« February 2007 | Main | April 2007 »
March 29, 2007
[ REVIEW—ADOBE LIGHTROOM ]
ADOBE LIGHTROOM
Price: $345 until 30 April then $495
[NOTE: The price posted here originally was incorrect, based on wrong information supplied by Adobe's communications company]
Highly recommended
The low-down: This application is, as the name suggests, the electronic equivalent of the darkroom except that it is used in the light. It has been around in free beta form for some months so it is well tested for bugs.
Lightroom uses a Develop metaphor for photo editing, providing an array of tools to correct exposure, white balance, fill light and the usual functions of contrast, brightness, sharpness, saturation and so on. What makes it special is that it provides this range of post-camera processing tools for jpeg files as well as for RAW. Of course there is more latitude for recovering images if they are taken in RAW – which Lightroom assumes most photographers will do – but it is a boon to have this degree of control over compressed files.
Lightroom makes Photoshop RAW redundant and it is easier to use than the image editing functions in Photoshop. However it is a non-layer editing program so any changes that involve additional layers for effects still need to be done in Photoshop.
There is a cataloguing function that will make Picasa unnecessary for tagging and indexing images. Slideshows can be created and exported as a pdf and there is an elegant routine for making web galleries.
Like this: The interface is attractive and intuitive. It is a big improvement on Photoshop RAW and is much better than the crippled RAW converters that come with camera software. It is also faster in operation than any RAW converter we have used, with the exception of the excellent Bibble Pro.
Dislike that: We find Adobe’s curious redefinition of common English words to be misleading. As with all Adobe applications the learning curve is steep.
Parting shot: This program is now our basic photo editing tool. Once mastered it is a pleasure to use. The speed with which it does its job is dependent on processor and memory but with a decent setup it is much faster in opening and being ready for operation than Photoshop. Bibble Pro is similar to Lightroom in its functions and is available for download for US $130. Bibble is clearly better value for money.
Posted by terry at 12:51 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
[ THE DIGITAL FRAME-UP ]
FROM TIME TO TIME a new type of gadget turns up in the shops and you say “Nah. No one’s going to buy that.” (Imaging is famous for having said that about the first mobile phone he saw. Now, six mobile phones later…)
When we saw the first digital picture frames we had the feeling that this was a doodad going nowhere. They are so expensive. They just sit there flicking through your pictures. What possible application can they have?
An email came from Richard who suggested that we should look into digital frames because he had found a use for them. His mother lives in New Zealand and what better way to keep her up to date on the progress of her grandchildren than with regular batches of photos on memory cards to insert into the frame?
Richard writes: “For what it's worth my Mum is 77 and is very anti technology. She has a TV and that is it…We have tried to buy her a DVD player so I can send photo slide shows on DVD but there is always a firm no.
“The photo frame application is so simple that even she will use it especially if it comes pre-loaded with 150 grandchildren photos.”
Then a retailer tells us that these things sold in such quantities before Christmas that the demand far exceeded the available supply. It was time to have a look.
We expected that the different brands would all come from the same factory in China and would all be similar. Wrong again.
The Philips 7FF1 has a 14x9cm screen with 720x540 pixels and 133ppi resolution. Images are bright and sharp, inclining to contrast that is too high. There are limited brightness adjustments but the best way to get good results from this frame is to prepare the images specially for the application. Photos can be loaded from memory cards or direct from the computer.
Controls are user-hostile and the user’s manual is on disc. And the instructions are in Chinglish and in at least one case positively misleading.
The lithium battery will power the frame for about 50 minutes. The picture surround strip comes in different colours and sticks to the frame magnetically. Black is best.
In spite of the few problems we had we like the little Philips frame. With careful preparation and adjustment the image quality is excellent.
We also looked at the Digital Frame Australia BluView unit which has a slightly smaller screen than the Philips with a 960x234 pixel array. The resolution is not as fine as the Philips and on close inspection the BluView looks like a miniature LCD television with relatively coarse pixel size and pitch while the 7FF1 looks like a section from a quality LCD laptop screen.
The BluView has a printed manual but the information is compressed to the point of incomprehensibility.
The BluView has more inputs, including Bluetooth, as the name suggests. It also has a remote control (it took two people 20 minutes to work out how to get the battery compartment open) and audio reproduction.
While the colour reproduction on the Philips is cold on the BluView it is warm.
Our suggestion is to take some photos on a memory card into the shop and try them out before deciding which to buy.
