A couple of the blogs I follow noted that by the end of 2010, Kodachrome film will no longer be developed. I'm one of those new photographers who never learned film photography and started with digital. So I didn't fully appreciate the significance of the extinction of Kodachrome. But through serendipitous convergence of events, I'm slowly getting an idea of what I'm missing.
....
Recently, Rachel Devine posted on her blog about old film scans that she had found ( http://www.racheldevine.com/blog/2010/12/28/old-film-scans/ ). The photos had beautiful colors and tonality. But what was REALLY interesting to me is that I was looking at them on my crappy office LCD monitor (I'm on break :) ), and the photos still looked great. By contrast, on this same monitor, most images (including mine) look like crap -- over-saturated, way too contrasty, harshly clipped highlights and blocked shadows, virtually zero shadow detail, no subtlety whatsoever. And no amount of tweaking of settings could remedy the terrible image quality. (BTW, those photos look fine on my laptop at home or my Blackberry.)
I said "most" images. Because sometime ago, I noticed that a few photos looked perfectly fine on our crappy office monitor, such as those of Matthew Priestley ( http://www.flickr.com/people/junglebuttons/ ). The fact that Matt's photos looked great on our office monitor was very puzzling to me, but I eventually ignored it as a fluke.
Now that I've seen Rachel Devine's slide photos, I'm beginning to think that there's something for me to learn here about tonality. Of course I don't care about how images look on our P.O.S. office monitor, but the photos that do look great on our office monitor are, probably not so coincidentally, photos with tonality that I liked. So, in a funny way, perhaps I have to learn to see images the way our office monitors do.
What does this have to do with film? You may know that I recently started using Lightroom, and in the process I learned about raw files, linearity, and gamma correction. I'm still trying to figure it all out but in the course of my research, I read that human eyes are nonlinear (logarithmic?) while digital is linear, and what I didn't know was that film is also nonlinear, just like our eyes http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf .
I'm hypothesizing (perhaps naively) that if I shoot film under the right conditions, I will get the kind of tonality I like, without having to mess with arcane postprocessing, and I'm predicting it will look ok on our office monitor. My second and ultimate objective is to learn to reproduce that tonality on digital.
So, in the next month, I plan to do some experiments with film photography (perhaps by renting a Nikon F6 and comparing its results with my D300). I'm also curious about scanning film -- perhaps I may be able to integrate film into my tools. Meanwhile, I've already found a resource for the second part of my quest: Michael Gray's site http://www.lifeindigitalfilm.com/ .
One of our readers, mshafik, is a very passionate advocate of Neil van Niekerk's bounce flash techniques. In this guest post, he goes through the process of how to balance ambient with bounce flash, combining manual exposure with TTL flash.
***
Hello everyone, this is my second guest post on this blog (thanks to Mic), if you haven’t seen the first one, you can find it here.
If you have read my first post then you know that I am fascinated by the use of on camera bounce flash, I actually believe it is the best invention after bread. I was introduced to this type of lighting by Neil Van Niekerk on his excellent Tangents blog (which has been recently indexed).
This post will be a quick example on the procedure I go through when setting my camera to use bounce flash, if you don’t know about bounce flash and balancing the ambient and flash, I would really recommend you to read Neil’s Tangents blog. I will assume that the reader is familiar with these techniques.
I had a recent revelation with my Canon system; I have always thought that using the manual mode on the camera meant that my flash had to be on manual as well. I was wrong, and I’m happy for that, I discovered that I can use my camera on manual mode with the flash on ETTL, and no matter what my exposure settings are the flash will try and expose correctly for my subject.
When I usually take any shot, I try to go for the lowest ISO possible to decrease the noise as much as possible (I am a pixel peeper by the way, and never print any pictures), so by considering this I started out with ISO 200. In the shot below, we were at night with some lamp posts and a pool in the background and I wanted these to be visible. I was using the 50mm f/1.8 II lens, and I am only comfortable at f/2.2 or smaller, I rarely use larger apertures due to focusing errors and I need some depth of field to get my subjects in focus. So I started with f/2.8 which will give me enough DoF. Finally for the shutter speed; using the 1/ (crop factor x focal length rule) I should have used 1/ (1.6x50) = 1/80 s, but I am comfortable shooting my 50mm at 1/60 without motion blur, so this where the shutter speed came from. I know the flash would have frozen the motion of my subjects, but I didn’t want any motion blur whatsoever.
I knew I had to increase the exposure by at least two stops to get something remotely visible, and since I wasn’t ready to sacrifice the aperture yet or the shutter speed, I bumped up the ISO to 800.
An important note here, never ever use your camera’s LCD for judging the exposure, in most cameras the LCD will show you a bright and overly saturated colorful image which doesn’t reflect your real exposure, use the histogram, it is accurate and will tell you lots of things the LCD doesn’t.
Better looking but not there yet, time to open up the aperture a bit. I went for f/2.2 which I consider is safe enough, two thirds of a stop increase in exposure.
Now the grass looks better, so for the final adjustment I increased the ISO to 1600 (practically noiseless at web viewing sizes) and closed the aperture one third of a stop, thus effectively increasing the exposure above the last image by two thirds of a stop.
That’s it, if you look at the EXIF for the above images, you will find that the time taken between the first image and the last one is just 25 seconds!
Now that I had the background I wanted; it was time to expose for my subjects, this is the easy part, I had a huge glass panel behind my back so I pointed my on camera flash over my right shoulder (effectively creating a light source on the top left of my subjects) and put the flash in ETTL mode. From experience; I know that my flash usually requires +2/3 or +1 flash exposure compensation, so I had that set from the beginning. And these are the resulting pictures.
They’re not particularly great shots, but I think it is a good example of the thought process, and as Neil demonstrated in his “Give me the f-stop” tutorial, the exact shutter speed & aperture settings are not the important part, it’s the thought process that results in a certain exposure.
If you consider normal options for taking this type of shot (without using off camera lighting which equals more heavy equipment to lug around) you’d either have to resort to extremely low shutter speeds (= blur), extremely high ISO (= noise) or direct flash which will most probably look bad and will not expose for the background.
If I had a point and shoot I would have opted for something called “slow sync” mode in which the camera uses a slow shutter speed to expose for the background and direct flash to expose for your subjects given that they stay still long enough.
I hope that was of any benefit to you, and please use the comments if you have any questions.
This is a review of the Opteka TacShot TS-1 Ballhead from the point of view of a family photographer who takes mostly photos of people. Here's the lowdown: this $29 ballhead is not completely immune from stability issues (surprise!) but it's darn good and I would argue good enough for 99.99% of family photographers out there.
APOLOGIA; A FAMILY PHOTOGRAPHER'S NEEDS
Many experienced photographers will sigh with pity or snicker with derision if you say that your tripod budget is less than $100. I suppose there's a good reason for that. For anyone who uses a tripod often and who wants the ultimate in sharpness and precision in composition, the best advice in the long run is to buy the good stuff off the bat. Here's my favorite article on tripods, by Thom Hogan: http://www.bythom.com/support.htm
As Thom said, the best stuff costs about $1000 in total and anything less than that will fail in some non-negligible way (roughly in inverse proportion to your tripod budget). Thus, for many photographers, it makes sense to spend that much on a tripod setup -- astro, landscape, travel, and macro photographers come to mind. Otherwise you will eventually spend much more than that due to the newbie tax.
As for me, I'm a family photographer. I usually take photos of my family in spontaneous and candid situations. By necessity, I almost always shoot handheld. For sharpness, I rely on a high shutter speed, image stabilization, and/or freezing the subject with flash. (Indeed, sharpness isn't even as important to my intended audience as much as capturing precious expressions, good lighting, etc.)
With respect to composition, mine is usually not precise at the point of capture as I chase my kid around, and I often crop in postprocessing. Using a tripod is just not feasible most of the time, and I would argue that it may even do more harm than good if it "kills the moment."
Because I don't use tripods very often, and when I do, it's rarely for long exposures, the ideal tripod is helpful for me but has lower priority than other things like a backup body, a pro-grade lens, software, or a second or even third flash. My photo budget is not unlimited after all.
Recognizing that anything less than the best stuff will have defects, does that mean I should just not buy a tripod at all? (Maybe I should just not bother to take photographs unless I have the budget of a pro photographer?) Of course not. A tripod is still useful for me - for family portraits for example. On the other hand, does it mean I should just buy a consumer-grade tripod? That wouldn't be wise either. I have bought dirt cheap tripods -- initially out of ignorance and later out of convenience (I left my tripod at home and I needed one at the moment), and in retrospect I could have gotten better quality and saved money if I bought a better tripod to begin with:
- Vanguard Tourist 5 (around $20): Set up very quickly, was very compact, and came with a nice case, but legs weren't stable (could collapse even after being locked). A leg brace later broke after the tripod was knocked over (camera was saved). Due to its light weight, I still use it as a 'monopod' for off-camera flash. :)
- generic tripod (bought in Thailand, around $10): the knob for tightening the horizontal pan was falling off from time to time and eventually got lost.
- generic tripod (bought from Amazon, around $10): neither landscape nor portrait orientation is level (even without a camera mounted); prone to falling over in portrait orientation when I'm using an on-camera flash; knob for flipping to portrait orientation sometimes falls off (hasn't got lost yet though :) ).
Fortunately, I have found products for photographers (family or otherwise) who want something definitely better than consumer-grade, but don't have the budget for pro-grade or even prosumer grade. Let's call it "near-prosumer" grade. The products at this level cost noticeably more than consumer-grade, but still significantly less than prosumer-grade, while at the same time sharing many of the characteristics and functions of prosumer products.
In a previous post, I wrote about the Targus/Merkury Innovations TG-P60T, which I believe falls in the near-prosumer category. Here, I'm reviewing another tripod product that I think also fits that category: the Opteka Tacshot TS-1 Ball Head.
BACKGROUND
When I got the Targus Black Label Kit from Costco, it came with a tripod (the TG-P60T) and to my surprise, the tripod was modular (the head was a separate component from the legs, like a professional tripod). Although the panhead it came with was ok, it made me curious about getting a higher quality tripod head, which I never considered before because the total cost of a head and tripod legs was too high for me.
As I did a bit of research, I found out about some of the advantages of a ballhead over a panhead, and I thought that the speed of positioning the camera was more important for my kind of photography than the precision of a panhead. I looked into ballheads and was initially considering the Induro SA-0 and the seemingly identical Benro BH00 but both gradually rose in price over a span of just a few days. It made me consider getting the Manfrotto 322RC2 joystick ballhead instead (currently $115 at Amazon).
While I was looking for good deals for the 322RC2, I came across the Opteka TacShot TS-1 (currently $29 at Amazon), which seemed to offer similar functions to the 322RC2. I thought that products in this price range could not possibly have the same quality as that of name brand products like Manfrotto. However, because of Amazon's reasonable return policy, I decided I to give the TS-1 a shot anyway. Less than 48 hours after ordering it, it was here! (Did I mention I love Amazon Prime? :D )
STURDINESS:
The ball and the base are both made of aluminum. The rest of the TS-1 is made mostly of polycarbonate, contrary to one of the reviews on Amazon which said that the TS-1 has an all-metal construction. I can understand why that reviewer made a mistake because the polycarbonate appears to be a very dense and rigid type and can conceivably be mistaken for textured metal. It looks very solid. Not that I would recommend doing this, but it can probably survive use as a hammer (with some heavy scuffing).
Note though that I've only had the TS-1 for a day, and the TG-P60T for less than a couple of weeks, so I have no assurance that they are as durable as they appear but I would be very surprised if they did not last me at least a few years.
Perhaps as a consequence of being very solidly built, the TS-1 is a bit heavy - weighing 425g (0.937 lbs), heavy enough that you ought to factor it into the total weight of your gear when choosing tripod legs if you don't have a tripod yet.
ATTACHING THE TS-1:
The TS-1 has a 3/8-16 female mount and I had no problems attaching it to the tripod legs of the TG-P60T.
The TS-1 also comes with a bushing to convert the 3/8-16 to a 1/4-20, which would allow the TS-1 to be mounted on virtually any tripod (even one that doesn't have a separate head). However, if you plan to use the TS-1 on top of another tripod head, be sure that the total weight is within the limits of your tripod. The combined assembly may also become top-heavy and unstable.
Like most tripod heads, the TS-1 has a quick release plate. The bottom of the quick release plate has a small handle to facilitate screwing the plate onto the camera. The top of the quick release plate is made of a rubbery foam material to help prevent the camera from moving once attached. The TS-1's quick release plate is octagonal in shape and is not compatible with the de facto standard Arca-Swiss type plate. If you need additional quick release plates for backup cameras or other gear, be aware that I have yet to find one available for sale by itself.
Here is a comparison between the TS-1's plate (on the left) versus the common Arca-Swiss type plate.
FUNCTIONS:
The TS-1 can be adjusted and positioned in 3 ways:
The normal ballhead movement, including portrait orientation. The maximum tilt is about 45 degrees, except for one side that has a groove to allow complete tilting to portrait orientation. As expected, you squeeze the pistol grip to allow movement, then release the grip to fix the position. The effort needed to squeeze the trigger seems just right - not too stiff or too loose. There appears to be little or no tension control in the movement. Either it moves completely freely or it doesn't move.
The quick release plate mount can be rotated for horizontal-only movement. The rotation feels fluid-damped. To allow rotation, a lever has to be flipped. It takes quite a bit of effort to flip the lever.
The part of the TS-1 to which the pistol grip is attached can be rotated to change the position of the grip relative to the ball-and-socket and the groove for tilting to portrait orientation. This is useful, among other things, for changing the handedness of the TS-1.
Below is a link to a video I uploaded to show the possible movements with the TS-1:
In Part 2 of this review, I will post stability tests, specifically sag and creep.
As I was doing research on tripods, I learned more about the advantages of ballheads. I was thinking of getting a ballhead, either the Induro SA-1 or the Benro BH00, but the cost kept creeping up for some unknown reason. Meanwhile the cost of the Manfrotto 322RC2 joystick ballhead -- the ballhead that I really wanted -- was declining. I was almost going to pull the trigger as it were on the 322RC2 but thought I would try the Opteka TS-1, which offered similar functionality at a fraction of the cost. The Amazon reviews are encouraging, but I'm still skeptical. I ordered it anyway -- I figure I can try to return it if it doesn't meet my needs. I'll post a review when I get it in a few days.
A few weeks ago, Topaz Labs released version 3 of ReMask, their extraction software. I watched the demo video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zrDGQdLCTA ) and downloaded a trial version.
I liked it well enough that I decided to get the plugin. The normal price is $69.99, but it's temporarily available for $49.99 until 1/1/11.
The sample shot above was done through ReMask 3 (in addition to compositing our son's face from another shot). The original shot is here:
Lighting was courtesy of an SB-800 in TTL mode firing with a 43" reflective softbrella via an SC-29 TTL cord. There's also some fill from the light bouncing from the white blanket that we were sitting on. I also tried to add a rim light (with the YN-560) but it isn't very visible in this shot.
Anyway, this isn't a terribly difficult extraction, but what I liked about Remask compared to the built-in extraction tools of Corel Paintshop Photo Pro X3 and Photoshop Elements 9 is Remask's intuitive interface and its ability to extract translucent objects (like wedding veils).
I suggest checking out the demo video to see what it's about. If you're interested in it, consider the entire bundle (use Neil van Niekerk's referral code "planetneil" to get 15% off). I was not that impressed with the other components of the bundle, so I just got Remask by itself. To get $20 off Remask, use the code "supermask."
That said, some people (like me) just don't use tripods very often. For me, I do recognize that real tripods are vastly superior to cheap tripods but I would rather spend $200 or 300 on something else (SB-600, SB-700, software, save toward lens, etc.) before I spend it on a tripod. But I still need a tripod for family portraits and such. So, I got a cheap consumer-grade tripod. Most recently, I got the Targus TG-P60T (as part of the Targus Black Label kit - blogged here: http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2010/12/camera-bag-and-tripod-targus-black.html ).
One of the issues with cheap tripods is that they have a hard time holding a portrait orientation. If you frame the photo in portrait orientation, the camera usually sags a bit after you let go, altering your composition. Worse still, the quick release plate usually creeps and the camera slowly tilts downward, especially with a heavy lens.
Here's a workaround that *might* mitigate the quick release plate issue: mount the camera in reverse.
For most tripods, when the camera is flipped to portrait orientation, the shutter release side is facing toward the ceiling/sky. When the camera creeps downward, it applies a counter-clockwise force on the quick release plate - which effectively loosens the plate further, making the problem worse. Fortunately, most quick release plates allow the camera to be mounted in at least 2 directions. If the camera is mounted facing "backward" (with the shutter release side toward the ground instead of away from it), then the camera may still creep down, but the more it creeps, the tighter the quick release plate will get.
Note: one issue with this tip is that the tilt handle for the panhead will face forward (unless it's reversible like that of the TG-P60T) and MAY become visible in the shot if you have a very wide lens and a long handle.
12/26/10 update: pictures now posted!
1/10/11 update: link to real world shots
1/11/11 update: RIPPED SEAM!!!
Costco is selling a camera bag and tripod kit for $48.99 (Targus Black Label Professional DSLR Essential Kit) and I think it's a very good value (unfortunately the bag is not as sturdy as I thought, so this deal is not as good as I initially thought).
The kit includes the following items:
- sling bag
- 60" tripod
- LCD cleaning liquid and cloth (I think the model number is TGK-LCDK)
- 58mm UV filter
SLING BAG
I originally got the kit because of the sling bag. It is a modified version of the Targus TGC-SBM200 ($49.99 MSRP; $32.99 at Amazon) and it seems it's not available elsewhere (the tag label is "TGC-SBM200 Bulk" and seems to be a Costco-specific version of the bag).
I already have a couple of decent camera bags (the Kata KT DR465 backpack and a Case Logic holster-type camera bag) but this sling bag fills a niche of not being too small or too big. Functionally, it is similar to the Lowepro Slingshot 102 AW (MSRP $89.99, $69.95 at Amazon) or 202 AW (MSRP $109.95, available at Amazon for $89.95). Like other slingbags, it is designed to allow easily switching from carrying a camera to shooting with it.
What I really like about this sling bag is that it includes a tripod harness, consisting of a strap and a hideaway foot holder, as shown in the picture. As far as I can tell, the tripod harness is unique to this version of the SBM200 (pictures of the normal SBM200 don't show a tripod harness).
The tripod harness is not perfect -- while the Slingshot 102 and 202 have their tripod harnesses on the side of the bag, this one is at the front of the bag, which allows taking the camera out but otherwise blocks the main compartment from being opened. A tripod or monopod has to be about a foot and a half long or else it will be too short for the harness. Nonetheless, I find the tripod harness very useful.
This bag can fit what I use 90+% of the time. The interior configuration of the main compartment is similar to the Slingshot 202 and has configurable pads. I managed to fit a Nikon D300, 2 lenses (Sigma 50-150, and Tamron 17-50 VC), an SB-800 flash, a camcorder (which I placed on the second compartment), and a bunch of accessories - remote triggers, memory cards, etc., and of course, the tripod. I was also able to fit my handheld umbrella in the tripod bag.
Main compartment shown (some dividers removed). Sigma 50-150 on the left, SB-800 on the right. Note: if I mount the Sigma 50-150 on the D300, there's just enough space to fit the camera in the empty slot shown. The 17-50 VC can then fit horizontally or vertically in the side divider.
Second compartment (Canon HG10 camcorder shown; tethered microfiber cloth shown on right side inside the mesh):
Pocket outside main compartment - designed to accommodate memory cards, though I use it to keep the RC-7 remote triggers:
Compared to my backpack, the only things I could not fit were a second flash (unless I left behind one of the lenses or flash or camcorder), a foldable reflector, and the charger for the camera and camcorder.
I plan to use this as my everyday bag unless I prefer portability (in which case I'll use my holster bag) or I'm traveling (in which case the backpack is better - because it has additional space for all the adapters and chargers).
Sling bag update:
On the plus side, I've found that the bag can fit two bodies with lenses attached, plus two flashes (barely) in the top compartment.
A D70 with Sigma 50-150 shown on the right. A D300 with Tamron 17-50 VC fits on the left side. The top compartment accommodates the YN560 and SB800 side by side. In this configuration I have access to either camera without compromising the sling function. I can also use my go-to flash, the SB800, whenever I want. The YN560 is covered by the SB800 but that's ok -- I don't use it very often, and when I do, I usually use it together with the SB-800.
Notwithstanding the usefulness of this bag, it is unfortunately not sturdy enough to withstand normal use. Just a month after getting it, the main strap now has a ripped seam! Unbelievable...! In contrast, neither of my other bags (Kata 467, case logic holster bag) have suffered any rips in the past couple of years I've had them.
If you take a closer look at the shot, you can see that there is actually an inner strap, and "only" the outer shell that holds the padding was damaged (for now). Nonetheless, it makes me think that this bag was poorly made.
This is not a professional tripod like the ones offered by Gitzo or Manfrotto. That said, I have bought several cheap tripods before (sometimes I buy one when I'm on a trip and I don't have a tripod with me at the moment), and while it's not saying much, this is the best quality tripod I have to date.
I'm really quite impressed with the features they were able to include in this "cheap" tripod:
- Amazingly, the tripod has a modular design. Just like "real" tripods, the head is separate from the tripod legs. I've never owned a real tripod, so I can't confirm whether heads or tripod legs from other brands are interchangeable with those of this unit, but they seem to be. I've since found out that the mount is a 3/8 inch mount, and that a 3/8 inch size is used for many heads by manufacturers such as Manfrotto, Benro, Induro. I would expect that most tripod heads can be used with this tripod, though I don't have any heads to test.
- Many of the other components are also modular. For example, the handle on the panhead can be reversed for either left- or right-handed configuration.
- Includes a hook, which is useful for stabilizing the tripod AND having a place to put the sling bag. The maximum weight for the tripod is listed in the box as 5 lbs., which if literally true, would mean there's probably no way to add a weight in addition to the camera and lens. However, it seems to me that it can hold more than that.
- The legs are independently adjustable (3 positions) and are braceless, and can be used to adapt to uneven terrain.
- The center column is square, not round, reducing the possibility of column rotation.
- The center column is removable. With some tinkering, the tripod can be used for shooting from a very low height. The bottom part of the center column (which holds the hook) can be separated from the center column to act as a very short center column. In this configuration, the height of the tripod is about 6 inches (though it would require a 2-foot radius around it). Alternatively, the hook can be removed and the panhead mounted upside down to shoot from a very low shooting height upside down.
Hook unscrewed:
The part of the center column that holds the hook can be removed to act as a very short center column:
Lowest shooting height in upright position:
- Comes with a tripod bag. I can use it in conjunction with the strap to carry my handheld umbrella kit instead.
- The lever for releasing the quick release adapter stays open until you re-insert the quick release adapter.
Notwithstanding the features, it isn't professional quality because it does twist and flex if you press or push hard enough. It also uses a panhead instead of a ball head, and the head is mostly plastic. In terms of build quality, it's not that great -- for example, I can see bits of spilled glue here and there, and some of the gaps are not perfectly even, but it seems serviceable.
In my non-demanding applications, the tripod performs adequately. By non-demanding I mean:
- My camera + lens + flash combination is not so heavy. The heaviest I get is D300 (no battery pack) + SB-800 + Sigma 50-150 + remote shutter. Total weight is a bit over 4.5 lbs.
- My longest lens -- the Sigma 50-150 is not very long (5.5 inches).
- I almost always shoot on stable, even surfaces like floors.
- I rarely do long exposures, or shoot on rough terrain, or shoot with lots of vibration or wind in the environment.
- I rarely take shots from unusual angles when using a tripod.
I took a 15 second exposure in both landscape and portrait orientation in ideal conditions (extending just 3 of the 4 leg sections, taking the shot indoors at night, when all through the house not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse) and the shot had no noticeable blur.
Note: for the portrait shot, I got the benefit of reverse mounting.
Although it's not perfect, I would still rather get this tripod for the incremental additional cost of around $15 compared to getting a Targus SBM200 by itself, to say nothing about the very useful tripod harness. I seriously doubt you can buy a better tripod for $15 or even $45.
BOTTOM LINE
This is the best deal for a camera bag and tripod that I'm aware of for casual or amateur photographers. If you have the budget for the premium products, then more power to you -- buying the best you can afford is usually ideal in the long run. For the rest of us who are still saving up for pro-level equipment :), this combination provides most of the functionality offered by premium products that cost several times more than this combination. Note: at many Costco locations near me, it's out of stock, but you can ask the manager at any branch to find the nearest Costco that has it in stock.
(OK, technically this is not a DSLR because it's part of the new generation of interchangeable-lens cameras that don't use mirrors.)
At this price, the G10 costs less than high end point-and-shoots such as the Canon G11 and Nikon P7000, and is on par with the cost of a Canon S90 or S95. The price is low enough that buying this kit does not necessarily require a commitment to the Micro 4/3 system. Pricewise, it's a viable alternative to a bridge camera or high-end point-and-shoot.
COMPARED TO POINT AND SHOOT CAMERAS:
- The G10 is by no means as portable as a pocket digital camera but it's smaller than the average interchangeable-lens camera.
- The image quality would be significantly better than that of a point-and-shoot due to the larger sensor.
- Like point-and-shoots, the G10 has live view, which is great for casual photographers who are more accustomed to looking at the LCD than using a viewfinder.
- It also records video (720p).
- The 14-42 would be equivalent to 28-84mm on 35mm, a fairly useful zoom range that can cover moderate wide angle to short telephoto. The lens has OIS (Panasonic's optical stabilization system).
Our 4-year old Casio EX-V7 point-and-shoot is starting to act weird. Maybe I can get this as a replacement if the "budget committee" approves. :)
Before using Lightroom 3, I had some sort of organization to the folder structure for my images. Essentially, I had created separate folders for each month of family photos. Lightroom 3 can do better than that - it can create automatically create subfolders for each year, and within that, each month, and within that, each date. Moreover, during the import process, LR3 can rename the files with a date or other prefix (which I think is important to avoid having files with duplicate names).
At the time I created my LR catalog, I knew that I wanted LR to create the chronological subfolders but I didn't know how to make it happen. If all my files had been in one folder, then there would have been no issue. But because I had already created folders for each month, LR would have created subfolders within each of those month folders, which would have been redundant and confusing.
Here's how I let LR reorganize my folders:
1. Before doing any of this, I made sure any metadata was saved from the catalog into the files. Lightroom doesn't automatically keep the metadata in the files updated (for performance). In my case I hadn't used LR before so there was no LR metadata to speak of for most of my photos.
2. In the Library module, I selected the folders to be reorganized. I selected all the pictures in those folders (including subdirectories) then removed them from the catalog (not deleted them from the drive). This step is necessary because LR won't import any photo that is already within its existing database. I did this in small batches for safety. Note: if you select a large number of photos, LR won't respond immediately - just give it time.
3. After the images have been removed from the catalog, go to import and re-import them (I chose "Move" to a newly-created folder), specifying that the files should be renamed and the chronological subdirectories should be created. Reminder: don't rename files that have already been renamed :)
I'm a Lightroom newbie and I don't know if this is the best way to go about it but I haven't found instructions for doing the same thing elsewhere and this process worked for me.
Lightroom 3 has Lens Correction Profiles that correct for distortion, chromatic aberration and vignetting based on your lens model. Almost all of the profiles are for raw images only. For JPEG images, there are only a handful of profiles. However, I found out that you can convert the Lens Correction Profile for a raw file into one for a JPEG file.
The shot above was taken with the Tamron 17-50 VC for Nikon, an otherwise good lens that unfortunately suffers from noticeable distortion. I wasn't paying enough attention when I took the shot and had captured the image in JPEG instead of raw. Lightroom has a profile for the Tamron 17-50 VC for Nikon but only for raw images. I converted the raw profile into a JPEG profile and was able to apply it to correct the image. Hopefully the mouseover works on your browser (it does on my Firefox browser...):
How to convert a raw lens profile into a JPEG lens profile:
Steps:
1. Find the lens profile to be converted. By default, this is C:\ProgramData\Adobe\CameraRaw\LensProfiles\1.0 and the specific subdirectory for the lens brand and camera version. For my lens it was in the Tamron subdirectory, and Nikon sub-subdirectory.
2. Open the .lcp file using any text editor (such as Notepad) and immediately save it as a new file (be sure to keep the .lcp extension). Out of caution, I first saved the new file into the desktop. I renamed the file to specify it is for JPEG, to help me differentiate it from the original lens profile.
3. Use Find and Replace to replace all tags like this
<stCamera:CameraRawProfile>True</stCamera:CameraRawProfile>
and replace it with this
<stCamera:CameraRawProfile>False</stCamera:CameraRawProfile>
Note: I used Replace All to replace the tags throughout the file.
4. Save the new file back into the correct subdirectory.
5. Restart or launch Lightroom 3. You should now find the new profile.
Disclaimers: a lens profile made for raw images won't work perfectly with a JPEG image. However, as shown by the demo images above, it certainly helps a lot, particularly with distortion. As mentioned in the forum thread I referenced, the vignetting correction may be excessive (in my case it wasn't). If so, reduce the correction and save the corrected profile as the new default.
I'm still in the process of adjusting to Lightroom 3. Eventually, I would like to write a simplified guide for anyone who's moving to Lightroom. Meanwhile I thought I'd write about my migration experiences so far, with the hope that other family photogs can learn from what I did right and wrong:
1. Being new to Lightroom, I decided I needed to buy a book. My hope was that it would save me time in finding the right approach. I was choosing between Scott Kelby, Martin Evening and Nat Coalson. From reviews I read, they each have different approaches. Supposedly:
...Scott Kelby shows you what to do but doesn't spend much time about the reasons for doing things a certain way.
...Martin Evening's book is more of a reference book.
...Nat Coalson's book is structured as a hands-on tutorial.
I chose Nat Coalson's book. I'll put up a review when I'm done with it. So far it's not perfect but it's ok.
2. The first step in moving to Lightroom is to create a catalog. Importing photos itself is fairly easy but I learned from Nat's book that I first had to make sure the directories with my files were properly organized. I can attest to the wisdom of his advice because one of my folders was not correctly organized before I created my catalog and although I was later able to move it to the right place, it took more time to do so than if I had moved it to the correct location before creating my catalog.
About the reorganization: previously, my directories had been roughly arranged by projects and for family photos, by month. All the directories were occupying the same level in a flat hierarchy (e.g. blog, coworker1, coworker2, childmonth1, childmonth2, etc.). Rather than have all directories on the same level, I reorganized my files so that the first level was divided by "client": e.g. blog, coworker1, coworker2, familypics (which contained all the subfolders for different months of family pictures, etc.). My rationale was that this kind of organization is something that can be used if in the future I decide to go pro or semi-pro.
Within each folder, I thought the order should be chronological. Especially with family photos, I think a chronological order helps mark the passage of time and makes it easier to show how our kids grow up. Lightroom can automatically create chronological subfolders (by year, month and/or date), and I'm letting LR do that when I import my photos (year, with month subdirectories, with date sub-subdirectories). Having multiple levels doesn't make browsing too difficult because LR can show photos of subdirectories as well. If I select the 2010-12 folder (December 2010) for example, LR can also display the contents of the different date folders within it.
*Tip from Nat's book: when importing do not check "Do not import suspected duplicates." You don't want to rely on LR to determine whether a photo is a duplicate.
My current dilemma is how to change my existing month-based folders into LR's chronological subfolders automatically. I think the way to do it is to "move" my old photos within the familypics folder into the same folder, letting LR create the chronological subfolders. I haven't done it yet though because I want to make sure the approach will work without messing up my files.
Another issue I had to deal with is the location of my files. Previously, I imported photos from my camera to my local hard drive, edited them, then moved them to my network drive (which has much larger capacity, and is accessible to any computer at our house). Nat's book strongly recommended having a backup system and halfway through my reorganization I decided he was right. I decided the network drive would be my backup and my working drive would be a local USB drive connected to my laptop. I had already created part of my catalog with my files in the network drive and didn't want to take forever to move my folders within Lightroom. My solution was to move the files into my USB drive outside of Lightroom, and when LR gave me an error message about missing files, I pointed to the new location in the USB drive. Sounds like a risky way to do it but it worked for me.
3. File format: raw, DNG, or what?
Lightroom is a nondestructive raw editor. It doesn't touch your raw file. Instead, when you make edits, it stores the edits as separate instructions about how to process your raw file. Along with other info such as EXIF and IPTC information they constitute metadata. The metadata are stored in a separate "sidecar" XMP file that are read by LR along with the raw file. The problem with this approach is that if the raw file and the XMP file for that file are separated or mixed up, the edits are lost.
Meanwhile, Adobe created its own raw file format that was open and brand-neutral called DNG (Digital Negative). DNG files contain both the raw file and the metadata -- they don't need a sidecar file. With only one file per photo, it was not vulnerable to losing metadata. DNG files also are supposedly 20% smaller than raw files without losing any information. It is also possible to embed the original raw file within the DNG file. Another advantage is that JPEGs can be saved as a DNG to allow nondestructive JPEG editing. Finally, because DNG is an open format, it is more likely than proprietary raw formats to be readable years from now.
Because of the advantages of DNG, I started converting my raw files (in Nikon's NEF format) to DNG going forward. However, I found that there are a few problems with this: first, once converted to DNG, the file can no longer be opened in View NX or Capture NX. That leads to a couple of side effects: 1. it seems that Nikon's metadata such as CLS information are lost; 2. I lose the ability to use View NX to convert raw files into JPEGs. On that second point, the JPEGs created by View NX and Capture NX still look noticeably better to my eyes than the JPEGs generated by LR. My postprocessing skills haven't gotten to the point where I can recreate the Nikon appearance, and I haven't found a Lightroom preset that reproduces the Nikon look to my satisfaction. Lastly, some non-Adobe products are not fully compatible with DNG. For example, Corel Paintshop Photo Pro X3 can open DNG but to my knowledge, can't save a file as DNG.
Now I'm thinking of using raw+JPEG. My idea is that for photos that don't need serious editing, I can just use the JPEG and even take advantage of the nicer-looking JPEGs from Nikon. For photos that require more editing, I can use the raw version. In this regard, LR has an option to treat JPEGs accompanying raw files as separate photos. I haven't tried a raw+JPEG workflow yet though and Nat's book doesn't seem to address the issue (but I could be wrong -- I'm not done reading his book yet).
4. Revising my workflow
My workflow has definitely become much faster thanks to Lightroom. The first part of my workflow now looks like this:
- Import photos to my USB drive by converting them to DNG and renaming the files. Renaming the files (with the date as a prefix) avoids duplicate file names (some of my images from different cameras have the same file names - a recipe for disaster). I let LR create new chronolical folders and subfolders by year, month and date.
- I assign keywords to the photos. In Lightroom, it's easy to select a large group of photos and label them all with keywords. I use simple keywords such as, "Disneyland" and names of people in the photos. I don't go all-out and put in every conceivable keyword. I just put a few keywords -- better than nothing in my view. I plan to experiment with using Picasa's face recognition to tag faces automatically (Picasa's face recognition is not perfect but works fairly well).
- I sort through my photos and rate them. In the Library module, I use survey mode. Looking at the filmstrip on the bottom of the screen, I select photos from the same series (i.e., same subject and same point of view), then narrow the choices by removing the rejected photos from the survey view (click on "X"). In choosing the photos, I try to visualize the "best" version of the photo (cropped, tones adjusted, etc.) rather than what it currently looks like. When I'm down to just the photo I like best in a series, I rate it with one star. I move to the next series until I've found all the 1-star rated photos.
- I view the 1-star photos (using the filter) and find the 2-star photos. I repeat as needed until I have a reasonable number of photos.
- I edit the 'final' group of photos in Develop. I don't have any info for this step because I'm still learning about LR's editing capabilities, and how I can integrate PSE9 and PSP X3 into my workflow.
I'll continue to update this post until it becomes a simple guide to migrating to Lightroom.
Amazon.com is now selling the Nikon SB-700 flash ($339 at the time of this writing, with free shipping). It seems this is *not* a pre-sale (no disclaimers about pre-sales).
If you don't know about Lightroom or you're thinking about it, this post is for you.
A few months ago I didn't know what Lightroom was for. There was Photoshop and its baby brother Photoshop Elements. Then there was Lightroom - what was its role in the postprocessing world? I thought it was mostly a photo management program for professionals (or obsessive-compulsive amateurs) who had to deal with thousands of images, and had watered-down editing capabilities. I didn't think it was something I needed (or wanted, given the $299 list price). Then one day our local photo club discussed Lightroom 3, which I found intriguing enough to download the trial version. I then made up my mind to get it.
WHAT IS LIGHTROOM? The easiest way for me to understand Lightroom was to temporarily forget everything I knew about post-processing programs like Photoshop and just think of myself as a photographer. Here are some of the things I wanted in a post-processing program:
- Organize my photos. A way to organize my photos, rank them, compare them etc. so I can easily find them.
- Edit the photos. I want to work with the raw files to get the best image quality, but when I edit them, I don't want to change the original. Also, I want to be able to easily apply changes on one photo to other similar photos.
- After editing the photos, I want to be able to present selected ones - either by putting them online, creating a slideshow, or printing them.
The things I want above are pretty much what Lightroom does. It has several "modules" that are organized around the typical photography workflow: the Library (for organizing and simple edits), Develop (for editing), and Print, Web and Slideshow (for presenting the photos).
Sure, Photoshop and its competitors can be used to do similar things as Lightroom but they're different in that Photoshop et al are, at their core, programs for creating and editing graphics. Lightroom is specifically designed from the ground up for photographers.
The distinction between LR and Photoshop-type graphics editors is not merely academic. Take editing for example. When I edit a photo in Photoshop, I'm actually changing the pixels. That approach is fine for graphics -- if I drew something, I can probably draw it again. But when I'm dealing with a photo I took before dawn after driving 5 hours, I don't want to lose any part of the photo I made. Indeed, Lightroom doesn't change the raw file from my camera. Instead, it stores my edits as metadata in a separate file to be applied to the raw file. Yes you can create layers in Photoshop and thereby preserve the original image, but each of those layers takes up memory.
That brings me to another point -- LR applies edits to photos while they are in their native 16-bit raw format, preserving the best image quality during the edit process. Photoshop Elements and Corel PSP X3 force me to convert 16-bit raw files to 8-bit jpeg for all but the most basic edits.
The distinctions go on and on in how these two different types of programs behave. Another example is with organizing photos. Usually, I take several similar photos of a subject, and later choose the one or two I wish to show. I do this by looking at the similar photos one by one. When I see the one I like, I keep that in mind then compare the next photo against it, until I see a better one, and so on until I end up with the photo I like best out of the bunch. This is the way a lot of photogs sort through their photos and Lightroom specifically has a function (Compare) to let you do exactly that.
WHAT LIGHTROOM CANNOT DO While Lightroom covers most of the normal workflow, it is not a do-it-all app. There are certain arguably basic post-processing functions that it can't do because it can't edit pixels as such. The ones that stick out to me are: - Removing objects. For removing objects, a pixel editor such as PSE or PSP is the best way to go. Lightroom does have a type of cloning tool but it's very cumbersome to use. It functions like the retouch tool of Picasa (the free post-processing app from Google) and targets one spot at a time (i.e. you can't "paint"). If you resort to using LR's spot removal tool for all but the simplest retouches, the time you save from other efficiencies might very well be wasted with the LR's spot removal tool. - Layers. LR has no layer function. It does have an adjustment brush that allows selective edits (similar to the smart brush of Photoshop Elements 7 and above, and the brush-type editing of several Picnik tools). However, it can't do layers as such. - Composites. Because LR can't do layers, you can't do composite photos, like this one: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrniLZibbTfCAdaBO5Ma_IunSeYYdX4krxQ5PGH4kTZigJ5Z2mfZxIT_Q7xhihY1cSH1fGPHPfAadu9z90CpJsZr4eGH-0Io7GbugukPUSVb5DaeLuLpP4WPv0YR-gE6azHMIM-pJuFeI/s640/None.jpg For a composite like that, a Photoshop-type program is necessary for now.
If a Photoshop-type program is needed anyway, then why would I still get Lightroom 3, which is not cheap ($299)? In a word, efficiency. LR processes raw files with higher quality and far greater speed than any app I'm aware of. For occasional significant edits, I can export the edited photo for further editing into a Photoshop-type pixel editor. I have Corel Paintshop Photo Pro X3 and Photoshop Elements 9 for that. If you have Photoshop or PSE, LR conveniently allows "roundtrip" editing (exporting to PS or PSE then reimporting into LR). I will be experimenting with roundtrip editing after I master LR3's basic editing functions.
WHAT ABOUT VIEW NX2 AND CAPTURE NX2?
Capture NX2 and its companion View NX2 are more direct competitors of Lightroom than are Photoshop. Capture NX2 and View NX2 also allow non-destructive editing of raw files. For Nikon users, View NX2 and Capture NX2 arguably provide the best image quality for raw conversion. At the very least, the jpegs from conversion by View NX2 and Capture NX2 most closely match the jpegs from Nikon's cameras (if you shoot jpeg or raw+jpeg). On the other hand, it appears LR3 has just about caught up with NX2 in terms of image quality of raw conversions: http://ishootshows.com/2010/01/22/lightroom-3-vs-nikon-capture-nx-2
Capture NX2 also has "U Point" adjustments, which easily allows adjustments to particular areas of the photo without the need for extractions (i.e. carefully isolating objects from the background). Some people prefer U Point to LR3's adjustment brush.
The problem with View NX2 and Capture NX2 is that they are extremely slow. On my laptop, View NX2 usually takes 30 seconds or more to apply the first change to any raw file. Subsequent changes each take 10 seconds or more to apply. Another disadvantage of View NX2 and Capture NX2 is that any adjustments show up only after the load time. With LR3, adjustments show up in real time (even with my fairly slow laptop).
