« May 2005 | Main | July 2005 »
June 28, 2005
[ THREE LITTLE BEAUTIES... ]
...and one beautiful model.
dpexpert is right now trying three compact digital cameras, all more or less in the same price range, between $800 and $850.
The KODAK V550 is a 5 megapixel camera with a 3x zoom and is aimed at women and is being promoted as a fashion accessory. The face area of the camera is a little larger than a credit card and it is 20mm thick. The Schneider Kreuznach lens is fast to focus and is pin sharp.
While the camera is clearly intended for the point-and-shoot photographer it is possible to over ride the automatic functions and to create a set of preferred custom functions that will come up when the SCN button is pressed. "Button" is not quite the right word -- it is simply a marked area on the flat top of the camera body.Very modern!
White balance is exceptionally good and colours are accurate and saturated. Flash works well. Exposure tends to over exposure which for some reason seems to be an issue with all of these pocket cameras. However, of the three cameras being tested the Kodak came closest to consistently accurate exposure.
The LCD screen is big – 63mm – and high resolution. There is a small, awkwardly located optical viewfinder.
The CANON iXUS700 is a 7 megapixel 3x zoom camera in a beautifully crafted metal body. Face area is the same as a credit card and it is approximately 25mm thick.
The Canon lens is pin sharp and colour rendition is good, if a little cool compared with the Kodak.
It is interesting to see that Canon continue to use the menu and on-screen function layout and graphics that they have used for years. It was outstanding on day one and it is still the best display of a camera's settings on a digital compact. Like all the cameras in this category the intended user is the person who wants the camera to do all the thinking. The Canon will do it well enough, except that it tends to over expose by a fairly gross degree. To get the best results the camera should be turned onto the M setting -- which is the equivalent of P on most cameras -- and the exposure compensation racked down a full stop at least. In over all flat lighting a stop and a half is sometimes needed. There is no separate aperture/shutter priority setting on the camera.
Resolution is superb.
The NIKON 7900 is another 7mp/3x zoom camera in a tiny body. It also has a face area the same as a credit card but is thicker because Nikon have fitted it with a small hand grip that protrudes at the right hand end.
Insofar as there are manual controls on this camera they have to be set through the menu and setup function.
Focus and exposure are excellent. White balance in shade is a little cool. Resolution is outstanding and pictures straight from the camera are sharp and reasonably saturated.
EACH OF THESE CAMERAS IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. THERE WILL BE FULL REVIEWS OF THE THREE CAMERAS HERE SHORTLY.
Posted by terry at 03:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 21, 2005
[ KODAK PROFESSIONAL INKJET PAPER ]
MORE OR LESS COINCIDENT with the announcement that Kodak will no longer produce black and white photographic paper the company releases a new range of inkjet papers, designated Professional.
This paper comes in two surfaces, glossy and lustre, on the same substrate as Kodak photographic paper. The glossy surface is subdued compared with the high sheen Canon and Epson papers, but this is no bad thing.
People who have had bad experiences with Kodak's "consumer" paper in the yellow packets may be inclined to avoid the new product. There is no reason to do that – this is a totally different paper.
The Professional paper is dry straight from the printer, unlike the consumer paper on which the ink lies in little balls that stay sticky for days.
dpexpert will post a full test of the paper in due course. In the meantime it is worth trying, but keep in mind that the Kodak workflow instructions must be followed to the letter. Any deviation will result in truly awful colour anomalies. It is imperative to download the printer profiles from the Kodak Pro web site as well as the Workflow Instructions [pdf]. Unfortunately it is not possible to link directly to these pages because Kodak forces its customers to go through an annoying registration procress to get to them. Just grit the teeth and do it.
Black and white prints from a Canon i9950 on the lustre paper are particularly impressive.
*
Posted by terry at 09:55 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
June 16, 2005
[ WINDOWS RAW THUMBNAILS ]
MICROSOFT has just released a RAW IMAGE THUMBNAILER AND VIEWER for Windows XP.
As any serious digi-photographer knows Windows XP will not display thumbnails of RAW images when folders are opened in Windows Explorer. This is an annoying shortcoming in the OS because it means that there is no instant view of a folder of images from which to select files for opening in image editing software. JPEG, TIF and Bitmap are not a problem, but RAW is.
There is a very large setup file on the Microsoft site to install a Thumbnailer -- but don't get too excited. It only works with Nikon and Canon RAW files, and as thumbnail Registry hacks have already been invented for these file types MS is not giving its customers much. Pentax, Olympus, Sony and other camera owners are ignored, as is Adobe's generic DNG format.
For lucky Nikon and Canon users the MS thumbnailer does have one neat trick up its sleeve -- hover the cursor over the image thumbnail and up pops abbreviated EXIF data.
One feeble cheer for Microsoft.
dpmagic offers a RAW file Windows XP integration package for U$10 that claims to know all about 150 camera/file types, including Adobe's DNG. We tried the free "community" version – which doesn't offer much more than the Microsoft package – and it works well. We have also installed the trial "pro" version and it not only makes thumbnails of our Sony, Pentax and Olympus RAW files it also has an option for changing the thumbnail size. For Sony, Pentax, Olympus, Minolta etc owners dpmagic could be worth the money.
*
Posted by terry at 12:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 14, 2005
[ NEW MICROSOFT IMAGE EDITING APP ]
MICROSOFT LOOKS LIKE IT IS GETTING SERIOUS about plugging the image editing gap in its application line-up. The company has just posted a beta version of a new program called Acrylic -- at least that is its current code name.
Acrylic is a 77.6MB download. The MS server is fast, so the average transfer rate on broadband is about 300 KB/sec, meaning that the download doesn't take long.
The file is a zipped installer. There are no instructions, but any Photoshop user will easily find his/her way around the interface. dpexpert has taken a quick glance and concluded that Acrylic is in the PaintShop Pro/Photoshop Elements class.
Microsoft short-circuited the development phase by buying the Hong Kong company, Creature House, and acquiring the Acrylic program.
At first glance the beta doesn't appear to be crippled in any way, [except for being time-limited to expire in October] so for the adventurous this could be an easy path to temporarily acquiring a decent image editing program for no charge except the cumbersome Microsoft registration routine.
If you do try it please keep dpexpert informed about its usefulness or otherwise. Post your comments here as you get to know Acrylic's ins and outs.
READ THE FULL CNET STORY ON ACRYLIC.
*
Posted by terry at 10:45 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
June 09, 2005
[ DIGITAL vs FILM ]
NOW THAT DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY is a mature technology the time has come to face up to the ultimate question: is digital as good as film?
Digital sceptics argue that there are not enough light receptors on any existing digital sensor to begin to reproduce the subtle gradations of film. Which raises the question: how many pixels are needed to equate with a 35mm film frame?
Film doesn’t have pixels but Brad Templeton at pic.templetons.com calculates that there are 20 million "quality" pixels in a top-quality 35mm frame. “That's a shot with a tripod, mirror-up, with a top-rate lens and the finest-grained film, in decent light. 12 million are more typical for ‘good’ shots. There may be as few as 4 million ‘quality’ pixels in a handheld shot with a point-and-shoot camera or camera with a poor lens.”
Michael Reichmann at Luminous Landscape makes a more modest comparison. He says that there are 14 million pixels in a well-lit, well-exposed, well focussed 35mm frame. The recently discontinued Kodak digital SLRs have 14 megapixels and Nikon and Canon make cameras that come close. But for cameras costing less than $10,000 the pixel count is more typically between 4 and 8 million.
We loaded Kodak’s High Definition colour negative film, rated at ISO200 into an Olympus OM2 -- 14 million notional pixels -- with a Nikon D70 digital SLR -- 6 million actual pixels -- set to the same ISO speed. Both cameras were tripod mounted and photos of the same subject in the same lighting were taken with both cameras set to Program -- that is the cameras were left to determine the best combination of shutter speed and aperture.
The subject was lit by available light coming through an open window. This means that both cameras had to calculate the correct white balance in the shade. The Nikon image was captured in RAW and processed using Pixmantec’s RawShooter Essentials, our favourite RAW converter. The image file had to be enlarged slightly in Photoshop to bring it up to 25cm by 30cm.
