Mike Deere

So, further to my last post in here about winning the Location Flash category something totally unexpected happened...

I really, really, really, did not expect this to happen...

Superb. Reading your recent blog post makes me realise how much I need to get out more. The whole point in cheap flashes is that they're pretty much disposable. It's highly unlikely you'll get replacement parts for it to fix it and even if you can it won't work out all that cost/time effective compared to buying a new one. I used to just buy £10 flash after £10 flash off fleabay back when I was shooting riding regularly. They just get destroyed and replaced. Easiest bet really. Sidenote: Won the Location Flash category of Professional Photographer of The Year 2013 with this photo: Awards evening on Thursday, where they announce which of the category winners is the overall winner.

Watch this film http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1276962/

Buzzing! Won the Location Flash category in the Professional Photographer of The Year Awards 2013 with this photo

Not sure of the differences between the mk1 and mk2, or if they're worth hundreds of pounds more... But I've heard and see some goddamn exceptional things from Tamron lately, much to my surprise. It's had me considering buying their 24-70 2.8 VC for a while now as the images it produces are a noticeable whack better than Nikon's infamous 24-70. Actually the only thing stopping me is my penchant for primes... And wanting to buy better primes instead of a zoom to accompany them. In fact on further research it seems the "Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD Nikon" (snappy name) comes out as the best overall image quality out of all zoom lenses on Nikon FX format according to DxO mark. Bonkers.

Merino baselayers are the shiznit. Make sure you get them with a snug fit. It's worth wearing lots of thin layers too rather than thick ones, that goes for legs too which people often forget. In the snow last year I was wearing merino long-johns, some stretchy Craghoppers trousers as a mid layer then a water/wind proof pair of outers. Stayed warm without getting sweaty, fairly non-restrictive too as far as winter clothing goes.

D610 just got announced, incremental upgrade (more to address issues than release features) but it does now have the same weather sealing as the D800. Think it's still a mix mag / polycarb chassis though. Or there's that new Nikon AW1...

The old Pike U-Turns. 140mm for FR/DH and then lock them down to 95mm for street. Perfect. Only available second hand now, but they go for pretty bargainous prices. I've never liked Manitou forks, they just don't feel right or have anywhere near the longevity / service life of other manufacturers in my experience.

D700 and D3 are identical in terms of image quality and ISO performance. Same sensors, same image processor. D3 obviously has longer battery life thanks to the hulking great batteries, but obviously there's the added bulk that goes with it. D600 doesn't have as tough a build as the D700, although the image quality is a huge step up that's not much cop if it can't stand up to as much abuse and it decides to cut it's life short right when you don't want it to.

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/

Fire Festival at Palais El Badi in Marrakesh Some tunnel in Italy Went to Poveglia... Still got about 2,000 personal photos to sort through at the moment. That's on top of the wedding edits I need to get through. Ouch.

Black has much better low light performance. Given some of the stuff you get up to, that alone means it's a no brainer Edit: Also I know everyone's saying that the higher resolution is useless. But the main point with the 2.7k (and 4k, although 15fps is useless) footage is that you can crop, re-frame or even software stabilise the footage (which normally results in a slight crop) and still be able to output it at full 1080p resolution without upscaling. In the case of using stabilisation software you can end up with uber slick footage without the ballache of using the GoPro with a steadicam or rig etc.

As well as being a photographer I now have another dream job, tomorrow I start work as a Chocolate Taster. Seriously!

Whaddaya mean annoying, that was the perfect end!

Won my category! http://mikedeere.com/winner-of-the-50mm-category-professional-photographer-of-the-year-awards-2012/

Up to S5 E4, I shoulda stopped at the end of Season 4 until 6 is out! Edit: Watched the rest of Season 5

Thanks folks There wasn't a great deal of post production involved... It mostly involved tidying up the colour balance and exposure. No more than about 10 mins in Lightroom involved. Due to the nature of the scene, consisting of extremely bright lights and vast swathes of darkness, there was a little clawing back of the highlights and pushing the shadows a bit to bring back some of the detail that wasn't visible without that extra latitude of the raw file. But it was kept under control so as not to flatten the image and ruin the contrast. Oh also again due to the bright lights (and wide aperture) there was a fair bit of chromatic abberation around the highlights on the back right of the photo, but Lightroom made removing it a painless task.

Won my category in the Professional Photographer of The Year 2012 awards http://mikedeere.com/winner-of-the-50mm-category-professional-photographer-of-the-year-awards-2012/

It's a bit of an obscure site, but about half way down the page there's a really good tool for finding locations with minimal light pollution: http://www.need-less.org.uk/ This is a pretty decent visual reference for constellations. http://www.astronomy.co.uk/skymap Even if you're shooting at f/3.4 you'd probably be better off keeping the exposure to 10-15 seconds and then just pushing it a little in post processing, the time can really make a difference to the clarity of the stars as it's actually quite surprising how quickly you pick up motion blur from the rotation of Earth. PS Elements is fine, from what I remember it can do most of the stuff you need such as curves so it should be ok.

The most important consideration with astrophotography is location. To expose the least bright stars in the night sky you'll want to be somewhere as dark as possible, away from light sources and away from light pollution that can overpower the stars. It's surprising just how present light pollution can be even when you're tens of miles from the nearest major civilisation, but there are dark sky maps available online that can help you find good places to shoot from. You definitely don't want to be anywhere near streetlights. Next up is timing. Now you've found a spot to shoot from, you'll need to check weather and lunar cycles to make sure you get a good clear night with no cloud and if possible no moon... Even if it's not the new moon phase of the cycle, you can still get out after dark but before moon-rise depending on time of year. With that all set, camera settings are the simplest part of the equation. Basically you want to be exposing the least bright stars so you'll need to be gathering a LOT of light... Plus you don't want the exposure too long otherwise those stars won't cumulatively expose on a single point of the sensor and so will just motion-blur into obscurity. For that reason I always use a high ISO, wide aperture and a shutter speed never longer than about 10-15 seconds. ISO6400, f/2.8 and 15secs seems to be a good starting point... You can work it from there. Don't worry about white balance, I normally use quite a cool one so I get a good idea of what I'm working with even when reviewing in camera, but if you're shooting RAW you have absolute control in post processing so shouldn't need to worry too much. Here's an example from a dark forest, relatively clear night but could have been better. ISO6400 f/2.8 15s You'll know you've found a good spot to shoot from when you can't see your hand in front of your face Hope that helps.

Got shortlisted for Professional Photographer of The Year. Then found out a few days ago it's an international competition. Starting to sink in...

There's almost certainly some colour grading there, which is normal as footage straight out of camera will generally be pretty flat to encompass as broad a range of tones as possible. Saying that, photos I've taken of the Milky Way have been as colourful... And the vivid orange glow from light pollution is normally pretty intense. And yep, using a GoPro at night would be useless. You'd need something with a large sensor to collect as much light as possible and full control over ISO/aperture/shutter. I normally find ISO6400 f/2 and 15secs is a good starting point for the milky way. The panning is done during shooting. The dynamic movement between layers in the scene is only achievable by physically moving the vantage point of the camera, doing it in post afterwards would result in just a flat black layer in the foreground sliding across the frame with no separation or depth perception.

After three years without one, I have a new website woop http://mikedeere.com

You can pick up second hand D7000 bodies for around £550. They're partly magnesium framed (top and back plate, so where it counts) and shoot 1080p from what I remember, much better colour and tone rendition and noise handling than the D300 from what I've experienced too. Thanks for the positive responses on the picturegraph too people!