tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21975889984468909432024-03-19T04:45:43.458-07:00Shutter TalkArticles and discussion on Photography, Cameras, Imaging etcDavid Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-12908305462035937982012-01-27T13:11:00.000-08:002012-01-27T22:23:46.314-08:00Yellow Boxes No More<p>People who read this blog from time to time may remember my lamenting the end of Kodachrome film. This wonderful brand in its various incarnations had signified photography itself for me back in the (now) rose tinted 1960s. The yellow boxes which had brought my Kodak Instamatic colour slides back to me represented moments of great anticipation and joy. There remains a battered old suit case in my garage, containing dozens of them still. They hold hundreds of surviving transparencies which "I will eventually finish scanning and organising ..... someday soon".<br /><br />Even as we read of the last Kodachrome production run, many of us realised that the final days for the Kodak company itself, could not possibly be far distant. When Kodak filed for bankruptcy a week or two back, there could not have been too many people who were actively surprised. <br /><br />You don't need me to tell you how much Kodak dominated world photography, how the Box Brownie transformed the lives of our families, how many fantastic innovations it brought us over the generations and how many people it once employed around the world. Kodak was a true industrial giant - a legend of western culture and a personal friend which stood beside us at our daughter's wedding, our son's graduation, our mother's 80th birthday, our annual holidays to the seaside, the completion of our new home etc etc etc<br /><br />It was in the movie "Jurassic Park" that two characters discussed why dinosaurs shouldn't be brought back to live again in the modern era. The argument went something like, "They had their time and simply can't exist in OURS" In the case of Kodak I guess that must be right. Somehow, while noises are still being made about the company returning from the grave like some latter day corporate Lazarus, I think we all know that Kodak has really been consigned to history. Hell of a shame ... but inevitable, I guess.David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-51473038094071162522011-11-10T13:10:00.000-08:002012-01-27T22:13:18.929-08:00Is Digital REALLY Better than Film Part 2<P>Last time I discussed some reasons why shooting and printing with film can offer tangible advantages. Sometimes digital ISN'T as good as film.<br /><br />Now it's time to get real. I contend that for almost ALL of us, almost all of the time, digital really is the way to go.<br /><br />We all like to talk about "the old days". I, myself, am one of the worst offenders. I miss my Kodachrome slides and the excitement of receiving the "little yellow boxes". I miss the wonderful old cameras, the wonderful old darkrooms. I miss the mystique, the ceremony and the ALCHEMY of it all. Damn it. I miss the MAGIC. But perhaps what I really miss are the times that went with it. Maybe I just miss my youth or the traditional skill set. <br /><br />"Here am I. I spend a lifetime learning the craft of traditional film photography. Along comes digital and any idiot with a computer, after five minutes on "Photoshop Elements", is better at image making than I am. My life has no MEANING anymore. It is just not fair." <br /><br />Ring a bell? Be honest. Yes I thought so.<br /><br />There are people that will tell you that film derived prints just plain LOOK better. They'll tell you that the COLOUR is better - or more natural or more vivid or more romantic or somehow less clinical. The fact is that many old diehards don't WANT digital images to be better, just like they didn't want flat screen TVs to be better than CRT screens or CDs to be better than vinyl records or jet planes to be better than propeller ones or "talkies" to be better than silent movies.<br /><br />Someday we'll be hearing how petrol engined cars were better than these new fangled hydrogen fuel cell ones. 2D television sets were better than 3D ones or 3D with the old glasses was actually better than these "new" spectacle free 3D ones. etcetera, etcetera, etcetera yawn.<br /><br />Lets pollute this discussion with some hard facts.<br /><br />Colour fim emulsions were fixed to a particular colour temperature totally ignoring the fact that effective white balance changes with the seasons, the time of day, the atmospheric conditions and whether I had porridge or corn flakes for my breakfast. When we wax lyrical about the glory days of Fujichrome Velvia or Ansco or Kodachrome II, we ignore the fact that these films could only ever give an approximately accurate colour balance for any given circumstance. In reality, what we REALLY miss is one particular flavour of visual DISTORTION that one brand of film might once have offered compared with another.<br /><br />The fact is that with digital imaging we can ultimately have any colour we want. It can be accurate or saturated or warm or cold or rosy or tinted or none of the above ... or any combination of the above or any graduated VARIATION of the above.<br /><br />Furthermore the effective ASA rating of film would vary as rolls of film got older. We could "nail" the exposure settings for a particular shot only to EVENTUALLY find that dated emulsions would underexpose the picture. If a particular roll of film was loaded into our camera, we were stuck with the characteristics of that emulsion until the roll was used up - fast or slow, fine or grainy, warm or cold, daylight or tungsten light balanced, colour or black & white. People would wander around with multipe cameras in great discomfort just in case one needed to shoot with a film having different features.<br /><br />Using digital, accurate sensitivity settings and any OTHER image characteristics can be varied between individual shots and the eventual result previewed on the spot. Shot one can be a superfast grainy black and white documentary style image. Shot two might be an exquisitely fine grained still life image. Shot three can be a fast moving glimpse of a championship volleyball match etc etc.<br /><br />How can the results from film POSSIBLY be better - when with digital imaging, the results can be anything we WANT or NEED them to be?<br /><br />In the end, the proof of a pudding is in the eating. Every kind of photographer has better RESULTS under digital. Anyone can see it. What can possibly be better about a former system under which the final results WEREN'T as good. <br /><br />Back when I was young I remember that every time I pressed the shutter release it represented 20 cents which was effectively the per unit cost of colour transparencies (film plus processing). I rationed my shooting by what I could afford. How can this situation POSSIBLY have produced a better result than one in which I can go on shooting from any angle, at any exposure etc without restriction? <br /><br />At the end of the day, under digital, we KNOW we have the shot we want, or at least a shot close ENOUGH to what we want, prior to finishing the job back at the computer. <br /><br />Digital imaging has given us so many advantages, it sometimes makes we wonder how we managed without it. Spoiled aren't we?David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-15014078129521377892011-04-02T14:41:00.000-07:002011-04-02T16:23:32.145-07:00Is Digital REALLY better than Film? Part 1<br>There was a time - quite a long time actually - during which traditional photographers refused to give up a life time of acquired skill and shift to digital capture. For some years it was possible to argue that the ultimate quality of film was superior to digital. There are STILL many who argue that way.<br /><br />To be sure, at a purely technical level, it cannot be denied that (all other things being equal) the ultimate resolution of film for large prints is better than digital. Given the inherent resolution prowess of medium to large format film as compared to (say) APS-C or even "full frame" 35mm sensors, the advantage is even greater. Even when the limits of resolution are reached, analogue prints with blurry edges and details still look FAR better than pixelated digital versions of the same image. Wouldn't you agree?<br /><br />Likewise under low light, film grain always looks better than digital noise. This may only be due to the fact that 180 years of tradition makes it easier for us to ACCEPT the look of film grain but it still looks better to me. I don't care what anyone says. We are so accepting of film grain that there are even filters in image processing software which SIMULATE film grain with which we can add "character" and apparent "authenticity" to documentary style monochrome digital images.<br /><br />It ALSO cannot be denied that in the case of slow to medium sensitivity, film offers better inherent dynamic range. The scourge of digital capture must surely be the ease with which highlights and shadows are reduced to featureless white or total black with all detail lost forever. Admittedly, there are strategies for remediating this problem, RAW capture included, but given that most people shoot jpeg images and utilise NO dynamic range enhancement strategies, film was and remains a better choice in this regard.<br /><br />It certainly seems clear that the marketplace attributes a higher intrinsic value to film and its analogue prints. Even superb digital prints pale in significance compared to less technically perfect ones produced by traditional means. <br /><br />In some cases the higher prices are for rational reasons. Traditional prints are inherently rarer than digital ones because (generally) one has to have the original negative before a print can be produced. Consequently a traditional print has more the feel of an "original" than a digital version which (it seems) is so much more readily copied. For a long while the longevity of prints produced by digital means was questionable. Not so long ago digital prints could be expected to start fading within weeks of their having been created. Even NOW it has to be conceded that digital prints have not been around long enough to have TRULY stood the test of time. On the other hand we have analogue prints which are almost as old as photography itself - still on display, still looking good.<br /><br />Some of the reasons are perhaps less strictly rational but are just as valid. If I buy a new analogue print (perhaps one of a limited release) produced from film by entirely traditional means, I seem to have something special - something which connects me to the great photographic artists of the past whose skilled hands produced similar items using almost identical materials, chemicals and techniques. Indeed when one purchases a print of an image shot last week on a "famous name" German camera made in 1964, with a film emulsion first produced in 1930 using a chemical first employed in 1905 with an actual enlarger manufactured in 1941, my purchase offers me an antiquity and provenance which cannot be compared with the same picture shot on the latest digital camera and run off on a brand new digital printer tethered to my computer.<br /><br />Conclusions that "film is dead" may be very much premature. For serious professional and enthusiast fine arts photography, film is NOW very much the medium of choice. Traditional film producers who contemplated the total abandonment of that technology have begun life anew. Film will never be produced in the stupendous quantities that it once was but companies like Agfa, Ilford and even Kodak have found a worthwhile niche market producing a select range of emulsions in a number of sizes along with a comprehensive range of chemicals, papers and darkroom kit.<br /><br />Careless assertions that digital is inherently better than film need further consideration ... next time.David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-28083147290229244222011-02-25T23:42:00.000-08:002011-02-28T22:46:34.253-08:00The Entry Level Shooter Part 3<p>Two articles ago I described how I grew up with 35mm film SLRs. They were relatively unsophisticated devices back then but curiously, many great, legendary photographers produced many memorable images with nothing more. How many great National Geographic articles did we read, festooned with pictures of exotic people and places shot by mostly manual Nikon Fs and the like? <br /><br />These cameras couldn't shoot at 7 frames per second, they didn't have face recognition. They didn't boast ultra high definition LCD screens, live view, auto focus, stabilisation, automatic ISO, movie files, wifi connection, auto-bracketing, noise reduction circuitry, red-eye correction, D-lighting blah blah blah ... and yet great pictures were made, week in and week out, by working photographers across the world.<br /><br />What is more, the lenses that such photographers worked with were relatively primitive. Computer aided design technology and white hot manufacturer competition have brought us lenses, in recent years, which are far and away superior to anything which camera jockeys of the 60s and 70s ever had access to. Even today's so called "kit" lenses, (while admittedly suffering from light construction) are astonishingly good. When a token amount of skill is employed in their ACTUAL USE, it is discovered that they are often the optical equal of advanced pro models dating from, say, fifteen years ago.<br /><br />How on EARTH can one explain the generations of great pictures which have adorned the pages of National Geographic, Life Magazine, Cosmopolitan, the New York Times or the Saturday Evening Post when such pictures were shot by the simple featureless cameras of bygone days. How did serious photographers ever function without the legion of features and gimmicks which modern marketing departments INSIST that we have to have? Bit of a mystery isn't it?<br /><br />One can buy an "entry level" Nikon D3100 or a Canon EOS 1100D SLR for maybe $600 or so which is a quarter of the price of a D700 or an EIGHTH the price of a D3s and yet it can be argued that these humble, much despised "entry level" devices are far and away superior image capturing instruments than anything possessed by the great photographers of past eras. Somehow, however, modern entry level SLRs are not good enough for the likes of you and me. We must spend more ... presumably for the continued survival of Nikon and Canon marketing team executives! Let's be kind. After all these people have swank suburban residences and BMW dealerships to support.<br /><br />Such bottom of the line SLRs offer clean resolving power which would have been envied by the owners of top pro cameras only five years ago. They offer rapid speed of operation, nice bright viewfinders, big clear viewing screens and a broad selection of the essential digital features and facilities. They are light, convenient to carry, fun and simple to use and offer total, accurate manual control. Under all but truly exceptional conditions, the ultimate image quality from such cameras is effectively equal to anything available. <br /><br /><em>"Whoa! Hold on there! Just a minute. Now you've overstepped the mark, Hobbs. Everybody knows that the pictures from a D3100 can't possibly compete with those from say a nice expensive D300s for example. After all I just shelled out for a D300s and I sure as hell don't want to have to swallow the idea that some jerk with a D3100 can get pictures just as good as mine!!"</em><br /><br />Now this is where I have to disappoint a whole lot of people. Recently as part of their comprehenive camera review articles, DPreview.com started including a page which enabled the picture quality from ANY of the cameras which they had formerly reviewed, to be compared with the results from the model <em>currently</em> under examination. You can move the cursor around the display screen to make 100% enlarged comparisons using any part of a comprehensively arranged sample scene. You can vary the ISO settings. You can look at RAW results AND jpeg. Not much goes unrevealed - let me assure you. It enables me to make an outrageous statement here.<br /><br />Given that 90% or more of photography is generally done using ISO settings 100 to 1600 I think it is legitimate to concentrate on comparisons made under those conditions. Accordingly, anybody who goes to the DPreview site and does the exercise can quickly see for themselves that the quality of the pictures produced by our entry-level brigade compares well with almost ANYTHING regardless of price. Most people just don't seem to understand that simple fact.<br /><br />Consider the following:<br /><br />Most great pictures are shot by people who use cameras. I don't care HOW good a camera you own at home in the cupboard. If you don't have it with you when the picture presents itself it might as well be a box brownie that you couldn't find film for. My Nikon D40 is light enough for me to carry almost anywhere I go - just in case. Try carrying a HEAVY camera on spec. You don't do it do you? I didn't think so<br /><br />A lot of the best pictures are to be found in out-of-the-way, hard-to-get-to places. Sometimes the conditions are difficult and we are worried about damaging our expensive cameras. My entry level camera didn't cost very much. If I drop a D700 off a cliff, its gone and I shall probably have to buy another at great relative expense. I can drop FOUR entry level SLRs off FOUR cliffs before I am up for the same cost. Accordingly I can afford to take a few more risks, go to a few more dicey places and get a whole lot of great pictures I probably would NOT have got if I'd been too worried about my camera.<br /><br />Expensive cameras ARE expensive, very often because they bristle with features which marketing departments tell us we MUST have. I don't know about you but 99% of the time the only features I need to know about are the auto-focus, the shutter speed and aperture controls, the exposure compensation, the ISO adjustments and the shutter release button ..... pretty much like the old film SLRs I was brought up with. Sometimes I go to try out some totally superfluous new fangled gim .. er .. feature. I learn to use it but might not have need of it for another 12 months. I have to get out the manual because I've forgotten how the feature works. Meanwhile the picture I was after goes away. What - I ask you - was the point of having the feature in the first place? <br /><br />Expensive cameras are designed to take more punishment and last a lot longer than entry level cameras. Again I am led to ask what the point of that is. If you are a working professional you need for the camera not to let you down at critcal moments. That is fair enough, but as I said last time, I am addressing myself to enthusiasts who are usually able to work without abusing their equipment. My entry level camera has never let me down and I have been using it heavily for four years or more now.<br /><br />I might also suggest that having an expensive camera designed to last a moderate enthusiast user for some seven years or more has little point in an environment in which technical advances make it desirable to update equipment much more frequently. Of course, if you didn't spend so much on the camera in the first place, it is much less wasteful to update more frequently. Wouldn't it be nice to always have the leatest gear without alarming the bank manager?<br /><br />Wouldn't it be nice to have the right lens for every purpose? If you didn't spend too much on a needlessly expensive body, you can probably afford to do just that ... and having the right lens for the shot WILL MOST ASSUREDLY make a noticeable difference to the quality of your pictures. Once you have got the glass, you will probably never need to buy it again. Am I missing something vital in this discussion?<br /><br />Look. If you are an enthusiast photographer (rather than a workaday pro) there are many many reasons why you MAY be better off using "entry level" SLRs in preference to overly expensive models. I have only mentioned a few.<br /><br />Before closing this article I'd just like to address ONE last point. There is a suggestion from some quarters that the less skill and experience a photographer has, the more he/she needs an expensive camera to somehow compensate. This makes no sense to me at all. If I have learned one thing over the last forty odd years it is this. NOTHING makes a bigger difference to picture quality than one's ability to do the basic things well. Anything which makes the basic things harder will tend to HARM the quality of one's pictures - not the other way around. One reason why I DON'T use expensive, complicated cameras is that they are generally too big, too heavy and too fiddly for me to use as quickly or as well as a smaller, simpler, less demanding camera. It is as simple as that ... but it's entirely possible that all of that is a problem peculiar to me.<br /><br />Anyway for right or for wrong the foregoing are the reasons why I believe that most mere enthusiast photographers, like me (and possibly you), might easily be better off using nominally "entry level" equipment in preference to so-called professional kit. Before you shoot me, it is just my personal opinion. If you have a different view, feel free to express it.David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-73939997352289788242010-12-23T22:05:00.001-08:002010-12-24T00:51:19.332-08:00The Entry Level Shooter Part 2<p>Just who am I talking to, on this subject.<br /><br />Well I suppose I am mostly talking to people sort of like ME: relatively experienced, relatively well informed, anxious-to-learn, enthusiastic photographers who occasionally earn money from their shoots who really CARE about the quality of the images that they produce. I am NOT talking to full time professionals who use their equipment for long periods every day. I am NOT talking to people making their first tentative steps into photography or who will occasionally use their cameras to shoot family barbecues, children's concerts and annual holidays.<br /><br />Big, tough, fast, expensive cameras have their place. As I have said so often in the past, if you expect your gear to give reliable service during long, frequent, intensive periods of use, you had better purchase equipment designed to do that. Such gear costs a lot of money to buy or lease but if you are shooting commercially most days, you should have the available funds to justify the expense.<br /><br />Small, convenient, pocketable cameras, designed to be used a dozen times a year under mostly ideal conditions, have their place as well. Why have a heavy, expensive, complicated, inconvenient camera? Most pocketable compact cameras give results well suited to their owners' expectations. Why use anything else?<br /><br />Of course if compact camera users suddenly "get the bug", they start to become members of MY group and so I am talking to THEM as well. First off let me say to such people that ... well ... I am sorry about your illness (for that is what it is). Secondly let me say welcome to the wonderful world of SEEING anew and expressing what you see. Thirdly let me say that you are going to need a suitable tool - one which will give you the control and flexibility that you will need. Question is ... which one?<br /><br />At the present state of the art, it seems certain that you will need either an SLR or one of those newly emerging SLR-like classes of camera, offering large sensors, responsive operation and interchangeable lenses. It ALSO seems certain that there is NO single brand of camera manufacturer that has all of the answers - no single brand that is unambiguously the best. Given a specified price point, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Sony and a good number of OTHER manufacturers are quite capable of supplying you with a tool which will enable you to see and capture perfectly sound image files.<br /><br />To my mind, the REAL question is what that specified price point should BE - and at last we arrive at the focus of these articles. Manufacturers and retailers WANT us to spend as much as possible. Like the automobile industry, higher spec (and higher PRICE) models of camera equipment always carry the highest potential profit margins. There's much more money to be made from making and selling (say) ten $5000 cameras than (say) a hundred $500 cameras. The trick is to make us enthusiasts believe that we are missing out on fundamental capabilities by NOT purchasing the high spec gear ... and make no mistake - the industry's marketing psychologists works very hard to do just that.<br /><br />Strategy one. Refer to "Entry Level" equipment. <em>"What? I am not ENTRY LEVEL I am an experienced photographer. I can't be seen using ENTRY LEVEL equipment. People will think I am some kind of beginner. My reputation will be ruined. I shall have to buy more expensive equipment"</em><br /><br />Strategy two. Refer to "Semi professional" or "Professional" equipment. <em>"Yeah. I am an experienced photographer. Obviously unless I have the best equipment, my soaring talent will be constrained. I simply have to HAVE professional equipment.</em><br /><br />And so it goes on.<br /><br />I have always been a follower of certain web-based photographic forums. Each week you see the same questions being asked and the same newly consecrated gurus drawing upon their MONTHS of experience to provide the same misinformation.<br /><br />Question: <em>"I am new to serious photography. Should I buy the el cheapo model SLR or one of the more expensive models"</em><br /><br />Answer: <em>"You'll soon outgrow the cheaper model. If you want serious images you'll need to pay the serious money"</em><br /><br />I have long since stopped buying into this sort of discussion. I think I must be some sort of secret masochist. I keep being drawn to read these threads. I can find no sensible reason for it. The point I am making is this. Not only does the industry work hard to UPSELL us enthusiasts. For a variety of extraneous reasons, photography enthusiast PEERS work hard at it too. I fully understand why so many people finish up paying too much for their gear, buy gear that often doesn't suit them, buy gear that causes their interest to wane, pay too much to replace it four or five years later and KEEP doing so ad infinitum. CRAAAAAAZY!<br /><br />Okay. Statement time. I know some people are NOT going to like this. Some people are going to be resentful. Some people are going to call me names. But any thoughtful research, any purposeful examination of the facts and any worthwhile dollop of actual experience may enable the reader to arrive at these same conclusions.<br /><br />Attention folks. Draw near. Here is the statement. Next time I shall give you my reasons for making it and try to explain why so many people will take issue with it. Ahem.<br /><br />Most enthusiast photographers would be better off buying "entry level" equipment. I, and most people like me are really "entry level" equipment users, whether we like the sound of it or not.<br /><br />After 45 years of photography - film and digital - I confess that I am really "an entry level shooter" ... and so (I suspect) are YOU. <br /><em></em>David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-54155774498336315582010-11-16T08:27:00.000-08:002010-12-19T18:44:56.445-08:00The Entry Level Shooter Part 1<P>PROLOGUE<br /><br />This is the first of a series of posts addressing the ongoing battle that most of us serious shutterbugs have with the marketing psychologists at the big brand camera manufacturers. It's a battle which most of us regularly lose.<br /><br />It doesn't have to be this way, you know. We can all fight back and win if we take up the challenge with cold hard logic. <br /><br />THE REAL ARTICLE STARTS HERE FOLKS<br /><br />Once upon a time we bought a film SLR to last us for maybe 10-15 years or so. The basic principle of good SLR design had been pretty much established in the late 1960s and didn't really change much (except for nibbling at the edges) until digital models started to appear about 9 years ago.<br /><br />The top of the line Minolta SRT101 cost me about $300 back in 1967. It had through the lens Cadmium Sulphide sensor metering, an accurate single point microprism style manual focus screen, bayonet lens mount, damped mirror action, depth of field preview and sturdy metal construction built to "take it". It had a small replaceable battery which had to be changed every 18 months or so and that was pretty much THAT.<br /><br />One could change the shutter speed via a little dial on the top of the camera, the metering sensitivity could be changed via a collar under the shutter speed dial, the aperture could be changed on the lens barrel and a big fat easy grip ring gave us nice precision for accurate and fast manual focus. You changed the exposure settings until a little needle hit the mark in your viewfibder and you were ready to fly.<br /><br />There was very little reason to update the camera. It gave no trouble and the later models such as the SRT101b or SRT100 or the SRT303 were basically the same camera. Newer models offered maybe a maximum shutter speed of (say) 1/2000th second instead of 1/1000th second, there might have been a split/prism style focussing point instead of the microprism one and the body styling may have changed minutely ... but they were basically the same. Cameras were kind of like cars. The models changed superficially every year or two so that people had a reason to buy a new one and be SEEN using/driving "the latest" If you looked after the old model however, you might not LOOK quite so cool but the film and the fuel were consumed the same way producing the same pictures and covering the same distances turning basically the same steering wheels and pushing basically the same shutter release buttons.<br /><br />Even film, re-assuringly, stayed the same for year after year. If new, faster, more colourful, finer grained (whatever) versions of old favourites came along you loaded up the new roll and were immediately operating with the latest and greatest. It didn't matter one whit how old the camera was. My picture quality with "the new Kodachrome 64" was just as up-to-date with my OLD camera as Fred Nerk's roll of Kodachrome 64 was with his brand new one.<br /><br />Somehow millions of photographers went around with these basic tools, capturing memorable (occasionally legendary) images on film. Incredibly we did it without such essentials as "live view" or "auto ISO" or "face recognition" (imagine having to get by without FR - gasp!) "51 auto focus points" or the ability to shoot "8 fps" etc etc etc<br /><br />Now, of course, things are somewhat different. Apparently every few years they change the nature of light, the physical parameters of exposure vary from what they used to be somehow and the way that photographic subjects behave goes through some dramatic transformation. Hence we simply MUST have the very latest camera model to work with or we just won't be able to produce good images any more. Indeed each new camera model comes with a host of new gimmi ... er ... features, without which (we are breathlessly informed) photography as we know it becomes quite inconceivable. <br /><br />Of course it could be argued that we are now dealing with "digital" systems which unlike "film" are an immature technology. Naturally every year or so massive new technical strides are made which will mean huge improvements to the capabilities of new camera models. Right? If one ISN'T using the latest and greatest, one's pictures really won't be any good. tch tch<br /><br />I am not sure that things are QUITE like that but certainly more so than they used to be. Most assuredly it is in the perceived interests of camera manufactures, retail stores, photographic magazines, technical journalists and enthusiast bloggers that we potential puchasers THINK that this is true - else life as they know it might surely end.<br /><br />Certainly the following things seem to be true:<br /><br />1. No digital camera will continue to give service and provide state-of-the-art performance over many many years in the way that traditional film models once did.<br />2. Digital cameras are infinitely more complex and vulnerable than traditional film models. Alas, after five years or so we can expect that our oft used toys may start to give trouble. We can ALSO expect that camera manufacturers (whose only REAL interest is in flogging the latest model) will start to "lose" the original parts with which one might expect one's old camera to be repaired. At the very least, rare parts will soon get sufficiently expensive for repair to seem uneconomical.<br />3. While there AREN"T staggering revolutions in camera performance, with each new model, after five years or so, the latest cameras may WELL be expected to offer tangible improvements for the discerning enthusiast and worthwhile profit earning efficiencies for the professional.