Image management involves two issues: how images are stored and how to locate a particular image when I want it.  While I have an organization system in place for my slides, I found myself struggling to manage the digital files on my harddrive.  One of my biggest problems with digital is that the number of digital images increase at an alarming rate.  The more I shoot, the bigger the problem becomes.  After much frustration and stalling, I established a file management system that has done wonders for my state of mind.

The first image management decision involves how to store digital images.  CDs are a cheap and universally accepted way of storing information.  Many photographers think of CDs as their first choice for image storage.  Unfortunately, CD storage is not ideal for the serious digital photographer.  With approximately 650 MB of storage space, a CD can only hold about 60 images from my Canon 1Ds (not including the huge TIFF files Photoshop can produce).  This last year, I added over 6,000 images to my files, enough to fill 100 CDs.  How many CDs it will take to hold 30 year’s worth of images?  I better start talking to my wife about expanding my office!

One solution to CD’s limited storage capacity is to use DVD storage media.  Unlike CDs, each DVD holds 4.2 gigabytes of data, just under 400 1Ds images per DVD.  With the introduction of double-sided DVDs to the market, storage capacity increases to 8.4 gigabytes and Blu-Ray HD DVDs increase the storage capacity even more.  That is a lot of images.  Unfortunately, the DVD file format is still in a state of transition with no industry standard.  In the future the medium will become standardized and DVDs will enter the picture as a major storage medium.  

Another problem of both CD and DVD storage is locating an image once it is off the hard drive.  This isn’t a problem when an image library consists of 10 DVDs, but what about 100 or even 1,000?  Without a good filing system it is easy to know that an image exists, just not where it is.  Once the image is located, I would need to retrieve the disk to access the image.  Again, this is no big deal if I only need a few images, but what if I want to make a submission of 200 images, each on a separate disk?  CDs and DVDs are a viable storage option for photographers shooting for a particular client (i.e. portrait and commercial photographers).  Following a photo shoot, images will only be accessed if that client wants to make a purchase.  After all, it is very unlikely that I will purchase a portrait photograph of someone I don’t know.  Stock photography is different.  As a wildlife stock photographer, I need access to my entire image library to fill the diverse and unpredictable requests of my clients.

A final concern for photographers storing their images on CDs and DVDs is the issue of long term stability.  While a variety of estimates have been made concerning the longevity of different media, IT professionals are not overly confident that CD or DVD disks will work in the long term (5-10 years).  Many of us have experienced CD failure, thereby loosing the data contained on the disk.  Longevity issues can be dealt with by creating multiple copies of each disk and regularly moving images from older disks to newer disks, but who has the time to do that?  Image storage is a necessary part of digital photography, but that doesn’t mean I want it to take the majority of my time.

My solution to image storage is internal and external harddrives.  My computer currently houses 4 internal harddrives.  One harddrive (250 GB) holds the various programs and files that I use on a regular basis (the rough draft of this article for example).  A second harddrive (700 GB) stores my image library.  This harddrive provides the equivalent of 1077 CDs or 167 DVDs.  It also provides immediate access to every image in my collection.  Keeping the image library on my computer gives instant access to all of my images without the need to find a particular CD or DVD.  The two remaining harddrives are reserved for video storage and as a scratch disk.  

What if the harddrive fails?  How do I ensure my entire collection isn’t lost?  The secret to using harddrives for storage is to never use just one.  Anyone who has used computers for long knows that harddrives sometimes fail, usually at the worst moment.  One of the commandments of digital file management is to always have a backup.  Preferably, multiple backups.  When I originally purchased my computer, I also bought some external harddrives.  The internal harddrive provides easy access to my image files.  An external drive sits on my desk, but it not attached to either the computer or the power supply, otherwise a power surge could wipe out both drives.  Periodically (once every few weeks or after a major photo shoot) I connect the backup drive and reformat it.  The entire content of the internal drive is than copied over to the external drive.  Once the backup drive is updated, I disconnect it from the computer and the power supply.  Of course, fire or theft could destroy both drives and leave me without a single image to my name.  For the ultimate in security, I take this a step further.  By adding a second external drive to the system, I can create a second backup drive and store it at a different location (each image is now on three separate drives).  Just remember to update this drive periodically.

