Untitled photo

Some early results from the 2016 Auto Show:

I took six hundred and eighty-seven photos total.

Day One was my dedicated photography day, and I was only carrying the D800 with its Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and Nikon 60mm 2.8G Macro. The wide lens accounted for eighty-nine images, and the macro was good for two hundred and twenty-seven, for a total of three hundred and sixteen. One hundred and thirty were at f/4.0, seventy-four at f/5.6, and fifty-five at f/2.8. None were past f/9.

Day Two was spent with the Ricoh GR and Fujifilm XT10. The GR, as a pocketable camera, took one hundred and forty photos. The XT10, with its versatile zoom lens, took two hundred and thirty-one. For these 1.5x crop cameras one hundred and forty-eight were at f/4, and eighty-seven were at f/16, which I only use with the GR for long exposures. 

But that's just the bulk numbers.

After an initial editing pass, one hundred and ninety two were given a star rating. This mostly weeds out the duplicates and becomes the core collection. These are the numbers that mean more – and sometimes deviate from the bulk numbers, which can be interesting.

Only twelve photos from the GR made it to this level, partly because long exposures are experimental and prone to failure. Ten of those twelve are at f/16 for the longest possible shutter speed, which actually means that it was the regular photos that I took with the GR that were overwhelmingly discarded. So so much for that theory.

The Fuji XT10 did much better, with fifty-three 'keepers'. I made good use of the zoom lens, working throughout the range, but twenty were at its longest 55mm, and fourteen clustered around 35mm. Conveniently, the two ZM lenses that I use most with the Fuji are the 35/2 and 50/1.5, and my favourite XF lens is the 60mm macro.

The D800 had one hundred and twenty-seven photos reach this level, for the best success rate of the bunch. Thirty-eight were with the 35/1.4, and eighty-nine from the 60/2.8G. The apertures used stayed about the same, hovering around f/4, which was mostly out of deference for the light levels. I've never been one for extremely thin focus.

But that's just the metadata, and doesn't say anything about the subject matter.

Of those one hundred and ninety-two photos that earned a star rating, forty did not include a car at all. And all of the photos that include an entire car, instead of just a fragment of them, are at the top of this post.