Some have said that Capture NX2 is superior for editing individual pictures (due to its U Point adjustments) while LR3 is superior for batch editing. See: http://www.bustedshutter.com/?p=251 I don't have an opinion on Capture NX2 (not having spent much time on it). I do know that LR3 is far more powerful and immeasurably faster than View NX2, taking less time to edit several photos than editing a single photo in ViewNX2.
WHAT ABOUT PICASA? Picasa is extremely user-friendly, is reasonably fast, and is free. It has decent photo organization functions, easy-to-use editing, and has some level of integration with Picnik (another easy app with some pretty good editing capabilities). It even has raw converters for various raw files.
What I don't like about Picasa is that the converted raw files don't look very good to me -- colors tend to look washed out. I've tried to edit the images to match the ones from View NX but I had a hard time getting the same 'look'.
Like some other photogs, one way I strengthen my portfolio is by editing ruthlessly. I used to have a shotgun approach, uploading pretty much any shot that looked "ok." That kind of approach resulted in many redundant shots, which is very boring to someone looking at my album. Over time, I became more selective. Finally, I made it a point to choose only one shot per scene/subject combination.
For example, in the shot above, I really liked the expression on our toddler's eyes, and how he was holding our newborn's hand. However, I rejected this photo, along with these other shots that, to me, had some good qualities:
I rejected them simply because I wanted to show only the best shot in the bunch. Including the other shots would have been redundant, and would have diminished the impact of the 'best' shot (in my view). It's my way of showing my appreciation for those looking at my web album - recognizing the importance of their time and giving them only my best.
BTW, editing these other shots took just a few seconds in total, thanks to Lightroom 3's powerful batch editing capabilities. I plan to blog about LR3 next.
Am I presenting my best photos in their best possible light to the people I care about in a timely manner? If not, there's probably a workflow issue.
When I started learning photography, I wasn't aware of the concept of workflow. However, as I took more photos, developing a good workflow became essential.
WHAT IS WORKFLOW? Workflow is just our routine for handling the photo after capture. Many casual shooters are not aware of the concept and simply do things randomly. Other photogs have a simple routine -- just download the photos from the memory card when the memory card gets full and store the pictures in a hard drive. The result of a random workflow (an oxymoron, yes) or a bad one is that no one will see the vast majority of those photos, and if they do, the photos probably won't look their best because they haven't been edited. (As a beginning photographer, that wasn't a big deal because my snapshots weren't worth looking at anyway. =) )
WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL WITH HAVING A GOOD WORKFLOW? At some point though, I put enough effort into my shots that I cared about maximizing their potential. To me, photography as an art is a form of communication, and unless it's received by the intended audience, its potential isn't fully realized. Based on the foregoing philosophy, I propose that the question at the beginning of this post is a simple test for determining if I have a good workflow. It's a loaded question so here's the breakdown: 1. Among the thousands of images that I have, do I know which photos are the ones I like best, and can I find them readily? 2. Am I making my best photos look their best? 3. Do I and the people I care about see my best photos in a timely manner?
I suppose those thinking of going pro or semi-pro may want to add a couple more to the list: 4. Can I do all of the above for all of my clients' photos? 5. Are my photos and edits protected from data loss, theft and infringement?
BENEFITS OF A GOOD WORKFLOW Having a good workflow is not just for people with OCD. A good workflow has real benefits: - improves my photos by allowing me to edit them as needed, using the best specific app for the job. - allows me and my family to enjoy my photos. Otherwise they would probably never see the light of day. - saves me time. With a carefully designed workflow, I can reduce the amount of jumping around between apps.
- allows me to tackle bigger projects. Like any other aspect of life, using a systematic approach allows me to take on projects with greater complexity. (I used to be swamped with just 3 or 4 projects at work. Now I can stay on top of 30+ projects because I have a good workflow for my work.)
MY WORKFLOW My workflow isn't the best but for me, it meets the criteria of the test above. 1. I almost always shoot in raw unless I'm only shooting test shots. 2. At the end of the day (or sometimes each photo session), I download the files into a folder on my local hard drive. All family photos for the month go into that folder. For special projects, like experiments, I create separate folders. Note: I download to my hard drive because I use an external drive that's attached to a network, and for my computer system, it's noticeably slower to edit files on the network than on my local drive. At the end of the month (or the end of a special project), after the edits are done, I move the folders to my external drive. 3. I use ViewNX2 to sort through the photos. I rank the photos using stars. On the first pass, I rank 1-star photos. I apply a filter to see only the 1-star photos, then find the better ones and give them 2-stars. Etc. Until I have a manageable number of photos. These days, I try to select only one photo per scene. 4. I use ViewNX2 to edit the raw files of the selected photos, adjusting white balance, exposure, the basic stuff. With ViewNX2 I can now crop as well. 5. After editing the selected photos, I export them to the same folder as JPEGs. If the photo doesn't need serious editing (like layers and removing objects), I just save to a lower-res jpeg 640x480 for web display. If the photo needs serious editing, I save to the full resolution with the least compression. 6. For photos that need serious editing, I edit them in Paintshop Photo Pro X3 (or Photoshop Elements 9). I save the final product both as a Paintshop file and a copy as a JPEG, all to the same folder. 7. I launch Picasa to upload the selected photos to my Picasa web album. 8. For canned effects like vignettes, Orton effect, and collages, I edit the web album photos in Picnik and save it back to the web album. 9. I "share" the web album with my family so they get to see it. 10. I choose the photos that I think are worth showing to strangers and use Picnik to save them to my Flickr account and Facebook account. 11. If there's an interesting technique I used, I blog about the photo.
The workflow above may sound tedious because I spelled out each step but in practice it takes only a moderate amount of time. (BTW, this also shows how much time is saved by getting a photo right "in the camera").
Not too long ago, I started delving into Lightroom 3 with the idea of making my workflow more efficient. I'll write about Lightroom next.
Meanwhile on ebay, at least one seller has begun selling Yongnuo's Radio TTL duo, the YN-460-TX transmitter and YN-460-RX flash, (for Canon only so far), at $370 for a pair. The price seems much too high in my view.
