This has turned into a pretty long post - no photos, just text. It covers my observations and experiences with Google+. All from my own personal point of view. Your mileage may vary, but maybe one or the other observation or idea is helpful for someone out there. I like sharing. That's why I am on Google+.
I'm on Google+ for almost 4 weeks now. My take on what happened to Picasa Web Albums with the Google+ integration hasn't changed - if I would still share photos the way I did in Picasa Web Albums, I'd be rather unhappy.
If I would. But I don't share photos like that anymore. The best thing I ever did was to get rid of all the dead freight and the way I used to share photos by moving my old Picasa Web Albums out of the way to a different Google account. It was a bigger step than I thought at first (when I was just eager to explore Google+).
Sharing photos in Google+ is still a tedious task. If you want a nice presentation of your photo with a big preview in the stream and comments sticking to it, you have to upload one photo at a time through the web interface manually and add it to an existing album (or drag and drop it directly into a new post, upon which it will end up in a "photos from posts" album, from which it can be moved into more organized albums with the "classic" Picasa Web Albums UI). Doing so also makes it necessary to manually enter the title, caption and keywords again - the web uploader of Google+ doesn't interpret that data (yet, I hope). The comfortable way of just picking my export preset from Lightroom that would upload photos into my monthly "recent photos" albums is blocked - at least if you want to share the activity in the stream. And personally, that's where photo upload activity belongs to.
But despite all that and I guess a little bit to everyone's surprise, Google+ quickly filled with an incredible number of talented photographers, both amateurs and pros; both (at least somewhat) well-known if you're using the internet, and completely fresh names - who all began to connect to each other and interact, share - it's totally amazing. I added so many absolutely wonderful photographers and interesting people to my circles, they all share their work generously and open - did I say it's amazing?
Right now it looks like Google+ is the best thing that ever happened to the social web aspects of photography.
The number of people adding me to their circles ("followers"), both photographers and friends, fans and people otherwise interested in photography kept rising. My name appeared on some of the many lists of photographers on Google+ - on some I was listed already, on some I asked for inclusion, on some (like group.as) I added myself.
After the first couple of days and weeks, I decided to not share the random funny stuff with the public anymore like I used to on Google Buzz (face it: R.I.P.). My name's on all these photographer lists, photography is my passion, so if people come to my profile from one of these lists, they should see a public stream of my photos - that's what they came for, right?
I also decided that first time visitors to my profile and posts should not see geeky tech-talk about photography, computers, post processing and all that stuff either: I created a circle for that instead, and only share that part with the people who are really interested (yes, I asked).
And that was probably a very good decision. Yesterday evening I noticed that the number of people adding me to their circles was increasing really really fast. I used to try and keep up, looking at the profiles of folks to maybe reciprocate, but it became impossible. The reason for that increase was that my name and a direct link to my Google+ profile appeared in the "Top 104 Amazing Photographers to circle on Google+" list on Business Insider. I guess I'm lucky because my first name begins with the first letter of the alphabet, making me number 3 on the list. :)
All that has changed my approach to sharing photos. I think that, with over 1000 followers, you can't just dump an album of 50+ photo into your stream and say "hey, these are from my trip to xyz, check it out."
Instead, less is more. I began to carefully hand-pick the images I would share on Google+, adding a little bit of background to the post, maybe some technical details too. Every photo that I show in Google+ is not the result of a mechanical/organizational process of picking, processing, flagging, rating, publishing anymore, no - I've become my own editor. :P It has also made me my worst critic (finally! hehe) and I often find myself thinking "damn, I don't have that many good photos..."
And I guess it's a good thing - we never stop learning, and we can always grow further. There's no such thing as the perfect photographer. The good ones just don't show their failures to the public anymore. ;)
The portfolio that I used to build with 500px (http://www.alex-kunz.com) is what I'm building/mirroring and refining on Google+ now. I most certainly won't dump my most recent images there, like I used to do it in Picasa Web Albums. Instead, I post just one or two photos per day. With my approach of the Photos tab on my Profile eventually being the Google+ version of a portfolio, I try to keep the albums small. Personally, I think portfolio albums should include 10, or maybe 15 photos. [I'm just looking at myself - 10, 15 photos... that's something that I'm willing and eager to explore. It's much less likely when someone adds the 73rd photo to an album called "Sunsets", or something.]
Also, on the joint Facebook page that Shuwen and me use (primarily to not bother our friends with out photo-specific posts) I noticed that the feedback is much better when the photos are hosted on the site, and not somewhere "outside". I noticed that I myself have the same preference for photos on Google+. Links to blogs, other personal sites, or other photo sharing services don't work that well for me. I'm less likely to click on them because it somehow "disrupts" the experience. I assume it is the same for my followers, so I upload my photos to Google+ for the "native" viewing experience, even if they already are at 500px or Flickr.
Allow me a personal note about Flickr and 500px... they're not important anymore for me. For me, Flickr always was everyone's overcrowded photodump (and yes, I realize that's an entirely different story for many others), and the constant popularity contest on 500px with their annoying voting system (hey, I'd like to opt out of it) and ugly "Dislike" button has quickly become equally boring to me, there's no denying it.
Also, a while ago I was musing what the best combination of Like and Favorite features would be. Looking at it now, I think my assumptions and ideas were pretty wrong.
When it was first introduced, I thought "what the heck..." but now with Google+ I really dig that +1 button and it's abstract nature (and one day I might even learn to type it fluently). +1 can mean "I like that" or "I agree with you" or "Thanks for sharing that!", or even "Man, I feel your pain" - see how neutral it is? If I want to show my appreciation, I just click on +1 and since my name is associated with it, the poster can see it and knows I've been there, seen it, appreciate what I saw. Smart, simple, unobtrusive.
And there are no scores and view counters on Google+ - just comments and +1 clicks, and a lively exchange with both fans and other photographers. That's a really really good thing if you ask me.
2011-07-26
The First
Labels:
personal
Kieran O'Connor asked in his post about what started photography for Google+ photographers, and this image is my response.
This is the cemetery of Monastir in Tunisia. I was there on a 1-week "sun and fun" vacation in 1998 and had a compact camera with me. Just in case, you know. Because you just don't go on a vacation without a camera. With some film in it obviously, I don't remember which, probably some Kodak 200.
The photo is a scan from a 4x6" (10x15cm) print and pretty ugly, it's one of the few photos that I scanned to have them in my library on the computer because I love it so much. It's also terribly flawed with lots of dust and spots and everything I didn't really care about when I scanned it many years ago. The photo is unaltered and just the way it was scanned.
It was evening, the sun was setting, we walked past that cemetery, and this peace, this silence, this holiness, the whole mood... I wanted to capture it. The photo probably isn't the greatest success in doing so for anyone else... but for me, it is.
I always liked making photos and capturing these beautiful moments. It just took me a very long time (until the advent of digital cameras, that is) to really begin and pursue it more thoroughly. Things started to take off late 2006 when I borrowed a DSLR to play with a little bit, but the real beginning is this photo - made out of the desire to capture something beautiful to keep it, just for myself. I made photos before and after that. Pointless polaroids and senseless snapshots. But this moment was special, and so is the photo.
This is a copy of my post on Google+.
This is the cemetery of Monastir in Tunisia. I was there on a 1-week "sun and fun" vacation in 1998 and had a compact camera with me. Just in case, you know. Because you just don't go on a vacation without a camera. With some film in it obviously, I don't remember which, probably some Kodak 200.
The photo is a scan from a 4x6" (10x15cm) print and pretty ugly, it's one of the few photos that I scanned to have them in my library on the computer because I love it so much. It's also terribly flawed with lots of dust and spots and everything I didn't really care about when I scanned it many years ago. The photo is unaltered and just the way it was scanned.
It was evening, the sun was setting, we walked past that cemetery, and this peace, this silence, this holiness, the whole mood... I wanted to capture it. The photo probably isn't the greatest success in doing so for anyone else... but for me, it is.
I always liked making photos and capturing these beautiful moments. It just took me a very long time (until the advent of digital cameras, that is) to really begin and pursue it more thoroughly. Things started to take off late 2006 when I borrowed a DSLR to play with a little bit, but the real beginning is this photo - made out of the desire to capture something beautiful to keep it, just for myself. I made photos before and after that. Pointless polaroids and senseless snapshots. But this moment was special, and so is the photo.
This is a copy of my post on Google+.
2011-07-24
Long Exposures
Labels:
exposure
I mentioned in my last post that I was practicing/experimenting/trying long exposures recently. I mean the stuff outside of the comfort zone of the camera's metering and automatic exposure possibilities. The things where the camera just says "LO" in the display because it's too dark to meter. Exposures that are longer than 30 seconds so you have to set the camera to "Bulb". I want to share my observations here.
But first... why the hell would you do that?! To make abstract photos of things in motion, of course. Those who know me know that this means water, mostly. But it's also clouds. Or cars on the Freeway. Or star trails. With water, a 30 second exposure of the surf crashing onto a beach is not long enough - the water will still show some remainders of structure most likely. But with exposure times beyond 2 minutes, the water really turns into a surface without structure... and then have a look at the reflections of rocks and such. Sigh. So beautiful. Photos like that have an otherworldly, tranquil quality.
Now, my pathetic examples shown below are a shame compared to some of the gorgeous works on the net but hey... I'm practicing. And on that particular evening Flat Rock at Torrey Pines State Beach was "a zoo" as a fellow photographer on Google+ put it. People everywhere! It's clearly the sort of photos that are easier to make in Winter. :P
Star Destroyer Flat Rock (NIKON D700, 278s @ ISO 800; f/11, 48 mm (in 35mm)
So, how do you approach this type of photo? How do you determine the correct exposure time when it's so dark that the cameras meter doesn't work? Praise the benefits of digital photography, of course. You simply crank up the ISO all the way to the max, leave the lens wide open, make a quick and dirty test exposure, and then check the histogram.
Correct the settings and make more test exposures until things are looking good (expose to the right but don't overexpose), and then start doing the math: 1 second at ISO 25600 means 2 seconds at ISO 12800, means 4 seconds at ISO 6400, means 8 seconds at... wait a minute. That's annoying. Yes, I already mentioned the Android app "PhoForPho" in my previous post - it contains an exposure calculator! You enter the settings of your test exposure and your desired settings for the final exposure, and it will tell you the correct exposure time. It also has a setting to compensate for the use of neutral density filters, and you can pass the exposure time directly to a timer - awesome! (I'm pretty sure that there's a myriad of similar apps available for the iPhone, too.)
For the photo above, it told me that my exposure time would be something like 18 minutes at ISO 200. That's pretty darn long of course, and the reason why I switched to ISO 800 (yes, it was very dark already). My choice of f/11 was rather stupid of course, looking at the photo f/8 would've been enough easily. But believe me... with all the things you have to take care of, forgetting to check if the aperture setting makes sense is excusable. :)
There's some obstacles when it is so dark: one is composition (yes I know, the photo above shows more a lack thereof but again... I was just practicing). It's easier to frame before it gets dark, of course, but it's helpful anyway to bring a flashlight. The other obstacle is focusing - and a flashlight is a good helper for that, too.
Now, the D700's auto focus is awesome even in low light, but the tiny AF helper light often is not enough. With a flashlight, you can either help the camera's AF, or at least illuminate the distance scale on the lens when you focus manually. :) The most annoying thing in that situation btw. are lenses that focus "beyond infinity" (ie. all of Nikon's modern AF-S lenses), rendering everything slightly out of focus at that setting. While I'm pretty sure there's a wonderful technical explanation why these lenses have to do that, it still sucks. It's best to test it during the daytime so that you know what to do when it's dark.
Solana Beach Tidepools (NIKON D700, 142s @ ISO 100; f/8, 16 mm (in 35mm)
But there's yet more obstacles. The closer you are to the equator, the quicker dusk and dawn happen. I was making these photos at dusk, and by the time I was finished typing the values into the PhoForPho app, it had already gotten considerably darker (yes, really - no kidding), and a 4 minute exposure turned into an 8 minute exposure! Remember... from 4 minutes to 8 minutes is just one stop longer. (which also means: it really doesn't matter if you accidentally close the shutter some 10 or 15 seconds later.)
The next obstacle is noise, or more precisely, hot pixels. With the sensor being "on" for such a long time it heats up, resulting in hot pixels (or subpixels) that do not record the actual light anymore, but are more like micro-overexposures on a pixel level that appear in the photo in the form of a tiny white or red or green/cyan dot.
I've never had any problem with hot pixels on the D700 when I stay within reasonable ISO limits and do not exceed 30 seconds exposure time. There just are no hot pixels. (my Fuji S5pro was quite different in that regard, ahem.) Because of that, I usually had the "long exposure noise reduction" turned off. It just doesn't make sense for "normal" long exposures within the cameras automatic exposure range.
Nikon's long exposure noise reduction is a dark frame subtraction: after the actual exposure, the camera makes another, equally long exposure with the shutter closed, recording a map of the hot pixels, and then removing them from the actual exposure with that mask. That means: making a 5 minute exposure means a total wait of 10 minutes. Now you know why I prefer to keep it off for the exposures up to 30 seconds. :P
But with these really long exposure times, especially when it's necessary to use higher ISO (like in the first photo above), it's absolutely necessary to use it. Darker areas in the frame are more prone to show hot pixels. The first photo was made without long exposure noise reduction, and it looked horrible. And yeeeeeees, it definitely takes longer to clone/heal the hot pixels in post processing than simply waiting for the camera to do it automatically. (you can of course move the camera to a new/different shooting position and begin composing your next frame already while the camera finishes the exposure with the noise reduction job.)
Which yields the last obstacle: time. You can't make these photos when it's pitch black (exposure times would become waaaaay too long because you most likely need to stop down the lens for some depth of field if you're going for the seascapes and some rocks and stuff, like me), so it's either dusk or dawn. You can make two, maybe three exposures within 30 minutes, but that's it. You better know what you're doing then. That's why I practice. :)
[and for the sake of completeness, here's the list of the other, small obstacles: after focusing the lens, switch to manual focus. Make sure VR is off. And Auto-ISO of course. You need a cable release with a shutter lock feature obviously (or one of those fancy programmable cable releases, in that case you don't need the timer). Make sure you get the camera strap out of the way. And keep the dog away from the tripod! That sort of thing.]
But first... why the hell would you do that?! To make abstract photos of things in motion, of course. Those who know me know that this means water, mostly. But it's also clouds. Or cars on the Freeway. Or star trails. With water, a 30 second exposure of the surf crashing onto a beach is not long enough - the water will still show some remainders of structure most likely. But with exposure times beyond 2 minutes, the water really turns into a surface without structure... and then have a look at the reflections of rocks and such. Sigh. So beautiful. Photos like that have an otherworldly, tranquil quality.
Now, my pathetic examples shown below are a shame compared to some of the gorgeous works on the net but hey... I'm practicing. And on that particular evening Flat Rock at Torrey Pines State Beach was "a zoo" as a fellow photographer on Google+ put it. People everywhere! It's clearly the sort of photos that are easier to make in Winter. :P
Star Destroyer Flat Rock (NIKON D700, 278s @ ISO 800; f/11, 48 mm (in 35mm)
So, how do you approach this type of photo? How do you determine the correct exposure time when it's so dark that the cameras meter doesn't work? Praise the benefits of digital photography, of course. You simply crank up the ISO all the way to the max, leave the lens wide open, make a quick and dirty test exposure, and then check the histogram.
Correct the settings and make more test exposures until things are looking good (expose to the right but don't overexpose), and then start doing the math: 1 second at ISO 25600 means 2 seconds at ISO 12800, means 4 seconds at ISO 6400, means 8 seconds at... wait a minute. That's annoying. Yes, I already mentioned the Android app "PhoForPho" in my previous post - it contains an exposure calculator! You enter the settings of your test exposure and your desired settings for the final exposure, and it will tell you the correct exposure time. It also has a setting to compensate for the use of neutral density filters, and you can pass the exposure time directly to a timer - awesome! (I'm pretty sure that there's a myriad of similar apps available for the iPhone, too.)
For the photo above, it told me that my exposure time would be something like 18 minutes at ISO 200. That's pretty darn long of course, and the reason why I switched to ISO 800 (yes, it was very dark already). My choice of f/11 was rather stupid of course, looking at the photo f/8 would've been enough easily. But believe me... with all the things you have to take care of, forgetting to check if the aperture setting makes sense is excusable. :)
There's some obstacles when it is so dark: one is composition (yes I know, the photo above shows more a lack thereof but again... I was just practicing). It's easier to frame before it gets dark, of course, but it's helpful anyway to bring a flashlight. The other obstacle is focusing - and a flashlight is a good helper for that, too.
Now, the D700's auto focus is awesome even in low light, but the tiny AF helper light often is not enough. With a flashlight, you can either help the camera's AF, or at least illuminate the distance scale on the lens when you focus manually. :) The most annoying thing in that situation btw. are lenses that focus "beyond infinity" (ie. all of Nikon's modern AF-S lenses), rendering everything slightly out of focus at that setting. While I'm pretty sure there's a wonderful technical explanation why these lenses have to do that, it still sucks. It's best to test it during the daytime so that you know what to do when it's dark.
Solana Beach Tidepools (NIKON D700, 142s @ ISO 100; f/8, 16 mm (in 35mm)
But there's yet more obstacles. The closer you are to the equator, the quicker dusk and dawn happen. I was making these photos at dusk, and by the time I was finished typing the values into the PhoForPho app, it had already gotten considerably darker (yes, really - no kidding), and a 4 minute exposure turned into an 8 minute exposure! Remember... from 4 minutes to 8 minutes is just one stop longer. (which also means: it really doesn't matter if you accidentally close the shutter some 10 or 15 seconds later.)
The next obstacle is noise, or more precisely, hot pixels. With the sensor being "on" for such a long time it heats up, resulting in hot pixels (or subpixels) that do not record the actual light anymore, but are more like micro-overexposures on a pixel level that appear in the photo in the form of a tiny white or red or green/cyan dot.
I've never had any problem with hot pixels on the D700 when I stay within reasonable ISO limits and do not exceed 30 seconds exposure time. There just are no hot pixels. (my Fuji S5pro was quite different in that regard, ahem.) Because of that, I usually had the "long exposure noise reduction" turned off. It just doesn't make sense for "normal" long exposures within the cameras automatic exposure range.
Nikon's long exposure noise reduction is a dark frame subtraction: after the actual exposure, the camera makes another, equally long exposure with the shutter closed, recording a map of the hot pixels, and then removing them from the actual exposure with that mask. That means: making a 5 minute exposure means a total wait of 10 minutes. Now you know why I prefer to keep it off for the exposures up to 30 seconds. :P
But with these really long exposure times, especially when it's necessary to use higher ISO (like in the first photo above), it's absolutely necessary to use it. Darker areas in the frame are more prone to show hot pixels. The first photo was made without long exposure noise reduction, and it looked horrible. And yeeeeeees, it definitely takes longer to clone/heal the hot pixels in post processing than simply waiting for the camera to do it automatically. (you can of course move the camera to a new/different shooting position and begin composing your next frame already while the camera finishes the exposure with the noise reduction job.)
Which yields the last obstacle: time. You can't make these photos when it's pitch black (exposure times would become waaaaay too long because you most likely need to stop down the lens for some depth of field if you're going for the seascapes and some rocks and stuff, like me), so it's either dusk or dawn. You can make two, maybe three exposures within 30 minutes, but that's it. You better know what you're doing then. That's why I practice. :)
[and for the sake of completeness, here's the list of the other, small obstacles: after focusing the lens, switch to manual focus. Make sure VR is off. And Auto-ISO of course. You need a cable release with a shutter lock feature obviously (or one of those fancy programmable cable releases, in that case you don't need the timer). Make sure you get the camera strap out of the way. And keep the dog away from the tripod! That sort of thing.]
2011-07-21
The reality is very different
No, this is not an entry about post processing. :) Just an interim note as I just browsed through the archives of this blog, looking for all the embarrassing and wrong things that I wrote in the past (hey, it's the single best documentary of how one develops as a photographer, right? grin) and I stumbled over this entry from January 2010: What will Nikon do?
The regular readers of my blog here probably know that I bought a Nikon D700 only a couple of months later. What can I say? It was the best decision I ever made. Because... you know... erm... a lot of my photos are made in a rather sloppy way. Yes, I should probably work on that. But I don't always feel like carrying the tripod with me, or bother using it even if I do have it with me. :P
And the D700 supports that. The combination of stabilized lenses and the high ISO capabilities of the camera allow me to make photos that I wouldn't have thought about in 2007 when I was using my D70s.
Yesterday evening I was at Torrey Pines State Beach to practice some long exposures - so I did have my tripod and cable release (and my Android phone with the wonderful "PhoForPho" app) with me, but I got curious. This is probably not the most awesome photo every made, but just to make my point...
Evening, Torrey Pines State Beach // Nikon D700 at ISO 25600, 1/10s at f/4, 30mm focal length
An extreme example, but still... there's no problem to print this in 20x30cm/~8x12" and it will look good. Maybe even larger. If I stay within reasonable limits (which for me is ISO3200) I still have a lot of possibilities for "getting the shot" today that I didn't have two or three years ago. Lightweight, with just the camera and a versatile, stabilized lens.
And then there's the quality of the raw data. I already mentioned it in my previous post: the D700 allows me to pull so much clean detail from the shadows, it's simply awesome. It's still more bothersome to "nail" a good exposure with the D700 compared to the care-free "fire and forget" approach of the S5pro, but I do not miss the extra stop of dynamic range of the S5pro all that much any more.
So in the end... what I thought I would need and use when I wrote that post 1.5 years ago is pretty different from what I actually need and use now. I should remember that.
The regular readers of my blog here probably know that I bought a Nikon D700 only a couple of months later. What can I say? It was the best decision I ever made. Because... you know... erm... a lot of my photos are made in a rather sloppy way. Yes, I should probably work on that. But I don't always feel like carrying the tripod with me, or bother using it even if I do have it with me. :P
And the D700 supports that. The combination of stabilized lenses and the high ISO capabilities of the camera allow me to make photos that I wouldn't have thought about in 2007 when I was using my D70s.
Yesterday evening I was at Torrey Pines State Beach to practice some long exposures - so I did have my tripod and cable release (and my Android phone with the wonderful "PhoForPho" app) with me, but I got curious. This is probably not the most awesome photo every made, but just to make my point...
Evening, Torrey Pines State Beach // Nikon D700 at ISO 25600, 1/10s at f/4, 30mm focal length
An extreme example, but still... there's no problem to print this in 20x30cm/~8x12" and it will look good. Maybe even larger. If I stay within reasonable limits (which for me is ISO3200) I still have a lot of possibilities for "getting the shot" today that I didn't have two or three years ago. Lightweight, with just the camera and a versatile, stabilized lens.
And then there's the quality of the raw data. I already mentioned it in my previous post: the D700 allows me to pull so much clean detail from the shadows, it's simply awesome. It's still more bothersome to "nail" a good exposure with the D700 compared to the care-free "fire and forget" approach of the S5pro, but I do not miss the extra stop of dynamic range of the S5pro all that much any more.
So in the end... what I thought I would need and use when I wrote that post 1.5 years ago is pretty different from what I actually need and use now. I should remember that.
2011-07-20
HDR and me... not meant to be...
Labels:
lightroom,
post processing
Throughout the past 6 months, I've repeatedly tried HDR to address the dynamic range problem in photography. I find fiddling with ND-grad filters annoying because post processing is so much more flexible, so the HDR approach seems to be the way to go for scenes with strong contrast.
But no matter how hard I try, with my type of photography I can always come up with a more natural looking (?) and pleasing result from one single exposure - so far. I've tried with both Photomatix and Nik's HDR Efex Pro. I don't know... I must be doing something wrong.
Yesterday evening I was at Foster's Point for sunset. That's a pretty neat lookout on the Pacific Crest Trail, at the rim where Laguna Mountains drop down into the desert. I've been using my tripod, bracketing exposures over 7 frames (from -3 to +3), composing, focusing, switching to manual focus, closing the viewfinder, shading the lens' front element with my body to avoid the sunlight from my left causing massive flares, using interval mode to take the hassle out of it, etc. etc. - the whole story.
One of the difficulties was the wind: the land rises slowly from the San Diego coastline all the way to Laguna Mountains (the highest "peak" is ~1900m or ~6200ft) and then drops down into the desert abruptly. The cooler air drops with it (at least that's my explanation:) so it's often quite windy.
Now, 7 exposures in the evening hours take some 2-3 seconds to complete easily, and the wind shook the camera on the tripod ever so lightly that the 7 frames where not 100% aligned (yes, it's a very lightweight carbon fiber tripod and no, there's no way I'm going to haul a heavier tripod around on my hikes). One would imagine that the alignment feature of the HDR software can compensate for that and fix it easily, but unfortunately, that was not the case. I would always find some softness or ghosting where it just shouldn't be. Very annoying.
Anyway. After fiddling with the HDR software for a couple of hours, I just picked the single best exposure and manually processed it in Lightroom. I used the Tonal Contrast filter from Nik's Color Efex suite to get more local contrast - as I already wrote, that thing alone makes the whole suite worth the money for me. I wish that HDR software could be reduced to these three simple sliders. :P
So... yes sir, I can boogie (...but I need a certain song!). Here's the final image. That's a single exposure.
Sunset at Foster's Point (NIKON D700, 1/13s @ ISO 200; f/11, 65 mm (in 35mm)
To the left is Garnet Peak, the silhouettes on the right range from Anza Borrego's Granite Mountain in front all the way to a faint San Gorgonio 80 miles away - the highest peak in Southern California at ~3500m (~11500ft).
For your comparison, here's what the original image straight out of the camera looks like - as usual, interpreted with Lightroom's "Camera Standard v3 beta" profile:
Sunset at Foster's Point (raw) (NIKON D700, 1/13s @ ISO 200; f/11, 65 mm (in 35mm)
Here's a quick run-down of the editing steps. I applied one single graduated filter in Lightroom that brings down the bright sky by -1EV. I also increased the Clarity to +100 in the graduated filter to lay the foundation for working out some of the details in the haze.
In Lightroom's Basic adjustments, I brought down the exposure another -0.6 and cranked up the Recovery Slider all the way to 100. Combined with the graduated filter, that brings back the sky to a normal level. The important thing is, just as usual, to not blow the highlights. I use UniWB to get that as precisely as possible.
I set Fill Light to 30 to bring back the shadows of the mountain which became to dark with the above exposure compensation. After that I had a pretty dull looking but completely fine image with details everywhere. The Tonal Contrast filter in Color Efex brought them to life, a hefty saturation boost makes the colors pop.
Back in Lightroom, I added a warm tone to the shadows with Split Toning, adjusted the orange hue in the HSL panel for a smoother gradient in the sky, and pushed the Lights in the Tone Curve to +50 which makes the colors in the sky really pop. And that was it.
I can't help but notice that the D700's raw data is simply excellent. The amount of detail than can be recovered from the highlights as well as the clean and practically noise-free shadows make it a lot easier to do such strong edits on a single exposure.
But no matter how hard I try, with my type of photography I can always come up with a more natural looking (?) and pleasing result from one single exposure - so far. I've tried with both Photomatix and Nik's HDR Efex Pro. I don't know... I must be doing something wrong.
Yesterday evening I was at Foster's Point for sunset. That's a pretty neat lookout on the Pacific Crest Trail, at the rim where Laguna Mountains drop down into the desert. I've been using my tripod, bracketing exposures over 7 frames (from -3 to +3), composing, focusing, switching to manual focus, closing the viewfinder, shading the lens' front element with my body to avoid the sunlight from my left causing massive flares, using interval mode to take the hassle out of it, etc. etc. - the whole story.
One of the difficulties was the wind: the land rises slowly from the San Diego coastline all the way to Laguna Mountains (the highest "peak" is ~1900m or ~6200ft) and then drops down into the desert abruptly. The cooler air drops with it (at least that's my explanation:) so it's often quite windy.
Now, 7 exposures in the evening hours take some 2-3 seconds to complete easily, and the wind shook the camera on the tripod ever so lightly that the 7 frames where not 100% aligned (yes, it's a very lightweight carbon fiber tripod and no, there's no way I'm going to haul a heavier tripod around on my hikes). One would imagine that the alignment feature of the HDR software can compensate for that and fix it easily, but unfortunately, that was not the case. I would always find some softness or ghosting where it just shouldn't be. Very annoying.
Anyway. After fiddling with the HDR software for a couple of hours, I just picked the single best exposure and manually processed it in Lightroom. I used the Tonal Contrast filter from Nik's Color Efex suite to get more local contrast - as I already wrote, that thing alone makes the whole suite worth the money for me. I wish that HDR software could be reduced to these three simple sliders. :P
So... yes sir, I can boogie (...but I need a certain song!). Here's the final image. That's a single exposure.
Sunset at Foster's Point (NIKON D700, 1/13s @ ISO 200; f/11, 65 mm (in 35mm)
To the left is Garnet Peak, the silhouettes on the right range from Anza Borrego's Granite Mountain in front all the way to a faint San Gorgonio 80 miles away - the highest peak in Southern California at ~3500m (~11500ft).
For your comparison, here's what the original image straight out of the camera looks like - as usual, interpreted with Lightroom's "Camera Standard v3 beta" profile:
Sunset at Foster's Point (raw) (NIKON D700, 1/13s @ ISO 200; f/11, 65 mm (in 35mm)
Here's a quick run-down of the editing steps. I applied one single graduated filter in Lightroom that brings down the bright sky by -1EV. I also increased the Clarity to +100 in the graduated filter to lay the foundation for working out some of the details in the haze.
In Lightroom's Basic adjustments, I brought down the exposure another -0.6 and cranked up the Recovery Slider all the way to 100. Combined with the graduated filter, that brings back the sky to a normal level. The important thing is, just as usual, to not blow the highlights. I use UniWB to get that as precisely as possible.
I set Fill Light to 30 to bring back the shadows of the mountain which became to dark with the above exposure compensation. After that I had a pretty dull looking but completely fine image with details everywhere. The Tonal Contrast filter in Color Efex brought them to life, a hefty saturation boost makes the colors pop.
Back in Lightroom, I added a warm tone to the shadows with Split Toning, adjusted the orange hue in the HSL panel for a smoother gradient in the sky, and pushed the Lights in the Tone Curve to +50 which makes the colors in the sky really pop. And that was it.
I can't help but notice that the D700's raw data is simply excellent. The amount of detail than can be recovered from the highlights as well as the clean and practically noise-free shadows make it a lot easier to do such strong edits on a single exposure.
2011-07-16
Going back in time
Labels:
after-before,
post processing,
raw
One of the best things about raw data is that you can go back years later and try something new. Software, camera profiles and most importantly your own post processing skills change (and hopefully for the better). Romain Guy posted an old favorite photo on Google+ recently and inspired me to do something similar.
Here's a photo from June 2007 when I hiked to the summit of Sonntagshorn for the very first time. The photo was made in the early evening when I was on the descend already, and the clouds would soon form into a refreshing summer thunderstorm. I remember that I made it back to the car just in time before a short but heavy rain shower started. The photo itself was not a particular favorite of mine - I picked it because I never showed it before, and never edited it either. :)
In fact, looking at the photos from that hike with the knowledge that I gained now, I think that most of them are actually lousy. :P I cherish the memories of the entire day instead - it was awesome to get to the summit in the afternoon and enjoy the afternoon light, I had the company of my dog, I was carrying the camera with me, I had just began to use raw data and was eager to explore...
Loferer Steinberge (NIKON D70s, 1/40s @ ISO 200; f/25, 39 mm (in 35mm)
(click here for the original image, interpreted with Lightroom's "Camera Standard" profile with the camera's suggested auto white balance of 4850/-4.)
What's most noticeable immediately are two things: a) I lacked a LOT of understanding about my camera, clearly visible in the EXIF data (f/25 in aperture priority mode... I simply didn't know what I was doing) and b) the combination of the old old D70s and Lightroom's camera profiles probably sucks. The green tones in all these photos are simply... weird. No matter which camera profile I choose, and not that it would matter after my heavy editing anyway. :)
Now... I can't remember what that scene might have actually looked like - but most likely not exactly like that what the camera recorded. I edited the photo so that it reflects that what must have made me raise the camera back then, and make release the shutter.
It's also a lesson about human nature: I remember that I was cursing the weight of the D70s with the 18-200VR lens back then. Today, I'm hauling a camera combination that weighs twice as much and all kinds of accessories and extra lenses on my hikes. And I've gotten used to it. :)
Here's a photo from June 2007 when I hiked to the summit of Sonntagshorn for the very first time. The photo was made in the early evening when I was on the descend already, and the clouds would soon form into a refreshing summer thunderstorm. I remember that I made it back to the car just in time before a short but heavy rain shower started. The photo itself was not a particular favorite of mine - I picked it because I never showed it before, and never edited it either. :)
In fact, looking at the photos from that hike with the knowledge that I gained now, I think that most of them are actually lousy. :P I cherish the memories of the entire day instead - it was awesome to get to the summit in the afternoon and enjoy the afternoon light, I had the company of my dog, I was carrying the camera with me, I had just began to use raw data and was eager to explore...
Loferer Steinberge (NIKON D70s, 1/40s @ ISO 200; f/25, 39 mm (in 35mm)
(click here for the original image, interpreted with Lightroom's "Camera Standard" profile with the camera's suggested auto white balance of 4850/-4.)
What's most noticeable immediately are two things: a) I lacked a LOT of understanding about my camera, clearly visible in the EXIF data (f/25 in aperture priority mode... I simply didn't know what I was doing) and b) the combination of the old old D70s and Lightroom's camera profiles probably sucks. The green tones in all these photos are simply... weird. No matter which camera profile I choose, and not that it would matter after my heavy editing anyway. :)
Now... I can't remember what that scene might have actually looked like - but most likely not exactly like that what the camera recorded. I edited the photo so that it reflects that what must have made me raise the camera back then, and make release the shutter.
It's also a lesson about human nature: I remember that I was cursing the weight of the D70s with the 18-200VR lens back then. Today, I'm hauling a camera combination that weighs twice as much and all kinds of accessories and extra lenses on my hikes. And I've gotten used to it. :)
2011-07-14
Vision and style
Labels:
books,
philosophy
This is another photo from last Sunday's hike to Dry Lake in the San Gorgonio Wilderness. The scene was different from what my edit shows (which is nothing new), in bright daylight, very brutal contrast... but still, I'm a sucker for these somehow "empty" but tranquil scenes, and I saw that absolutely beautiful reflection of the trees on the water, and I somehow knew that I want to capture that, and carve it out at home - somehow. :)
Peaceful Dry Lake (NIKON D700, 1/60s @ ISO 250; f/8, 70 mm (in 35mm)
It is a photo from Dry Lake, not of Dry Lake. I read about that wonderful distinction right in the very first photo discussion in George Barr's book "Why photographs work" (highly recommended!) and it was an eye-opener: I make photo from subjects, not of subjects. It is a simple and yet absolutely complete answer to the usual (and sometimes irritating) questions such as "is it photoshopped?" that one is confronted on a regular basis when showing photos on the internet.
That's one of the reasons why I buy books about photography. They are still a much more solid and concentrated source of knowledge about photography than the random flux of blogs and comments on photo sharing platforms and forums and whatnot on the internet. I know, that sounds a little arrogant and like hypocrisy :P because I'm writing this blog and publish on the internet, but still:
Discussing photos on internet forums and photo sharing platforms has a tendency of becoming what I call "herding your homies" - one gathers a group of followers that add cheerful comments to your photos. But don't you dare to add a word of critique or question the photo of some renowned internet celebrity photographer. It has happened to me, and the reactions often show a surprising amount of arrogance.
On the other hand, as I grow as a photographer, and develop my own vision and style, I also begin to understand them. It is simply rather unlikely that you'll get a comment that is actually useful (I mean, other than petting your ego, which seems to be good enough quite often, at least it seems so) when you post a photo on a photo sharing site.
I notice that the understanding of photographic design and composition on such platforms is often limited to the rule of thirds, and maybe some lines "and stuff" - with little to no attention spent on the distribution of light and dark, color, rhythm, patterns, and the other design elements that contribute to composition, as well as all the tiny little details that keep a carefully executed and processed photo as a piece of art apart from an ambitioned, but somewhat careless (because unaware) snapshot.
I'm not saying that all photo comments posted on the internet are crap, but have a critical look at the comments your photos receive (even the ones that you're not so totally happy with) and be the judge. I'm not saying that I'm an expert on design and composition either - I just notice that it is an ongoing process, and that the knowledge accumulated in books like "Why photographs work" are a great helper to identify them, and continue one's own growth.
Another thing that really helps me is the participation on platforms like Seen.By and 1x - it's just very very different if you post a photo on Flickr, Picasa or 500px and your homies start cheering, or if a group of anonymous editors evaluates your work with focus on what their site represents (which is the reason why I quit 1x - we're just not made for each other I guess) and the chances to sell an image, that sort of thing.
Hell yes, it can be depressing. VERY! In the rush of importing and processing your latest photos you submit that masterpiece and poof, it gets rejected. It's tough. But it has helped me grow my own vision and style, asking myself what I really want to do and show, and work harder on that, than submitting photos to a free and open photo sharing site ever could.
So here's an appeal, a request: more honesty in photo comments. Stop the applause and the cheering, or break the silence, and say what you really like and what doesn't work for you. It's not that difficult:
When I notice that, with my perception, there's something wrong in a photo, for example in a way that it draws attention away from the subject, I just mention it, that's all (but an arrogant answer of denial is just a surefire way to make me stop looking at a persons photos.)
Peaceful Dry Lake (NIKON D700, 1/60s @ ISO 250; f/8, 70 mm (in 35mm)
It is a photo from Dry Lake, not of Dry Lake. I read about that wonderful distinction right in the very first photo discussion in George Barr's book "Why photographs work" (highly recommended!) and it was an eye-opener: I make photo from subjects, not of subjects. It is a simple and yet absolutely complete answer to the usual (and sometimes irritating) questions such as "is it photoshopped?" that one is confronted on a regular basis when showing photos on the internet.
That's one of the reasons why I buy books about photography. They are still a much more solid and concentrated source of knowledge about photography than the random flux of blogs and comments on photo sharing platforms and forums and whatnot on the internet. I know, that sounds a little arrogant and like hypocrisy :P because I'm writing this blog and publish on the internet, but still:
Discussing photos on internet forums and photo sharing platforms has a tendency of becoming what I call "herding your homies" - one gathers a group of followers that add cheerful comments to your photos. But don't you dare to add a word of critique or question the photo of some renowned internet celebrity photographer. It has happened to me, and the reactions often show a surprising amount of arrogance.
On the other hand, as I grow as a photographer, and develop my own vision and style, I also begin to understand them. It is simply rather unlikely that you'll get a comment that is actually useful (I mean, other than petting your ego, which seems to be good enough quite often, at least it seems so) when you post a photo on a photo sharing site.
I notice that the understanding of photographic design and composition on such platforms is often limited to the rule of thirds, and maybe some lines "and stuff" - with little to no attention spent on the distribution of light and dark, color, rhythm, patterns, and the other design elements that contribute to composition, as well as all the tiny little details that keep a carefully executed and processed photo as a piece of art apart from an ambitioned, but somewhat careless (because unaware) snapshot.
I'm not saying that all photo comments posted on the internet are crap, but have a critical look at the comments your photos receive (even the ones that you're not so totally happy with) and be the judge. I'm not saying that I'm an expert on design and composition either - I just notice that it is an ongoing process, and that the knowledge accumulated in books like "Why photographs work" are a great helper to identify them, and continue one's own growth.
Another thing that really helps me is the participation on platforms like Seen.By and 1x - it's just very very different if you post a photo on Flickr, Picasa or 500px and your homies start cheering, or if a group of anonymous editors evaluates your work with focus on what their site represents (which is the reason why I quit 1x - we're just not made for each other I guess) and the chances to sell an image, that sort of thing.
Hell yes, it can be depressing. VERY! In the rush of importing and processing your latest photos you submit that masterpiece and poof, it gets rejected. It's tough. But it has helped me grow my own vision and style, asking myself what I really want to do and show, and work harder on that, than submitting photos to a free and open photo sharing site ever could.
So here's an appeal, a request: more honesty in photo comments. Stop the applause and the cheering, or break the silence, and say what you really like and what doesn't work for you. It's not that difficult:
When I notice that, with my perception, there's something wrong in a photo, for example in a way that it draws attention away from the subject, I just mention it, that's all (but an arrogant answer of denial is just a surefire way to make me stop looking at a persons photos.)
2011-07-13
Tonal Contrast
Labels:
lightroom,
post processing
I'm running into the limits of Lightroom. The biggest one is selectively adjusting tonal contrast. Here's a photo processed with the "Tonal Contrast" (duh!) filter of Nik Software's "Color Efex" suite (sidenote: their US office is in San Diego - ha!)
Dry Lake Detail (NIKON D700, 1/60s @ ISO 280; f/8, 35 mm (in 35mm)
If you notice a slight HDR-ish look, you're right (there's also some halo around the trees in the top right corner, I should've taken care of that). But it's just a single exposure. The filter allows adjusting of the tonal contrast of the highlights, midtones and shadows separately. Somewhat similar to tone mapping, I guess. It's not possible to do that with Lightroom - at least not easily. It would require an insane amount of local adjustments with exposure compensations and the Clarity effect. That's just not reasonable.
The downside: it's an external editor for Lightroom. We're talking about exporting a 16bit TIFF with ~60MB. Disk usage explodes (one 14bit raw file of my D700 in the DNG format has ~12MB) - especially if you want to use multiple filters of Color Efex. One filter, one file. Horrible!
It's also quite easily possible to overdo the effect of course, and completely overcook the images. Just like with HDR which are often completely drowned in midtones, lacking ANY sense of depth. (I could post a quick example, but why should I? The internet is full of them, anyway! haha:)
The interesting thing is... after finalizing the edits in Lightroom, I fire up that thing (actually, the only thing I ever used is the Tonal Contrast filter, kind of a waste, but what the heck - that filter alone was worth it for me) and I can pretty much exactly add the extra amount of detail in the shadows and highlights for which I'd otherwise probably fiddle around with multiple exposures and HDR (which I, in case anyone didn't really guess yet, do not like that much). It just brings the highlights and the shadows closer together for a more natural overall impression. Very good.
About the photo: it shows a detail of Dry Lake in the San Gorgonio Wilderness of San Bernadino National Forest, California. I made this photo last Sunday. This beautiful ephemeral lake only fills with water in early summer, when the snow melts. Later in the summer, it dries out completely. It's a 22km (13.7mi) hike out and back - which thankfully keeps larger hordes of loud people away.
And I can't help but mention that I did this hike with my friend Hans who lives in San Diego and hikes the area for many years now. We've been on a number of hikes ever since I moved here. I met him through Picasa Web Albums.
Dry Lake Detail (NIKON D700, 1/60s @ ISO 280; f/8, 35 mm (in 35mm)
If you notice a slight HDR-ish look, you're right (there's also some halo around the trees in the top right corner, I should've taken care of that). But it's just a single exposure. The filter allows adjusting of the tonal contrast of the highlights, midtones and shadows separately. Somewhat similar to tone mapping, I guess. It's not possible to do that with Lightroom - at least not easily. It would require an insane amount of local adjustments with exposure compensations and the Clarity effect. That's just not reasonable.
The downside: it's an external editor for Lightroom. We're talking about exporting a 16bit TIFF with ~60MB. Disk usage explodes (one 14bit raw file of my D700 in the DNG format has ~12MB) - especially if you want to use multiple filters of Color Efex. One filter, one file. Horrible!
It's also quite easily possible to overdo the effect of course, and completely overcook the images. Just like with HDR which are often completely drowned in midtones, lacking ANY sense of depth. (I could post a quick example, but why should I? The internet is full of them, anyway! haha:)
The interesting thing is... after finalizing the edits in Lightroom, I fire up that thing (actually, the only thing I ever used is the Tonal Contrast filter, kind of a waste, but what the heck - that filter alone was worth it for me) and I can pretty much exactly add the extra amount of detail in the shadows and highlights for which I'd otherwise probably fiddle around with multiple exposures and HDR (which I, in case anyone didn't really guess yet, do not like that much). It just brings the highlights and the shadows closer together for a more natural overall impression. Very good.
About the photo: it shows a detail of Dry Lake in the San Gorgonio Wilderness of San Bernadino National Forest, California. I made this photo last Sunday. This beautiful ephemeral lake only fills with water in early summer, when the snow melts. Later in the summer, it dries out completely. It's a 22km (13.7mi) hike out and back - which thankfully keeps larger hordes of loud people away.
And I can't help but mention that I did this hike with my friend Hans who lives in San Diego and hikes the area for many years now. We've been on a number of hikes ever since I moved here. I met him through Picasa Web Albums.
2011-07-12
Interview
Labels:
personal
Deanna Dahlsad asked me for an interview. Here it is. The views expressed are nothing really new for frequent readers of my blog. I hope I don't sound too nerdy. :)
2011-07-11
Why Picasa Web Albums users shouldn't adopt Google+ yet
Labels:
picasa
Time to break the promise to not write about Google+ and the lack of Picasa Web Albums integration. Sorry. There's just more things that get broken in Picasa Web Albums when you join Google+ that Google doesn't tell you, so yours truly has to deliver the unpleasant truth. (once more;)
After I moved my Picasa Web Albums from my main Google account (which is Google+ enabled) to a secondary account (not Google+ enabled), I added myself as a follower in both directions - the Google+ account is a follower of the "legacy" account's Picasa Web Albums activity, and vice versa.
My intention was to add photos to my Google+ account that would more or less reflect that what I present as a portfolio on my 500px-generated website. But after I added the first batch of photos from Lightroom just as usual, I noticed a couple of odd things:
After I moved my Picasa Web Albums from my main Google account (which is Google+ enabled) to a secondary account (not Google+ enabled), I added myself as a follower in both directions - the Google+ account is a follower of the "legacy" account's Picasa Web Albums activity, and vice versa.
My intention was to add photos to my Google+ account that would more or less reflect that what I present as a portfolio on my 500px-generated website. But after I added the first batch of photos from Lightroom just as usual, I noticed a couple of odd things:
2011-07-07
The slow death of Picasa Web Albums
Labels:
picasa
This will be my last post about Google, Picasa Web Albums, Google+ or anything like that. I've resigned from the "priviledge" of being a Top Contributor in the Google/Picasa help forums too. There's no need to associate my name with the service anymore, as it only causes me grief.
In my post about the introduction of Google+ and how it splits the Picasa Web Albums community, I mentioned the ongoing problems that Picasa Web Albums users are facing when they want to use the service just as they used to. Here is a guest post by my German Picasa Web friend Susanne. She just loves to share photos with her friends on Picasa Web Albums and occasionally also publishes photos in local newspapers. She originally posted this article in German and I offered to post an English translation here as a guest post to which she gladly agreed.
In my post about the introduction of Google+ and how it splits the Picasa Web Albums community, I mentioned the ongoing problems that Picasa Web Albums users are facing when they want to use the service just as they used to. Here is a guest post by my German Picasa Web friend Susanne. She just loves to share photos with her friends on Picasa Web Albums and occasionally also publishes photos in local newspapers. She originally posted this article in German and I offered to post an English translation here as a guest post to which she gladly agreed.
2011-07-06
Strange Forest
For the weekend of 4th of July, we've made a short trip to Big Bear Lake in the San Bernadino mountains. Big Bear is the most densely populated area in a National Forest, and it showed... both the village and the lake were pretty crowded. It reminded me of the alpine villages of Ruhpolding and Reit im Winkl in high season, with some (maybe charming) Greek rural messiness mixed into it. :P
Unfortunately, the region suffered from a pretty bad heat wave just the weekend we visited, so our hiking activity was somewhat limited (usually, it's much colder there in summer, which is the reason why we went there first place.)
We started a hike to Gray's Peak at 8am in the morning and that was ok, temperature-wise, and crowd-wise, too - the trail makes a turn around a ridge after some 20-30 minutes of hiking and the constant buzz of motor boats and jet-ski's on the lake fades away.
The flora couldn't be more different from the Bavarian and Austrian alps that I've hiked for such a long time. The forest is light and there's usually a lot of space between the trees (which are tall pines, somewhat similar to Laguna Mountains), but where there's grass and humid forest soil in the alps, there's a bed of gravel and granite bolders in this mountain range. Quite unusual for my eyes. Here's a photo:
Strange Forest (NIKON D700, 1/100s @ ISO 200; f/8, 30 mm (in 35mm)
Late in the afternoon, we paid a visit to one of the oldest Lodgepole Pines in the world: the approximately 450 years old "Champion Lodgepole Pine" near Bluff Mesa and we have to admit: it's not quite as spectacular as the hiking guides and descriptions make you think it is. But here's a photo, anyway:
Champion Lodgepole Pine (NIKON D700, 0.8s @ ISO 200; f/8, 24 mm (in 35mm)
The small pine on the right is about 2m (7 ft.) tall, the big "twin-tower" in the background about 33m (110ft.)
Since this short short hike is on the south side of the hills surrounding Big Bear lake, it's more lush and green than the sun-dried north side of the Gray's Peak hike, and reminded me much more of the European alps. It keeps filling me with wonder and fascination how different the landscape and vegetation around here is within very very short distances: between the dry gravel forest floor of the first picture to the lush green meadows of the second one it's just a 30 minute drive.
Unfortunately, the region suffered from a pretty bad heat wave just the weekend we visited, so our hiking activity was somewhat limited (usually, it's much colder there in summer, which is the reason why we went there first place.)
We started a hike to Gray's Peak at 8am in the morning and that was ok, temperature-wise, and crowd-wise, too - the trail makes a turn around a ridge after some 20-30 minutes of hiking and the constant buzz of motor boats and jet-ski's on the lake fades away.
The flora couldn't be more different from the Bavarian and Austrian alps that I've hiked for such a long time. The forest is light and there's usually a lot of space between the trees (which are tall pines, somewhat similar to Laguna Mountains), but where there's grass and humid forest soil in the alps, there's a bed of gravel and granite bolders in this mountain range. Quite unusual for my eyes. Here's a photo:
Strange Forest (NIKON D700, 1/100s @ ISO 200; f/8, 30 mm (in 35mm)
Late in the afternoon, we paid a visit to one of the oldest Lodgepole Pines in the world: the approximately 450 years old "Champion Lodgepole Pine" near Bluff Mesa and we have to admit: it's not quite as spectacular as the hiking guides and descriptions make you think it is. But here's a photo, anyway:
Champion Lodgepole Pine (NIKON D700, 0.8s @ ISO 200; f/8, 24 mm (in 35mm)
The small pine on the right is about 2m (7 ft.) tall, the big "twin-tower" in the background about 33m (110ft.)
Since this short short hike is on the south side of the hills surrounding Big Bear lake, it's more lush and green than the sun-dried north side of the Gray's Peak hike, and reminded me much more of the European alps. It keeps filling me with wonder and fascination how different the landscape and vegetation around here is within very very short distances: between the dry gravel forest floor of the first picture to the lush green meadows of the second one it's just a 30 minute drive.
2011-07-01
Google+ against PicasaWeb
Labels:
picasa
A while ago, I promised myself to not post too much about Picasa Web Albums and what Google does with that service anymore for fear that my schizophrenic hate/love relationship would become all too obvious (something like a Google version of Thomas Hawk and Flickr, lol!). :P
However... with the most recent events, I can't help but add some comments again. I'm a Picasa Web Albums user for many years now. I'm a Top Contributor in the Picasa help forums with 4500+ answers in the German forum alone. I love that service, and if you're active on Picasa Web Albums too, you very much know that over time, a lot of more or less loose user communities have come into existence there. Small groups of people that follow each other on their Picasa Web Albums, leave comments on their photos, eventually continue that contact through email, and sometimes extend it into the real life, too. In other words, it's a very successful, theme-based social network with many many small social CIRCLES.
There. I said it. Circles. I want to talk about the recent introduction of Google+ of course, and what it does to Picasa Web Albums... and how Google almost completely lacked to respect, support and integrate these existing structures of VERY loyal users and fans of their service. Users that got stuck with more than two months of problems uploading and commenting on the site recently (it's all documented in the help forums) and still decided to stick with it, just because of the communities they have there.
Now, I have a bit of a history of "Google versus Picasa Web Albums". It began with linking of one's public Google profile against Picasa Web Albums in December 2010, in an effort to unify the identity of the users. When you signed in to your Picasa Web Album, you saw an obnoxious requester that asked you to create a public Google Profile and link it against your Picasa Web Album identity, and it just wouldn't go away unless you did.
Personally, I had no problem with that since the Google Profile actually gave me a way to add a contact form and additional links to my other web presences. What I didn't like was how Google forced users to adopt that change, threatening them "you cannot comment and share in Picasa Web Albums until you link to your public Google Profile." - I think it's pretty safe to say that qualifies as blackmailing. In the end, the users won: after a storm of protest (it's just one of multiple threads) in the Picasa help forums, the requirement was taken away. Picasa Web Albums users were free to choose again whether they wanted the unified identity, or their separate Picasa Web Albums identity.
Then came the "new" Google Profile layout. It looked much better than the old profile design, and I immediately adopted it (I'm sorry to say that but in general, it's not such a good idea to be an early adopter of new Google ideas and products, I think... I shot myself in the knee more than once because of that and learned my lesson, believe me...) Amongst the changes was a bigger profile photo. The old profile photo was scaled up and looked pretty ugly all of a sudden, pixelized and such. I uploaded a new profile photo - only to find it would end up in a public Picasa Web Album named "Profile Photos" - for everyone to see. Same for the photos one chose for the "Scrapbook" (a set of 5 photos displayed on the Google Profile). They ended up in a public album too.
Not that they weren't public on my profile already, no! They had to be public in my Picasa Web Album too, littering the otherwise nice presentation of my albums for whatever reason (I still haven't heard a good one.)
I didn't want that. I didn't want my Picasa Web Albums to become the backend storage for photos from other services or features - at least not in public albums. And even today, the Blogger profile photos and albums are unpublic, by default. Just like it should be.
The only way out of it was to DELETE the public Google profile altogether, and Google Buzz with it (which included losing all people that I was following; I had to manually find them again - thanks a lot, Google.) That was the only way to break the connection from the Google Profile to the Picasa Web Album identity. After that, I was able to delete the public profile and scrapbook photo albums, and upload NEW profile and scrapbook photos - which were private then. Hey presto! Exactly how I wanted it to be. In the end I, the user, won.
And now Google+. Not only is it a requirement that the Picasa Web Albums identity is linked against the Google Profile again, no: when you activate Google+ in your account, only other Google+ users can comment on your photos. The rest, the "normal" Picasa Web users, are locked out. And the worst thing is: when you activate Google+ on your account, there is no warning that this would happen.
Now, as you can imagine, being a Picasa Web Albums user for such a long time, I have gained a LOT of followers. And I would completely lock them out by activating Google+. So it's either Google+ or being loyal towards your followers. I chose both. How?
I transferred all of my photos from my primary Google account (which is Google+ activated) to a secondary Google account (which is not Google+ activated, has no public profile, no Buzz, no other gimmicks). All the followers, all the comments, all the people you're following - everything's transferred. That's pretty nicely done. Kudos to the Picasa Web team for that.
So once more I, the user, won. I get what I want: a no-toys "pure" Picasa Web presentation of my photos in one account, and the full fledged latest social experience with Google+ in my main account. The question that arises is of course: Why am I not free to decide if I want my photos included in Google+ at all? Why am I not free to decide whether profile and scrapbook albums should be public or private? Why does it have to be that way? Why are existing and loyal users treated like that?
What Google does is effectively dividing the existing Picasa Web Albums community with an axe, and that axe is called Google+. It's pretty shocking to me how Google treats it's existing and loyal userbase. But then again, after "profilegate", it's actually not that surprising.
What's more... when you add Google+ to your account, the people you're following on Picasa Web Albums are completely ignored (as are your existing Google Contacts and contact groups, which could - in my case - be turned into existing "Circles" in Google+ right away; now I have to gather and collect all my friends and contacts again manually - pathetic.) There's no "Circle" in Google+ for your Picasa Web Albums friends. Google+ just grabs all your photo albums and integrates them. There's no way to "click through" to the classic Picasa Web Albums interface anymore, either. They leave your Picasa Web friends, your community, your photo circle completely behind in the process and lock them out from commenting on your photos.
Don't be evil, Google? Is that still valid? I'm tempted to say that this is not very sensitive. Or short-sighted. You choose. But one thing is certain for me now: Google doesn't care very much for feedback (and I provided plenty of it over the years), and it doesn't really care very much for it's users either. Sad but true.
However... with the most recent events, I can't help but add some comments again. I'm a Picasa Web Albums user for many years now. I'm a Top Contributor in the Picasa help forums with 4500+ answers in the German forum alone. I love that service, and if you're active on Picasa Web Albums too, you very much know that over time, a lot of more or less loose user communities have come into existence there. Small groups of people that follow each other on their Picasa Web Albums, leave comments on their photos, eventually continue that contact through email, and sometimes extend it into the real life, too. In other words, it's a very successful, theme-based social network with many many small social CIRCLES.
There. I said it. Circles. I want to talk about the recent introduction of Google+ of course, and what it does to Picasa Web Albums... and how Google almost completely lacked to respect, support and integrate these existing structures of VERY loyal users and fans of their service. Users that got stuck with more than two months of problems uploading and commenting on the site recently (it's all documented in the help forums) and still decided to stick with it, just because of the communities they have there.
Now, I have a bit of a history of "Google versus Picasa Web Albums". It began with linking of one's public Google profile against Picasa Web Albums in December 2010, in an effort to unify the identity of the users. When you signed in to your Picasa Web Album, you saw an obnoxious requester that asked you to create a public Google Profile and link it against your Picasa Web Album identity, and it just wouldn't go away unless you did.
Personally, I had no problem with that since the Google Profile actually gave me a way to add a contact form and additional links to my other web presences. What I didn't like was how Google forced users to adopt that change, threatening them "you cannot comment and share in Picasa Web Albums until you link to your public Google Profile." - I think it's pretty safe to say that qualifies as blackmailing. In the end, the users won: after a storm of protest (it's just one of multiple threads) in the Picasa help forums, the requirement was taken away. Picasa Web Albums users were free to choose again whether they wanted the unified identity, or their separate Picasa Web Albums identity.
Then came the "new" Google Profile layout. It looked much better than the old profile design, and I immediately adopted it (I'm sorry to say that but in general, it's not such a good idea to be an early adopter of new Google ideas and products, I think... I shot myself in the knee more than once because of that and learned my lesson, believe me...) Amongst the changes was a bigger profile photo. The old profile photo was scaled up and looked pretty ugly all of a sudden, pixelized and such. I uploaded a new profile photo - only to find it would end up in a public Picasa Web Album named "Profile Photos" - for everyone to see. Same for the photos one chose for the "Scrapbook" (a set of 5 photos displayed on the Google Profile). They ended up in a public album too.
Not that they weren't public on my profile already, no! They had to be public in my Picasa Web Album too, littering the otherwise nice presentation of my albums for whatever reason (I still haven't heard a good one.)
I didn't want that. I didn't want my Picasa Web Albums to become the backend storage for photos from other services or features - at least not in public albums. And even today, the Blogger profile photos and albums are unpublic, by default. Just like it should be.
The only way out of it was to DELETE the public Google profile altogether, and Google Buzz with it (which included losing all people that I was following; I had to manually find them again - thanks a lot, Google.) That was the only way to break the connection from the Google Profile to the Picasa Web Album identity. After that, I was able to delete the public profile and scrapbook photo albums, and upload NEW profile and scrapbook photos - which were private then. Hey presto! Exactly how I wanted it to be. In the end I, the user, won.
And now Google+. Not only is it a requirement that the Picasa Web Albums identity is linked against the Google Profile again, no: when you activate Google+ in your account, only other Google+ users can comment on your photos. The rest, the "normal" Picasa Web users, are locked out. And the worst thing is: when you activate Google+ on your account, there is no warning that this would happen.
Now, as you can imagine, being a Picasa Web Albums user for such a long time, I have gained a LOT of followers. And I would completely lock them out by activating Google+. So it's either Google+ or being loyal towards your followers. I chose both. How?
I transferred all of my photos from my primary Google account (which is Google+ activated) to a secondary Google account (which is not Google+ activated, has no public profile, no Buzz, no other gimmicks). All the followers, all the comments, all the people you're following - everything's transferred. That's pretty nicely done. Kudos to the Picasa Web team for that.
So once more I, the user, won. I get what I want: a no-toys "pure" Picasa Web presentation of my photos in one account, and the full fledged latest social experience with Google+ in my main account. The question that arises is of course: Why am I not free to decide if I want my photos included in Google+ at all? Why am I not free to decide whether profile and scrapbook albums should be public or private? Why does it have to be that way? Why are existing and loyal users treated like that?
What Google does is effectively dividing the existing Picasa Web Albums community with an axe, and that axe is called Google+. It's pretty shocking to me how Google treats it's existing and loyal userbase. But then again, after "profilegate", it's actually not that surprising.
What's more... when you add Google+ to your account, the people you're following on Picasa Web Albums are completely ignored (as are your existing Google Contacts and contact groups, which could - in my case - be turned into existing "Circles" in Google+ right away; now I have to gather and collect all my friends and contacts again manually - pathetic.) There's no "Circle" in Google+ for your Picasa Web Albums friends. Google+ just grabs all your photo albums and integrates them. There's no way to "click through" to the classic Picasa Web Albums interface anymore, either. They leave your Picasa Web friends, your community, your photo circle completely behind in the process and lock them out from commenting on your photos.
Don't be evil, Google? Is that still valid? I'm tempted to say that this is not very sensitive. Or short-sighted. You choose. But one thing is certain for me now: Google doesn't care very much for feedback (and I provided plenty of it over the years), and it doesn't really care very much for it's users either. Sad but true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)