« January 2009 | Main | March 2009 »
February 26, 2009
[REVIEW—CANON POWERSHOT G10]
Price: $750
Superb
The low-down: This 14.7 megapixel camera with a 28–140mm (film equivalent) lens is Canon’s flagship compact. Construction is rugged and handsome, best described as WW3 army surplus in appearance. It is heavy in a reassuring way. There is an optical viewfinder with 77% image area coverage. Unique to this camera are the dedicated knobs on the body top for exposure compensation and ISO settings, as well as the usual Mode settings of Auto, P, Tv,Av and M. The 75mm LCD screen gives an accurate image of the stored file. There is an external flash shoe. Feel and ergonomics are excellent, with Canon’s customary easy access function button. There is movie mode and automated settings for the point-and-shooters, but this is a camera for serious photographers. There is a comprehensive printed instruction manual.
Like: The dedicated knobs for exposure compensation and ISO settings are a brilliant design feature. It is a joy to use. And image quality is outstanding, even at higher ISO speeds. To say we are surprised is an understatement. With 14.7 megapixels we expected noise to be a serious issue, but it isn’t. At speeds up to ISO200 images are flawless, and at 1600 they are simply amazing. There is noise, of course, but it looks like film grain.
Dislike: We didn’t dislike the mass of the camera, but for some people it will be off-putting. If you think that compact means pocketable then the G10 is not for you. We think it feels like a real camera!
Verdict: If we were in the market for a compact camera to supplement the DSLR we would be torn between the G10 and the Panasonic LX3. The LX3 is daintier and has fewer pixels, which we like. It has an outstanding Leica-branded lens that doesn’t have quite the range of the Canon. Image quality is excellent. But we like the look of the G10 and will always prefer a camera with an optical viewfinder. And the brilliant ergonomics would probably win us over.
Second thoughts: There has been some criticism of the G10’s image noise, which we found surprising because our images seemed so clean. Then we compared RAW and JPEG versions of the same photograph – the camera will save in both formats simultaneously – and we were perplexed. There is apparently no noise reduction in RAW files, which is right and proper. There ought not be. But there obviously is in the in-camera JPEG processing. We were fooled because it is so well done. In ISO1600 RAW files the noise is destructive. The colour noise is vivid. But ISO1600 JPEGs are clean without much evidence of detail smudging. We can only conclude that Canon has found a way of removing extreme noise without damaging the image. We tried cleaning up a RAW file and couldn’t do as well as the G10 does in camera, although Noiseware Community edition [free for Windows www.imagenomic.com/download.aspx] did a very good job. We conclude that the G10 is indeed as noisy as we would expect a small sensor crammed with too many pixels to be, but Canon has worked some remarkable magic in the processing. How do we feel about that? Hmmm. We prefer the Panasonic approach of fewer pixels for lower inherent noise. If only the LX3 had the Canon body!
*
Posted by terry at 08:23 AM | Comments (4)
[BACKUP OR LOSE IT]
We have heard all the stories about data lost through hard drive failure, optical disc deterioration, natural disaster and theft. We know that we should have a data backup procedure in place. And we definitely, absolutely, without fail intend to get onto it tomorrow. Or perhaps the day after.
We are filled with admiration for Peter Petovski of Flowerdale, who implemented the most farsighted data backup imaginable – when he fled from his Flowerdale home in the path of the bushfires he carried stored images in a place that puts the “back” into backup.
The Petovskis lost all their photo albums, but childhood pictures of their four sons and others of grandparents, uncles and aunts have been preserved.
Backing up files is a tedious business. Obviously we don’t back up everything – who cares if we lose Tetris and the funny video from YouTube. Which means that the first step in the backup process is the winnowing. There is need to be discriminating even with picture files. Last year’s camellias are hardly worth preserving.
Reading the stories of people who have left their homes in the face of the fire it is clear that great value is placed on the intrinsically worthless family photos. When they are in albums and boxes they are easy enough to locate and throw in the car, but what about when they only exist as data files?
Having reduced the files to the absolute necessities – in which we include a selection of family pictures – where to store them? External hard drives are a cheap and easy backup medium, but how easy are they to disconnect and throw in the car? And when the burglars break in and help themselves, as has happened to a pal of ours, they usually take the hard drive with the PC.
CDs and DVDs are easily portable, and as long as they are stored well away from the computer they might well save the day in the event of a calamity.
However, nothing beats reliable off-site on-line storage. All internet service providers allocate some server space for their customers’ use, but it is usually a pathetically small amount. BigPond, for instance, will give you 20MB of space specifically for photos, but additional storage space will cost $2.50 per month for 100MB. That’s somewhere between 10 and 20 photos at full size and resolution.
Flickr (www.flickr.com) is a good, free photo storage and sharing site.
Amazon S3 (aws.amazon.com/s3/) is well spoken of by satisfied customers. One-click account holders with Amazon simply join up, confirm credit card numbers, and micro charges of a few cents are levied for upload, download and internal transfers from one account to another. The pricing structure is complicated, based on file size, but it seems reasonable. We are going to put the equivalent of a digital photo album – perhaps 100 photos – into Amazon S3 for safe, off-site storage. The price is low for peace of mind.
*
Posted by terry at 08:22 AM | Comments (5)
February 19, 2009
[REVIEW—ADOBE PHOTOSHOP CS4 Classroom in a book]
Photoshop CS4 Classroom in a book
Price: $55
Useful, but why isn’t it in the box?
The low-down: This book is a tutorial for Photoshop users who are new to the application. It begins with the most basic information about the program interface and tools. It then develops into a series of lessons with step by step instructions on concepts and functions. The CD that is supplied with the book contains all the images and type needed to complete the exercises. It covers a range of functions, but not all, and there is not much depth to the exercises.
Like: The steps in each exercise are well illustrated with screen shots and the book and disc work well as an introduction to the basics of Photoshop.
Dislike: The book is not a substitute for a full user’s manual. If, for instance, you want to know how to convert a colour image to black and white you won’t find it here. And you won’t find the index much help unless you are already familiar with Photoshopese. Would you know that putting a black line around the edge of an image is called “stroke”?
Verdict: Adobe applications – Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator etc – are wonderful manifestations of the programmers art and science. They are priced accordingly. Except for Photoshop Elements, they are all very expensive and they are supplied without user manuals. This penny pinching is annoying, particularly when Corel can supply pretty good printed manuals with their comparable programs. What makes the Adobe parsimony worse is that this particular book is published by Adobe! In other words they are forcing users to pay for the manual over and above the price of the software. An entire third party publishing industry has developed to compensate for the missing Adobe instruction books and we would suggest looking at the offerings of other publishers before buying Adobe’s “classroom”.
*
Posted by terry at 08:05 AM | Comments (1)
[TELL THE TRUTH WITH BLACK AND WHITE]
Professional photographer Andrew Chapman, talking about his book of political photographs, Campaign, says that he prefers his portraits to be black and white, because: “Black and white captures the essence of the photographic image. Colour is just photography with makeup on, most of the time.”
However, Andrew does record his digital images in colour and converts to monochrome in the computer. This keeps open the options for the client or publisher. He liked his picture of former prime minister, John Howard, in black and white, but the publishers wanted colour for the cover.
We agree with Mr Chapman. To our eye monochrome portraits almost always appear stronger than colour. Donald Horne, in his introduction to Jacqueline Mitelman’s collection of portraits, Faces of Australia, reckons that: “With black and white it is easier to be interpretive and selective, and this is the way humans normally ‘see’”.
So – how do we best do black and white in the digital age? All digital cameras have a picture mode setting for monochrome. For cheaper cameras this is simply a desaturation process – a colour picture turned into grey by removing the RGB information.
Better cameras have ways of improving the greyscale output by changing contrast and tone. The Panasonic LX3/Leica D Lux4, for instance, have a “dynamic black and white” setting which produces fine output. DSLRs provide for filter simulation – you want black sky and fluffy white clouds, choose the red filter.
There are many ways of converting colour to monochrome. All photo editing programs have a converter. Photoshop and Photoshop Elements and PaintShop Pro, allow for variations to be made in the individual red, green and blue “channels”, and to thereby change the tonal values of the image. They also have presets for portrait, landscape, buildings etc. Some have presets for certain film types – Kodak Tri X, for instance.
Our Photoshop technique is to change the Image/Mode to Labcolour, then in the Layers/Channels palette to select Channels/Lightness and change the Image/Mode again to greyscale. This throws away the colour information.
Next go back to layers and press Ctrl-J to make a duplicate layer and change the Blending to Multiply. Use the Opacity slider to vary the density of the top layer until the picture is about right. It will almost certainly look a bit flat, but don’t worry.
The key to a good black and white image is to have some area totally black and some totally white. You don’t want to blow the highlights or clog the shadows, so this has to be carefully handled using the Levels slider, which we once did in the darkroom with selective dodging and burning. In fact, no matter which conversion method you use, this final tweaking in Levels (or Curves) is where the image comes to life.
