Fall Foliage Photography - Some Personal Observations

AS I noted last week, the Fall Foliage "season" is upon us. Fall has become increasingly popular in this time of instant, worldwide media, highly capable smartphone cameras, and a proliferation of folks identifying themselves as "digital creators" and "media influencers." There is no shortage of enthusiastic posting of photos, memes trip plans and the like. Along with this comes a certain amount of angst, as folks plan (or have planned) their fall trips and excursions. What will the weather be like. Will I see the foliage. Am I too early, or too late? Where is the best place to go?

One of the terms I abhor is the word "peak."

I HAVE made no secret of the fact that fall is my favorite time of the year (for a number of reasons). We travel a lot during that time, and I try to plan at least one "serious" photo excursion to do landscape and foliage photography. Many readers know that I am a foliage fan. I have written 2 (multiple edition) e-books (no longer avialable as e-books but can be downloaded here as PDF files) on photographing two of the U.S.'s finest foliage destinations: Vermont and Michigan's Upper Peninsula. And now here we are. Right in the middle of it (actually at the end of it in many places - especially the northern parts of the country; but still early in some of the southern locations).

Chase the color. That "peak" you are seeking may turn out not to be the panacea you think it is

I PARTICIPATE and moderate on a couple FB pages and during the season spend a lot of time perusing those forums. As such, over the years I have developed a few observations about photography during this time of year. I will share them here, for what it is worth.

Timing

Be aware that this period is one of the most active travel periods of the year. Especially in some of the popular destinations (like New England), it may be very difficult and/or expensive to find suitable lodging and obtain rental cars during this time period. Many of Vermont's lodging opportunities, for example, are booked a year or longer in advance. Plan accordingly.

Of course this phenomena begets another complication. Fall photography is weather related and nobody can accurately predict conditions a year in advance. Weather not only dictates your particular time period, but also the conditions of the subject you seek: foliage. A dry or wet summer, and as well, a dry or wet fall, along with temperature conditions all affect this. Again, basically unpredictable. My thinking over the years is you have to plan and go and take what you get. And surprisingly, I have always "gotten" something.

Another positive to advance planning is that if you fly (and I often do), it is often the case that you can lock down more economical flight prices (and then with many airlines, you can watch for "better deals").

Conditions On The Ground

There are a few factors that affect your experience. We see a lot of conversation using certain "key" words that I think also, unfortunately, contribute to the angst some people feel when planning and making these trips.

This has appeared a few times on the internet over the years. I would attribute it, but have no idea who the original author is. It is laughably satirical and proves my point, though 😁

One of the terms I abhor is the word "peak." I cringe a little bit every time I see it mentioned in a post on line. "Will I be there at peak?" "When does it peak in . . . ?" What in the world does that even mean? For discussion's sake, let's say that "peak" is  a point on a continuum, when a leaf goes from turning color, to falling off the tree. That doesn't happen all at the same time. Not even on the same tree. There are times when it all comes together in a certain area and you get a wash of fully colored trees. Other times, there is a mix of different stages, with colors and greens. Both can be very beautiful. But you aren't likely to find many spots where that magical "peak" everyone talks about all comes together. My advice? Stop worrying about it and "chase the color."

Something we don't always appreciate: that mystical "peak" may not even yield your best image. In 1997 (I was shooting 35mm slide film then), I made the first of many trips to my then home state of Michigan's vaunted upper peninsula" ("U.P"). If you haven't visited there, it really is a little slice of nature heaven. It is also the subject of one of the eBooks mentioned above. As is so often the case, I didn't time the foliage perfectly. Like so many locations, factors like elevation and proximity to inflluences like large bodies of water, makes the conditions variable in different locations. There is a wonderful photo up in the northwestern part of the U.P. in the "Porcupine Mountains" State Park called "Lake of The Clouds." I have seen photos of it "floating" in clouds and fog. I have seen photos with a full "wash" of fall foliage. I got none of that on my solitary trip there. But turning away from the lake itself, I did get the image below. "Peak?" Far from it. One of my absolute favorite images? Certainly. And, to boot, my all time best selling image. Chase the color. That "peak" you are seeking may turn out not to be the panacea you think it is. 

Porcupine Mountains - Michigan U.P. - Copyright Andy Richards 1997 - All Rights Reserved

The "peak" conception is one of the reasons we often speak of "chasing the color." As photographers - particulary photographers seeking images of a limited time condition (think foliage, northern lights, spring bloom) - we have to have a mindset of flexibility and mobility. We have to be ready and willing to seek out (by whatever means necessary - on-line, local knowledge, etc.) where the subjects we seek are "happening," and go to them. I have many times left my "headquarters" at 4:00 a.m. to be somewhere I have learned is "the spot" by sunrise and/or golden hour. My thought process when I drag myself upright on those mornings: I can sleep when I get home. 

