I’ve used a number of different ways to back up my RAW files over the last decade – first CDs & DVDs, then external hard drives – at first a single internal hard drive, then multiple external hard drives – separate units, then NAS, then RAID, and then cloud storage. They’ve all failed me, all of them. I’d back things up manually, as the automated back-ups were never reliable. I’d lose one drive, make sure I had everything, then get another external drive to replace the failed drives (looking mostly at you, Seagate). The NAS drives had software that was so wonky, it wasn't worth it. The last plan was to use mirrored RAID drives. I loved that system – until it failed. The Master Boot Record failed, and no matter what I did, I couldn't recover it. I lost about 10 years of RAW images – not all of them, but most of them. I thought I could just use my cloud storage to restore lost images. Nope – the file folders were there, but no RAW files had been uploaded, apparently. I’d checked when I first uploaded (a long, painful process to be sure), but now? Nothing, nada, zip, zero – nothing. I debated about trying to do professional recovery, but I finally decided against it. Let them go. That was my old work. Let it go. I’m sure that many photographers are having conniption fits reading this. That’s OK; I don’t have to do what everyone else is doing. I’m doing new work, exploring new directions, trying different genres. I don’t have to hang on to the past. I can mourn their loss, and move on. I’m not a full time professional – if I’d done lots of commercial and client shoots, I’d likely be approaching this in a much different manner. But I’m not, so I have some flexibility. I’m considering this dancing lessons from God – explore the new, investigate other options, don’t be too tied to the past. Maybe the old images represent a chrysalis, with the new, evolving me having emerged without the need for my old work. I’m embracing the new way, letting go of the old way. I’m excited to see where this takes me.
For those that don't know, I run a Facebook group devoted to wildlife photography. It has about 11,000 members. It started out as primarily local photographers, and it's expanded far beyond my initial intent.
In the last part of 2017, I made a decision that I thought was ethical and designed to protect the animals that I loved. I made a rule that folks could no longer post locations of where they made the image. I did what I thought was right, and my life was made miserable for a while afterwards. I wasn't expecting everyone to be thrilled with the rule, but I have to say, I was shocked by the degree of hostility that was aimed at me after initiating the rule. I never would have guessed that a simple rule would create the conflict that it did. I wound up booting people from the group that refused to follow the new rule, I had people that, despite being "friends" with them on Facebook and interacting on a regular basis, were now bitterly complaining about me, writing nasty, insulting things on my timeline, and sending messages filled with hate and obscenities to me privately.
The group lost around 300 people. And I'm perfectly fine with that.
On the one hand, this has not been a picnic for me. On the other hand, ultimately, I'm glad to be rid of these people. If trying to do something ethical is enough to provoke hostile behavior, I'm better off without them. I am left with a feeling of disillusionment, though. I'm doing less wildlife photography now. I'm disappointed that folks mob single animals with more regard for getting an image than the welfare of the animal. I don't want to be a part of that. I think I need a break from it.
I'm not going to photograph the solar eclipse. I'm not.
There are a couple of different reasons for this, the first being that I'm making deliberate efforts to not do what everyone else is doing, to not photograph what everyone else is photographing. I want to zag while everyone else is zigging. A lot of this has to do with being a wildlife photographer - if a lot of people are trying to photograph an owl nest, for instance, it stresses the owls. I'm motivated to do as little as possible to stress my wildlife subjects.
Second, I don't like being part of a crowd. Making the same images everyone else is making isn't appealing. The exception I allowed myself was photographing a badger den, and that was only because folks were supposed to shoot from their cars in order to minimize their impact on the den. And apparently it went fairly well until someone got out of their car and approached the den. It looks like the traffic has already started for the eclipse. Please be careful on the road.
Third, I don't want a lot of images that look like everyone else's images. The internet is going to be flooded with eclipse images - some are going to be really exceptional, but most are going to be mediocre. And that's OK; without a lot of opportunities to practice taking solar eclipse images, very few folks are going to be experts.
I'm not saying any of this to discourage anyone from photographing the eclipse, or doing what everyone else is doing - follow your Muse, do what feeds your soul, find what makes you happy.
Wow, it's been a while since my last blog post. Busy, busy . . .
Might as well continue the theme from my last post: moving to mirrorless. You can check my old posts to bring you up to speed. Here's where things stand now.
As of my last post, I was primarily a wildlife photographer - that means (usually) long lenses and tripods, among other gear. Since that time, I've branched into people photography, too. Same cameras, different lenses and other gear (usually).
One of the things I loved about mirrorless was smaller cameras and fewer, lighter gear bags. That's no longer particularly relevant. For wildlife, I'm using Canon EF-mount lenses with adapters. Big, heavy lenses. I can (and do) put a Sony a6300 on a Canon 600mm f/4 with a Metabones adapter, but the small size of the camera is pretty irrelevant at that point.
But I'm also using native E mount lenses when I'm photographing people in and out of the studio. Usually, either a 55mm f/1.8 Sony Zeiss or an 85mm f/1.8 Zeiss Batis, sometimes with natural light, but more frequently with Speedlights or studio strobes. That means flash and a modifier or a flash trigger is mounted to the camera, again, negating a lot of the small size advantage, right?
So why keep using mirrorless if there's no size advantage? In no particular order:
The Good
The Meh
The Not So Good
If you have questions about mirrorless, particularly Sony mirrorless, let me know. I'm happy to answer questions.