot deer or hare in the morning fog, maybe with a bit of a breeze that causes the car to sway slightly. Besides that, you will have to depend the results whether what type of lens, the tripod clip (depending on where it is located or if it is long or short), the weight of the camera, if there is wind or not, whether or not you have to photograph with a sunshield in which the wind can get caught or not, or without it, and so on, and so forth.

I did the above test twice, to rule out any coincidences. It would be rather nice, though, if our two largest photography magazines (Foto Magazin and Color Foto) - with the much greater possibilities they have – to do these practice orientated tests themselves. It is not really the wildlife photographers´ responsibility to do this.

I have always had the feeling, that the tests the photography magazines carry out, carry as major aspects what the editors and technicians would like to have, rather than what would be feasible for the photographers. I read a test comparison between the Nikon F5 and the Canon EOS-1 about three or four months ago. As an example they tested whether or not the 1/8000 sec. is stable or not. Very important.. . . – You see, I have never met a photographer who has ever used this 1/8000 sec. in his life. Why are´nt the things that can be useful tested? For instance if the picture in the viewfinder is bright or dark, if the motor is detachable or not and what would be better during practice; or how does the mirror look up work: manually or through a software program and which has what types of advantages or disadvantages? Or if I have a possibility for quick action, for instance with the automatic timer in order to change the exposure and how does it work while using it? There was nothing of the sort in the above mentioned test.

It certainly would be nice if the tests would be less orientated on what the technicians would like to test and what is fun for them and the editors, but rather more on what the photographers would like to have tested and what they enjoy.

Cable trigger or manually ?

A very interesting realization was, that horizontal shots were sharper if an electric cable trigger was used (especially with an mirror lock up), but vertical shots turned out sharper if you pushed the trigger with your finger. The explanation: the energy of movement from the shutter and the mirror goes down into the ball head and tripod while shooting horizontally formatted pictures. With vertical formats, this energy is led off to the side and the hand that is holding the camera absorbs some of this energy before it turns into movement.

Light or heavy weight ball heads?

I am doing this test with the Kirk Ball Head of 1.000 grams and the Graf Ball Head of 1.700 grams in weight. The results with the heavier Ball head were not any better, as would have been expected, but at times even somewhat or clearly poor. Explanation: The heavier Ball head is more rigid and does not absorb the energy of movement from the mirror and shutter, but rather, this energy has to be killed in the camera, which causes shock waves within. The light weight Ball head is as "flexible as a willow tree", absorbs the shock waves from the camera and causes the slide to have less, if hardly any, traces of movement in the sharpness.

Stabilizer

With 1/30 sec. at 8.0/1000 mm plus stabilizer, but (unfortunately)
without mirror lock up, since both together
are not compatible for unknown reasons.

A real profit: depending on how the actual use is, you gain 1-3 apertures of sharpness. At best you get 1/30 sec. with, as sharp as 1/250 sec. without. The longer the focal length, the better you can see the difference. At 1.000 mm with a horizontal format and triggered with a cable, you have a limited sharpness without stabilizer of 1/30 sec. and with, at ¼ sec. That are a full 3 apertures.

You can implement this gain of sharpness strategically and in different ways in wildlife / nature photography:

1. by always using a stabilizer and enjoying the newly won additional picture sharpness and taking it as a security reserve.

2. by investing the gained 2-3 levels in additional sharpness of depth. So, instead of working – as usually before – with automatic timer and open aperture 4.0 plus long focal lengths, and then to usually get to 1/250 sec. or 1/500 sec. exposure time, to just go to aperture 8, in order to get the same sharpness of picture with the longer times, as before with the shorter, but with more sharpness in depth, which is certainly helpful for picture compositions. Provided that these are not action photos.

3. At least now you can work more often (or almost always) with aperture 5,6 instead of 4,0. To fade out one step has been known to increase the optical performance of all telephoto lenses and additionally prevents the darkening of picture edges, which happens with all longer focal lengths during an open aperture.

   You see this effect best on bright motifs, i.e. pictures of flying ospreys and blue skies in Florida , or sandy beach motifs or polar bears in Churchill. No matter if the lenses used are from Nikon, Canon or Leica, at an open aperture they all have shadows on the edges of the picture. This unwanted effect can be eliminated easily, thanks to the stabilizer, if you do not need the largest opening in order to freeze action.

4. by being able to photograph very early or very late about 2-3 shutter speed sooner or later, prior to having the picture become blurry through the "click" of the mirror or jerking.

Strange: The stabilizer and the mirror lock up do not work together. The mirror lock up is switched on through the special function 12 on the Canon EOS-1 and EOS-3. 12-0 tells you that the mirror lock up is turned off and that the stabilizer in function. Now if you turn the mirror lock up to the next level of 12-1, the stabilizer immediately turns itself off automatically. Jürgen Borris discovered this and Canon-Germany in Willich was not even aware of it.