Don't Rely on the Maps

The internet is a wonderful resource. It is often also a source of sketchy information. Just because you found it on line, doesn't mean it is accurate, or complete information. This is true even when apparently reliable sources. There are any number of different foliage progression maps, graphs and other resources out there. While they are a good general resource, they are just that: general. They convey in very general terms what "usually" happens. But there is no "usual," when it comes to foliage. My first dedicated fall foliage photography trip to Vermont was in 2005. I had lived there for a few years back in the early 1980s and remember the spectacular show Mother Nature put on in the fall. Not recalling with precision that months (or weeks) of the year when this happened, I reached out to my dairy farmer uncle, a lifelong resident of northwestern Vermont. In his memory, the foliage season lasted about 3 weeks, beginning at the end of Septembe (last week or so). We planned our trip for the first week in October. For myriad reasons, the color had not shown up yet. Nor did it really show up week we were there. The following week, the rains came and took all the leaves down. I have always referred to 2005 as "the year that the color never happened." Nobody can accurately predict when and where you will find color before-hand. Not the maps. Not the meteorologists. Not me. Not my uncle. Dont rely on the maps.

Found Some! - the foliage peeking from behind the right side of this covered bridge in Waterville, Vermont, was enough to convince Rich that maybe . . . just maybe, my hperbolic praise of Vermonts foliage wasn't made up.
Copyright Andy Richards 2005 - All Rights Reserved

So what do you do? You chase the color.😊Anyone sensing repetition here? But seriously, we were camped in Vermont for a full week. My long time best buddy, Rich, and had no other agenda and a car full of photographic gear. We knew there were photography opportunities along the way. We just had to find them, and in the meantime, we kept trying to find at least some fall foliage. The covered bridge image above demonstrates how pathetic our finds were. But we were determined to make the best of the outing. Ironically, that image serves as the background for the collage I made for my LightCentricPhotography logo.

Autumn Leaf Closeup - Stowe, Vermont
Copyright Andy Richards 2005 - All Rights Reserved

And if you just cannot find that subject? You go to plan B. There is always an opportunity to make pictures. You just need to let your creative side lead sometimes. The late Bryan Peterson, one of my strongest photographic influences (and though I never met him, one of my best teachers), once said: "There is always an image there; it is up to the photographer to find it." Rich and I had seen a photograph from up on high of the Village of Stowe, Vermont. We looked everywhere we could think of. One of the truisms that was driven home to me that year was that no nature scene remains static. Unless man works to maintain the photographic view, nature will continue to grow things and eventually obscure it. Apparently that is what happened with the viewpoint where our sought-after village image was taken. Looking on maps, we had an idea that there might be a spot up above that we could possible shoot through. It took some bushwhacking, but we followed a deer trail down to what looked like a shot, in the near darkness. The next morning, again in the a.m. twilight, we bushwhacked that trail again. But Mother Nature would again test our resolve, as a heavy fog shrouded the village and we could not see anything. As we stood around waiting (hoping) for the fog to clear, I started playing around with some closeup isolated images. The leaf image above is my example of "making lemonade from lemons," and is the other half of the LightCentricPhotography logo.

We eventually gave up and decide to drive back down into the village for breakfast. But the story does have a happy ending. As we were finishing, the sun popped through and we could see things clearing. We hustled back to our deer trail and for the third time, bushwhacked down, where we found (albeit challenging) shot throught the trees. I don't think I have ever seen a shot like it and like to think it is my own unique contribution to the 100's of thousands of "iconic" Vermont images out there today.

Color and Saturation 

A few years back, I stood shoulder to shoulder with my buddy, Rich at a scene. Later, when we were back at my Aunt and Uncle's farm where we were comparing images we had taken that morning. I was a bit taken aback as I saw one of his images that was so completely different from mine. I didn't "see" it. He did. It taught me that two sets of eyes standing in the same place at the same time don't always see the same thing. I have grown to realize over time that the same is true of color. Most of the time, when I am processing a photo back home, I am trying to depict the colors and lighting conditions that were there when I made the photo. But what I really mean is that I am depicting what I saw at the time. Once again, someone standing next to me will likely see a different set of colors. It is usually nuanced, but it is there. With that, though, I think that in landscape photography, we are all striving for a certain "realism" in our photos.

