Sunday, October 11, 2015

More Raw File Examples

Indeed, Mr. Ken Rockwell might be right - if you know how to set up your DSLR or Mirrorless Camera well, you can get by with not using raw file processing, and shoot strictly JPG's. This is in support of his basic philosophy of "take more pictures... don't worry about fussing with them". But, for others who really like doing things with raw files, it's not "fussing", but rather, spending more time with your pictures, so that you will really discover things that are going on within a particular shot.

The following shows how with the raw file, I discovered the real underlying composition strength of one picture, and by spending time with it, found many different ways to enhance this particular composition. If all I had was the camera's JPG, I never would have discovered this, unless perhaps I had my camera set up for it ahead of time (which BTW would have been completely wrong when compared with my usual way of shooting). This was an extremely candid shot, taken through my car window as a big cement truck rolled by, so how could I possibly have known how to set my camera up ahead of time?

JPEG Straight Out of Camera (SOOC)
Not bad. For this shot, I used the camera's Auto Lighting Optimizer set to "Standard". I've never used this feature before now, because it's basically a Shadow Lifter, used in most Raw File Converters to reveal detail in shadows. It did a fair job - better than I expected. Along with other in-camera features, such as increased Sharpness and increased Saturation, it might indeed be possible to avoid shooting raw files.

But for this shot, I decided I wanted the opposite - don't care so much about the detail under the truck, but would rather emphasize the rear lights*, and have the rest of the picture darker. Keeping in mind the Auto Lighting optimizer only applies to the JPG output (not Raw), we're afforded the freedom to do as we please with lighting situations such as this in the super-wide latitude of the raw file.
* The red rear lights, along with the distant traffic light really make this composition - they happen to fall on, or very close to the grid lines. Placing emphasis on these lights while darkening the rest of the picture really gives the whole thing it's composition strength.
DxO Highlight Tone Priority
DxO Optics Pro gives many one-click exposure options, one of which is Highlight Tone Priority - 3 Levels of it in fact. I used it here^, so we notice the detail under the truck is lost in deep shadow (as it would be in the real world at sun-set). This is also available in-camera (Canon DSLR's), but it cannot be used at the same time as Auto Lighting Optimizer. In other words, in-camera, you cannot raise shadow detail and highlight detail at the same time... in fact, this would be High Dynamic Range (HDR) by definition, which CAN BE achieved in-camera JPG with one setting, which takes 3 shots in rapid succession, each at a different Exposure Value (EV) and combines them into one HDR image. It works very well if you're into that, but I always see HDR as a deviation from the real world so I tend to avoid it. See the HDR example below***: The above shot^ also reveals the excellent way in which DxO automatically optimizes the lens and camera - compare this shot with the SOOC JPG... it's subtle, but the absence of lens distortion makes anything processed with DxO software seem so much more relaxed, always with the feel that you can walk right into the scene. Remember, DxO Labs is the absolute master of this science.

Another nice trick in DxO Optics Pro is Camera Body simulation - the color profile for every camera body in the DxO database is available, so if you don't like the look of your own camera, you can make it look like you used another! The uber-expensive Leica M body is one of these, and it's known for having a deep, rich color profile, so by selecting it, I obtain a slightly darker picture, sacrificing enough shadow detail, while having the nice deep look of the Leica M camera, all the while strengthening the composition in the way I wanted to.

DxO Camera Body - Leica M
Photivo - Highlight Color Lift & Micro-Contrast
With Photivo, I darkened the shot down a bit, and lifted the highlight color values. But compared to the DxO processed shots, it's not quite enough for the red lights to add their strength to the composition. Secondly, Photivo does not do the DxO Lens Correction magic, so the truck doesn't pop out from the picture quite as nicely. This same "problem" exists with every raw file processor except DxO. Now, it's important to keep in mind that most raw developers do include lens correction ability - even Photoshop Elements and GIMP, which are not raw developers include "Lens Fun". But DxO has already done a vast number of modern lens / camera combo's under the most scientific conditions possible, and it's perfect. Unless you have the Optical Lab equipment like DxO has (which you don't) I don't see much sense in messing around with the optics in a picture, unless you want to deliberately create distortion, not eliminate it. To my eyes, this alone makes DxO superior to everything else, and equal to the automated lens correction now built into high-end cameras, such as Canon's EOS-xxD and xD series. But if you have DxO, you don't need this; you can go with a cheaper camera, like Canon's EOS Rebel series - even the oldest Digital Rebel body and kit lens from way back in 2002 are included in the DxO database.

Now, for the amazing Polarr software for Chromebook. It too includes manual lens correction (not the same as DxO per-packaged lens correction), along with everything else you'll need, and it's amazingly well thought out, and runs very quickly. To get it, you don't need to buy a Chromebook; you can simply use your existing computer (Windows, Mac or Linux), download the Google Chrome browser, set up a Google Account and download the Polarr App. Then if you do buy a Chromebook, everything you do within your Google Account will show up in your Chromebook, and vice-versa! Notice how I warmed the picture with Polarr by adjusting the White Balance below:

Chromebook Polarr - Warmer White Balance, Micro-Contrast & Reduced Exposure Value
***
DxO One Click HDR
This is not "proper" HDR made in-camera with the blending of 3 shots in rapid sequence at different exposures. In fact, as the truck was moving, I could not have done this. But with raw file processing, it can be simulated from a single shot: this is pretty close to what HDR looks like. Yes, all of the shadow detail is there, and if you look at the sky, you see clouds that were barely there in the brighter pictures. But this isn't real, folks! If this is the way your eyeballs see the world around you, then you're smoking something. I don't want to poop all over HDR because it has become a means of artistic expression through photography. But, for the realist photographer, or one who really wants to establish a mood, HDR is completely void of realism, magic and mood. It's just a mechanical thing (Hey... look what I did!). This picture when given the HDR treatment looses everything, especially the composition strength of the red tail-lights I had mentioned above.

Yes, I'm convinced that above all, photography is art, and to get better art that stands out from the mediocre, you have to learn how to "work it" in the "digital darkroom" - and that's raw file processing.

Friday, October 2, 2015

The Power of Raw Files

JPG From Camera

Raw File Converted to jpg With Photivo

I'm not going to tell you that the processed Raw File is "better" than the straight-out-of-camera ("SOOC") .JPG file. In photography, "better" is always in the eye of the beholder. Besides, as many of the pro's are always keen to point out, a .JPG can always be made to look better in the camera itself, without needing to fiddle around with Raw Files - a camera's image parameters for a .JPG can always be adjusted within limited latitudes for Sharpness, Brightness, Contrast, Colour Saturation, Hue, as well as Black and White, with it's own unique set of parameters. Also, in most newer cameras made since 2010, all kinds of Creative Filters are now available for selection within the camera when a photo is viewed on the back display on Playback. Even further, Fuji is even putting in film emulation (of it's own historic film types of course) that can be applied on Playback. Canon, on it's higher end DSLR's is adding in-camera Raw Processing on Playback. There are so many ways of handling a .JPG that a lot of photographers, even some Pro's, don't dare, or bother to venture into Raw File territory.

But whether you're shooting .JPG or Raw File, the secret's out - a .JPG is always an output ("export") adaptation of a Raw File. If you have a basic point 'n' shoot, or a long-zoom compact with no provision for a Raw File direct output, this may not be so obvious. However, a small but enthusiastic opensource software group, calling themselves CHDK, for "Canon Hack Development Kit", has managed to separate an actual Raw File output, among quite a few other nifty things, from Canon Powershot-series compact cameras that do not provide Raw output out of the box. The Raw File is simply a step in the camera's internal process, and it's always there - it's just that on cheaper cameras, they don't let you get at it, while on more expensive ones, they do. CHDK has proven this, by simply making the Raw File visible and down-loadable from the camera's USB output.