Once the method of storage is decided upon, the next issue is organizing the image files.  As a wildlife photographer, I organize my slides by species since this is the main category image buyers request.  It also happens to be how I think about my images.  Now that I work with both slides and digital files, it is to my advantage to keep the two systems as similar as possible.  Some photographers catalog wildlife images by scientific name.  While I have a background in biology, trying to remember the scientific name of ever species in my image collection seems too much like work.  I want to keep things as simple as possible.  With that in mind, I created a file structure on my harddrive that groups the images by the species’ common name.  In the first level, I have folders for “Animals”, “Plants”, “Scenics”, and “Other.”  Moving into the “Animals” folder will bring up folders for “Birds”, “Mammals”, “Insects”, “Reptiles”, etc.  In the “Bird” folder are “Anhinga”, “Avocet, American”, and “Killdeer” just to name a few.  Before being placed in a folder, images are renamed using the species name and a sequential number.  For example, my Killdeer images are named “Killdeer_00001”…“Killdeer_00002”…and so on.  Renaming digital files in this manner is easy with the batch rename function found in most RAW converter programs.  Using the species name and a number as the foundation of my naming system offers a number of advantages.  Every digital file in my collection has a unique name, new images can be added easily, the file name indicates what the subject is, and I can tell how many images I have of a particular species.  Landscape images are cataloged using a similar system, using location as the main category instead of species.

File Folders for organizing images.

One step I have found helpful is to create a “sort and edit” folder as part of my filing system.  This folder contains all images as they are imported into the computer.  Once images are edited, tagged with appropriate keyword information, and renamed they are moved to to the individual species folders.  I find this step to be essential for keeping my images organized as I always know where new files are located and which files need to be worked on before they are integrated into the image collection.

For most photographers, cataloging images by subject is as far as image management needs to go.  Images can be found simply by go to the appropriate folder and use an image browser to locate the file.  As images collections get larger and image searches become more complex (i.e. “Do you have any images of three animals with two mountain peaks in the background?”) tracking images becomes more of a challenge.  This is where a database is beneficial.

What should a nature photographer look for in a database program?  There are three requirements I have for any image database.  First, since I am working with digital images, the program has to automatically generate thumbnail images.  This lets me use the database much like a light table, a format I am accustomed to from my years of working with slides.  Second, the database must be able to perform searches of the IPTC data and keywords from each image.  IPTC data is a data field into which information can be added to.  With slides, caption information was placed directly on the slide mount.  With digital, caption information is added as IPTC and keyword data along with copyright information.  I already add IPTC caption information and keywords to every image, so why not use a program with the capability to search through that information?  Third, I must be confident that the company that makes and updates the database will be around in the future.  Over the years, image database companies have come and gone with startling speed.  Before I invest in a program, I want to make certain that the program will be supported in the future.

Based on the criteria above, there are several programs available.  Of these, Adobe’s Lightroom (www.adobe.com) is one of the more flexible and affordable programs on the market.  Lightroom is designed to manage large image collects (well over 100,000 images) and works well with the species file structure I use.  Once images are imported into the database, the program acts as an image browser to review images in a collection.  The program also supports a wide variety of file formats and is constantly updated as new cameras enter the market.  

Adobe Lightroom is an excellent image management program.

The true power of Lightroom comes from the database search functions.  Once images are part of the database, searches can be performed using a variety of criteria, including file name, text (this included IPTC data), and keywords.  Searches can also be performed using multiple terms, such as “chimpanzee”, “infant”, and “play.”  The more detail I apply to my database, the more complex searches can be.  Lightroom also permits searches covering a specific period of time.  For example, if I wanted to locate a lion picture from my second trip to Ngorongoro Crater in Tanzania, I could search for lion images, but limit the search to the dates of my second trip.  The power and flexibility of the search functions make Lightroom an essential tool in locating specific images within large collections.

Keywords and metadata entered into Lightroom.