The best way to learn what makes a good black and white portrait is to study the work of the masters – Halsman, Avedon, Newman, Penn and Cartier-Bresson.
[There is a small gallery of black and white portraits here, converted from colour using the technique described in the article]
*
Posted by terry at 08:01 AM | Comments (0)
February 12, 2009
[REVIEW—NIKON COOLPIX P80]
Price: $770
Remarkable
The low-down: This is a 10 megapixel camera with a 27–486mm (film equivalent) reasonably fast (f2.8 to f4.5) zoom lens. It has effective optical stabilisation. Construction quality is good with Nikon’s admired ergonomics and clear menus. Most important settings are accessible from the buttons and wheel on the body. The lens extends 6cm at maximum zoom and feels fairly free of wobbles. The electronic viewfinder is the usual low resolution affair and the 65mm LCD is ordinary. There is no RAW capture but there is auto exposure bracketing which is not available on Nikon’s entry DSLRs. Focus is fast and accurate, even at full zoom. The user’s manual is comprehensive and clear.
Like: Image quality at ISO speeds up to 200 is exceptionally fine. Image noise is very well handled and we were impressed with the cleanliness of open shadows, the most difficult part of a photo to keep noise-free. Resolution and sharpness are generally excellent and at the 486mm limit quite remarkable, possibly the best we have ever seen in a superzoom. Distortion at both extremes is minimal.
Dislike: Isn’t it time for a second generation electronic viewfinder? These low resolution affairs have never been much good and they have been around for a long time, so this is the obvious place for improvement in all-in-one superzooms.
Verdict: This is a remarkably good camera. The bad old days of shutter lag are now well behind us and this little Nikon is nicely responsive. The speed of auto focus at full zoom really took us by surprise because we have become accustomed to hunting at the extremes The image stabilisation (vibration reduction, Nikon calls it) is effective even with handheld shots at 486mm. Even with the daggy electronic viewfinder we can highly recommend the P80 to anyone in the market for a superzoom.
*
Posted by terry at 01:44 PM | Comments (2)
[FACING THE CAMERA]
In this line of work the most frequently asked question at parties is: “What camera should I buy?” And following hard on its heels: “What do you like to photograph?”
Camera testing involves taking all sorts of photographs – landscape, architecture, birds, animals, close-ups and anything else that looks mildly interesting. But best of all are the faces. Portraits. Stealing the soul of the subject. That’s the biggest buzz.
Actually the biggest buzz of all is when the subject loves the picture of herself because then you know that the moment, the expression, the lighting, the eyes and the texture have come together to capture an image that is how she wants to see herself. It doesn’t have to be glamorous, but it does have to be something – perhaps the mot juste is “kind”.
Back in the olden days, when Life was our eye on the world and its people, we were powerfully influenced by the portraiture of Philippe Halsman. His cover photos of celebrities were powerful and revealing. He reckoned that he was a psychological photographer, revealing the character of the sitter. In his own words: “It can't be done by pushing the person into position or arranging his head at a certain angle. It must be accomplished by provoking the victim, amusing him with jokes, lulling him with silence, or asking impertinent questions which his best friend would be afraid to voice." (www.npg.si.edu/exh/halsman/intro.htm) It is a testament to his art that when we think of Albert Einstein our mental image is of Halsman’s photo of the famous scientist.
Just as when we think of Igor Stravinsky it is Arnold Newman’s boldly composed picture of a small Igor leaning on the keyboard of a large Steinway, with the piano lid taking up most of the photo. Newman’s photographic style is called “environmental” because he almost invariably set his subject in the environment in which they work. There is nothing kind about his portrait of the German industrialist, war criminal and plutocrat Alfried Krupp, with his humming factory behind him while powerful side lighting makes his face as sinister as a wicked wizard. (www.pbase.com/omoses/arnold_newman)
Newman’s lighting setups are generally elaborate, but we should never forget that Rembrandt didn’t have a single electric light bulb to his name. And if window light was good enough for him who are we to argue. Many fine portrait photographers only use available light by choice.
Australian photographer, Jacqueline Mitleman, is a true believer in the luminous qualities of natural light. Her 1988 collection of portraits, published as Faces of Australia by Lothian, is a demonstration of the mastery of light and photographic technology, and the psychology of portraiture. Many of her photographs are now in the National Portrait Gallery collection. (See her glowing image of Michael Leunig here -- tinyurl.com/bovykd)
Almost all the memorable images from which we derive our mental picture of the rich and/or famous are in black and white. Looking over Arnold Newman’s collected masterpieces it is interesting that the monochrome portraits are strong and the colour ones are, generally, weak. (Excepting the famous Krupp photo). Next week we will reflect on this curious phenomenon.
*
Posted by terry at 01:33 PM | Comments (0)
February 05, 2009
[REVIEW-LEICA D-LUX 4 compact camera]
Price: $1650
Seriously good, but…
The low-down: This is a 10 megapixel camera with a 24–60mm (film equivalent) fast (f2 to f2.8) zoom lens. It has effective optical stabilisation. Construction quality is outstanding, with most important controls accessible on the camera body. Two ring selectors around the lens set aspect ratios – 3:4, 2:3 and 16:9 – and focus mode – auto, macro and manual. The 75mm LCD is clear and sharp but not totally truthful to the tone and colour of the captured picture. Capture in RAW is provided and conversion software is supplied, and the latest version of Adobe Camera RAW handles these images. There is an optional optical viewfinder, which has only one angle of view – 24mm -- and is very expensive.
Like: Image quality at low ISO speeds is exceptionally fine. At ISO400 a little noise is apparent, but we found that shooting RAW and applying a small amount of noise reduction in Adobe Camera RAW removed the grain. Response times are very fast. The Leica branded lens, with its modest zoom range, is superbly sharp with insignificant distortion at 24mm.
Dislike: The lack of an integrated optical viewfinder is a disappointment. We would have settled for a smaller LCD and an in-body viewfinder coupled to the lens zoom.
Verdict: Eagle-eyed readers will have noted that all the forgoing is the same as for the Panasonic Lumix LX-3. They are virtually identical cameras. Only the body shape is different. Oh, and the price! $829 for the Panasonic and $1650 for the Leica. There is a nice leather case supplied with the Leica but apart from that you are paying a lot of money for the little red badge. Still, if you are prepared to pay for the red badge bragging rights you are getting an excellent camera – probably the best compact camera currently on sale. Panasonic/Leica have dropped out of the megapixel race, which bodes well for the future of compact cameras.
*
Posted by terry at 08:55 AM | Comments (2)
[MR ALLEN GOES BACK TO THE FUTURE]
In his new film Vicki Cristina Barcelona Woody Allen reveals a nostalgia for good old silver halides. Cristina is a young American who wanders awestruck around Barcelona snapping away with her all-in-one digital superzoom.
Until her new friend, Maria Elena, gives her some advice, to “get rid of her digital camera and to use an old one for more interesting results.”
And bingo! We see Cristina out and about with a Leica rangefinder camera and Maria Elena has set up a darkroom for her in the basement where, without practising or instruction, she becomes an expert in no time, turning out perfect prints. How we laughed!
What does Woody mean by “more interesting results”? And why doesn’t he come clean on the economics of the conversion from digital back to film? For the price of the Leica and the enlarger and other darkroom paraphernalia, not to mention the cost of the silver-based materials, Cristina could have bought the best digital camera and had some change.
It set us thinking. Is there some special quality about traditional prints? The walls of the Imaging cave are covered in photos, both darkroom and inkjet printed. There’s no doubt that the blacks in the old photos, printed on Agfa paper (the company was a victim of the digital revolution) have an appealing richness, but you can get the same with a good inkjet printer.
However, if you insist on the qualities of photographic paper, take the hybrid path. Capture the image as a digital file and then make the print on silver-based paper, processed in the old-fashioned chemical way. Pegasus prints are probably the best known example of the hybrid technology.
The name Pegasus refers to the printing machine and processor. The digital information is sent to the machine from a computer and the paper is exposed by an array of LEDs. It is a colour system, but we were interested in the quality of its monochrome output.
We took our picture file to LabX (www.labx.com.au) in St Kilda where production manager, Rob Goldie, dropped our CD into the computer, pressed the Print button and seven minutes later presented us with a 38X50cm black and white print. Superb. And at $33 cheaper than we could have done it in the darkroom. And just as “interesting” as any silver halide print we have made in the past. All without inhaling toxic fumes, setting up, cleaning up, wasting water washing the print and so on.
Rob Goldie has been with LabX for twelve years and has seen the transition from film to digital from day one. We peek into the black and white darkroom and see the two big enlargers in pieces, no longer used. The darkroom operators have been retrained to work with computers. Even when printing from film the process is digital – the film is scanned and turned into numbers before sending to the printing machines.
So you might say that Woody’s nostalgia for film is delusional. In the end it is all zeroes and ones. But if you really want to make “more interesting” photos the dpexpert enlarger is for sale.
*
Posted by terry at 08:47 AM | Comments (5)