*
Posted by terry at 12:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 26, 2007
[ MORE STUNNING PICTURES FROM JULIE S ]
MELBOURNE ARTIST, JULIE SHIELS, has sent us another set of superb images, taken with her CANON EOS350. These photographs were all taken on Eyre Pensinsula in South Australia.
JULIE's pictures are in the Gallery here >>>
Visit her beautiful websites here and here.
Posted by terry at 11:53 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
March 22, 2007
[ REVIEW—EPSON STYLUS PHOTO 1410 printer ]
Price: $700
Highly recommended
The low-down: With this printer Epson has brought A3+ (329x483mm) photo prints within reach of a wider group of digital photographers.
The price reduction has been achieved by reducing the number of ink cartridges to six (compared with eight or more in the more expensive printers) and using dye inks rather than the longer life pigment inks.
Print quality is generally very good. Differences in images produced on the 1410 and the more expensive large format Epson printers are hard to spot. Nevertheless, the cruel rule of capitalism that says that you get what you pay for applies to printers as much as to any other device.
Print speed is good. Setup is easy and the printer dialogue can be as simple or as advanced as the user chooses. We made most of our test prints using the simple setup and let the software make the decisions and the prints always matched the on-monitor image. CD label printing is excellent.
Like: With most digital cameras now sporting 6 million pixels or more they are by default producing large images, so why not make the most of them. While paper and ink are expensive big prints can be the occasional self-indulgent luxury for the ripper photos that cry out for the best treatment.
Dislike: Plain paper printing quality is not very good. Black type on plain paper will never be mistaken for laser output. The 1410 is strictly a photo printer. We compared output on premium plain paper with the same file from the more expensive Canon i9950 and the difference was marked.
Verdict: We may quibble about the finest details of output but the bottom line is that the Epson 1410 printer represents amazing value for money. However, like all such devices, the consumables are expensive. Ink cartridges cost $26.50 and they do not have a large capacity. Epson warns against using cheap third party substitutes and our experience confirms their dire predictions of print head destruction if non-genuine inks are used. They are false economy. Which means that the best way to feed the hungry beast is to frequent the computer swap meets advertised in these pages -- genuine inks and papers are sold at these moveable bazaars at a big discount.
*
Posted by terry at 04:02 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
[ THE KILLER APPLICATION ]
Steve Sasson with a mockup of the first digital camera.
WAY BACK IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 1977, Ken Olsen, the president of Digital Equipment Corporation, earned himself a permanent place in dictionaries of quotations. Ken reckoned that “there is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
At the time he was justified in making his prediction. When IBM launched its first DOS based personal computers in 1981 there wasn’t a lot you could do with them. Early adopters -- the boys -- were fascinated by the PC for its own sake. They played primitive PacMan games on them. They tried their hand at a little programming in the Basic language. Some got themselves a primitive dot matrix printer and turned their PCs into glorified typewriters, but most didn’t have all that much to write.
The personal computer was not like other devices, created to meet a need, such as washing machines or vacuum cleaners. It was a fascinating doodad that had no application in the real world of the average person.
Well, we know what happened next. Graphical user interfaces, hard drives, faster processors, more elaborate software and, in 1994 the first consumer digital camera, the Apple Quick Take. This camera was the result of collaboration between Kodak and Apple. Does anyone at Kodak regret the research and development money and scientific skill that they put into developing the device that would destroy the company’s traditional business?
We were set thinking along these lines by an item in the latest issue of PC Update, the official organ of the Melbourne PC User Group. Graham Dean, of the Geelong branch of the Group, writes: “Being a general group, sometimes we wonder if we are a computer group with an active interest in photography or vice-versa.”
Mr Dean reports that two years ago there were only two digital camera users in his group. Six months ago when a show of hands was called for at a meeting it turned out that every person there owned a digital camera. And these days the most requested meeting topics are to do with buying a camera, using photo editing software and managing digital photo collections.
It looks as though the personal computer has at last found its justification. Word processing, for most people, was never a necessity. Database programs are overkill for most homes. Games are fun, but essentially frivolous. Digital photography now looks like the need the PC was created to meet.
The bold innovations that have got us to this point are breathtaking. When Steve Sasson began his work on the first digital camera in the Kodak laboratories in 1974 he had a light sensitive, charge coupled device of very low resolution -- a mere 0.01 megapixels. It was a monochrome sensor.
Between then and now it was necessary to increase the resolution, devise a way of turning the monochrome image into colour, invent a compression technique so that files could be stored on portable memory, invent the portable memory device, democratise the Internet, create high resolution colour monitors and increase the processing power of personal computers.