Databases take a lot of time and energy to create and keep updated.  Before devoting that time, it is important to decide if a database is really necessary.  In my experience, most photographers have a good knowledge of the images present in their files.  If someone asks if I have an image of a skunk, I don’t have to open up my database to find out.  A database does come in handy when I am looking for concepts rather then particular subjects.  If someone asks me to show them my “moody, evening shots,” the database might pull up images that didn’t come to mind (assuming my caption information is sufficiently detailed).  Databases are also helpful if someone else is trying to locate images.  While I might know every image in my collection, my wife doesn’t.  Having a database expands her ability to locate images and the efficiency with which I can run my office.

In the last three articles, I have explained the workflow I use to manage my digital images.  I find that my enjoyment of digital photography is directly linked to the efficiency of my workflow.  Remember, digital workflow is a highly personal aspect of the photographic process and what works for one person might not be right for someone else.  Talk to a variety of people and fine tune your own methods.  The key is to remember that the purpose of a digital workflow is to reduce the time you spend in front of the computer.  Digital photography is about photography, so grab your camera and go out and photograph.

Digital frustrations

In the previous article, I discussed working with digital in the field.  Now, I would like to expand the topic to include editing and post-processing of digital images.  Before digital, image processing consisted of shipping film off to the lab.  Since going digital, I have become the lab.  Processing of images, proper “development”, and retouching are entirely under my control.  Streamlining the image processing workflow was perhaps the largest step in my ongoing effort to simplify the digital process.

There is a simple rule that many digital photographers overlook.  If the image doesn’t look good out of the camera, throw it away!  Too often poor images are kept with the intention of “fixing them in Photoshop.”  Photoshop is an amazing program, and I have brought poor images back from the dead with it, but the time investment is rarely worth the effort.  On a recent weeklong trip to Florida, I shot over 5,000 images.  Of those, I kept around 1,500 (more then I should, but we are talking about my babies here).  Imagine if I had kept 1,000 additional images because it will only take five minutes to “fix it”.  That adds up to 83 hours of computer editing, not to mention the time I spend on the 1,500 good images!  If I am not ruthless in my commitment to discarding bad images, I will spend the rest of my life sitting in front of the computer.  I am a photographer, and I want to spend my time taking pictures.  Once again, if the image isn’t good out of the camera, delete it.  Minor corrections are OK, but a bad shot is a bad shot.  Accept it and move on.

Once I have downloaded a day’s shoot, I spend the evening doing a rough edit on my laptop.  With film, I would wait for a week to get my film back from the lab before going through it.  With digital, I see my results the same day.  Also, by reviewing my images each night, I can plan my next day.  For example, let’s say the main goal of my trip to Yellowstone is to get a stunning image of a bison standing in the snow.  My nightly review lets me know if I got the shot.  Once I have the image, I can focus on other subjects for the remainder of the trip.  If, on the other hand, I didn’t get it, I can go back the next day and try again.  By prioritizing the images I want to bring home, I can focus my energy more efficiently by reviewing my shoot at the end of each day.

My method of editing and processing images currently involves two programs, Adobe Lightroom and Adobe Photoshop CS3 (www.adobe.com).  Other programs are available, but these are the two that I like to use.

Adobe Lightroom is an outstanding image-viewing, RAW conversion, and image management program.  I find Lightroom to be an excellent starting point for reviewing the many images taken during a day’s shoot.  After loading the images onto the computer, I import them into Lightroom and open the library module. Double clicking on the first image presents me with an enlarged view, providing an excellent way to get a quick impression of how the day went.  Using the keyboard’s arrow keys, I move through the images.   Any image that I do not want to keep is tagged as a reject by pressing “X”.  My goal is to remove images that don’t measure up in terms of composition, sharpness, or impact.  To ascertain critical sharpness, I click on an image to view it at 100% resolution.  This is very similar to reviewing slides with an 8x loupe.  Any images that are nor razor sharp are rejected.  In most cases, the LCD monitor on my laptop is good enough to evaluate critical sharpness, however, when focus is difficult to judge I save the image and evaluate sharpness on the high end LCD monitor in my home office.  Once all the images have been reviewed, I simply delete the rejected images using “Option + Delete”.  Using this method, I can perform a rough edit of several hundred images in about 15 minutes.

Adobe Lightroom library window

There is one more step to editing digital images.  When I shot film, I would shoot in-camera duplicates or multiple images with only minor variations.  Having multiple originals was important because slide duplicates were never as good as originals, and I liked having multiple copies in case of damage.  This concern is negated by digital.  With a digital file, I can make as many perfect copies as I want.  While I still shoot multiple versions of the same scene, I no longer keep every copy.  In fact, I only keep the best one.  With this in mind, my editing now involves picking the best of a series and deleting the rest.  I don’t need ten copies of the same shot.  Instead I keep the best shot and make a backup to cover my bases.  This method also reduces the number of digital images I have to keep track of at a reasonable level.

With digital, editing is only the beginning.  Unlike film, digital involves post-processing of images.  Digital files rarely look their best straight out of the camera.  With practice, it is possible to identify exceptional images the first time you look at them, but in almost every case those files require adjustments to be made before the image pops.

I shoot in the RAW file format.  While they require more work, RAW files offer more options in the post-processing stage.  I save time by limiting my post-processing to those images I want to use immediately.  Other images are processed when and if I need them.

Post-processing begins as images are imported into Lightroom.  While importing, I have the program apply an auto tones adjustment to all images.  Auto tones provides a good staring point for most digital files.  Images can then be adjusted on an individual basis.  Following the initial culling, images are moved to Lightroom’s develop module.  The develop module provides a wide assortment of image adjustment controls that can be used to optimize individual images.

Once in the develop module, I like to begin by checking the image’s white balance.  While I use the camera’s auto white balance setting, sometimes the camera’s selection needs a little tweaking.  If there is a neutral part of the image, I select that point with the eyedropper and the image will be adjusted automatically.  More often, however, I find myself selecting a white balance from the menu options (daylight, shade, cloudy, etc.).  Once a white balance is selected I can play around with the sliders if I want.  Many times, nature images benefit from the addition of a warming filter.  Since switching to digital, I no longer carry warming filters.  By increasing the white balance to a higher Kelvin temperature, I simulate the effect of a warming filter.  Best of all, I can fine-tune my “filter” for the results I want.  One of the nice features of Lightroom is that as changes are made to the image, the preview changes to show the effect.  This allows greater control over an image as I make adjustments.

The next step involves adjusting exposure.  RAW files offer the amazing option to adjust exposure by +/- 2 stops!  Of course, small changes usually produce the highest quality results.  I try not to use the exposure compensation control as an alternative to proper exposure, but I often find that minor adjustments on the scale of ½ – ¼ stops can have a dramatic impact on the final image.  Having this option available is one of the advantages of using the RAW file format.

Adobe Lightroom develop window

Of course, exposure adjustment is not just about correcting your mistakes.  Digital cameras have an exposure latitude that is slightly greater then slide film.  In low contrast situations, the different between white and black is not as extreme as the camera can record.  The result is that pixels do not cover the entire range of the histogram.  These images have a washed out look and do little to capture the viewer’s attention.  The solution is to expand the histogram so it covers the entire tonal range.

Using the develop module’s tone adjustments, I am able to alter the image’s histogram to cover the entire tonal range.  The histogram shows the distribution of the image’s pixels between black (the left edge) and white (the right edge).  The auto tones applied during import attempts to adjust the histogram so that it covers the entire tonal range.  By moving the tone adjustment sliders (exposure, recovery, fill light, and blacks), it is possible to fine tune the adjustments for each image.  Moving the exposure slider shifts the distribution of pixels at the white side of the histogram.  The black slider has a similar effect on the black side of the histogram.  Recovery and fill light produce smaller adjustments to the white and black sides, respectively.  By moving the left side of the histogram right up to the left edge of the frame, I am telling the computer to render these pixels as black.  Moving the edge of the histogram to the right side of the frame makes these pixels appear white.  Once the computer knows where black and white are, it distributes the remaining pixels between those two points.  I can than darken or lighten the overall image by sliding the brightness slider left or right.  By observing the preview image as I adjust exposure, I can fine-tune the results to have the most impact.

My final step in Lightroom is to convert the RAW image file into a format that can be opened in other programs.  The two options available include TIFF and jpg file types.  TIFF files are large and fill computer harddrives at an alarming rate but they use a lossless compression format that maintains excellent quality.  Jpg files are small but use lossy compression that discards detail every time the image is saved.  Most of the time, I convert files into the 16-bit TIFF format.  I reason that if I want a jpg down the road, I can always convert the TIFF file.  While Lightroom does allow me to change the output size of the RAW file, I prefer to create full sized TIFFs.  This serves as my master file.  If I ever want a smaller image I can downsize it later, but I want to start out with the best image possible.  Perhaps the greatest feature of the Lightroom software is that it remembers the individual settings for each image.  The next time I look at a file, all my adjustments are still there and I can convert with a single click of the button.

Once I have a master TIFF file I move to Photoshop.  This imaging program enables me to fine tune my digital images for output.  While the variety of adjustments that can be performed in Photoshop are astounding, most of my images only undergo minor adjustments.  Using adjustment layers, I open levels and double check that the white and black points of the image are set properly.  As my confidence in Lightroom continues to grow I find that adjusting levels becomes less necessary.  Once this is complete, I ascertain if the image needs an increase in contrast.  Digital cameras generally produce low contrast images.  When a boost in contrast is desired, I open the curves dialog box and reshape the curve until it has a slight S-shape.  By clicking on the preview box, I can turn the effect on and off to evaluate the effect.  As a lover of saturated films like Fuji Velvia and Kodak 100VS, I feel that digital images have boring color pallets.  To compensate, I increase the saturation of each image by +10 to +15.  This increases the visual impact of the image and more closely resembles the films I prefer.

Photoshop adjustment layers; including levels, curves, and hue/saturation.

Now the image is ready.  The final steps are to resize the image and sharpening for output.  While others declare third party software to be superior, I find that the bicubic algorithms in Photoshop do a good job of resampling images to a larger size.  For sharpening, unsharp mask (doesn’t that name sound contradictory?) is an excellent tool once the controls are understood.

Photographer working on digital images.

It is often said, “The benefit of digital photography is that the photographer has total control.  The bane of digital photography is that the photographer has total control.”  Truer words were never spoken.  When I made the switch from film to digital, it quickly became apparent that digital photography was the same as film-based photography.  I selected the shutter speed and aperture combination, adjusted the exposure and pressed the shutter button.  Now let me contradict myself by saying that digital photography is very different than film photography.  To be more precise, digital processing is very different then film processing.

With film, once the film is exposed I sent it off to the lab and they take care of the rest.  As a digital photographer, I am the lab.  It is my job to process the images, make adjustments, and perform retouches.  The key to mastering digital photography is in developing a workflow that allows you to move efficiently from conception to the final image.

Digital workflow can be divided into three broad categories: photographing in the field, working with images on the computer, and managing image collections.  Through this series of articles, we will examine the options available and how to streamline your efforts.  Part I will focus on working with a digital camera in the field.  Part II will concentrate on image editing and fine-tuning images on the computer.  Part III will address organizing and managing your image collections.  As I developed my skills as a digital photographer I realized that digital workflow is personal and a photographer’s ability to streamline that workflow will have a major impact on how much they enjoy digital photography.  With the right workflow, post-processing can be efficient, allowing more time to take pictures.  In these articles I will discuss my digital workflow and the issues and concerns that went into its development.

Digital Photography in the Field

Digital Camera and computer equipment.

Equipment:

When heading out into the field, my first step is to decide what equipment to take with me.  In addition to the standard photographic equipment, I now include a selection of gear specific to digital photographers.  First and foremost is the digital camera.  Digital SLR (dSLR) cameras are largely comparable to film cameras with the exception that the camera itself dictates maximum image resolution rather then the film.  For my own uses, Canon’s 1DmarkII and 1Ds dSLR cameras meet my needs.  In most cases, I shoot with the 1DmarkII for its high frame rate (8 frames a second) and outstanding image quality, reserving the 1Ds as a backup camera.

While digital cameras can be tethered directly to a computer, this is not practical for nature photography.  In fact, downloading images in the field does not work well with my style of photography.  I prefer to carry enough CF memory cards to last the entire day.    I usually carry between 12-16 GBs in CF memory cards, switching cards as they fill up.  My cards range in size from 1-4 GB.  Shooting in the RAW format I can fit either 360 images (1DmarkII) or 284 images (1Ds) on a single 4-GB card.  Larger CF cards are available but I prefer not to put too many eggs in one basket.  Spreading my images over multiple cards, I reduce the risk of loosing all the images from a shoot if a problem occurs.  When not in use, CF cards are carried in a small card holder on my belt.  When a card is full, I store it in the holder facing backwards indicating it contains images and needs to be downloaded.

I also carry a spare set of rechargeable batteries for both cameras.  Digital cameras are more like computers than film cameras and require more battery power to function.  Nine times out of ten, a fresh battery will last me through the day.  However, if great subjects abound, I want to have a spare battery at the ready.

Camera Settings:

The next step is determining what camera settings to use.  Digital cameras have an array of settings that effect not only the ability to capture an image, but also how the final image will appear.  The settings anyone chooses depends largely on the ultimate use for the images.  In my case, camera settings are selected to produce the highest image quality without making too many alterations to the basic image.

The foundation of my workflow system is the RAW file format.  This is the “RAW” image from the sensor, without adjustments being applied by the camera.  RAW files can be adjusted at a later date and fine-tuned to my heart’s content.  The RAW format permits me to adjust exposure, white balance, bit depth, and other key image characteristics after the initial capture.  This allows corrections to be made and creative options, that were not previously possible, to be pursued.  On the downside, RAW files are large, limiting the number of images that can be fit on a single memory card.  RAW files also require a greater commitment of time for post-processing and are not recognized by many computer programs.

Color space is an issue that has no film equivalent.  We are starting to enter the realm of color management, a topic that fills books the size of your local phone book.  The good news is that mastering color management theory is not necessary to use the camera.  In its simplest form, color space is a method computers use to interpret and display color.  Most digital cameras offer two color space options: Adobe RGB and sRGB.  Adobe RGB has a wider color gamut than sRGB.  This means that the Adobe RGB color space offers a wider range of colors, translating to more colors in the images.

Camera manufacturers recommend digital photographers use sRGB because they are trying to make life easier for the average digital photographer.  The sRGB color space has a color range that is very similar to what is seen on a computer monitor.  Since most digital photographers view their images on a monitor, it makes sense for them to use the sRGB color space.  By recording images in the Adobe RGB color space, I am recording the greatest range of colors possible.  I can always convert the image to sRGB later if I want.  In the meantime, I know the extra color detail is there if I ever want it.

White balance is another setting digital photographers can adjust.  Time of day and the light source have an impact on the temperature of light and how it is rendered in the final image.  For example, at sunset, the light has a distinctly golden/yellow color cast.  Wait 30 minutes following the sunset, however, and the visible light will have a strong blue color.  The human eye is outstanding at compensating for different color casts.  Cameras, on the other hand, are more easily fooled.  White balance helps to compensate for changes in color temperature.  With film, there were only two choices: daylight or tungsten.  With digital, choices include sunlight, shade, cloudy, indoor, florescent, and custom white balance.  I often get so focused on the subject that I forget to adjust the white balance.  After all, this was not done with film.  Fortunately, camera manufacturers have taken people like me into account and provided an auto white balance setting.  My experience is that auto white balance is usually accurate and adjustments are easy to make during post-processing provided you are shooting in the RAW file format.

The remaining camera settings are designed to adjust the appearance of the final image such as saturation, contrast, sharpening, etc.  I prefer to leave these camera settings at the minimum level.  Having the camera make adjustments saves time.  However, I feel that each image is unique and should be adjusted on a case by case basis rather then applying a generic setting to every image.

Working in the Field:

Using a digital camera in the field differs from film in several ways.  First, you don’t have to change “film” as often so there are fewer excuses for not getting the shot (wait, fewer excuses….this might not be a good thing).  Also, the availability of the histogram to fine-tune exposure and the ability to review your images while in the field are new options.

Camera histogram

The ability to review the histogram while shooting is one of the greatest benefits of digital.  A histogram is simply a bar graph showing how pixels are distributed between black (left side) and white (right side).  Reading the histogram serves two important functions.  I can check the basic distribution of pixels in the image to make certain they match the image as I pre-visualized it, and I can check exposure simply by glancing at the histogram.  My experience has been that digital cameras are excellent at capturing shadow detail but very limited when it comes to recording highlights.  In the field this means that I am most concerned about blowing out the highlights in an image.  To deal with this, I adjust my exposure using the camera’s light meter and take a “test shot” as I approach the subject.  I then evaluate the test shot’s histogram on the camera’s LCD screen.  I want to make certain that the histogram does not extend past the right edge of the graph (indicating overexposure).  If the histogram extends too far to the right, I adjust my exposure and fire off another test shot.  Once I know that my exposure is correct and the histogram shows I am not cutting off the highlights, I can shoot without fear of loosing the image due to poor exposure.  In the field, the histogram acts as an incidental light meter that shows exactly what the final image will look like.

Much has been said about the ability of digital to provide instant feedback and how this can speed up the learning curve for photographers who use digital.  Personally, I find this to be one of the most overrated benefits of digital photography.  When I am out in the field, I am there to take photographs, not review the images I already took.  Yes, I review the histogram to fine-tune my exposure, but I hardly ever even glance at the image on the LCD screen as I shoot.  My review of images is saved for the off hours when I am back in my hotel room.  The simple fact is that for wildlife photography (the bulk of what I do) usually offers only a brief moment in which to capture the image.  That means that I can choose between looking at the shot I just captured or try to get an even better one.  For me, it isn’t an issue; shoot now, look later.

Downloading Images:

Once the shooting day is over, I still have the task of downloading the images from the CF cards.  I am different from many other photographers in that I do not carry a laptop or digital wallet with me in the field.  A 500mm lens and tripod is more then enough weight, thank you very much.  I prefer to carry enough CF cards to shoot for the entire day, saving downloading to the laptop for midday and evening breaks at the hotel.  This reduces the amount of equipment I carry in the field and circumvents the need to carry an extra power supply.  Most importantly, by not downloading until the end of the day, I am able to focus all my attention on photography while I am in the field.

Downloading images can be done in three ways.  The first time I downloaded images from my dSLR, I attached the camera directly to my computer and downloaded using the USB 1.0 connection.  Forty-five minutes later the download was complete (using a one-GB card).  To download seven cards using this method, it would take over 5 hours!  Plus the camera is tied up the entire time so it can’t be used to take more pictures.  Obviously, direct camera connection is not the best option for the serious photographer.  The next step was using a PCMCIA card reader specifically designed for laptops.  These cards as small and inexpensive and cut the download time of one card to 15 minutes.  Better, but still not ideal.  The best solution I have found is an external USB 2.0 CF card reader (Firewire card reader work equally well for MAC users).  USB 2.0 is significantly faster then its predecessor, downloading a one GB card in a mere 2.5 minutes.  Once all images are downloaded to the computer, they are placed in folder for review and editing.

One concern digital shooters must address is redundancy and a backup system for their field shoots.  As photographers, we often carry backup cameras in case something goes wrong.  Digital photographers must do the same thing when it comes to their digital workflow.  Using a laptop as the method of downloading and storing your images is very convenient, but if the computer crashes, there must be an alternate method of downloading your digital images.  The last thing I want to have happen is for my laptop to die on the first day of a three week Tanzanian safari, knowing I have no backup system in place.

The ideal solution is to carry a backup laptop.  Of course, not many of us have the funds to purchase a second laptop and even if we did, weight is an issue.  Fortunately, there are cheaper and better options.  One alternative is to travel with someone who also has a laptop.  That gives both of you a backup if something goes wrong with either machine.  Just pack a number of blank CDs and you are covered in case of disaster.  If you are traveling alone, a digital wallet like the Epson P-5000 might be the answer.  Since I usually photograph alone, I have elected to carry a laptop and a small digital wallet for emergencies.  Using the laptop is my preferred method, as it allows me to edit images during the evening, but the digital wallet helps me sleep better at night knowing that I have a backup system in place.