<br /><br />Whichever way you look at it, we live in an age when serious photographers can expect to HAVE to purchase new cameras on a regular basis. <br /><br />Question: How much disposable cash does one have to have and/or how much money does photography have to be earning you before it becomes a good idea to buy truly expensive equipment and for you to replace it with similar kit each time the need arises?<br /><br />Answer: HEAPS<br /><br />Another Question: For what you (yes YOU) do with cameras, how much difference will it really make to your pictures if you spend up big on expensive gear - as opposed to (say) the universally despised "entry level" gear?<br /><br />Answer: Let's BEGIN to discuss it in detail .... next time.David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-72264645018373864062010-10-22T16:20:00.000-07:002010-10-23T21:32:48.353-07:00But then again ...<BR>Last time I railed against the zealot newbie photographers who have discovered prime lenses and taken to implying that zoom users should not be taken seriously in photography. These people really DO exist - I assure you. I was perusing some correspondence on a web forum from members of the "prime mafia" only this morning. <br /><br />You'll recall I made the point that it didn't matter how sharp and clean the images produced with prime lenses were if the time and effort required to frame up a picture meant that the original inspiration had walked away. I also referred to the large apertures of fast prime lenses which made fast shutter speeds possible in low light. I suggested that this factor was not as important as once it might have been in the days of slow film emulsions because the latest DSLR bodies can produce usefully clean images at sensitivities of ISO 6400 or more.<br /><br />In suggesting that "primes were past their prime" was I saying that there is no longer a place for prime lenses today? No. What I DID say was that I virtually never use prime lenses MYSELF anymore (for what that's worth of course). Being "past their prime" means to me that the period during which prime lenses were the glass of automatic choice now lies in the past. Back then, film was slow and zooms were pretty dreadful. Primes were truly in their prime.<br /><br />In the 35mm film days EVERYBODY used 50mm prime lenses most of the time. I know I did. When the first DSLRs came along, the sensors were "APS-C" or "DX" size which was a somewhat cropped version of a 35mm frame. Consequently all of our beloved 50mm lenses became less generally useful because they became (in effect) short telephoto lenses. To make matters worse, some of them didn't always autofocus properly on the newest bodies. Manual focus was also less viable with digital bodies because they had removed our great film era focussing screens. So we pretty much all started using a generation of much improved ZOOM lenses and learned to make do.<br /><br />Today, for most purposes, particularly photojournalism, sports coverage, general purpose vacationing, weddings & events shooting, birding, real estate, landscape and most on-location commercial shooting it is hard to go past zooms as the most readily suitable glass.<br /><br />It has only been relatively recently that modern, fully autofocussing "normal" and "short telephoto prime lenses have again become available in any variety. I am the first to agree that for high quality studio set-ups, especially fine macro work and portraiture, prime lenses are a desirable choice and perhaps, once again, THE choice. <br /><br />In my own case the arrival of the Nikkor 35mm f1.8 DX lens brings with it potential new horizons. It is a genuinely "normal" lens for the DX format. These days I run a couple of Nikon D80 (DX format) bodies with which I do occasional paying jobs - weddings among them. As sturdy, reliable and useful as the D80 is for now & then professional turns, it has always struggled (along with most bodies of its generation) to produce truly clean images at high ISO. When the powers that be prevent me from using flash during a wedding ceremony or when I am trying to cover (say) a choral festival in performance, I am usually left to get by as best I can with 1600 ISO under available light at a maximum f4. I have frequently had to manage with 1/30 second shutter speeds which is hardly ideal to say the least.<br /><br />I could buy one of those super sensitive new bodies like the Nikon D3s of course but that's a lot of money and it may never really earn its keep.<br /><br />Hopefully the 35mm f1.8 prime might give me a fraction more than two extra stops on my existing bodies. All other things being equal, my 1/30 second shutter speeds becomes a rather more viable 1/120 second. Of course I WILL have to perform gymnastics to get into good framing locations (I ain't as spry as I used to be, mate) given that the 35mm is only a normal lens. It IS very cheap however and a genuine bargain by all accounts. If I don't use it all that much I will have not wasted my investment. Now the 85mm f1.4 would be fantastic to cover theatrical events but it costs a lot of money too. I dunno.<br /><br />Aaaanyway. Let me modify my assertions from last time. Are prime lenses past their prime? By definition, I have to say YES. Are primes dead and buried? Most certainly NOT!David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-35665763839503452522010-09-29T01:50:00.000-07:002010-09-30T02:14:55.192-07:00Primes ARE Past their Prime<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwYNkP9A16QW5uKau1HW-zuEouBK21iF4Kz5HeOhT98pyTdNA1FMJiW5e0T1u1EbiJo19FVedMH9lShHJ76Y5kAhE2MAk41diOh29U0tzarbOjzNjNY84ozX_dNFbh97CeZrbCkzlxdoY/s1600/Prime+lens.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 400px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 398px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5522311314700172722" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwYNkP9A16QW5uKau1HW-zuEouBK21iF4Kz5HeOhT98pyTdNA1FMJiW5e0T1u1EbiJo19FVedMH9lShHJ76Y5kAhE2MAk41diOh29U0tzarbOjzNjNY84ozX_dNFbh97CeZrbCkzlxdoY/s400/Prime+lens.jpg" /></a><br /><br />Back in the good old days we bought our film SLR cameras packaged with nice sensible 50mm prime lenses. I bought several such camera and lens combinations back in the 60s and 70s. They all functioned pretty darn well too.<br /><br />The 50mm focal length approximated the natural field of view that our unassisted eyes enjoyed. They usually offered handsomely fast maximum apertures like f1.8 or even f1.4 which enabled us to make the best use of our slow 64 ASA colour transparency film or 125 ASA monochrome negative film. We could still take nice sharp pictures when the clouds came over or when the sun was low in the sky. I used to feel sorry for my father who had to struggle by in bleak conditions with an f3.5 fixed lens on his old German rangefinder. Those nice wide hunks of glass also gave us pleasantly bright viewfinders which enabled us to focus (manually of course) accurately and quickly using those infallible old split image focus collars.<br /><br />Moreover those good old lenses were (and still ARE) razor sharp from edge to edge. Being small, they were light, which enabled the camera weight to sit well-balanced, back in our hands. Holding the camera steady was a relative breeze. They were tough too. After all there was almost nothing to go wrong in them and the barrels were constructed from good old fashioned METAL.<br /><br />If we wanted to capture something a long way away, we could screw out (yes, SCREW out) or otherwise disconnect our 50mm lenses and mount a nice long 135mm or pehaps a brute-like 200mm telephoto prime. For cramming in the family on Christmas day we could mount our nice new 35mm or (if we really wanted to show off) our 28mm wide angle prime. If we wanted to get fancy for portrait sessions, we could always swap over to a 90mm prime etc. <br /><br />Occasionally one would spy a photographer struggling with big cumbersome new-fangled lenses called (what DID we call them?) ... oh yeah. ZOOM LENSES. The things were a handful, our viewfinders became unworkably dim and the maximum apertures (in combination with our slow old emulsions) disallowed photography in all but the most favourable lighting conditions. Zoom ranges were so narrow that we STILL needed to swap glass to cover any decent range of circumstances. Worst of all, they performed appallingly. At some focal lengths they could be positively blurry, edge sharpness was always a joke and one had to overlook the ever present geometric distortions. Tch tch tch! Experienced camera jockeys just KNEW that zooms would never catch on.<br /><br />Yes Sir. They were the GOOD old days. It is simply amazing how selective our memories can be. Don't you reckon?<br /><br />Back in those good old days, getting around with our 50mm primes, we couldn't always frame up a picture when we saw it. We really DID need the time of Methuselah, the experience and skill of a Cartier Bresson and the athleticism of an Olympic gymnast to always be in position for the picture WHEN it happened. Pictures didn't wait around until we got where we needed to be. The sun went behind the cloud, the cute little dog stopped looking in our direction and wandered off, the silhouetted man, standing in the focus point of the backlit narrow passage, walked around the corner removing all interest.<br /><br />When we fidgeted around to change lenses, we took even longer than we did by running into position. Either way we missed the shot. Time and again we frustratingly MISSED THE SHOT. Worse still, we stopped trying. We saw the shot, remembered we were using a prime lens and walked on ... looking for something that providence would be kind enough to conveniently dump into our laps.<br /><br />Then times changed. Zoom lenses got better .... a GREAT DEAL better. For all practical intents and purposes, today, a half way decent 18-200mm zoom can do a pretty reasonable job of substituting for a whole BAG of tolerably competent primes. With any luck at all, if we SEE a picture, we can GET the picture - within seconds. Okay, the edges of the prime may be a fraction sharper but if using the prime would have caused us to miss the picture altogether, what does it matter?<br /><br />Yes, but what about the zoom's lousy maximum apertures?<br /><br />Thing is, we don't operate with 64 ASA film anymore. Most modern DSLRs can deliver a lovely clean image at 400 ... 800 ... even 1600 ISO. The very latest cameras are optimistic enough to offer us 25,000 ISO or more. As far as the ability to operate in dull light is concerned, who needs f1.8?<br /><br />"Ahhhhhh!" you say. "The big prime maximum aperture will give us lots of nice out-of-focus background. You can't do that with your f4 max aperture - can you?"<br /><br />I realise of course that modern users of zooms don't get as much exercise as prime lens users do. That doesn't mean that we can't muster the strength to run the zoom out to telephoto, take a few paces backwards, dial up a highish shutter speed and frame the original subject. Hey presto - an out-of-focus background.<br /><br />For some reason, there's a breed of newbies out on the internet forums who have convinced themselves that like REAL men who don't eat quiche, REAL photographers don't use zooms. What is more they are often rude to "obviously ill informed" correspondents who suggest alternatives. I see them now, in my mind's eye - hurtling about helter skelter and/or staggering under the weight of HUGE gadget bags crammed with primes, missing pictures by the truckload, eternally juggling glass.<br /><br />Unfortunately no one seems to have told these characters that few people use film anymore. Think about it. Change a lens on a film camera and dust gets on the film. It winds on and out of the way with the very next shot. With a digital sensor, the muck may stay in place on the sensor (AND our pictures) until we finally get round to cleaning it. <br /><br />Try this! Want a 50mm lens? Set your zoom to 50mm. You then HAVE a 50mm lens. See a picture that needs a 135mm lens to frame it properly? Set your zoom to 135mm and you have one in an instant. No drama, no losing the shot, no dropping expensive glass on the ground, no frustration, no lugging gadget bags. Personally I don't normally use ANY primes these days. How about you?<br /><br />About a year ago I asked: "Could Primes be Past their Prime?" Now I think I know the answer. Primes ARE past their prime.David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-82658249741514821892010-05-12T15:06:00.000-07:002010-05-12T17:28:01.096-07:00Photography as an Artform (part 2)<br><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-YB6kKvnD9Gde-5gbqkKMC7kl5DzdbTaTDLdk7P6QNC-k_g2pw5i6YTBkVY8bqPIzg0mELAxaW2-v8OUYIjhWkk6C2e1bb9_Ftil2H6cJpfXFb3ccifRYV9Tq5DlbFJieuwHDWiDribM/s1600/henri-cartier-bresson.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 400px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 268px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5470535684984676914" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-YB6kKvnD9Gde-5gbqkKMC7kl5DzdbTaTDLdk7P6QNC-k_g2pw5i6YTBkVY8bqPIzg0mELAxaW2-v8OUYIjhWkk6C2e1bb9_Ftil2H6cJpfXFb3ccifRYV9Tq5DlbFJieuwHDWiDribM/s400/henri-cartier-bresson.jpg" /></a><br /><div><br /><br /><br /><p></p><br /><br>It is possible to buy prints presumably made from original Henri Cartier Bresson negatives (or from one of a limited number of authorised copies) - for prices ranging between $14,000 and $18,000. For that money, they come in a 16x20 format and (presumably) are produced on the finest quality paper with a certificate of authenticity. I also hope that the prints include the Cartier Bresson negative edge to verify that the image has not been cropped - a trademark of Cartier Bresson's original prints ... but let's assume that will also be the case and move on.<br /><br />It must be acknowledged that, were one to find a photographic print made by Cartier Bresson's own hand (and there can't be very many - he hated darkrooms), one would pay a pretty impressive figure indeed. About ten years ago, or so, an early print, from one of the well known Pictorialists sold at Sothebys for $2.8 million. There IS an established market for photograhic prints and original negatives - of this there can be little doubt. If you can get your hands on an original negative or a print made by a famous photographer, it seems that you may have something of great value. If there were never many prints produced, the price goes up. If the print was made by someone else after the master died, the price goes down etc<br /><br />The encouraging thing in all of this is that the market seems to have decided that fine photographs can INDEED be considered art .... but has it? Are people buying art or are they buying rare antiques? Whether photography is an artform or not, great iconic photographs have made their mark. They can be famous and historically significant. Certainly they constitute evidence that famous people and places ever existed and that famous incidents actually took place.<br /><br />Certainly, prints and negatives can easily be copied and the number of prints in circulation of a famous image can rarely be satisfactorily established. For these reasons (among others) a photograph can never aspire to the value of a picture produced by a highly regarded painter. Once the authenticity of a painting is established, it has to be conceded that it is a one-off and can never be legitimately copied. If you own the <em>Laughing Cavalier </em>you OWN it. No-one else can do so unless you SELL it.<br /><br />If you own an original print by Berenice Abbott you DO own it .... yes ... but so might many other people - as do a whole lot of people who hold identical prints made from the negative (or a copy) by other people - or indeed many people holding NEAR identical prints made by digital means whose origins will NEVER be known. However difficult it may be to satisfactorily establish the provenance of a painting, with photographs it becomes a nightmare.<br /><br />In the case of digital photography the nightmare becomes simply impossible. Within hours of it being captured, a given digital image file could well have been backed-up or copied hundreds of times and distributed widely on disk, by email transmission or by download from websites. What is more, the extent of an image's actual distribution can never be verified. The original photographer can have no way of knowing him/herself.