THOUGHTS ON EQUIPMENT AND CAPTURE

CF cards ... the new film

Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:49:43 -0600

Recently I’ve changed my philosophy in CF card use. For along time now I’ve been a typical user I owned a handful of cards, and constantly erased them and reused them. And yes, I’ve been victimized by the occasional failure of card, and have physically misplaced my fair share. About a year ago, I notice how inexpensive the “older” type of cards were. Cards a couple of generations back in technology ... meaning they are slower and smaller in capacity... can be found for around $12 per 4 gig card. They are plenty fast enough for how I shoot ... no video and no long “bursts”. I’ve always preferred shooting to more cards instead of to one larger one anyway .... if you lose one or it has a problem you don’t have your whole trip on it.

When I went to Italy last year, I took enough cards to not have to reuse one. I labeled the cards as I shot, and backed them up to my laptop, but the cards themselves served as my primary “backup”. I was surprised when I calculated the cost per image for doing this ... far less than it used to cost to shoot and develop film per exposure.

I’ve always struggled with an efficient backup system for my images and I know most photographers fight this as well. It seems everything you use as a backup can fail, so you have to keep backing up your backups over time. From everything I’ve read, CF cards are the least likely storage medium to fail from simply being stored (although reusing them over and over can be problematic).

Since that trip I’ve decided this is how I would shoot ... everything goes onto CF cards which are formatted in the camera and never reused. When the card is full, I label it and then store it in a fireproof safe in the cement room under my front porch (well, as soon as I get the fireproof safe installed).

Of course these are just the raw files so it doesn’t replace my current backup strategies. I’m sure those aren’t perfect, but currently I’m pretty comfortable with everything other than in case of a catastrophic problem ... I don’t have a copy of things stored “off site”. I’m working on that, and I have an article planned on some of the current hardware I use for storage coming up. And of course there is the problem of everything I’ve shot before fall of 2009, when I didn’t use CF cards like film. More on that later.

Admittedly many photographers are too prolific for this type of storage ... they just shoot too many files. Many wedding photographers now think nothing of shooting thousands of images. I know on a landscape shoot I normally shoot far less than most, so it works for me, but not for everyone.

One other thing I tried was switching to SD cards from CF cards by using an SD>CF card adaptor. This would have been nice, standardizing on a single card type. Doesn’t work. Way too slow. After maxing the buffer on a dSLR it would take a few minutes to write the data to the card. On my PhaseOne p65+, it was excruciatingly slow ... not workable at all. I assume this is an issue with the adaptor, because SD cards themselves don’t perform that poorly in cameras designed for them.

Anyway, I know I’m not the only one doing this, but thought I’d mention it. Perhaps this isn’t even something you do for everything you shoot, just those extra special shoots ... maybe to some exotic place you know you will never be able to go back to.

Using the Lumix GF1

Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:59:38 -0700

The Lumix GF-1 system is an intriguing tool in capturing landscape images. From a technical perspective it is a very capable camera. Being such a small and light system makes it easy to justify not taking any of the bigger cameras along, especially if you are pretty sure what you are shooting will end up printed small or used in things such as web galleries or books.

It’s important to understand using one isn’t without it’s challenges. Getting away from the ground glass to compose images takes some serious adjustments ... much more than I thought it would. The LCD isn’t as sharp as it should be. It may be fine on a standard dSLR where it isn’t performing the ground glass functions but since this is the primary method of judging your image, both before and after capture it should be the highest quality device possible. The attached EVF (electronic viewfinder) may actually be worse, as here the image is extremely low quality and very small. In bright light it is an improvement over the LCD, and holding the camera up to the eye provides a sturdier platform, but as a method to preview the image the EFV is very weak. At this point I’m going to try one of those magnifiers that clip onto the the rear LCD.

While I was vacationing with my family in Maui I had three cameras with me (well, 4 if you count my iPhone). The ever present s90, which proved it is truly a pocket camera and for the size has great quality. Then there was the full GF-1 system which was with me most of the time as well. Finally, the full PhaseOne system, which of course was only with me when I was specifically doing a shoot ... which I did about 5 times during this particular trip.

Normally I’d have some of the Canon gear along, so this was the first real test of my theory that the GF-1 was good enough as a secondary system when the main system was the Phase One gear. I used it quite a bit, including a walk around Iao Needle where I intentionally used the GF-1 system, even though the Phase One System was in the car.

As I mentioned, composing an image on the LCD or using the EVF is challenging ... even to the point of being a little frustrating at times. I constantly moved from the LCD, which I felt made the camera difficult to hold steady (especially with the 45-200mm lens), to the EVF which just had a lousy image. I didn’t realize how frustrated I was until my son-in-law asked me snap a shot of his family and handed my their 5D. I had just taken a picture of my youngest daughters family with the GF-1 and when I looked through the viewfinder it was such an astounding difference.

I took some sunset images, and this was probably the most challenging, bordering on impossible. It was very hard to make out the image for cropping. I could barely see the sailboat in the image above. Judging exposure was tough as well, but because of the live histogram I managed to not clip many of the intense highlights.

It reminded me a little of my film days ... I had to wait until the images were on my computer to really know how good they were. An important distinction here is the difference isn’t the preview image. The Phase One LCD isn’t that great either, but here the viewfinder experience is the real tool for composing the image, and the difference is substantial.

In all other aspects I loved the camera. The lens design and zoom controls, the button layout, and menu structure all were fine. I did a few videos of family, and love how easy it is to switch and do a video (just push the video capture button).

Despite the challenges of composing, the end results were pretty satisfying. I’ve been working with the RAW files, and printed a few images on 17”x22” paper with very nice results. I think if I continue working with the camera I will get more accustomed to the viewfinders. At this point I still give the system a thumbs up. Now if someone would just design a full frame version that was similar. I know, Leica has one. The problem for me is about 40% of my images are taken at focal lengths greater than 135, the maximum on the M-9. I’m also a zoom lens junky ... I’m just used to using the zoom function to preview composition.

Anyway, there you have it. Here’s a few more images from the trip.

The Canon s90 ... a worthy pocket camera

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:31:41 -0700

I recently wrote about the search for the “perfect” point and shoot ... concluding that the ideal camera might be the Lumix GF-1. I’ve been delighted with the performance of this system and the quality it delivers in relation to its size. In my mind the difference in image quality between it and the G10 or G11 justify the additional size, not to mention the flexibility of an interchangeable lens system. Since the G11 isn’t that small it seemed a poor choice ... might was well go a little larger and get a lot more more quality.

However, when I did the noise test comparing the 7D, GF-1, G10, G11 and the new s90 I’ll admit I was surprised to learn how well the s90 performed. I hadn’t paid much attention when it was announced, but I found out it is basically a G11 in a much smaller body - it uses the same sensor and the same Digic 4 processor. A G11 that actually does fit in your shirt pocket! I couldn’t resist trying one out so before my recent trip to Death Valley I picked one up from Pixels Foto and Frame here in Salt Lake and threw it in my pocket for the trip.

Wow ... an actual “pocket” camera that perhaps beats a G10? Admittedly it isn’t as good as the GF-1, and I have no regrets buying this system. When traveling with my PhaseOne system, the GF-1 is a somewhat capable backup system. But the s90 is the first pocket camera that actually delivers what those of us using G10’s have longed for ... RAW, decent image quality and small. Although I discounted it originally, it’s a very capable little camera ... especially considering it’s size.

The overall layout of the camera is a little different than other cameras I have used. There is a ring around the lens that is user settable to control various functions such as zoom. The rear control features a traditional 5 button layout, but a nearly invisible ring surrounds it that is a dial control. It takes a little getting used to but works very well once you do. Another soft button is located above this control ... I use it to set the ISO.

at ISO 100 with no luminance noise reduction ...

The zoom range isn’t as great as the G11, and most likely the smaller lens isn’t quite as good. There is some barrel distortion the camera firmware corrects when making jpegs and I’m assuming Canon Software deals with as well. I processed the images in Lightroom 3.0 beta so I had no luminance noise reduction or lens corrections available, but it’s hard to believe this little camera produced the images it did.

One of the requirements for a worthy point and shoot for me is the ability to capture RAW, which the s90 does. It has decent dynamic range for a small camera. As an example here is a simple HDR of a single file ... processed once for the direct sunlight in the distance, and once for the deep shadow I’m standing in. I layered the two resulting images in photoshop then used a simple gradient mask. Note the sky isn’t blown and yet the shadows themselves look fine. (The reason I did this in Photoshop was to correct the distortion and get the horizon straight ... you can see the curve in the two small images. Without the distortion a graduated filter adjustment in Lightroom would have actually been the better method. Note I wasn’t trying to create a masterpiece here, so the masking isn’t perfect.)

Enough from me. I’m not going to do a full review of the camera as there are plenty of those available already from more more experienced reviewers. The bottom line is if you are looking for a truly pocketable point and shoot that delivers G10/G11 quality, this camera is worthy contender. Here are a couple of shots of a very difficult subject ... bougainvillea. Typically the gradations of these magenta red petals are difficult to record and yet the camera has done a very credible job.

The Phase ONe p65+ camera system and thoughts on medium format

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:32:14 -0700

Medium Format has been around for a very long time. If you were a professional photographer in the film era, medium format wasn’t an option. For me, as a portrait and wedding photographer starting in the late 70’s, the quality of those big negatives from a Hasselblad or a Mamiya RB67 was a necessity - 35mm just didn’t cut it.

I can remember frequently when I traveled to places such as Jackson Hole and Yellowstone I would take my medium format gear along. On more than one occasion another tourist would stop and admire my camera, and frequently ask the question “are you a professional?” After confirming that I was, I rarely offered the disclaimer that my professional expertise was in portraits and weddings.

During the development of digital capture, medium format was still king. dSLR’s were very expensive and didn’t have the resolution to compete with larger formats. In my opinion the line was crossed when Canon introduced the original 1Ds camera, although cameras before then were approaching that threshold. Many thought this was to be the end of medium format, but several companies were busy building backs that would fit on these cameras. The main drawback was they weren’t self contained ... they required lugging heavy batteries or tethering to a computer when being used.

“Zabriskie Point”
Phase One 645 DF with Mamiya 55-100 at 90mm, 1/90th at f/9, ISO 50

Then Kodak introduced a new digital back which would fit on a traditional film medium format camera that was completely self contained. While it was expensive, because of the size of the sensor the quality was rather remarkable, even for a 16mp camera. The effective resolution was actually quite close to the 11mp Canon 1Ds - since it was a square sensor by the time you cropped it to a traditional format you were only using 11 to 12mp of the sensor area. But the difference in quality between the Canon 1Ds and the Kodak DCS back was still significant.

Digital backs and medium format have progressed since then. It seems each time dSLR makers up the ante and begin to approach the quality of medium format, better digital backs are introduced which again raise the bar.

Unfortunately since good dSLR’s can now produce images equal to and better than than medium format film, the need for medium format has dwindled. It is rare to find a portrait photographer using a medium format camera system today, yet 10 years ago nearly all of them did. The commercial and fashion industries still have a fair amount of medium format users, but even some of them have moved to dSLR’s. The small market size combined with the demand for perfection means the products are expensive and at this point the digital back business has consolidated and is pretty much down to two companies, PhaseOne/Mamiya and Imacon(Hasselblad).

“The Dune”
Phase One 645 DF with AF 28mm f/4.5 Aspherical, 1/13th at f/12, ISO 50

The capabilities of a medium format back is spectacular. Even though I’ve been using medium format since that original Kodak DCS back, I haven’t written about them much ... they just aren’t a mainstream tool. I moved from that back to a PhaseOne 22mp back, later upgraded to their p45 which is a 39mp back, and most recently to their p65+(59mp) complete with the Mamiya camera system which they now control and are working hard to improve.

Many misunderstand all of the advantages of medium format compared to dSLR’s, assuming it’s just about resolution. Don’t get me wrong ... resolution is probably the most significant advantage. After all, 60 megapixels spread out on the very large 645 format is a pretty good jump over the current crop of 21-24mp dSLR’s. Considering the p65+ uses a CCD sensor without an anti-aliasing filter (blur filter) improved resolution goes beyond the ratio of megapixels. But an often overlooked advantage is the p65+ captures 16 bit images, which provides greater detail especially in the shadows as well as improved dynamic range. This provides the ability to record more subtle tonal gradations.

You can’t demonstrate the astounding quality differences of these precision photographic tools on a web page. Sure, side by side comparisons with dSLR’s at 100% will show pretty clearly the difference in resolution, but to really appreciate these cameras it takes prints. By using the best capture techniques, the best raw processing and image processing techniques, and then printing on the highest quality printers, prints from these cameras have a quality that is impossible to describe but visually apparent.

“Badwater Sunrise”
Phase One 645 DF with AF 55-100mm at 55mm, 0.7 seconds at f/5.6, ISO 50

I just returned from a workshop in Death Valley presented by PhaseOne called PODAS. (Phase One Digital Artist Series). They brought together four world class instructors with a very limited group of attendees for 4 days of shooting and instruction in Death Valley. I’ve wanted to attend a workshop in Death Valley for quite some time just to help understand where the good places to shoot are, and this seemed like a great opportunity. Each attendee was provided a PhaseOne DF camera including a p65+ back, and each group of 5 attendees had at their disposal a chance to use many of the lenses from the Mamiya/PhaseOne line, including the 28mm wide angle up to the 300mm.

The experience was everything I had hoped for ... absolutely first class. All I had to do was get to the Vegas airport and they took care of everything else ... transportation, lodging, and food. It was amazing to stand in a group photo knowing there were over thirty 60mp cameras in the picture ... over a million dollars worth of very high end photography gear. Those in attendance were all very skilled photographers and the images in the final slide show (each attendee submitted 4) displayed a wide variety of shooting styles and a wonderful assortment of terrific images.

I won’t do a review on the system since most reading this don’t really need it or can’t justify it. There is a nice review by Michael Reichmann on the Luminous Landscape site if you want to read more about the actual system ... “Moving Medium Format to the Next Level”.

“Artist’s Pallette”
Phase One 645 DF with AF 55-100mm at 105mm, 1 second at f/11, ISO 50

The bottom line is the PhaseOne system with the p65+ back is approaching the resolution abilities of the 8x10 view camera. Anyone that has held a negative or transparency from one of these cameras, or seen a contact print or enlargement knows there is a quality about them that is hard to describe. I’ve always likened it to music. We can only hear a certain range of frequencies and the higher frequencies by themselves are difficult to hear and quite annoying. However, if these higher frequencies that result from harmonics in the more audible range of music is removed, the music becomes lifeless and not very pleasant. I think this is similar to viewing extremely high quality images ... there is something about them that is hard to isolate and define but makes them “different”, and you don’t have to print them large to see it. Of course if you do print them large the difference is astounding.

Many of the world’s finest landscape photographers now use medium format systems and PhaseOne backs for some or all of their work. Bill Atkinson, Mark Dubovoy, Charles Cramer, Peter Lik, Joseph Holmes, Alain Briot are a few that come to mind.

Well, enough about that ... I just wanted an excuse to put up a few images from the trip. These web jpegs are nice, but nothing compared to what I can get from the printer.

You really have to see prints to see what these cameras deliver.

“Golden Canyon”
Phase One 645 DF with AF 110-220mm at 110, 0.5 second at f/9, ISO 100

cANON 7D, G10, G11, S90 AND LUMIX GF1 ... WHAT’S ALL THE NOISE ABOUT NOISE?

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:25:13 -0600

When Canon announced the Powershot G11, they were the first camera maker to lower the resolution of the sensor when updating to a new model. The G10 sported a 15mp sensor 1/1.7” sensor, whereas the G11 was outfitted with a 10.1mp 1/1.7” sensor.

