Apples new iphone ... is it really this bad?

Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:19:59 -0600

update: Apple addressed the “antennagate” issue today, pretty much refuting that it is a serious issue, but confirming their desire to be considered special by their customer base. All iPhone 4 owners can get a free rubber “bumper” for the phone, and those that bought one with their phone will get a refund. The bumper (or other case of your choosing) resolves all issues for the few that are experiencing problems. For me the bigger issue is the proximity sensor (and I think many dropped calls are actually related to this, not the antenna.) This will be resolved in the next software update.

Seems like Apple has a PR nightmare on their hands.

Yep, you heard me right. PR nightmare. The fact is the phone isn’t anything as bad as all those writing negative things about it, and while the phone might have some small issues it’s all about bad press ... PR nightmare. This is just a great example of the power of negative press and the frantic blogging and reporting people do in order to drive “hits”. While there is little doubt that a few buyers may have experienced issues with their phones, there are a lot of “facts” that are being left out to make the problem look worse than it is, because that drives controversy, lathers people up and gets them posting on blogs, and drives hits (which in turn increase click-throughs to sites advertisers.) In other words, it’s more about money than it is about truth.

Why do I say this? A couple of reasons. First, most of those “testing” the phones and the so called “death grip” are doing so anecdotally. The fact is any cell phones signal level will change depending on how you hold it ... it is a radio and not really a phone. But we don’t like antennas hanging out of our phones, so we make cell phone makers hide the antennas, which is a compromise in design ... form over function. The end result is holding any cell phone will provide insulation from the radio waves and reduce it’s signal. Despite this they work well enough, but just holding the phone and noticing bars changing doesn’t tell anyone anything, and in fact most cell phones exhibit the same issue.

Then you have Consumer Reports, which also makes money by driving hits to their site reporting their “scientific” test results. It all sounds so “scientific” and “official” ... until you read things written by engineers that understand antennas. Here’s a quote from one of those articles (here’s the whole article, worth reading if this subject interests you ... www.antennasys.com/antennasys-blog/)

“But, hey, Consumer Reports guys: you don't do radiated tests in a shield room. That's like measuring the light output of a desk lamp in a house of mirrors. It's amateur hour.”

And despite the fact they confirm you can vary the signal by how you hold the phone they also said this

“The iPhone 4 data rates still beat the iPhone 3GS data rates under all grip conditions.”

I’ve had my iPhone 4 for a few days now. It’s a marvelous piece of hardware. Beautiful to eye and wonderful to hold. I was nervous about the signal problem, so of course I tried to duplicate what others claim by holding it in numerous ways. Nothing. Signal never changes any more or differently than if the phone is laying on its back untouched. Sure there are variations, but none of the “instant” drops like so many claim. So I tried the “spit” test. Yep, licked my fingers and shorted across the antennas. This is about as conductive as skin can get. Nothing. I even tried a paper clip and various metal objects ... no change.

The problem is the bars aren’t too reliable. In the article above they talk about this, so I tried their idea, and used the Speedtest app to check signal. I was surprised that my highest bandwidth was when I was shorting across the 2 bottom black spacers. Holding the phone by the front and back glass only was slower, as was laying it down on the desk and moving away from it.

So what’s the deal?

As far as dropped calls ... not one so for. Nada. In fact, on my way to Pixels each day one particular spot always drops my calls ... so reliably so that when talking I tell people I’m going to lose them and will call them back. This is even using a bluetooth headset with my iPhone 3gs, so I’m not even holding the phone. Much to my surprise, on 3 occasions now, after warning people I would lose them I haven’t yet. Once I lost their voice for a couple of seconds, but then everything was normal when I got through the dead spot. And since I don’t have the bluetooth set up, I was holding the phone.

I guess I just don’t have the death grip thing down ... maybe I need a lesson from Spock.

When I went to the AT&T store to pick up my phone, I asked the salesperson if things were problematic. He said only 1 person so far had brought the phone back. They did a restore on the phone, and since then no problems.

I’m sure there are those where this is an issue. AT&T seems pretty reliable in Salt Lake City, and perhaps other cities where coverage isn’t as reliable the phone might be problematic. In fact there were issues with the iPhone 3G when it came out with similar hype. It didn’t get to the extent of this one, since there is no physical item to “connect” the problem to.

Despite all the hype, the new iPhone seems to deliver the best quality I’ve had. Voices are clearer, others say I sound clearer, especially when talking in a noisy environment, and data seems faster most of the time.

As far as the phone itself, it’s well worth the upgrade. The camera upgrade is nice, the video capture is great, the battery lasts longer, the little LED “flash” is bright enough to be useful and doubles as a terrific flashlight. The front facing camera will be useful for many things, such as traveling spouses wanting to talk to the kids at home.

The display is fantastic. Sharp, crisp, great contrast and easy to see even in bright light.

I only have two minor complaints so far. First, while the phone is “thinner” it feels fatter. No more sleek edge, the boxy edge makes it feel fatter. No big deal until you put it in a case ... then it feels bulky. So no case for me ... hopefully I don’t shatter my screen or the phones back which is made of the same material as the front now when I drop it (when is the operative word here, not if).

The other is the proximity sensor seems different ... the thing that senses when the phone is near your face and turns off the touch screen. I hung up on someone today while trying to hold the phone under my chin. I’ve done this with the other iPhones, but somehow the sensor didn’t work right and my face touch the end call button. Another time I found the other person couldn’t hear me, which happens many times right before a call drops. Just before they hung up to call me back (assuming the call was dropped) I looked at the phone and somehow I had touched the mute button. The call as fine, the phone was just muted. Had I waited a couple of more seconds I would have assumed the call had dropped because the other person hung up. Wondering if some of the “dropped” calls being complained about may be from this issue.

No regrets though ... a very cool phone.

The plight of the small camera stores ...

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:23:13 -0600

Over the last couple of decades the retail landscape in the U.S. has shifted dramatically. The rise of WalMart, Costco, Home Depot, Lowes, and Walgreens among others have consolidated the choices we have, and in their wake lay thousands of small business owners as well as a few chains. Many others will close as the juggernauts continue. Small town America has been dramatically impacted... gone are many of the local hardware stores and pharmacies and many downtowns are more like ghost towns. Walmart is your only choice.