One thing that I see time and again, though in people's internet postings is horribly "overcooked" versions of the images they have made. Too often the colors - while vivid - are just unreal. They are sometimes even garish. There are many reasons for this. In the end, it may go back to what I said above. We see (and I suppose remember) things differently. In our ardor to show the often amazing splendor we observed, we just get too enthusiastic with the digital adjustments available to us. In the early days of digital photography, a lot of the images were made as jpeg images and the tools we used (either point and shoot or cell phone cameras) did some of the "cooking" of the raw image (a sensor always records the image as "raw," and then something - usually the camera software - "cooks" it to a form visible on a digital screen). That was usually the end of it and the image was then posted or shared from there.

Some of us more "serious" photographers first scanned our film-based images into digital files, and later began shooting with DSLR digital cameras when they became "affordable." A lot of us used separate software to do our own "cooking." We learned basic adjustments like white and black point, and contrast. And we were able to make a well-exposed photo look pretty good in terms of color. Over time, photo software became more ubiquitous, and as they became the most popular tool for amateur photographers, the cell phone also became packed with software for "influencing" what a photo looked like. In place of the standard rendering (which is always going to be what the manufacturer deems appropriate color and contrast), the consumer began to have choices in the phone settings. Things like "natural," and "vivid." Of course, the "vivid" setting goosed up the colors and contrast to make an image jump out on your phone screen. But unfortunately, in many cases - fall foliage being one of them - it also created unnaturally bright and saturated photos. Within the camera and gallery settings of most modern "smart" phones is also adjustment software, giving the user the power to make additional such adjustments. And then some folks (and this applies to smart phones and the users of more sophisticated DSLR and MILS cameras - together with software like Photoshop) have used post-processing software to push things even further.

In my view, this trend produces several negatives. First, it gives viewers who may be using images they see on line as a measure of a place they may want to visit. They see these incredible (and by that I mean the literal: not credible) views of trees, and green pastures and red barns and white churches, for example, in New England. Or the neon yellow Aspen trees in bloom in the American West. Nice. But not real. Not even close. Another negative is that, depending on the technique used to "overcook" these images, the adjustments actually do damage to the image. I think the most abused tool in these software programs is the global slider usually labeled "Saturation." With increased saturation, the details often deteriorate. Saturation does not increase a color - especially one that isn't really present in the photo. Instead, it renders the colors surrealistic. It turns the shadows purple (I especially notice this in tree trunks). It turns asphalt blue (instead of its natural grey). The reds in foliage turn into mush, and sometimes turn purple themselves. The light greens become neon. In spite of your thinking, "it is not a pretty picture." In my prior blog post, I go into some detail about this. I really recommend (and wish) that people would make very judicious use of these tools.

Look Behind You

A great piece of advice I often read in inspirational pieces by other photographers - particularly teaching pros. We can sometimes get all wound up in the (often iconic) scene in front of us, trying to make our best image, and miss little things around us that might just turn out to be the real "best image." My Porcupine Mountains image is one of those. The main subject that everyone goes to shoot is this gorgeous lake at the top of the highest point (the "Porkies" as we Michigander's often call them, are not real mountains. But they are the highest point in Michigan at just under 2000 feet) in the park, that often appears to be just floating in the foliage and clouds. But my best image was seen by turning away from the main event. Of course, I am not advocating skipping the main scene. Just being observant about other photo opportunities.

Peacham Cemetery - Peacham, Vermont
Copyright Andy Richards 2005 - All Rights Reserved

In Vermont, the quaint village of Peacham is probably my favorite place in the state. The iconic photograph there (if you "Google" Peacham, you will undoubtedly find many photos of the scene - and probably want to make your own) is of the white church and red barn with mountain ranges in the background. It really is a wonderful scene and almost looks like it was set up for photographers. I have photographed it, and other parts of Peacham many times over the years. But on my first visit there, I turned around and across the street was the Peacham cemetery. Remember, this was the year color never happened in Vermont (2005). And there in front of me was probably the best color we saw all week. And a nice photo!

FALL IS a very special time of the year for photographers. Maybe some of my thoughts resonate with you. Maybe you have some of your own (would love to here about them). If it is not too late in your "neck of the woods," or where you plan to travel to this year, I hope you can get out and make some (realistic) pictures! 

    

 

Let's Talk Saturation!

IT IS that time of year. Fall. Bright, multi-colored leaves. Dramatic landscape. Crisp, cool air. It is my personal favorite time of the year, and I believe I am not alone in that feeling!

. . . way too many of these photos are just "unreal"

LEAF PEEPERS and photographers get out in large numbers during the foliage season which usually starts some time in September and goes on into early November, depending on which part of the country (world?) you are in. Most of my own time has been spent in Northern Michigan, West Virginia, and the Northeast (New England), where the colors seem to most often be the most brilliant.