(I’m not sure what the 1/1.7” means, because it isn’t 1.7” in size. This is the typical notation for camcorder sensors ... I’ll have to research to see exactly what it means. The actual sensor size is 0.3”(7.6mm) x 0.25”(5.7mm). This isn’t anywhere close to a 1.7” diagonal either, so I’m clueless as to what the 1.7” represents.)

Ever since the Canon 50D and G10 were introduced there seems to be some kind of internet ground swell complaining about camera makers and the megapixel race. I’ve mentioned this in previous articles, and it seems these comments on many forums caught someone’s ear at Canon. The reason you reduce the pixel count would be to trade possible resolution for gains in noise performance and dynamic range. I’ve always had a problem chasing dynamic range, because I think cameras perform just fine. Improving dynamic range is OK ... as long as you don’t have to give up some other aspect such as resolving detail.

I had already decided I wasn’t going to “upgrade” to the G11. The G10, while pocketable, just wasn’t quite good enough for what I needed. Rather than another camera with a tiny sensor, I decided I needed something better, and opted for the micro four thirds Lumix GF1.

Of course, all of this begs the question did Canon accomplish the objective of improving the cameras noise and dynamic range at the expense of reducing the pixel count?

I stopped at a good friends store, Pixels Foto and Frame, here in Sandy, Utah and checked out the G11 as well as the s90. I decided to try and shoot a noise test - a direct comparison of the G10 and G11, and while I was at it, shot the Lumix GF1, the Canon s90, and the Canon 7d.

As with any test I do, it isn’t super scientific. Basically set up a scene, shoot at every ISO, and compare the results. The only way to really do this is to vary the exposure time, since there isn’t enough latitude with the aperture on the small cameras to accomplish this. Unfortunately in my mind this in some ways invalidates the test, because longer exposure times increase noise. This would mean that my 1 second at ISO 100 would be at a disadvantage to my 1/15th of a second at ISO 3200. Of course, this would exaggerate the differences if anything, and as long as each actual camera used the same shutter speed at the same f/stop the comparisons to each other are valid.

So here is the “scene” taken with each camera. This is a mix of incandescent light as well as available light. The day was overcast, and the amount of light stayed quite constant while I was shooting the test. The small 3 step gray card was placed in the scene to be used for the noise evaluation.
 I decided to try and “even” the field, and shoot everything in full manual mode including focus. Using the Lumix I determined the base exposure was 1 second at f/8. The 7D and the GF1 were quite easy to focus, the other three were much more challenging (no surprise in this).

I used a tripod and 10 second timer, starting at the lowest exposure of each camera and moving through the entire range. Everything was brought into Lightroom 3.0 beta, where all noise reduction and sharpening was turned off. The only step performed in Lightroom was to set the white point based on the middle grey of the 3 step card.

Each cameras set of exposures was then opened in Photoshop as layers, and a 100x100 pixel section was cropped from the 3 step patch. These were then all lined up and arranged in the resulting grid, saved as a jpeg at maximum quality to lower the chance of jpeg artifacts distorting the noise.

So here are a few observations.

First, note that the density of the images is different ... despite base exposures being identical, the resulting files vary. If you look at the difference between the G10 and G11, the G11 exposure is actually brighter by more than 1/2 of a stop. This means if you adjust the initial exposure when taking the pictures so the resulting densities match, you could use a lower ISO. Shooting at ISO 100 on the G11 would give you almost the same density as shooting at ISO 200 on the G10. If this is the case, it would imply the noise difference is about a stop more than the chart above, which to me appears to put the G11 at about a stop better. What I’m not sure of is whether this is due to the camera or if it results from the camera profiles used by Lightroom when imported. I need to do some more research.

It is obvious that each camera at it’s maximum ISO is pretty noisy. I’m sure each persons tolerance for noise is different, and subject matter is also a variable. To me personally, I would say my max on the 7d is 1600, the GF1 is 800, the G11 and the s90 is 400, and the G10 is 200. Using simple Lightroom noise reduction would all but eliminate the visible noise in these images. Obviously if I had to go beyond that for some reason I would, knowing I might have to work a little harder on the image to handle the resulting noise.

The s90 and the G11 actually both use the same sensor, and as expected performed very similarly. I’m still unsure if the smaller lens of the s90 is optically as capable as the G11 ... or at least close to it. I hope to do some resolution tests with the two cameras soon.

One obvious question is whether upgrading to the G11 makes any sense? I’m really not sure, because even though the G10 might have more noise, downsampling to an equivalent file size will help with noise. The higher resolution sensor offsets some of the noise gain of the smaller sensor to a small degree. The articulating display of the G11 is very nice, but other than that I’m not sure it offers anything at all.

In fact, since the s90 performs very similarly to the g11 and it will definitely fit in your shirt pocket it may be the logical choice for many looking at a higher quality point and shoot that can save RAW files. At this point, the G11 looks like the odd man out ... a camera without a home. If looking for a carry with camera, either go with something a little larger which offers significantly better quality, such as the Lumix GF1, or go ahead and get one that really will fit in your shirt pocket ... the Canon s90.

As I worked with these images it was obvious the 7D and the GF1 files were in a different category than the other 3 ... substantially superior. This really isn’t surprising, but seems to support my choice in the GF1 because it may even be an acceptable backup system. The GF1 also appears to have less chroma noise than any of the Canon’s. I can’t explain why, but luminance noise appears like natural grain and is more visually more acceptable in an image ... another reason to opt for a GF1 over a G10 or G11.

To me it appears Canon should face the music and realize the logical step now would be to increase the sensor size .. yes a completely new camera design. Increasing the sensor size accomplishes all of the goals ... better noise characteristics, better dynamic range, and better resolution. The micro four thirds cameras have definitely shown this. If you want a “shirt pocket” camera, might as well get a true shirt pocket camera .. the G11 won’t outperform the s90 by a significant amount. With the success of the micro four thirds format, as well as Leicas new additions to the market, it appears this category may be more significant than previously thought, and currently neither Canon nor Nikon have a contender in that category ... in fact they don’t even offer an option.

For me, I realized that in my entire collection of my better images not a single one came from my G10. I’ve already printed images from my GF1 and am confident it will yield high enough quality. So anything not good enough for the GF1 will be taken with my other “pocket” camera ... yep, the iPhone . I don’t need an s90 for just snapshots, the iPhone will be just fine for those.

In search of the perfect point and shoot ... the Panasonic GF1?

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:37:35 -0600

Recently I read about a new book, “The Best Camera is the One that’s With You” ... an intriguing title. Because it’s associated directly with an iPhone app designed to “enhance” your iPhone pictures it appears a little gimmicky, which according to some reviewers is an unfair assumption because it’s about much more than that. Camera phones are an interesting mix, and while I find plenty of uses for my iPhone 3Gs camera, I would never consider it when trying to capture high quality images. Not that you can’t take great pictures with an iPhone ... after all it’s the photographer that counts, not the camera. But it’s also true the camera sets limits on what type of images you can take, as well as what you can do with the image file. So while the iPhone might always be with you does that mean you want to make it a staple in your image capture arsenal?

So while the title of the book is a great point, what you do about it is make sure whenever possible you always have a camera with you which is at least somewhat capable, and certainly more capable than an iPhone.

Judging by several forums I frequent, there are many photographers who feel the same way. For years now point and shoot after point and shoot is discussed as they all search for the ultimate carry with camera. Most have some very capable equipment ... top end dSLR’s and even Medium Format systems. But what they also long for is a camera that fits in their pocket, or at least in their backpack or briefcase so when they’re out and about doing activities other than serious shooting they at least have a somewhat capable camera with them - just in case a nice photo opportunity presents itself.

“Moonrise”
Lumix GF1, G Vario 45-200 f/4.5-5.6 Mega OIS at 105mm (210mm equivalent), 1/400th at f/8, ISO 100
An example of why I want to carry around a decent camera.
I pulled off the highway coming home from my daughters home when I spotted this moonrise.