Because the film camera forces the photographer to set the exposure and focus and then hope for the best, without any chance to review the shot, we used the Nikon digital camera in the same way.
The digital sceptics are not just doubtful about pixels and resolution. There is also a suspicion that the dynamic range of digital sensors is not as wide as film and therefore there will not be as many steps in the grey tone scale between black and white. Our experience suggests that this is a valid concern. It is more difficult to keep detail in the extremes of shadows and highlights in a digital image than in a film image.
There is also a belief that digital prints will look like low quality digital video images on television, with elevated edge sharpness and an artifical look. In our experience this is not a problem, even with relatively inexpensive cameras.
We took the film negative and the digital file to a Kodak Express shop equipped to produce 25cm by 30cm silver halide prints from any image source. When we examined the 10cm by 15cm prints straight from the automatic printer it was obvious that the Kodak film over-compensates for open shadow and the pictures have a yellow-green cast. This produces an unpleasant tinge to skin tones. It is something we could spot in the digital camera’s preview and correct on the spot by resetting the white balance. Score 1 to digital.
Looking at the enlargements we were surprised at how much smoother the gradations are in the digital picture. Skin tones are more natural and smooth. Film tends to flatten the skin surface. Of course this is mass produced film processing and printing and the results would be different from a professional laboratory, but our intention is to compare film and digital as they will be used by amateur photographers.
Neither print has accurate colour. The digital image is closer to true colour but it is over-saturated. Contrast in the digital image is much more natural than in the film print which surprised us, although it is a low contrast subject at which digital excels. Detail is good in both media but the resolution of the film beats digital.
Our conclusion is that low speed fine grain film will produce better prints if all the elements of white balance, exposure, lighting and so on are just right. But in the real world where cameras are pointed and squirted digital will win on averages.
So, the answer to the question: is digital as good as film? If the question means: does digital have the resolving power of film then the answer is no. Does it have the colour fidelity? In perfect conditions -- no. In real everyday situations -- yes. Is the dynamic range of digital as wide as film? Again, in perfect conditions, no. In the real world, yes -- because compensations can be made in the computer, particularly when shooting RAW.
*
Posted by terry at 06:30 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
[ PANASONIC LUMIX DMC-FZ5 ]
Price: $879
Rating: 3 stars
The low-down: The Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5 is a 5 megapixel digital camera with a 12x Leica optical zoom. (36~432mm film equivalent and f2.8~3.3) This lens has a remarkable focal length range and is fast (f3.3) even at its longest extension.
The camera has image stabilisation which can be selected in two stages. Obviously at the maximum extension image stabilisation is prudent and necessary for handholding the camera.
For a camera at this price the body is surprisingly plasticky in appearance and feel.
The controls are well laid out but the menu presents a meagre list of selectable options. White balance is very good and exposure is mostly accurate. The system is easily confused by high contrast subjects.
The lens focuses quickly and accurately except in flat, low contrast situations when there is some hunting, particularly at the longest extension. This is a common problem with very long zooms.
Like this: The Panasonic comes up to operating speed quickly and there doesn’t seem to be as much shutter lag as is usual with this type of camera with an electronic viewfinder.
Dislike that: The viewfinder is a tiny electronic, low resolution affair that is difficult to use in bright sunlight. The shape of the eyepiece holds spectacle wearers slightly away from the surround and light gets into the viewfinder. And it goes without saying that the LCD screen is useless in bright sunlight.
Parting shot: The Panasonic DMC-FZ5 is up against some stiff competition at the price. The Olympus C770 is a little cheaper, with not quite the zoom range (10x) and a 4mp sensor, but it is more robustly made and is a pleasant camera to use. These are the two obvious cameras for comparison when shopping.
See sample images from the DMC-FZ5 at www.dpexpert.com.au
Posted by terry at 07:41 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
June 08, 2005
[ A WORD OF ADVICE! ]
ONLY TAKE BLURRY PHOTOS OF YOUR KIDS AND ONLY WITH THEIR CLOTHES ON!
As we know anything that is happening in America today will happen in Australia some time soon. So be warned! The day is fast approaching when photofinishers will only print blurry photos and then only if the subject is fully clothed.
A report from the San Diego Union-Tribune should put the wind up any competent amateur photographer. Wal-Mart and K Mart are refusing to print well exposed, sharply focussed digital pictures because it is obvious they have been produced by professional photographers and are therefore copyright. The Union-Tribune reproduces one of the photos refused for printing and it is a really poor quality black and white image, raising the question: On what grounds is this assessed as the work of a pro?
The American supershops have already distinguished themselves with their absurd refusal to print pictures of small children who are not fully clothed. A couple of years ago one disgruntled customer sued Wal-Mart for embarrassment.
"SALINA, Kan. -- A woman interrogated by police after a Wal-Mart store reported film she brought in for processing included partially nude pictures of her 3-year-old daughter is suing the big retailer.
In the suit filed in Saline County District Court, Tamie Dragone said she was humiliated and her family's privacy invaded by the store's action. She asks for more than $75,000 in actual damages, plus unspecified punitive damages.
According to the petition, Dragone went to the Wal-Mart Supercenter in Salina on Sept. 3 and dropped off a roll of family snapshots for one-hour processing, then continued to shop elsewhere in the store.
She was approached by a uniformed Salina police officer. He and another officer took Dragone and her children, the 3-year-old and another girl not quite 1, to the manager's office at the rear of the store.
She was detained for about 45 minutes while the officers questioned her about her photos. She said one showed the 3-year-old topless as she played in a back-yard kiddie pool with her father, and another showed the little girl's naked bottom as she lay on the living room floor.
When the officers let Dragone leave, she was not allowed to take the photos with her."
Has anyone had an experience like this here in Australia? It would be interesting to know if we have already caught up with the Land of the Free and the Home of the Prude.
*
Posted by terry at 05:24 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
June 02, 2005
[ The fight for your memories ]
Epson Australia executive Mike Pleasants began to appreciate the dimensions of the battle that his company was engaged in when he walked past a Big W department store and saw it was advertising 6 x 4 digital prints at 20 cents apiece.
A few years ago, they would have cost $3.95. Even a year ago, they were commonly around the $1.30 mark, which made products such as Epson's PictureMate 6 x 4 printer, capable of churning out prints at about 50 cents each, highly competitive. Now, Mr Pleasants and his counterparts at Canon and HP are feeling the pressure.
The new price point for the 6 x 4 segment, which represents more than 90 per cent of all photographic printing, reflects an explosion in the multimillion-dollar digital imaging marketplace and a move by retailers such as Big W, Kmart and Harvey Norman to wrest market share from inkjet printer manufacturers such as Epson and Canon, along with specialist photographic retailers and suburban photo labs.
According to the Photographic Marketing Association of Australia, the department stores and traditional photographic outlets are making considerable gains, largely because of a rapid escalation in the installation of digital photographic kiosks and marketing dollars.
US figures - which the local industry claims are, if anything, slightly behind Australian trends - show that in the 12 months to March, the percentage of total print output generated from inkjet printers dropped from 70.5 per cent to 50.4 per cent.
The printer companies still enjoyed substantial growth, however, because the number of prints from their products was up 18 per cent.
Association executive director Terry Rimmer says the number of digital kiosks in Australia has jumped from about 600 a year ago to more than 3000.
The trend marks a massive turnaround for the traditional photographic print industry, which even a year ago was facing a disturbing future, because digital camera buyers were largely business-oriented males.
"They weren't printing their images," Mr Rimmer says. "They were sharing images by email or on computer screens. That started to change as the decline in the average camera price made it more of a consumer item, bringing women into the market, and the rapid uptake of digital labs and kiosks started to bring printing costs down."
At Epson, the response has been to cut prices. At some stores, consumers can now pick up a pack of six inkjet cartridges and 100 sheets of 6 x 4 paper for the company's popular PictureMate printer for less than $40.
According to founder and director of Wilheml Imaging Research, Henry Wilhelm, the PictureMate has revolutionised photographic printing, producing the most stable print that an amateur has ever had access to. It uses six colour pigment inks, which his research says, will last 104 years - many times longer than the output of photo-lab prints.
Posted by cw at 06:54 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack