Kirk switches to Canon. Oh...no...wait! That's just a point and shoot camera. No big switches on the horizon....

I had an interesting day. I discovered that Ben and I are absolutely great at shooting very sharp, clean and interesting video footage (file-age?). We're also pretty darn good at getting clean audio in our video stuff. But I'm coming to grips with the fact that I just absolutely hate to edit video. Especially unscripted video. Most emphatically hate unscripted video. So much so that I stood up from the desk and went to the Blanton Museum in a fit of pure procrastination. 

Here's how I wish every (commercial) interview would go: We'd set up cameras, lights and microphones and the talent would come into the scene. We would aknowledge, and they would agree, that we're aiming to get a specific message across in a set time. The talent would have memorized a script and practiced it. The script would be made up of perfect sound bites that all fit nicely together. Additionally, there would be a teleprompter synced up on each camera; just in case. 

An interviewer would cue the talent (after we're all set) and the talent would do two or three perfect takes of each phrase, sentence or bullet point, pausing five seconds between takes to make it easy on me to edit. Every interview would take place inside an anechoic chamber and we'd add canned room ambiance later. During every critical juncture of the interview process all the extraneous people (anyone who is not the on-camera talent, the sound engineer or the camera operators) would be called away to deal with an emergency phone call, or emergency potty break, or they would just go outside to smoke a cigarette, or stand on a street corner and give every passerby their two cents worth on anything at all. 

There would be wonderful craft service and the Champagne and caviar would flow. But most importantly the client would speak the magic words, "We have this great editor we'd love to use on this project. Can you just send them the footage? Can you send us the bill? Oh, what are we saying? I think this is enough..." as they pull wads of hundred dollar bills and gleefully shove it into our waiting hands. 

But no..... it just doesn't work that way. At least not often enough....

People in front of cameras seem to have a super powerful ability to stretch out whatever answer they need to give from one simple sentence to an endless soliloquy. They help us fill up even the biggest memory cards and then, once the cards are full, they finally deliver the perfect one liner. 

No matter when we film; even in the dead of night, there will be audio interference of the most profound and jarring nature. A fleet of chubby Harley riders revving up their hogs at the accounting firm's  building down the street, at 3 in the morning. A cute couple trying out their his and hers chainsaws just outside the door of our location. An impromptu live fire exercise on the next block. Each mortar round hitting just as the talent finally gets the name of the product correct.....

The electrical power in the (client) chosen location will be iffy. The air conditioning will be about as effective as a small, slow fan blowing over an ice cube in a sauna; but as loud as a 747 taking off. The beautiful background? It generally turns out to be scared and worn wood panelling left over from the 1970's along with the orange shag carpeting which makes the custom white balance so.... special. 

And the craft service? Whatever they have on sale at the local Seven/Eleven. Twinkies and Lite beer? Again? 

But I'll gladly put up with all of that if I don't have to do the edit. Three cameras means three times the crap to wade through. I knew I should have studied harder and become a psychiatrist. At least I could take a stab at solving my own masochism....

Just random thoughts in the middle of an editing session. I'll get Ben in here. He'll fix it. 

Sometimes this seems like my second studio. I've shot so many assignments at Zach Theatre. Currently packing up to photograph the Tech and Dress Rehearsals for "Ann."

Like any relationship that's gone on for a long time there are things that rub me the wrong way about the theater but on the whole there's a lot more stuff that makes me smile. It's pretty easy to do the math. Almost all in the plus column. And what can I do at this late stage? I already feel like part of the family.

This is not a commissioned shot. I was out for a walk and it's convenient to park nearby. On my way back to my car I was just in the right spot at what I think was the right time and I took this photo with a Fuji X-E3 and the marvelous, little 18-55mm f2.8 to f4.0 kit lens.

Love it when nature gets the clouds and the sky just right.

The play, "Ann", by Holland Taylor, starts sometime in the middle of next week and I can't wait to see the rehearsals. I've already photographed and videotaped the star, Libby Villari, and she's got the character nailed.

How do I know? I did some photography with Gov. Richards; even an ad project. Now I can vouch for it when people get the character right....

The real Ann Richards.
©Kirk Tuck

New Stuff to Learn! Multi-Camera editing in Final Cut Pro X. Lots and lots of fun!!!

Screen shot of the portion of the computer screen showing the three windows and the selected angle.

