Warning - this is another loooooooong post. I've been thinking to split it into two parts, but since it all goes together so nicely I put it all into one post. I hope you'll enjoy it nevertheless and find it's worth your time. Here we go. :-)
One of the things that I noticed after a few days of using the D700 was how unreliable the exposure control (picture review on the camera's built in screen aka "chimping") was - I was seeing the blinking highlight warning (indicating overexposure, which is very undesirable in the digital domain 99% of the time) and made another exposure - just to find out at home that the raw data was perfectly ok and not overexposed.
The reason for that is (besides the fact that the picture control image is always the JPEG): the D700 has a rather steep and contrasty tone curve (see the review on dpreview.com for proof - notice the dramatic difference of dynamic range covered in the JPEG and the raw data - I don't know what Nikon was thinking here...). And just like on the S5pro, I've been using the "Neutral" image rendering and set both brightness and contrast all the way down, but I was still seeing the blinking warning where no highlights were actually lost/overexposed in the raw data.
I already mentioned that I am kinda "spoiled" from the S5pro and it's incredible dynamic range, but I can't help but notice that I am spoiled even more by the way I could handle the exposure control on the S5pro - I've simply been using 300% dynamic range all the time, and if I saw any blinking, I could be pretty sure that I was over the limit (using 300% dynamic range instead of the full 400% was simply to make sure that I'd be on the safe side, always). So, with the S5pro, I could accurately judge from the preview JPEG and the blinking highlight indicator if my exposure was good or not.
Not so with the D700, unfortunately. There is NO way to get an accurate highlight control (for ETTR) if you use only raw data. And it's not only the tone curve that influences this, but also the white balance, of course - the camera shifts the three color channels R/G/B around, while the raw data might be very different - that's mostly because the Bayer pattern consists of R/G/B/G (there's two green dots for each red and blue dot).
2010-04-27
2010-04-24
Sweet sweet pollen on my sensor...
Labels:
sensor
Within two weeks of using the D700 I managed to get dust onto it's sensor that the camera's built-in cleaning feature couldn't remove (I configured it to clean whenever I turn on the camera). It was some small particles that simply stuck on the surface and wouldn't go away. Hooray! Time for another episode of my ongoing series of sensor cleaning experiences. :-P
So, I tried to clean that D700's sensor with the Arctic Butterfly thing that I bought (the amount of money that I spent for a cheap battery-operated nylon brush is still scary!), and it only got worse - the small "dots" that I could see turned into a smear trail. Hooray²!
So it was time for a wet cleaning of the sensor - only two weeks after I bought the camera! Yikes. I blame spring. It must be pollen that got into the camera's mirror chamber when I was robbing on the ground, hunting them macros. After my emergency wet cleaning back then in the US (cotton swabs & very pure alcohol), I've been looking for a good and easily usable solution for wet cleaning (and one that would be no problem to carry in the hand luggage on a plane, too), and I think I found it in the "Green Clean" sensor cleaning packs (link goes to Amazon US and opens in a new window/tab just like all external links here should).
I like this stuff because it's very quick & simple to use. It consists of a wet sensor swab that is already impregnated with the cleaning fluid. One or two swipes over the sensor removes all greasy dirt for me (tried it with both the Fuji and the Nikon already), the dry swab is for "toweling" the sensor and removing the residue of the cleaning fluid. No fiddling with extra cleaning fluid and stuff. Rip the stuff open, put the mirror in inspection position, clean the sensor, all done in a couple of minutes. Note: the toweling part is more important than you think. Do it right, or you waste another set. Like I did. :-P
So, I tried to clean that D700's sensor with the Arctic Butterfly thing that I bought (the amount of money that I spent for a cheap battery-operated nylon brush is still scary!), and it only got worse - the small "dots" that I could see turned into a smear trail. Hooray²!
So it was time for a wet cleaning of the sensor - only two weeks after I bought the camera! Yikes. I blame spring. It must be pollen that got into the camera's mirror chamber when I was robbing on the ground, hunting them macros. After my emergency wet cleaning back then in the US (cotton swabs & very pure alcohol), I've been looking for a good and easily usable solution for wet cleaning (and one that would be no problem to carry in the hand luggage on a plane, too), and I think I found it in the "Green Clean" sensor cleaning packs (link goes to Amazon US and opens in a new window/tab just like all external links here should).