The problem I have with dealing with a Raw File in -camera, whether it's by setting the image parameters in a certain way (which only affects the .JPG by the way), or by processing Raw within the camera on Playback, is that on the camera's small screen, I can't really see what effect it's having on my picture. A small LCD now always looks great - this is especially noticeable on Smartphone cameras which make a shot look wonderful on the phone's screen, but on a normal computer screen, or when printed out, you see that Smartphones still don't make for good cameras.

Take the above two photos as an example - it's obvious that I have a preference for bright, punchy photos, and I use Raw Process Software on my full size computer screen to make the adjustments - on a small camera rear-screen, I wouldn't be able to tell if I've gone too bright, or oversaturated my colours, or how much detail I'm enhancing. So in my opinion, Raw File Processing is something intended for the big screen, not the small LCD.

At first, straight from the camera, a Raw File looks terrible - absolutely flat, almost murky, lifeless, and void of detail, UNLESS you open the file with a Raw Processing Software that applies a bit of it's magic - just enough to either save the file as-is, or to encourage you that it's not so bad - go further. Most Apps have a default that's applied when you open the Raw File that looks more appealing than normal camera JPG output.

Raw Files do have a huge advantage - they provide far more latitude for every known adjustment than can be had using conventional .JPG processing, either in-camera, or in-software. Raw Processing also provides many more parameters to adjust, and work in a 14-bit (or greater) colour depth, as opposed to conventional 8-bit used in .JPG. This means that if you brighten it up, plain old .JPG processing will only allow a couple of +EV, and that would be applied to the whole picture, with only a little allowance for lifting highlights from out of shadows, or raising a bit of detail out of the shadows. Compare this to Raw File Processing, which provides far greater latitude for all of the following:

Temperature - same as White Balance. Same choices available as those in a digital camera, including "As Shot" or "Auto (AWB)", plus manual fine-tuning, picking a white standard (eye-dropper mode)

Tint - A bit like Temperature, but less complex. You can use Tint to put a certain colour-mood over an entire picture.

Exposure - this is the part where Raw has far more data available to literally re-expose the shot - up to 5 EV )Stops), maybe more, which is applied to the whole picture if you really screwed up the exposure in camera, this is truly Raw to the rescue. For more creative exposure work, there are other parameters available in a Raw Processor, such as lifting detail from shadows while leaving everything else alone.

Contrast - again, many more variables are available in Raw than .JPG - basic Contrast is similar to adjusting this value on your TV or computer monitor, to help your eyes distinguish one area of detail from another.

Micro- Contrast - sometimes called "Clarity", this is Contrast applied over a very small range of Pixels, making a picture look more in focus, with greatly increased detail. It does this by making the bright side of edges get brighter and the dark side of edges get darker. I use this a lot, and you can see it in my processed shot above in the vastly increased detail. This is not available in ordinary .JPG Processing as far as I know, because with .JPG output, the detail required at the pixel level has already been removed.

Sharpness - is a lot like Micro-Contrast, but typically, various sharpening methods don't do the job as well as Micro-Contrast. Best known is "Unsharp Mask" (funny name, but it means that parts of the image that are not sharp, with a clear hard edge, are masked out). This is also available in .JPG software, and works to a degree to make an out of focus subject look more in-focus - but it doesn't work well enough to look natural. Photivo offers 5 other methods besides "Unsharp Mask", any of which might work better dependant on actual conditions.

Saturation - this is the degree of colour adjustment throughout the entire picture, ranging from "0", which is B&W, through to 100 which would be a ridiculously high coloured photo.

Vibrance - again, available only for Raw, this is like a "smart saturation", applying more or less colour value only where it's needed

Gamma - This can be seen as more or less haze in a photo - generally you'd want less haze, so a higher Gamma number would reduce haze and give more "pop" to details. Haze can be quite common in a .JPG, but no JPG software can effectively remove it as perfectly as the Gamma adjustment in a Raw Processor. Some JPG software "cheats" by using a strategy called "comb-filtering", which appears to eliminate haze, but it eliminates a lot of picture detail, hoping nobody will notice.

Highlights - Raw processing allows detail lost within washed out highlights to be at least partly restored, depending on how badly blown out the Highlights are. JPG allows for this also, but again, Raw Files have so much more data available, you may find that Highlight detail may not be lost at all - it's still there to be recovered.

Shadows - Raw processing allows detail lost within murky black shadows to be at least partly restored, depending on how badly under-exposed the picture is. JPG allows for this also, but again, Raw Files have so much more data available, you may find that Shadow detail may not be lost at all - it's still there to be recovered.

White Level - similar to Highlights, but typically works over a greater tonal range.

Black Level - similar to Shadows, but typically works over a greater tonal range.

Noise Reduction - This works in a similar fashion as NR built into your camera, along with White Balance, Exposure, Contrast and Sharpness, many of these functions behave very much like your camera, but with much more power and a wider range of control. Noise Reduction especially can be accomplished in many different ways in Raw Software, as opposed to the in-camera program, which typically offers only one way to reduce noise. In fact, Photivo for example has no less than 9 NR methods!

Curves and Histograms - These are graphical elements found in both .JPG and Raw File software which can be altered by dragging a mouse-cursor to make many of the changes named above (accomplished by dragging sliders or entering numeric values directly). Some software doesn't offer control sliders, so you have to work directly on the curves and histograms while watching the on-screen preview.

Presets and "Fun Filters" - Good Raw File software (and .JPG too) will offer many one-click preset options which will vary all of the above parameters at once to achieve a pre-defined effect. It will also allow you to create and save presets of your own. Film Emulation is my personal favourite kind of Preset - a single click can instantly transform your Raw File into a classic looking Kodachrome ASA-64 slide for example. Another personal favourite is that DxO optics Pro has Presets for dozens of different digital camera bodies, allowing you to transform a Raw File from a cheap Panasonic compact to look like a Leica M9, or any other camera on the list. Again, this is all done by varying any and all of the above parameters, and saving the resulting profile within the software.

These are the most common Raw File variables. If there is a downside, it might be that there is simply too much to deal with here. Ken Rockwelll seems to have a hate-on for Raw Processing, and what it seems to come down to is this very thing - too  much information. But aside from this, he makes so many points in this article that are just plain wrong. Raw processing computer software offers 10 times or more possibilities for adjustment, all of which work over a much wider range, because with a Raw File, all of the data about a picture is still there if you need it, and it will always be there if you want to do something else with the data to create something completely different at a later time. I think the trick is, to choose one Raw program, stick with it, learn all you can about how it works, and then create a style of your own by repeating the same moves. For example, you might want to always set your White Balance for "Daylight" no matter what, because back in the film days, all you could get were Daylight balanced film (or Tungsten with a special order). This could become part of your own personal style - no matter what the AWB did in-camera, you can change it to Daylight to match the built-in limitation that most colour films had to offer.

Finally, I'll provide a quick run-down of FREE! Raw File Software (well, except for one):

DxO Optics Pro combined with DxO Film pack - the only one that's not free, but it is really worth it, because DxO is the #1 company that does exhaustive lab testing of all digital camera bodies and lenses - they are the world authority on the subject, and they have built in perfect lens-to-body correction into their product, not to mention the colour profiles for most camera bodies on the market as I mentioned above. It's user interface is very simple, they have the best Noise Reduction in the business, they provide one-click exposure modes (Evaluative or Smart, Highlight priority and Centre-Weighted - just like in your camera). Film Emulation is bought separately, but is seamlessly integrated as a module when Optics Pro and Film Pack are both installed. Unfortunately, there's no Linux version.