I know this will be old hat for some of you video professionals but I've been getting up to speed on multi-camera editing in Final Cut Pro X. Last Sunday Ben and I produced three different interviews of three people associated with the play, "Ann" that is being produced (again!) at Zach Theatre. For each person's interview we set up three cameras which gave us three different points of view and included a tight shot, a medium shot and a wider, establishing shot.

Instead of having a static camera of a "talking head" I'm able to seamlessly switch from one camera angle to another in perfect sound and frame sync while I edit. In the past, if I wanted to switch between two cameras I would have to pull one clip onto the timeline in the editor and then find the second clip and try to find the exact exit point of the first clip and the exact entrance point of the second clip to make a (more or less) seamless change. Now I can switch back and forth with ease by just clicking the numbers 1,2, or 3 on my keyboard. You can watch all three camera angles live in their respective windows and you can also decide which clip's audio track is the best one to use by auditioning each one.

A few important things: If you can't "jam" time code on all three cameras (not possible with mine) it's vital to have decent audio tracks on all the clips you want to sync together. The programs (FCP X and Premiere) both use the audio waveforms to match the video clips to each other. You'll want to make sure you label each of your cameras to make housekeeping easier, and you'll want to add a name for each angle you will be using. Finally, you have to have all three cameras set to exactly the same frame rate for all this automated syncing to occur.

Having all three of our angles for each person's interview sync'd makes the editing process so much easier and more fluid. How did we ever live without this?

Once I get my hands on some good "B-roll" we'll have three sixty second video segments ready to go in no time.

Makes me wish we had a really long form video program to work on; that would make the switching so much more fun.

Finally, one of my video editing friends warned me: "Don't switch without a reason and don't do it so often that it becomes a habit. If you do you'll be making the equivalent of a excess zoom lens zooming  that we all hated so much."  Good advice. Use everything sparingly......

A good source to learn about multi-cam editing in FCP X? Why it's all right there in the Apple Support section of their website. Reading is mandatory.

Mid July Cloud Portraits. Shooting with the Fuji X-E3 and the adorable kit lens (18-55).

I took some time off from polishing my shoes to walk around and take 

cloud portraits yesterday. Today, it's hours of video editing. 

tomorrow? something else entirely.

 

OT: Shoes. Well dressed and comfortable. Nothing at all to do with photography; tangentially related to business.

Yes. We were using medium format digital cameras way back in 2009.

And, yes. Shoes are part of a complete look. 

For a photographer I seem to have a bipolar personality when it comes to clothing and sartorial competency. When I walk around in downtown areas to take photographs in the Summer I dress for the heat. An old, worn pair of shorts, a thin, cool and UV blocking short sleeve shirt, a light toned baseball cap and a comfortable pair of sandals or rugged hiking shoes (Never hiking boots with shorts. Never!). 

On casual days around the house; when I'm working on a book or post processing some files I'll probably be in a comfortable pair of khakis or jeans, and a well laundered polo shirt, along with a pair of loafers or running shoes. 

But when it's time to meet with clients and professionals I like to dress well enough to play on their turf.  I am, by nature and nature, a fashion traditionalist. I have a section of my closet filled with suits and jackets and nice trousers. If I buy "off the rack" I do like to spend a bit more money to have each suit well tailored. I think a suit coat should be long enough to cover one's bottom and am aghast at the new fashion of much shorter cut suit coats. I like shirts with button down collars but I also like well made dress shirts without collar buttons (I'm getting more relaxed in my dotage...). I don't like "blouse-y" shirts that form a loose tent over one's torso. A shirt should be fitted but not so snug that one's belly pushes at the fabric or gaps the front placket either.  Also, a necktie should reach to the belt, maybe an inch below, but a long tie is surely the sign of a small mind or a total lack of couth. Or an embarrassing inability to tie a tie...

But shoes are the make it or break it accessory for a well dressed person. I prefer oxfords or derbys and I prefer them with as little decoration as possible. A cap toe is fine but brogues (wingtips) are dicey... I have six or seven pairs of really nice dress shoes and I rotate them instead of wearing the same pair over and over again. 

In my mind a lace up shoe always beats a loafer, and a plain loafer always trumps a pair of loafers with tassels on them (which never look right). And always leather, never any other material.