Nothing wrong with capitalism. I’m a little more cynical however ... despite all the “good” of these large business, it isn’t without cost. They have too much power over manufacturers, some dubious ethics , as well as a cost to the general public for their astounding growth. It would be interesting to compare these costs to the “savings” they provide the consumer.

What cost? I haven’t seen this discussed before but think about it for a minute. They constantly negotiate special “deals” with local governments that when analyzed actually offer very little if any return for the taxpayer ... more like a taxpayer funded kickback to build it in one town versus another. Every small business (and large business) they put out of business which goes through bankruptcy costs all of us. Loans from banks and accounts payable due to manufacturers and vendors that aren’t paid in bankruptcy create losses that have to be passed on to other customers. Government money to support those now unemployed and broke because they couldn’t “compete” with the power of the big boxes. So while these companies enjoy the “fruits of their labor”, the rest of us actually end up paying a pretty stiff price for it.

True there isn’t much that can be done ... it’s just one of those realities of a free market system. It would be different if the big companies had no ability to exert influence over suppliers, and the “purchasing power” of these companies didn’t buy any special favors. So while we have a free market system, it is full of unfair inequities that makes it easier for the big guy to crush the little guy. Sort of like a sport where one team has the right to change the rules to benefit themselves and the other team can’t do anything about it.

Thus dies another small part of the American Dream.

Over the past few years there has been another shift in the retail landscape as more and more consumers become comfortable buying their goods via the internet. Whereas the rise of the new power retailers affected the landscape of traditional things like clothing, hardware and prescription drugs, this new shift is impacting some specialty retailers such as camera stores. Again we see a large number of smaller chains and individual stores fall victim because they cannot compete ... and again everyone pays the price.

In this case however, the inequity is more severe than those brought on by the big boxes, and has nothing to do with the actual prices of the items they sell. Our current retail structure isn’t designed for a order and ship model, and the advantages enjoyed by the “winners” in this part of the retail landscape has little to do with themselves and their own business ... the issue is sales tax.

Order and ship isn’t anything new. Catalog companies have existed for a very long time, but what has changed is the ease at which products can be researched and ordered, as well as the trust level consumers have in placing orders. Just a few simple clicks in a web browser, and tomorrow you can have that new thing ... whatever it is. The end result is an explosion in internet sales.

The problem is the current tax system provides a substantial advantage to many that sell via the internet ... a very unfair advantage. One of the reasons consumers like the internet is the avoidance of sales tax. I live in Utah, where the tax rate is almost 7%. This means if I decide to buy a 5D Mark 2 from my local camera store rather than from an internet retailer, I will pay nearly $200 more for the same camera. It isn’t the camera stores fault and it isn’t the internet retailer’s fault. In reality the consumer is supposed to pay that tax themselves ... like that is ever going to happen.

So the pricing advantage is actually several levels deep. Obviously as they grow in size and scope these speciality internet retailers also grow in power over manufacturers and get preferential treatment. Since they don’t operate a retail box that is proportionate to the size of the overall business (if they even have a retail box), their operating costs are less. Add that to the huge disparity caused by the sales tax issue and you arrive at a savings amounting to as much as 10% of more to the buyer.

I know what your thinking ... well that’s just good for the buyer. Perhaps, but it isn’t fair. The guy that runs that camera store should have the same rights to operate a business and not get squeezed out by something like this. What if suddenly he was allowed to not collect sales tax. Now he could compete on a much fairer scale. I know no one likes to pay taxes, but it’s also not fair that one person avoids it by buying online while someone else pays it.

But wait ... it gets worse for our local specialty camera store - it’s like pouring salt into the wound. A potential buyer walks in and spends some time to seek advice on a camera or lens choice. Typically the store is staffed by knowledgeable people who have used the equipment and can actually supply some useful information. The buyer gets to handle the equipment, play with it, probably even shoot some sample shots with it. However, when it comes time to buy it, they decide to “think about it”. In reality they have decided what they want, but are going to buy it online. Many times this was their intent from the beginning. The reason is because it’s cheaper... not just a little cheaper ... a lot cheaper.

So the local camera store is the showroom for the internet retailer ... without any chance of being compensated. The economics are simple for the camera store ... they probably aren’t making any money selling cameras. Between the low margins, the inventory costs, and the labor to work with all of these customers with no intent to buy, there is no money to be made.

Manufacturers are powerless as well. Both retail outlets are valuable to them. The only option would be pricing models that offset this ... the small stores would get lower prices. This is foreign to anyone’s concept, and certainly the large stores have too much power. Even forced minimum pricing models are scoffed at by these large internet retailers.

Don’t get me wrong ... I’m not blaming the retailers. They are simply doing business as they are allowed to. They certainly have no motivation to resolve this, for the time being their business is doing wonderful, as more and more of their “showrooms” throughout the country close their doors.

Unfortunately the easiest thing to do is nothing - that’s where it stands now. Obviously if all retailers were required to collect sales tax for the shipping address the game would change. While logistically this wouldn’t be very difficult to do, consumer groups fight this because they like this tax loophole. I”m sure companies benefiting from this loophole also lobby against solutions as well, since it will affect their business. State governments are becoming more active, but so far everything is met with resistance. It’s a big deal to the states, after all we’re talking about hundreds of millions of tax dollars that are not being collected, and while owed by those buying there is no way to enforce and collect. But no one likes the idea of more taxes, even though this is akin to finding out your neighbor is getting away without paying a fair income tax. I hate paying tax as much as the next guy, but what I hate worse is knowing someone is getting away without paying their tax. That just means I have pay more tax to make up for them.

I have no answer, and I know most reading this probably don’t sympathize - just looking out for number one. But no one likes playing a game when the other side doesn’t have to play by the same rules, and right now that’s where things stand. And you won’t read about this on any of the blogs out there, because they all benefit from these companies with advertising.

the ipad camera connection kit ... a field backup device?

Wed, 28 Apr 2010 01:02:42 -0600

Since the introduction of the iPad, photographers have been speculating on it’s potential applications to the craft. The most obvious use is for portfolio or client presentations. But how about a tethering option making it a great live view display? Another obvious thought is a field backup device in place of a laptop? Although the iPad is definitely aimed at consumers (those whose main cameras are in their phone) and it’s primary function is content consumption, it appears it may offer some appeal to photographers.