<br /><br />However artistically meritorious a painting may be, its ultimate value derives from its documented authenticity and its inherent rarity. However artistically meritorious a photographic image may be, it seems that it will never reach the values of more traditional artforms because it will always be impossible to establish exclusivity of ownership. To make matters worse, the documentary veracity (and value) of photographs produced by digital means can ALSO be questioned, given the ease with which images can be edited.<br /><br />Over recent years I have sometimes been surprised to see fine arts photographers (and other types of photographers as well) still using large format "old fashioned" photographic film and view cameras. Then it struck me. If you have an original negative (most especially a large format negative) you have some means of CONTROLLING an image's distribution and directing its provenance. You have some means by which your work can accrue and maintain value.<br /><br />The future of digital photography - so far as its claims to art are concerned - seems doubtful. The universal measure of artistic value (how many dollars does it cost to buy?) seems denied to it.<br /><br />It cannot be denied, however that we live in the age of change. With so many potential dollars riding on the issue, it would not surprise me in the least to find that someone rescues the potential value of digital imagery by some hitherto unknown technical means. Stay tuned. </div>David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-80584272028869536902010-04-09T17:33:00.000-07:002010-04-10T14:23:04.888-07:00Photography as an Artform (part 1)<br>I explore pictures on pbase.com most days. Every time, I find maybe a half dozen images that, by any measure, constitute fine art. I see pictures that stir me, excite me, fill me with hope or despair - make me think, educate me and bring forth fresh spiritual insights. Over the years I have found hundreds of pictures that would not look out of place on the walls of the National Gallery of Australia. <br /><br />If such pictures, which frequently have something genuinely fresh to say, are not legitimate art, what are they?<br /><br />Alas, in the main, such images are here today, gone tomorrow, locked away on private hard drives, largely denied to the world. Oh I imagine that certain rights to some of these images are occasionally sold for various commercial purposes but few (if any) receive the final recognition or value that they otherwise might deserve.<br /><br />Recently I visited the afore-mentioned National Gallery for an exhibition of French Post Impressionist works. There were famous paintings by Monet, Van Gogh, Gauguin, Cezanne, Lautrec and all the usual suspects. I recognised dozens of works which I had seen reproduced countless times in magazines, books, journals, posters etc. There they were, right before me, in all their original greatness - no doubt valued at many millions of dollars and fawned over by crowded galleries of adoring fans.<br /><br />The thing that puzzled me the most was how little I felt moved by the occasion. Here I was, looking at some of the most famous artworks in the history of western humanity and I was almost .. well ... bored. I hear cries of "Philistine" in the background and perhaps that is exactly what I am - someone unable to appreciate fine art when it is displayed in front of him, but I wonder whether it is just a little too simplistic to divide the world into the artistically enlightened and the vacant eyed swine dimly beholding the strawberries strewn before them.<br /><br />Why is a great art work "great" in the first place? Is it because it is simply one of the finest manifestations of the human spirit ever conceived or is there more to it than that? When it comes down to the universal measure of great art (i.e. how many dollars are required to purchase it) I would suggest that you can boil the whole thing down to a couple of points. My apologies if I sound a little cynical.<br /><br />1. Is the artist dead? If so, he/she'll never produce any more. The work is irreplaceable and rare. The market is cornered.<br />2. Does some respected group of intellects SAY it is great. I want to be associated with the intellects. If they say it's great I am obliged to agree.<br />3. Does the work represent some breakthough in style? Is it an influential work which led others to copy it? It has historic uniqueness and inherent rarity. <br />4. How much money did a work by the same artist realise at the last Sothebys auction? If some one just paid $10 million for one, the picture on the wall soars in prestige.<br /><br />Now before I am bodily exiled upon the barren wastes, let me say that I am not trying to suggest that French Post Impressionists works or those belonging to any OTHER well thought-of artistic movement are fraudulent and without real value. I am simply saying that the DEGREE of their perceived value has been distorted and overblown by factors which have little to do with their intrinsic merit. Artistic works so often become "great" because they achieve fame which feeds on itself, because they receive the high opinion of those "who are supposed to know such things" and because of the high monetary value which the free market chooses to place upon such items.<br /><br />I stood in the galleries, examining works by some of the relatively less known artists and was able to find pictures that I could not recall having seen before. My mind was therefore uncorrupted by fame, notoriety or winning auction bids. In many cases I was hard pressed to find anything about these works which stirred me, excited me or brought me fresh insights. One of my biblical ancestors may WELL have been killed by David's stone but I could not readily distinguish between the merit of these valued images and the sort of thing I routinely find on pbase.<br /><br />Why is it unlikely that wonderful digital photographs will ever receive the esteem they may deserve? I shall try to address this question next time.David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-76760217916253167972009-10-17T14:47:00.000-07:002009-10-18T15:54:29.790-07:00Buying Fancy Cameras<br>Sooner or later it happens to most keen photographers. <br /><br />"I suppose that my present camera is all right. But one of those geewhizbang models (costing three times what my present camera did) would be so much better. I think I shall mortgage one of the children and go GET one."<br /><br />Okay - I'll bite ..... WHY will it be so much better?<br /><br />If said keen photographer is about to embark upon a career in sports action photojournalism or about to head off to some bullet infested world trouble spot or about to work full time in some highly specialised commercial/scientific field of imagemaking there may be some very good reasons INDEED for buying a geewhizzbang.<br /><br />If you expect a camera to perform faultlessly all day every day for months on end in hot, humid, dusty or icy conditions, bouncing in and out of suitcases etc, high end designated professional bodies and lenses truly make sense. You want the camera to be sealed against undesirable conditions, be able to shoot fast and long. You want back up flash cards on line. You want ultra bright viewfinders. You want bodies that will endure constant heavy use without complaint. <br /><br />Gear that earns you a good full time living, enabling you to get the paying pics AS and WHEN you need them is worth every dollar you pay for it. End of story. In the digital photography world, if the gear is still functioning reliably (however beat up it looks) after four years, you have done very well. It's time to update to the latest capabilities by then, in any case.<br /><br />You will notice that most of the camera characteristics, to which I refer, have something to do with physical body toughness, weather sealing, high activation number shutters and backup image file security. About the only actual picture taking function I mentioned was the high fps rate.<br /><br />Let's return to the everyday REAL world of you and me ... the keen amateur. Aside from the small percentage of us with more time and money than is entirely respectable, we seldom use our cameras for more than a dozen or so frames every couple of days. Several people I know, who describe themselves as enthusiastic amateurs, would be lucky to shoot more than a dozen or more images per WEEK on average. <br /><br />Do we really NEED the characteristics of the professional kit I describe above. Of course not!<br /><br />When I have a camera which is four years old, it usually looks and behaves as good as new. Why? It's simple! I DON'T crawl around in middle eastern deserts, dodging stray mortar shells. I DON'T stand for hours at football games with my camera rattling away at 9 fps during every critical play. My life is NOT so hectic that I don't have the time to put my cameras down gently and avoid scrapping them along rock walls. I DON'T have to stand outside some celebrity mansion in the rain, hoping for a glimpse of a movie star having sex with the pool attendant. What is more, very few of YOU do these things either.<br /><br />The vast majority of shutterbugs do not NEED professional spec cameras. Let me repeat that. Most of us are silly to be spending big bucks on geewhizbang cameras that provide capabilities which will never be required.<br /><br />"Ah but ...", I hear you say, "... surely the pro gear will give me better images!"<br /><br />"Ah .... NO", I hear myself reply.<br /><br />If the truth be known, for almost ALL of us amateurs, for almost ALL of the time, top-of-line, D3 type cameras of this world will provide NO better images than the D90 level cameras (at one fifth the price) which are the practical, sensible units we OUGHT to be using.<br /><br />I discuss the Nikon range simply because I know it best (not because it necessarily IS better than some other brand). If we shoot an average of (say) 50 images a week, in four years we will probably have shot a total of 10,400 images. I hear some people screaming that they would shoot FIVE TIMES that many. Okay then let's make it 250 images a week, EVERY week. After four years we would have shot 52,000 pictures.<br /><br />The D90 has a shutter which has been tested to more than 100,000 successful activations. Why do we need a D3?<br /><br />The D90 has weather sealing not dissimilar to the D3. Why do we need a D3? The hires LCD screen on a D90 is the SAME as that on a D3. Why do we need a D3? At all but absurd ISO levels, observable image quality from a D90 is effectively IDENTICAL to that of a D3. Why do we need one again?<br /><br />Of course the D3 is bigger and heavier than a D90. Remind me - why is that a GOOD thing? The D3 is full frame while D90 is only DX. There is lots of evidence that unless you use correspondingly better (AND doubly expensive) lenses on a full frame body, your picture quality may actually get WORSE. D3 anyone? <br /><br />Look. We can go on and on about overweight files being a pain in the neck, soft cuddly rubber grips which inevitably peel off and regiments of fiddly, gimmicky, totally unnecessary features which endure the life of the camera unactivated. One starts to run out of reasons why us shutterbugs will ever NEED a fancy camera beyond something like the D90.<br /><br />Funds burning a hole in the pocket? Want to spend money on your hobby. Take some advice. Go buy admittance to a very good course about quality post processing. You'll thank yourself for the rest of your photographic life.<br /><br />Just before we go - there remains ONE solid reason for buying a geewhizbang camera. That reason is ... STATUS. Everyone knows that he (or she) with the best camera must be the best photographer. "Hey, there's a guy with a D3 ... let's go ask his advice." Sigh!David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-74672425437329042802009-10-11T14:47:00.000-07:002009-10-16T00:17:32.830-07:00Shaken Confidence in Web Based Galleries<BR>I have written several articles on this blog, encouraging people to consider the use of web based photo galleries as a means of displaying their work to the world, providing any BODY at any TIME with instant access to their work for a wide variety of reasons. <br /><br />Potential customers get to see what you can do before giving you work. Clients get quick and convenient access to proofs. Family, living long distances away, can see the progress of children and grandchildren. Friends and relatives get to see pictures of family celebrations and one's adventures on vacation. Fellow photographer hobbiests get to admire one another's work, learn from one another and ENCOURAGE each other. <br /><br />Potentially the greatest benefit of web-based galleries is that your images are stored remotely from your home and are thief proof, fire proof, flood proof and (theoretically) digital crash proof. <br /><br />It seems I spoke too soon.<br /><br />The recent near disaster over at Pbase.com has shaken my confidence somewhat and I am having to revise my thinking with regard to the security advantages of web galleries. Pbase.com stores and provides access to hundreds of millions of images - belonging to hundreds of thousands of photographers across the globe. Just how safe ARE these images?<br /><br />For those who are not aware, the published story goes as follows. A large datacentre in North Carolina, where the server and data storage for Pbase is kept, suffered a major power outage on September 24. The resident UPS devices became exhausted before power could be restored and the site simply went down in disorder. Upon the restoration of power, the server failed to come up correctly and several days of frantic activity were necessary before parts of the site could be revived at all. It appears that it had become necessary to install an entirely new server and port across the ENTIRE database of images, gallery formatting, management software etc to new hard drive banks. <br /><br />The result is that (as of yesterday - October 11) not everything was working correctly. Evidently, some data HAS been lost, not every subscriber's galleries HAVE been satisfactorily restored to their previous state, forums are NOT working and the all important statistics system (possibly the most comprehensive on the web), reporting daily activity and hit counts to individual subscribers - is STILL down.<br /><br />All of this has been discussed at length on various web forums and a lot of people are unable to understand how such a major website can simply collapse like this given the theoretically foolproof redundancy and off-site back up systems which are in such widespread use today. <br /><br />A number of questions come to mind:<br /><br />a) Could my thousands of images on Pbase have been entirely lost?<br />b) Just how vulnerable are such systems to power outages, system failure, computer viruses and systematic cyber attacks?<br />c) Is the business model for such web gallery systems viable? Does it really allow for the kind of bulletproof security which we have come to anticipate?<br /><br />Now let's get some things crystal clear. I think the guys who conceived, designed and implemented Pbase have created a wonderful thing. Aside from the happenings back on September 24, I have had nothing but GOOD experiences with Pbase. I have no evidence that the people in charge at Pbase are trying to do anything OTHER than what they believe to be in the best interests of their subscribers.<br /><br />Having said that, my confidence in the Pbase system has taken a severe hit. Given that I sometimes use my galleries for professional purposes, I can't really afford to have my display site down. Consequently I have opened another set of galleries at Smugmug. i.e. <br /><a href="http://www.hobbsie.smugmug.com">http://www.hobbsie.smugmug.com </a><br /><br />Let me voice some personal impressions concerning Pbase and Smugmug. <br /><br />To my mind, the Smugmug software is smoother, faster, more presentable and more flexible than the Pbase equivalent. What is more, I believe that my pictures and the display pages simply look BETTER at Smugmug. <br /><br />On the other hand, the stats routines at Pbase (WHEN they are in operation) provide fantastic feedback to subscribers. As a Pbase supporter, you are told how often people look at your pictures along with which individual PAGES and IMAGES they look at. The communications system between supporters is EQUALLY brilliant, along with the simply SUPERB "Photo-a-Day" setup which shows EVERY new PaD image to EVERYONE. At Pbase you feel "connected" to a global network of like minded "fellows" in a way which simply ISN'T as true at Smugmug (or anywhere ELSE to my knowledge).<br /><br />I await future developments in the Web gallery industry with great interest.<br /><br /><em>PS In the interests of accuracy, I note that the Pbase forums are now back up - 18 days after the power outage. I notice ON the forums that quite a number of Pbase supporters have done just as I had done - start up galleries on Smugmug. It was with some interest that I note the establishment of a "Pbase Refugees" community at Smugmug. Pbase statistics routines are still down.</em>David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-9010894534175466072009-08-25T00:41:00.000-07:002009-08-25T23:44:20.658-07:00Dumbing Down and Pricing Up Our Tools<P>The dumbing down of our society never ceases to infuriate me. Year by year the offerings on commercial television become ever more puerile, mobile phones become ever more gimmicky and I swear that the same basic movie plot has been retreaded (with only minor variations) for the last 50 (and counting) Hollywood pot boilers.<br /><br />The pop culture articles of popular magazines have ceased to appeal to anyone except the ultra-voyeuristic and I do not even wish to DISCUSS the fact that no one seems able to digest anything more than a "three second grab" on the evening news.<br /><br />All of that may be bad ENOUGH but NOW they are dumbing down the tools for my primary creative outlet - photography. I will not stand idly by and allow this to transpire without objection.<br /><br />So far as still photography is concerned, the world is surely divided into two kinds of people.<br /><br />There are those of us who expect cameras to provide high grade picture quality, speed of operation, reasonable durability, accuracy of viewing and above average image control. Moreover, the retired folk among us expect to be able to get cameras which embody these qualities without having to waste our limited cash on gimmick features which offer us no tangible advantages but nonetheless jack the price up.<br /><br />There are also those who only use their cameras occasionally, are not especially discriminating on the matter of image quality but quite sensibly want the smallest, easiest-to-operate, most-convenient-to-carry piece of kit they can find.<br /><br />Now I have no objection to dumbed down do-everything-but-make-the-dinner compact cameras. People who want that sort of thing are welcome to it - with my blessing. Just leave my upper entry level DSLRs alone!!<br /><br />Just lately, the marketing gurus at Nikon and Canon have decided that it has become necessary to pollute the non-profession DSLRs with unnecessarily expensive features that will look "friendly" to compact camera users. It is presumed that these potential buyers cannot really see the point of DSLRs which don't operate like their old compacts. Rather than encourage people, moving from compacts to DSLRs, to "upgrade" their photographic skills, camera manufacturers seem ready to "downgrade" the DSLRs instead. Presumably this will allow new DSLR users to continue to produce the same convenient but shoddy images that they have long grown to know and love on their compact cameras.<br /><br />What (may I ask) is the point of that?<br /><br />1) It started with "live view" on DSLRs.<br /><br />Compact camera users love to hold their light little devices at arms length, frame the shot and pull the trigger. The camera labours to focus on something and eventually gets around to capturing the image (often some seconds beyond the best opportunity). To make matters worse, because the LCD screen is ON, virtually all the time, the batteries are often exhausted after 100 images or so. But then, because the average compact camera user rarely shoots more than a few dozen images at a time - what does limited battery life really matter? Might I suggest that if you are serious about photography, it will start to matter very much when using a DSLR.<br /><br />At the end of the day, people don't seem to understand that a good, bright real-time DSLR viewfinder will ALWAYS provide a clearer more accurate and faster idea of what you are trying to shoot than an LCD screen. The viewfinder feeds you all the essential shooting information you can't REALLY see on some pale blurry distant LCD screen half blotted out by the sun behind you. I don't know about you, but I really NEED instant access to shutter speed, aperture, exposure compensation and focus lock indicators as I work. Likewise if you are holding a DSLR to your face, while using the viewfinder, you have one more asset in your attempt to steady a relatively heavy camera in low light/long shutter speed situations.<br /><br />What on earth is the point of a DSLR which is slow to operate, fails to show the essential shooting information, provides a pale, inaccurate view of the subject, can't be held steady, runs out of battery power in short order and (due to the need for a second "live view" image sensor dedicated for the purpose) costs far more than it ought to? I can't see a point. Does anybody else? Honestly?<br /><br />Of course it can be pointed out that you don't HAVE to use live view to shoot with a DSLR. You can always go back to using it the traditional way. But if you are going to do that, why pay through the nose for live view capability in the first place?<br /><br />2) Movies<br /><br />Okay, it was argued, if you are going to have live view, why not include the capability to shoot movies? I find it amazing that I have to make the following points to presumably intelligent camera manufacturers. But here goes:<br /><br />a) So far, the implementation of movies in DSLRs has been disappointing to say the least. One can't focus (automatically at least) when in the act of shooting a movie. It doesn't seem to have dawned on anybody that in movies, subjects actually .... er .... MOVE. Focus ought to move WITH them or what is the point?<br />b) Fussy photographers willing to shell out a couple of thousand notes for a decent body and lens probably CARE about the results of their photography. It seems clear that the best movies will always come from purpose-designed camcorders. Such customers will always prefer to use a camcorder for their movies, will they not? Given the clear weight of opinion on web-based photography forums, it seems obvious that being able to shoot movies on DSLRs is a marginal selling point at best.<br />c) By the nature of their design and the nature of their users, compact cameras will always be a better compromise if you want to shoot casual movie files. Why produce an unnecessarily expensive and unnecessarily cumbersome device to do the job of a much cheaper, much more convenient one?<br /><br />Once again, so far as most traditional DSLR users (as opposed to newbie former compact camera owners), movie capability simply represents one more reason why non professional DSLRs finish up being more expensive than they ought.<br /><br />3) Fold out LCD screens<br /><br />I have been using digital still cameras (and most especially, digital SLRs) since the beginning. I have spent many hours in pressure professional situations. I have NEVER felt the need for a fiddly, bulky, vulnerable fold out LCD screen. I can well understand the need for a fold out screen if said device is your ONLY means of sighting the subject. This would be especially true if you are trying to keep the screen away from prevailing sunlight. I can also concede the usefulness of one in a media crush where you are trying to shoot over the heads of other journos and such - but really - how often do you find yourself in such a fix?<br /><br />In the case of the recently introduced Nikon D5000, the incorporation of a fold out screen has meant that the entire body has had to be taller and heavier than would otherwise be desirable (at God knows what cost). To make matters worse (yet again) the size of the screen has had to be reduced from a full 3" to a smaller than desirable 2.8".<br /><br />In order to heap absurdity upon absurdity it has to be conceded that one useful function for a fold out screen might well be to enable the subject to see him/herself in the screen during a self portrait. But the ridiculous D5000 fold-out screen, (mounted as it is by the lower edge, rather than the side) is inevitably obscured by the tripod upon which the camera must be mounted for such exercises!!!<br /><br />Is it just me? Am I the only one who sees this cynical dumb-down trend for what it is? Please! Leave my perfectly satisfactory, light, cheap, easy to use, entry level DSLRs alone - for pity sake.David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-85452103623756167792009-06-25T01:31:00.000-07:002009-06-25T04:40:16.445-07:00Kodachrome Film is No More<p></p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDeB4TChD9FIeusi09nWJWa2djKoSarWwIJos8ZrpcEUoztC_bDY5nunTuqeKPFOBPcawtiLcR95UYSmFQQqX2tAP29Th2urhnmG6HjLo1JhNDUulXScESZVkBqZmL5_nKJKFiWMIIDDE/s1600-h/bilde.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 318px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 223px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5351205265760825058" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDeB4TChD9FIeusi09nWJWa2djKoSarWwIJos8ZrpcEUoztC_bDY5nunTuqeKPFOBPcawtiLcR95UYSmFQQqX2tAP29Th2urhnmG6HjLo1JhNDUulXScESZVkBqZmL5_nKJKFiWMIIDDE/s320/bilde.jpg" /></a><br /><br /><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>How many remember those little yellow boxes that would arrive in the mail, carrying our latest processed Kodachrome colour slides? Back in 1965, when I was 18 years old - keen as hell on photography - the arrival of a yellow box was a magic time, as I am sure it was for countless others.<br /><br />Very soon the yellow boxes will be gone forever.<br /><br />Kodachrome transparency film was introduced way back in 1935. With only minor changes to its unique fourteen stage process, the product survived until the day before yesterday when it was announced by Eastman Kodak that no more of it would be made. Existing stocks will probably last about 2-3 months and processing of currently circulating rolls will end next year.<br /><br />The passing of the film era really comes home to me now, because once upon a time I must have shot more Kodachrome than anything else - God alone knows how many frames of it I exposed over the years, recording so much of my youth, young adulthood, early career, family, vacations AND images intended for print publication.<br /><br />For me photography was all about Kodachrome II which boasted an ASA of 25. Kodachrome I, (which was before my time) had been limited to ASA 10. I am told that it had been just as good if just a bit slow. In any event, for my money, Kodachrome II provided the finest grain and most lifelike colours possible. What is more, the transparencies have lasted, without fading, all this time. For some reason (best known to the Almighty) a certain breed of trend obsessed photographer (sigh) would sneer at my use of KII, dismissing it for it's overbright, overblue colours. Such people (presumably in the know) would always suggest that I change to Ansco or Agfa and then (much later) a johnny come lately product called Fuji.<br /><br />Well I hope those wise arse characters went ahead and shot EVERYTHING on muddy overwarm Agfa, red biassed Ansco and dull, grainy early version Fuji. I have to tell you that virtually all my Agfacolor slides from the 1960s have turned to purple, many of my Ansco slides have faded almost completely to blank while the early Fuji product I shot was so latitude intolerant that I gave away the whole idea (of shooting Fuji) for decades.<br /><br />Virtually ALL of my Kodachrome slides look just like they always did - beautiful natural colour, with lovely fine grain.<br /><br />Eventually along came Kodachrome X with a lightning fast ASA (i.e. ISO to you newbies) of 64. It was a perfect product for use with Instamatic cartridge cameras and while it lacked a little of KII's latitude, the overall results were pretty much the same. A little later they changed the name of these products to "Kodachrome 25" and "Kodachrome 64", which made perfect sense to me.<br /><br />With the arrival of Kodak's Ektachrome range of transparency films, things began to change. The colours were never as true and the grain never as smooth but they could be processed in a range of local labs that couldn't handle Kodachrome. This made turn-around much faster and for commercial work this was often vital. What's more, keen types could set up their own labs to process Ektachrome themselves and process routines were devised to push the products to 400 ASA and finally even 1200. Colour transparencies could be shot in iffy light circumstances not previously thought possible. Shooters for outfits like National Geographic were delighted and took to Ektachrome like ducks to water.<br /><br />At the end of the day however, if the light was good and the object of the exercise was unambiguous beauty - Kodachrome was one's film of choice.<br /><br />Aaanyway .... it's gone now.<br /><br />Despite the fact that I have now shot digital for years, you only get to be a young impressionable photographer once. I'll always remember Kodachrome. </p>David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-2531520339402867162009-06-14T19:25:00.000-07:002009-06-25T01:14:56.867-07:00FF - Much Ado About Not Very Much?<p></p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixcN3hLgUuJrl0am474NYYQe7ZsOWpcJSTKmPpkMiZVc35lJDDmkh_xAu-m15NMJBw7soM66dWtecsegZSuAFSzFWXaQXl4Rt5tSioDbunKYstjrJ4RLU6b8KibU9HWQh9HMX2Q8C0U6A/s1600-h/frontview-001.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 400px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 307px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5347423746364794722" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixcN3hLgUuJrl0am474NYYQe7ZsOWpcJSTKmPpkMiZVc35lJDDmkh_xAu-m15NMJBw7soM66dWtecsegZSuAFSzFWXaQXl4Rt5tSioDbunKYstjrJ4RLU6b8KibU9HWQh9HMX2Q8C0U6A/s400/frontview-001.jpg" /></a><br /><p></p><p>When Digital SLRs first came out, many of us were disappointed to note that the standard format was an APS-C sized sensor (later known as "DX" by the Nikon faithful) which was roughly half the size of a traditional 35mm film frame. We had all become so brain washed by the 35mm format that many of us began to agitate for "full frame" on the grounds that we were somehow being short changed by anything less.<br /><br />Now the 35mm "standard" for small still cameras was an arbitrary one at best and had been originally chosen largely because film of that format was already in use by the motion picture industry and was therefore readily available for use by these subversive "miniature" camera manufacturers. There is nothing intrinsicaly magical about the format but photographers don't always take to change very easily. If we were brought up to believe that 35mm sized sensor surfaces were the REAL fair dinkum article, we were not going to accept "half" sized formats lying down.<br /><br />As time went on, resolutions increased and general technical improvements arrived, it did indeed become apparent that APS-C/DX sensors were perfectly capable of producing images comparable to the prints and transparencies that 35mm film could produce. For all practical intents and purposes they could do the job, that most of us required, very satisfactorily. What's more, lenses designed for use with 35mm film would still work superbly with DX - especially once it was realised that DX only really utilised the "sweet spot" of such lenses, enabling them to give still better performance than they might have done with film or indeed with the long anticipated "full frame" sensors.<br /><br />But there WERE thoughtful arguments in favour of full frame/FX sensors. If the performance of "cropped" sensors could compare with 35mm film, full frame sensors might be expected to go one better and perhaps give results that compared to "medium format" film:<br /><br />a) Full frame sensors would provide more space for a given number of "photo sites". Pixel density would effectively be reduced, thus improving high ISO performance.