IS WHAT you see, what you get? Usually some time in September we start seeing pictures of these wonderful fall locations. Some are advertisements. Others (perhaps the majority) are just photos published by people online (places like Facebook and Instagram in particular). And way too many of these photos are just "unreal" (not in the positive sense). As I see these often grossly oversaturated images posted, I am convinced that most people don't understand color and how it is presented on a digital image meant for the screen.

The culprit is . . . "Saturation"

COLOR IS either there in an image, or it is not. There is no "magic slider" that will create color where it didn't exist. Yet I think many people believe that the saturation adjustment is that magic slider. At first blush, an oversatured photo might seem spectacular. I so often see the "just beautiful," or "breathtaking" commentsa on some of these photos. Often, the viewer doesn't have any realistic standard to compare the image they see to. If they did, they might see that in reality, there are no purple-colored tree trunks (at least not in North America). Nor is asphalt blue. There are relatively few neon-green vegetation examples in North America either. But that is what we all too often see on-line!

IN THE the 3 photos above, the first is uploaded from raw with Adobe's "Neutral" profile Adobe Neutral). In the second example, I purposely grossly oversaturated it, using just the saturation slider. In the final a version, I adjusted the contrast and brightness. I then "tweaked" the saturation to compensate for the flatness the software rendered in this case. But we are talking somewhere between 0 and about 8% on the slider. I can agree that the original image looks a little flat, and that a touch of saturation may be warranted. I think maybe represents what I saw with my natural eyes that afternoon. But look at the middle copy. Note the neon look of the greens. Note the funky color of the gravel road. Even the tree trunks look unnatural. When a scene is less bright, the greys and shadow often turn purple when saturation is applied. And, when compared to the other two versions, look how "fake" the color of the weathered barn is (even considering the strong lighting on the front of the barn. As noted above, the primary culprit for these unreal and often garish colors is a digital adjustment available in most software for saturation. Saturation is not the same as color! Once color in an image is identified and sometimes separated from other colors, saturation just changes the intensity (how much of a color is present) of the color. It doesn't make reds more red. The saturation adjustment was never intended as a fix-all for colors you don't think are colorful enough on their own. It, like all other adjustments available in photo-processing software, was meant to be applied very, very judiciously (if at all), and often targeted to only one color, or one part of a photo. The "saturation" slider that you seen in software is a "global" adjustment. That is, it changes the saturation in every color and tone in the image. Which creates those purple barked trees and blue roads and sometimes garish magenta tinted reds.

The photo on the left is a disappointing photo result. There was color, but not bright or vivid. On the left, I applied only the saturation slider to the image, and it is way overdone. Note how the reds are purple, the tree trunk is magenta and the lighter greens and yellows are neon. This doesn't depict any reality that I know.

The disappointing image on the left above can be salvaged, though. This is my processed version. I didn't even look at the saturation adjustments. The color you see was there. I used the contrast and exposure adjustments to decrease brightness a bit and to "separate" the colors. Contrast works on the pixels that board the changing shapes and colors in the image. Those "red" leaves in the far background don't "pop" like they do in the image on the left above. But they are real. No neon and no purple that wouldn't likely occur in nature. 

THERE ARE those who purposely push the saturation envelope, and may or may not understand what they are doing. But I am again convinced that most posters don't even realize they are doing it. One of the phrases that makes me chuckle when I see a photo is "posted from my (i-Phone, smart phone, camera) . . . no filters added."  Well. They really aren't "filters." Back in the film days, we somtimes used colored or tinted filters on the front of our lens to create different tones and colors. Today, what we refer to as "filters," is really processing adjustments. And for those who didn't already know this, the jpeg image that comes "straight out of" your iPhone has been processed. "Enhanced." Even if you (think you) have it on "no adjustments." Every digital photo file as recorded is flat looking. Some kind of software has to take that flat digital file and convert it into something that looks good and can be seen on most devices (generally, jpg). In your smart phone, that software is built in - with all the "biases" the manufacturer builds into what "looks good." Many phones have choices (like "vivid"), that can be user-selected, and is often selected by default without the user even realizing it.

Is "what you see what you get?

THERE REALLY isn't any such thing as a "no filters or adjustments" image posted on the internet. It is more of a matter of what and how much adjustments are being made. And if you have the opportunity and inclination to make your own adjustments, I think it will often result in a better and more realistic final product. Since we said saturation doesn't put colors that weren't there in, there is probably a better adjustment you can make to "enhance" the colors that do exist (and perhaps make the image look on your screen more like it did when you were standing there. I generally find the two best (and most realistic) adjustments to color is "contrast" and "brightness." I am often amazed at how just those two adjustments will make the colors (especially in foliage) "pop." I have even found some images that benefit from a saturation reduction after processing.