After using one for about a month there are many things I really enjoy about the iPad. It’s probably the coolest “gadget” I’ve ever used, and for a photographer, images displayed on the iPad look terrific. Add to that many other great features, such as weighing only 1.5 pounds and running 10 hours on a single charge, it quickly becomes a device you try and find a reason to use even more. While it appears the design of the device precludes things like tethering (at least for now), what about using it in place of a laptop or a image storage device in the field for storing images?

At this point things are beginning to clarify, and indeed the iPad may have some possibilities as such a device. I just received the Camera Connection Kit for my iPad and after testing it out, it does offer some functionality for field backup.

To begin with, the iPad itself is based on Mac OS X, and as such has built in support for the same raw files that Mac OS X (and Aperture) support. That includes most dSLR’s as well as point and shoots such as the Canon G11. Yes, the iPad can read and display your Canon .cr2 and your Nikon .nef files as well as most other raw files. You can import your images directly into the iPad via the iPad camera connection kit, and they will show up in the photo app where you can view them just fine.

There are 3 ways to get them into the photo app with the connection kit. The kit itself consists of two dongles that plug into the iPad’s 30 pin dock connector. One has a slot for a SD card, the other a standard USB port. If your images are on a SDHC card, you simply use that dongle, plug in the card, and the images are displayed for you to import to the iPad. You can import all of them or just some of them.

You can also connect your camera directly to the iPad using a USB cable, and import from the camera. One question I’ve seen discussed is how to handle CF cards. I have a cheap Belkin USB multi card reader, so I connected it via the USB cable, and I was able to import image files just fine. True, another device to haul around, but I’m guessing I can find an even smaller one to use so it won’t matter much. For a card reader to work it can’t draw much power, otherwise you get an error message that the attached device draws too much power. I’m also buying a couple of CF to SDHC card adaptors and am going to try those in my Canons and PhaseOne camera. Personally at this point I’d like to standardize on SDHC cards, since my laptop has an SD card slot, and now with the iPad it just sort of makes sense.

Once you get the images into the iPad, you can view them, including zooming in at 1:1 to check focus. It would be very easy to display the images to a customer right after a shoot. The next step is getting them off of the iPad into a computer, and I was a little concerned at how convoluted of a task this might turn out to be.

To move the image files from the iPad back to the computer you can use iPhoto. This works just like an iPhone, the iPad shows up in the left column, you select it, and you see all the images where you can then import them. This is all fine and good, but personally I don’t store my image files inside of the iPhoto folder ... I would prefer to control where they are myself and have my images organized in a folder structure on my hard drive. To get them from iPhoto into my own folder structure my choices were either navigate down into the iPhoto folder and move them. Easier was to export them from iPhoto to the folder of your choice (being sure to keep them in their original format), then deleting them from iPhoto. If you use a PC, I would assume you get them onto the PC like you would with an iPhone as well.

But it’s even easier than that if you use Lightroom! Simply plug in your iPad, launch Lightroom, and like iPhoto, the iPad will appear much like a CF or SD card where they can be imported directly into the folder of choice. This was a pleasant surprise and makes using an iPad in the workflow pretty simple.

I then tried to import images from my PhaseOne p65+ to the iPad and here I found a mixed bag. Mac OS X does not support this raw format. On a PhaseOne back, you have two choices as far as an extension for your image files, .TIF or .IIQ. I prefer the latter, just so I don’t get them confused with regular tiff files, but iPad only recognizes them as image files if they are .TIF files. Not a big deal, and it’s even pretty easy to use a utility to rename the .TIF’s to .IIQ after I get them to the folder of my choice on the computer. Unfortunately CaptureOne Pro (PhaseOne’s terrific raw converter) does not recognize the iPad like Lightroom does, but after using iPhoto or Lightroom to get the files off of the pad onto the computer, you can use C1Pro to convert the raw files at that point. Pretty much like using a big CF card.

Overall it works quite well, but it’s not totally smooth sailing. There are a few caveats which might make it more challenging or not an option for some users.

First, there really isn’t a good way to organize the files on the iPad. They’re just all a bunch of files, no folders or albums. The are separated as “events” based on the day they were taken and if you use Lightroom or iPhoto to import them from the iPad they can be saved into corresponding dated folders if you want. In the case of Lightroom you could just dump them all into one big folder, which may work for some if you tend to organize with keywords, ratings and the like instead of the OS folder structure.

Another thing you cannot do is save the image files from the iPad back onto another device such as another card or small USB hard drive. Many in the field always have two devices, usually a laptop and an external hard drive, and archive from their cards onto both devices, especially if they erase the cards and reuse it. I haven’t found a way around this yet.

Finally is just space itself. If you have the 64 gig version maybe this won’t be too bad, but with the 16 or 32 gig version, there just isn’t that much space. You can go light on the apps and leave off the videos, but even with the 64 gig version, some may find there just isn’t enough room to back everything up for some trips.

So there you have it. If the limitations don’t bother you, the iPad may work just fine as a field CF/SD card backup device. I would recommend you take enough cards to not reuse one at least until you can get the images off of the iPad onto a couple of hard drives, but if you need to travel light this may work really well.

And I will admit it is really cool to finish taking the pictures, and minutes later be viewing them on an iPad. Now to figure out how to transmit them directly with an Eye Fi card.

Apple’s new ipad ... wow

Sat, 3 Apr 2010 23:15:05 -0600

I wasn’t going to write up anything about my new iPad. Apple delivered a few hundred thousand of them today, so there are already a few hundred thousand blog entries on the net - probably a record for new blog entires about a single device in one day. But I couldn’t help myself ... it’s just too much fun.

In my case, the experience exceeded the hype. Despite following it with interest, it wasn’t quite what I was expecting - it was far more engaging and useful than I had imagined.

I received a shipment notice for my iPad last Tuesday, and followed it from China to Anchorage, next Kentucky, then Colorado. When I saw it hit Salt Lake City Friday night, I knew the Saturday delivery would happen ... unless the beautiful spring weather here dumped another 8” to 10” of the white stuff all over the place and messed up the roads. It showed up at 11:30, and I’ll admit I felt like a little kid at Christmas time.

I won’t bother you with all the unboxing stuff ... I’m sure there are hundreds of youtube videos already. As I lifted it out of the box, it seemed a little awkward (more on that in a minute). It is gorgeous ... very sleek and elegant looking. It does look like an oversized iPhone, and the similarity has led to many criticisms. Turning it on, the typical iPhone connect to iTunes screen came on. It took about 30 minutes to update iTunes, plug in the iPad, set up the sync settings and get the thing synced up. Finally I could do something.

The first thing I did was play around with video and the built in apps. Opening the calendar app you realize immediately that this isn’t an iPhone. The screen is crisp, clear, and full of useful information. It isn’t a laptop either .. interacting with one’s schedule on the iPad is different than either the phone or the laptop. The screen layout is intuitive, and if you rotate the iPad you get a different screen layout appropriate for the orientation. Very cool.

Mail was next ... again, while there are some similarities to the iPhone, the experience was far more useful. I tried a few other apps, watched a few minutes of video, opened up the included book, Winnie the Pooh and then launched Safari and spent about 20 minutes surfing the web (which was really fun). During this session, I experimented with different ways of holding the iPad, and realized why it felt “awkward” and my hand was even aching a little.

It’s slippery ... you feel like you are going to drop it. But subconsciously I found myself trying to hold it without touching the screen, trying to avoid extra finger prints from holding it. This just doesn’t work, and when I finally realized I had to hold it more firmly ... put my thumb around the front and actually grip it ... things got better. The screen is going to get mucked up with oil anyway, trying to avoid some by holding it gingerly doesn’t work. It cleans off very easily, and I think despite the fingerprints there will be less oil on the screen than the iPhone ... after all you aren’t holding it up against your cheek to talk on it.

So overall, here are my big takeaways from the first day.

1. Battery life looks like it will be what it’s hyped to be. 4 or 5 hours of use and I’m still at 65% battery life.
2. Applications are far more robust and useful than anything that can be found on the iPhone. The only similarity for well made apps is the touch interface. You can easily create a spreadsheet, a presentation or a document with the iPad.
3. Interacting with apps is unique and enjoyable. I tried several apps made specifically for the iPad, some of which I have on my iPhone. The iPad experience is much different and far more useful and rewarding.
4. There is more to the screen than you would think ... not only is it more pixels but physically so much larger than the iPhone the information is much clearer. Reading web pages was simple and easy ... better than a computer.
5. Reading a book seems to be well implemented. In portrait orientation you get one page, in landscape you get two pages. In landscape, the similarity to reading a real paperback is pretty cool, including the graphics of the pages themselves when you turn them.
6. The screen is stunning ... this will be a very useful tool for visual presentation to small groups. I synced up my favorite shots from my Italy trip ... they look great. A great portfolio presentation device.
7. Interacting with the iPad is unlike any other device. Only after trying it did I realize this is more like sitting down with a magazine than it is sitting down with a computer.
8. Video is great, and I was surprised at the sound ... not bad and far better than the iPhone.

So far I have one major complaint, and I hope Apple gets this. I know many Mac users have more than one computer, for example a laptop and a desktop. This is especially true of those in the visual mediums such as photography or video ... you need a laptop in the field but it just doesn't cut it at the office. The problem is you can only sync to one of your computers.

This doesn't sound like much, but with the iPad it’s more of an issue than with the iPhone ... because you are wanting to sync documents, not just content. I found out iTunes allows you to sync documents for several apps. I wanted to sync a Keynote presentation from my laptop over, but the iPad was synced to my desktop. Couldn’t do it. My only choice is to copy the program to my desktop and sync it from there, or resync my iPad to the laptop.

Personally I would like the option to sync some information from multiple computers. For example I’d like to sync music from my laptop because most of those files are 128k ACC files, while on my desktop I ripped my set of CD’s to the highest MP3 settings available. Each song is 4 or 5 times larger ... so I’d like to sync my music from my laptop, but video from my desktop (which has my full video library, not a subset of it). And I’d like to sync documents from either one ... or even have them sync automatically through iSync or MobileMe.

As far as apps, here are a few i like ...

1. Keynote, Pages, and Numbers. These 3 cost 9.95 each, but are very well implemented and make it possible to perhaps leave the laptop at home on occasion.
2. Weatherbug. I have this on the iPhone, but on the iPad really cool. All the information including great maps in one screen.
3. GoodReader. This is a must have ... a great pdf reader. You can download pdf’s from the web or from your computer. I have all of my user manuals in pdf for my cameras and printers, as well as a few other items.
4. Wikipanion. Great wikipedia interface. Better than through a web browser.
5. USA Today. Free until July, this is an good example of the potential of the “newspaper” of the future.

That last item is what the iPad is supposed to be about ... how we get content. Magazines, books, video ... all melding themselves into a new user experience which is engaging and immersive. It will be interesting how they do it.

For example, USA Today is only useful if I’m connected to the internet. I turned off the connection, went to the sports section, and most of it was missing. So what do I do when I’m on the plane ... one of the best places to use the iPad?

One solution is what Newsweek did ... make an “app” that is one issue of the magazine. Of course that won’t work either ... especially if they continue to charge 12 times more than the paper subscription price.

So some type of delivery system needs to added. Multiple issues of the magazines ... much like TV episodes in iTunes. I assume magazine apps will include the ability to contain multiple issues, stored on the computer and then needed ones synced to the iPad. As far as daily news, seems like it needs a way to push the most recent edition to the device so it’s always there even if the internet isn’t available when the user wants to read it.

Another thing I’ll be following with interest is how applications between the computer and the iPad can “share” information. For the iPad to really become the ultimate tool, applications need to interact dynamically. For example, a special iPad version of Lightroom might let me have my library on the iPad, allowing me to show my pictures, rate and keyword and similar tasks. Sure the iPad doesn't have the horsepower to process the raw files, and there isn’t enough memory to deal with many files, but I can easily see an iPad version that would be useful as long as it could easily talk to the full version. There are many apps like this ... Keynote, Numbers, and Pages to name a few. As I said, just syncing some documents via iTunes on the one computer of my choice seems very limiting.

