« June 2009 | Main | August 2009 »

July 30, 2009

[REVIEW—SONY CYBERSHOT W230 compact]

Price: $380

Nice, but no viewfinder

The low-down: This 12 megapixel compact camera is fitted with a 4x Zeiss-branded lens (30–120mm film equivalent). The lens is optically stabilised. There is 15MB of internal memory and the camera uses Sony's own Memory Stick for image storage. Construction is of the usual high Sony standard. The unit we tested has an attractive brushed-metal look. Controls are small and not intuitive, but once mastered the camera is easy enough to use. The LCD screen is large (7.5cm) and of good brightness, contrast and fidelity. It is obviously intended as a point-and-shoot camera, but there is a P(rogram) setting. Various aspect ratios can be chosen including a dedicated setting for high definition television display.

Like: The HDTV display is particularly fine, although if this setting is chosen in-camera it does limit printing options. Images are generally sharp, well exposed and with reasonable colour accuracy, if somewhat oversaturated. We found that if the pictures were a little underexposed image noise is noticeable, even at ISO200. We wouldn't recommend using this camera at anything above that ISO speed. Movie mode is surprisingly good.

Dislike: We have had a soft spot for the Sony W cameras in the past because they had optical viewfinders. Only Sony and Canon compacts had this feature and now Sony has gone the way of the herd. This is a retrograde step. No matter what they say there are situations where the LCD is impossible to use as a viewfinder.

Verdict: Compact cameras, unlike DSLRs, are unforgiving. If all the conditions are not perfect – light, focus, exposure, contrast – then the pictures will be barely acceptable. But when the conditions are right the little Sony does a good job. We let a small child try it. It fitted her hands well and she proved to be an imaginative photographer. We can say that the Sony W230 is so simple a child can use it – if that's what you're looking for.

*

Posted by terry at 10:43 AM | Comments (0)

[ECO PHRIENDLY PHOTOGRAPHY]

Photography, traditionally, has been a pretty poisonous business. Silver-based photography not only used up the finite resource of silver itself, but the processing involved chemicals that didn't bear too much thinking about and the quantity of water flushed down the drain makes us blush with shame.

Digital photography, sans chemicals and sans water, arrived just in time, right at the start of the drought.

However there is still a way to go to reduce the environmental impact of digital photography to an absolute minimum, so we were intrigued with the efforts that Tony Knoll is making to diminish the eco effects of making photographic prints.

Six years ago Tony had one of those industrial accidents that lit the light bulb of inspiration. He was making an ornate moulding for a picture frame – the business he was in at the time – when he spilled some of the gypsum cement he was using to form the frame. It splashed onto a mirror. And when he peeled it off he found that he had a perfectly smooth surface on which he could draw, paint or print photographs.

He immediately saw the possibilities presented by this new reproduction medium, and he set about refining it, with a goal in mind to reduce the environmental impact of the materials to an absolute minimum.

Visit the PanelPop website for information about Tony Knoll's PanelPop product, which is described as “...a new art medium. Its smooth, porcelain-like surface is perfect for working with pencil, charcoal, water colours, oils and acrylics. Photographs can be printed directly onto the panel. The effect is a framed, non-reflective, glass-less image that's lightweight and can be hung both in and outside. Most of the materials used have been rescued from landfill, making PanelPop a very happy product with a good carbon conscience.”

The timber frame of the PanelPop, which also acts as the mould, is made from reclaimed timber that, in Tony Knoll's words, “has no other use than to be burned”. In other words he doesn't use recycled timber that could be put to any other use, such as building or furniture making.

The sub-stratum on which the gypsum cement sits is made from polystyrene fruit boxes, collected at the Victoria market. The surface material is reinforced with fabric offcuts salvaged from the RMIT fashion school. Eventually Tony intends to replace the gypsum cement, which is not environmentally benign, with a new material called ECrete, being developed by a Melbourne University academic. (www.zeobond.com/ecr.htm)

The photographic printing is done with a billboard printing technique using UV cured inks for long print life in bright light. The results on the ceramic surface are soft and romantic and there is no glass to create annoying reflections. It will work best with the types of photos you might choose to print on art rag paper.

It certainly beats flushing our precious water reserves down the drain in order to print a few photographs.

*

Posted by terry at 10:39 AM | Comments (0)

July 23, 2009

[SNAPPING THE ANKLE-BITERS]

Imaging has been doing Grandpa duty this past week. Grand-daughter number two, who we only see a few times a year, was visiting from interstate, which gives us a small window of opportunity to update the photos on the fridge.

GD No.2 is six years old, and you know what that means. Following her around is like tracking a blowie in a bottle. You have to be prepared to move quickly or she'll be over the horizon before the shutter has fired.

We used four different cameras for the exercise – two of our own (DSLRs) and two on test (one DSLR and one compact). Without wishing to spread despair and despondency we have to say that using the compact was a frustrating business. We were always one beat behind the action. Even though we tried to anticipate her moves and expressions it was still difficult to capture the decisive moment.

When photographing children it is essential to get down on their level and to get in close – either physically close or with a telephoto lens. The long lens is usually the better option because it is less intrusive into the child's play space and tends to give a nicely blurred background.

The DSLR has one huge advantage over most compacts – with the high speed burst mode turned on you just hold your finger on the shutter button and fire off shots at up to five frames a second. That increases the chances of one shot being the one that goes straight to the fridge door.

And DSLRs also allow for higher ISO settings without noise being a problem, and that means faster shutter speeds, also a boon when tracking the little tacker. Flash is generally undesirable for informal photos because of the artificial, blitzed look of the pictures, so any extra ISO latitude is a help.

The greatest advantage of digital over film is that it is free. Shoot away! One hundred shots won't cost any more than one. There is a free lunch after all.

DSLRs are beautifully responsive. Some, like our Nikon D300, have both a focus button (as distinct from the shutter release) and a focus/exposure lock button. Using these controls makes the camera even quicker in its reactions. There seems to be no barrier between the eye and the finger. You see it, you shoot it. Compacts cannot match this instant reaction.

There is one drawback to the one-hundred-shots-is-better technique. You have to sort them all out on the computer and there is not enough room on the Kelvinator door to display them all. We use Jalbum as our preferred display medium. This Swedish company sells 1GB of space on its server for about AU$34 a year, which we think is reasonable.

You download the album creation software from Jalbum (Windows and Mac), make and preview the album on your computer, and “publish” the result. The album can be shared with all the friends and relatives, whether they want it or not! You can't ask fairer than that.

*

Posted by terry at 10:09 AM | Comments (1)

July 16, 2009

[HIGH DEFINITION — THE NOT SO BIG PICTURE]

Last month analogue television was turned off in the US. Millions of homes were left without free to air television, even though the government was practically giving away digital set top boxes.

We are headed for the same fiasco here in the next few years. In spite of all the Freeview advertising the fact is that a sizeable slice of the population has no idea what digital means and couldn't care less.

At our place we have had a digital set top box since transmissions started. In fact we are now on our third STB, but all of them have been for standard definition. Last month we decided that the time had come to go high definition, and that involved some serious decision making.

Looking at TVs in the shop tells you nothing. They are almost invariably set up with a cartoon running and cartoons look OK on anything. Even when the program source is pictures of human beings you don't know if the original material is high definition or standard, and you don't know if it is off air, from a DVD, a BluRay disc or some manufacturer's demonstration loop on a computer drive.

Sets in shops are set to maximum brightness, contrast and saturation and generally look awful, but if size is more important than picture quality that probably doesn't matter. But to some of us image quality trumps size, and that's what makes the final decision on brand and size very complicated indeed.