In your smart phone, that software is built in - with all the "biases" the manufacturer builds into what "looks good."

OH AND those of us who are shooting with our sophisticated DSLR and Mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras? Many of us, too, are guilty of not really understanding the color process as we move our images from our memory cards to our computer. First, I will assume that we are all recording our images in the camera's native "raw" format. If you are not, I think you should be, especially in the case of landscape (and particularly foliage) photography. So those colors - when transferred onto our computers - should be totally realistic. Just like Mother Nature made them, right? Well. No. Not necessarily. I was reminded of this this morning, as I processed my Vermont 2025 images. In every raw converter, there are some things that happen. One is that when the processor brings the image in, it assigns it a color profile! I use Adobe's ACR (Adobe Camera Raw). Lightroom - probably the most popular image editing software - uses the exact same raw conversion engine as ACR. Both of them assign a profile - if you haven't changed it, one of the default Adobe profiles (neutral, standard, vivid, etc.).

Color Profile Ilustration - Profiles from left to right clockwise: Adobe Neutral; Adobe Standard; Adobe Color and Adobe Vivid - There are others, including camera specific and even flat profiles that you can download. When you open the image, it is important to be cognizant of just which profile your editor is applying.

IF YOU haven't, you really need to check what your software is doing in that context. It is affecting color. So even when we say "straight out of the camera," "no filters applied," "no saturation applied," that is very likely not exactly true. 😓 There are completely flat profiles (designed for your particular camera's sensor) that can be downloaded. For a while I tried that. At first blush they look really ugly. The require some color and contrast adjustment. The purveyor of those profiles suggests first clicking on Adobe's "automatic" profile assignment. I eventually decided I couldn't see enough difference to warrant this longer process and went back to Adobe standard. But make no mistake. It is applying adjustments. Including saturation and contrast.

So even when we say "straight out of the camera," "no filters applied," "no saturation applied," that is very likely not exactly true

THINK ABOUT the above as you process and post your images of your fall foliage trip this year! In my view the best thing you can do is turn off all built-in enhancements on your phone and try to get the most "natural" look you can. If you are shooting with a camera (or phone) that is capable, record your images in raw format (there should be a setting for that). Then, if the image doesn't quite get you to what you "saw" at the time, make some judicious adjustments (just because it goes all the way to 100, doesn't mean it is a good idea to push it that far). Don't push things too far. Natural looks better!

Revisiting Geared Tripod Heads

[I am back from Vermont, where I spent 10 days shooting fall foliage. An odd year, but I have lots of processing to do before I post on that trip. More to come. Meantime, another "gear" centered post]

THERE IS a proliferation of tripod heads available these days. 25 years ago and beyond there were only really a couple choices. Many of us shot for years with the venerable 3-way, three lever heads. They were sure, simple, and relatively inexpensive. But they were cumbersome for anyone who was trying to make action photos from a tripod.

Traditional 3-way panning head

ENTER THE ball head, which quickly became the "standard" for most shooters. The design is really ingenious, allowing instant adjustment of the camera position. They were (generally) comparatively lightweight, and low-profile (making them easier to travel with and to carry). But they most certainly had their negatives (particularly for still and landscape shooters). Fine tuning adjustments on any axis is a challenge with any of them. They also often suffered from a phenomena referred to as "ball drop." Many of the designs just weren't "sure" enough when clamped down to be precise, and you get them lined up the way you like, carefully tighten them down, only to watch it "drop" on the vertical. Even a fraction would be significant in the viewfinder. I have owned several ball heads over the years and only one of them didn't have that problem. It is largely a function of ball size, and the one that worked best for me had a large ball (think about the size of a pool ball) that allowed for a very firm clamp. It was great. But it also could have seconded as an anchor for my canoe. Without a doubt the heaviest tripod head I ever owned. Some years back, I gave it to a good friend and fellow photographer. As far as I know, he still has it in service today.

Conventional Ball Head

THERE HAVE been a number of variations on these two popular heads. Lead by Acratech, there is an inverted ball head that I have read and heard is a very good head which can be made very light and still have the positive attributes of the larger ball heads. The three-way heads have two somewhat popular variations. The first is the "fluid head," which is a three-way, levered design with a very well damped head that is very smooth in its panning action. Developed mainly for video, I am reading that a lot of bird and wildlife shooters have gone to that fluid head design. The second is less common and (surprise, surprise) my own personal choice and favorite: the geared 3-way head.