Well enough for now. This is a new device, a new category, and once you use one for awhile it becomes apparent the iPad changes the game. Just how much and in what ways remains to be seen ... but much like the iPhone completely changed what we do with our cell phones, the iPad may turn out to be just as revolutionary.

Adjusting brightness on a Mac with OS X

Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:40:46 -0600

Recently I taught a couple of sessions in Introduction to Color Management at Pixels Foto & Frame in Sandy, Utah. I’ve never really worked with a group before but interestingly enough one question I asked at the beginning confirmed that the most common problem for those doing their own printing is dark prints. The solution to this is pretty simple ... make sure you have the your display set to the correct luminance - turn down the brightness.

On the Mac, F1 and F2 control screen brightness, but using those keys results in pretty large changes. When trying to fine tune one’s luminance when making a monitor profile, using the f keys results in adjustments which are too coarse. My typical solution is to open the displays preference pane and use the slider, which works OK.

I ran into this tip the other day involving some keyboard shortcuts which is a nice alternative. If you hold the shift and option keys down when adjusting the screen brightness with F1 and F2, you will get much finer increments - actually four times as many steps. Additionally, if you hold just the option key down when adjusting the brightness, it opens directly to the displays preference pane instead. A nice shortcut. (Option Shift when pressing a sound volume key opens the sound preference pane as well ... a nice quick way to get there).

I have my function keys set to operate as normal function keys, so I have to hold the fn key down when pressing an F key to get the built in OS function. If your Mac is set up the same way, make sure you are also pressing the fn key when using the other keys.

Just a little tip, not too well documented but very useful when profiling your display.

Nakalele

Sat, 5 Dec 2009 01:59:10 -0700

Lately I’ve been admiring the amazing work of Patrick Smith a great deal, trying to learn how to get more impact when photographing the ocean. He has some unbelievable images of a blowhole in Kauai, so while in Maui I ventured north to check out the Nakalele Blowhole to see if it offered any opportunities. I decided getting close enough to photograph it in a similar way was too risky while carrying my PhaseOne equipment, but a spot up the coast offered some interesting possibilities to shoot some surf action.

After studying his work, it seems his approach is counter intuitive to what I’ve always done. Typically I try and time the crash of the wave so I can get the magnificent splash. Even if I drag the shutter I don’t get the same effect. It seems what he does quite often is wait till after the crash, and then captures all the intricate little rivulets of water running off of the rock. That was my goal tonight. I spent about an hour in evening light, trying different lengths of exposures to see if I could get anything interesting.

It’s pretty challenging ... catching the right wave as well as getting the time right. My instinct of several seconds proved to be too long ... just too much blurry water to get any real detail. All in all I tried about 50 exposures. This particular formation was actually behind the one I was most interested in, but it seemed to have more of the effect I was after. A black and white conversion simplifies the image.

Can’t wait to get home and print this one up large.

a lesson learned ...

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:23:19 -0700

I wrote recently about a wonderful trip to the Tuscany area of Italy. In preparation for that trip I debated extensively about which camera system I should take. My preference was the PhaseOne p65 system, but I felt shooting in the hilltop villages would be better suited to my Canon gear, where I had a wider selection of lenses available. Alitalia Air had some pretty restrictive carry on requirements listed on their website (1 single carry on, 12 lbs maximum). Finally I settled on the Canon system, and managed to get a backpack complete with camera, a few lenses, and my 13” laptop down to about 20 lbs.

My fears were unfounded ... every flight was full of people with normal carry on’s as though it was just another Delta flight. The Phase system would have been fine ... however, the challenge of using medium format in the villages was still a concern, so I still didn’t feel bad about taking the Canon gear.

I don’t use the Canon gear all that much. I prefer it for portraits, as it has plenty of resolution and better ISO performance. But for landscapes I only use it when doing telephoto work (not often) or when it seems the easier system to carry.

I guess I have a “trust” of professional quality camera equipment. I’ve never really had a problem with a lens “going bad” unless I physically damaged it. Once shooting in LaJolla a fall left my 100-400mm in two pieces, and only later did I find out it knocked my 1Ds sensor out of alignment. Unfortunately because of this “trust” I didn’t really do any testing to make sure my gear was up to the task of a landscape shoot.

I didn’t notice it at first, but a day or two in while working on some images I noticed some odd artifacts that just didn’t make sense. I was using my 70-300 DO, which had just recently been repaired by Canon. I decided I would switch to the 70-200L f/2.8 which had always been a great lens for me. I calibrated the focus to maximize sharpness. Unfortunately while on the road I rarely do more than rate and sort images into collections in Lightroom, and I didn’t look at many images closely until I got home. That’s when I discovered this lens was actually performing worse than the first ... the entire left side of every image was blurry. The problem was quite inconsistent, some images seemed pretty good, others seemed terrible. The use of the 1.4 extender didn’t seem to help or hurt.

Here are 100% details from the above shot, comparing the rolls of hay.

I set the lens up at home and using 10x Live View focusing found there was no way to get the left side of the image anywhere close to sharp. Nothing I could do would bring it into focus, and when the center of the image was sharp the right side of the image wasn’t too great either.

I sent the lens off to Canon, and a couple of weeks later it returned. A quick live view focus test showed substantial improvement ...even at 2.8 the entire field was decently sharp once the middle was focused. The paperwork showed Canon replace the IS optical lens assembly ... which is what I suspected was causing the problem. Apparently it was broken and loose, so the affect on the image just depended on where it happened to be at the time.

The 70-300 still seems to have an issue so it might go back to Canon again. But lesson learned ... when traveling on such an extensive trip specifically to take photographs, it’s probably best to thoroughly check out the gear well in advance.

APPLE’S NEW 27” IMAC ... ONE SWEET MACHINE.

Wed, 4 Nov 2009 00:30:48 -0700

I’ve been using Apple’s 24” LED display with my MacBook Pro for some time. I know ... yeah, it’s glossy. I’ve been using a glossy MacBook Pro since they were first introduced, and have absolutely no problem with them ... I’ll never buy a matt screen laptop again. Basically all a matt screen does is turn reflections into glare, and you have no control of how much glare. The more available light the more it kills the contrast. With the glossy screen reflections are far more manageable than glare, and the image quality is stunning. Since I use mostly Photo Black papers anyway, the glossy screen actually matches my output closer than the matt screens unless I use the matt screen in a completely dark room, where the two screens would virtually match anyway.

Anyway, for those of you that have found the glossy screens to be OK, the new 27” iMac has an intriguing feature ... it has video in through its’ mini DisplayPort. This means you can use the iMac as an external display, while the iMac itself continues to run. Currently I have a Mac Mini sitting next to my desk that hosts my two websites. The larger 27” iMac’s display which is a true 16:9 proportion intrigued me, so I decided switch out the 24” display and the mac mini, letting the new 27” iMac perform both functions.

Hooking it up was straight forward. I specifically told the Apple Store sales person (2 of them to be exact) what I was hoping to do, and while they confirmed it would work, neither they nor myself was sharp enough to think about buying the appropriate cable. A second trip to downtown Salt Lake City the following day was successful in acquiring the necessary cable, so I hooked the two computers together. After plugging the cable into my MacBook Pro, I tried to wake it up with the external keyboard and mouse ... to no avail. Finally I opened the laptop up, and immediately the screen went dark and the laptop then took over.

So the first negative is I can’t seem to find a way to leave the MacBook closed (clamshell mode). Not a biggy, I just prefer the graphics card to be limited to one display for speeds sake.

Since I’ll be using this for Lightroom and Photoshop on occasion I then proceeded to calibrate the display. That’s when I ran into the second glitch in my plan.

Once in display mode, I can’t seem to find a way to adjust the brightness. There is no slider in the control panel, and the keyboard controls the MacBook’s display, not the external one. So to adjust the brightness to an appropriate level for working on my images (about 120 cd/m2), I found I had to put the MacBook to sleep, then adjust the iMac’s brightness. I had to go back and forth a couple of times until I was close enough to proceed making a profile. (After doing this I realized it would have been easier to just profile the iMac first which would have set the correct brightness, then switch over to the MacBook and profile it. Whatever brightness is set while running as an iMac is maintained when it is used an external display).

Previous iMac’s have had problems with screen brightness ... you couldn’t dim them enough to match print density. This model doesn’t have that problem. Setting the screen to 120 cd/m2 was easy ... in fact you can dim it so far it almost goes black.

Bottom line is it works great as a monitor for the MacBook Pro. The display isn’t quite as even as the 24” ... a little brighter in the corners, but it’s still very good. The additional width is a dream for Photoshop and it’s pallets as well as Lightroom. Also two Safari pages side by side work very well (or similar documents) without having to overlap. I like the full 16:9 proportion.

The final downside is the two don’t share any other features ... keyboard, mouse, iSight camera, or audio. Of course the laptop still provides the latter two if I want them, and all of the other devices I use are USB based so they all share a hub, meaning one other cable swap is all it takes to switch them.

So the iMac is now running as a web server, and if I need to perform some maintenance on it I can use it’s screen, or I can use a screen share utility when it is hooked to my MacBook Pro.

As far as the iMac, for $1700 this is a pretty powerful machine. 3ghz dual core, 4 gigs of Ram, decent graphics card, and a 1 TB drive. Also you get a bluetooth keyboard and the new bluetooth magic mouse. You can add more RAM, up to 16 gigs, so Photoshop and Lightroom will run very nicely. Performance will be infringing on venerable Mac Pro line. I expect an upgrade, possibly to even dual hex core processors isn’t far of for the Mac Pros. Of course if you are doing color critical work, you can connect the mini Displayport to another display, such as an Eizo.

If you are thinking about using this as a main workstation, you may want to take a look at the model that’s due to start shipping this month ... a quad core iMac for few hundred dollars more.

Hey! Turn around!

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:22:15 -0600

A long time ago I either heard or read an adage which I’m sure is a staple of most landscape, nature, and wildlife photographers. Basically, the advice is pretty simple ... as you wander about looking for good opportunities, don’t forget to look where you just came from.

When you are out exploring for things to take pictures of, it’s easy to move along with “blinders” on. It’s human nature to focus on what’s in front of us the most, what’s beside us second, and pretty much forget about what’s behind us. Unfortunately I find myself all too often forgetting this sage advice, but fortunately my subconscious mind once in a while yells “HEY! TURN AROUND!”

Last night is a good example. I was exploring a new trail in one of the local canyons (well, new to me anyway) looking for some last signs of fall. As I walked up the path I noticed a tree with some nice color. I always love to include paths and roads in my images ... I’m actually planning on doing a little coffee table Blurb book of paths and roads someday. I set up the camera and began to compose the shot. It was getting very late, but fortunately there was no wind so longer exposures weren’t a problem. A few people were headed up the path, and as I waited for them to move out of the frame, I looked around for other possible subjects, and looked behind me. There I noticed a tree far more colorful than the one I was shooting, with some beautiful light streaming through it. After one exposure of the original tree I spent about 5 minutes shooting this new tree from a few positions. It was the best “fall” image of the evening.

Make sure you look around ... the best shot (or at least another great shot) might be behind you. Here’s a couple of examples ...

I was shooting this ...

and behind me found these ...

 I was shooting this ...

and behind me found this.

To me the ones I found behind me are the better images, (well, I think I like the oak tree and the road to the farm about the same). I try to be aware of what’s around me all of the time when shooting, but often the only time I really look behind me is when I’m waiting for something, like people moving out of the scene or in the case of the oak tree, just waiting for the light to change a little.

So I keep trying to get rid of those blinders ... remembering the best shot might be the one behind me.

What do you see?

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:57:06 -0600

I recently attended a workshop in the Tuscany area of Italy. Many attending were portrait and wedding photographers, others were amateurs at various levels of interest and skill. Some outstanding and nationally recognized portrait photographers were the instructors during the workshop, and like most photographers they enjoy and even aspire to do other types of work as well. The challenge was presented to capture what we saw in a way that was different than typical “postcard” type work - expand our vision so to speak. As the group piled off the bus each day there was a flurry of activity shooting nearly everything in sight ... I’m sure an interesting scene to those in the area. As a newcomer to a group trip like this, as well as this type of location (my first trip to Europe and only second trip abroad) I really didn’t know what to expect. I was a little overwhelmed by the history and beauty of the region, and I will admit I was caught up in tourist mode. “Postcard” or not, I enjoyed trying to capture the emotion I was feeling at the time. But that’s a little how I see things ... I always see the big vista first, enjoy it, and try to capture it in away that conveys how I feel. Then I begin to find interest in the details, but nearly always to support that magnificent vista. All in all a terrific and enjoyable experience.