Just as with cameras there is a certain brand loyalty which is different, person by person. I'm partial to two shoe makers. My feet seem to be made for Cole Hahn shoes and their traditional oxfords are incredibly comfortable and very presentable. But my favorite shoes are the pairs I've gotten from shoemaker, Allen Edmonds. After a few days of breaking them in they are incredibly comfortable and seem to have been designed so nicely that they make any ensemble of clothing look great. As the shoes get older and more worn, and broken in, I buy a new pair and make the older, worn pair into a casual wear choice. A pair of deep burgundy or cordovan Allen Edmond's cap toe oxfords, even after being well  bit worn, can upgrade jeans or khakis, with sport shirts, almost to business casual. 

I don't know why, maybe it's because my father was a military officer and kept every pair of shoes he owned perfectly polished and in good repair, but I tend to subconsciously judge people in my professional sphere partly by how well they keep up their shoes. If I'm hiring an accountant or a lawyer or even a second photographer I'm never really happy to see scuffed toes or worn heels. We can all be "well heeled." It's not prohibitively pricey to take care of our stuff. 

If you are shooting on a remote location, or out in the elements then all bets are off when it comes to "proper" footwear and you should take advantage of the right stuff. Hiking boots for rough terrain, insulated boots for walking on glaciers, etc. If you'll be walking for miles with your gear you'll need the right shoes for that as well. 

But looking back I find that most of my work takes place in executive office suites, convention hotels, convention centers, law offices, medical practices and in many other interior locations, all of which are air conditioned and not very challenging (technically) for quality footwear. 

In these workplaces dressing well has distinct advantages. Dress down and people will slot you into a workplace hierarchy that works to your disadvantage. Presumptions about your expertise, your taste and your competency surface. Dress down too hard and you'll be relegated to the same level as the guy who comes in to fix the copy machine or to run cable for the telephones. Dressing well elevates one to "peer" or near peer status in many businesses and profession; offices where a certain level of privilege and deference is extended (in both directions). Dress well and people will take you more seriously, they'll be more inclined to accept your suggestions and to value your expertise. And they will be less reticent to pay you well. And quickly. 

Funny to think that spending a few hundred dollars more on a pair of shoes can have such a positive affect but you'll know when you get it right. That's when the fashionable partner in a practice says, "Nice shoes. Who made them?" And buying good shoes is a lot more cost effective than trying the same level of parity with automatic wristwatches or sports cars. I can afford the shoes but a Panerai watch or a Ferrari is too big a stretch. At least the cars are mostly parked out of sight... A well tailored suit sleeve usually obscures a fine dress watch, but your shoes are always out there in the open for everyone to see. 

Every photographer should have one nicely cut, navy sport coat. At least one dark gray suit. A few nicely fitted shirts. Several good, leather belts and the right shoes for each ensemble. In the long run good sartorial "hygiene" will almost surely return more profit to your business than the newest camera or the most highly populated sensor. And if you buy them intelligently (and take care of them) the shoes will last a lot longer as well. 

Oh. Also. Buy some socks. No one wants to see you actually wear your tasseled loafers without socks. It just wreaks of drunken frat boy.

B.T.S. shots of our video set up this afternoon. Six lights, three cameras, three soft boxes, two different microphones and three tripods. So, how did it all work out?

Production photos courtesy: Nicole Shiro.

Production commissioned by Zach Theatre.

For the play, "Ann." (About Gov. Ann Richards). 

top left of frame is an Aputure LightStorm LS-1 pointed up toward the reflective insulation on the ceiling; same on the top right hand of the frame. Bottom left: from left to right: Actress, Holland Taylor, watches our interview with Ben and waits for her interview. Just to the right of her is a Manfrotto case that's positioned to work as a flag to keep spill light from an Aputure Lightstorm LS-1/2 light (used to the light the background) from hitting the interviewee. To the right of that is a light stand with a Godox SL60W in a Godox collapsible soft box aimed as the fill light for Broadway director, Benjamin Endsley Klein's interview. Just to the right of that is a C-Stand with a Gitzo microphone boom arm holding a Rode NTG-4+ about 24 inches above and in front of Ben (being interviewed). The camera directly in front of Ben is an X-H1 being used as a wide, establishing point of view cameras. It's got a 16-55mm f2.8 on the front and it's accepting a feed from the Rode microphone, through a Beachtek audio interface/pre-amp. You can see the Rode mic over Ben's head. To the right of that is me at the "A" camera shooting mid-chest and up with the 56mm f1.2 APD lens on a second X-H1. I'm using a dual channel Saramonic UHF microphone receiver in the hot shoe of the camera and I have a Saramonic lavaliere mic on the front plaquet of Ben's shirt. I am monitoring the audio, in a very general way, with a set of Apple ear buds (not the absolute best way but there it is....). The person to the right of me is Joshua, the director, and he's interviewing Ben. Just above Joshua, and over to his right, are two more Godox SL60W lights in soft boxes. To the right of them is a second Aputure LightStorm LED panel, also bouncing off the reflective (silvered) ceiling. Just in front of that light stand is my second camera operator, Ben Tuck, and a third Fuji X-H1 complete with a 90mm f2.0 lens and sporting a smaller Saramonic shotgun microphone to grab scratch audio (which is a must for syncing all three cameras together in order to do multi-cam editing in Final Cut Pro X).

Note the four sound blankets on the floor around our interviewee. I used these to control room noise. And the thick, black drape which ran nearly 100 feet along the back wall helped as well. 

Not shown but waiting in the wings for her interview was actor, Libby Villari.

We ended up not using the Atomos monitor because everyone was comfortable judging composition on the rear screens of the three cameras.

Were our interviews with one famous director and two nationally well known actors a success? Let me tell you that after we get all the editing done. The files look and sound great but who really knows how it will all cut together until we get into the process? 

Libby Villari, who will play, "Ann" in the Zach Production. 

On the right: Joshua is our video program director. 

Holland Taylor. Discussing her hit play, "Ann." 

We switched Ben, on the "B" camera to the opposite side for Taylor Holland's interview. 

Advice: on a multi-camera set up it's crucial to make sure your cameras match up. Same color settings, same exposure settings and ISO (so the noise matches) and, most importantly, all cameras should be set to exactly the same frame rate....

sound from both the lav and the shotgun were good even though we were unable to turn off the (noisy) air conditioning unit. 

Camera settings: All cameras set at 29.97 fps. Shutter speed = 1/60th. All apertures set to f2.8. White balance = 5300K. Profile = Eterna. Sharpening = minus 2. Audio optimized for -12 db to -6 db. 

Cameras: 3 x Fuji X-H1s with battery grips. Lenses: All Fuji: 16-55mmm f2.8, 56mm f1.2 APD, and 90mm f2.0. Manually focused with focus peaking and attendant punch-in. 

Every once in a while people still send me stuff to test. Right now it's the Viltrox 85mm f1.8 AF lens for the Fuji X system. It's really nice.

cloud tonality.

Disclosure: I got an e-mail a week ago asking if I wanted to test out a lens. It was from someone at Viltrox which is a Chinese manufacturer of lenses and adapters. I think their most popular product for Fuji to date is an adapter that allows one to use Canon EOS lenses on the Fuji cameras. Not sure though, I've never needed one of those... At any rate, the person writing to me wanted to know if I'd like to test their new 85mm lens. It's an autofocus model and they make two variants: one for Sony E mount and the other for Fuji X mount. 

Before I replied I went to the web to do a bit of research. There were a number of YouTube videos about the lens and most implied that it was, "Almost but not quite as good as the Fuji 90mm f2.0." Since I own a copy of the 90mm and am occasionally mesmerized by the sharpness and beauty of its rendering I was intrigued. I wrote back and said I would be interested. They asked for my address and phone number, told me it would be shipped out soon and that I "should keep it around in case it should come in handy at my lectures and public appearances." I interpret that to mean that I am welcome to keep the lens on loan for eternity. Hence my need to make a top-of-the-blog disclosure statement alerting you to the possibility that I am subconsciously less than objective because I have been... "bought." I'd like to assure you that I will always try to be honest and objective but the human mind is a special place and logic rarely applies absolutely in those gray and marbled recesses. You have been warned to proceed with appropriate caution.... test everything for yourself!!!

The one thing I can tell you with emphatic sureness is that it is a very well made lens, if the exterior finish and heft are any indication. It's solid, seems to be all metal and is actually very attractive (once you paint over the much too big logo with a Sharpie (permanent marker)). In fact, it reminds me almost exactly of the Sony/Zeiss 24-70mm f4.0 that I owned a few years back.....only the Viltrox lens has a bit more heft to it. 

The lens hood is pretty much the standard, plastic, round hood which bayonets onto the lens but it does fit securely and without any loose wobbling. The lens came well packed and also included a nice little gray, fabric sack or pouch. While my interest was piqued I didn't have time to really go out and shoot with it until today. Oh sure, I've shot photos around the house, shot some fabric wide open, documented an Indian Pale Ale in a frosty glass on the living room table as the last rays of the sun shone through the light amber liquid; the standard sort of non-test test shots. Today was f4.0 day. I set the camera to ISO 200, the shutter speed on auto and the lens at f4.0 and let me feet and eyes do the walking. 