For a few years now, the Canon G9, followed by the G10, has been the king of this category. Pretty compact, adequate pixels captured, decent zoom lens, and perhaps the most important thing, RAW capture resulting in decent quality image files. I’ve had one of these with me most of the time since the G9 was introduced, and have some nice images from them. But as I thought about this a little more, I realized a couple of things. First, despite having one of these cameras with me on many occasions and taking many nice images, I have none which I rank good enough to use for anything other than small prints or web galleries. It just isn’t good enough, so when I travel I am always lugging at minimum the Canon system along, meaning the G10 is pretty much relegated to tasks my iPhone camera would most likely handle just fine. I also realized that if my main gear had a problem the G10 wasn’t nearly capable enough to use instead ... the very circumstance I found myself in Italy recently. Both my 70-200 f/2.8 and my 70-300 DO had problems, leaving one side of the image soft, but I certainly couldn’t use the G10 as my main camera.

To me another big downside to point and shoots is the incredibly small sensor size, which means a “normal” lens is a really wide angle lens ... translated it means almost infinite depth of field. It also means noise is an issue, and in fact the G10 is a pretty poor performer even at ISO 400. So I find myself yearning for just a little more camera than a G10, and the downsides to the G10 are more about the category and its limitations, not just the camera itself. Meaning the G11 won’t really change things much.

“Fall Path”
Lumix GF1, G Vario 14-45 f/3.6-5.6 Mega OIS at 34mm, 1.6 seconds at f/8, ISO 400

WHY THE GF1?

A few years ago Olympus (and I believe Kodak was involved) began pushing the idea of a new dSLR camera system designed around a new sensor size called “four thirds”. This new sensor was basically 1/2 the size of a full frame dSLR sensor, so a little smaller than the APS sensors found in many dSLR’s, but considerably larger (over 5 times) than the ones found in point and shoots. (The G10 and G11 are 1/1.7” sensors, about 0.25x0.33 inches). The original idea was to copy the body style and lens versatility of a dSLR, but by using the smaller sensor and designing the cameras around it the entire camera system could be considerably smaller. Additionally the concept was to be an open platform making it great for end users ... they wouldn’t be locked into a single manufacturer. Overall it appeared to be a nice idea, the problem was Canon and Nikon found ways to reduce the size of some of their cameras, and even started designing smaller lenses that were meant only for those smaller cameras. The new four thirds cameras ended up only slightly smaller, not enough to sway many users. Though there were some eager and happy adopters, the concept looked like it was pretty much headed to a niche market ... and perhaps even dead.

Then the 4/3rd’s group came up with a new twist ... what if instead of creating a new dSLR, they created a new point and shoot? Instead of a slightly smaller dSLR, you have a slightly larger point and shoot. This led to the development of the micro 4/3rds specification which basically puts a larger sensor in a point and shoot style body, complete with interchangeable lens functionality. Because of the design, the lenses could be considerably smaller than those from a 35mm style dSLR or even a four thirds dSLR, yet because of the larger sensor the image quality should be much better than a point and shoot and even rival those larger cameras. In addition the larger sensor means the camera performs more like a dSLR in regards to depth of field.

I’ve been watching these developments with interest and when Canon announced the new G11, I decided to wait and evaluate the announced and not yet shipping Panasonic Lumix GF1. After reading a couple of reviews (I recommend these two Luminous Landscape :Panasonic Lumix GF1 and The Online Photographer: Panasonic GF1 Field Report) it indeed sounded pretty compelling so I ordered one complete with a Lumix G Vario 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 Mega O.I.S. (Optical Image Stabilizer) (wow ... wonder what all of that means) which is equivalent to a 28-90mm lens on a full frame 35mm, Lumix G Vario 45-200mm f/4.5-5.6 Mega O.I.S., equivalent to a 90-400mm lens on a full frame dSLR, and a pancake style Lumix G 20mm f/1.7 ASPH, 40mm equivalent, and yes that’s right - f/1.7.

The new Lumix EF1 is the middle camera, between a Canon 7D with 24-104mm f/4 lens and a Canon G10

I’ve had the camera for about a week now, and have been shooting with it frequently, including a couple of field trips where I was shooting it along side my PhaseOne p65+ system.

BASIC IMPRESSIONS ...

So the Lumix GF1 is a micro 4/3rds format camera with a 12mp sensor. Overall the camera has a nice feel - very solid - it actually feels a little heavier than it looks. As with any new camera it takes some time to figure out the menu structure and options but so far I’ve only had to resort to the manual once.

The key controls are all located together. A mechanical on/off switch which is basically instant on (very nice), an exposure mode control dial, with a mechanical secondary control for the capture method (single shot, bracketed, self-timer), a nice large easy to use shutter release, a small also easy to use (but not easy to hit accidentally) direct video record button, and a thumbwheel control which is also a button. The thumbwheel gives you access to a direct control based on which shooting mode you are in, such as the aperture when in A mode or the shutter speed when in S mode. Pressing the thumbwheel lets you set a different function ... in A and S modes the secondary item controlled is exposure compensation - very useful to fine tune exposures.

The LCD display is bright, perhaps not as crisp as I’d like, but still good. I find it a little cluttered with icons. You can turn off the row on top which have more to do with overall settings, leaving on the bottom row of icons which have more to do with your current capture setup, or you can turn them all off. Unfortunately turning off the top row also turns off the live histogram (which is an option you can enable.). They icons are pretty easy to ignore, but to be honest several of them don’t need to be on the display all of the time, and some of them are so small it’s difficult to figure out what they mean anyway. What is displayed could be greatly simplified and more useful if the engineers would sit down and chat with some serious and experienced digital photographers who have used many brands of cameras to find out exactly what they want to see when actually shooting.

“Fall Splendor, redux”
Lumix GF1, G Vario 14-45 f/3.6-5.6 Mega OIS at 26mm, 1.6 seconds at f/8, ISO 400
This is the same shot I took with my PhaseOne p65+system ... see it here

The bayonet lens mount system is smooth and solid. It’s a little unnerving to see the sensor exposed every time you change lenses, and I’m sure dust will be an issue with this camera. I’ll probably keep a little squeeze blower of some kind in the bag. The lenses themselves also seem solid, the focus and zoom controls very smooth and responsive.

Figuring out the effective focal length on a 4/3rds camera is simple. No 1.6 or 1.5 crop factor sensor here... it is exactly one half the size of a full frame 35mm sensor, so the crop factor is 2 ... just double the focal length. The 20mm provides the coverage of a 40mm on a full frame dSLR, the 14-45mm provides the same field of view coverage as a 28-90mm on a full frame dSLR.

As far as using the camera, it handles very nicely. As I mentioned, when you turn it on, it is on. Instantly. Shutter delay is minimal and interestingly enough the camera “sounds” like a little mirror action is occurring. Much louder than I anticipated (although it isn’t actually loud).

I used both lenses, and was especially surprised when I was in “snapshot” mode ... (P mode on the camera, large jpeg but no RAW) the camera really tries to hold the ISO down. This was especially true with the 20mm/1.7 lens in low light. This was a sweet combination when taking snapshots in available light.

A couple of available light jpegs with the 20m f/1.7 lens ... there wasn’t much room light.
The one on the left was with florescent light ... the camera does an excellent job of white balance.
With the 20mm lens, the camera is only slightly larger than a g10/g11.

The pop up flash is cleverly engineered ... and it is controlled by a manual release button ... perfect! When I want flash I pop it up, when I don’t I leave it down. No mussing with the menus. Unfortunately it’s a little weak, but it seems to cover the 20mm quite nicely. The design moves the flash further from the lens, helping reduce red eye.

The lens itself has a very smooth focusing ring ... much better than a point and shoot motor control. One really nice feature is when you are using manual focus, as soon as you turn the focusing ring the display will immediately zoom in to about 10 times magnification, very similar to using a Canon camera with live view and 10x zoom to focus. This means you can actually focus manually very accurately with the camera.

One drawback to these cameras is they don’t have an optical viewfinder. The G10’s optical viewfinder wasn’t terrific, but at least you could hold the camera up to your eye. Panasonic’s answer to this is an optional EVF (Electronic View Finder). It’s not great, and a little pricey, but you can see well enough to crop. If you are using it the last capture displays on the EVF ( I would prefer it to display on the camera’s LCD) , but overall it’s effective. One nice feature is the EVF articulates ... you can swing it up to as much as 90 degrees ... almost a waist level finder. This means you can get the camera angle very low and still manage to see your cropping fine. When you hold it up over head it isn’t quite that easy ... too bad the LCD on the camera doesn’t articulate - perhaps the best feature of the new G11.

“Hidden Valley #7”
Lumix GF1, G Vario 14-45 f/3.6-5.6 Mega OIS at 26mm, 1/320th at f/7.1, ISO 100
I used the the EVF on the GF1 to take this shot ... the camera is only about 2” from
the ground but I’m looking straight down into the viewfinder.

An interesting feature of the camera is you can adapt several other lenses to fit this system, such as standard 4/3rd’s dSLR lenses, and even Leica M series lenses. In his review, Michael Reichmann suggests this may be the perfect backup body for users of the new Leica M9 camera.

Another feature that may be very useful to some is the camera can capture 720p HD video. Because of the larger sensor it offers similar shallow depth of field benefits that makes many of the new HD recording dSLR’s popular. Some claim the lenses and camera were actually engineered with video in mind, perhaps leveraging some of Panasonics experience with camcorders. One thing I liked is the easy focusing options. You can manually focus, set up the camera to focus whenever you depress the shutter half way, or continually focus. Continual focus isn’t super responsive but it does work.

Such a small camera with decent video recording capability may be useful to some. It’s missing some higher end video features (such as 1080p and stereo mike input) found on cameras like the 5D Mark2, but I can see it helpful for some applications ... especially since so many videos are destined for the web ... no need for 1080p. I played with the video a little. It has two recording modes, AVCHD Lite (recommended when the destination is Hi Def TV) and motion Jpeg (recommended when the destination is a computer). The only good way I could find to get AVCHD video out of the camera is a direct connection to the Mac and importing via iMovie. iMovie locked up, not sure what the problem was, but the video was all there when I restarted it. Some other movies taken later imported into iMovie without a problem. I did a little video of a rainstorm just for an idea of what it can do. (and yes, I’m a noob at video)

Huh?

There are a few Huh’s? with this camera. What is a huh? It’s a feature or lack of a feature which prompts a “what in the world were they thinking” feeling.

First the battery charger. Every point and shoot I’ve ever used has a charger that plugs directly into the wall. Usually the power prongs fold back into the charger so it is nice and compact. Now I realize that not every place in the world uses the same plug style, so by using a cord they only have to make one charger, but it would seem the US and Japan constitute enough of a market to justify it. As it is, I have this amazing little camera system that requires me to haul around a power cord to keep my battery charged. The cord takes almost as much space in my bag as the camera. The least Panasonic could do is give me a little 3” long version of the cord. I’m hoping someone makes a short cord like this ... I’ll update this if I find a source.

“Aspen Gold”
Lumix GF1 with G 20mm f/1.7 ASPH, 1/2 second at f/l7.1, ISO 400

Second is the USB port. Instead of a standard mini-USB port on the camera, they are using a proprietary connector. So I have to carry around their USB cable (another cord) if I want to connect the camera directly to the computer, rather than use the one I already have in my bag. If I forget the cable I can’t run to Best Buy and get a new one. Huh? I don’t get it. Someone isn’t thinking ... personally I think this is one of the dumbest things I’ve seen a camera maker do. (UPDATE: Ok, I’ve already lost my stupid cable, and to make matters worse I can’t find a good way to get movies from the camera into iMovie without the cable. This is definitely the dumbest thing I’ve seen a camera maker do.)

Finally is the auto bracketing options. There are two reasons to auto bracket. One is to just get a single “correctly” exposed shot. Take 3 or 4 shots 1/2 of a stop apart and one should nail the exposure. Currently though the main use for auto bracketing is HDR images. Here you normally are trying to achieve a 5 stop range ... 2 under to 2 over. Most of the time with current tools a 3 shot bracket is adequate, and a 5 shot bracket works fine. To get this much range with the GF1 takes SEVEN exposures ... way too many shots and way too much time. Sure it will work, but it isn’t necessary. Why can’t I set my own parameters .. how many shots and how many stops. Can’t be hard to do.

So is it small enough?

The Lumix GF1 along side a Canon G10

I’ll be honest - the GF1 doesn’t make it as a shirt pocket camera, but it might fit in your coat pocket or the large pocket of your cargo shorts or pants if you have the 20mm lens on it. (The G10 doesn’t fit in your shirt pocket either but it is closer.) The main reason I feel this way is you will most likely want one of the zoom lenses on the camera which means you’ll probably have to carry it in your backpack or briefcase. Even with the 20mm/1.7 pancake lens the camera is larger than a G10, although closer. But the 20mm lens doesn’t retract into the camera like the G10 does.

However, understand that the GF1 is a system ... in effect you can have a multi lens system which can do nearly everything a full dSLR system can do, and it can all fit in your backpack/briefcase or very small camera bag when making a trip without the better gear. Perhaps this isn’t small enough for some ... but hey ... did I mentioned it’s a very versatile interchangeable lens system with a relatively large sensor (from a point and shoot perspective)?

Image quality...

Of course the final and most important factor is the image quality. After all, if it doesn’t take any better pictures than an iPhone or a G10, then why would you carry it around? Beating an iPhone in quality isn’t much of a challenge, but the real question ... does it take better pictures than a G10 ... or the new G11?

One place it wins out is depth of field. Personally I like limited depth of field many times, and with a G10 there isn’t much control. This is one big advantage to the larger sensor in the GF1. At least I can use some selective focusing to aid in composition if I want to.

As far as resolution, the larger sensor means you have the same number of pixels spread over a larger area, resulting in larger pixels. This should offer advantages in reduced noise with higher ISO’s and increased dynamic range. It should also mean cleaner detail. The GF1 still uses an anti aliasing filter, but it is claimed it is “weaker” than those found in traditional dSLR’s.

From what I’ve seen so far there is some truth to these claims. Image files seem more like those from of a Canon 50D than a G10. It will take some additional testing to try and see just how much, including some larger prints. I’ll be shooting a noise test against a G10 and the new Canon 7D later this week. As of now it appears ISO 400 is quite usable, a setting of last resort on the G10, and even ISO 800 may work. I’ll also be printing some large prints from a few files to see how the detail holds up. I’ll provide an update when I do.

Detail from the picture at the top at 100%.
This is at ISO 400 and noise, while visible, is pretty minimal.

So in summary, I like this camera. I like having the availability of a system in such a small package and I can make enough space in my computer back pack for it. In Italy, I would have used it extensively in the small towns. It’s quite a bit larger than a G11 (and a lot pricier), and I’m not sure it’s worth it for many. For me, I love the idea of being able to make a decent size print if I happen to be traveling and stumble across an unexpected opportunity which ends up providing a great shot, or even as a higher quality backup system when carrying the better gear.

Split ND filters ... what was old is new.

Wed, 7 Oct 2009 14:45:14 -0600

For many years I have discounted the use of Graduated Neutral Density filters (often referred to as Split ND filters) as old fashioned and unnecessary. After all, a couple of bracketed exposures in Photoshop with a gradient mask and you have the same thing. Interestingly enough, despite that philosophy I realize now that I have very few images where I have applied this technique. Usually it’s more a case of complicated masking, not always successful, instead of a simple gradient mask.

A few months ago a friend of mine told me to check out the work of Patrick Smith .. something I highly recommend. Even though the ocean waves hitting the shore are one of my favorite things to shoot, I have always struggled trying to capture it in an artistic and pleasing way. His images are absolutely stunning. His technique relies heavily on ... you guessed it ... Split ND filters. I decided it was time I actually tried them to see what they offered, so I purchased an inexpensive set of 3 Cokin filters and my next trip to San Diego gave them a try. This image was one of those that resulted from that first experiment ...

“Seaweed”
PhaseOne with P65+ back
Mamiya AF 55-110 f/4.5 at 55mm
ISO 50, f/22, 4 seconds, 0.6 and 0.9 SplitND filters

What I found surprised me. First I realized why my attempts using Photoshop really didn’t work the same. Using Photoshop I almost always used a gradient mask with a very narrow transition area ... I tried to nail the transition area exactly. This means on anything but water it wouldn’t work at all. A Split ND filter has a much softer and wider area of transition. In Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw it is actually much easier to simulate a Split ND filter than it is with Photoshop ... the gradient tool works very well to adjust the amount plus the transition. Unfortunately most of the time when needing a Split ND filter, a single capture adjusted in the RAW editor won’t cut it - the dynamic range is just too extreme. Add to that the challenge in Photoshop is adjusting the gradient or transition, you just have to do it again - and again, and again, trying various positions of the gradation as well as width of the transition. No handles to drag it around or resize the transition (mmmm ... nice feature for CS5. Wonder if Adobe has thought of that?). Anyway, it’s a pain and slow. So much for “just doing it in Photoshop”.

“Golden Rays”
PhaseOne P65+ system, AF 55-100 f/4.5
ISO 50, f/32, 2 seconds with 0.6 and 0.9 SplitND filters

The second thing I found was the ability to “see” what I was getting as I was shooting. I could adjust the various filters and their placement. Very often using two filters is necessary anyway, and thus you actually have two transition areas to blend. This leaves you with a lot of creative possibilities when using the split ND filters. I still have a lot to learn, but all of the images on this page look pretty much like they did on the camera when I took them. Other than a few minor adjustments, there isn’t any post-processing.

Could this have been done using Photoshop and multiple captures? Most likely so, and in fact that will be my next experiment ... how to exactly duplicate the effect of a split ND filter using multiple exposures and Photoshop. Split ND filters are a terrific tool to achieve some remarkable images. No philosophical motives here at all ... doing things at capture is just a different way than doing these things in post processing. For my skill and workflow however, the Split ND filters will always be in the bag from now on. As a good friend put it “what was old is new”. After that first experiment I purchased a set of Lee Split ND filters, 5 in all as well as adaptor rings for my various lenses. The sunrise and sunset images on this page were taken with those. The Cokins had a slight color cast, the Lee’s, while more expensive, are very neutral and optically very clear.

So you’re thinking of switching to raw ...

Wed, 2 Sep 2009 14:14:54 -0600

If you already use a RAW workflow and are comfortable with it, this article probably isn’t for you. However, I’ve found with the advent of Lightroom many people are using a “RAW workflow” (because they use Lightroom) without realizing it, but don’t shoot in RAW. Occasionally this is an informed and conscious decision, but most of the time they do not really know what a RAW file is, how it is used in a RAW workflow, what happens to it in a RAW workflow , or what the advantages are of a RAW workflow.

(It has become somewhat common practice when referring to RAW files to capitalize the word RAW. Some do it, others don’t. I’m not sure of the reasons, since it isn’t an acronym, but I got in the habit of it a long time ago, hence you will see me using the all caps version)

Before Lightroom, using RAW in a workflow was more like a WORKflow! Of course, any workflow was challenging let alone adding the complexities of shooting RAW. Lightroom (and Aperture) have changed that forever, not only simplifying workflows dramatically, but also making a RAW workflow as painless as any other workflow. If you are new at using RAW, or are considering shooting RAW, understanding what a RAW file is and how it is used in a RAW workflow may be helpful.

EVERY DIGITAL PICTURE STARTS OUT AS RAW

Yep, even that cheap point and shoot. Even that little camera in your cell phone. Is this important? It may help to understand the overall concept of a RAW workflow. So let’s start at the beginning.

A camera is a device that uses optics and physics to project an image, and a recording device to record the resulting image. In one of the very first cameras(camera obscura), the recording “device” was a person who traced the projected scene. In the 1800’s chemistry was used to create light sensitive surfaces, which led to the development of silver halide photography. Improvements in silver halide technology led to improvements in the imaging aspects of cameras, including very sophisticated optics. The optical characteristics of cameras were well advanced when research into digital sensors started in earnest.

A digital camera replaces film with an electronic sensor to record the image. This sensor is composed of millions of photosites (sometimes referred to as pixels). As an analogy for this, each photosite is like a small bucket which collects photons when they land in it. An “exposure” is created by measuring the number of photons received by each photosite during the same interval of time. The relative number recorded by each photosite can be used to represent the brightness of each individual photosite.

Unfortunately, the photosites themselves are “color blind” ... they can’t measure the wave length of the incoming light, only the amount of photons. To make color images possible, nearly all digital cameras use what is referred to as a Bayer sensor, (named after it’s inventor, Dr. Bryce Bayer of Eastman Kodak). With a Bayer sensor, each photosite is covered by a filter, either Red, Green, or Blue. This means each photosite records only one color of light. (If you want a more in depth explanation of how sensors work, including how the Bayer sensor reproduces color there is an excellent article complete with illustrations at Cambridge Color, “Digital Camera Sensors”.

The information from the sensor (which is actually an analog device) is converted to a digital value, which represents the “level” of light it received. The number of levels that can be represented is based on the sensitivity of the sensor to distinguish differences, the more sensitive the sensor, the greater the number of levels, and this is evidenced by the bit depth the sensor records. So once we have made our capture we know two things from each photosite... the brightness level and what color of light it represents, based on the filter that covered it. This then becomes our RAW data - not a RAW file yet, just the RAW sensor data.

To be useful we also need some additional data ... data about our data. You’ve probably heard the term metadata used, most commonly referring to things like date and time, lens, f/stop and shutter speed. So metadata is data about the actual captured data, and some aspects of metadata are important when it comes time to create a visible file.

With these two elements, we now have the ability to process the data into a viewable image. This is a very complex process ... after all we don’t actually know the color that any actual photosite represents. All we know is how much red, blue, or green light it received based on the filter that covered it. This process is called demosaicing , where complex algorithms use the pixels surrounding each pixel to calculate the actual color a photosite should represent. As it calculates this information it will also apply various aspects from the metadata, such as white balance. When finished it has calculated an RGB value for each photosite which becomes of pixel of the visible image. Immediately after an image is captured, nearly every camera will go through this process to create a visible image.

What happens at this point depends on your camera and it’s settings. Camera phones and almost all point and shoots will take this image information and then create a standard format jpeg file. All of the actual sensor data and some of the metadata is then discarded.

Some high end point and shoots, and pretty much all dSLR’s allow you to create a file which contains all of the original RAW data from the sensor and all of the metadata ... this then becomes what is referred to as a “RAW” file.

OK, SO WHY IS THIS RAW FILE BETTER?

It is important to understand how much influence metadata has on this conversion process. Every file has at least one item of metadata that will influence the outcome of the RAW conversion, white balance. Every camera also has additional items of metadata designed to optimize the image, affecting things like contrast or saturation. These settings can be automatic (in other words the camera makers best guess), or set by the user. For example instead of auto white balance, you may choose to set a white balance in the camera itself. No doubt you have seen various other settings in cameras which are designed to supply metadata instructions for the conversion process. They often have nicknames, such as bright or vibrant and most of them affect various aspects of the conversion process. So some parts of the metadata are like a set of instructions for the raw processor to use when converting the data into a visible image. What is critical here is this is just metadata ... it has nothing to do with the RAW image data, and is only used when it comes time to render a visible file from that data.

If you discard the RAW information by not saving a RAW file when shooting, you are stuck with whatever the camera creates in the jpeg file. The camera usually does a pretty good job at rendering a viewable image, but not always. If you choose to save the RAW file, all of this metadata is editable, and your computer (which is much more powerful than the camera) can then render the image using the new metadata settings.

As an example, lets suppose the picture is “over exposed” ... the image created by the camera is a little light and washed out. On the computer we can decrease the exposure, so the resulting image file will be normalized. Since the RAW data is strictly linear, moving the exposure like this does not create any problems with color shifts, as long as we didn’t actually clip any pixels (expose them to so much light we surpassed their maximum recording capability so we can no longer distinguish differences in brightness levels). Additionally, this decrease in the exposure is additional metadata for use when the file is rendered ... it doesn’t change any of the actual image data captured by the camera. Another very common example is white balance. Perhaps the camera was fooled and has assigned standard daylight as the white balance. However you know the scene was taken in overcast conditions. You can override the default white balance with a new white balance setting, and apply this new setting when demosaicing the file. In fact, you can manually tweak the white balance, or use a dropper tool to select an object that you know to be neutral in color. As long as you have saved the RAW file, the white balance set by the camera is really irrelevant, because you can always set or adjust it to a correct white balance.

So if we have a RAW file on the computer we can use a RAW processing program to edit the metadata and then render out a new version of the file - in fact that is the very purpose of a RAW processing program, or RAW converter as they are typically called. In the RAW converter we can even add metadata to further improve the file. This metadata editing is extensive ... we can modify exposure, contrast, white balance, brightness, black levels, white levels, saturation. We can create curves, remove noise, and sharpen the image. We can indicate cropping and rotation adjustments to be applied when the viewable image is rendered. With Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw, we can even do many of these things to parts of the images, called local adjustments. All of this information can be used as part of the rendering process, resulting in a higher quality image file when we decide to render it. At this point we can also render out a full 16/bit Tiff file, so our image file can be furthered modified in a pixel editing program such as Photoshop. Because of the high quality and amount of data, this pixel editing will allow us a much higher quality final image file than if we were to do the same steps with an jpeg file made in the camera.

BUT RAW FILES ARE SO BIG, AND ALL OF THAT RAW PROCESSING IS SO SLOW ..

These are the two main complaints normally leveled against shooting in RAW. A RAW file is substantially larger than the compressed jpeg version the camera renders from it. In the past, nearly every RAW file ended up with an equivalent tiff file so you could print it or edit it further, and these are even larger than a RAW file. The necessary storage was expensive. All of that work to render out those RAW files seemed excessive. Things have changed however.

First, the economics of storage has changed dramatically. Multi-gig compact flash cards can be had for under $15 ... I just bought 2 4gig cards at Costco for $25. They’re not the fastest out there, but they are plenty fast enough for even my p65+ back. I know many photographers take enough cards when traveling to never have to reuse one as sort of a backup system ... I have 16 4gig cards for my Italy trip for use just on my 5D Mark2. Terabyte hard drives are now common place and cheap, and even laptops can be upgraded to 500 gigabyte drives for under $200.

Using Lightroom the workflow is exactly the same as when you work with jpeg files or any other image format. The entire RAW process is really transparent to the workflow. For many images you can do all of the modifications in Lightroom with metadata edits, and then output the results to a printer or a jpeg file without ever having to render a tiff file. Most photographers using Lightroom estimate they use Photoshop as much as 90% less than they used to.

BUT ISN’T THIS LIKE USING PHOTOSHOP TO ARTIFICIALLY ENHANCE THE IMAGE?

Many photographers are concerned about the realism of digital photography, and try very hard to not let the abilities of a digital workflow influence their images to an extreme degree. I’ve heard a few express this is why they do not shoot in RAW ... they are going to get it in the camera.

The confusion here is getting it in the camera is sort of like saying “getting it on film”. But then I would ask what type of film, and what are you going to do in the darkroom?

The reality is the camera does not see the world like a human (true with both digital and film cameras). There is no “interpretive” process like our brain, and a RAW file without any metadata will deliver a pretty horrible image. If you leave it up to the camera, you aren’t eliminating metadata or the alterations it will make to try and make the image look like something we would expect to see. Rather you are letting a “computer” and the person who programmed it to make educated guesses via the camera’s firmware decide for you. Nothing special or more natural about that. In fact, it’s probably completely opposite of what you are trying to accomplish. If indeed this is your personal philosophy you are much better off taking control of it yourself.

IMPORTANT POINT TO REMEMBER ...

When you are editing your image in a program like Lightroom or other RAW processor, it is important to understand you are only editing the metadata, not the actual RAW data from the sensor. Yes, you see all of the changes on the screen ... because every time you make a change the program will take the RAW data and the new metadata and render a new preview of the image. But no matter what you do, you never actually modify the image data itself, and you can always revert the image to the original state that came from the camera. When in Lightroom, everything you do to an image is non-destructive, because you are not editing the image itself.

As I mentioned, a few years ago a RAW workflow was pretty time consuming. Many photographers got very good at using the camera settings to manipulate the metadata to get what they wanted when they took the pictures. However, now using a Lightroom workflow, it is actually easier to use a RAW workflow for most applications.

So Lightroom is the nearly perfect marriage of a DAM (digital asset management) program, and a RAW converter. You can keyword, rate, purge and adjust files. You can create collections so related files from various locations can be seen as a group together. Most of the time you find groups of files requiring the same changes and after adjusting one, you can sync any or all of the new settings to a group of files. If you find nearly every image you import needs the same basic changes, you can actually create a preset and apply that when importing. It isn’t long until you fly through the adjustments to your captures after a shoot.

This isn’t really a tutorial about using Lightroom ... my main goal is getting photographers to try Lightroom and a RAW workflow. If you are interested in learning how to use Lightroom more efficiently, there are quite a few good resources. First, you may want to check out the video training available from Luminous Landscape. Two of these have to do with Lightroom ... Luminous Landscape Guide to Lightroom 2 and Luminous Landscape Guide to Asset Management.

Perhaps the best book about using Lightroom is Martin Evening’s book, The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2 Book. Scott Kelby’s book The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Book for Digital Photographers is also a good resource.

There are several sources for video tutorials all over the web. You might want to start with some from Adobe. Lynda.com has several, although they are not free. And if you are a member of NAPP, there are plenty of resources there including a podcast.

At it’s very basic level, Lightroom is not intimidating at all. If you haven’t tried it, download the free 30 day trial. Load it up, and play with it. Some important points ...

1. Lightroom doesn’t organize your image files. You do that within the framework of your own operating systems file structure. What it does do is make it easy to find where they are on your hard drive(s).
2. To use your images in Lightroom, you import them. This doesn’t move them or make new copies of them, it simply creates database records so Lightroom knows where they are on your hard drive and what type of files they are.
3. As you do things to your images remember all you are doing is modifying metatada .. you are providing new instructions for use when rendering a viewable image from your RAW data. You can’t change or damage your original RAW data.
4. If you are working with native RAW files, (such as .CR2 files or .NEF files) the file itself contains the metadata created by the camera at capture. This metadata cannot be modified ... changes you make to the metadata are stored by Lightroom or saved to what is known as a .xmp sidecar file. So the changes you make can override the original metadata, but the file itself can always be completely reverted to it’s original state as captured by the camera. However, other file types, such as .jpg and .DNG files store the metadata in the header of the file, and standard metadata changes are saved there.
5. Even though the heart and soul of Lightroom is a powerful RAW processing engine, you can manage all of your image files with it such as jpegs.
6. Presets are one of Lightrooms most powerful features ... you can create a preset for nearly everything you do so you can apply the same action to other files later on.
7. The history pallet is amazing ... unlike Photoshop, the history is part of Lightrooms database so even when restarting the program you can see every modification you have made to a file in the past, and move backwards to any point you would like.
8. Last, don’t overlook Lightrooms other functions. It’s printing module is really cool, and makes printing things like packages very easy. As an example of the web module, this gallery page was created using only Lightroom and a 3rd party web module plugin ... and Lightroom uploaded it directly to the web server using FTP ... all I did was pick the pictures, make sure my metadata contains titles and descriptions, setup a some options, and click upload.

Lightroom is an outstanding program. You will probably find you need Adobe Photoshop far less often ... most say their time in Photoshop drops as much as 50-90% once they start using Lightroom. Since it is designed to maximize a RAW workflow, if you aren’t shooting RAW but wanting to use Lightroom, I recommend you switch to shooting RAW.

DIGITAL Capture PARADIGMS? ... some things never change

Wed, 27 May 2009 01:26:45 -0600

Since the very beginnings of photography there have been limitations in capture. The earliest photographs required lengthy exposure times and challenging chemical processes. Throughout the evolution of photography improvements in capture have constantly changed the rules - indeed this was always a major goal. Three of the main focuses for improvement from the beginning have been increasing film sensitivity, reducing grain, and expanding dynamic range.

Sound familiar? This has been the evolution of digital capture as well. Increasing pixel count to capture better detail, and improving chip sensitivity while reducing noise to achieve higher ISO’s. One of the benefits of lowering the noise is increased dynamic range, and digital sensors now boast better dynamic range and lower noise(grain) than any film capture, especially at higher ISO’s. Considering “affordable” digital capture is only about a decade old, the advances in all of this has been rapid and more improvements are sure to come. These advances have brought some new methodology to digital capture.

1. ISO can be used as part of every exposure calculation.

I’ve written about this before but it is important enough to mention again. With digital capture high ISO has become a valuable tool, and exposure now is a triangle ... shutter speed, f/stop, and ISO. This is especially true with current dSLR offerings. Using ISO 800 or even 1600 will yield very high quality images ... much higher quality than you could achieve by using 800 or 1600 ISO film (or push processing film to get high ISO). Since you can change the ISO as easily as any other setting without loosing much in quality, using ISO as one of three exposure controls gives you more flexibility in your f/stop and shutter speed choices.

2. Dynamic range allows lower noise and provides increased potential quality from single exposures.

Current sensors have terrific dynamic range, allowing you to shoot in much brighter and higher contrast conditions. Perhaps more important, current digital tools, such as RAW processors, allow you to take images with large dynamic ranges and compress the data so those image actually look good in the limited dynamic range of various outputs, such as printing with an inkjet printer.

So do we need more dynamic range? Sure ... why not. However, for me it isn’t very important.

What hasn’t changed ... and never will ... is photography is still all about the light. When you are outside shooting, it’s pretty easy to see your light source. The question is just because you can use the sun itself does that mean you want to? Probably not. That large patch of open sky with no direct sunlight anywhere is what creates the soft magical light most landscape photographers are looking for (and most portrait photographers as well). So even though I can probably take decently exposed images at 2:00 in the afternoon, the light is much more magical and beautiful just before the sun comes up, or just before or shortly after it dips below the horizon in the evening. Shooting landscapes during this time of day was often attributed to the dynamic range of your film, but it really is about the quality of the light, which just happens to have lower contrast.

It will always be about the light ...

Be careful what you wish for ...

Mon, 4 May 2009 14:49:49 -0600

It seems photographers everywhere are jumping on the bandwagon urging camera makers to end the “megapixel war” and focus on other areas, such as “lower noise” and “more dynamic range” ... especially in the high end dSRL space.

Do we need a 30 or 35mp Canon or Nikon? After all, don’t we have enough resolution?

Good question ... and after considerable pondering (well at least thinking about it a little) my answer is pretty much yes ... we need more. Before calling me crazy, let me explain where I’m coming from.

Admittedly I’m not the most technically savvy person around. But current cameras deliver terrific dynamic range and amazing noise performance. The above image was shot at 1600 ISO with virtually no noise issues using a Canon 5D Mark 2.

What current dSLR cameras do not deliver is absolutely pure resolution - so much resolution that the lens becomes the weak link (which it should be). Sure some lenses can’t match current sensors, but most do just fine. And not that they aren’t terrific (I love my 1DsMark3 and 5DMark2) but the very base technology of current dSLR designs cripple the resolution and though the end results are really good, there is room for improvement.

The basic problem is there is no relationship to the analog image projected onto the sensor and the sensor itself. Thus to show any subtleties in detail requires a substantial amount of over sampling of the information. Compare this to printing - think about how many dots it takes to print a decent image with an inkjet printer ... literally millions of dots per square inch. How smooth or sharp would any detail be if we could only print a few thousand dots per square inch? The same concept applies to capture. There is no correlation to “detail” and pixels, and if we want to reproduce the detail perfectly we have to use a large number of pixels to record small parts of the detail and then put those together. How many “pixels” would it take to really record the detail available on this cactus? A lot more than I had.

Ok ... the next question is always “but do we need it?”. Good question. Just because you don’t need it doesn’t mean I don’t. I like the ability to record maximum detail and even my PhaseOne P45+ disappoints me quite often. I have hundreds of lovely images taken over the last 8 or 9 years most of which fall apart when I try and print them large. Sure I can stand 30 feet away and they look OK, but I’m not buying all of that bull about only photographers looking at things up close. As I’ve mentioned before if the image has something to offer up close ... some beautiful subtle texture or some interesting detail ... people will enjoy looking at it close. There are so many beautiful images out there that are rezzed up to 400% to print a nice large print, and then we get upset because someone wants to see the texture in the flower petals (which isn’t there) and walks up closer. HEY ... don’t they know they’re not supposed to look at it up close?

I’ll agree that not all photographers need resolution. But lets’ be honest ... this is about landscapes. That’s what I love, that’s what I like doing, and that’s what I like writing about.

Currently dSLR’s are crippled in two ways. First, like almost all digital sensors, they use a Bayer sensor. Each pixel doesn’t capture the actual color but captures only one component of the color ... red, green or blue. To arrive at the actual color complicated algorithms use neighboring pixel values to determine each pixels actual color ... in other words very highly educated guesswork. (Pretty amazing actually). So what if each pixel of a 20+ megapixel sensor was actually made up of four “micro pixels” - one “mini” bayer array - and the pixel was determined by just this set of mini pixels. This means each pixel could record exactly the color hitting it - no more demosaicing and figuring out what color each pixel really was. Would this be better than an 80mp Bayer array? Perhaps not, but I do know that occasionally I see artifacts resulting from the demosaicing (that’s the technical term for that highly educated guesswork of figuring out what color each pixel is using surrounding pixel colors, and artifacts are the result of not quite guessing correctly) This wouldn’t happen if each actual pixel represented the color it sees. Another design option is a Foveon type sensor that could actually achieve high pixel density. This sensor is really 3 sensors stacked, and each pixel captures all 3 colors. A 20mp version of this sensor would be better than current 20mp+ dSLR sensors if it could equal it in all other aspects such as noise and ISO.

Another problem with dSLR’s is moire. It occurs when patterns in fine detail closely correspond in spacing to the spacing of sensor sites. One common place where this occurs are fabrics, where the detail of the woven fibers are similar in size to the sensor sites. Demosaicing the file exaggerates moire as it gives it a rainbow appearance. To counter moire dSLR’s are crippled again ... basically we have a soft focus filter in front of the sensor ... the AA filter. I’ve seen some claim certain cameras have AA filters that are “too strong”, but in reality the AA filter is engineered precisely based on the chip itself. I don’t know if you can make a “weaker” one (I don’t believe so because as I said they are precisely engineered based on the sensor sites size and density) ... but I have read in several places now that if the pixel density becomes tight enough you no longer need an AA filter. Kodak actually thought they had achieved this when they introduced their DCS 14n camera which didn’t have an AA filter, but as it turns out 14mp isn’t enough ... not nearly enough.

We may be getting close now and indeed for landscape photographers we could probably eliminate the AA filter in the current 20+mp dSLR’s now available. Modified 5D’s with part of the AA filter removed performed very well, and at 30 to 35 mp on a full frame dSLR, the AA filter may no longer be needed ... at least for most types of photography. This would yield a substantial increase in resolution. Perhaps not the technical limit, but perhaps a practical limit.

When shooting landscapes, it’s pretty difficult to know before hand how good the image is going to be let alone how large I may want to make it, but I do have a goal of achieving a great image which also contains amazing detail and looks fantastic when printed very large. As I mentioned, dozens of my favorite images fall apart if I print any larger than 16x20 (which to me is quite small), and some don’t even look good at that size. Things are much better now with current cameras, but there is still room to improve.

OK, now you can call me crazy. :)