Photivo - my second favourite. This is the one that deals with every shooting parametr possible - so it's like overkill at first... but nothing says you have to use all of them. It's super easy to build your own style with Photivo simply by picking parameters you grow to love and understand. Photivo also provides lens correction, but you have to work it yourself - unlike DxO which automatically detects which lenss-body combo you too the picture with, and then auto-corrects accordingly. If you have to do it yourself, as with Photivo, it's kind of pointless, because you don't have a shooting lab like DxO does - but it's there anyway - with Photivo, everything is there, and laid out in easy to understand functional groupings. Also, if you havve GIMP installed, clicking on the "Export to External Processor" button will cause the resulting jpg to open in GIMP for further work.Photivo is available for Windows and Linux absolutely free.

UFRaw - A hip-pocket sized Raw Processor that's made only for Linux as far as I know. If you try to open a Raw File with GIMP in Linux, UFRaw will open first, giving a comprehensive set of Raw cooking parameters. One reason I don't care for it is that it's set up for direct curve and histogram adjustment, with no adjustment sliders, although there are a handful of single-click options that do a pretty good job. I think the idea is to use the single-clicks, observe the effect these have on the curves, and then make small manual adjustments to the curves to get exactly where you want to go. When you click on the final Export button, that's when GIMP opens up for finishing touches in jpg.

RawTherapee - another comprehensive package available for Linux and Windows that is set up to do most things, although it doesn't have as many different ways of doing the same thing as you find in Photivo. It has a nice user interface, quite similar to DxO Optics Pro, with a Preview strip. The problem is, RT doesn't do a very good job - it results in strange colours and other image problems. It has some built in Presets that also look a bit off, although a Film Emulation plug-in is available that provides one-click film type selections that do look great - exactly the same as those provided in DxO Film pack. But unless you're willing to spend some time with it to figure out what I'm doing wrong, I wouldn't recommend RawTherapee.

Darktable - I've tried and tried, but I simply can't figure out the user interface for this package. Some call it a "Lightroom Clone", but I find it hard to believe that Lightroom could be this hard to use (I've never actually set eyes on Lightroom). If you are a Lightroom user, and Darktable really is a LR clone, and you want something to use in Linux, maybe this one's for you - but otherwise I don't recommend it.

Polarr - A really nice little program available for Chrome OS and now Windows-10 (Beta Testing right now). I've signed up to test the new Beta for Chrome. It is completely slider-orientated, has every adjustment I've listed above, has some built-in Instagram-like Presets, and generally does everything well. The downside of using the Chromebook version is if you have a low-end Chromebook, you don't have a very good screen to work on. There are high-end Chromebooks available, but then, what's the point? You buy a Chromebook to get the least expensive computer out there - available for less than $200. However, don't forget that Chrome OS is really just the Chrome browser, and once you sighn in to Gmail, you're into Chrome OS - on you're big computer, running it virtually over Linux, Windows or Mac. I have Chrome OS and Polarr both running right now over Ubuntu Linux. Recommended.

Silky-Pix - free if it comes bundled with your camera - Panasonic, and maybe Olympus? Not sure. I tried it once, found it very difficult and never tried it again. Not recommended.

Canon Digital Photo Professional - comes bundled with Canon cameras. If you run Windows and buy a Canon DSLR, this is probably the one you'll use. And it's OK, except it does not include all of the parameters I've listed above. In fact, it doesn't do a whole lot more than what you can set in-camera; it simply takes the in-camera application and puts it on your computer, and adds a couple of functional enhancements (like tethered shooting). This of course makes it very easy to use, but don't expect to be able to do much with it. Not recommended.

So, Raw is always a significant step upwards, no matter what Ken says. If you're stuck using .JPG's sure, you can still create a personal style, but, if you're like Ken, and in too much of a hurry to spend a little bit of time with your pictures, because you want to "take more pictures" (or review more cameras), that's fine. I'm of a different mind - not to just machine-gun off thousands of digital photos, but rather, to take far fewer pictures (pretending I'm still shooting film), make every shot count, and then use software to create art.

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

How Operating Systems Stack Up For Photography

A few days ago, I put up a 3 part series about the Chrome OS and the possibilities it offers for photographers. This time, I'd like very much to briefly give my opinion about some other Operating Systems and how well (or badly) they perform for photographers and everybody else. I'll do this alphabetically, as my own personal prejudices will show up soon enough:

Android - The OS of choice for Smartphone and Tablet users, unless your choice is an Apple iPhone or iPad. Personally I have a love - HATE relationship with my Android phone. For photography, I still find it quite useless, even with one of the better rated cameras (I have a Sony Xperia II something or other). If it's the only camera I have with me, I still seldom use it, simply because once the camera can be turned on, you've probably missed the shot, not to mention the fact that even though a photo you took looks fantastic on the phone's screen, it looks really shitty on everything else. The only Apps available seem to be the "Fun Filters" - few of which I really would ever take seriously.

Smartphones are amazing with what they're capable of - I like mine the best as a Navigator, and for quick look-ups of restaurants, motels, etc. I also use it a whole lot as a music player, but it frustrate the hell out of me when the Walkman App does an upgrade and everything changes. I don't Text, I don't Tweet, and I seldom make a mobile call. So why do I even have one of these? Even though Android is a computer OS, I really can't stand it when I go to pick it up and accidentally touch an Icon that launches an App.

What I really need is a separate pocket camera (got one), a separate iPod music player (had one) and a separate Sat-Nav (should get one), and cancel my smart-phone contract the next time it comes due, and then, use Chrome OS on my cancelled phone as a super mini-computer around the house - yes that can be done.

Chrome OS and The Chromebook - for photographers, it's merely passable, but for general computer users, it's fantastic. I had promised to evaluate lots of the Photo Apps available in the Chrome Store, but after trying for a couple of days, I soon realized the futility of this. There are a few, however, that almost fill the bill, and if Chrome were your only OS, these do offer a fair bit of functionality. The big 3 are i) Polarr - a lightweight Lightroom for raw files; ii) PicMonkey - for a greatly organized, serious but fun at the same time collection of Filters, Frames and Art Effects and iii) Pixlr - a very well done clone of Photoshop Elements. If you're into Chrome, and happen to find anything else beside these three worth having, please send me a comment below.

For everything else you might do with a computer, other than heavy sound and video production, and hi-fi music listening, Chrome OS is the cat's cream. It operates very fast on the smallest of hardware footprints, and is as easy to learn as a web browser, without the usual learning curve, or frustrations associated with computers. There are a lot of smart people out there who simply cannot learn about computers - if you see a Windows user with dozens of Icons plastered all over their screen, you've found such a person. Chrome OS brings all that to an end - it works totally differently and actually helps frustration-users to actually "get it", and learn to use a computer the correct way.

Linux - at one time, the "propeller head" OS, but not any more. Linux in all of it's many flavours has become the d-facto alternative for just about everything else, but especially for Windows. Linux, in just about all of it's "Distros" is now much easier to install and manage on "normal" computers and/or laptops, which, by the way, are still the best kinds of computers to have around if you need to do any kind of "heavy lifting" such as raw-file development / conversion, serious photo and video editing, serious music listening or recording, and serious enterprise or even personal productivity.

When it comes right down to it, Linux is beautiful. It has some of the greatest photography packages ever created (we don't call them Apps here folks), unless you're stuck on Photoshop / Lightroom and are willing to fork over the $$$. Gimp, with it's companion G'mic Plug-In is simply the best Photo Software you can have (except for raw files - Gimp doesn't do raw, but neither does it's pathetic look-alike Photoshop Elements). Gimp - G'mic simply is better than Elements because it does so many more things, and although it was built by Linux, it's been available for Windows for several years now. If you've never tried Gimp, now is the time. And while you're at it, give Photivo and RawTherapee a go - you don't need to commit to Linux to try these out - they're all available for Windows, free f charge, and install easily - in fact, Photivo is easier to install under Windows than it is with Linux.

The only down-side with Linux is hardware compatibility. Although it seems to run well on any computer or laptop I've tried, it doesn't do so well with peripherals like scanners and printers. At one time, I had my specialized photo scanner and printer up and running, but then, the Vendors who supplied the drivers decided to not bother with them any more. This happens because Linux, as great as it is, still hasn't caught on in a big way, and to develop device drivers, and keep them current, is difficult to do - especially for free. If your devices happen to be held within a major Distro's "Repository" (the open-software equivalent of an online store), such as Debian's sane for scanners and cups for printers, you'll be OK. But in my case, I struck out both times - should have done more research before I bought my peripherals.

Mac OS-X - well, this seems to be the one that most Window's haters gravitate to. I personally have had very little experience with Apple - Mac products with the exception of the above mentioned iPod, so I'll keep my comments limited. What I hear is, if you have a Mac, you love it to death, and what's more, you're willing to shell out double the money every time Apple launches a new product, and stand in a huge line-up to do so. And I'll admit, I start to drool every time I see a Mac computer being used. And have you ever noticed, on TV, whenever it shows someone using a computer, it's a Mac, with the ubiquitous Apple symbol proudly displayed?

I cannot comment on Mac photography, because I've never tried it. But I will say, if there's such a thing as "high-end" in the computer world, Mac is it - everybody seems to know this, and those who go in are willing to keep paying the extra for life. You pay double just to buy the computer, and from then on, you pay big money for everything you want to put on it, both for apps and for content. Nothing is free in the Apple grove, but devotees don't seem to object to this.

It must be good stuff!

Windows - ahh, the utter stupidity of the mass market. Most people run Windows simply because if you buy a reasonably priced computer, that's what comes on it - and even built into the price of the computer, it's still a far lower entry level than a Mac.

So, for photography, Windows gives you the best and the worst options. If you're stuck on Adobe's products, I suppose that's the best, but I've never tried anything but Elements, which quickly drove me back to Gimp. But for me, the best of all is DxO Optics Pro - for raw processing, lens optimization and noise reduction, it simply blows the doors of anything else. How do I know it's better than Adobe Lightroom let's say? Well, I've never tried Lightroom, but the DxO product is so damn good, it simply must be better. Unfortunately, I have to boot to Windows in order to use it. And that's how Microsoft has cornered the market - there's a Windows Program for absolutely everything, and the market is flooded with so much 3rd party, which all simply works best with Windows. In order to have something similar for Linux, somebody has to reverse engineer and clone a Windows program, and often not get paid for their efforts.

But Windows itself, as a product, as trying to be all things to all people, is an absolute piece of shit, and I make no apologies. It's slow, stupid, and has a never-ending learning curve. Nothing about running Windows has ever been straight forward, which explains why so many people simply end up plastering a bunch of ugly icons on their "Desktop" - Windows makes it so difficult to do anything else. So many people, who are not at all stupid, have to resort to doing stupid things with Windows, which, by the way, Windows allows them to do... to the point that Windows simply runs slower and slower until something breaks, and then the customer has to take their computer into the shop for a tune-up. Windows makes people think of their computers in the same way they think about their cars - periodic maintenance is required, and if they can't do it themselves (most can't), then thy have to take it 'to the shop" to get it fixed up and running again.

Linux is not at all like that - it is built to self-manage beautifully, it never slows down and it never breaks. I suppose this is what drives people away from Windows to Mac, which is quite similar to Linux under the hood - but with Mac, the self-management is even better than Linux because you pay a huge premium to get it.

So, there you have it. I could've written a lot more about how bad I think Windows is, but I figure that enough people have discovered that already, with some real examples.

Monday, September 14, 2015

Audio Too

If Ken Rockwell can do Audio on his Blog, so can I. Seemingly, interest in the high end of photography often goes hand-in-glove with the higher end of audio. The recent extreme popularity of any good camera's ability to make high-definition video brings these two worlds together.

Alesis iO2 Top Panel
I thought it was about time to reveal my other side. There was a time in my distant past when I was a "boutique audio retailer", back in the early 90's. Boutique audio is not "high end" but in most cases it comes close. I was selling brands like Mission, Quad, Meridian and Onkyo from my house - not quite in the esoteric high end range, where the changing of a single resistor in the circuitry would "make a noticeable audible improvement", but brands such as this, now available under the "Vintage Electronics" section of Ebay, were far far better than gear from Sony, Kenwood and Pioneer.

Come ahead 20 years, and we find that audio gear, just like camera gear, has changed completely. Although CD's still have a place in the audio chain, and vinyl records are making a huge comeback, and, no surprise at all, vacuum tube amplification, made in China, has become very popular and affordable, the main source of music is now the on-line download of music files. The most popular file format is the .mp3, but one can also subscribe to superior download formats like .wav and FLAC, if you're willing to spend more money.

But as it is with my camera gear, so it is with my audio - I want to spend less money on everything, because, well, I still like the hobbies, but I'm living on a pension.

So let's begin. In or new age of digital downloads, the main source of audio has become the personal computer. The beauty of this is, it can be any computer - the most lowly Chromebook laptop will download audio files just as well as the most expensive gaming computer - there's absolutely no difference, and this is still true if you're downloading mp3, wav or FLAC - the computer used makes absolutely no difference, whereas 20 years ago, the CD or Record Player used certainly made a huge difference in sound quality - in fact, the "source" playback device was considered the mot important link in the chain.

However, there is no computer available off the shelf - except maybe a Mac, that is optimized for boutique or high end audio playback of the files you download. A Mac is better than most, especially the Mac Pro, or the older Power Mac, but even with these, or any other personal computer, you can make two basic modifications to better optimize for audio. First, you'll need a better DAC (Digital-Analogue Converter), and second, you'll need a low latency operating system. Your computer already has a DAC and an OS, but neither are up to the job, except maybe a Mac, but we're on a pension here remember?

At Home on Top of my HP P6720 Case
So, starting with the DAC, here are a few pictures of what I'm using, and it only cost me $5.00 - yes that's right - 5 bucks at a yard sale got me an Alesis iO/2 Digital Audio Interface, which connects, and is powered by the USB connection of any modern computer. The DAC is a specialized piece of computer hardware that is built into this little gadget. The iO/2 itself is a bit of a cross between a USB-DAC and a professional studio mixer, for use by a studio technician who is working on-the-road with a Laptop. It has two switchable microphone / instrument inputs, coaxial s/pdif input and output, and MIDI in-out. But I'm not using any of this - all I need are it's USB input, the DAC within, and it's completely separate headphone and main-out pre-amps. That's right - the headphone circuit is completely separate from the main stereo line output, each with their own volume control. How cool is that?

Rear Connections
The rear panel connections are (left-to right) midi-out, midi-in, stereo right out, stereo left out, s/pdif out, s/pdif in, and finally the USB connection. This is an older piece of gear, so the s/pdif part is coaxial only (no optical). These are for connecting certain CD players, Dolby surround, digital signal processor, etc. directly into, or through the unit, thus bypassing the DAC built into the iO/2, and using the one built into the source device. Not for me, but the option is there.

Now, what do I mean by a low latency operating system? "Low latency" means having a system which is fast enough to decode audio data without any glitches, making the analogue sound output as smooth as possible. Audio latency is the delay between that time that sound is created and when it is heard, and normally, a computer's Operating System is a bottleneck that has to be dealt with. If you insist on using Windows, here is an article that talks about tweaks that you can do to make Windows more audio-friendly. My preference is to use a low-latency version of Linux - the most well known and easiest to deal with is the Ubuntu Studio Edition. This OS will look after all of your computing needs, including the best possible playback of audio, (and recording if you're into that).

I don't have the golden ears I had 20 years ago, but trust me - this issue of audio latency is important, and I can hear the difference between my un-optimized Windows 7 and Ubuntu Studio - my computer will dual-boot between the two systems, and so the hardware chain is identical. I can't comment about how well the Windows tweaks work, as I have no use for them.

Realistic Custom Pro Headphones (Koss, USA Made)
Now, at the very least, the Alesis iO/2 is a superb headphone amplifier, especially with it's own built-in, and completely separate headphone circuit noted above. What's more, it is much more compatible with older 1/4" jack headphones, not the new higher impedance models designed for portable audio. This means you should either dig out your father's oldie's, or shop for your phones in the Vintage Electronics section. I got mine at a flea market complete with the original box, with no signs of use or unpacking, for $40.00. They're the old Radio Shack (Realistic) brand, but are actually made in the USA by Koss, and they sound absolutely amazing.


Centrios Powered Monitors
Next, the amplifier and speakers - and this is all you need to complete your system, because everything is now playing from your computer, remember? You don't even need an AM/FM receiver, because all FM is available on-line - even your local stations. Think of your computer, along with the above two audio upgrades, as your receiver.

A great solution is to try and find a set of "powered studio monitors", sometimes also known as "active speakers".. In a sense, these are nothing more than high quality computer speakers, but with a more powerful built-in amplifier, and the lack of a headphone jack. Overall build quality of Monitors compared with computer speakers will be far superior. My monitors are branded "Centrios", which is an old brand used by "The Source", which in Canada took the place of Radio Shack. So these aren't the best, but at the time, back in 2006, these were discounted in "The Source" local store by 70%, so I got them for around $45.00. Ken Rockwell has a review for something quite similar.

Another solution is to go back to the god old Vintage Electronics section and shop for some of the tremendously great amplifiers and speakers of yesteryear. This is the upgrade approach I would take, probably using pure single-ended Class A tube power and vintage single driver speakers. This would work very well for me, as my room is very small and I normally sit about 1 Metre away from the speakers.

Finally, if you're so inclined, you can go with a full Dolby Surround system which begins with installing a good high-end sound card in your computer from Sound Blaster, Creative, or Asus, with all the appropriate home theatre hardware downstream. I would not take this approach for two reasons - 1) high cost and 2) Dolby Surround has nothing to do with the way we normally hear music - normal stereo is far more real sounding (and there are many audiophiles who would argue that monaural ("mono") is even more like the real thing).

I would love to write a lot more about this - what would be my most significan upgrade - to subscribe to higher quality downloads, or go with an amplifier / speaker upgrade?

Thursday, September 10, 2015

Chrome OS Photography - Part-3


PicMonkey "Yesterday" Effect

I've tried out a few Photo Apps from the Chrome Web Store since yesterday, and I should first warn you - there are a few not worth considering - "PhotoRulez", "Rollip", and "Photo Editor" come to mind. It's pretty easy with the ratings / reviews available for each App - if only a few people provide 3-stars or less out of 5, just assume "there ain't nothin' here".

But I found one that's a whole lotta' fun--- and quite powerful too, called "PicMonkey". It is a semi-free App, meaning that most of the features are free of charge, but you have to sign up for a 30 day free trial, after which they bill you a small fee to open up even more of the arguably better features. But there's plenty to do with the totally free bits to keep me happy.

PicMonkey gets 4.5 / 5 Stars with over 2000 Reviews, and when I started using it, I could see why - it's very well done, with a long column of well organized effects down the left side of the frame, and basic importing, saving, un-do and re-do buttons at the top. The not-for-free effects are marked with a little "crown" icon.

This is exactly what I like - no silly stuff, in spite of the App's silly name perhaps. Every effect remains "photographic", and also offer various adjustments within each effect, including how much of the effect to actually layer in.

So, here are a few I tried, starting with a "Yesterday" treatment in the first photo above, and for reference, here's the original photo below, processed from raw via DxO optics Pro:

Original Raw From EOS 5D with EF50mm f1.8 Lens and DxO Optics Pro
PicMonkey Orton Glow
PicMonkey Cross-Processed Green Tint
PicMonkey B&W, Not Quite Fully Desaturated*
(* A wee bit of color remaining)

PicMonkey "Spotlight" Effect
PicMonkey "Lomo" Effect
Yes, I know - everybody's doing this stuff now with Camera-Phone Apps - but PicMonkey is not yet available on Android or iPhone devices, and it does provide a way to reach for all of it's stuff in an exceptionally organized, un-monkey-like fashion. Also, some layering of effects can be accommodated with seemingly limit-less "un-do's" (try that on your camera phone!), all of the features can be applied to photos taken with your best DSLR, and then re-saved at the original size with no degradation.

And best of all, PicMonkey is designed for Chrome OS, so you can get on board with the easiest to use and lowest device cost.

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

Chrome OS Photo Apps - Part-2


Raw Processed With Polarr
In Part-1, I did a brief introduction to the Chromebook and it's ingenious Linux based Chrome OS. In my opinion, for general everyday computing that doesn't require any heavy lifting, this is by far the easiest to use personal computing device on the market. It is also the least expensive complete package - the Chromebook being equipped with an 11" screen, comprehensive keyboard, and touch-pad / key combo. The Chrome OS requires so little horsepower to keep itself running, it's very quick, lightweight and cool running. There is an overall lack of frustration factor when compared to ANYTHING else out there, and that includes Google's own Android system for mobile devices, and especially includes anything put out by Microsoft.

As a Photography Blogger, it must be my task to try out a few of the Chrome OS Photo Apps. I'm starting off with one called Polarr, which is a Raw file "developer" or converter, not unlike Lightroom, RawTherapee, or Photivo. It contains all of the essential raw file workings, along with a good array of one-touch filters. Raw file converters are one of those things that usually require a lot of computing power - this is especially true of my favourite - DxO Optics Pro, and I'll admit from the outset that Polarr is nothing like DxO. But it's not bad. It does it's thing surprisingly quickly too, and unlike most other Chrome Apps, it opens in it's own window, not a new browser tab. The Chrome OS Web Store doesn't have a lot of other raw converters available. There is one particularly bad one called "Raw.Pics.io" which only does one adjustment - Exposure Value (EV), and when it's applied, it results in something that looks like a very bad JPEG. It might be useful if all you have are raw files and you're in an extreme hurry - you could simply open the raw, do nothing else, then save it as a .jpg. But Polarr is certainly a keeper, with it's nice array of one-click Instagram-like Filters that are applied in raw, not jpg, which allows all picture data to be retained for working on the same file over again later.

Another must have is the now well known Pixlr Editor. For all intents, it looks and behaves just like PS Elements, and is meant for working on many common file types, with the exception of raw files. Just like PSE, it is a lot like GIMP with less features. This is the App to use for making significant adjustments (including "auto-levels"), rotate and crop, layers, re-touching, etc, again very much like Elements and GIMP.

Then within the Web Store, there are seemingly hundreds of other Instagram-like Filter Apps. I personally don't like these much, because in spite of some of them being touted as "Vintage", or "Retro", there was never any old school photographic films that looked like any of these Filters. But i will spend some time trying out some of them.

I really prefer my digital photographs to look like photographs - and I especially like film emulations. I'm not sure if any film emulation apps exist yet in the Google-sphere, whether in Chrome OS or Android. it is now possible to port Android Apps to Chrome, but this is for developers, not ordinary end-users.

One last thing I'd like to mention before I get into using and reviewing a bunch more Chrome oS Photo Apps - that is - the Chrome OS universe is rapidly growing with the advent of new, super small computer hardware, like the Intel Stick, Chromebit, and for the more ambitious, Raspberry Pi-2.

Working Photography with Chrome OS - Part 1



This will be a very short series of articles about Chrome OS, and the new trend in Fly-weight Computing in general.  I'm developing an enthusiasm for something which was introduced over five years ago - "thin client cloud network computing", and am beginning to explore how well it can be made to work with photography. I haven't yet sorted out just who is the market champion in Cloud Computing. I suddenly got interested in it when Kathy picked up an Acer Chrome-book, and left me the "chore" of getting it set up for her. As it turns out, there doesn't have to be a whole lot of setting up to be done. Everyone should know this by now, but all you need to make Chrome OS function is a Google account. She already had one, because a Google account can consist of G-mail, Blogger (which I'm using right now to write this), YouTube, Google+ and Picasa. A single username and password can be your key to all these service, and much more - or, if you wish, each service can have a different un-pw. Because she had used YouTube once several years ago, she has a Google Account. All I had to do to get her little Chrome-book up and running was to enter this un-pw at start-up.

This tiny gem of a laptop was ready to use within about 8 seconds - it's phenomenally fast, because all it really has to do is get it's low-power but specialized hardware up and ready to run the now well known Chrome Internet Browser. If I recall correctly, Google had created this browser, along with the Linux based Chrome OS at about the same time, back in 2010. It was touted as the Ultra-light  champion in both the Browser and OS category at the time, and I quickly installed both the Linux and Windows-7 versions of the Browser on my dual-boot Desktop computer. As for the OS, I never gave it any more thought - until recently, when on the very same Acer Netbook, I created another account with my own log-on.

When the Browser first came out, Kathy owned a similarly sized, but even lower spec Acer "Net-book", which really struggled to run Windows-7. Needless to say, we soon got rid of that. I had even tried Lubuntu on it, which is the most light-weight version of Ubuntu available, and it offered only a marginal improvement in performance. Chrome OS was just starting to come along back then, and I didn't have the interest, or the time, in trying to make it work on "the little lap-top that couldn't". Had I taken the time then, I would know a lot more about it now, but it's never too late, and five years on, Chrome OS is now a mature product, with hundreds of Apps available to run with it - and all of the Apps are designed specially to run in the Chrome Browser. Nothing "heavy" is being done within the device itself; rather, everything is handled on the Google Chrome OS network.

Naturally, this means something very powerful, which I'm only picking up on now, because I'm rather slow on the uptake, so to speak. What this means is that you can use your Google Account in combination with the Chrome Browser to build your Chrome OS system on any computer, at any time, anywhere, simply by "adding" (as opposed to "installing") the Applications you want to the Browser, which all simply open up and function in a new Browser Tab. Secondly, you can upload any and all files you would wish, to the Cloud, which in Google's case, is simply called "Drive", and is sized according to a very small monthly payment - the first 50 G-bytes are free, to get you started. And then finally, you can customize various look and feel type things for the Browser itself, and each App individually to suit your taste, again using any computing device with a Chrome Browser - it doesn't have to be the Chrome OS net-book. But when you log -on to the Chromebook / netbook, all the magic you've created elsewhere is right there waiting to be used.

Does this mean you should create your personalized Google OS environment on a bigger, more capable machine? No, certainly not - everything you need is available from the tiny Chromebook. It might have occurred to you by now that the higher your Internet speed, the better everything will work, especially your first Chrome Browser set-up, so this might justify using a bigger machine "at home" on a fast connection, but otherwise, a Chromebook is all you need to get started.

If you're already set up with a real computer because you need lots of horsepower to deal with programs like Photoshop or DxO Optics Pro, then a Chromebook will only work for your other less intensive computing needs. But starting with Part-2, I'll be looking at the many Photo Apps, especially the ones that handle raw files, that are available in the "Chrome Store".

Sunday, August 2, 2015

Kelda 85mm f.8 at Night


As promised, I'm covering how the rather crude Kelda 85mm f1,8 manual only, Canon EF / EF-S Mount performs at night, wide open at f1.8. Getting right  to it, I had intended to try some street photography at our town's annual rock festival, but I ended up falling asleep in my chair, and woke up when it was all over. But I did grab my camera, with the Kelda already mounted, and managed a shot of the house across the street, along with a full moon. I processed the Raw files in a few different ways, and also used the camera's internal JPG engine for comparison:

EOS 5D, ISO3200, Photivo Software, Wavelet Denoising

EOS 5D, ISO3200, Photivo Software, Wavelet Denoising, G'Mic Ilford 3200

EOS 5D, ISO 3200, RawTherapee Ilford 3200++ No Denoising

EOS 5D, ISO3200 Jpeg Direct From Camera

EOS 5D, ISO3200, RawTherapee Kodak Porta 400
It is somewhat counter-intuitive to get good night shots when there are actual light sources present - I'm referring to how the house is illuminated by a LED Street Lamp which is out of the frame, and there's also the moon and the lights from the windows. In these cases, you need to under-expose by at least two stops, so that it actually looks like night-time. My camera is nearing it's 10th year and as such, it is missing the stratospheric ISO settings of the newest cameras - ISO 3200 is the maximum on the original EOS 5D. But, as I've boasted here many times, there's lot's of detail to be drawn out of this camera when increasing the exposure in Raw file processing. As you can see, the Jpg direct from camera applied so much noise reduction, the shot remains too dark, and you can't really "lift" detail out of a file that is already a Jpg.

As for the Kelda lens at night, it's hard to find fault with it. I was still able to find good focus very quickly with it's silky smooth focus ring, and in the camera's manual mode, I set the shutter speed for -3 EV, which happened to be 1/45. The "Photivo" processing, seen above in both colour and B&W are the best, I think, while the RawTherapee shots reveal a lot more detail, but at the expense of noise - nothing of which has anything to do with the lens. Everything about this lens, when used after dark wide open is reasonable, with good colour balance in spite of a very complex white balance situation, no distortion, fairly good detail in spite of aggressive exposure lifting, and finally, an obvious but tasteful amount of vignetting.

Further night shooting appears quite promising with this very cheap totally manual lens. It's not perfect, but certainly is adequate. More to come, I hope soon.

UPDATE: DxO To The Rescue!

EOS5D, ISO 3200, DxO Optics Pro, Prime Noise Reduction

EOS5D, ISO 3200, DxO Optics Pro B&W Dense

I should have just done it this way in the first place. DxO Optics Pro is still my favorite Raw File Processor, although it costs money and only runs under Windows or Mac. But it has the incredible "Prime" NR feature - best Noise Reduction ever imagined, and I put it to good use here. Photivo is great for many things, but it leaves a bit of noise on the table, and RawTherapee has no really effective NR (very simplistic and ineffective). I don't know anything about the DxO magic formula for NR, but it always works incredibly well. It cleans up noise and does not sacrifice important detail... Bravo! Anyway, the two shots above are processed with "Prime" NR, and this really opens up the detail which the Kelda 85 lens can kick out at you, even at night with a wide open f1.8. Lenses tend to go a bit soft when used wide open, especially below f2.8. More sharpness is certainly available here too, using a stopped down aperture, but it really does perform better than I expected wide open.

Thursday, July 30, 2015

Summer Vacation Photos


EOS 5D, EF50mm f1.8
It's what we all live for, right? Often our holiday pictures are the best photos we will take all year. It's certainly true of me. All I need is a simple change of scenery and inspiration takes over everything. This year we ventured out to Nova Scotia's South Shore, which has world famous scenery. Also this year, I'm back to 100% digital, because I feel I've learned all I can with shooting film. Besides, I was never 100% film; to do so I would have to be developing my own frames, instead of getting local photo labs to do that part for me. Once you begin scanning negatives, you're digital. I was shooting film for a long time more for the film gear (meaning cameras and lenses), which are always "full frame" and even beyond, if you happen to have Medium Format cameras, and at the same time, could be very light-weight and compact. Digital cameras are still striving for that - a full frame camera that is still small and lightweight.

I was using my EOS 5D Mk-1 ("the classic") for the whole journey, with 4 lenses to choose from - the EF40 STM f2.8, EF 50mm f1.8, EF28-105 Ultrasonic, and the EF70--210 f4 telephoto. This means I was hiking with almost 2.5 Kg around my neck - which is always sore because of my neurological condition. I could've gotten by with my Lumix DMC-LX5, which is truly a great shirt-pocketable picture taker, but with it's tiny sensor, and very limited telephoto range, I knew I'd be missing some shots, and not really at my best. I long for the day to come when one of the mass-market camera makers (not Leica) would come out with an almost pocketable, affordable lightweight interchangeable lens, digital full frame camera with an optical viewfinder. It was possible with film, (like the Pentax MV1) so why is it taking so long with digital? My next one might be a Canon EOS 6D, which is considerably smaller and lighter than the 5D has ever been through all of it's model changes, and still retains a modest pixel count (I am still quite certain that it is better to have fewer large sized pixels than to go with the market driven trend of having many more small ones). One thing the original 5D, with all it's weight and 'only" 12.8 megapixels always delivers is absolutely unbeatable mage quality. It has a tremendous dynamic range, which allows me to always shoot 1 EV under-exposed, which defers conventional wisdom, and then use RAW post-processing to recover shadow detail. It always works for me with this camera. here's what I mean:

Straight from camera JPG, shot at -1 EV


RAW processed with DxO Optics Pro to recover shadow
I always shoot this way with the 5D Mk-1. It's a "shoot to the left" (under-exposure) approach, which most digital shooters avoid, because the "digital math" (which I won't get into) puts more recoverable detail in the bright areas than in the dark. But the 5D Mk-1 is a unique camera, in that it "only" uses 12.8 megapixels to cover the sensor's full 35mm frame, meaning each individual pixel captures a lot more detail with less risk of digital noise. I take advantage of this, by under-exposing in the camera, to make sure I can "process-up" to make a very bright picture, without a lot of blown out highlights - I have full confidence that the shadow detail is still there. Comparing these two versions of the same picture of this Chevy Nomad, you can see that there is only slightly more blow-out from the light of the sky through the trees (which I don't care about), but there is a tremendous amount of detail that was nonetheless hiding in the shadows - look at the oil stains just behind the front wheel. The original EOS 5D, which Canon produced 9 years ago, is a true dynamic range monster, which has become less and less true as more megapixels are added - the newest EOS 5DS has 51 megapixels, which is more useful for professional studio shooting I suppose, but I would expect it to be a lot more fidgety when you try to make a bright photo from RAW without using a studio flash setup.

So then, enough about the technology - here is a travel album made up from both mine and Kathy's photos:
https://picasaweb.google.com/102069536756120601742/Vacation2015

Post-script: Take careful note of this one > I'm not sure if that's a funnel cloud or not, because I've never seen one.

EOS 5D, EF50mm f1.8

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Kelda 85mm f1.8 Lens


EOS 5D, Kelda 85mm@f1.8

Have you ever heard of a lens named Kelda? I hadn't. When you "Google" that name, you'll find a lot more girls named Kelda than anything about the Lenses. It seems that this Chinese optics maker does more alomng the lines of ultra-cheap accessory lenses for older style compact cameras than for DSSLR lenses, but they do make this rather peculiar 85mm f1.8 model for Canon EOS mounts. I came across one in the local Classifieds, and, having sold my Jupiter-9, which was not a good idea, I thought that as it was priced at less than half of what you'd pay now for a Jupiter-9, and no adapter is needed, it would be worth a try. So far, all I've done with it is some snap-shots around our Garden.

By the way - this is a completely manual lens with absolutely no electronic communication between it and the camera. The only thing "Canon EF" abut it is the shape of its aluminium mount, which fastens to the camera perfectly.

First off, it appears that Kelda doesn't know much about their own product, as the box says it's made for APS-C Canon Cameras (in other words, a "digital mount" EF-S) Not so. An EF-S lens will only mount on an APS-C, and is not compatible with "EF" full-frame, but this lens will mount on both EF, where it assumes it's nominal 85mm focal length, and EF-S, where it becomes 136mm.
Other peculiarities - it has a manual Aperture ring with click-stops at 1.8, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4.5, 6, 10 and 22. I've never seen such an abnormal string of F-Stops on any lens - this one's very strange. It can be used between these click-stops however. I should mention that the Aperture Ring is extremely stiff to turn however, to the point that once you set it, you'll probably not want to change it. On the other hand, the manual focus ring is exceptionally smooth and easy to turn, with no wobble, and just the right amount of friction. Combined with the lens' very accurate focus, meaning that when looking through a DSLR optical viewfinder, this lens really gives a good sense of "snapping" into focus, it is a joy to use. In comparison with , say, the Jupiter-9 with an EF Adapter, focus is much more easily seen with this lens, and you can be confident that your focussing effort will be quick, painless and perfect. It's too bad the Aperture Ring isn't as cooperative.

EOS 5D, Kelda 85mm at f10

Speaking of Aperture, this lens has no provision for a stop-down preview of any kind, which means I you set the Aperture for f10, the viewfinder will be darkened accordingly, making it more difficult to see your depth of field, and the shooting information in the Optical Viewfinder display is also darkened to the point that it cannot be seen in bright sunlight at all. In such cases, you can only get your exposure info from the camera's top-deck display, assuming it has one. keep in mind, the Jupiter-9 has the advantage of a third ring- the stop-down ring, which allows you to focus and expose in full brightness, then stop down to your pre-set f-stop value.

Also, the Aperture Ring has no Depth of Field (DOF) scale. You can only guess, which in some cases, is not good enough. In the above shot, I got better focus on the grass in the foreground than I did on my intended subject -the clothes on the line. Not good.

What about using this lens wide open? Again, it's far from being the best. The first picture (above) has the subject at about a Metre away, and although I got a perfect focus on it, the Bokeh (out of focus area) is quite choppy and busy - again not good. However, if you're careful about it, this lens can be quite good wide open. I am very pleased with the following three shots, with subjects all at the lens' minimum focal distance of 0.8m and all at f1.8 -




 With this lens, Bokeh can be quite good if you choose your background carefully. I am also quite pleased with the colour - nice and deep, nice and rich, with quite a bit of fall-off "Vignetting" in the corners, which is not supposed to be good, but I like it... quite often I will add Vignetting in post-processing if the lens doesn't provide enough of it.

I'm also quite sure this lens will make a great night shooter on-the-streets. Also, although I have no good way of testing this, I would say that linear distortion ("barrel and pin-cushion") are very low with this lens - surprisingly so.

So, I'll sum it up with all the typical scores of a lens test:

Build Quality (except Aperture Ring)                                  9/10
Mount - perfectly snug                                                        10/10
Controls - Aperture Ring                                                     0/10 (yes, it's that bad)
Controls - Focus Ring                                                         10/10 (yes it's that good)
Optics - Colour                                                                     9/10
Optics - Vignetting                                                               7/10 (unless you like Vignetting)
Optics - Distortion                                                                9/10
Optics - Sharpness                                                                7/10 (again, depending on what you like)
Optics - Bokeh                                                                      6/10
Usability - hindered by no DOF Scale and no stop-down    5/10
Value for money - new                                                         4/10
Value for money - used                                                         9/10
Accessories included - front/rear caps, hood, pouch            10/10

Conclusion:

I wouldn't buy one of these new - you would be better off with a used Jupiter-9 and mounting adapter. However, second hand, the Kelda 85mm f1.8 should be around US$75, and because of it's great optical performance, even wide open, which is what really counts in the end, and it's superb manual focussing, at second-hand pricing, you can't go wrong. To get the "real-deal" Canon EF 85mm f1.8 is over $500, which is of course an Auto Focus / Auto Exposure lens. Other manual focus lenses, like the Jupiter-9, or a genuine Zeiss, have the disadvantage of requiring an adapter to fit the EOS / EF Mount, which throws your manual focus off a little bit - sometimes enough to ruin your shot. Because the Kelda mates perfectly to both EF and EF-S mounts, and the focus ring is so damn great, it will provide great, hassle free manual focussing, even wide open in the dark - (errr... perhaps I should test this before I say it, but I think it would be a great night lens). If Chinese manufacture has any sense of design, it almost seems as if this lens was actually designed to be used in the dark, wide-open. I can't wait to try it out, and I promise - this will be the subject of my next post.

Thursday, June 4, 2015

Best Way to Digital B&W


Charley - BW
I've always liked B&W, and grew accustomed to Film Emulation software to make a good B&W out of a colour JPG file. Some of the Film Emulation approaches I'd discovered for free are in GIMP (under Colours > BW Film Simulation) and G'Mic within GIMP (Filters > G'Mic > Film emulation > B&W), not to mention DxO Film Pack (not free). DxO Optics Pro, which in my opinion is the best Raw File Conversion software on the market (also not free, but relatively cheap) offers some B&W presets, as do Opensource (free) Programs like Photivo and RawTherape, with built-in control of some parameters.

But I've only come across one Program which has slider control adjustment available for all parameters you could think of within one control screen, with a good size on-screen preview, and that is also built into the G'Mic-within-GIMP Black and White filter. All within one control box, you can adjust Red, Green and Blue Levels and Smoothness, Hue and Saturation, Gamma, Contrast, Brightness, Grain (Shadows, Mid-tones, Highlights, Grain tone fading, Grain scale, Grain type, Local Contrast with Radius and Smoothing, and as if that's not enough, you also get a Psuedo-Grey dithering control. I created the above file from this original:

Charley, from EOS 5D at ISO 1600, EF 50mm @ f1.8, DxO optics pro
I won't name all the specific actions I took in G'Mic to do the B&W conversion, nor will I mention everything I did with the Raw File within DxO-OP - what's important is getting results you're pleased with. Otherwise, this would be a Tutorial!

So, this is NOT FILM Emulation - rather, this is beyond Film Emulation. The emulation approach is great, as you can get results with one-click (or screen tap). This is Black and White Conversion. As far as a specific film type, there's no way of knowing what I've converted to - this is strictly Digital B&W "Digital Darkroom" stuff. If you were shooting a camera with B&W film, and had a home darkroom, you would be adjusting a lot of the above-mentioned parameters via the film you use, coloured lens filters, type of chemicals, temperature and time. This may sound far more interesting to a whole lot of people, but if you're a digital shooter, and if you want full B&W photography control in one place, this is a great computer app to get.

Although I'm not providing a Tutorial here, some things might need a bit of explanation... lets get the weirdest one out of the way first - "Psuedo-Gray Dithering". What this does is provide an expanded range of "colours" to your grey-scale used in the conversion. Normal B&W conversion (as in the "colour desaturation approach" leaves only 256 values from pure white to pure black. Psuedo-grey adds a whole lot more - up to 1786, by borrowing a wee bit of various colours to mix in with the greys. Depending on your computer screen, or your printer, you may, or may not see any difference. Just a note - my computer screen does not allow me to see this effect make any difference, but my printer actually does. I did not use the effect in the above sample. A film camera equivalent to this might be a form of "cross processing' where you introduce some C-41 chemicals, or use one of the B&W films available for C-41 "drug-store" processing. With film however, there is not much you can do to control the range of the effect.

Next, what is "Local Contrast"? Basically, it is an extremely effective way of extracting more sharpness and detail - but beware - this is best done when converting your Raw File output from your camera to a JPG. Here within GIMP / G'Mic, you  don't have that option, because there is really no extra detail to extract from a file that's already JPG. It is only a "Psuedo - Local Contrast", really no better than the well known "Unsharp Mask". I did add a bit of Local Contrast to the original colour conversion (Raw to JPG) you see above, using DxO Optics Pro. I DID NOT use the Local Contrast slider in G'Mic.

Finally, for a Black and White Conversion, why would there be "Hue and Saturation" sliders, along with controls for Red, Green and Blue?

To answer the first one, Hue and Saturation can provide variable contrast in different parts of your picture. This is normally done within Photoshop (or GIMP) by first changing the Hue and Saturation, and then de-saturating (removing all colour) as a second step. Here within the G'Mic Program, you can do this in one step, while viewing a B&W preview - a real time saver. As for Red Green and Blue, this provides a direct correlation to film photography, where a B&W shooter would use these colour (along with yellow and orange) filters on his lens to provide varying differences in contrast - a very common example was to use a yellow filter to enhance the look of clouds in the sky for a B&W filter. Here (and with many other Apps), you have "digital lens filters". By the way, you should never use a real glass lens filter on a digital camera, unless you know what you're doing and really want an unpredictable result. This is because a digital camera sensor already has millions of tiny coloured glass RGB filters built into it, and interaction between these and a lens filter intended for film will not work the way you think it might. Stick with digital filters for digital cameras.

Finally, just a note regarding B&W photography in general - it retains an enormous popularity, as I notice that my B&W uploads to Flickr usually get double the number of Views and Faves in relation to my colour pics. Also, my B&W shots get far more than double anything I try that looks like an Instagram "nostalgia" filter. What does this suggest? Could it be that we all like the TRUE nostalgia of B&W? Is there some sort of a greater purity? (Because no "Nostalgia" Instagram picture ever really looked like that, right?) What about a B&W-only digital camera, for which only Leica has jumped in so far, with their super expensive "M" - why? A new rumour out there in Blog-Land is that Sony is coming out with a B&W camera - to be announced very very soon. Why not? In reality, a Digital B&W sensor is made by NOT including the RGB coloured micro-lenses I mentioned above, with everything else remaining the same. If B&W is more popular, why don't all camera makers provide us with such a device that's actually easier for them to make, and offer it at a proportionally reduced cost? These days, even the most amateur photographer (like me) owns more than one camera - why not having one of those dedicated to B&W? Surely it would help us learn, as good Photographers once had to, how to "see in black and white"? With colour digital cameras, we don't do that now -- it's more like "maybe this picture would look better in B&W" and so we simply run the pic through one of many device apps to give it a try... this IS NOT "seeing in black and white", the way all film shooters once had to.

Is anybody out there listening??