At our place we have always had either Australian made or European televisions because we prefer their look to that of Asian sets. This is a matter of taste and probably has some cultural underpinning, but we prefer the subtle, softer Euro look to the more contrasty and saturated colours of the Asian sets. While we call the Asian colour bias garish others call the European look dull.

So, we set up an excellent Korean set, the Samsung Series 7 LCD with LED back lighting, side by side with a Metz Linus, also LCD but without the clever back lighting. They are chalk and cheese. The Samsung has really deep, rich blacks whereas the best the Metz can do is darkish grey. The difference in underlying black immediately gives the Samsung a punchy, brilliant look. The Metz looks drab by comparison, but it is also immediately apparent that the skin tones and general subtle tonality of the Metz picture is in a different league from the Samsung. Not better, merely different. And we prefer that Euro look. We call it realistic.

What about size? If all things were equal we would say bigger is better, but all things are hardly ever equal. In the end we paid more for less screen real estate. We bought a 94cm set that is more expensive than the 115cm and 106cm sets we had been trying. And you are right to ask why.

In our television viewing schedule almost everything we watch comes from low definition sources. DVDs, ABC and SBS programs, and our own videos created on the computer, do not have 1080 lines of vertical resolution. Only channels 70, 90 and 1 are full high definition. We don't watch sport, so channel 1 is wasted on us. The only program we regularly watch on commercial TV is Desperate Housewives, which is in full high definition and looks splendid. For anyone who regularly watches American programs, such as the CSIs, and some Australian programs, including Home and Away, All Saints and Neighbours, a huge, high definition screen is the way to go. Definitely the bigger the better.

For ABC and SBS viewers the issue is much more problematical. Neither network transmits in full 1080 line resolution. Both have so-called HD channels (channels 20 and 30) that transmit in pseudo HD of 720 line resolution. And most of the time the source material is low definition video that has been upscaled. So, with a 1080 line set (which is the only sort you should buy) the source program is upscaled to 720 lines for transmission and then upscaled again in the TV to 1080. The results range from acceptable to abysmal.

Occasionally the ABC transmits source material that originates in 720 lines, such as the excellent Murder in 3 Acts, and the results are acceptable, but not in the same class as the Australian and American programs on 70 and 90 that originate in true high definition.

Proceeding on the assumption that the ABC and SBS are not about to leap into the twenty-first century and match 70 and 90 (we can forget 10 because they only transmit in low definition) how do we cope with the less-than-perfect picture? And if we have a big library of DVDs that we are not about to replace with BluRay discs, as wonderful as they are, what do we do?

That is the point at which we decided that smaller is better. Resolution is not only about screen lines, it is also about screen size and viewing distance. A low definition picture looks pretty detailed and sharp from the other side of the room, and it also looks better on a small screen than a large one. Upscaling involves the interpolation of information into the picture which is not there in the original and even at its best it is imperfect, resulting in blobs where there should be details. The interpolation effect is less noticeable on a smaller screen.

Big screens give a wonderful, immersive experience when watching films, particularly from a BluRay disc or on channels 70 or 90. Smaller screens feel pinched and the car chases and explosions are pathetic, but the picture is subjectively better. Obviously there is no objective difference, but the psychology of perception plays an important part in how we see the picture.

It's a pity that the ABC is not serious about HD. If you watch ABC1 on the so-called HD channel you get Sydney programs, including the NSW news, with ten minutes of blather about rugby and NSW weather. The Sydney Broadcasting Corporation knows how to rub the nation's nose in the Keating aphorism: “If you're not living in Sydney you're camping out”. And as long as ABC and SBS think they can get away with awful picture quality the rule of thumb for buying a new HD television is that smaller is better.

Paradoxically – and infuriatingly – when the ABC simulcasts studio programs, such as The 7.30 Report, the picture looks slightly better on the standard definition channel than on the HD channel. 70 and 90 always look better than 7 and 9, which is as it should be. Why else have high definition?

After frittering away a big slice of our life watching TV, DVDs, BluRay and AVI(DivX) files on three sets – 115cm, 106cm and 94cm, Asian and European – we settled on the 94cm Metz Talio. We didn't try plasma screens because there aren't any European plasmas, and we are aware that many people prefer plasma over LCD. But even if we had chosen plasma it wouldn't have changed our decision about size.

In the end it is a compromise. We love the experience of big, but we are fussy about quality and on that count smaller wins.

*

WHAT IS THE PERFECT TV VIEWING DISTANCE?

According to the calculator on the DTVCity website we have hit on the perfect screen size for our viewing room. We sit two metres from the screen and the calculator says that 94cm (diagonal dimension) is the ideal size for a high definition TV in that situation.

There used to be a rule of thumb for viewing distance from a 4:3 aspect ratio set that prescribed an eye to screen distance of 3X the diagonal width of the screen. That rule no longer applies with HD televisions because the pixel size is so small that it can be viewed from close up without seeing the screen-door effect of large, widely separated picture dots.

Screen-to-eye distance is now a matter of personal preference, but one thing that everyone agrees on is that the height of the TV should be such that your eye is level with the centre of the picture. LCD screens suffer from brightness fall-off as you move off-axis, which means that the closer you can sit to the centre line of the screen the better the picture will look. This fall-off effect is more pronounced on European sets than on Asian units, so the optimal angle of view is narrower for Euro screens.

*

Posted by terry at 09:54 AM | Comments (4)

[REVIEW—CANON POWERSHOT D10]

Price: $600

Nifty

The low-down: This 12 megapixel camera is Canon's entry into the go-anywhere-indestructible category. It is waterproof to 10 metres and will work in -10C conditions. It will also cope with a 1m drop. The camera case is a curious looking affair, but quite attractive. The modest 35–105 zoom lens is completely sealed and image stabilised. There is the usual face and blink detection (do fish blink?). The 6.25cm LCD screen is very good with excellent brightness and colour and its brightness can be easily and quickly adjusted. The camera is bulky for a compact, but with the extra volume and mass comes an extra sense of durability. Ergonomics are up to the usual standard expected from Canon compacts, although the adjustment buttons might be a bit fiddly to use when face to face with a White Pointer.

Like: The wizards at Canon have done it again – produced a compact camera with an absurdly high pixel count that is not plagued with noise effects. Images have good detail, sharpness, colour and contrast. We didn't even experience problems with dynamic range, but all of our test photos were taken in overcast conditions, so we can't vouch for summer performance.

Dislike: The images straight from the camera are just a little soft. This is easily corrected with a small application of Unsharp Mask in an editing program, so it is not a deal breaker.

Verdict: If you are in the market for an indestructible camera you have a choice between products from Panasonic, Olympus, Pentax and now Canon. Each has its merits, but of them all we like the Canon best. We particularly like its weird Captain Nemo shape – a 1960s underwater sci-fi design. If we were planning world domination in a home-made submarine this is the camera we would have on board.

*

Posted by terry at 09:51 AM | Comments (0)

[FLASH PARTIES]

Here's a thing to think about. Why do professional digital single lens reflex cameras not have built in, pop-up flashes?

Answer, in the immortal words of Sybil Fawlty, because they are no bloody good. Except, in the case of some cameras, as a trigger for off-camera flash guns.

We were reflecting on these things last week when we took a camera to a birthday knees-up. We dread this condition of invitation. Taking snaps at a party is not our idea of fun but if the ordeal is inescapable we have a few words of advice.

First, if all you have is a compact camera with in-built flash, say no. You'll only spend the night taking pictures of startled frolickers with werewolf-red eyes. Every skin flaw will be painfully illuminated. Hideous black shadows will fall on the wall behind. Don't do it.

If, however, you have a DSLR, then don't rely on the pop-up flash. The results will be much the same as for the compact. To do the job at all well you need a proper flash unit that mounts in the hot-shoe. And has a swivelling head.

