Long Island City is so hot right now.

Photos from a weekend in the Catskills, with a jaunt to the 123rd Delaware County Fair in Walton, NY.

Let’s take a tour of what it might look like to peer through some of the world’s most powerful and expensive camera lenses, shall we?

To set a baseline, here’s a photo of Long Island City’s Citibank building taken with a regular ‘ol Canon 17-40mm zoom lens at 22mm. You can see the full photo on the top left, and a 100%, 1:1 zoom in the center of the screen. Click it to view it at actual size. Go on, click it.

22mm lens:

And here’s a shot with my most powerful zoom lens – a Canon 70-200mm 2.8L.

200mm lens:

Now the fun begins. Let’s see how much closer we can get by shooting through a 20-60x Nikon spotting scope.

40mm lens + spotting scope @ 20x (~800mm lens):

The photo above is pretty much as close as you’d get with an 800mm lens (although, obviously, the 800mm lens would have better image quality and the edges wouldn’t be completely darkened). Canon makes an 800mm lens and you can pick one up for a cool $11,000 at Adorama.

So let’s move on to 1200mm territory.

40mm lens + spotting scope @ 30x (~1200mm lens):

If you wanted to take the above photo without the black edges and degraded image quality, you could pick up Canon’s 1200mm, $120,000 lens from B&H. It’s the largest lens Canon makes and you can read more about it here.

Let’s get closer…

40mm lens + spotting scope @ 42.5x (~1700mm lens):

The photo above approximates the focal length of the world’s largest telephoto lens, made by Carl Zeiss. Badass.

100mm lens + spotting scope @ 20x (~2000mm lens):

Now we’re at 2000mm. Nikon made a 2000mm lens using mirrors a while back.

200mm lens + spotting scope @ 20x (~4000mm lens):

Somewhere between these two focal lengths is Canon’s insane 5200mm lens. You can read more about it here, here, and here.

100mm lens + spotting scope @ 60x (~6000mm lens):

To get any closer, someone once took Canon’s 1200mm lens and paired it with a 7.2x crop factor video camera to create a 8640mm focal length.

200mm lens + spotting scope @ 60x (~12000mm lens):

And there you have it – an example of how close you’d get with a 12000mm lens. Judging from the focal-length-to-price ratio of Canon’s 1200mm lens, getting a crystal clear full-frame shot of the Citibank building this close would run you $1,200,000. And that’s all I have to say about that.

I snapped this out of the back window of Snooth’s new offices in midtown. I highly recommend checking out the full resolution version.

In related news, our proximity to the Empire State Building is what made our (former) insurance company refuse to insure us. If you ask me, it sounds like the terrorists won.

For your viewing pleasure, here are some photos I took of artist Michael Sanzone‘s current exhibition at M55 Art in Long Island City. The exhibition features his wood sculptures, many of which were made during his two month artist’s residency at the Glenfiddich distillery in Scotland from whiskey barrels.

The highlight of the show is an installation called Boys and Girls – a collaboration with artist Earl Holloway consisting of 105 wood panels, each with a depiction of childhood.

If you’re in the New York City area you should check it out. It’ll knock you on your ass.

View more of this here.

As seen in SoHo on my way to work two days ago.

As a bizarre complement to this photograph, the orange sticker in the window of the SUV was a remnant from a funeral procession, as you can see from this crop of another (ie, suckier) photo I took.

I had a great time on Saturday night at Snooth’s Open That Bottle Night. I got to schmooze with some interesting people, drink some fancy-ass wine, and bust out the prime lenses. I had to underexpose and push the photos in Lightroom to get workable results, but I’m pretty happy with the way things turned out. You can download some of my Lightroom presets below, then check out the rest of the gallery at Flickr. (Fellow photo geeks may want to cringe/marvel at some of the exposure values in the EXIF data…)

One of the benefits of using a tripod and a manual camera setting for photographing wine bottles (which I often do before one of Greg‘s blind tastings at Snooth) is that it makes processing all the photos a breeze. But I’ve also found an added benefit – it lets me make some pretty kick-ass (albeit useless) animated gifs.

The inside of a rental van. I’d say it’s moved its fair share of things with sharp edges over the years…

I’ve gotten pretty quick at blasting through a photoshoot in Lightroom to select my favorites, do some basic color correction, and spit out some jpgs. So I thought I’d share a sped-up video of the process from a recent blind tasting at the Snooth HQ. Enjoy!

Say it ain’t so! Looks like they’re finally pulling the plug on that aging Sony PSP billboard on Houston Street.

Geeking out on Wine

Among the bevy of things I’ve learned while working Snooth, one that caught me off guard (even though it’s pretty much the entire point of the site) is that it IS possible to know a lot about wine and not be a dick about it. I guess for a number of historical reasons, being “into” wine is seen as a pretty snooty endeavor, but the more I think about it and the more I learn, you can geek out about wine as much as you can geek out about anything.

Gregory Dal Piaz – a fellow Snoother, a Master of the Domaine (wait, that’s actually pretty funny), and a genuine nice guy – first got me thinking about this when he referred to his peers as fellow “wine geeks” rather than what I was expecting him to say – “wine snobs.” (True, while a snob would probably never admit to being one, it takes a true geek to refer to him/herself as a geek – it’s a basic tenant of Geek Pride.) So when Greg dropped that g-bomb, everything just became a lot clearer for me.

As with any topic, hobby, sports team, or other endeavor that inspires geeking, wine offers all the back-story, trivia, subtle distinctions, and of course – enjoyment – that makes it hold up as a pretty enjoyable thing to geek out about. Plus it can get you shitfaced. (Let’s see you try THAT, stamp collecting.)

So anyway, all this is what’s swirling around in my head as I read Greg’s latest blog post on the Snooth Blog, covering a blind tasting of Pinot Noirs for Thanksgiving. There’s a lot of no-nonsense, entertaining, and enlightening discussion about these wines (as well as a few well-placed curse words), and it’s all especially entertaining because nobody knows what they’re actually drinking until after all the reviews are done. Hence, none of the snottiness and all of the geekiness. It’s a lot of fun to read. (The photos are pretty good too. I’m just sayin…)

When I saw this satellite photo of Mount Everest, I couldn’t not put a tilt-shift effect on it. The result is pretty cool:

Any street photographer will tell you that one of the most difficult parts of photographing people is building up your balls.

That’s right. Your balls.

Because in most societies (including ours) it’s considered rude as hell to whip out a camera and start taking a stranger’s picture without permission. Sure, there are ways around this – such as shooting from the hip, using a telephoto lens to keep your distance, or a few other tricks up the discreet photographer’s sleeve. But in my opinion, if you don’t have the balls to walk up to someone and snap their picture, then you’re doing it wrong.

Cut to today, when I’m walking through SoHo enjoying some rare free time, and low and behold I see Vincent DonOfrio sitting on a street corner outside his trailer during a break in shooting Law & Order, Criminal Intent. I had my Canon G9 in my pocket so I figured it would be a good chance to grow my balls a little bit by snapping a picture of arguably one of the most intense actors of our time. (Sure, he’s been in some crap lately, but the guy was in Full Metal Jacket. I mean, come on.)

So I stop in the middle of the sidewalk, fish out my camera, and take aim. And get this – he looks at me. And his eyes are doing more than just looking into my eyes. His eyes are looking into my soul, telling me he’s going to murder my children. My children. So I took the picture and got both the hell out of there and the heeby jeebies at the same time.

So that’s about it. Enjoy the photo below. It’s going to cost me dearly.

I decided to bust out the ‘ol Canon 5D and 100mm macro lens tonight to take a photo of my shredded mail. Looking at a 100% crop of the image got me thinking that even though there’s been so much hooplah about the 5D Mark II that was just announced, the original 5D is pretty darn amazing too.

On Sunday night I was granted the opportunity to attend a glitzy Hollywood party, thanks to my girlfriend Anna who works at InTouch magazine. All-in-all, it was an absolute blast. Being the photo junky I am, at first I wanted to bring my best photo gear to document the night. But on second thought I figured it would be best to go with my more discreet Canon G9.

Just how war photographers prefer the smaller size and general unobtrusiveness of Leicas and other rangefinders, I found myself feeling the same way with my G9. While the hired photographers were fumbling around with their Nikon D3s and Canon 1Ds Mark IIIs (which were bulked up even more with flash rigs), I was able to get right down into the trenches and pull off some decent candids where a larger camera would have been a distraction.

You’ll notice that I took a lot of pictures of Paris Hilton because, well, when you’re a photographer standing next to Paris Hilton there’s not much else you can think of doing.

Click the photos below to view them larger – enjoy!

Canon 2X Extender Comparison

One of my favorite lenses, if not my absolute favorite, is the Canon 70-200 mm 2.8L IS. I also have the 2X extender, but am sometimes a little hesitant to use it because I know it blurs the imagery a bit, as well as decreases the maximum aperture to 5.6.

So a while back I did a little side-by-side comparison to find some of the benefits and drawbacks to using the 2X extender. Let’s have a look, shall we?

Below are two photos taken with my 5D – the one on the left is using the 2X extender and the one on the right is not. Both shots were taken handheld at ISO 400, f5.6, and with a shutter speed of 1/400:

Clearly, there’s no parking on Wednesdays from 8:30 to 10 AM. Also, you shouldn’t litter. So let’s increase the image on the right’s resolution from 300 to 600 (2x) to compare it:

Cool. Now they’re the same size and the real comparison can begin. First and foremost, the image on the right (no extender, enlarged in PS) looks a little punchier, even though the image on the left (2X extender) is slightly sharper. It’s an interesting comparison because they both have their good and bad aspects. So let’s sharpen the image on the left and have another look:

Now that’s what I’m talking about. In the above image, I think it’s pretty clear that the image on the left with the extender is the winner here. So let’s take it a step further and enlarge them both. You know, for shits and giggles and stuff:

By now they’re both pretty much starting to look crappy. But it’s important to note that it’s possible to make out the “DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION” on the image on the left, and not on the right. To me that sealed the deal.

So my conclusion is that when there’s plenty of light and I’m trying to zoom as close as possible, I’m better off using the 2X extender. When there’s low light, however, my guess is that you’re better off not using the extender because you’ll need that 2.8 aperture to stop as much motion as possible. But that’s a comparison for another day. Or should I say, another night. And that right there is the funniest thing you’ll read all day.

Williamsburg’s Mercury Dry Cleaners burns down

As if the hipsters in Williamsburg weren’t dirty enough, one of the area’s largest laundrymats just burned down this morning.

On my way to get a bagel I saw thick black smoke rising in the distance and heard sirens. So I did what anyone with a decent sense of self preservation would do – I ran back inside and grabbed my camera.

Most of the action had died down after I’d arrived, but at least I was earlier than most of the news crews. As I was leaving the scene to go home and eat my bagel I saw at least two phototogs scrambling past me in the opposite direction, multiple cameras and bags flopping around them like tentacles. Suckers.

Enjoy the rest of the photos on my Flickr account.

The Cleverest reader and photographer Salvatore points out that my recent shots of the Brooklyn sky looked manipulated, and that he’d like to see an original for comparison’s sake. So I’m taking the time to do another quick Lightroom tutorial to show some of the work that goes into making the style of photography that I enjoy making, which for lack of a better word, I call “it” photography.

The original photo. Roll-over to see step one:

Step One

The sky in the original shot may look too bright, but since I was shooting RAW, it wasn’t blown out. Some with some of the darker areas of the street – they look a little dark on screen, but I know that since I made a well-exposed raw file, I’ll be able to lighten those parts and bring out some of the detail hiding behind those pixels.

After sliding the “Recovery” up and the “Contrast” down, I played with the “Temp” and the “Tint” to make the sky a little less flat, adding a nice blue hue. The human eye sees blue as a dark color, which also helps to darken the sky’s overall appearance.

So now the sky’s looking good but the street’s way too dark. Let’s move on the Part 3.

The sky’s looking good – now he hit the streets.

Step Two

Now we use that magical slider called “Fill Light.” What that does is brighten up all the areas of the photo that looked dark and flat and boring, and suddenly the photo starts to look more evenly exposed.

After the addition of slight color adjustments to make the color temperature a little chillier, I added a slight vignetting around the edges of the photo to subtly draw you in and add an increase of about 30% to the photo’s total perceived awesomeness.

So there you have it. If you found this interesting you might also want to read a similar tutorial about the homeless campaign I recently shot.

The journey to and view from Manhattan’s Nelson Tower

I had a pretty exciting adventure yesterday afternoon. While taking pictures for an upcoming project I found myself at one of New York’s most visible yet rarely visited landmarks. I say rarely visited because in order to get there you need to take two elevators, enter a private penthouse office, climb up a 20 foot vertical ladder, have the building’s super struggle to push aside a wooden hatch cover for 5 minutes, and prop a workman’s ladder against a 12 foot parapet.

The most amazing thing about being on the roof of 450 7th Avenue, (also known as Nelson Tower, the tallest building in NYC’s Garment District), is that when you look up, pretty much the only thing you can see is sky. This is a strange feeling knowing you’re in the heart of midtown Manhattan. The roof itself isn’t flush with the top of the building, instead it sits about 12 feet below a retaining wall, cobwebbed with decades of unused or ailing electrical wiring and other rusting things I couldn’t identify.

It’s not until you prop up a ladder against the wall and start to climb before the expanse of the city takes shape beneath you. Being at the top of the ladder is a strangely exhilarating feeling that the photos don’t do justice to. Basically you’re balanced between two falls. Fall backward and you’ll break some bones. Fall forward and you’ll die. Bitchin.

In a related note, the super told stories of the roof’s popularity during the depression as a great place for forelorn businessmen to commit suicide. He even showed me the ladder they’d use, laying on the ground covered in rust and mold. I’d never seen a “suicide ladder” before, but I’ll be damned if I see ever another ladder that looks more suicide-y.

Keep reading for more photos…

Read entire post…