Reno - A few days out

So let's get a weather update.

Looks like I won't be using this as an excuse for missed shots.

I've been going through Youtube for a number of topics, ranging from past air races to anyone with an opinion on what set ups are best for aircraft photography.

So here are some of the ideas I'll probably soon forget.

Auto-Focus:  One thing I've been thinking about a lot is how to set up the AF?  Is AF even necessary - set to infinity and go.  That's one option.  And I'm talking in-flight here, not static displays.  Turns out the D7200 has a tracking option called 3D.  (Hint: Helps to know your equipment.)  So the short of this is you lock on to your target in the center of the screen and as the target moves within the screen, you are locked on.  The focus follows the target.  I tested this with stretching my arm out and locking on to my finger.  As I'd move my arm around, as long as my finger stayed in the view finder, the AF was locked on.  I need to try this out.
Mode:  I usually shoot manual, but I do miss a few shots when rushed.  Although it appears the shooting conditions will be stable, I'd hate to lose a shot because I was chimping.  The other mode I'm comfortable with is Aperture priority.  When you think about, for in flight shots that isn't a good idea either.  Really need to get comfortable with Speed priority.  For prop driven aircraft seems a good point to start with is 1/180 second.  We'll see how that works.  I figure to be shooting with a focal length of 300 to 450.  Again we'll see how that works.
Equipment:  I'm taking two camera bodies, the D7200 and D90.  My original thought was to carry both, the D7200 / 70-300 and the D90 / 18-200.  I'm not a fan of changing lens in the outdoors.  I'm not sure how far away our parking will be (storage of equipment), but I'll have to make it work.  On thought was to use the 18-200 on the first day to get all the walk around stuff and the 70-300 for the rest.  That thought is gone.  On Thursday there will be a B52 flyover which is one of the few events that is not repeated every day.  Can't miss that.
So Saturday, I'll head out to the Refuge and try the 3D AF and Speed priority.  With any luck, I'll get a good bird shot or two.

DMRRC - Mountain Cut

Rumor has it that the Photo Club of which I'm a member will return to the Detroit Model Railroad Club later this month.  With that in mind, I started looking for any photos I hadn't played with from previous visits.
I'm not sure why I didn't work this photo before.  Looks like it came out OK.  This is a five shot focus stack.  It looks like everything is in focus as expected.  When I saw this angle, I thought it would be different, coming up from under the train.

ISO 200, F/8, 1.0 Sec, 60 mm

5 Shot Focus Stack

I hit this with a little extra contrast, but not too much.  It was tough to dial the contrast back, I did like a really hard shot on this - but that's only me.  At this contrast level, the rock looks good.
Unfortunately the room ceiling lights are reflected.  Note to self, take something that can block light next time.
This was taken with a 18-200 lens.  When I return to the building in a few weeks, my intention is to use my AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/3.5G ED VR.  I've been very happy that lens and have one train shot with it that came out very well.

Lower Tahquamenon Falls

Holiday Weekend.  I can't drift too far from home because of the paying job, so I decided to go through/reorganize a lot of the photos I've taken in the past.  I'm trying to thin out shots I'll never use, which aren't many.  I don't say that I take that many good shots, but over the years I know what I can work with and what's not worth the effort.  These shots are difficult mostly due to flat skies or a focus I just can't work with.  I also know that what I may not work with today, I can do something with at another time.  So I am very careful on what goes away.
Because I'm careful on what gets tossed, I came across this little gem.

ISO 400, f/9, 1/320 sec, 18 mm

This was taken in August of 2009.  Thank the stars for RAW files.  In 2009, the camera was a Nikon D80.  The lens was 18-135 mm, no VR.  And the photographer was probably lucky to know which way to point the glass part of the lens.
I do remember for the most part in the early days, I was waffling on whether to use RAW or JPG.  I didn't know the difference.    
I'm guessing I was using Elements back then - with no idea on what I was doing with that either.
So let's come forward 9 years.  The RAW file is just as good as it was then.  Thankfully the basic file processing hasn't changed in that time.
I used Photomatix (Vivid) to bring out the mid-greens.  It also brought out some definition in the sky, as well as sharpened.  I used ACR to bring out the greens even more and the copper/browns.
I stopped using Photomatix for a while, but lately have returned to it to set my light levels.  Photoshop does a lot of things very well, but can be cumbersome.  Photomatix has been around for a number of years and the results are so much better for me.  I am really against halos between the sky and the trees.  And here there is little/no halo.  Also in my old age, for some of my filters I only go a percentage of the effect in opacity.  Sometimes less is more?

Eagles in the Trees

While driving around the Shiawassee National Refuge, we saw these two Eagles sitting in the trees.  I'm guessing this tree is at least 150 yards away from the road.  (Note to self, under new toys, I may have to invest in a range finder.)

With that said, I am amazed at what light can do.  The detail that a lens can put to sensor/film is just amazing.  In this shot for the Eagle in the lower left - you can see the open eyes and if you drill down enough you can see the detail of the beak.  No matter how good the software is, if you miss the shot - you missed the shot.  You can't fake (Photoshop) that detail.

Now good software will help you if you have something to work with.  And this shot needed a little bit of help.

This shot is at 600 mm and far away.  I'm surprised (but very, happy) that it came out as well as it did.  But it does look far away.

But what you can see, and what I see, is a maturing Eagle.  The one on the right is just starting to get its colors.  You can really see the yellow of the feet.

There is some cropping involved.  This image is also a great case for using the content-aware fill of whatever application you use.  There are a number of distracting branches, most notably around the edges.  Not that it is bad, but could be better.  And a good exercise.

ISO 400, f/8, 1/3200 sec, 600 mm

If I had the opportunity to take this image again, and I may, I'd lower the ISO and shutter speed.  I've had luck with speeds of 1/1000 sec at 600 mm.  I might have captured a bit more detail with the lower ISO.

For the most part, I like (slightly) over contrasted images.  But I found with the nature images, the more realistic the better.  I can live with that.  But sometimes you to get back in your comfort zone when your new rule doesn't work out so well, and the slightly over contrast works for me here.

Mallard Duck - and a friend

I'm guessing this is a Mallard Duck.  As you can see, it hides well in this environment.

ISO 400, f/8, 1/500 sec, 400 mm

If part of the disguise is to sit next to a Heron, well that works too.  I passed over the duck a number of times when reviewing the shots of the day.  And come to find out that many of my pictures had hidden gems.
I like the busy green colors in this one.  The lines on the Heron show up well, as well as the yellow eye.  The branches add some chaos to the scene as well.  Busy works for me.  And the Duck.

The Air Show Facination

My Air Show (https://airrace.org/) adventure is only a few weeks away.  
This trip has been on my schedule for three years.  The original plan was to go last year, but had to be delayed.  Now tickets purchased and ready to go!
Really, really excited.
My fascination with flying vehicles started at a young age.  My father was a pilot, as a hobby/addiction.  I remember some of our flights together around the WashPa area.  Back in those days, there wasn't much of Ops building for Washington County, it was more of a shed.  Probably nothing exciting, but for a kid it was everything!  I remember the charts, the pre-flight inspections and the whiz-wheel flight planning.  I thought checking for water in fuel tanks was so cool.  Chocks around the tires, does it get any better for a kid?
Around the '67-68 (I think) time, my father and I flew to Cleveland with some other flyers from the Washington County Air Force to attend the Cleveland airshow.  We flew in a Bonanza aircraft.  Funny aircraft with a non-conventional tail.  (Although we shared the flight/Bonanza with another two, I got to ride co-pilot on the way back.  Again, the kid thing - fantastic!)

I have vague recollections of meeting a number of the show pilots.  Who knows for sure, but I remember many of them knew my father and that was so special.  And I'll go to my grave thinking he knew them all, on a first name basis.

We can skip a number of years until I enlisted in the Air Force.  My first job was as a jet engine mechanic.  My ASVAB scores indicated I should be in administration.  I remember thinking, why should I do that?  If I needed help in mechanics, I should go mechanical.  And I did.  (Insert government jokes here.)
Between finishing technical school in Illinois and Okinawa, my first duty station, I had a two week stop over at Offutt AFB, Nebraska.  Offutt was home to many interesting aircraft, many were specialized.  Working with the flightline mechanics, I saw a lot these aircraft up close.  My primary job for those two weeks was pretty much to stay out of the way of working people.  But I was allowed to see.  The first aircraft I saw take off from Offutt was a British Avro Vulcan bomber.  I knew I was home.
From that point on, I have loved the smell of anything synthetic oil based.  Burnt AV gas or stale hydraulic fluid, can't get enough.  Brings a smile to my face.  And don't get me started about the Sound of Freedom.

After I had been fixin' em for a while, it was time to do something else.  I took advantage of cross training and went to flying.  I trained to be a flight engineer and was assigned to the Lockheed C5.  The C5 is the largest cargo in the Air Force inventory.
I arrived in time to watch the C5As get new wings and engines.  I flew on some C5Bs with single digit hours, enough to get them from Marietta, GA to KDOV.

So here's where we tie up the Air Show fascination.  During my time in the Air Force, I was on the other side of the Air Show game.  I didn't have to pay to get in.  We flew in.  Being the biggest thing in the show, we were first in and last out.  BUFFS move aside, FRED is here.  I did probably 6 or 7 air shows.  Seriously, my autograph is on probably a 100 air show programs, mostly for kids.  And walking around a show with a flight suit on - pure chic magnet stuff.  What a time.
Best air show story.  
My initial check ride to Engineer included a stop to do the Halifax/CFB Shearwater Air Show, which would have been 1984 ish.  With the Evaluator watching, I did my job to get out of KDOV.  He didn't ask me a single question.  I was a bit miffed.  So we arrived at Shearwater and put the plane to bed for the night - again no questions.  The next morning, we met as a crew and my Evaluator volunteered me to stand most of the Q and A shifts for the day.  And he would be there with me every minute to hear my answers to every question from the public.  Ha.  There was nothing off limits from the public.  From how long of a take off roll, to how far can you go, to how fast can it fly, both true and indicated, to how many ping pong balls can you carry.  Just awesome!  (It didn't help that the other Engineers would egg on some of the kids.  Can't pick your crew.  Ha.)

So I will be on the other side in a few weeks.  Paying airshow attendee.  This will be so much fun.  I'm going with friends who are pilots and veterans of this show.  We'll be there for four days.  If your going too, you'll recognize me.  I'll be the one with the biggest grin.  This will be a great time.

(Thanks to sister Kate for digging up the Cleveland Air Show photos.)

Aired Out Barn

While driving the back roads....  I may not be able to find this barn again.   I will look for it, I like what time has done to this.  You get to see the interior and the weathering of the wood.  And the roof.  And the roof.

This is a RAW image with a few default touch ups from PS.  My additional changes would be:  First the flat sky has to go.  Also the sky descends too low on the left.  Sort of distracts when I'm looking at the exposed hay in the barn.  And the contrast has to be just right to bring out the wood grain and whatever is left of the roof.  I'll also want to show some detail of the hay, lighten up that whole interior area.
For the sky I don't want a true blue, I just need something with some lighter definition that what is shown here.  Usually I try to get a image of sky from the area (if I remember and I think I'll need it) but I do have some stock images for emergencies.  Fortunately I won't need much area.  I'll go with this one.

I added some exposure to try to match the barn.  I used On One to merge the two images.  The masking tools in On One made this easy and quick.  When I added the sky, the area on the left of the barn really didn't do me any favors.  I thought that filling the area with some green-age would do the trick.  But where to get it so it didn't look imported, or copied in.  So, I just flipped a copy of the image.  Filled in great.  Same size, same colors.  I just needed what is in the red.

First time I've ever done a three layer mask.  

Worked out great.  So my post merge looked like this.

Getting closer.  Now I need to get some accent on the hay.  For this I'll use Photomatix to process some HDR - but only for the hay.  I'm not going to use it for the wood - although you could.  I wound up using the  Interior 3 pre-set, with some additional micro-smoothing.  

I also added a bit of exposure because the next and final edit will dark the overall image a bit.  To get my final touch I use NIK's HDR Efex.  Over the lat few months I've learned to use just a touch of it - not the 100%.  So, here's the final image.

It's not too overdone.  Interesting to see how my tastes have evolved over time.

Heron, Great Blue (I think)

I know nothing about bird identification.  Aside from being able to identify a common house fly and a mature robin, I would fail miserably on Jeopardy if I had to identify other critters in the flying category.  OK, I got the Eagle thing right but even a blind flying squirrel blah, blah, blah.
I can make make an educated guess at this one, with the help of Wikipedia and the Refuge site.  The most common Heron in the Refuge is the Great Blue.  I'm also assuming this isn't a Crane or Egret.  (Photos of those later.)
Fortunately, through my photo club we have some birders - and I can get some real help.
So for now I'm going with this is a Great Blue Heron.

ISO 400, f/8, 1/250 sec, 440 mm

The day was very cloudy, flat light.  Last weekend I was playing with higher ISOs and I wanted to keep today's at 400 to see any differences.  I should have swapped the days, but the focus is pretty good here.  Love that VR image stabilization.
One of the other things I was playing with was the Image Size setting, going from DX to 1.3x.  Essentially some of the crop(ed) sensor is reduced even more creating the ability to stretch the MMs a bit more.  I can go from 450mm to 600mm.  But there should be a penalty for that - and I found it.  The image you see is pretty much the image you get.  It is small.  On the D7200, the DX (RAW) image size is 6000 x 4000.  In the 1.3 mode, the (RAW) image size is 4800 x 3200.  So you get more of an effective angle with the FX lens.  The math hurts my head.  In the end, I tried to crop more of the image and it just didn't work.  Anything over 100% started to pixelate.  Well, if I wanted professional photos, I'd have to dole out more $$$$s.  But I'll take this one as it is.

And now for something completely different - Grasshopper

I usually like some form of harsh contrast on my finished images.  And I tried here.  I really did try.  That look just wouldn't click for me.  After trying various tricks, shades, filters and processes I finally thought to just go with it as is.
But in getting out of my comfort zone, I created more work than I thought.
Here is a grasshopper just along for a ride on the front of my truck.  The pace was slow, between 5 and 7 MPH.  I'm guessing he/she/it has done this before, staying put on the surface for about a mile.

ISO 800, f/8, 1/1000 sec, 480 mm

One might think that the post processing on this is easier than trying to find the right effect for contrast manipulation.  Maybe for some, but not for me.  This getting a nice smooth image takes some effort.
The trick is to remove as many surface distractions as possible.  And a lot of them don't show up right away.  I'd finish with what I thought was the final product only to see something else after looking/staring at it for a while.  Seriously, I probably have 5-7 tries at this.
Although the hood of my truck is in pretty good shape, it didn't hold up well against a flat sky.  Most, if not all, post processing programs have some form of 'healing' process that is quick and easy.  Takes a bit of time and magnification, but is well worth it.  But because it is a nice even surface, the healing is pretty easy.
I do like the way this turned out.  This is out of my comfort zone with the subject and the finished image.  Although this doesn't qualify for a nature shot it will be a killer at reflections night.

Wood Ducks on a Log

How much wood would a wood duck duck if a wood duck ....   Well, going to end it there.
This is from last weekend's excursion to Shiawassee Refuge.  Duck, wood ducks.  Unless I read what was native there, I wouldn't know.  But now I do know and there are lots of flavors to a wood duck.
So as I'm driving along, I see this group.  They were well camouflaged, missed them on the first pass.  I got a few shots.
This one got to me.

Probably not good to say, but this reminds me of Dogs playing Poker.  For the Dogs, each has its own personality.  And these duck also have their own.  My favorite is the second from the right, looking right at me.  Nothing to see here Pal, just keep moving.
This is becoming one on my favorite screen savers.
ISO 400, f/8, 1/800 sec, 450mm.
Again, this is with the new lens.  

State Road Barn (Not for much Longer!)

Not far from the house, there is a barn that is roughly two years into really falling apart.  I have been intrigued by the site, but being the procrastinator that I am, I've put off photographing it until now.  (See the previous line about two years.)
This was a great exercise for the day.  I originally wanted to go with Photomatix to do this one, pull out some of the insides.  I quickly found out that PMX did not like the power lines.  And if I really knew what I was doing I would have taken them out right away.  The lines had to go.  In the end, no matter what process, PSCC or On One, I used, followed by whatever HDR effect I added, the evidence of the power lines was always survived.
The answer was always there in front of me, that sky in the original shot needed to go.  Flat as can be.  That sky needed to be replaced.  And that was a good excuse to work with On One.
I find doing this type of work with On One so much easier than with Photoshop.  The masking tools and layer blending in On One are very easy and quick.  Once the blended image was created, I went back to my normal workflow to finish the image.
This is a JPG made from the RAW file that I believe Nikon would have created.

The particulars;
1/2000 sec, ISO 800, f/8, 123 MM

I like photographing barns.  The more unique character, either by design or time, the better.

Fortunately the area in the vicinity of the building is pretty clean.  I have a couple more ideas for this environment.  I've been practicing with higher ISO shots to get the speed I will need in a few weeks.  I'll lower the ISO, lower the speed,  There could be some better angles.  And there could be a much better sky.

Juvenile Bald Eagle

I am in total awe of my friends who are able to get a wildlife shot of something more majestic than a sea gull.  I get the sea gulls.  To be sure, there is no pressure in photographing sea gulls.  They are everywhere.  And if you miss the first trick, the one right behind will do the same thing.

OK, they can be cute, but it's not like, say. an Eagle.

To me, there's pressure in photographing an Eagle.  First, I've never photographed one before.  Pressure.  Next, since it has taken me a number of years to be in position to photograph one, I might not get another chance anytime soon.  Don't screw it up pressure.

Here goes:

Today's adventure took me to Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge.  I've been there a few times, hiking the The Ferguson Bayou Trail most of the time.  There is an auto tour that for some reason has always been closed when I've been there before today.  Today, the drive was open.  New territory not along the familiar trail.  Along the drive, between mile 3 and 3.5, I saw a large bird circling off to my right.  I know there are Eagles in the area.  Could this be?  I know Eagles don't get the adult colors until after about fours years of age.  Still, could this be?

The park 'asks' you to stay in your vehicles to minimize the disturbance in the area.  So with this bird on the right, lots of windshield between us.  Eventually, let's call it 10 minutes or so, the bird sat on my left.  Just awesome!  The bird sat there for a few minutes and I would try to catch head movements.  The bird was about 30 feet away from me.  How lucky does one get?

This was taken with the new lens.  I don't know if I get this without it.  The particulars.  ISO 800, f/8, 1/640 sec, 450mm.


I was able to get ten good photographs of the bird in this area.  But I have only one with it looking right at me.


All in all, I had a good outing today.  Fired off around 500 shots.  I'll bet I have maybe 50 keepers.  But this one photograph was worth the whole day.

When is 300mm really 600mm?

One of the requirements I wanted to get with the new lens was a 400mm focal length.  I have a 200 mm lens and with the D7200's trick of changing the image area, I could get to 350 mm.
The math in all this is mind boggling.
First starting with the lens.  Nothing changes in the lens.  70-300 full frame is, well, 70-300.  However, being a full frame lens it is primarily built for a full frame body/sensor.  And simply when it hits a smaller sensor, some of the light is lost around the edges.  What's that you say, some lens will get soft around the edges?  This is a cure.  Expense, but a cure.  Best I can say if you're really interested, google FX lens on DX body.  There's all sorts of people who can 'splain it better than me but in the end for Nikon there is an approximately 1.5x bump for the lens. 
So by Nikon's definition, my 70 - 300 has an equivalent focal length of 105 to 450.  Out of the box.  PFM (Pure Magic).
To get me the rest of the way, the D7200 has a cute little setting called Image Area.  This option disables some of the sensor and in the same manner as above gives the illusion of more zoom in the lens.  There is a cost, such as pixel count as represented by the reduced file size - but hey I'm an amateur and this is a hobby.  The photos are still awesome.
In the end, does anyone really know what the focal length is?  The bigger the number, the bigger the object in the field of view is.  More/bigger is better, right?  Sometimes yes, sometimes no but I'd rather have it and not need it.  Or at least have the option to use it.
So, how does the camera react to this.
This set of shots was taken in Port Huron.  One of the river vessels passed under the Blue Water bridge.  If I had to guess, the vessel was a mile away.
First image with Nikon's DX Image Size.

Focal Length in 35mm is 450.  The Image area is set to DX.  Note the lens is 70-300,

Next shot less than a minute later.  The Image Area was set to 1.3.  Focal Length in 35mm is 600.

The particulars are shown.  1/800 sec, f/8, ISO800, Manual Mode

Both shots are hand held.  Enlarged, both shots are very clear.  (OK, not as fast as aircraft, but when in Rome...)

Is Manual really worth it?

I entered into the DSLR world in 2009 with a Nikon D80 and no idea how to use it.  A few years later I picked up a D90 - and a little idea on how to use it.  In 2016, I picked up a D7200.  I have a bit of an idea on how to use it, although it does depend on who you ask.
Along the way, I've gone from the full AUTO mode through Aperture Priority to full Manual.
Take this for example:

Histogram is not too bad.

One would say that is an interesting photo.  What an interesting perspective to keep the deck rail in focus with the gulls out of focus.
Truth is, I wanted it the other way around.  
Today, I was playing around with the many, many combinations of auto focus.  In this photo, the mode was full auto.  I let the camera decide what the subject was.  
I have to ask myself, if I'm that picky to use Manual Mode for speed, aperture and ISO, why go only half way?  Why wouldn't I also do the focus?
Normally I use only one of the focus points that the camera has.  Pluck it out of the center and press.  I have a pretty good hit rate.  I tried full auto just for fun.  I was experimenting with multiple targets.  I wanted to see what the camera would do.
Like this:

Most of the gulls are in passable focus.  This is an exception.  What I'm seeing after reviewing the shots is the camera appears to be confused by the water waves.  I think because of the number of moving targets, the camera ignored the water.  Against the sky, my hit rate was much better with a single moving target.
One of the tricks I've used in the past is to find a comfortable infinity setting and it with the auto focus off.  Realistically after about 15-20 feet you're in the infinity area anyway.
I believe in Manual Mode for taking the pictures.  I'm going to get there for the focus.

The Barn Test

On the recent road trip to the eastern part of the state the goal was to test the new lens.  Testing was fairly easy, as it only works with the D7200 and not on the D90.  At least according to Nikon.
So the two units for the day are the D7200/70-300 and D90/18-200.
Traveling the back roads, I was looking for barns.  Preferably barns with some wear.
I found this one, and it seemed to be a good one to test both units.

These are RAW images.
I tried to keep most of the particulars the same.  I was using f/6.3 and f/8 most of the day to keep the results as sharp as possible.  I missed by a bit on the aperture.  And the focal length on the 70-300 was actually 85, but due to FX lens on a DX camera it comes out to 127.
I concede that fact may have improved the detail in the barn wood a bit.
Will have to try with other combinations.  
But the real interesting part of this figuring out how to line up two similar images into one image.

AF-P DX NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR

Friggin' awsome!  Whatever command I have of the English language escapes me now for what I think of this lens after one day of use.  I may have to re-think my lens strategy.
From the first image I saw from today with this lens and the D7200, I knew this combo was just great.
I'll get into the photos later, but I have to ask myself why this turned out so much sharper that other efforts.  Not that past photos were bad - but like when you go to the big box store and see a UHD next to a 1080p there is a difference.
There are three possibilities for the perceived image difference.  I'll rank them in order of what I believe the validity is.
Anything related to the full frame construction angle, from the heavier weight to the glass used.  There has to be a reason that the lens is almost double the cost of the DX sibling.  The glass is better?  There is more glass?  Does the extra weight make it more stable in your hands?  Is it the new pulse AF?  Whatever, I'll take it and may look to more FX units int he future.
Next, I didn't skimp on the UV filter.  I may to to determine on my other lens if the quality just needs to be better.
Last, I upgraded the firmware and distortion control data.  Could have done the trick?  I did the same for the D90 and although I thought the photos were good, they didn't stand out as much.
More to follow.

Summer.....

This summer has been awful trying to free up some time to do anything but the paying activity.  I've been off-roading once - and I had to take vacation days to do that.
But the work hump will be over shortly and time to get back into a real life.
On the photography front, I have a trip to Reno coming up in a few weeks to attend the air races with friends.  What fun it will be, except.....
The biggest lens I have is a 200mm.  I have a few aircraft photos taken at FNT when there were WWII aircraft visiting with the 200 and they're OK but...  To get a good, not great, result, I had to crop the results.  It barely works on a 23 inch monitor.  I'm expecting to get better opportunities at Reno.  New toy time.
One challenge is that I will be flying commercial to Reno.  My current camera bag will not do the trick.  Along with my camera equipment, I'd like to take a laptop.  Any new bag will have to accommodate the camera equipment and laptop.  There has to be some form of carry-on that will meet this requirement.
As to an appropriate lens, the story gets longer.
Originally I thought about diving into one of the super telephotos around 600 mm.  I was looking at the Sigma and Nikkor models.  In the end though, that means carrying it around and tripods for stability.  (I know, they say hand held, but who whats to take that chance?)  Budget for those items is somewhere int he area of $1500 to $1700.  Not sure I want to go that far.  At least for now.
On my DX (crop), the Nikon lens selection tops out at 300 mm.  In looking at these, I was focusing on the 70-300 models.  There are 18-300 and 55-300 models, but I want to stay with the 70-300 because the AF would/should be faster.
As it turns out, the 70-300 lens are newer models and are not totally compatible with my 5 year old camera.  Well that sucks.  The lens AV is not controllable on the lens, so it defaults in the ON position and can not be changed.  Could be worse.
If you search enough support articles, you can find this information.
With enough reading on the net, one solution was to get the FX version of this model.  All the controls are available.  According the Nikon, it will work on the D7200, not the D90.  I can live with this.  
This could turn out to work really well for me.  Because it is built for full (FX) sensor, my effective range would be 105 to 450 mm.  The purpose of this lens is max range.  This is GREAT.  But....
There is a note in the compatibility chart.  Note says my camera needs to be at the latest firmware version.  No problem, I'm an IT guy and can use Youtube.  Easy....  What could go wrong?
And upgrading the firmware in both the D90 and D7200 was very easy.  Nice to know Nikon updates their products.
In a few days, I'll be in the Detroit area and can stop at the camera shop.  Already checked, they have the lens in stock.  (They also tell me quantities are limited, think they want me there soon?)
Another outing this year will be returning to the Detroit Model Railroad Club on what is turning out to be a annual event.  This time my plan is to work with a prime lens.  I have a 85 mm lens that has worked real well for me that I will use.  Make this interesting.

A Colormunki Afternoon

In the quest for better photography, some of the issues we deal with is a consistency of color, from the subject to the final medium.
When you think about it, consider the path a specific color of red goes through from the subject to the PC display, RAW/JPG or print.
Ambient light hits the color red on the subject, goes through a filter attached to the camera lens, through the camera lens (OEM or other) to the camera, processed through software to a file.  That's a lot of handshakes - and we're not across the finish line yet.  From the file the journey continues to either electronic display or print.
So - what is the possibility that that one specific color of red that started with the subject finished at the destination with the same color?  The odds probably not good.
In reality, do you really need to capture that specific color or red?  If you are OK with the way you photos turn out from your (phone) camera, and with what the manufacturer algorithm does to a RAW image in the conversion to a JPG, and how your display presents the image - then you don't need this.
If you're already on the road to the dark side, that is take the time to process your own images (RAW), then you'd probably see value in the extra time to get the original colors right.
So how to do that?
A few years ago I purchased a color card.  X-Rite's Passport to be exact.  (This is not a commercial for them, just fact.)  Once I understood the difference between a JPG and a RAW file, it only made sense to me that the only way to get a true color duplication was with a color card.  OK - if not true, then a truer color duplication.  What I found out was that my both my Nikons using OEM lens' were a little light on blue shades.
But is that really true?  Or was the blue shade not represented correctly on my monitor?
In reality, I think I have only one side of the conversation.
Now, dealing with displays only, I have the other piece to help in getting the color representation.  I purchased X-rite's Cololmunki Display.  Again not an advertisement.  In theory it should blend in with the current process I use now.
As with most tech-toys, there are lots of Youtube videos on how to set the product up.  It really wasn't that difficult.  But what was missing - or I missed, was where the profile file was used.
The Colormunki creates an .icm file, much like a printer profile.  And like a printer profile file, the file has to be 'read' by the device.  I've played around with printer profiles before, so I sort of understand the concept.  Just have to translate the knowledge to the display.
Actually, it was easier than I thought it would be.  For Windows, it is in the display settings.  DOH!.

If you have multiple displays configured, a unique profile can be created and used for each.
So - the real question is, did it help?
I can see a difference.  For me, the monitor is somewhat darker and thus the colors are not so washed out.  But the neat thing is that all three monitors, different manufacturers, are now pretty much the same.
I haven't set up my laptop yet, need something to do next weekend.  I'm expecting a big change there.

Will phone cameras ever be as good as a (D)SLR or mirrorless?

I sometimes find myself in conversations about DSLR cameras and phone cameras.  It usually happens right after Apple launches its newer and better phone unit every year.  We can save the topic of why Apple's newer units are always better than the older ones for another day.  So anyway, someone always says to me that their new Apple is better than my (insert camera name here) that I have invested/sunk (insert $$$s) in.  
Puh-lezz.
What they should really be asking me is if I think phone cameras are to the point where people think the images captured are as good those that most people can get with a DSLR.
My answer would be something like this.
Phone cameras these days are frickin' awesome!  My phone camera will even generate a RAW image.  How cool is that?  There are apps that will even manage the phone camera settings.  Image file sizes are fairly comparable between the two.  That has to be the same quality, right?
Well, it depends.
Phone cameras make good photography within the reach of most.  The $$$s required are minimal.  After all, the camera is basically paid for.  A lot of what I would call post processing software can be found for free.  Who could ask for more?
The answer begins, as always, is physics.
First, I am a hobbyist.  Not a professional.  And I didn't get too far in physics in high school.  Now that we've set the expectations, let's get on with what is possible and what is fantasy.
The heart of all image capture is the sensor.  This is the same on a phone camera and on a DSLR.
From a very high level, all sensors are the same.  The sensor captures light and translates the information to digital information.  The digital information is captured in a file and you know the rest from here.  To be sure, that is probably 100 steps condensed to 3.  We'll keep it simple.
For the sake of my answer, I'll go with the image capture at the sensor is the best it can be.
If you look up the definition of photography, every one deals with the capture of light and somehow converting that information to another medium.
The key word here is LIGHT.
For most of my friends who are photography enthusiasts, we have (can afford) equipment with what is called a APS-C class size, 23.6mm x 15.8mm for an area of 3.73cm(sq).  Most of us have dreams of hitting the lottery and going full frame which is 36mm x 23.9mm for an area of 8.6cm(sq).  Ah, the quest of light.
So, what's in a phone camera?  Without getting into the math, the APS-C sensor is roughly 18x-20x larger that what is in my phone.  That's the physics part.  I'm sure there is some law that states the bigger the sensor, the more light it will capture.