A flash unit with the beam pointed straight ahead is only a more expensive version of the pop-up, in-built thing. A swivelling head that can be pointed upwards or turned sideways is essential for half-way acceptable flash photography.

Which brings us point two. Persuade the host to hold the party in a white room with white walls and a white ceiling. Then getting good flash shots is shooting fish in a barrel. Just point the flash head up to the ceiling or sideways onto a wall and bingo! You will get soft, diffused, flattering light. No red eye. No harsh shadows. No sharply defined pimples.

However, if you can't get the ideal venue then here is advice number three – invest in a flash diffuser. Flash diffusers are amazingly expensive plastic boxes that slip onto the flash head. Just keep in mind that this is not one-size-fits-all equipment. Every brand flash unit needs a unique diffuser, so it's best to take your flash into the shop when you go to buy one.

Then, fourth, when the diffuser is on the flash and the flash is mounted in the hot-shoe, point the flash head straight up. If the flash head is pointed forward toward the subject then the result will not be much different from using a flash without diffuser.

Mind you, even with the best set-up the party snapper's troubles have just begun. Images will tend to have elevated contrast and brightness which must be tamed in post-camera editing. And getting the colours of the ladies' clothes just right is virtually impossible. Best to work in black and white!

We had one particularly fussy subject to deal with who insisted that the colour of her shirt was altogether the wrong pink. We should have run some manual white balance checks in the venue before we started. Ah well, too late now. Back to Lightroom to see if we can make her happy.

*

Posted by terry at 09:49 AM | Comments (0)

July 11, 2009

[SOW'S EAR TO SILK PURSE]

Our pal M has just returned from Spain with memory cards full of photos. Although he is an accomplished photographer he has never before shot in RAW. (RAW is the file format that preserves the image detail uncompressed. JPEG files are compressed to varying degrees and processed in-camera.)

His camera, a Nikon D200, did not come with any really useful RAW converter in the box. Nikon charges extra – a lot extra – for their Capture NX converter. So we told him to download Adobe Camera RAW, which is free and works with Photoshop and Photoshop Elements.

ACR (as we will call it) may be free, but it is not anaemic. It is a fully fledged image editor in its own right. If you use ACR correctly when the file opens in Photoshop there shouldn't be a lot left to do. However Adobe is not so generous that they give away a user manual.

One of the best guides to using ACR is on the on-line video tutorial site Lynda.com, which charges a subscription, starting at US $25 a month. You can look at a lot of tutorials in a month.

The introduction to ACR, presented by Chris Orwig, is a good place to start. Chris is a fast talking American, so he is not easy to follow first time through. The good thing about Lynda is that you can watch the video once and then go back and watch it again.

He has another dazzling tutorial called “Photoshop CS4 portrait retouching” where you can watch his ACR techniques in action.

In this video he addresses the fundamental question: How much licence can you legitimately take in retouching a portrait? These days we are familiar with the verb “to photoshop” which is generally used pejoratively to indicate a photo is fake.

As Chris demonstrates it is a doddle to remove pimples and whiten teeth. Is that OK? What about removing the wart from aunty Gladys's nose? Cromwell might not have approved but aunty is probably pleased. And there won't be any argument about removing the power pole growing from the top of uncle Cyril's head.

There is a filter tool in Photoshop called “Liquify” which can strip a person of several kilograms of surplus body fat and still look realistic. Chris shows how to do it on an almost-perfect model who is turned into a super model with a nudge of the Liquify tool on each side of her waist.

He shows how to correct skin tone and colour in ACR, and no one should quarrel with that because tone and colour faults are not inherent in the subject but are consequences of difficult light and incorrect colour balance. Troublesome shadows under the eyes and nose can be lightened with the Fill Light tool in ACR.

We have ACR installed as the front-end of Photoshop and PS Elements and configured as the default program to open both RAW and JPEG files. We wouldn't be without it.

*

Posted by terry at 02:51 PM | Comments (3)