I like this stuff because it's very quick & simple to use. It consists of a wet sensor swab that is already impregnated with the cleaning fluid. One or two swipes over the sensor removes all greasy dirt for me (tried it with both the Fuji and the Nikon already), the dry swab is for "toweling" the sensor and removing the residue of the cleaning fluid. No fiddling with extra cleaning fluid and stuff. Rip the stuff open, put the mirror in inspection position, clean the sensor, all done in a couple of minutes. Note: the toweling part is more important than you think. Do it right, or you waste another set. Like I did. :-P
2010-04-17
More pleasing overexposed areas (Lightroom tip)
Labels:
lightroom,
post processing
One of the problems of digital photography is that the transition from normally exposed areas into overexposure is rather unpleasing: as soon as the bit buckets of the sensor flow over, it's like a brick wall. There is no "analogue" exposure latitude, headroom, etc. (sidenote: this is the same for digital audio: analogue tape had an area beyond 0db where it would gently saturate, giving a warm and fuzzy distortion, while digital audio has no headroom - over 0db, it simply clips and gives a harsh and unpleasant distortion). And yes, the Fuji S5pro is a very pleasing exception in the digital photography domain, because Fuji's unique SR sensor gives digital photography the "analogue headroom".
I've been looking for a way to make - unavoidable - overexposed areas more pleasing, and I think I found a good method using Lightroom's local corrections. Negative Clarity, to be more precise - an effect that I mentioned here before. And in fact it's the same idea: this time, adding "glow" to overexposed areas so that the transition from normally exposed areas will apear more pleasing. Lets have a look at the final photo first:
Final Image (D700 with 70-300mm lens, 70mm f/8 - 1/2000s @ ISO200)
It's not a masterpiece, all right, but it's nice for illustrating that what I am talking about. :-) The sun was rising above the cliff called Salzachbruch (also called "Hund" by locals) and its warm morning light was reflecting on the river. It's not the sun in the already very bright sky that was the problem of course - but its reflection on the rather dark river.
That area looked rather odd, with harsh white overexposed spots on the dark water, and with a good amount of color fringing around them, too. I used the local adjustment brush in Lightroom (with auto masking turned OFF!) and began to paint "Clarity -100" over that area:
Applying the local correction (negative clarity, highlighted in red)
This kinda makes the overexposed areas "overflow" into their neighborhood, which makes the whole area a little bit brighter, and thus the transition from dark water to overexposed spots is not that hard (the other local adjustment control points are for adding more clarity in the sky and trees and for some flare removal). The next problem is the color fringing around the highlight spots on the water, here's what that looks like:
Red color fringes around overexposes areas
This can be corrected easily by selecting "Defringe - All Edges" in the "Detail" panel of the Develop module in Lightroom. Depending on the photo, using this might cause a general reduction of saturation; if that happens you might want to increase the saturation to get back the original color and vibrancy. Here's the same area with corrected fringing (sorry it's not exactly the same crop - but you can clearly see the result):
With Lightroom Defringe correction
Last not least, a screenshot of the direct Before/After comparison in Lightroom. The differences may not be dramatic, and if one pass of negative clarity is not enough, it's always possible to simple "stack" the effect and add two or three layers of negative clarity for even more softness.
Left: After / Right: Before
Honk if you think that this is useful for you. :-)
I've been looking for a way to make - unavoidable - overexposed areas more pleasing, and I think I found a good method using Lightroom's local corrections. Negative Clarity, to be more precise - an effect that I mentioned here before. And in fact it's the same idea: this time, adding "glow" to overexposed areas so that the transition from normally exposed areas will apear more pleasing. Lets have a look at the final photo first:
Final Image (D700 with 70-300mm lens, 70mm f/8 - 1/2000s @ ISO200)
It's not a masterpiece, all right, but it's nice for illustrating that what I am talking about. :-) The sun was rising above the cliff called Salzachbruch (also called "Hund" by locals) and its warm morning light was reflecting on the river. It's not the sun in the already very bright sky that was the problem of course - but its reflection on the rather dark river.
That area looked rather odd, with harsh white overexposed spots on the dark water, and with a good amount of color fringing around them, too. I used the local adjustment brush in Lightroom (with auto masking turned OFF!) and began to paint "Clarity -100" over that area:
Applying the local correction (negative clarity, highlighted in red)
This kinda makes the overexposed areas "overflow" into their neighborhood, which makes the whole area a little bit brighter, and thus the transition from dark water to overexposed spots is not that hard (the other local adjustment control points are for adding more clarity in the sky and trees and for some flare removal). The next problem is the color fringing around the highlight spots on the water, here's what that looks like:
Red color fringes around overexposes areas
This can be corrected easily by selecting "Defringe - All Edges" in the "Detail" panel of the Develop module in Lightroom. Depending on the photo, using this might cause a general reduction of saturation; if that happens you might want to increase the saturation to get back the original color and vibrancy. Here's the same area with corrected fringing (sorry it's not exactly the same crop - but you can clearly see the result):
With Lightroom Defringe correction
Last not least, a screenshot of the direct Before/After comparison in Lightroom. The differences may not be dramatic, and if one pass of negative clarity is not enough, it's always possible to simple "stack" the effect and add two or three layers of negative clarity for even more softness.
Left: After / Right: Before
Honk if you think that this is useful for you. :-)
D700 - first week (more thoughts and observations)
I've been playing with the D700 for one week now and want to summarize the observations that I made during this time. I had the camera with me almost every day, for my morning walk with Toni, in the office, for the evening walks with Toni, etc.
Auto ISO (and high iso quality). It's the one thing that I fell in love with (and much more than on the S5pro) immediately. For those who are unfamiliar with auto ISO: you set a "safe" longest exposure time (where you can get a steady freehand shot without camera shake), and if there's not enough light, the camera raises the ISO sensitivity automatically). With the excellent high ISO image quality of the D700, it makes "walking around with a camera" a whole new experience. On the S5pro, I've been using this up to ISO 800, but even 800 was already a compromise (400 was my personal limit for good image quality).
Not so on the D700 - I have configured auto ISO for the range of ISO 200 to 1600, and it's simply great. The compromise would be ISO 3200 with the D700 - that's a 2 stop gain while image quality stays excellent, and it's wonderful. Walking in the forest, making freehand snapshots even with a polarizer? No problem. An early and foggy morning, and a scene that requires stopping down for enough depth of field? No problem either.
"Wöhrsee Morning" • D700 @ ISO1600, 70-300mm VR lens @ f/11, 1/200s
DOF - it was always hard to imagine for me how the crop sensor/factor would really affect the depth of field. One look through the viewfinder of the full frame D700 makes it all very clear - especially when you're using a telephoto lens. One could say that there's simply "more foreground" and "more background" that extends to and from the focus point - which is in an out-of-focus region you simply do not see on the crop sensor. That's all. And yes, I've been cursing this because it requires stopping down more, of course. :)
Vignetting - ouch, yes... on the DX sensor all lenses (that work on full frame, too) benefit (more or less) from the "sweet spot" effect of the crop sensor. You simply do not see the outside of the frame where vignetting - like from the 70-300VR when used wide open - happens. On FX, you do see it. :-P
"Nebelstimmung" • D700 @ ISO400, 220mm @ f/5.6, 1/160s
Long exposures - one thing that I was BADLY missing on the S5pro was the long exposure noise reduction, especially because the S5pro is clearly suffering from hot pixels very much (after two or three 10-15 second exposures, the sensor would require "cooling down" or else you'd get LOTS of hot pixels - I don't know why Fuji left this away...). It's back on the D700, and that makes me really happy! Can't wait to make some really really long time exposures with moving water now (technically, it's nothing more than an automatic darkframe subtraction - the key is *automatic* of course! I always could do it manually, but I found it just too bothersome to really start fiddling around with it).
Exposure latitude. I want to write more detailed about that (including a shoot-out between the D700 and the S5pro), but it's very very clear that the S5pro spoiled me a lot. It has it's exposure latitude in the highlights - the blinking overexposure warning was never much of a problem (and the transition into real overexposure is really pleasing). There's no such luxury on the D700. The good thing is that it has very good shadows, so it's fairly easy to underexpose and then pull up the shadows (instead of doing it the other way around as I was used to with the S5pro - duh... have to get used to that...).
More to come. Have a nice weekend, everyone!
Auto ISO (and high iso quality). It's the one thing that I fell in love with (and much more than on the S5pro) immediately. For those who are unfamiliar with auto ISO: you set a "safe" longest exposure time (where you can get a steady freehand shot without camera shake), and if there's not enough light, the camera raises the ISO sensitivity automatically). With the excellent high ISO image quality of the D700, it makes "walking around with a camera" a whole new experience. On the S5pro, I've been using this up to ISO 800, but even 800 was already a compromise (400 was my personal limit for good image quality).
Not so on the D700 - I have configured auto ISO for the range of ISO 200 to 1600, and it's simply great. The compromise would be ISO 3200 with the D700 - that's a 2 stop gain while image quality stays excellent, and it's wonderful. Walking in the forest, making freehand snapshots even with a polarizer? No problem. An early and foggy morning, and a scene that requires stopping down for enough depth of field? No problem either.
"Wöhrsee Morning" • D700 @ ISO1600, 70-300mm VR lens @ f/11, 1/200s
DOF - it was always hard to imagine for me how the crop sensor/factor would really affect the depth of field. One look through the viewfinder of the full frame D700 makes it all very clear - especially when you're using a telephoto lens. One could say that there's simply "more foreground" and "more background" that extends to and from the focus point - which is in an out-of-focus region you simply do not see on the crop sensor. That's all. And yes, I've been cursing this because it requires stopping down more, of course. :)
Vignetting - ouch, yes... on the DX sensor all lenses (that work on full frame, too) benefit (more or less) from the "sweet spot" effect of the crop sensor. You simply do not see the outside of the frame where vignetting - like from the 70-300VR when used wide open - happens. On FX, you do see it. :-P
"Nebelstimmung" • D700 @ ISO400, 220mm @ f/5.6, 1/160s
Long exposures - one thing that I was BADLY missing on the S5pro was the long exposure noise reduction, especially because the S5pro is clearly suffering from hot pixels very much (after two or three 10-15 second exposures, the sensor would require "cooling down" or else you'd get LOTS of hot pixels - I don't know why Fuji left this away...). It's back on the D700, and that makes me really happy! Can't wait to make some really really long time exposures with moving water now (technically, it's nothing more than an automatic darkframe subtraction - the key is *automatic* of course! I always could do it manually, but I found it just too bothersome to really start fiddling around with it).
Exposure latitude. I want to write more detailed about that (including a shoot-out between the D700 and the S5pro), but it's very very clear that the S5pro spoiled me a lot. It has it's exposure latitude in the highlights - the blinking overexposure warning was never much of a problem (and the transition into real overexposure is really pleasing). There's no such luxury on the D700. The good thing is that it has very good shadows, so it's fairly easy to underexpose and then pull up the shadows (instead of doing it the other way around as I was used to with the S5pro - duh... have to get used to that...).
More to come. Have a nice weekend, everyone!
A personal goal achieved
In the beginning of 2010, I was thinking that it would be nice if I'd be able to sell a print for the first time this year - and as I found out just now, it has happened in January already. :-) "Fallen" was sold through SeenBy - and wow, I'm really happy about that!
"Fallen" • S5pro, 1.6s @ ISO100, 12-24mm lens @ 13mm (DX), f/16
I really hope that the buyer enjoys the photo a lot and it fulfills it's purpose of adding to the decoration of a room.
PS: not directly related, but I removed the ads from both the blogposts and the RSS feed. I've come to the conclusion that it is better like that for a personal project and hobby. If I should earn money through that hobby it should happen through the photos, not from the writing about making them. :-)
"Fallen" • S5pro, 1.6s @ ISO100, 12-24mm lens @ 13mm (DX), f/16
I really hope that the buyer enjoys the photo a lot and it fulfills it's purpose of adding to the decoration of a room.
PS: not directly related, but I removed the ads from both the blogposts and the RSS feed. I've come to the conclusion that it is better like that for a personal project and hobby. If I should earn money through that hobby it should happen through the photos, not from the writing about making them. :-)
2010-04-11
D700 - Raw processing in Lightroom
Labels:
lightroom,
nikon,
post processing
One immediate obversation after importing the first batch of D700 rawfiles into Lightroom was how very "off" the appearance was. At first I thought it was due to the D700's white balance and fiddled with it to no avail until I check the camera calibration and tried a different camera profile.
So far I've been using the "Adobe Standard" profile since it gave me excellent results (for the S5pro raw data) - but for the D700... as it is now, the "Adobe Standard" profile is unusable, period. Here's a macro of a Liverleaf, processed with the "Adobe Standard" profile:
Liverleaf (NIKON D700, 1/200s @ ISO 2500; reversed 35mm, "Adobe Standard" profile)
Now, while the Liverleaf flowers are indeed getting more pale as spring gains momentum, these colors where simply not there at all. The flowers are violet/magenta, but with the Adobe Standard profile, they are almost light blue? No way. So there's one more thing to consider during post processing: the camera profile. Sigh.
As soon as I switched to the "Camera Neutral" profile it was better, and with the "D2x Mode 2/3" profile, the appearance is really good (contrast might be a bit strong with those) - and yes, it's really hard to believe that nothing else but two mouse clicks to switch the camera profile was required to get this result:
Liverleaf (NIKON D700, 1/200s @ ISO 2500; reversed 35mm, "D2x Mode 2" profile)
This photo also shows the nice high ISO performance of the D700. Of course I applied a good amount of noise reduction (to get all the out of focus areas really smooth), but still... this is ISO2500. I could not get the same amount of detail from the S5pro at ISO800. Impossible.
That makes Nikon's auto-ISO simply awesome and a real joy to use on the D700 - when configured to utilize the range between ISO200 and ISO1600, it's perfectly safe to use and the image quality is great. But more on the high ISO performance will follow later.
So far I've been using the "Adobe Standard" profile since it gave me excellent results (for the S5pro raw data) - but for the D700... as it is now, the "Adobe Standard" profile is unusable, period. Here's a macro of a Liverleaf, processed with the "Adobe Standard" profile:
Liverleaf (NIKON D700, 1/200s @ ISO 2500; reversed 35mm, "Adobe Standard" profile)
Now, while the Liverleaf flowers are indeed getting more pale as spring gains momentum, these colors where simply not there at all. The flowers are violet/magenta, but with the Adobe Standard profile, they are almost light blue? No way. So there's one more thing to consider during post processing: the camera profile. Sigh.
As soon as I switched to the "Camera Neutral" profile it was better, and with the "D2x Mode 2/3" profile, the appearance is really good (contrast might be a bit strong with those) - and yes, it's really hard to believe that nothing else but two mouse clicks to switch the camera profile was required to get this result:
Liverleaf (NIKON D700, 1/200s @ ISO 2500; reversed 35mm, "D2x Mode 2" profile)
This photo also shows the nice high ISO performance of the D700. Of course I applied a good amount of noise reduction (to get all the out of focus areas really smooth), but still... this is ISO2500. I could not get the same amount of detail from the S5pro at ISO800. Impossible.
That makes Nikon's auto-ISO simply awesome and a real joy to use on the D700 - when configured to utilize the range between ISO200 and ISO1600, it's perfectly safe to use and the image quality is great. But more on the high ISO performance will follow later.
D700 - first thoughts
Labels:
nikon,
post processing
Yes, I'm back into Nikon's fold. I bought a D700. Why? I found myself being unhappy with the detail and resolution of the S5pro in the past couple of weeks and months. Sensor specialties or not, film-like appearance or not - the photos of the S5pro often appear somewhat soft and lack finer details; and for the enjoyable hand-held kneeling-in-the-dirt :) macro work, I want better high ISO performance to get more successful shots with a cleaner appearance (don't get me wrong, I still LOVE my S5pro).
So - I simply do not want to spend so much time anymore fixing noise, carving out details and whatnot, even at relatively low ISO, at home in front of the computer (in Lightroom). I'm hoping to get better material to start the post processing with in order to reduce the overall time I spend on it. If the D700 can fulfill it's purpose in that regard I hope to find out soon, and I will share my findings here on my blog of course.
As I write this introduction to what will most likely become a number of posts on that subject (especially comparing the D700 with the S5pro) I already have made some first experiences of course, but I do not want to publish them too hastily without further evaluation.
If you look at DxOmark.com and compare the D700 with the S5pro, it looks like (except for dynamic range), the D700 is the clear winner. But how much of that theoretical sensor advantage is available for me in practice could be a different story - let's find out. I set "for me" in bold because it clearly depends on individual requirements. I'm not a low light street or sports and action photographer - even though the high ISO performance is fun of course:
Toni at Night (NIKON D700, 1/80s @ ISO 6400; f/2.5, 50 mm)
I want to add that I never used film SLRs - I'm a "digital child". I started with a borrowed Nikon D70 late 2006, then bought my own Nikon D70s early 2007 and replaced it with the S5pro in Summer 2008 when it's priced dropped so remarkably (the key motivation for that were dynamic range and manual mirror prerelease, that's all - I never looked at the S5pro the way so many people look at it: "the best JPEG machine" - the quality of the JPEGs that the S5pro produces might be remarkable, but just like any other camera, it really begins to shine only when you're utilizing the full advantage of the raw sensor data.)
So I've always been a "crop sensor" person, and I do not have any issue per se with using a camera with a crop sensor. The fact that the D700 has a full frame ("FX") sensor is not important for me. The crop sensor would be perfectly fine for me; I do not mind if my lenses have the field of view that the focal length implies; and I do not mind either if I have to use a "DX" lens to get a similar focal range as it is/was common for film/full frame cameras. But I did select the lenses that I was buying with full frame compatibility in mind. The only "DX" lens in my current setup is the 12-24mm wide angle - which is perfectly usable from 18mm on a full frame sensor:-).