THE GEARED head combines all the best of the standard 3-way head, with some major improvements. The first is that instead of levers that loosen and all adjustment on 3 discrete axis, they have a gear-drive that drives those movements. Instead of a lever there is a knob that runs the gear. On most of them, there is a release that frees the gear for "gross" movement. The gear, though, allows for very precise, micro adjustments to the image frame. For still photographers (and architectural shooters), it is wonderful. But like every choice, there were some challenges. The biggest one geared heads was that there were only two makers for many years; and they were very expensive (still are). The perhaps best known model was Manfrotto (there was the primary model and a smaller, less expensive on called the Manfrotto Junior). Comparatively more expensive that other head designs, the biggest problem with the Manfrotto head in my opinion was its proprietary QR design. Virtually every other manufacturer today designs to the Arca-Swiss style dovetail QR. Manfrotto doggedly sticks to its own. That made it a non-starter for me (and I suspect, the majority of serious shooters out there).

THE OTHER model was Arca-Swiss. They had a couple designs, but for all around shooters, the most popular was their D4 head. Manufactured to exacting standards, Arca Swiss gear is one of (if not the) highest quality gear you could get. Those days they could be had for "only" in the over $2,500 price range! Today, it sells on B&H for about $1,200.00. That also made it a non-starter for me. I slogged along with my various ball heads, wondering why none of the many competitor makers out there did not make and offer a geared head. Finally, Benro introduced one in 2018 for the affordable price of just over $200. I snapped it up and shot with it until just this year, when I had to switch up to another competitor model for reasons unrelated to this topic. In just the past probably 5 years, have significantly increased. The Benro now has at least 3 comparatively identical models (KentFaith, Neewer, and Leofoto). All are made in China. The design is relatively simple and they are - for their price - decently machined and manufactured and certainly work well for the purpose intended. All are in the $200 range, which makes them reachable for most of us. Aluminum and Magnesium has allowed them to be relatively light and quite strong. They are simpler (and significantly less elegant) designs than the Arca Swiss model, but also a fraction of the price tag.

RECENTLY, A newcomer (relatively) to the camera gear manufacturer (again, a Chinese company - but with a substantial presence in the U.S. with a large distribution center in Metarie, Louisiana), LeoFoto, is marketing a "lookalike" of the Arca-Swiss. Reviews I have read note that while it is not quite up to Arca Swiss standards, it is close. I bought one, so I will let you know in the near future what my thoughts are. It was in a box at home, waiting for me to return from my fall foliage trip. The key for me is that - directly from the manufacturer - it is less than 1/2 the price of the Arca - Swiss.

I THOUGHT as I unboxed this very nice piece, that this would be a good time to run through the currently available Geared Head offerings as well as some of their pros and cons. I will start with the most affordable first. I put pricing on each one, but it is not necessarily official, or the best you can do. When available, I used Amazon or B&H for my source. All are rounded up to the nearest whole dollar. I did not include any AliExpress (or similar) pricing. I wouldn't order from them.

Benro

As I did the research for this post, I learned that interestingly, Benro now has two offerings. 

Benro 3-way geared head

Benro's original 3-way geared head (around $225) is the simple 3-way geared head they introduced in 2018, opening the door for us who wanted want to have an affordable model. Essentially the same design as the Manfrotto 3-way that had been around for some years, it uses an integrated (albeit modified) Arca Swiss style dovetail clamp. Cast in lightweight magnesium, I found it strong and sure. I did have some problems with the gear mechanism and contact point stiffening up over time. There is basically a lithium (or similar) grease used and I did some disassembly and re-lubrication. It is - by design - a fairly stiff movement (to aid in precision adjustment). I used mine for about 5 years and was well-satisfied with it - especially at its price point. In spite of its affordable utility, the Benro head has a significant negative, which I didn't really appreciate until I made a recent change in QR brackets. The Benro incorporates a proprietary (supposedly Arca - Swiss compatible) setup, but has a cutout in the middle of the clamp (presumably for their "safety" feature - and their proprietary designed dovetail) that makes a narrow dovetail fail to work in the clamp. When I changed to an "i - bracket" it would not fit on the clamp, and I had to trade it in for the K&F head, which incorporates the conventional Arca - Swiss design. I used the K&F head for 10 days in Vermont recently. Aside from that clamp issue, it appears to be essentially identical to the Benro (see below).