Before I go any further I have to mention one thing that might give some Fuji users some pause (the Sony horde won't care because their cameras are bereft of aperture rings by design). The lens has no external aperture ring, unlike Fuji's most fun lenses. You'll have to use the front or rear dial (you can choose in the menu) to change the aperture. Seems like a small thing but muscle memory can be a bitch.

The lens is heavy. It was made to cover full frame, 135 style image circles and so the elements are bigger than they would need to be if the lens had been designed for APS-C only. I found the lens a bit ungainly on the X-Pro2 and uncomfortable to use, handheld, on the X-E3. It does feel right at home on one of the X-H1 cameras that seem to be absolutely infesting the studio these days. I think the battery grips are a nice balance to the mass of the lens. 

While the Vitrox 85mm autofocuses the lens does not feature image stabilization so if you are convinced that I.S. is of tantamount importance in all endeavors you'll probable want to stick to the X-H1 for all your work or, if you are not a fan of the bigger cameras, just take a pass on this altogether. 

If, on the other hand, you are comfortable with a 1.5 pound lens and the accompanying camera body then you'll probably want to know how I found the image quality. So, let's proceed:

Used at f1.8 or 2.0 it's in the sharpness ballpark with other f1.8 lenses I've owned, like the current Nikon 85mm f1.8. When you stop down to 2.8 and then 4.0 and 5.6 it's competitive with just about any of the current 85mms on the market. Not better, but not worse either. I shot both in bright light outside and also at lower light levels in the house and found the AF to be as fast as any of the newer Fuji lenses such as the 90mm f2.0. I didn't make any scientific tests but I had the feeling that the 90mm locked on a bit better in lower light but the difference wasn't big enough to worry about. With Fuji it seems the newer the camera the faster the lenses focus; with the exception of the 60mm f2.4 macro which I think is always destined to be a slow poke when it comes to getting around to focusing... Pair the Viltrox with the X-T3 and the focusing is snappy even down to moderately low light levels. 

Once you hit f5.6 it's kind of silly to keep comparing between lenses. Even inexpensive Rokinon/Samyang MF 85mm f1.4 lenses are nicely sharp at middle apertures. As far as other issues with the lens I did notice a bit more flare in a direct comparison with the 90mm f2.0 but in fairness it's a situation which only occurs if there is a bright light source in the frame. 

One thing that Viltrox has done that I feel like giving them points on is to include a USB port inside the back of the lens which allows one to directly update the firmware in the lens. I haven't done it but people at various review sites who got early copies of the lens back in March of this year all say that it's a quick and easy process and that they noted positive improvements to the performance of the lens after the upgrade. Improvements in focusing accuracy (which has not be problematic for me....) and also speed of acquisition. That's a nice touch. Of course you can always update the Fuji lenses but the process is a bit more complex and requires a ready camera body with its own firmware at the current version. 

If you are a Fuji user on a budget and you (like me) want to work at longer focal lengths for portraiture with an APS-C camera you'll likely compare the Viltrox with the Fuji 90mm f2.0. I know I would. The 90mm is a fantastic lens and very, very sharp at all apertures. Several test sites routinely state that the 90mm is the sharpest Fuji lens they've ever tested and I think I can agree with them based on my own experiences. But the 90mm is something like twice the price of the Viltrox. If I were doing this on a budget I think I'd be happy enough with the Viltrox and would not miss any small sharpness advantage of the Fuji lens. I chose to buy the 90mm because that was the lens in this range that was available to me when I started shopping. I'd still probably go with the Fuji even if offered the choice of the Viltrox at half the price because there are times when (psychologically) I just want to be sure I've got the very best solution possible. Take my insecurity out of the mix and I'm sure I'd be just as happy with the lower priced lens. 

It's a pretty awesome package for the price. In fact, I like everything about this lens except for the oversized logos emblazoned on the side. But that's an easy enough thing to fix......... 

My advice? If you think you might want one then buy a copy from one of the big stores that has a liberal return policy. Test the crap out of the lens. If you like it then keep it. If you aren't pleased then just send it back and get a refund. Either way you come out ahead. Weird, yeah?

Close focus limit. 

What a nice frame for a cloud.

Industrial enthusiasm. 

Precursor to invasion of the giant cranes.