More to come...
PS: I stopped importing my blog's RSS feed into Facebook because of the proposed changes to their "rights and responsibilities" policy. In short: my content is mine, and I do not grant Facebook or anyone else the permission to re-use it without my consent. They cannot change a policy and through that get a permission to re-use other's content for their own purposes. Therefore, only links to new blogposts on Facebook, no import anymore.
So - I simply do not want to spend so much time anymore fixing noise, carving out details and whatnot, even at relatively low ISO, at home in front of the computer (in Lightroom). I'm hoping to get better material to start the post processing with in order to reduce the overall time I spend on it. If the D700 can fulfill it's purpose in that regard I hope to find out soon, and I will share my findings here on my blog of course.
As I write this introduction to what will most likely become a number of posts on that subject (especially comparing the D700 with the S5pro) I already have made some first experiences of course, but I do not want to publish them too hastily without further evaluation.
If you look at DxOmark.com and compare the D700 with the S5pro, it looks like (except for dynamic range), the D700 is the clear winner. But how much of that theoretical sensor advantage is available for me in practice could be a different story - let's find out. I set "for me" in bold because it clearly depends on individual requirements. I'm not a low light street or sports and action photographer - even though the high ISO performance is fun of course:
Toni at Night (NIKON D700, 1/80s @ ISO 6400; f/2.5, 50 mm)
I want to add that I never used film SLRs - I'm a "digital child". I started with a borrowed Nikon D70 late 2006, then bought my own Nikon D70s early 2007 and replaced it with the S5pro in Summer 2008 when it's priced dropped so remarkably (the key motivation for that were dynamic range and manual mirror prerelease, that's all - I never looked at the S5pro the way so many people look at it: "the best JPEG machine" - the quality of the JPEGs that the S5pro produces might be remarkable, but just like any other camera, it really begins to shine only when you're utilizing the full advantage of the raw sensor data.)
So I've always been a "crop sensor" person, and I do not have any issue per se with using a camera with a crop sensor. The fact that the D700 has a full frame ("FX") sensor is not important for me. The crop sensor would be perfectly fine for me; I do not mind if my lenses have the field of view that the focal length implies; and I do not mind either if I have to use a "DX" lens to get a similar focal range as it is/was common for film/full frame cameras. But I did select the lenses that I was buying with full frame compatibility in mind. The only "DX" lens in my current setup is the 12-24mm wide angle - which is perfectly usable from 18mm on a full frame sensor:-).
More to come...
PS: I stopped importing my blog's RSS feed into Facebook because of the proposed changes to their "rights and responsibilities" policy. In short: my content is mine, and I do not grant Facebook or anyone else the permission to re-use it without my consent. They cannot change a policy and through that get a permission to re-use other's content for their own purposes. Therefore, only links to new blogposts on Facebook, no import anymore.
2010-04-06
Dramatic Skies need Clarity
Labels:
lightroom,
post processing,
print
Monday (a public holiday in Germany thanks to Easter) I was visiting the beautiful location of Feldwies at the Chiemsee lake again - it was the second time I was there (which reminds me that I should really finish the second part of my "Exploration" post now). The weather was typical "April mixed bag" with rain and a bit of hail, cold wind and warm sun... I was about to call it a day and go home when on the way back to the car Toni & me could witness the sun slowly breaking through the deep and dark rain clouds:
Let there be light (FinePix S5Pro, 1/250s @ ISO 100; f/8, 35 mm DX)
The sun's rays breaking through the clouds were really really beautiful, it was hard to not be completely mesmerized by the scene, how quickly it changed - and forgetting to make photos because of that. :-)
At home, it was not quite that mesmerizing when I looked at the photos. Of course, raw data is always rather dull and boring and absolutely requires developing (unlike JPEGs that come right out of the camera), but where had those dramatic clouds and the rays of sunlight gone? Our eyes always trick us, the sensation is so much more intensive on location, and the camera's sensor simply cannot capture that.
In order to get that feeling and the rays of light back there were they WERE (cuz I saw them, darnit!:-) I used a LOT of help from Lightroom's "Clarity" function. I boosted the Clarity all the way up to 100 and then added two more graduated filters coming in from the top down to the horizon line - one with another Clarity 100, the other with Clarity set to 50. So all in all, the sky received a 2.5x boost in Clarity.
Overcooked now? Maybe. But I was there, and this is how I remember the moment. I think photos must be more than the real thing to compensate for the fact that they can only transport the visual part of the sensation, and not the sounds, the smell, the temperature, the wind... I wrote on that part of post processing before, and I still think it's valid and legit.
This photo was accepted at SeenBy and is also available as a fine art print (in US$ or in €uro).
Let there be light (FinePix S5Pro, 1/250s @ ISO 100; f/8, 35 mm DX)The sun's rays breaking through the clouds were really really beautiful, it was hard to not be completely mesmerized by the scene, how quickly it changed - and forgetting to make photos because of that. :-)
At home, it was not quite that mesmerizing when I looked at the photos. Of course, raw data is always rather dull and boring and absolutely requires developing (unlike JPEGs that come right out of the camera), but where had those dramatic clouds and the rays of sunlight gone? Our eyes always trick us, the sensation is so much more intensive on location, and the camera's sensor simply cannot capture that.
In order to get that feeling and the rays of light back there were they WERE (cuz I saw them, darnit!:-) I used a LOT of help from Lightroom's "Clarity" function. I boosted the Clarity all the way up to 100 and then added two more graduated filters coming in from the top down to the horizon line - one with another Clarity 100, the other with Clarity set to 50. So all in all, the sky received a 2.5x boost in Clarity.
Overcooked now? Maybe. But I was there, and this is how I remember the moment. I think photos must be more than the real thing to compensate for the fact that they can only transport the visual part of the sensation, and not the sounds, the smell, the temperature, the wind... I wrote on that part of post processing before, and I still think it's valid and legit.
This photo was accepted at SeenBy and is also available as a fine art print (in US$ or in €uro).
2010-04-04
Widescreen gets worse
Labels:
computer
I've been ranting sharing my observation on the usefulness of widescreen displays (especially for photographers) before here. The situation has not exactly improved ever since, because it seems that 16:10 is on the way out, replaced by screens with a 16:9 aspect ratio. :-/
My point that widescreen is not generally usable remains - we do other things with computer screens that we do with TVs, darnit. We're not just watching movies. We're using a web browser, or working with an Office suite, or any other program that has a layout where control elements (like a menu bar, "ribbons", tabs, tools etc.) are placed at the TOP of a programs' window.
Or we're working on photos in portrait orientation, and view them. Wow, look at a photo in portrait orientation on a 16:9 screen. How should it make any impression on the viewer if something like 2/3 of the screen stay BLANK?! In fact, I notice that I'm hesitant to use the normal 3:2 aspect ratio for my photos in portrait orientation - I tend to crop them to 5:4 or 7:5, sometimes even 1:1 to make them appear less TALL on a widescreen display (because viewing photos on screen undoubtedly IS the #1 usage for millions of photographers these days.)
If you look at the sheer numbers, it's impressive - laptops are sold with 17.3" (16:9) displays now for the same price that you got a 15.4" (16:10) display before. Isn't that great? That's so much bigger! Except that it's not. It's just WIDER. Nothing more.
I checked with an old 15.4" (16:10) widescreen laptop versus a new 17.3" (16:9) widescreen laptop: the 15.4" is 21cm high, and 17.3" is 21.5cm high - yes, that's right: the difference is a mere 0.5cm or about 0.2 inches! And the resolution difference? The 15.4" has a "pixel height" of 800, the 17.3" is 900 pixels high. That means: all the elements on screen are actually SMALLER for the 17.3" 16.9 display.
I just BET that a lot of people will be tempted to buy a laptop with a 15.6" (16:9) display now instead of a 15.4" (16:10) display - the number is bigger, right, but the display is TINY! Let's not forget that a 15.4" 16:10 display is only about as high as an 11-12" classic (4:3 or 5:4) display! It might be OK for normal computers displays from 22" or bigger, but laptops... I don't know.
And the ergonomy? The 17.3" display is 39cm long - on a small desk, you cannot fit a mouse beside the laptop computer anymore. :-) On the positive side: there's finally enough space to fit a keyboard with an almost regular layout and numeric block in it (but for me personally, they could leave that away and instead place the INS/DEL and cursor key blocks there just like on a regular keyboard)
For a normal desktop computer, I wouldn't buy anything less than 27" if it has to be a 16:9 display. It's a shame, but consumer laptops with classic 4:3/5:4 resolutions are extinct (man, the 15" 4:3 with 1400x1050 pixels was SUCH a nice display for a laptop!), and 16:10 aspect ratio models are already dying.
Hey, display manufacturers: computers are not TVs! They are tools that people want to WORK with!
My point that widescreen is not generally usable remains - we do other things with computer screens that we do with TVs, darnit. We're not just watching movies. We're using a web browser, or working with an Office suite, or any other program that has a layout where control elements (like a menu bar, "ribbons", tabs, tools etc.) are placed at the TOP of a programs' window.
Or we're working on photos in portrait orientation, and view them. Wow, look at a photo in portrait orientation on a 16:9 screen. How should it make any impression on the viewer if something like 2/3 of the screen stay BLANK?! In fact, I notice that I'm hesitant to use the normal 3:2 aspect ratio for my photos in portrait orientation - I tend to crop them to 5:4 or 7:5, sometimes even 1:1 to make them appear less TALL on a widescreen display (because viewing photos on screen undoubtedly IS the #1 usage for millions of photographers these days.)
If you look at the sheer numbers, it's impressive - laptops are sold with 17.3" (16:9) displays now for the same price that you got a 15.4" (16:10) display before. Isn't that great? That's so much bigger! Except that it's not. It's just WIDER. Nothing more.
I checked with an old 15.4" (16:10) widescreen laptop versus a new 17.3" (16:9) widescreen laptop: the 15.4" is 21cm high, and 17.3" is 21.5cm high - yes, that's right: the difference is a mere 0.5cm or about 0.2 inches! And the resolution difference? The 15.4" has a "pixel height" of 800, the 17.3" is 900 pixels high. That means: all the elements on screen are actually SMALLER for the 17.3" 16.9 display.
I just BET that a lot of people will be tempted to buy a laptop with a 15.6" (16:9) display now instead of a 15.4" (16:10) display - the number is bigger, right, but the display is TINY! Let's not forget that a 15.4" 16:10 display is only about as high as an 11-12" classic (4:3 or 5:4) display! It might be OK for normal computers displays from 22" or bigger, but laptops... I don't know.
And the ergonomy? The 17.3" display is 39cm long - on a small desk, you cannot fit a mouse beside the laptop computer anymore. :-) On the positive side: there's finally enough space to fit a keyboard with an almost regular layout and numeric block in it (but for me personally, they could leave that away and instead place the INS/DEL and cursor key blocks there just like on a regular keyboard)
For a normal desktop computer, I wouldn't buy anything less than 27" if it has to be a 16:9 display. It's a shame, but consumer laptops with classic 4:3/5:4 resolutions are extinct (man, the 15" 4:3 with 1400x1050 pixels was SUCH a nice display for a laptop!), and 16:10 aspect ratio models are already dying.
Hey, display manufacturers: computers are not TVs! They are tools that people want to WORK with!
2010-04-03
Hunting Season
Labels:
philosophy
April 2nd I was in the Ibmer Moor for the first time this year (yes, it's the spot that was the stage for this story, too). It's one of the few breeding areas of the curlew (Grosser Brachvogel) and I love it's melancholic singing (that's an impressive amateur video on YouTube). The bird is also called "Moorflöte" in german which translates to "moor-flute". The males are singing when they're flying, and so far, I was always mesmerized by their singing - but I was never able to make a photo of one. Until Friday!
Curlew (FinePix S5Pro, 1/900s @ ISO 200; f/5.6, 300 mm DX)
Now, this is surely not the most impressive photo of the bird (given what is available as imagery on the web), but still... it's the first time that *I* was able to make a photo of that bird.
The long deceased bavarian comedian Karl Valentin once said "everything has already been said, just not by everyone yet" - and it's the same with photography: most if not all of the birds that we know have already been photographed... but not by everyone. :-) It's an interesting motivation for a lot of hobby photographers. "Bring home the prey" of photography. I think that's the reason why people say they "shoot" photos.
Curlew (FinePix S5Pro, 1/900s @ ISO 200; f/5.6, 300 mm DX)Now, this is surely not the most impressive photo of the bird (given what is available as imagery on the web), but still... it's the first time that *I* was able to make a photo of that bird.
The long deceased bavarian comedian Karl Valentin once said "everything has already been said, just not by everyone yet" - and it's the same with photography: most if not all of the birds that we know have already been photographed... but not by everyone. :-) It's an interesting motivation for a lot of hobby photographers. "Bring home the prey" of photography. I think that's the reason why people say they "shoot" photos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)