Why this is so and where the advantage lies for photographers if he can not enjoy using the advance shutter release with the stabilizer in order to gain this additional sharpness, no one in Germany seems to know presently. Yeah, well, the Japanese are and will be an unfathomable and secretive Asian people.

Mirror lock up.

This graphic from Bob Atkins with a laser point shows the vibrations caused through the shutter / mirror movement. If you would like to have more information about the mirror movement vibrations, then "MIRROR LOCK UP" would be recommended as reading material. You can find this through ´photo.net/photo/nature/mlu.html´, that is where the above graphic is taken from.

However, a good mirror lock up can not be replaced through a stabilizer in any case, as the test shows. With some focal lengths and shutter speeds you can get super sharp pictures with a stabilizer. If you go far enough into very long focal lengths and shutter speeds then even the stabilizer fails on its own, but if you use an mirror lock up, you can still get clear pictures. How sharp do you think the pictures would get if you were able to use both, stabilizer and mirror lock up, in combination?

According to my experiments, I find that an mirror lock up is eminently important for close ups of mushrooms, butterflies, and dragonflies, etc.; meaning, whenever you use speeds longer than 1/30 sec. Especially with vertical formatted shots and focal lengths of 200 or 300 mm. With 105 mm macro lenses the blurs through the shutter movement are not so dramatic. Reason for that being, that the camera is attached to the ball head with a clamp, and not the lens, so the camera is not located behind the lens, swinging in the air.

The essence of this is actually, that with all shots of landscapes, close ups and animals (at least those where speed is not of importance), an mirror lock up should be used. It really does not make sense to buy super expensive APO-, L, ED lenses for DM 3000,- up to DM 20.000,- ($1500 up to $10.000), just to be sure to have high quality lenses which give you fantastic sharpness, just to "willfully" give up the highest possible sharpness by letting a shutter movement (whether you realize it or not) ruin or nearly ruin the picture.

Lens mounted on tripod

The American magazine "POPULAR PHOTOGRAPHY" brought out an article in June 1999 where they had tested in detail the influence of a mirror that was up on the sharpness of a picture. This chart from the mentioned journal shows, that the shutter movement has a catastrophic influence even at relatively short focal lengths on the sharpness of the picture.

At 135 mm without mirror lock up release you have a resolution of 30 lines per mm, but using the advance mirror lock up you come up to 60 lines per mm, thus gaining a full 100% of sharpness.

With a 400 mm focal length you have a resolution of 11 lines per mm at 1/15 sec., without mirror lock up , but you have 30 lines per mm with it. Meaning you gain an unbelievable 172% of sharpness.

This data refers to horizontal formats, the results would have even more dramatic if tested with vertical formatted pictures.

Working with two converters

To take pictures with two converters at the same time is easy. You only need an adapter that fits. The Canon AF-adapter EF-12 for the two Canon AF- converters. If you attach the 2x converter to the lens, then the adapter, following that, place the 1,4 converter on the camera side and you will be able to set a "never ending" amount on the scale for sharpness with this combination. You end up with a 11.0/1.400 mm lens, if the basic lens is a 4.0/500mm.

Quintessence

I have minimized these 8 charts for myself on a half page and in the future will carry it with me in my photo back pack, in order to quickly see what I am getting under whatever prerequisites, when I need long focal lengths and shutter speeds and if I still get acceptable results at certain exposure times.

Although it would be nice if our great photo magazines with their special testing sites – that are able to work much more accurately and have a lot more financial assets and possibilities – could undertake such a test – which would be very helpful for practical work. If at all possible with the 4.0/300 mm, 2.8/300 mm, 2.8/400 mm, 4.0/500 mm and the 4.0/600mm lenses.

Above all, with the new telephoto zoom 80-40mm and the 100-400 mm, since these are very weak lighted and you get to the longer exposure times rather quickly. You see just how the different telephoto zooms react, depending on which focal length you use, in the chart from POPULAR PHOTOGRAPHY.

Another interesting factor would be to see just how differently these lenses react in combination with different tripods – with swivel head, with a tilt, with extended center column or without ..... and so on and so forth.

Comment to the subject per e-mail:

Hello Mr. Pölking,

congratulations to your very successful article "Sharp Pictures" in your internet book. This article is the first practice orientated listing of results, which has been made for a picture stabilizing system. The charts are much more useful than all the previous information I have read about IS. You are certainly correct by attesting a positive future for the IS. It is puzzling for me how Nikon was able to develop this technology before Canon and years before Canon ´s IS they buried it in a compact camera called VR 700. The technology in the new 80-400 (greater stabilizing navigation, more stabilizing speed, higher stabilizing maximum speed) will not be able to catch up with the head start that Canon has, because Nikon will not be able to extend their line of products in time and bring it up to Canon ´s level.

As a computer scientist I would rather bet on the better results with 1000 mm than with 700 mm since, the larger the unit, the better mathematically calculable the individual movement (since it is bigger) and the less the magnitude of the chaotic components (external influence).

Sincerely,

Jörn Bardeyyck (August 2., 2000)

* * * * *