During the week there were several discussions regarding photographic styles, particularly referencing this idea of images other than “postcard” type images. We all need to be challenged at times to see the world around us from a different point of view. Whether I was successful I’m not sure ... after all if I take a picture of a magnificent structure built many many centuries ago and now quite famous, the end result will be like a postcard, because I’m taking a picture of something that typically goes on a postcard. That’s sort of the definition of a postcard. Of course, I’d rather have my image of it to put in a slide show back home rather than a postcard, and personally I think my images of these things were better than most of the postcards I saw (I’ll admit a little bias here). I’m sure no one attending criticizes my efforts, but I digress a little.

Back to my point, what occurred to me is we each see the world around us from a very personal and even intimate perspective. It is affected by what we enjoy seeing and what moves us emotionally, all of which is the result of our own life experiences. I think we all understand that others may not have the same perspective, and may not appreciate or have interest in what we see before us and want to photograph, just like we may not see what they see.

As an example, my personal preference are images with nice balance, pleasant shapes and lines, and interesting colors. I tend to enjoy long skinny images more than more standard rectangular images ... I find myself looking for and even seeing this as I shoot. I prefer images of nature, whether they are majestic vistas or more intimate studies. I like to photograph how humans have affected that beauty in positive ways. While I appreciate and admire images that are more detailed and graphic in nature, things like conflict through extreme contrast in colors and patterns are not something I often see and thus photograph when I’m out shooting. I don’t see myself as a journalist and I rarely include people. While I occasionally render an image into black and white for effect, I much prefer color. There are certainly many who prefer just the opposite ... that’s what they enjoy seeing and most likely they have an eye that even “sees” this when they are shooting.

But that’s me. It is only natural that our photography reflects our personal viewpoints. Sure we can force ourselves out of this mode, and many professional photographers have to shoot what they can sell so they have no choice. During the discussion, the question was posed “If you were able to take just the images you enjoy what would they be like?”.

I thought about this and realized that’s where I’m at now. I enjoy photography and currently rarely take pictures other than those I enjoy taking. Sure I’d like to sell them seriously and perhaps someday I’ll get around to trying that, but for now I just take them for the pleasure I get from viewing them, and am quite content with the occasional sale to make myself feel good. What I “see” when I’m shooting is a reflection of my personal viewpoint of what is around me and what brings me the greatest pleasure. As an example, during the week I took very few images that included people. Certainly there were plenty of interesting opportunities, and many in the group took some wonderful images of various local Italians in a variety of activities. I enjoy looking at those images, but I really don’t see those types of things when I’m shooting ... I’m just too busy looking at the things that I personally enjoy the most. Many in the group were looking for simple images with graphic elements or textures, many of which were very interesting. I took many images that were small studies of various elements as well, but more often I was looking for things that conveyed the atmosphere of the location and wasn’t really worried about the “fine art” aspect of the image.

I guess the challenge to me comes in that my vision - more of a landscape and nature approach - is enjoyable to me, even if some of the images might be “postcard” like. But I work very hard to capture the emotion and pleasure I have at the time I take an image. I find it very challenging to stand before a magnificent view and try to capture a piece of it which might evoke in those who view the image the emotions I am feeling at the time. Sure many times I just snap a wide angle shot to record it, but rarely does that communicate how I feel. More often than not I fail to capture such an image, but I try, and when I succeed I find myself very emotionally attached to the result ( perhaps too much to be objective about how good it really is).

During the week this sort of led into another more philosophical discussion on occasion regarding the difference between “landscape” and “fine art” photography. Certainly many of the images taken during the week fall outside of the concept of landscape or nature images ... intimate studies of graphic elements or textures, often depicted in black and white or subdued saturation for effect. Are these “fine art”? What is “fine art”?

I guess my real problem is by calling this style “fine art” there is an implication that it is more “art” than perhaps other styles of photography. This is unfortunate because to me “fine art” is just a name for a style of photography and doesn’t have any relevance to its artistic consideration. Certainly fine art images can be tremendous and while I don’t really do much of this myself, there are many I enjoy viewing. But I’ve never felt they are more “art” than many other wonderful images that are different styles, such as beautiful scenes of nature. Understand I’m not saying they aren’t art ... what I’m saying is you can’t discount the artistic merit of landscape images just because they don’t fit into the description of some as to what constitutes “fine art”.

Another brief discussion was which is more marketable? Tough call there ... both are challenging. I know of a fair number of photographers who are widely known and recognized that make their living selling landscape and nature images (I have about 100 book marked in my web browser). I know very few whose livelihood comes exclusively from fine art style images. But then my personal viewpoint or vision means I look for those types of photographers ... that’s what I enjoy viewing the most so that’s what I look for when browsing the internet. There are probably many more “fine art” photographers out there, I’m just not aware of them. Which is more valuable? Good question. Certainly either can command a handsome price when done well, but relatively few photographers succeed at either when it comes to making a living.

So no answers here ... just thoughts. What’s your vision? If you are a professional photographer and suddenly found yourself independently wealthy and never having to sell another image, would you continue to be a photographer? What type of images would you take? Do you take what you see and enjoy or are you more motivated by trying to capture what you think others would see and enjoy?

We all see the world differently, and there are many ways to capture that vision. Not all will agree with our point of view, but some do, and they appreciate the images that reflect their own perspective.

One challenge I would pose to you. As you visit a far away place and stand before a magnificent and amazing view, can you capture that in a way that expresses the emotion you are feeling at the time? I promise you it isn’t as easy at it sounds. If you are lucky enough to do so successfully it’s a great feeling, and most likely it’s better than any postcard you can find.

The nuisance of canon’s Camera Window and OS X

Tue, 8 Sep 2009 23:54:27 -0600

I’ve been annoyed for sometime that every time I mount a CF card to copy files over, Canon’s CameraWindow launches and asks if I want to download the card. I have tried turning it off several times, and could never find a way. Tonight I finally got mad enough I decided to turn it off even if it meant reformatting my hard drive. I assumed when installing it Canon was loading some startup item, but couldn’t find anything in the user preferences. After about 20 minutes I ventured out on the internet with Google (again), when I finally discovered the problem from an internet post.

Mac OS X has built in photo management software ... every Mac comes with iPhoto which is actually a pretty robust application. The OS even has RAW processing capabilities built in. When inserting a CF card a built in application called Image Capture activates. Normally this program is set to launch iPhoto and supports importing the images there. In iPhoto you can disable this action. If you launch Image Capture, you can also indicate some other program to launch in place of iPhoto (such as Photoshop or Lightroom).

Apparently Canon in all their wisdom has decided to modify Image Capture and sets it to launch Camera Window when you insert a CF card ... but there is no option in Camera Window to disable this action. So you don’t know how they are doing it, or what to do to disable it ... it just happens, and the solution doesn’t even involve a basic OS setting or Canon software.

So the solution was rather simple ... once I discovered the problem (which I would have never done on my own.) Launch Image Capture (not Camera Window), go to the preferences, and reset this to do what you want ... in my case do nothing.

Annoying to say the least. No application should make a modification like this without asking, and without providing an easy and obvious method to change it back.

Do you Photoshop?

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:37:31 -0600

Recently I ran across a blog entry by a photographer whose work I had been admiring. His technique is somewhat unique (at least it appears to be), in that nearly every exposure he does is a long exposure time (30 seconds to a minute or two) using high f/stops or more often very late light, and using split neutral density filters. The quality of the images is magical and intriguing ... not completely realistic, but not really artificial. By applying these tools and techniques he creates some very compelling and wonderful images when capturing.

However, in his blog he discusses the appropriateness of “Photoshop”. Now he didn’t come right out and say you shouldn’t do it, but the comments he made implied that using Photoshop for substantial image altering techniques is perhaps less than appropriate. A couple of examples he used were putting a moon where there wasn’t one, or cloning out a car being lazy ... instead you should wait for the car to leave.

There are discussions like this all over the internet. In this case he poses this more as a question to ask oneself, but he also implied his opinion that Photoshop manipulation is taboo. I find it sort of a paradox that someone who feels very comfortable manipulating the capture of the data to create these very wonderful and compelling images that aren’t very realistic feels doing so in post processing is perhaps inappropriate.

His two examples are intriguing. Let’s talk about the car. We’ve all had to deal with unwanted elements in images. People walking through a scene, some trash where it didn’t belong, or perhaps an annoying camper in the middle of a picturesque meadow. Why is it lazy to remove the offending object with Photoshop? Why should I wait ... and perhaps lose the light I’m trying to capture ... so I can feel my image is “purer”? What if it is impossible to get the image without the annoyances so Photoshop is the only option? Does that “justify” it somehow, or am I supposed to just say too bad and skip taking the picture? Is waiting or heaven forbid bypassing on capturing the image because of these types of things actually the lazy way? I’ll be honest ... I’ll stand at a spot for 10 minutes trying to get an image without the people rather than having to use multiple captures or cloning in Photoshop ... it’s a lot less work. But I won’t skip the shot because of things like this. I have no problem cloning out a person if that is the image I’m trying to capture and that’s my only choice.

What about the moon? Landscape photographers have included the moon where it didn’t exist for almost as long as photography has been around. The cover image of a book I own, The World’s Top Photographers : Landscape shows a crescent moon in a rock formation. This image was created by double exposing two images on 4x5 sheet film. Granted doing the same thing in Photoshop is much simpler ... substantially so. But you can achieve the exact same result visually in Photoshop. So is one more “pure” or “honest”? Does it matter?

Certainly Photoshop can be carried to an extreme, and personally I also try to use Photoshop as little as possible. My images rarely undergo any treatment in Photoshop other than to mimic what I did using traditional darkroom techniques to enhance the image. But I don’t get wrapped up in having to get in in the camera. I have no problem using two images and a mask to create an image similar to one created with split ND filters. I’ve cloned 2x4’s out of stream, and moved a flag stick on a golf green to a position I felt helped the composition.

I guess I could have gone back every day for a month until the flagstick was there, but then who knows if the light would have been right? Lately I’ve been messing around with multiple captures and HDR techniques. Is using these tools to get around the limitations of capture equipment somehow dishonest or inappropriate? Is it OK to using a split ND filter, which in it’s simplest form is an HDR capture technique, but doing so in post processing not as pure or acceptable? Where is the “line” here ... or is there one?

Of course there is no answer, only personal philosophies. Each person has to answer this for themselves, and be comfortable with their decision. What is unfortunate is how some of those that “don’t” use Photoshop are often condescending ... as though there work is purer and they are better than those that do. They often tout this philosophy as though it makes their images more valuable. So taking a 1 minute exposure using Split ND filters of a scene that you can barely see when standing there, and then printing it as though it was evening or even daylight is OK? I don’t have a problem with this ... the images are wonderful. But don’t criticize me because I choose to take 3 captures and combine them in Photoshop for a similar effect, albeit with much more control (and a lot more work).

Even when Photoshop is carried to an extreme ... who am I to judge? Either I like the image or I don’t, and if Photoshop made it more intriguing or more magical and enjoyable, so be it.

Of course that brings up another interesting perspective ... that of viewer distrust. I have some images which have very little work done on them that some people just can’t believe haven’t been extensively Photoshopped (such as this one)

I also have images I have improved substantially because of Photoshop and don’t look much like the original capture at all (the original of the following image was taken in late light under pretty foggy conditions and took quite a bit of work), and they look very natural and normal, so no questions about Photoshop.

This adds another element to our own philosophy. After all it is troubling to explain to people that the image is very real, not enhanced or embellished by Photoshop, and having the viewer think differently of it.

So I struggle with this a little myself. After all, I’m not a photojournalist ... but I do want my images to be believable and appreciated as great photographs.

Just some idle thoughts ... worth some time to think about if you are passionate about landscape photography.