I can hear the rumble within the Apple community now, well Mr. know-it-all, how come my phone doesn't stink with that kind of math?
You have to give credit where it is due, all those phone engineers earn their money.  Apparently there are tricks in order to get the most possible light to the sensor.  Technology is a wonderful thing.
So the Apple crowd will also ask, well why don't they just put a bigger sensor in the phone?  Well, you'd have to ask Apple, but one reason is with the rush to get smaller and more powerful the constant enemy is heat.  And a sensor will generate heat.
So in the end the answer to the original question lies in, what do you want to do with the hobby?  If you are happy with your phone camera, then yes you can take just as good a picture with your phone camera as you would with a DSLR.  But my answer to the the question is no, my phone camera will not take pictures with which I would create my art.  And it never will.  And I'm OK with that.
My phone takes great 'family opportunity/travel/vacation' shots.  I'm OK with Samsung's algorithms to produce a good JPG file.  However, if I want to show off or print pictures, or as I like to say digital art, than I want the best capture of light I can get.  Or the biggest sensor I can afford.
This covers just the sensor size.  There are other aspects to this conversation as well.  What about the elements of the sensor, the pixel element?  With smaller sensor sizes comes smaller pixel elements, right?  Is smaller better?
How do you get light to the sensor?  I spend a few $$$$s on glass.  Could it be that the lenses on the camera phone are just as good?
Another discussion, another time.

Old Schoolhouse

I found this old schoolhouse on a back road a few years ago, October of 2015.  Not sure I could find it again.  But it is in Michigan, that much I know for sure.  There was a large drainage ditch next to the road, followed by a small rise of debris in the path to the building.  As a result, I couldn't use the viewfinder.  I had to hold the camera above my head and hope for the best.  I have a lot of (blind) shots.  The framing on most could be said to be interesting.  
This was taken with the D90 through the 18-200 lens set to 40 mm focal length.  1/50 of a second, f/25, ISO 200 Aperture Priority.

I like the autumn colors, the orange of the leaves and the color of the weathered roof.  I get the added benefit of some good wood grain which is a personal favorite.  I will suffer with the tree in the front.
In the original image, there was visual junk everywhere.  Back in 2015 my only tool to remove unsightly distractions was to use a clone stamp in Elements.  I played with this image for a while before giving up.
This is the original image.

There were four distractions I need to work on removing.  On the right wall, there is a white tube that is a wire marker.  Just off center right, there is a small tree growing up through the white/gray window filling.  From the lower left, there is a thick horizontal branch that is probably the main objection.  In the upper left, there are a few stray branches the are just irritating.
In Photoshop, I used the fill function set to content aware.  But to use that function you had to use the lasso tool and circle the objects to remove.  I used the mouse, I used the tablet.  The software did the job, but there was a lot more effort involved than I'm used to.  I like easier. So my next effort was with On One's healing tool.  That was much faster.  Just use a brush to highlight the area to clean up, and presto.  That takes care of the overall image.
For my contrasting, even though it is no longer supported by Google, I'm still a big fan of Google's NIK package.  I use the HDR effect module.  In this case I used one of my favorite presets that really over-sharpens and over contrasts.  But instead of going with the total effect, I cut the opacity to 50%.  That was enough to bring out the clouds and the wood grain.  It doesn't look overly altered/butchered.

Rio Grande Trestle

Good afternoon to work on a photo or two.  Single digit Temps, negative temp wind chills.  Perfect day to work on a photo or two.
One of the shots I have from last year's trip to the Detroit Model Railroad Club is of an older model train on a trestle.
This shot was staged for me, as the train was positioned where I wanted it.

This is focus stacked from five shots.  And, as will be shown from one of the originals, some of the background was 'replaced'.
The details: Manual Mode, 32mm, 1 Sec, f/8 and 200 ISO.

Here is the middle shot:

I used Helicon Focus (Pyramid Method) to merge the five shots.  I was pleased with the outcome.

I used On One to remove the office wall.  

I had a photograph from a trip to New York a number of years ago taken on a hike to a waterfall.  The background matched up pretty well.  The sky had a little color and the trees in the background came close to matching.

I used Google's Nik HDR effects to top it off.

Good project for the day.