Category Archives Photo Gear

Hi gang â” I just posted a few of my favorite shots from my trip this past week to Paris with the family. After my seminar in London, we took the high-speed Chunnel train from there down to Paris (only about a two-hour and 15 minute trip, and the train was awesome!).

Anyway,  the images, and the story, and some tips for travel photography are here:

Here's the link

If you get a sec, I hope you can check them out. Have a great Tuesday, and we'll catch ya tomorrow for Guest Blog Wednesday.

Le best,

-Scott

P.S. Hi dave. Boom!

Ever since I first heard this lens was coming (and that seems like forever ago), I have just dying to get my hands on it. For past year or so I had been relying on my 16-35mm, but then I got a Canon 14mm prime lens and fell in love with it, but the thought of having a zoom that goes all the way out to 11mm, yet not being a fisheye, made it (at least on paper) my dream lens (photo above courtesy of B&H Photo) 

We took a family vacation just a couple of weeks ago and I got Canon to loan me one for the trip so I could do a field test, and see if it was all it was cracked up to be. Right before I left on the trip, Brad wanted to borrow it for his concert shoot at Red Rocks with Third Day, so he took it out too, and then Fed Ex’d it to me (Brad’s comments are here, too â” along with some sample images from him down toward the bottom).

I can tell you thisâ¦
It is, hands down, my favorite wide angle zoom ever! Don’t get me wrong, the 14mm is a really sweet lens. Really sweet. But it’s not 11mm. And it doesn’t zoom out to 24mm. And the 11-24mm does 14mm. And 16mm. And everything in between. It’s the dream.

What I loved:
It is sharp as a tack, edge to edge; it focuses fast, and the distortion is absolutely minimal, which on an 11mm is pretty crazy. It’s just an unbelievable lens. I’m crushed I have to send the loaner back, but my next call is to B&H to get on the waiting list.

What you need to know:
It’s a pretty large sized lens; it’s pretty heavy, and it’s fairly expensive (but at least it’s totally worth it on all three counts).

Above: The view from above the clouds at the top of Mount Haleakla, Maui, Hawaii. That’s not a pano. That’s a single frame at 11mm. 

So, do we really need to go to 11mm?. Yes! Isn’t that “too wide?” Not at all (see that image above). But to help visually display the difference, and why going crazy wide is so awesome, I took three shots from the exact same shooting position, only changing the Zoom amount so you can see what 24mm looks like, then 16mm, and finally 11mm. It’s quite a difference in how much fits in the same sense (I’m sitting in an outrigger on the beach at Mama’s Fishhouse on Father’s Day).

Above: Here’s the scene at 24mm (zoomed all the way out).

Above: Here’s the same scene at 16mm. You see a lot more palms, and more boat as well.

Above: Now here’s 11mm. Mmmmmmmmm, that’s wide, baby. Super wide! Delicious wide. Look at all the extra palms, extra boat, extra beach, etc.. It’s a whole different world.

Above: Here’s a side by side between the 24mm and 11mm shot from the exact same spot and position (click for a much larger view). All of a sudden, 24mm looks more like 50mm.

OK, I’m turning it over to Brad now (but I’ll be back at the end)
Take it away, Braddo! 

Canon has had a good variety of wide angle lenses for a while, but as a HUGE fan of super wide angle zoom lenses, I've had an itch that was almost scratched but not quite. Now with the 11-24mm f/4, that itch has been scratched very well.

As a concert photographer who is usually limited to the photo pit without a lot of room to move back and forth, zoom lenses are a life saver. That's why I was thrilled when Canon announced this new ultra wide angle lens, and even more thrilled to try it out during a couple of recent shoots.

Is there distortion on the edges? Well, sure, a little, but it's incredibly minimal! Check out the completely un-cropped images above, with no lens corrections, shot at 12mm. The guys on the edges would normally be stretched quite a bit more, especially in the first one, but this rectilinear lens handles them really well.

I also love just how close this lens allows me to get to performers who come out to the edge of the stage or come out for some crowd interaction. The musician above looks like he's still a decent distance from where I'm shooting from, right? Here's an iPhone shot from the crowd where you can see me in the lower right hand cornerâ¦


Photo by Alex Roberts

I'm probably a bit closer than you were expecting, right? My only complaint about the ultra-wideness of this lens is that it makes it difficult to keep the other photographers out of my shots!

This thing is a bit of a beast though, coming in at 2.6 pounds (for comparison, another one of Canon's wide-angle zoom lenses is 1.35 pounds), so it can add a little weight to your pack and shoulders. But for the results, it's totally worth it to me.

I didn't see any noticeable chromatic aberration in the images, and I have no complaints on edge to edge sharpness even its widest points.

This thing handles lens flare like a champ. Normally in a shot like the one above, with the sun beaming directly into the lens, you'd be lucky to see much of anything. But here you just get a little bit of flare near the headstock of the guitar.

As with any lens with a rounded front element, you'll want to make sure you keep a lens cloth handy for the occasional accidental finger smudge. The built-in lens hood does help prevent that, plus it's never going to fall off and get lost during a shoot.

So, is this lens worth it for music photographers? If you're a fan of the ultra-wide look, then absolutely!

OK, Scott back again 
Many thanks to Brad for sharing this thoughts and pics (and thanks for getting me the lens before I had to head back home). ;-)

Let’s wrap up with some specs (from B&H’s site)

Dimensions: Approx. 4.3 x 5.2″ (109.22 x 132.08 mm)
Weight: 2.6 lb (1.18 kg)
Price  (B&H Photo): $2,999

Here’s a link with all the details and stuff.

I super-mega dig this lens, and you’ll be seeing a lot of it this coming football season from me (yes, I know it’s perfect for landscape and architectural photography, but apparently it works awesome for concerts and travel, too and I imagine it will be insane for remote football shots and celebrations after the game, and I can’t wait to share that stuff with you in just about 8 or 9 weeks).

That’s it for our field report. Hope you all have a great Tuesday! :)

Best,

-Scott (and Brad!) 

Earlier this week I was in Las Vegas at the WPPI show (the big Wedding and Portrait Show), and I was honored to be asked to give a talk in Canon’s booth on any topic I’d like (that’s me during one of my talks on Monday â” photo by Brad Moore).

While the name of my talk was “Photo Recipes” a big part of the talk was about lenses, but not the standard lens demo stuff (use this lens for weddings and this lens for sports, and the like), but thinking about lenses in the bigger picture (no pun intended there, but I wish it had been): from the fact that the moment you pick up a lens and put it on your camera, you’ve already made your first composition decision, to why so many people aren’t happy with their lens (and it’s not about sharpness or clarity, weight or price).

Here’s the condensed version
It was a 45-minute presentation so I can’t fit it all in here, but one topic I did touch on (with lots of examples) was why so many folks tell me they think their photos either look like snapshots or are just “nothing special” and I think part of that can be attributed to their lens selection. In particular, I feel (just my opinion here, but I’m not the first one to say this), that there’s a lens range that I consider kind of a “no-man’s land” for lenses because it’s where most of the worst photos are taken â” when you’re first starting out. That range, when you’re a beginner, is where your worst shots are made (stay with me here), and then you get better and leave those behind.

One of my favorite quotes ever
It comes from Bresson and it’s so right on the money:

He’s right, ya know. Now, let’s think about which lenses most photographers these days start out with. Usually, a kit lens, probably an 18-55mm. You can opt for other kit choices, like a 24-105mm or another popular one is the 18-135mm. But most beginner’s photos are going to be taken within that no-man’s land range of anywhere from 18-135mm with lots of shots at 50mm, 70mm and maybe the 100mm range. The reason I don’t really like a 24-70mm on my full-frame camera is that it’s fairly equivalent to an 18-55mm on a crop sensor camera. That range makes an awful lot of average pictures for people just starting out. It’s the beginner’s range of choice.

So, am I saying you can’t take a good picture with an 18-55mm or an 18-135mm?
Absolutely not. I am not saying that at all â” a lot of folks take amazing pictures with an 18-55mm. But a whole lot more, don’t.

So what are you saying?
Most folks that are new to photography are playing the middle ground when it comes to focal lengths. Using the average, standard default focal lengths they have with kit lenses. They live and die in that beginner’s range because they haven’t bought their first “2nd lens” yet, and here’s why this matters:

(1) They can shoot a wide angle shot, but not super wide. Just “average wide.” Like everybody else.
(2) They can shoot a telephoto shot, but not nearly tight enough to really bring you in close to see detail, like the pros do.

I think that’s one big reason they’re unhappy with their shots â” and why I feel they often describe their own shots to me as “average.” They’re comparing their images to the ones they see the top pros make, and their shots just don’t look like that. They’re not that wide. They’re not that close. They’re not that “something” and they probably don’t realize what it is, which makes it all even more frustrating. That average kit focal length definitely makes it harder (not impossible, but certainly harder) to create really compelling images because it’s harder to “stand out from the crowd.” At those focal lengths, you’re producing the same types of shots everybody else with a kit lens does. That’s before we even get to the sharpness issues, which is a post unto itself.

So, what is super wide and why does it matter?
My go-to lens for the past year has been Canon’s 16-35mm lens, and quite honestly, I could just tape the barrel down at 16mm â” I rarely ever shoot it at anything but 16mm, because when I go wide, I don’t want to go “a little wide” â” I want the image to have a chance of looking epic. Of looking big, and sweeping and just flat-out different the instant you see it. I certainly don’t always hit that goal. In fact, I rarely hit that goal, but at least I know it won’t be because of my lens choice â” it will be on me; what I’m shooting and how I composed it. Those alone â” I’m not limited by my lens.

But I want to go wider!
Wider is better, and I just started shooting Canon’s 14mm lens after Brad tried one out shooting a concert and was raving about it’s sharpness, but beyond that it’s just the “look” you get when you get that wide. It brings something different to the table â” something that instantly captures attention. That’s the kind of lens I want to be using (I don’t care that it’s a prime â” I’ll zoom with my feet).

Soon, I’ll be able to go even wider
My dream lens was just announced by Canon, and as soon as it ships, I’m picking one up (that’s a heads up to B&H â” please keep one for me, and can I get free overnight shipping?). It’s an 11-24mm zoom. I haven’t seen one yet. I haven’t shot it, but I know it’s going to bring me the opportunity to take even wider shots, and show a view most folks aren’t already used to seeing day-in, day out. It’s still on me; choosing the subject and composition, to make the shot, but I know at least with a lens that wide I’ll be starting on 2nd base.

For just two shots from each shoot, I want to go even wider. I want to go “fish”
Last year I started using the Canon 8-15mm fisheye zoom, and I absolutely love it (but I don’t use it at anything other than 15mm fish, so I get the full fish effect but without blacking out any of the edges or turning it into a full circle at 8mm). That lens creates really captivating images, but I’ve found that when you show someone a fisheye shot from a shoot, I don’t care if it’s a wedding or a bowl game, they’re like “Wow! That is really cool!” When you show them a second fisheye shot, they’re like “That’s cool” and if you show them a third it’s like “Uh huh.” It’s a special effect lens, and while it has real wow factor for one or two shots, (it tends to get old real fast, like highly processed HDR), so I know going in to the shoot that I’m only going to show one or two shots from it, but those one to two I show will have a huge impact, and knowing I’m going to get two shots that nobody else has, and that they’re going to have a big impact, well, that’s money in the bank where I come from.

Go long or go home
Dave Black said that to me once about shooting the same semi-long lens at a football game everybody else is shooting, but I think his advice extends way beyond just football. I think this is the other side of the coin that beginners are struggling with â” going beyond that 135mm telephoto focal range, and bring something special to the party. 200mm is a great focal length, and there’s so much you can do with it. My Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 is my workhorse lens. I use it for every sport I shoot, I use it for most every portrait, I use it at weddings, I’ve used it for travel, if I was stuck on a desert island and could only choose one lens, it’d be this (or a 28-300mm for full frame, I’m kinda torn). 200mm is a great focal length for sure. Ya know what’s even better? 300mm. Better yet? 400mm. These are ranges beginners rarely capture, and by shooting at 400mm you’re bringing something different, something special, something with impact to the party â” something that separates you from the crowd.

This past year I shot an Eagles/Titans NFL game using nothing but one lens, Canon’s updated 100-400mm f/4.5 to f/5.6 IS II lens. It cost less than my 70-200mm, but I was in tight at 400mm, and churning out shots for the first time at a pro or college game without using a Monopod. It was a revelation, but without that monopod I was (ahem) unprotected in front and took direct contact down south with the business end of a bullet pass and wellâ¦I saw stars for a few minutes there, but it was still an amazing experience, and one that was financially out-of-reach for a lot of folks, but now is in a lot of shooters’ ballpark (no pun, but come on, that would have been a good one), and that puts them in a better chance to make some magic than they would have in kit land. Again, not that it can’t be done â” there are some amazing kit lens shooters out there â” you just have to be really, really good.

Don’t take all this the wrong way
I know when I write an article like this that it’s natural for people who have, and love, and have maybe gotten great results in what I called a “no-man’s land” focal range lens to get defensive when they read this, and write defensive comments. Please don’t take it that way. I had all those same kit lenses, too. One of my favorite shots I’ve ever taken was taken with the kit lens on my first DSLR, the original Canon Rebel, so I know good shots can be taken with inexpensive lenses. This isn’t about the price. It’s about what lens choice means to your composition, your images, and your impact.

What I hope to do with this article, and what I hoped to achieve with my talks for Canon earlier this week out in Vegas, was for photographers, especially new shooters who are frustrated with what they’re getting, to realize that part of their problem might be partially focal length based, and I want folks to know how important lens selection is to the type of image you’re about to make. I think it’s the starting point of every shot â” the first composition decision â” and why we need to really give some thought to which lenses we use and why we use them, because I truly believe it makes that big a difference. When that realization hits you, you can’t look back. This is important stuff, and I hope this helped, at the very least, to get you thinking seriously about your lens choice next time you’re out shooting, or when you’re deciding on which lens to get next.

I’m off to Sacramento!
I’m there on Monday for the final stop of the most fun seminar to teach I’ve ever taught.  Hope you all have a wonderful weekend, and I hope to see you back here on Monday.

All my best,

-Scott
Going really wide and really long (stop snickering)

Hi Gang: Lot’s of new stuff today:

Above: Here’s the Canon EOS 5DS model.

Above: Here’s the 5Ds R model.

 

Canon Announces a Full Frame 50.6-megapixel high-resolution DSLR

There are actually two versions : the Canon EOS 5DS and the 5DS R [“with the sensor’s low-pass filter rendered neutral. By cancelling the effect of the filter, the 50.6MP sensor is enabled to deliver an even higher resolution with more intricate details.”]. These are the highest resolution DSLRs out there (well, they’re not quite out-there yet â”  B&H’s page on the cameras says “expected availability” is around June).

The prices are pretty amazingly low for that high a resolution camera: The 5DS is $3,699 and the 5Ds R is $3,899.

Here’s a list of the specs (from Canon):

> Newly designed 50.6 Megapixel full-frame CMOS helps deliver ultra-high resolution images for large-scale printing and extensive, creative cropping, while Dual DIGIC 6 Image Processors enable spectacular image quality and processing speed.

> EOS Scene Detection System features a 150,000-pixel RGB+IR Metering Sensor for excellent precision.

> 61-Point High Density Reticular AF including up to 41 cross-type AF points and EOS iTR allows for high precision autofocus.

> Advanced mirror control mechanism and new user-selectable shutter release time lag helps suppress camera vibration for reducing image shake.

> Anti-flicker helps compensate for flickering light sources and provides consistent exposure and color during continuous shooting.

> Built-in intervalometer and bulb timer helps deliver expanded creativity.

> 1.3x and 1.6x crop shooting adds superb flexibility, while still delivering high resolution images required for demanding applications.

> Intelligent Viewfinder II with approximately 100% viewfinder coverage.

> Full HD 30p movie capability and Time Lapse Movie function, which takes still photographs at set intervals and combines them into a Full HD movie file.

> High-speed continuous shooting up to 5.0 fps allows you to capture fast action.

> 3.2-inch ClearView II LCD monitor, 170° viewing angle, 1,040,000-dot VGA, reflection resistance with multi coating and high-transparency materials for bright and clear viewing.

> Customizable Quick Control Screen allows you to quickly change frequently used camera settings and functions.

> Support for USB 3.0.

I haven’t had a chance to take this baby out for a spin yet, so at this point I can’t tell you much more than the specs you see above. With those crazy-high megapixel specs normally usually only seen on Medium Format cameras, it looks like the camera will be aimed at the serious landscape photographer, commercial photographers, and portrait photographers that need to make really, really large prints. So basically, the medium format crowd, but at prices that are around $25,000 less (I know resolution alone doesn’t make a medium format camera, a medium format camera, but it’s a good place to start).

You can read the official press releases here.

Canon Announces new 11-24mm zoom lens for Full Frame bodies
OK, this one I am totally drooling over. I already contacted Canon begging to do a field test on it, and if this puppy is as sharp or sharper than my Canon 16-35mm, this will be the next lens I’m buying. I’ve been dying to go wider than 16 with a zoom without going all the way to a fisheye (I already have the 8-15mm fish), so this lens is so right up my alley. Can’t wait (here’s the link to Canon’s press-release).

In Other Friday News: My New Lightroom Tethering and Lightroom Mobile Online Class is Now Available
This new class just went live, and I take you through how to set-up to shoot tethered directly into Lightroom (including how to troubleshoot when things get wonky), and I take you through how to incorporate Lightroom Mobile into your portrait photography workflow. If you’re a KelbyOne subscriber, you can check it out right here.

If you’re not a KelbyOne subscriber, it’s time to get on board (you’ll super-dig it). Here’s the link with details on how to become a member and get access to all our huge library of online training classes on Photoshop, Lightroom and Photography.

OK, it’s after midnight, I’m hitting the sack.

Hope you guys have an awesome weekend!

Best,

-Scott

 

A few weeks back I got a chance to try out a pre-production model of Canon’s new 100-400mm f/4.5 – f/5.6 USM II lens shooting on the sidelines for an NFL game (Eagles vs. Titans) up at Lincoln Financial Field in Philly, and I thought I’d deliver a field report here in a quick Q&A format. It’s not a technical look or in-depth review, just my initial thoughts after shooting it for a game. Here ya go:

Q. How is the physical size of the lens?
A. It’s really close to the size of Canon’s 70-200mm. It’s just a little bit wider but I was surprised to see it’s actually a little bit shorter than the 70-200mm. However, with the large lens hood attached, it definely looks beefier than the 70-200mm.

Q. How was the weight compared to the 70-200mm?
A. If I handed you the two lenses, you’d think they weighed about the same, but I think technically the 100-400mm weighs about 2 or 3 ounces more.

Q. Which other lenses did you use during the game?
A. None. I shot the entire game using just this one lens.

Q. What was it like shooting with just one lens?
A. It was absolutely awesome!! I cannot tell you how sweet it was using just one body, just one lens, no monopod needed and so lightweight compared to what I’m usually lugging along the sidelines (two camera bodies, a 400mm f/2.8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8 and a monopod). Shooting on a monopod definitely limits you, and affects your shooting angles, so it felt like it does when I shoot my 70-200mm, so that was really nice.

Q. Did the lens get heavy to hold up as the day went on?
A. Not at all. Like I mentioned, it’s about the same as size and weight as my 70-200mm (which I shoot quite often, and it’s usually on my 2nd body at games anyway) so the weight wasn’t an issue.

Q. How’s the overall sharpness of the lens?
A. I felt it was a very sharp lens (especially for the money). It was super-crazy sharp at 300mm and under, and only slightly less at a full 400mm, but I was using a pre-production model on loan (just for that one game) so it didn’t have all the final tuning and adjustments the shipping model will have, but even at that it was still very crisp. I called a buddy of mine who is one of the tech gurus at Canon and he said that the Canon engineers internally are saying the final shipping version of this lens is really close in overall sharpness to the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 (which I think is one of the sharpest lens ever made by anybody), and for a 100-400mm at this price, that’s saying something.

Q. When is it supposed to ship?
A. I believe B&H Photo is shipping their pre-release lens orders today, so I’d say “any day now.”

Q. How was the overall “feel” of the lens?
A. Well, in the first quarter of the game I was surprised how tight the zoom barrel was on this lens (the older version of this lens was a push/pull lens â” you didn’t rotate a barrel to zoom â” you pulled the lens outward or pushed it in). Luckily, between quarters I saw a circular adjustment that lets you set the exact amount of tension you want, so I set it right then to how I like it (which is a looser zoom than the default setting).

Q. Did you use it on a full frame or crop sensor body?
A. I shot on a full frame Canon 1Dx, which is why I could get away with using just that one lens all day.

Q. So, is there a downside to using it on a cropped sensor body?
A. I wouldn’t say it’s a downside, because you gain something but you also lose something â” it’s more of a tradeoff. On a crop sensor body, you’d gain 60% reach, so your 400mm lens suddenly has the reach of a 640mm lens on a full frame body, which is awesome (especially if you’ve ever priced a 600mm lens). However, that means when you zoom all the way out to 100mm, on a crop sensor that’s the equivalent of a 160mm and that would be too tight once the players get close to where you’re shooting from. So, if you’re shooting on a crop sensor body, you would want to have a 2nd lens to switch to for when the team gets inside the 20-yard line (something like a 24-70mm would probably be ideal).

Q. How did the auto-focus perform?
A. I was impressed â” it was pretty snappy! I’m used to shooting some really high-end lenses and this one still felt pretty quick overall.

Q. Who is this designed for lens for?
A. I’d say it’s really designed for daytime sports photographer and for wildlife photographers, but of course it will take a picture of whatever you aim it at, so you’ll see everybody from wedding photographers to portrait photographers using this same lens, especially at its size/weight and price (B&H Photo has it for $2,199).

Q. Is it a Daytime only lens?
A. Well, it’s like this: it’s an f/4.5 to f/5.6 lens, so unless you’re shooting a body with really great high-ISO (low noise) performance (like the 1Dx I was shooting at this game) you’re going to have some really noisy images after dark, or inside a gymnasium or an arena. For wildlife photographers, this probably won’t be much of a problem, but for sports photographers this is something you have to consider, which is why I say it’s a daytime lens. During daylight, it rocks! I set my f/stop to f/4.5 and didn’t change it all day. I had Auto-ISO turned on and set it so the slowest shutter speed it would ever take would be 1/1000 of a second, so the ISO would climb as high as it needed to get that shutter speed. It worked awesome. It would be less awesome (at f.4/5 to f/5.6) at night or indoors.

Q. How did the f/4.5 to f/5.6 range affect you for this game?
A. At first, at the 1:00 pm kick-off it didn’t at all, but later in the game some cloud cover rolled in and my shutter speeds started dropping. Then the game ran long (lots of penalties) so by around 4:30 pm it looked like dusk and the stadium lights were on, and my Auto ISO started climbing. Take a look at the shot up farther on this page â” the shot where Titan’s Lineman Mike Martin is pulling on Sanchez’s jersey  â” that was shot at 1,600 ISO and it’s just 4:41 pm in the afternoon. Lenses with these higher f/stops make you shoot at higher ISOs when it’s not bright sunshine â” it’s that simple, and that’s why I call it a daylight lens. Just my take on it.

Q. Wasn’t there (ahem) an “incident” during this game? Something to do with a bullet pass?
A. Next question, please.

Q. Did you sharpen any of these images?
A. Of course. Every image you see from a pro game is sharpened (I applied an Unsharp Mask filter with these settings: Amount: 90; Radius 1.5, Threshold 0 – to the full-sized images). I didn’t think it would be a fair comparison to put un-sharpened sports images from any lens up against the sharpened sports images you see every day.

Q. Can’t you post an unsharpened image?
A. Sure. Here ya go (below) â” this is an un-edited, un-cropped, tilty, unsharpened, JPEG shot straight out of the camera that needs straightening, brightening, cropping and sharpening. Still looks nice and sharp, but outside of this blog post I would never post ANY sports image without, at the very least, applying sharpening first.

Q. Did you shoot in RAW or JPEG?
A. I shoot all my sports in JPEG, so these are all JPEGs. 

Q. Anything else strike you about it?
A. Not really. I think Canon did a nice job with this lens, and I think at this price, it will make a lot of people happy (especially since the old version was introduced about 10-years ago). What was most memorable for me about shooting with it was just how awesome it was shooting an entire game with just one lens. Shooting without a monopod gives you a big advantage, so that was a big thing, and not ever having to switch bodies or lug all that gear was a real plus for me. I took all my gear to the game, and was expecting to switch to my regular much (ahem) high-priced lens for the 2nd half, but I was enjoying the freedom, size, weight and results so much I decided to just stick with it, and I was really happy with the results.

Q. By the way, who won?
A. The Eagles won 43-24.

(Above: Although I was shooting for the Titans that day, my buddy John Geliebter shoots for the Eagles and I snapped this one of him during a time out. After the game he drove me to the airport in record time to catch my flight, so I owe him several beers next time I see him). 

(Above: That’s my buddy Donn Jones, Titan’s Team Photographer and just one of the greatest guys out there. However, I feel like his iPhone is outdatedâ¦wellâ¦especially since my 6-plus just came in last night. I’m not sure Donn and I can be friends any longer). ;-)

This weekend off I’m to shoot with the Falcons on Sunday for their home game against the Steelers. Might do a few remotes (you know I love that!). I have some shots from the game next week. :)

Hope you all have a great weekend (#gofalcons, #riseup) and we’ll see you back here on Monday.

Best,

-Scott

 

Close