Alongside the hardware developments there had to be improvements in image processing and editing software.
No wonder that a past chairman of IBM reckoned that there might one day be world wide demand for as many as five computers. Perfectly reasonable prediction at the time.
*
Posted by terry at 03:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 16, 2007
[ REVIEW — CANON IXUS 70 ]
CANON IXUS 70 camera
Price: $450
Highly recommended
The low-down: This is a 7 megapixel compact camera with a 3x zoom lens (35–105mm film equivalent). The camera face area is slightly smaller than a credit card and it is 18mm thick -- a true pocket camera.
Construction is solid and the appearance is slightly retro. In other words it looks like a camera.
There is an eye-level optical viewfinder which is small but useful. Canon are to be applauded for fitting an optical finder to a camera in this price range. The 6.3cm LCD screen is bright and has good resolution and colour rendering.
The Function key brings up a restricted set of manual over-rides which we found took care of most situations when the M (manual) setting is chosen. Even though the camera is tiny the control buttons are generally big enough and the ergonomics are good.
Focus, colour and resolution are all good. Auto white balance is quite impressive.
Like this: The face detection technology is amazing. We have been sceptical about this in the past and regarded it as a gimmick but now we had better eat our words. The camera detects a face or faces in the frame, draws a square around them on the LCD, and adjusts focus and exposure for that area. What’s more if the camera or subject moves the camera tracks with the face as it moves in the frame.
Dislike that: We might quibble about the size of the camera. It could be a little larger and therefore easier to hold without sacrificing pocketability.
Parting shot: This is a sensible camera and praise doesn’t come any higher. It has a sensible number of pixels, optical viewfinder and degree of manual control. It will never be mistaken for a flash fashion accessory -- it is a camera. It is certainly a sensible price for a camera which produces such high quality images. It is simple enough to be used by a child (we tried) and yet sophisticated enough for serious photography. Highly recommended.
*
Posted by terry at 05:13 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
[ WOMEN ARE FROM KODAK, MEN ARE FROM CANON ]
THE LITTLE CANON IXUS 70, reviewed here today, sells for $450 RRP, and we wondered where that stands in the mind of the consumer. Is that an expensive or an inexpensive camera?
Last year we bought 1.87 million digicams, plus a few thousand more bought on the internet. About 80,000 cameras were SLRs according to the sales audit company GfK and the rest were compacts.
Virtually all compact cameras sell for under $1000 and the “sweet spot” for customers is around $333. Which means that the Canon Ixus 70 costs $100 more than the average customer is going to spend. Single lens reflex buyers, on the other hand, spend $1519 on average on their new camera.
Kodak has long boasted that women prefer the yellow and red to other brands because they perceive the name to guarantee simplicity, quality and consistency. Kodak, the market leader in units sold, took 22 per cent of the market last year, just ahead of Canon on 21 per cent.
Customer profiles show that the average Kodak customer is a woman, earning $30,000 a year or less. She is not style conscious and would not classify herself in the pro-am group -- the professional or serious amateur photographers.
Canon customers are more likely to be style junkies, under 44 years of age and be in the SINK or DINK category. (Single or double income with no kids.) Canon is the camera of choice of the yuppies and also of the serious amateurs and professionals.
One astonsihing fact to emerge from last year’s sales survey is that nearly 85 per cent of customers were buying second or third digital cameras. Why?
Stuart Poignand, marketing manager for Canon consumer imaging product group says that there are a few reasons for repeat buying. 46 per cent wanted a better camera. 14 per cent were replacing a broken or stolen one and 26 per cent just wanted an additional camera. No doubt the short model life of compact digicams keeps the customer discontented. Oh, the shame of being seen with last month’s model.
The most difficult information to get out of buyers is how much they are prepared to pay. Customers are coy about their budget because they think that by revealing it they will be giving the sales person a vital piece of information to use against them in the haggling. But without a clear indication of what the customer is going to spend it is impossible to give useful advice and there is much beating about the bush as the buyer hangs onto information that the adviser must have.
Objectively the best consumer camera on the market is the Canon 5D single lens reflex. The body alone costs more than $4000. On the other hand the best value for money, but not necessarily the best cameras, are some of the $200 entry cameras. And there is a camera at every price point between the two.
The moral of the story: at least have some idea of how much you intend to spend before going into the shop and don’t keep it to yourself. It won’t help you.
*
Posted by terry at 05:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 08, 2007
[ REVIEW—NIKON D40 digital single lens reflex ]
Price: $1000
Highly recommended
The low-down: This 6.2 megapixel camera is Nikon’s entry level DSLR. It is lighter and smaller than any previous Nikon. Although at first the camera feels flimsy it is soon apparent that, although light, it is rigid and tightly made.
The essential functions are generally good: fast and accurate auto-focus (but only with lenses that have an inbuilt focus motor); perfect exposure and wide dynamic range. The auto white balance leaves something to be desired and there is no dedicated white balance button on the camera body but the Function button can be programmed for white balance.
The default saturation setting is too high resulting in bleeding of solid colours, particularly red. It is easy enough to create custom settings for saturation and contrast but it shouldn’t be necessary.
The D40 feels as fast and responsive as the more expensive Nikons. Even the viewfinder, which uses mirrors rather than a prism, is large and bright. The LCD review screen is brilliant but it doesn’t come with Nikon’s customary clear plastic protector.
The D40 shares its image processor with the D80 and D200, its 10 megapixel siblings. Image quality, once the over saturation is corrected, is excellent.
Like this: With this camera we are able to say that the kit lens is pretty good. It feels plasticky and has a plastic rather than a metal mount, all of which suggests penny pinching and quality compromises. However Nikon have chosen to make it with a modest zoom range -- a mere 27 to 82mm in film terms -- and f3.5 to f5.6 aperture. By keeping the specs unexciting they have produced an inexpensive lens of high quality.
Dislike that: The D40 is the first Nikon DSLR not to have a camera status LCD on the body top. Camera status is now displayed ephemerally on the LCD review screen and some settings appear in the viewfinder. Nikon is not alone in doing this and it no doubt keeps the price of the camera down but it is a retrograde step.
Parting shot: Will 6 megapixels do the job? For most people, yes. And the D40 has 6 million really well handled pixels. It is recommended without reservation.
[ See sample images from the Nikon D40 in the dpexpert Gallery ]
Posted by terry at 09:44 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
[ LET'S HEAR IT FOR GOOD OLD BLACK & WHITE ]
WHEN IT COMES TO PORTRAITS there is a lot to be said for black and white.
Looking over the work of a great portrait photographer like Arnold Newman we are reminded that his monochrome portraits often have more attention-grabbing impact than his coloured images.
So, when we saw the impressive quality of black and white reproduction on the new Hewlett Packard Photosmart Studio at Camera House we decided to try our hand at creating a book of monotone portraits. Well, not quite monotone -- of which more in a moment.
The easiest way to take black and white images with a digital camera is to set the camera to do it. The second easiest way is to convert a coloured image in-camera and save the new image -- some cameras have this facility.
Once the image is out of the camera and in an editing program it can be changed to greyscale, which simply discards all the colour information. This is a bit rough and ready and Photoshop Elements 5 has a conversion routine that allows the user to experiment with less or more exposure in the separate red, blue and green channels. Contrast can also be changed in the conversion panel.
Paintshop Pro has a dedicated conversion routine under Effects/Photo Effects/Black and white film. Red, green, orange and blue filter effects can be simulated.
In Photoshop CS we find that the best way to convert to monochrome is with Fred Miranda’s BW Workflow plug-in. It costs US $30. This little plugin gives the user control over the conversion process that produces much better results than the simple convert-to-greyscale mode.
Now it so happens that monochrome isn’t necessarily monochrome. Our book of Arnold Newman portraits is printed in duotone, or perhaps even tri-tone. This is a process used in printing photographic books to reduce the starkness of black and white images by introducing another tone to the image -- think sepia, but not as pronounced. (See the Luminous Landscape site for a useful article on duotones)
In Fred Miranda’s plug-in the duotone (or tri- or quad-) process is simulated. Images can be given a tone ranging from steely cold to warm brown. The most subtle of the second tones is “warm grey” which gives the photographs a light brown toning similar to the old Agfa Portriga Rapid paper and, as it happens, similar to the duotones in the Newman book.
Paintshop Pro has a routine for creating duotones built in and the instructions are in the Help file. In Photoshop CS you convert to greyscale and then choose Mode/Duotone and Load the presets to access the Adobe “warm grey” combination. Change the image Mode back to RGB to save as a jpeg.
We converted our images in the FM Photoshop plug-in and added a “warm grey” second tone. Returning to the Photoshop screen there is still a little tweaking of contrast and brightness to be done and the photo is saved as an RGB file, not greyscale.