<br /><br />b) Full frame sensors could be beefed up to provide much higher resolutions than cropped sensors - for equivalent sensitivities.<br /><br />c) Larger sensors would mean larger mirrors. Full frame DSLR viewfinders could be expected to be much brighter than their cropped equivalents.<br /><br />d) Full frame sensors would enable expectations of lens coverage to return to those we enjoyed when using film. Using cropped sensors meant that 28mm focal length lenses (for instance) were nearly "normal" in their coverage. With film and full frame sensors, 28mm lenses would return to genuinely "wide angle" .... the way that God had always intended.<br /><br />Now all of this sounds very good ... I suppose. In practice however, how much water do these arguments hold?<br /><br />(a) The first argument is the best one of course. The ability to shoot relatively clean images at 3200, 6400 or even 12800 ISO would be terrific. Imagine being able to shoot low available light images at practical shutter speeds, without tripods. It could be especially wonderful for action photography. In practice however, most people will use flash or not bother at all - few punters can see the point of gloomy images. Noise reduction software routines are also pretty good these days and (if used correctly) will usually go a long way toward effectively increasing high ISO performance for most cameras.<br /><br />(b) Ultra high resolution sounds good but how important is it really? Good DX bodies can deliver fine, clean 10-12 megapixel images without difficulty. How much resolution do you really <em>need</em>? How big will your prints really <em>be</em>? If you are like me, the lion's share of your output is for internet use anyway. More than about 6 megapixels is effectively pointless.<br /><br />(c) I have looked through the viewfinder of my brother's very nice Canon 5D mkII. The view is genuinely beautiful. But then again, when I am using one of my cropped sensor DSLRs, the viewfinder has always seemed perfectly satisfactory to me, however less bright it may ACTUALLY be in A/B comparisons with the FF version. Of course the REAL problem comes when you press the shutter. That heavy, oversized FF mirror (with so much further to travel) comes crashing back and forth with such violence that I thought the camera would shake itself out of my hand. However much advantage one gains from the extra resolution and cleaner high ISO performance, I cannot believe that you don't lose pretty much MOST of it with all that thrashing about during the instant of exposure. It's called camera shake.<br /><br />(d) It is becoming very clear that as resolution increases, the limitations of a given lens become more and more apparent. If their potential advantages are to be fully realised, 21-24 megapixel FF/FX cameras require the use of the best lenses you can find. Given the already horrendous cost of FX bodies, we now must seek out equally expensive lenses. I (for one) simply can't afford it especially when, in a few years time I shall probably have to afford it AGAIN! And even if I COULD afford it, I am saddled with excessively heavy equipment which, I know from experience, will become a literal pain in the neck by session's end.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. Cameras like the Canon 5D and its matching L lenses are truly wonderful kit but at the end of the day the files from hires full frame cameras can be almost unworkable. If we care so much about ultimate performance, it makes little sense to shoot anything other than RAW images. The aggravation associated with downloading, editing and storing the resultant 30-40 meg files I just don't want to think about.<br /><br />Full frame sensors, heavy camera bodies, tank like lenses and massive image files sound like a great idea. All the fashionable people seem to think so. For those photographers in possession of the necessary patience, perseverance, hard drives, gym subscriptions and funding, I am confident they can produce most satisfying product. In practice - for many of us - the concept may be overrated and impractical.<br /></p>David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-27353891718874862452009-05-20T15:17:00.000-07:002009-05-20T20:25:34.747-07:00A Picture a Day ...<p></p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXT5nYATUkpiPVKCRGpo-f1m8a_0tM88r_yMxraHL7dJsy2XSM2zH4Hwk9xRnRHJppP_YKZg6bKoGhwRJCSpDQGzHsnvrxRqYQQTGGMLAr0pq1BGS1NhuI4Bs4CxhkqZy2SnyxkFH9loA/s1600-h/14May09As.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5338059707807542722" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 266px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXT5nYATUkpiPVKCRGpo-f1m8a_0tM88r_yMxraHL7dJsy2XSM2zH4Hwk9xRnRHJppP_YKZg6bKoGhwRJCSpDQGzHsnvrxRqYQQTGGMLAr0pq1BGS1NhuI4Bs4CxhkqZy2SnyxkFH9loA/s400/14May09As.jpg" border="0" /></a> <p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Maintaining my Photo-a-Day galleries at Pbase can be quite a challenge. </p><p>Most people who run PaD galleries, post pictures when it suits them. They'll post one this week, maybe two pictures next week. If they haven't got time, they might post a nice picture that they shot last October. </p><p>Now let me tell you that there is nothing wrong with the above approach. In fact it is a perfectly sane and sensible way to go. Most of us simply don't have the time to do as much photography as we'd like and we don't always find ourselves in places and circumstances where inspiration comes easily or where photographic opportunities present themselves at a respectable rate of knots. Lugging around heavy camera bodies and multiple lenses is not always a convenient thing to do either.<br /><br />Then I came across Scott Browne's Photo-A-Day galleries <a href="http://www.pbase.com/sbbish/photoadayish">http://www.pbase.com/sbbish/photoadayish</a><br /></p><p>Why don't you check them out?<br /><br />Scott religously produces a new photograph each day. Depending where he is and depending on the circumstances, the image in question might be a magnificently lit and prepared study or a grabshot of something or someone which he happened to notice as he walks around. The work is never less than competent, usually interesting, often fascinating and occasionally brilliant. He takes risks and experiments. Most importantly his galleries are a record of someone who lives, does and SEES - each and every day.<br /><br />I have learned a lot from Scott. His work also reminds me of things which I DO know but forget to act upon. In particular there is the old saying:<br /><br /><em>"You can take an ordinary shot of something EXTRAordinary or you can take an EXTRAordinary shot of something ordinary. Both can be equally compelling."</em><br /><br />Scott's Photo-A-Day galleries provide lots and lots of examples of both. I imagine that Scott didn't start out as good as he currently is. I don't suppose that anyone does. He has obviously trained himself to SEE. He has trained himself to be able to visualise ordinary things in extraodinary ways and he provides himself with the opportunity to capture the extraordinary things when they DO present themselves. </p><p>Would YOU like to show interesting galleries of work? I don't care who you are. You can.</p><p>Step ONE. Be determined to capture and publish a new, fresh, original picture EVERY day. Don't imagine that everything you will come up with will be suitable for the cover of <em>National Geographic</em> or <em>Cosmopolitan</em>. The important thing is that you <em>produce</em> that picture on the day and publish it ON THE DAY. Your self imposed imperative to produce a new picture will START to help you to SEE creativively in and of itself. Go on. See if I'm not right.<br /><br />Step TWO. Have a camera (however modest) with you almost ALL of the time. The less than technically perfect picture you got with your light and convenient Nikon D40 plus 18-135 is way WAY better than the technically incredible picture you DIDN'T get with your Nikon D3X plus + 24-70 because you didn't have the perseverance to actually lug the damn thing around with you (let alone afford one).<br /><br />Some days you don't get to go out shooting pictures because you are tired, the light is awful or perhaps you have to work (some people DO, you know). Some days or evenings you sit at home, inspiration totally lacking. You STILL have to produce a picture. Start to look at the mundane things around your own house. Remember ... you can make wonderful pictures out of ordinary everyday little things if only you can learn to see those ordinary things in EXTRAordinary ways. Try some of these basic ideas:<br /></p><ul><li>Shoot as BGCUs (that's Bloody Great Close Ups to the uninitiated)</li><br /><li>Shoot with unusual lighting</li><br /><li>Shoot from directly above, low angle or tilted</li><br /><li>Shoot against unusual backgrounds or in out-of-context locations</li><br /><li>Shoot against or on top of a mirror producing a reflected image</li><br /><li>Shoot as if you are preparing a "sales" image for an advertising campaign</li><br /><li>Shoot through some form of frame - leaves, books, groceries, whatever</li></ul><p>I challenge you to shoot interesting pictures using nothing but silly, ordinary household items every day for a fortnight. See if it doesn't make you see and think more creatively - and improve your technique.</p><p>See my work at <a href="http://www.pbase.com/davidhobbs">www.pbase.com/davidhobbs</a></p>David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-63251571734866155322009-02-23T13:28:00.000-08:002009-03-07T14:56:46.178-08:00Web Galleries to the Rescue<p>Last time I expressed the view that no foolproof mechanism for long term preservation of digital images seems to have emerged. For that matter, the same problem remains unsolved for ALL forms of digital data. Just how should one archive one's files for the medium to long term, confident that the digital media itself will have survived and that means will still be at hand to interpret the file and storage formats?<br /><br />Well the answer is .... I don't know!!!! I just hope that someone else, much smarter than yours truly, DOES - or if they don't, that they soon will. It is a huge problem getting still larger by the minute.<br /><br />Traditionally we viewed our images on photopaper, usually stored in photo albums. Once closed, the album storage format enables our prints to be protected from light and history shows that they can be preserved for very long periods indeed. Perhaps long term preservation of important images should remain in that form - on long life paper, in long life inks in books. But then just what do we mean by "important".<br /><br />Going down through the ages, past our children and grandchildren, we reach descendants who will never have actually met us, interracted with us, spoken with us - or indeed have especially much interest in us and our lives at all. To them, pictures of our overseas trip to Bali in 2009 (including pictures of me posing next to the colourfully dressed hotel doorman) will hardly loom large in importance. Is it really so vital that such images survive? Beyond our lifespan and perhaps our children's, will anyone ever want to look at them again? In the final analysis, who are our images FOR?<br /><br />The answer, of course, is that they are mostly for us - OURSELVES. Most especially they are for our twilight years when we will have the time for indulgent nostalgia sessions and when images of our early years and those of our forbears acquire a meaning and importance they never had during the hustle and bustle times of youth, early parenthood and career building.<br /><br />In truth, most of our personal "good time" pictures can safely die WITH us.<br /><br />Pictures of our children and grandchildren however, will need to live on down the years to be enjoyed and appreciated during the twilight years of SUBSEQUENT generations. Perhaps therefore, our only real image obligations are to our children. We should merely be obliged to ensure that our CHILDREN get the pictures that will remain of interest to them. Let THEM battle the vagiaries of future data storage/archive systems.<br /><br />In any event, are images becoming less and less important as a whole?<br /><br />Our generation comes at the end of a series of generations for whom photographs were a relatively precious commodity. Not everyone owned or used cameras. Professional shoots, film and processing cost real money. In my youth, significant occasions with my family are remembered by one or two images at best. Some significant relatives like my Uncle Earnest are remembered by one or two images IN ALL. The images which remain of such times and individuals are relatively few and commensurately valuable.<br /><br />These days it seems quite different. EVERYONE has a digital camera. There are cameras in mobile phones, for heaven sake. Images arrive by phone call and email everyday - "Here's me and my new boyfriend hanging out at Tim's party" - "Here are sixteen pictures of the new puppy" - "Here's a dozen pictures of the new car" - "Look who we just ran into, down at the mall ... Sandra ... haven't seen her in days" - "Look at Bob's funny hat" - "Here's Sue spilling an ice cream on her new sweater".<br /><br />Effectively, images today are FREE and so we capture them with total abandon. Most such pictures are intended for immediate viewing and disposal. In our present culture, images grow more and more numerous, more transient, more trivial and less treasured. The trouble and time associated with printing, mounting and preservation can often seem pointless.<br /><br />When a photograph was taken in days of yore, it was taken with intent. All of them were important. If it hadn't been important we would never have taken it in the first place. Today things are decidedly different. Nonetheless even today's youth may eventually have sober moments and decide that certain images have a value beyond the moment. What should they do with them?<br /><br />Web based galleries seem the way to go. They are becoming immensely popular and as a concept seem destined to survive the next human generation or so. Today it is possible to establish FREE galleries. Some gallery sites offered guaranteed preservation of uploaded images. Some sites like Pbase seem perfect for hobbiests whose pages can be highly customised and (like all web galleries) offer instantaneous display to international enthusiasts.<br /><br />With web galleries, any relative in the world can immediately see all the images of our grandchild's birthday party, last Tuesday. Masses of old family photographs can be displayed for any relative to download or share. Our memories can be preserved no matter how quickly the bushfire comes to destroy our home. All of our artistic image attempts can be appreciated by others (anywhere in the world), who can upload encouraging comments as well.<br /><br />Maybe - just maybe - web galleries are the preservation and sharing medium of choice ... at least for now .... I hope.<br /></p>David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-42579120556239729602009-02-20T13:38:00.000-08:002009-02-21T13:16:12.443-08:00Looking at Pictures<p>Time was that if you wanted to see the family pictures, you went fishing around in the back of some out-of-the-way cupboard and eventually emerged with several well worn old-style photo albums. Blowing off the dust, you opened the tomes to reveal hundreds of old family memories going back generations.<br /><br />Each time you returned to the albums, the black and white prints had turned just a fraction more sepia and the colour prints just a fraction more faded - but we remembered what the tones and colours really were supposed to be so it didn't matter ... too much.<br /><br />Then of course back in the sixties and early seventies we all got modern and started taking coloured slides and could watch our family memories sort of like we were at the movies. Of course it began to dawn on us that slide shows frequently became tedious for the "trapped" visitors, effectively bolted into position before a seemingly endless parade of excruciating, underexposed, overexposed, blurry, pictures of frequently decapitated people they didn't especially care about. Likewise slideshows involved far too much trouble to be an entirely practical method for casual viewing.<br /><br />To make the problem still worse, we discovered that many transparencies faded dreadfully. By the beginning of the nineties, many of my precious slides from the sixties had pretty much faded to a uniform blue - especially the Agfa, Ansco and Fuji ones. Remarkably the actual Kodachrome slides (not so much the Ectachromes) had endured pretty well.<br /><br />In any event, these days, masses of families are urgently scanning what remains of their transparencies into digital form where their colours can be preserved or even restored a little. Lots of people, too, are methodically scanning their old prints. The biggest difficulty lies in finding someone who has the necessary combination of skill, patience, time, familiarity and affection for the task.<br /><br />Just when we started to think that the problems associated with preserving our ancestral images had at last been solved (i.e. scanning to digital), brand new problems begin to emerge - sigh!<br /><br />While slides had barely lasted 20 years, some of the oldest of our prints have lasted 150 years to date. How long will digital images last (and that includes our current images direct from our digital cameras)? The immediate, reflex answer is "forever", but is that really the case?<br /><br />Once digitised, of course, images can be enhanced before being printed afresh. But how long will the new prints actually last? We have just lived through a period of 15 years during which photograph printing technology has undergone massive change - not always for the better. Unfortunately a lot of 10 year old prints (even those from SOME commercial labs) are simply fading to nothing. Over the last 5 years or so, the performance of new prints would appear to be rather better - especially those produced at home where "chrome pigments" and "archive" papers promise genuinely long life. The trouble is we don't know for sure - simply because the current methods and materials are too new.<br /><br />Then there is the matter of digital image storage. Our local hard drives are hardly suitable. Hard drives last three to four years at best and frequently not as long as that. Back up drives are okay in the short term. I have two back up HDs for my main drive and get by on the hope that all three drives are unlikely to crash simultaneously ... they wouldn't .. would they??? After that I download to "archive" DVD-Rs. I produce multiple copies at any one time and hope to high heaven that my ancestors will not find them to have become meaningless plastic junk in 20 years time. If that is INDEED the case, the much hyped digital format and storage will have performed still worse than slides!<br /><br />Deteriorating and unreliable digital storage is a very real fear. Experiments on present technology recordable CDs and DVDs suggest that long term reliance on such devices might well be fraught with danger. Even if the disks themselves survive the years intact, how do we know that the means will remain at hand to retrieve data from them? Think back to the relative technological instability of the IT industry. File and storage formats come and go like the wind. 8 inch floopy disks gave way to 5.25" mini-floppies and then to 3.5" hard case floppies and then to "Iomega Zip" disks and then to "Iomega Jazz" disks and then to recordable CDs, mini-CDs, DVDs and blueray DVDs and then to "flash memory" devices such as SD cards, CF cards and "memory sticks" etc ad nauseum.<br /><br />In 20 years time, god alone knows what the (then) universally accepted digital storage media and/or imagefile formats will be?<br /><br />Far from living in a technological golden age, we live at a time when we can't even be certain that our great grandchildren will be able to see our photographs.<br /><br />But wait! Perhaps there IS a solution after all .... but that is for next time.</p>David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-83443975342062002282009-02-04T19:36:00.000-08:002009-02-04T20:24:48.411-08:00Light is a Harsh Mistress<p>Like most people who use cameras, I find myself constantly bitching about the light. What a delight it is when you find yourself in the right place at the right time with the ideal light for your purpose. Of course, in the matter of light, good photography is largely a matter of planning in which one tries to be at certain locations under certain lighting conditions.<br /><br />Trouble is, at this time of year (mid-summer in the southern hemisphere) good outdoors lighting is hard to come by and potentially ideal light is really only available for a few hours at the beginning and the end of the day. "WHAT?" .... I hear you say. "Look out there. The sun is shining. Bright colours are to be found in every direction. There is a lovely blue sky. Start shooting quick."<br /><br />The pity is that these latter statements are just not true. At the height of summer, in the middle of the day where I live, the light is quite appalling for good pictures. The sun is effectively directly overhead for much of the day. This means that the tops of people's heads, the roofs of houses, the crowns of trees are all beautifully lit by the sun (from the direction of the sun) while the sides of all of those things (from the photographer's perspective) are composed of broken shadow.<br /><br />The strength of the sun is such that highlights are extremely bright while shadows are very dark meaning that most idle pictures of the squinting relatives lined up at the beach barbecue are dominated by shadows which render the faces indecipherable. At the same time, the sand and all whitish objects are a featureless blown out haze. Terrific picture ... NOT!<br /><br />If one were to shoot pictures between (say) 7 and 9 am or (say) between 4 and 6 pm, the situation is a great deal better. At those times of the day, the sun lights things from the side, enabling more saturated and consistent colours. Face your human subjects away from the sun and many good things start to happen. For a start they stop squinting in the glare, their faces and fronts are in consistent shadow allowing reliable exposure. Fill in flash can brighten the faces moderately and the whole picture improves out of sight.<br /><br />In winter, the situation is much better. The sun is softer and comes from an angle ALL DAY. Highlights and shadows can BOTH be captured and the limits of camera dynamic range are not generally threatened. Most importantly, if you devote a day to go somewhere interesting for the purpose of taking pictures, you can keep shooting ALL DAY and take your time while doing so. You can get many more useful images of a location because you don't have to stop shooting between (say) 9 am and 4 pm and find some halfway useful thing to fill in your time meanwhile.<br /><br />People who look at my "Photo a Day" gallery on Pbase will note that there is currently a paucity of scenic pictures. Most of my summer hobby images tend to be close ups and indoor locations because outdoor pictures are much too tedious to plan in what is presently a busy lifestyle.<br /><br />See my work at <a href="http://www.pbase.com/davidhobbs">www.pbase.com/davidhobbs</a>David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-81662345955043193062009-01-29T20:33:00.000-08:002009-02-02T21:05:30.544-08:00The Passing Parade<p>It's amazing how the international photographic equipment industry has changed since the 1960s. Back then, who'd have thought that by 2009 the following would be true: <ul><li>The Konica and Minolta brands would have disappeared</li><li>Leica and Panasonic (the people who make transistor radios???) would effectively be in partnership to make cameras</li><li>Sony (more transistor radios???) would be a leading camera maker</li><li>Leading European camera brands such as Voigtlander, Contax et al would have effectively disappeared</li><li>Hoya (the filter makers?) would own Asahi Pentax</li><li>Photographer's darkrooms would have turned into desktop computers </li></ul><p>.... and here's the big one </p><ul><li>Except for highly specialised people and applications there is effectively no such thing as photographic film any more</li></ul><p>When digital cameras first appeared in serious numbers it is amazing how many photographers (who should, by now, be knowing better) predicted that they'd remain a frivolous toy - just like motor cars, aeroplanes, talking pictures, CDs, personal computers and everything else that entrenched minds have always failed to get their heads around. No one, however, predicted the suddenness with which film would finally die - except perhaps the folks at Kodak, who for years had been trying to diversify in something of a panic.<br /><br />In the light of phtography's recent history it is fascinating to predict what is likely to happen in the near future. Someone who makes predictions every year about what will happen to the photographic industry and its leading playes is Thom Hogan. You can read his predictions for 2009 here: <a href="http://www.bythom.com/2009predictions.htm">http://www.bythom.com/2009predictions.htm</a><br /><br />Looking back over previous Thom Hogan predictive articles, it is fascinating to see how generally correct he has been. Of course, on this occasion he predicts that the international economic downturn will hasten the death of so many prominent photographic businesses including the passing of most specialist photographic retailers and the demise of almost all specialist photographic equipment manufacturers. Wow - let's hope not. A world without Nikon, Pentax, Olympus? What a bleak prospect that would be. </p><p>See my work at <a href="http://www.pbase.com/davidhobbs">www.pbase.com/davidhobbs</a></p>David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-6153160098593648702009-01-24T15:17:00.000-08:002009-01-27T18:58:41.398-08:00Could Primes be Past their Prime?<p>Let me summarise what I meant to say in my last article. Given the power of current post processing software, lenses produced today by prominent manufacturers have probably ceased to be a significant constraint in our efforts to secure quality images.<br /><br />Class by class, it probably doesn't matter whether your lens is made by Canon, Nikon, Leica, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, Sigma, Tokina or Tamron. All other factors being equal, any given image (except maybe resolution charts) will look much the same.<br /><br />It is interesting, by the way, to see how all of the makers are lining up to define lens classes. Looking at APS-C sensor bodies, all makers seem to offer some entry level (or NEAR entry level) zoom versions of (circa)18-55, 18-120, 18-200 and 70-300. The 18-55s are often surprisingly good if flimsy, the 18-200s are fairly solid but optically iffy while the 18-120s and 70-300s are something of a compromise.<br /><br />Then there are the 12-24s, and 70-200s. In both cases, the optical and build quality usually represents a major step up in class. Then too, there is a slight step down from this latter level to the often reasonably fast (circa) 17-70s.<br /><br />Leaving specialised items like macros, fish-eyes and super telephotos out of the discussion, the really rugged up-market lenses (some new designs plus some scrubbed-up film era designs) seem to be reserved for the full frame bodies principally in the fast 24-70 sort of range.<br /><br />Most new lenses (that aren't intended for stabilised bodies) seem to incorporate a form of optical stabilisation. Significantly the most professional full frame models often leave this latter feature out. Presumably the lack of such complexity may render the lenses in question more ultimately reliable, the limited focal length ranges make stabilisation less vital ... and then again, the potential users should have pretty reasonable hand held technique at their disposal, rendering its usefulness questionable.<br /><br />To my mind, given my aforementioned observations on optical quality, the choice of lenses, probably comes down to two major parameters: </p><ul><li>How much does it cost?</li><li>How well is it made?</li></ul><p>If you are basically a keen amateur whose gear often sits for long periods in dark cupboards, you might easily be best served by something cheap and (if it comes to that) easily replaceable. If you work your gear on a regular basis during which jolts, bumps and even drops are effectively inevitable, maybe you are better off with something more ruggedly constructed. </p><p>Yes, but what about primes (i.e. fixed focal length lenses)?<br /><br />Let me return to our macho types, pixel peepers and status chasers on the web forums. These people constantly complain about the lack of prime lenses - at least modern versions of same. A lot of these people own lens collections consisting ONLY of primes. They seem to think that such will bestow upon them some sort of professional aura and/or ultimate image quality. In reality, except for some highly specialised applications (dedicated portrait & macro advertising studios, high profile sports photo-journalism and papparazzi work perhaps) they are probably deluding themselves.<br /><br />Thirty years ago there may have been some point in all this. The quality of zoom lenses was pretty dismal. At the same time, most accumulating dust finding its way onto light sensitive surfaces in the camera was whisked away with every turn of the film winder. </p><p>These days, if you have to change lenses every couple of images, your digital sensor will soon be caked in muck, more than negating any alleged optical advantage offered by primes. More importantly, with all of the fooling around, you will more than likely miss vital shots. Anyone will tell you that the good (but technically less than perfect) image of the perfect composition/subject is a long way better than the technically ultimate image of the perfect composition/subject <strong>you just missed</strong>.<br /><br />I am inclined to think that, for most general use at least, prime lenses may have had their day. </p>David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-5933964418106514962009-01-19T16:37:00.000-08:002009-01-24T17:18:08.685-08:00Modern Lenses are Fantastic<p>I thought I'd leave off talking about post processing for a while and air some hobby horse issues on the subject of lenses.<br /><br />You see it all the time. People post forum messages on dpreview or other such sites, declaring their dissatisfaction with this lens or that lens. They complain primarily about "softness" or perhaps about distortions or maybe about mechanical aspects of the lens like autofocus or how smoothly the zoom ring operates. They rabbit on about lack of manufacturing quality control and how they obviously got a bad example - which they are about to take back to some poor long suffering retailer, for exchange.<br /><br />The first thing is that few of these people are really qualified to comment on such things. They simply don't have the experience or skill to make the evaluations they presume to. Examining the pictures in question it usually appears that the perceived "softness" has little to do with lens quality. It almost always has much more to do with depth of field and camera shake. The posters complain about edge softness, completely forgetting that objects on the periphery of an image are often much closer than objects in the centre. A lot of the time, they are simply out of focus.<br /><br />The other thing which is very often true, is that few people know how to hold a camera competently when they shoot. Nor do they seem to "get" the fact that there are certain shutter speeds they should not fall below in field use. I know its old but the traditional hand held rule still applies. At 120mm focal length, use a shutter speed higher than 1/120 sec. At 50mm use a shutter speed higher than 1/50 sec etc.<br /><br />In lower light, you might well be using "vibration reduction" or "image stabilisation" and you may well be braced against doorways, railings and tree stumps but if you want to make sure you get the shot nice and sharp .... use the rule. It's that simple. In my experience, the difference between the perceived resolution of a (so called) poor lens and a (so called) excellent one is almost always LESS than the actual resolution difference between poor and excellent field technique - believe it.<br /><br />Lens reviewers make a lot of the need to stop a lens down for best results or they harp about "refraction" softness due to the use of very small apertures. I am certain that resolution charts reveal the shocking truth on a regular basis but I tend not to shoot pictures of resolution charts. Differences in sharpness between f8 or f11 and wide open do not often intrude upon my consciousness with respect to REAL subjects in the REAL world.<br /><br />Manufacturers of quality cameras and lenses face stiff competition today. They quite literally cannot afford to be marketing sub-standard gear. In fact, in my humble opinion the optical standard of modern lens designs is far and away better than it has ever been. There is no doubt that the quality of modern zooms is good enough for them to effectively replace prime lenses for most people. The lack of speed is more than made up for by the on-going high ISO improvements in image sensors. We used to be thrilled to use f1.8 at a film speed of 64 ISO. In reality, f3.5 at a perfectly acceptable ISO 400 is a good deal faster all up. To be sure, throwing subjects into stark relief against out of focus backgrounds is a little harder ... but we'll manage. Why not use longer focal lengths and try standing back a little?<br /><br />Yes but what about distortions? ...... It's called the <em>lens distortion</em> routine in <em>Photoshop</em> or <em>Elements</em>. Barrel distortion has always accompanied wide angle lenses. Pincushion distortion has always hounded telephoto. The difference is that today we can push a slider across the screen and straighten everything up. We can also remove chromatic aberration fringes, intrusive vignetting etc In the final analysis, if we really think that an image is too soft we can use some light <em>Unsharp Mask </em>treatment<em>. </em>If the image was fundamentally sound and we don't overdo it, the softness problem goes away. </p><p>Then at last there are the moans and groans about how one lens autofocusses faster than another. The plain simple fact is that basic autofocus technique turns almost ANY lens into a "quick one" if we do it right. From day one of the autofocus era I learned to "find an equidistant edge" and immediately recompose. Works everytime and fast - no matter what the lens (well almost) It beats the hell out of 51 active focus points, which in the heat of the moment could be fixating on ANYTHING. </p><p>The pixel peepers, macho shooters, forum hawks and resolution chart obsessionists notwithstanding, if your pictures look soft, it almost certainly means it is YOU who fouled up - not the lens.</p>David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-32758682778405385892008-12-25T12:54:00.000-08:002008-12-26T12:45:49.905-08:00Noise Reduction in Elements<p>Let's discuss the two most likely sources of noise we are likely to encounter.<br /><br />HIGH ISO NOISE<br /><br />When we went and set the ISO to 3200, we knew we were in trouble. We went there because we had no choice. Given the poor light, we couldn't possibly hope to get a high enough shutter speed or a small enough aperture to freeze the action, compensate for the telephoto shake, get all parts of the room in focus etc etc. We knew that we were going to have to accept some compromises with noise in order to get the shot but there was something ABOUT the pic which was more important than the potential noise problem. If we went to the trouble of hiking up the ISO, we will probably feel that the image is important enough for some heroic efforts towards optimisation.<br /><br />UNDEREXPOSURE<br /><br />Even at civilised ISO settings, we can still get into noise trouble. Often we find ourselves having underexposed a relatively important image on a paying shoot which then has to have substantial mid-tone boosting - a perfect recipe for noise. If I have bracketted or gotten other, better exposed versions of the same subject I'll discard the pic in question but sometimes Sod's Law applies and it's all I've got. I then have to try to do something acceptable with it.<br /><br />In either situation, we are going to have to accept that the noisy image will never be the impeccably smooth and colour precise object of beauty it MAY have been at low ISO settings and/or if we'd have exposed the thing correctly. What then are we to do? </p><ul><li>We can accept the noise as it is. </li><li>We can make the noise seem more acceptable. </li><li>We can try to reduce the noise. </li><li>We can try to eliminate the noise</li></ul>There are times when the actual picture and a reasonable degree of detail will be all important in which case we may need to leave the noise alone. There are times when the subject of the picture is very important but small detail is not the essence, in which case we can risk smearing small detail so long as the principle features of the image remain clear and defined. There are times when some form of film grain style noise might prove more acceptable or actually assist the image. Here we might remove colour noise and/or reduce colour saturation - perhaps render the image in greyscale. Sometimes we can compromise, particulary for smallish prints - remove SOME noise but accept the fact that some must be allowed to remain. There are times when smoothness and softness is the most appropriate look and loss of fine detail can be "lived with". In this case we can go further with noise reduction. Each of us must decide, in the case of every new noisy image, which is the best approach.<br /><br />Certainly our decision making will be influenced by the ultimate display application. If the image will finish up as a small print or a relatively small image on a website, we enjoy a little more latitude than if it is to be published in the print media or blown up for framing. Likewise, depending on its subject value, a news pic will sometimes be acceptable in grainy greyscale but a commercial image in a display ad must be as technically perfect as possible.<br /><br />Let's get one thing straight. With very few exceptions, noisy, high ISO images will RARELY be converted to clean, sharp, high detail images with one, simple, carefree pass of the NR software. It never really works that way. When we set out to remove noise artifacts, inevitably some details and texture will be interpretted as noise and get removed as part of the deal. In the final analysis, we WILL have to accept one or other of the above compromises ..... albeit, only after a good fight. For the purpose of THIS exercise let us decide to reduce noise to roughly acceptable levels - suitable for small prints and medium sized website illustrations<br /><br /><p>Until recently running "Noise Ninja" or "Neat Image" as a plug-in was the way to go. In recent times <em>Photoshop</em> and <em>Elements</em> have had the benefit of a serviceable noise reduction facility of their own in the form of <em>Filter - Noise - Reduce Noise</em>. <em>Neat Image</em> & co. are more powerful but with the judicious use of <em>Layers</em> and multiple passes on selected areas it can do pretty well. </p><p>Here is an approach upon which you may like to base your own experiments:</p><ol><li>Go to <em>Layers</em> menu and click on <em>Duplicate Layer</em></li><li>Go to <em>Filter - Noise - Reduce Noise</em>. <em>Strength</em> 10, <em>Preserve Details</em> 20% and <em>Reduce Colour Noise </em>70% Click <em>OK</em></li><li>Choose shadow areas and expanses of featureless open space (e.g. sky & walls) which continue to show noise, select them roughly with the <em>Quick Selection</em> tool. Re-run <em>Reduce Noise</em> on the selected areas with the previous settings.</li><li>Tour the image, viewing it at 1:1 (100%) and using the "Blur Tool", tidy up any last remaining spots of noticeable noise or processing artifacts</li><li>Run the <em>Unsharp Mask</em>. <em>Amount</em> 200, <em>Radius</em> 1, <em>Threshold</em> 10 </li><li>Using the <em>Opacity</em> slider, fine tune the blending of the treated and untreated layers</li><li>Save as a .psd file. Flatten image and save as a jpeg.</li></ol><p>See my work at <a href="http://www.pbase.com/davidhobbs">http://www.pbase.com/davidhobbs</a></p>David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-22154752239625454732008-12-24T19:37:00.000-08:002008-12-24T21:35:30.049-08:00Sharpening Alternatives in Elements<p>It is my firm belief that the <em>Unsharp Ma</em>sk remains the most satisfactory approach to sharpening in the <em>Adobe Photoshop Elements</em>. The tool in <em>Elements</em> is virtually identical to the one in CS4. There are masses of references, advice sites, tutorials, opinions etc based on this one tool. If used in combination with <em>Layers</em> and or tools like the great new "Quick Selection" tool you can exercise great control over the process and selectively sharpen parts of an image, which is especially useful in the event of small focussing errors.<br /><br />The "Sharpen" tool (which resides with the icons down the extreme left of the screen) is more correctly a brush and can sharpen small areas of detail if required. On occasions it can be worhwhile but is hard to use well and requires much practice to do so. Close examination often reveals lots of sharpening artifacts where it is used<br /><br />The last sharpening facility I shall deal with is the "Adjust Sharpness" tool which sits immediately below the <em>Unsharp Mask</em> on the <em>Enhance</em> drop down menu. This tool is based on the excellent "Smart Sharpen" tool in CS3 and CS4. It was seriously intended to supplant the <em>Unsharp Mask</em> by approaching the compromise between sharpness and noise from a different direction. It retains the <em>Amount</em> and <em>Radius</em> settings for sharpness control but omits the important <em>Threshold</em> slider which serves to minimise increasing noise while sharpening.<br /><br />Most noise is evident in shadow areas and so in the <em>Smart Sharpen</em> tool a flexible facility is provided for fading the effects of sharpening in noise prone areas. Very clever. It also incorporates a means of minimising motion blur with an "angle" dial. Theoretically it can tidy up some pictures made blurry or soft by slight camera movement in a way previously denied us.<br /><br />All of this is very flexible, very powerful and calculated to improve an image's perceived sharpness with a minimum of damage to fine detail.<br /><br />Unfortunately, when transferring <em>Smart Sharpen</em> to <em>Elements</em> in the form of the <em>Adjust Sharpness tool</em>, the designers (for some reason which leaves me astounded) removed the powerful "Shadows" and "Highlights" tabs which facilitate sharpening without highlighting noise. Consequently, for most images, most of the time, <em>Adjust Sharpness</em> in <em>Elements</em> is effectively the <em>Unsharp Mask</em> with the <em>Threshold</em> setting taken away. What (may I humbly ask) was the point of that? Words fail me. Of course the motion blur removal device is still present but I have yet to be entirely convinced of its benefit in practice.<br /><br />Well that's all for now. Next time I shall look at Noise Reduction in <em>Elements</em> ... oh and Merry Christmas!</p>David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197588998446890943.post-69467903366754946042008-12-21T10:38:00.000-08:002008-12-24T19:21:17.484-08:00Sharpening in Elements part 3<p></p><p>The big problem with the <em>Unsharp Mask</em> is that while you DO get visual feedback about your sharpening parameter settings at the time of using it, you eventually have to commit yourself by hitting the OK button. Later, having stared at the image some more, you might easily conclude that you've overdone it, not gone far enough or got the balance of parameter values wrong for your display application. If you've saved the sharpened image you then have to revert to your sooc version (hopefully you DID rename the edited file) to begin the various edit steps again. If you haven't saved the sharpened image then you must go to the <em>Undo History</em> window, revert to the step before <em>Unsharp Mask </em>and re-do it. Then eventually you may change your mind again. Surely there's a better way - a way to fine tune your work as you go.<br /><br />Here is a workflow approach to sharpening jpeg image files (and we ARE talking about jpegs) which largely solves the fine-tune problems and save a lot of time (and hassle) in the long run.<br /><br />Ahem! The Hobbs Method:<br /><br />Open your sooc image, determine that it is worth editing.</p><ol><li>Save it as a new filename, perform exposure, colour, cropping and any repair edits</li><li>Go to the "Layer" menu at the top of the screen and click on "Duplicate Layer"</li><li>Perform a strong general sharpen (say) <em>Amount</em> 300; <em>Radius</em> 1.8; <em>Threshold</em> 3 OK</li><li>Go to the <em>Palette Bin Layer</em> window and click the little down arrowhead next to "Opacity". A slider appears which monitors and fine tunes your sharpen from 100% back to zero</li><li>When you are satisfied with the result, save it as a default .psd file</li><li>Go back to the <em>Layer</em> menu and click "Flatten Image"</li><li>Save the file as a jpeg. </li></ol>There! That wasn't so hard was it? But what did we accomplish with all of that?<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHW3akvmbK66XLpD4SEIW0cUBAKmPNkNWHJc74ITWUKQhamii9YezpOpXgTfmQpWpCErstu19_bxdzfxaKKAEfVXl8c-k2AHhULXQ2h1ILCqEsLMZdDPAdemphmisw08pWft90b9uMJtI/s1600-h/Elements+11.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5283560147852959090" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 206px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 320px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHW3akvmbK66XLpD4SEIW0cUBAKmPNkNWHJc74ITWUKQhamii9YezpOpXgTfmQpWpCErstu19_bxdzfxaKKAEfVXl8c-k2AHhULXQ2h1ILCqEsLMZdDPAdemphmisw08pWft90b9uMJtI/s320/Elements+11.jpg" border="0" /></a>For a start we preserved the original sooc file - just in case. Secondly we saved an edited .psd file. Thirdly, we saved a completely finished, ready-to-use jpeg. Let us suppose that, later on, we decide that we got the sharpening wrong for our purpose in the jpeg and that we need to fix it. We COULD go to the sooc file but that means we have to redo all of the other edits, which (depending on the file) could take ages. Instead we go to the .psd file. Here we find that the duplicate layer is still in place, which allows us - using the opacity slider to quickly change the fine tune before saving a new jpeg. At worst we delete the original duplicate layer, do an entirely new sharpen run and fine tune again.<br /><br />This is the best way I know to time efficiently edit a jpeg file while being able to quickly amend sharpening as needed for any purpose. At the same time we have been able to fine tune our sharpening in a way not normally offered by the <em>Unsharp Mask</em>.<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3rKK11NOBAgXqUTZng0xNLmZAfbE8Rvh8979hImXd-GqbWYLi9fB-zHU_uVPTVYcTlthaLWPYABcTWpn6xnw49CCa5qSP1XDdHFkr95N7kILwDqtvSwBEpECD_y8slXlO-CqwHZZeQco/s1600-h/Elements+11.jpg"></a><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeCqYb1C07W2sdX6BiAsEX4rEVWpAbOB_67r3UTlkGFrlT7YsQt1cwqJ_q6rVhx13IM7RF3wdk34Sve922a1O7vo2xryr3DVz-vBkGbRJQXs-QWNlguvxfYiP0fejXJSqE48dGBAkLTFA/s1600-h/Elements+12.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5283561414950899378" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 192px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 320px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeCqYb1C07W2sdX6BiAsEX4rEVWpAbOB_67r3UTlkGFrlT7YsQt1cwqJ_q6rVhx13IM7RF3wdk34Sve922a1O7vo2xryr3DVz-vBkGbRJQXs-QWNlguvxfYiP0fejXJSqE48dGBAkLTFA/s320/Elements+12.jpg" border="0" /></a>There may be some who are not certain what actually happened in the <em>Layers</em> jiggery pokery. When we created the Duplicate Layer, our subsequent sharpen was performed on that layer alone, leaving the original "Background" layer completely untouched. When the <em>Opacity</em> is set to 100%, all we can see is the sharpened image on top. As we progressively move the slider back toward zero, more and more of the sharpened overlay is progressively made transparent, until at 0%, it is completely erased, revealing the original unsharpened image. We just move the slider back and forth between "completely sharpened" and "not sharpened at all" until we feel the compromise is finally right. Coool!<br /><br />Next time we'll look at the "Adjust Sharpness" command.<br /><br />See my work at: <a href="http://www.pbase.com/davidhobbs">www.pbase.com/davidhobbs</a>David Hobbshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06834623019886538287noreply@blogger.com0