(Edit) After posting this, I stumbled on yet another of the inexpensive geared heads by an unknown brand: Folosafenar. In the photos and description on Amazon, it looks for all the world like it is the exact same piece as the Benro 3-way model above, right down to the proprietary dovetail plate and finish. It has some of the Benro Blue on it and some missing. It is referred to as the Folosafenar Jr. head on Amazon and is priced almost identically to the Benro ($220). I would probably stick with the known brand, for another $5.

Benro GD36PT - combo geared and ball head

Benro has upped the ante significantly with their newest geared offering (model GD36PT - around $400). In what may be the only one of its kind (if there are others, I am not aware ot them at this point), combining the precision of the 3-way geard head with the versatility of a (inverted) ball head. their literature says the gears are brass. Benro has been a good middle to upper line manufacturer of products and has been very popular. I expect this to be a nice piece. One thing that gets it a demerit from me is that the panning portion of the 3-way is not geared. Not sure why, but I think that "micro" precision offered by the gears is a major plus on all 3 axes. Would be nice to see that as an upgrade. But I will keep an eye on this one.

K&F (Kentfaith)

K&F Concepts 3-way geared head

The K&F 3-way geared head, as noted above, is essentially identical to the ground-breaking Benro. It is milled from aluminum alloy instead of magnesium alloy. I compared them and their weight and feel is not different (if anything, the K&F is slightly lighter feeling), and for packing, they are the same size. There are a lot of pricing options on this one. Generally it will be around $190 (but you may find some discounts). I found one issue that could be considered a "knock" on this design. Prior to my Vermont trip, I purchased one of the now-ubiquitous and popular leveling base/heads that mounts on the tripod base beneath the tripod head. I found that it interfered with the action of the head knobs (specifically the spring loaded release knobs) to the extent that I ultimately removed the leveling base. Unfortunately, it appears that these release portions of the adjusting knobs would do that on all 4 of the similar models (the Benro, K&F, and Neewer and Leofoto). If that leveling base is an important component, you may want to look for alternatives.

Neewer

The Neewer (TH15 - $125) looks to me to be identical to the K&F and should perform and function identically.

Neewer 3-way geared head

GH-PRO IIS 

THIS HEAD ($200) appears to be a generic, China - manufactured model (it may be also offered under other brand names, like Sunway). It has a slightly different design, and is smaller and lighter that the others. It is advertised as a 3-way geared head, but in reality (as far as I can see) it is really only geared on 2 axes: the horizontal and vertical. The panning control looks to me to be just a freehand adjustment. The two geared axes, instead of having a spring-loaded release (like the Benro, K&F an Neewer models), has a small crank for quick (gross) adjustments, and a knob for precise movement. I looked at it as a possible replacement for my Benro, but I really wanted precision gear adjustment on all 3 axes. Pricing is odd on this one, and I would be careful to check where you are purchasing it from. It is listed mainly on Amazon and I am seeing it for anywhere between $200 - $1,200 (the latter, I suspect, is a scam price). I have neither seen nor used this one. But if the gearing is smooth and precise and micro style precision on the panning axis is not a game-breaker for you, this might be a nice, affordable alternative. One thing I really like about all these style heads (see Leofoto and Arca Swiss below, also), is their more compact design. The 3 heads above (Benro, K&F and Neewer) and the essentially same Leofoto GW, while less expensive, are more bulky, and their shape makes them reminiscent of trying to pack my old Bogen 3-way panning heads. This one might present an advantage in that regard.

GH Pro IIS geared head

Leofoto

Leofoto also has two offerings (similar to Benro):

Leofoto 3-way geared head

The Leofoto GW-01 (about $185), looks virtually identical (as if it could have been manufactured in the same machine shop - not saying it is) to the K&F model above. I looked at it and the K&F when replacing the Benro. I don't recall why I picked one over the other, but I am guessing it was a price-point issue. I obviously haven't used it, but would expect it to behave virtually identically to the Kentfaith and Benro models I have owned and used.

Leofoto G4 Pro

The Leofoto G4 ($460) and G4 Pro ($600) are essentially "knockoff" designs of the Arca - Swiss D4 (see below) I discussed earlier. I read reviews and watched a couple You-Tube videos which convinced me to take a flier and spend the substantial cash to buy this one. The G4 Pro is the closest I have found to the Arca D4. It has precision gears for all three axes. They also each have a lever release which completely releases the axis fron the gears, making it freely moving (will have to be cognizant of that so a lens doesn't flip down out of control). The design makes two separate panning functions, with the geared action on top and the free wheeling on the bottom of the head. The one knock on this design is that the geared part is where the QR clamp is seated and there is no quick way to rotate that part (must be done with the gear knob). That makes switching between a lens with its own integrated foot a bit of a pain. For what its worth (maybe about $600 more 😅) the Arca Swiss D-4 has a more elegant design, as the panning function is geared, and has a release knob - all on the top of the stack. As opposed to the "pro" model, the base G4 does not have the geared panning function and has is a lever QR clamp instead of a screw. Some people like the lever clamp because of its quick convenience. I don't. In fact I never feel that it is as secure as the more simple screw clamp, and it is fiddly to get the tension right. In my view, it is worth the additional approximately $150 to get the geared panning feature (at least once you have moved into the well - over $200 stratosphere. Compare the picture with the Arca Swiss (below). They look awfully similar. Having received the head and mounted it on my tripod, it seems to me to be very similar to the Arca Swiss. The precision adjustments are smooth and fine, and the gearing just feels good. it is visibly more compact than the Benro/K&F I have been using. It fits and operates well on top of the leveling head. I think it will be fun to use, and will be a close equivalent to the Arca Swiss head. I was not able to purchase this on either Amazon or B&H, but straight from the manufacturer was easy and smooth. They are offering a discount (Google for the code) and I was able to save about $70 from list price. Shipping was free and very quick (about 3 days). 

Sirui

Sirui KS-G3

As I was doing some after-the-fact "research,"  stumbled on The new Sirui KS-G3. I have owned several Sirui tripods and have been pretty well impressed with the quality of their workmanship and their build. Not the "tank-like" build of a the Gitzo (and competiors like RRS), they are still well-built and with a modicum of care can last a long time and perform well. I also have a couple Sirui Ball Heads. They seem likewise positive in terms of fit, finish, design and use. So I would expect this head to be of similar quality. Its design is slightly simpler (and at the same time, less elegant) than the Leofoto. Had I seen this first, I might have seriously considered it. at $300, it is $200 less than the Leofoto. From the look, I think the gearboxes and pivot points on the Leofoto appear better enclosed which might mean better weather (and other elements) sealing. It is not crystal clear from the description (B&H), but I do not believe the panning axis is geared. At the $300 pricepoint, though, this one seems like a serious contender.

Manfrotto

Manfrotto tripods and heads are (and always have been) high-quality gear. Previously, Manfrotto marketed their products in the U.S. under the Bogen name. Since about 1982, both venerable brands: Gitzo (French) and Manfrotto/Bogen Italian) have been owned by the same parent company, but continue to be run as separate brands. To the best of my knowledge, Gitzo does not offer a 3-way geared head at this time. Before I bought my first CF tripod (that was an Induro), I owned several Manfrotto/Bogen tripods and a handful of Bogen 3-way and one ballhead. I liked them, but I never felt confident about the security of their proprietary QR plates and clamps (a big part of the reason I moved away from Bogen). I never could understand why the stuck to them. The Arca - Swiss dovetail is so simple and so secure! For that reason, though they are nicely built, I cannot recomment the Manfrotto products.

The original Manfrotto geared 3-way head was the 405 Pro head ($600). I cannot find a photo of an older one, by I believe they offered it with the pentagon-shaped QR plate and clamp system that was more along their "pro" line. All my setups were the pentagon plate. Either way, this seems overpriced to me for its utility.

Manfrotto 410 "Junior" 3-way geared head

The Manfrotto 410 "Junior" ($250) was a smaller, less expensive option that (I believe) always had the smaller QR Plate setup. 

Manfrotto 409 3-way geared head

Today, they also offer a newer model, the Manfrotto XPro ($240), with a slightly different shape/design, that is kind of unique, but seems a bit bulky (especially for travel). It still sports the "achilles heel" of Manfrotto heads: their QR system. And, I don't find them as elegant, frankly. But that may just be me.

Manfrotto XPro 3-way geared head

Arca Swiss D4

The "Cadillac"  (or these days maybe Lexus) of geared heads, this one is the standard to which everyone looks. It currently sells for $1,200) and if you are looking for the best of the best, it is a wonderful piece of equipment. I have a buddy who I often shoot with and he has this head mounted on a large, Gitzo CF tripod. It is relatively lightweight and rock solid. The movements and adjustments are silky smooth.

Arca Swiss D4

THERE ARE, I am sure, others. These are the ones that I see as I search for alternatives. In my view, if you are shooting landscapes, cityscapes, or architectural subjects where precision in composition is a goal, you could benefit from any one of these models. I have used one of the more modestly priced heads above for a number of years now, happily and successfully. My only real reason for moving to the higher - end Arca Swiss type model is that I wanted to. 😁 Any of them will work just fine, with the limitations I mentioned. In my book, for a photographer who wants easy, precision composition, any of them are better than the popular ball head alternative.