We took 22 images on a CD to Camera House, selected a black cover and plain white pages from the Hewlett Packard options, chose one picture per page and pressed the go button. The results are sensational.
*
Posted by terry at 09:40 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
March 03, 2007
[ COREL PAINTSHOP PRO PHOTO X1 ]
Price: $200
Highly recommended
The low-down: For those who baulk at the stratospheric price of Adobe’s Photoshop CS2 this program is an attractive alternative.
Corel have added the word “photo” to the program title to indicate that it is now aimed at the digital photographer. It is not all that different from Paintshop Pro 10 but there is more emphasis on instant photo fixes and picture file organisation.
The quickest way to correct exposure, contrast and colour balance is by clicking on Enhance Photo/One Step Photo Fix. It won’t always produce the best results but most of the time it will produce a corrected image that can be made perfect with a little fiddling.
Smart Photo Fix allows for more user input into the correction process. And all the other necessary controls, such as curves, levels, sharpening, noise removal etc are provided. It is a more comprehensive image editing program than Photoshop Elements 5 -- for instance it does incorporate macros, or Scripts, as Paintshop calls them. There is a large international community of Paintshop Pro users which means that there is a rich lode of useful scripts on the internet.
Like this: Paintshop Pro has always been excellent value for money and it has just got better. There is nothing cut-down about the program. It will operate in auto mode or give the user full control.
Dislike that: The interface is not quite as elegant or as intuitive as Photoshop -- but that is a matter of learning by using.
Parting shot: This application can be downloaded in trial form from the Corel web site.The trial is fully functional but time limited to 30 days, which is long enough to get a good feel for the program.
For the digital photographer the only reason to pay for Adobe Photoshop is that it is the standard photo editing software. For anyone wanting a much cheaper but fully competent program Paintshop Pro Photo XI is the way to go.
Posted by terry at 12:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
[ TURNING YOUR PHOTOS INTO A BOOK ]
FANCY TURNING YOUR FABULOUS PHOTOS INTO A BOOK? Or putting them on a calendar? Or would they look good as collage on a huge poster?
All of these creative applications of photography have been available before but Hewlett Packard have brought them all together in one big system that they call the Photosmart Studio.
We took a trial run on the new HP system at Camerahouse in Lonsdale street and came away with a 22 page book, a twelve month calendar, a 60 by 97 cm poster and three birthday cards, all in about an hour.
Glynn Lavender, the store manager, was adamant that we get the full customer do-it-yourself experience so he stood back, hands in pockets and mouth more or less closed, while we navigated through the setup process on the large “kiosk” screen.
First, put your medium in the slot -- either a CD or a memory card. Next, choose your output: book, calendar, poster, greeting card or personalised CD/DVD. From that point on it is a doddle because HP have created one of the best customer DIY interfaces we have ever seen.
The heart of the HP Photosmart Studio is a computer and two printers -- a high quality laser printer for output up to 30 cm by 30 cm and a wide format inkjet for large posters. So far HP have installed systems in Melbourne and Sydney with other cities to follow as units become available. The system has been up and running in the US since May last year so it is truly mature.
The laser printed pages for albums, calendars and greeting cards are on heavy, low sheen, coated paper and the reproduction is akin to very high magazine quality. The system does best with pictures with good contrast and, for skin tones, tending to warmer rather than cooler.
We were a little sceptical about laser printer output but this is a superior machine that reproduces colours accurately and preserves the smallest and most subtle detail in the prints.
Blacks are particularly rich and free of any printing artifacts, such as bands, lines or uneven toner distribution. Black and white reproduction is sensational. And the calendars have to be seen to be believed.
Prices are formidable but reasonable. A 30 by 30 cm album of ten pages (five sheets of paper) in a hard cover costs $40. Each additional page costs $1.25. For a high quality, one off book with such a high degree of customer control at the layout stage this is exceptional value for money. Smaller album sizes are cheaper. And greeting cards cost $3 each, which means that you won’t be paying much more for a personalised birthday card than for the commercial item at the newsagent.
The 30 by 30cm calendar, spiral bound, costs $35 and posters range from $20 for 40 by 50cms up to $50 for the largest size. The posters are printed on heavy paper stabilised with what feels like a fibre backing. Poster colour output tends to cool, so warmer images look best.
We are really impressed! Our recommendation is to start with one of the small format books to get a feel for the system and then, once hooked, go for the big one.
*
Posted by terry at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack