PermaJet in the UK have announced a new metallic finish paper, which I’ve been testing with a number of printers.

The finish could best be described as having a metallic [...]]]> The gloss/lustre finish of papers can make quite a difference to how your images are perceived when printed.

PermaJet in the UK have announced a new metallic finish paper, which I’ve been testing with a number of printers.

Review Link: PermaJet Titanium Lustre 280 paper

The finish could best be described as having a metallic sheen, rather than looking as if printed on foil or metal.

Looks great for some images, but very much a matter of taste as to which ones ;-)

PermaJet Metallic finish paper

It’s got 10 pigment based inks, which include Matt and Photo Black, and a gloss coat ‘colour [...]]]> The Canon PRO-10 A3+ printer is the second in the new PRO printer range, and supersedes the 9500 mk2.  I’ve had one here a few weeks and have written a longish review.

Full Review Link: Canon Pixma PRO-10

It’s got 10 pigment based inks, which include Matt and Photo Black, and a gloss coat ‘colour optimiser’ for reducing differential gloss on some shinier papers.

Canon PRO-10 printer and test prints

The maximum feed width is 14″, slightly larger than A3+ (13″ x 19″) – CD/DVD printing is supported.

Wireless and Ethernet connections, are an improvement over the 9500 mk2 which I reviewed a while ago [9500 mk2 review]

Ink usage is not unreasonable, once you get used to the way the levels info is displayed, and ignore initial ‘change ink’ requests. The small 14ml carts do get used up much quicker than the larger ones in the PRO-1, but that’s a much heftier printer (although still A3+)

Print quality is generally excellent, although there are some issues with certain ‘art’ papers, where a compulsory 30mm top/bottom margin would make smaller paper sizes difficult to use. I’ve heard some complain that the prints from the PRO-10 are a bit dark, but found no such issues when creating a wide range of test prints.

The other day I was talking to a few people at the Focus show in Birmingham – one [...]]]> What does your choice of camera brand say about you?

Or… ‘What camera did you take that with’

Using my 24mm tilt shift lens in Seattle. My ‘walk round’ lens of choice in big cities ;-)

The other day I was talking to a few people at the Focus show in Birmingham – one noticed that I’d got my old Canon 1Ds mk3 with me.

“Ah, a Canon man” he exclaimed in a meaningful sounding way.

Whether this referred to the Nikon ‘I am’ bags being handed out, the collection of my black and white images, shown as big prints on the Innova Paper stand, or some deeper psychological insight, I wasn’t sure.

Well, I am not…

I  always have some difficulty with any meaningful association of ‘equipment brand’ with the photography I produce…

My camera is a tool for the job, a very good one, which happens to be made by a particular manufacturer. I do have reasons for my choices (as I’ll mention later) but in some ways they reflect some advice I was given many years ago, that you’d rarely regret spending extra on good quality hammers, chisels, wood saws and screwdrivers.

The Focus show had all the major manufacturers there, and a good look at the stands quickly shows a mix of corporate branding, but all enhanced with images – good looking photos.

It is obvious that if you take almost any camera advert, then apart from shots taken with a lens that is only available from one manufacturer, the actual camera used is pretty irrelevant.

They are selling a brand with an image, with which they want you to associate some meaning/affiliation with their brand. If this were not so, then we’d see an awful lot more use of standard test images, for selling printers, paper and cameras ;-)

Take any decent level camera and a lens fit for the subject and the results are all going to be on a par, or more particularly, the results will more reflect the abilities and experience of the photographer (and maybe art director), than the name on the front of the camera.

Sure, there are differences, but the majority of ‘brand discussions’ you see on forums more readily suggest more that people should get out and take more photos, than shed any illumination on relative ‘merits’ of cameras systems ;-)

What printer did you use for that?

As I’ve produced and shown large prints over the years I’ve noticed that above about 17″x11″ (~A3+) the common question ceases to be ‘what camera did you use’ and becomes ‘What did you print that on’.

It was great to see a collection of my black and white prints on the Innova stand (see the previous post here), and I’m really pleased to be asked if they could use them, since I know that printers and papers are promoted through good pictures ;-)

Some time ago a (different) paper supplier and I were discussing this, in particular how papers were often sold by ‘feel’ when picking them up, and by seeing nice looking photos printed on them – neither of much real relevance when putting your own images behind glass in a frame…

If you also know that there are only a limited number of photo paper manufacturers around the world, then some of the ‘brand following’ you see gains additional perspective.

Cameras and personality

A branding move too far?

Brand management is a big issue for the camera companies, and you can be assured that a lot of effort goes into those various advertising campaigns you see – whether it goes down well is another matter though.

It’s at the ‘top end’ where opinions seem more polarised – I note the generally bemused reaction to the Hasselbling announcement at Photokina 2012. Indeed, I took the photo to the right at Focus, where the new ‘Lunar’ was on show (in a case).

Given that much of the survival of the more niche camera companies depends on people with anomalously deep pockets, I’m curious to see where this one goes.

It’s worth noting the lens names that go onto some Japanese lenses – how much ‘German’ expertise goes into the Zeiss or Schneider names you see on some cameras?

But how much does it matter to the average photographer?

Take these two personalities from one on-line quiz I saw about what camera brand means what.

“If you use YYYY you’re a sucker for high performance, big lenses and fast money. Never mind what the brand is called, you know what you need and go for it. Your knowledge of photography is immense, You probably know more than all the text books and like to show it.”

“If you use XXXX you are a true professional. Forever the perfectionist who always wants the most from the equipment. You see the world in tiny details and a day job as ‘pixel peeper’ would probably be a dream come true.

Neither are perhaps that flattering, but I’ll let you guess which brands are being referred to…

But Keith… you use Canon kit

Yes, quite true…

…however I use Canon mainly for a combination of historical, economic, and lens availability reasons.

• Historical – My very first DSLR was a Canon 1Ds in 2003 – at the time the only 35mm full frame available. I like to shoot wide, and crop cameras were/are not an attractive option. At the time I had no existing lenses to support. The time span adds familiarity – watch me struggle with a Nikon lens that requires an anti-clockwise movement to attach it ;-)
• Economic – I now have quite a collection of lenses and kit that I’d prefer not to have to swap. This doesn’t mean that if Nikon were to produce a top notch 16mm tilt/shift lens (and Canon stuck around 20MP), I wouldn’t consider using it with a D800E
• Lenses – I use the Canon TS-E17 for quite a bit of my architectural work. Two other (currently) ‘unique’ lenses I use are the 8-15 fisheye zoom and MP-E65 Macro

Three Canon lenses that I regularly use

I’m still using my 2007 EOS 1Ds mark III because the newer 1D X just isn’t much of an advance [for my uses] over the 1Ds3 [my reasons in more detail] 

There’s also my printing – currently on a Canon iPF8300. Not chosen because it’s stunningly better than say, an Epson 9900 (all top end printers are broadly similar these days) but because I tried one out and found it easy to use. A printer like that isn’t a cheap bit of kit, so business related issues come in too.

Is there a point to this?

Apart from my being slightly miffed by being categorised by brand, it’s no more than to try and look beyond the tools you use and look to the results they produce.

Despite my interest in the technical side of photography, I’m inclined to believe that too many people don’t put nearly enough effort into the creative side and still feel that a better camera would ‘improve’ their photography.

That, and next time you feel like saying that you prefer brand X, to try and think why?

I am?  I choose not to be…

Google has taken over Nik, and is now offering the entire collection of plugins for $149 this month (March 2013)

We have a software purchase link that (until April 1st) [...]]]> March discount for Nik plugins – closed

Having reviewed all of Nik software’s image editing plugins, we’ve had a 15% discount link for a while.

Google has taken over Nik, and is now offering the entire collection of plugins for $149 this month (March 2013)

We have a software purchase link that (until April 1st) will get you an additional 15% knocked off the $149

Buy all Nik plugins (~$126)

Do note that you may be charged taxes/VAT on this figure, depending on where you are in the world

One very nice surprise was to see the collection of my black and white images printed by Innova, and shown on their stand.

A visit to Focus on Imaging 2013

It’s only 35 miles away, so the Focus on Imaging show in the UK is one trade show I’m happy to attend every year.

One very nice surprise was to  see the collection of my black and white images printed by Innova, and shown on their stand.

Keith and some of his B&W photos

Lot’s of interesting things to see, but mainly a visit to catch up with industry contacts and see what I can find to write some more reviews about.

The software is what I use to create some of our large architectural prints, including the 14 metre long one of Leicester City [...]]]> The latest version of Autopano Giga (V3), from Kolor, now offers a number of new geometric projections and improved masking for unwanted content from component images.

Review link: Autopano Giga V3 review

The software is what I use to create some of our large architectural prints, including the 14 metre long one of Leicester City centre last year.

New image projection geometries

Sometimes though, getting one part of an image to look the way you want creates unwanted effects in other areas. This is most noticeable in fairly flat [...]]]> Nik Software’s Silver Efex Pro 2 is a really useful plugin that I’ve used for a lot of my black and white prints in the last few years.

Sometimes though, getting one part of an image to look the way you want creates unwanted effects in other areas. This is most noticeable in fairly flat skies, where darker objects (trees, buildings) poke up into the sky and have a slightly luminous halo round them.

As someone who mostly dislikes such artefact in their work, I noted that there is no reason for you not to apply the Silver Efex plugin multiple times to a colour image and blend the various black and white results.

Article link: Reducing halos with Nik Silver Efex Pro

A typical image that could show very visible halos if you were not careful

Well, X-rite have released an update to profiler (V1.4.2) which adds the capability of profiling scanners, with a range of targets.

Whilst [...]]]> i1Profiler adds Scanner profiling

When i1Profiler first came out, it was noticed that some of the functionality of earlier software hadn’t made it through into the new software.

Well, X-rite have released an update to profiler (V1.4.2) which adds the capability of profiling scanners, with a range of targets.

Review link: i1Profiler Scanner profiling

Whilst there are a range of targets supported, the old scanner profiling test sheet that came with i1Match isn’t one of them.

Fortunately a normal ColorChecker card gives excellent results, as I found when testing out the software with my old Epson 1200U desktop scanner.

After scanning with a fresh profile (bottom image) there is a noticeable improvement compared to no profile (top) or the default profile (middle)

The software even detected a faulty patch in my original ColorChecker SG card, from several years ago when creating an ICC profile with it.

As yet, the software only supports scanner profiling. For cameras, when I need it, I’m most likely to use the ColorChecker Passport software with a ColorChecker card to make a DNG profile.

It would be nice if the Passport software supported the whole ColorChecker SG Card – this has a wider range of colour patches than the basic card. At the moment, with no camera profiling in i1Profiler, it does look a slightly orphaned product…

I’ve maintained a few rumour pages on this site for longer than the xxxrumors.com sites have been around, but I’ve always had a slightly ambivalent attitude towards keeping the pages going.

On one hand, I’d much rather the site was known for the articles [...]]]> Looking for the new camera rumours…

Very much ‘in development’

I’ve maintained a few rumour pages on this site for longer than the xxxrumors.com sites have been around, but I’ve always had a slightly ambivalent attitude towards keeping the pages going.

On one hand, I’d much rather the site was known for the articles and reviews I write, but then again, a look at the traffic stats over the last few years shows that an awful lot of the visitors to the articles first came to the site via a rumours page…

I’ve always accepted that some people have a powerful dislike of rumours, but the fact is that far more people are drawn to them. My own few pages are distinctly provided for interest/entertainment/amusement rather than a serious prediction service.

Experience tells me that not much of the details of the stuff that appears more than six months out from a product announcement will come to pass, unless it’s something pretty obvious, like Canon bringing out a new Rebel/xxxD some 12-18 months after the last one.

The best predictive tool in the past was a look at model release timelines, although the 1D4 -> 1D X step, with the end of the 1Ds3 was one that I let my own interest in what I’d potentially use for my work cloud my attitude to what I heard.

I’ve noticed distinct changes in the way rumours appear and spread over recent years – many of the manufacturers have got much better at keeping hold of information (stricter NDAs for example).

I’ll be keeping the pages going for the time being, since I’ve got fairly efficient in updating the pages (which are still manually edited). At some point I’m looking to expand aspects of the Northlight Images site with some specialist forums (colour management, digital black and white), however I suspect that area will be rumour free.

If you’re a regular reader, please do let me know what you like/dislike about the site – just remember that I’m a working commercial photographer and the content is largely written in my spare time ;-)

A few simple steps with a grey card or ColorChecker card can save [...]]]> Basic camera setup for product photography.

After spending a week photographing envelopes and packets of paper, I’ve written up some of the lighting and colour management options I like to set -before- taking thousands of photos.

Article link: Product photography camera setup

A few simple steps with a grey card or ColorChecker card can save a lot of post processing and editing time when you are taking a lot of photos. It’s rarely necessary to go to the lengths of full icc camera profiling, when a simple DNG camera profile, or just a custom white balance setting will do.

Unlike many photographers, I’m quite happy teaching companies how to do their own product photography – this is the sort of detail I can go into, if needed. I know that many small businesses with web sites need quick effective product shots, and that sometimes taking them along to a  product photography studio, isn’t a viable option.

Tethered laptop, set up for product photography

Finishing this [...]]]> The image processing and manipulation plugins from Nik software cover every part of my workflow after I’ve converted my camera files from their original RAW format. I’ve now written reviews of all the current versions of the plugins with the review of Dfine 2, for image noise reduction.

Review Link: Nik Dfine 2.0

Finishing this particular review was one of those things that had slipped under the carpet, but I was reminded when I needed it to reduce noise in a strongly coloured sky in an evening shot, that I was thinking of converting to black and white with Nik Silver Efex Pro 2

The problem was that in darkening and increasing cloud detail in the sky with ‘yellow filter’ in Silver Efex, any noise and banding in the image could easily become quite noticeable on a 90cm x 60cm print.

Opening an image in Nik Dfine 2

It’s an image that I come back to every so often – two local landmarks in the city centre. Another shot, taken nearby at around the same time, has one of my most licensed images of the city, and has sold numerous prints. I’m just never sure of the treatment for this one with its mix of lighting (9:20pm on a June evening)

Well, using Dfine 2 with control points set in the sky area, gave me a lot cleaner image to work on.

Actually going back to this image (which dates from 2009) this time, I realised the difference between this shot and one a couple of minutes later ‘that works’ is that more streetlights had come on – Doh!

In my defence I’d point out that this wasn’t a paying job – I was on my way back through town after an event, and had my then new TS-E 17mm shift lens with me to experiment with.

This is the same scene that is included in my 14 metre long print made last year, where I did indeed wait for those street lights (mounted on buildings) to come on.

Anyway, here’s a version processed with Nik HDR Effex Pro 2 (from a single image) that doesn’t look too bad – even though I now want to go back and shoot the image with proper levels of street lighting (once the Christmas decorations have come down)

It’s a little busy for my liking, but sometimes you learn far more from finding out what doesn’t work with an image than what does…

The black and white version I was after is more like this (Silver Efex Pro 2) , but I still want to get that lighting better…

A black and white version of the clocktower image

It’s experimenting with images like this and using the range of plugins (along with plain Photoshop editing techniques) that reflect in my actual paying work for clients.

I do feel that trying out new tools and deciding when they might make that vital difference is a key part of my ongoing business development – oh, and I like doing it too ;-)

 –ooOoo–

Buying Nik Software, getting a 15% discount and helping Keith with the site.

If you would like to buy one of the Nik software packages directly (by download) we’ve a software purchase link that you can follow to Nik Software’s US site. This link will entitle you to a discount on the advertised price, a small portion of which comes to us as a commission.

From my own point of view, the most interesting correction is for the distortions you get with groups of faces when shooting with a very wide angle lens.

This isn’t [...]]]> DxO have produced a software application and plugin (Photoshop and Lightroom) that offers some interesting correction options for image geometry.

Review link: DxO Viewpoint V1.1

From my own point of view, the most interesting correction is for the distortions you get with groups of faces when shooting with a very wide angle lens.

This isn’t a fault of the lens at all, it’s a by product of  wide rectilinear lens design, where the aim is to keep straight lines straight.

This example shows exactly what correction I’m talking about. One nice touch is that all corrections can be ‘rolled back’ in intensity to get the best looking image.

DxO Viewpoint anamorphic correction – click to expand

The default anamorphic corrections are based on the lens focal length and camera sensor size, so often look pretty good without the need for further adjustment.

The software is quick and effective to use – unlike some plugins it doesn’t try and do too much, just do what it does rather well.

I’m very lucky to have a job that I enjoy, as a professional photographer, and via the articles I write here, having the opportunity to try out new equipment and software.

The new design makes it a lot easier to experiment with the different options, and to my mind also [...]]]> Last year I looked at Nik’s HDR Efex Pro plugin, and have just finished writing up a review of the latest version, which works with Photoshop, Aperture and Lightroom.

Review Link: Nik HDR Efex Pro 2

The new design makes it a lot easier to experiment with the different options, and to my mind also makes it a lot easier to produce images that gain some of the benefits of HDR (high dynamic range) processing, without straying into what I consider the tacky and unrealistic tone mapping that is so common today.

It’s a tool I can use to create images that don’t look as if I’ve manipulated them to within an inch of their lives ;-)

This shot of St Mary de Castro church in Leicester is a composite of three images. A single shot would not have held the detail (clearly visible in a large print) in the brightly lit areas, without a lot of noise in the shadows.

St. Mary de Castro church in Leicester, at night

By the way – if you do like bright colourful HDR tone-mapped images, then the software can do that just as well ;-)

Buying Nik Software, getting a 15% discount and helping Keith with the site.

If you would like to buy one of the Nik software packages directly (by download) we’ve a software purchase link that you can follow to Nik Software’s US site. This link will entitle you to a discount on the advertised price, a small portion of which comes to us as a commission.

The latest version (V8) offers a range of improvements to image quality and overall workflow, and I’ve written a detailed review, looking at [...]]]> I’ve been using DxO Optics Pro for some of my RAW processing for several years – It’s what I’ve chosen for many of my images that I produce as large prints.

The latest version (V8) offers a range of improvements to image quality and overall workflow, and I’ve written a detailed review, looking at some of the image quality aspects of the program, concentrating on the processing of RAW files.

Review Link: DxO Optics Pro V8 review

Some aspects of the print capability in V8.0 were still a little basic for my own preferences (I tend to print via Photoshop, after selective sharpening and the like)

The software has now been updated to V8.1 and fine tunes a number of areas, as well as offering support for more lenses and cameras.

DxO V8.1 update

DxO Optics Pro v8.1 now offers colour management and sharpness enhancement when printing, an output option for reducing EXIF data, as well as numerous improvements to its interface for an even more rapid workflow.

This update also allows DxO Optics Pro 8 to support the Sony NEX-6, the Canon Powershot S110 and G15, and the Olympus Pen E-PM2 and E-PL5.

The addition of colour profiles for print setup is a welcome addition if you wanted to use the built in print options. Whilst I’m still disinclined to use this route for final prints, I note that some of the print layout options would work well for the digital equivalent of contact sheets.

For an A3+ printer, it’s pretty huge, weighing in at around 60 pounds. This makes for one of the quietest printers I’ve looked at, and one that isn’t going to jump around your desk.

Quality wise, [...]]]> After lots of testing, I’ve finished one of our longer printer reviews.

Review Link: Canon Pixma PRO-1 printer

For an A3+ printer, it’s pretty huge, weighing in at around 60 pounds. This makes for one of the quietest printers I’ve looked at, and one that isn’t going to jump around your desk.

Quality wise, it’s superb. The 12 inks and 4pl droplet size give smooth vibrant colours and excellent black and white prints too.

However, there are a number of issues with paper sizes and margins that caused me some concern – these may be irrelevant to you, or deal breakers.

Please do feel free to ask for any further info, since the printer has only just gone back to Canon and I’m more likely to remember details ;-)

Surely that means that if you find the right place, people will get out their cheque books and start paying you for what you [...]]]> Can you make it as a pro photographer?

After all, your friends are telling you that you’ve got talent. People look at some of your photos and say – “They’re nice”

Surely that means that if you find the right place, people will get out their cheque books and start paying you for what you like doing…

Have you thought this through at all?

If I just did photography for fun, would I spend all day photographing people cleaning a petrol (gas) station?

With all the articles on the site, I’m quite happy in receiving questions about technical aspects of photography – indeed, the questions often give me the idea for new articles.

What I sometimes find more difficult, is answering the ones that want to know if their photos are ‘good enough’ to make money.

My initial response is always to ask if they’ve actually read any of my articles about working as a photographer? Such as the snappily titled ‘How to be a professional photographer‘ – which was the first of a whole series I’ve written covering aspects of the business side of photography.

As a working photographer I can give quite detailed honest technical criticisms of images, but I’m also very wary of doing so, unless specifically asked.

I know much better than at social gatherings, when given a picture and asked ‘what do you think?’, to immediately pour out my true thoughts ;-)

The point is that it’s unlikely that any of those friends telling you your photos are great, ever buy or commission images for their business… They may like your photos, but in all honesty, so what?   Note that I’m talking of real tangible friends here – not the imaginary ones you have on Facebook. If you’re going to take notice of non experts, then at least pick ones who can say it to your face…

If by any chance some of these friends are also photographers, then it’s nice to get the praise, but ask yourself what they actually know about it as a business? No matter how much emotion and effort you’ve put into your work, it’s essentially just a product like any other – if it’s going to make you any money.

Lots of people can take nice photos

Yes, my hobby really is taking photos of industrial components… not

Taking good photos of things that interest you is indeed a skill.

Taking good photos of things you don’t find inspiring or interesting takes a whole different attitude.

Indeed, my own personal definition of a professional photographer includes producing great photos (for money) of things that you might never choose to photograph otherwise. I’m an architectural photographer and get paid to photograph some pretty horrid looking buildings…

There is a fashionable point of view that getting your photos ‘out there’ is all it takes to be ‘noticed’ – something I’d call the ‘Lottery model‘ of photographic success.  Suffice to say, that as a business plan, it’s about as reliable as investing in lottery tickets…

But, look at my nice photos…

OK, they’re nice.  Do you have any idea who might buy them? Why would this person or organisation buy your work?

Just asking me, in the hope that I’ll send you the magic phone number or web site that’s run by those people with all that spare money, isn’t going to happen. I’d probably be living in a bigger house, and not driving a 2003 car if I knew… ;-)

It’s going to take real work and research to understand how people make money from photography, and if you think you can position your products in the market (offended by your work being called a product? just get over it ;-) )

Perhaps you were only hoping to make a bit of money ‘on the side’ from your photos? Well it can be done, but once again needs some serious research – gone are the days when submitting a few ‘spare’ images to stock sites would bring in a steady income.

Look at some well known photographers. How much of their success comes from their photographic vision, and how much from a solid business approach?

Note: – ‘solid business approach’ can include shameless self promotion and a suitably pretentious choice of name.
The difficulty is deciding when it works and when it just makes you look foolish ;-)

Maybe, once you have a successful business, you’ll be able to pick and choose your work to refine and build your reputation, but in the mean time, be prepared to photograph some ugly buildings (or less than photogenic wedding couples).

Success in photography as a business does not mean your photos are good (whatever that actually means), just that they sell well ;-)

A quick check shows a very capable B&W print mode, which with a 3rd party lustre paper produced a very even and neutral looking print – residual non-linearity was very easily cleared up with a QTR profile, which I was able [...]]]> Upcoming printer review

Canon UK have sent me a Pro-1 A3+ printer for review.

A quick check shows a very capable B&W print mode, which with a 3rd party lustre paper produced a very even and neutral looking print – residual non-linearity was very easily cleared up with a QTR profile, which I was able to use directly when printing from CS5 to the driver’s B&W mode.

This from Canon’s launch info (last year – supplies of this printer were seriously hit by the floods in Thailand)

• 12-ink system with wide colour gamut
• Chroma Optimizer for uniform glossiness and crisp, sharp blacks
• Optimum Image Generating system enhances colour reproduction
• Black and white prints with 5 monochrome inks
• New LUCIA pigment inks ensure photo permanence
• Create a gallery-quality A3+ photo in approx. 2 minutes 55 sec
• High capacity ink tanks
• Wide range of media support including 356mm (14”) wide and thick media

Here it is after printing an A3+ profiling target.

Canon Pro-1 printer

If anyone has any specific queries, do let me know (here or email directly) and I’ll try and see if I can find an answer, or address the issue in my review (probably by the end of the month).

One of those minor irritations of getting older is a decreasing ability to focus close.

I’ve alway been a little long sighted, and whilst I’ve had glasses since [...]]]>  Viewfinders for the older photographer…

Still useful – the Canon Angle Finder ‘C’ – what I used before ‘Liveview’ and still keep in my bag.

One of those minor irritations of getting older is a decreasing ability to focus close.

I’ve alway been a little long sighted, and whilst I’ve had glasses since I was at school, I just never needed to wear them very often.

The other day I was on a job, photographing electrical equipment in the basement of a large building in dim light.

The backlight of the top display on my 1Ds3 gets round seeing the main settings. However, I was using a tilt/shift lens in a very cramped space and needed to see the angle of tilt on the lens – fortunately I had for once remembered my glasses.

This made me think about using phone cameras and most compact cameras – did the designers ever assume that anyone over the age of 50 would use them?

Obviously the marketing departments must assume that anyone over 50 is either going to use a DSLR, or have enough money to buy a compact camera with an optical viewfinder (I’m sure everyone wants (and can afford) a Leica once they hit 60)

I find this assumption just as annoying as the idea that to make a product appeal to women, you just make it smaller and offer it in pink (known as ‘shrink and pink’ by the way)

A big phone camera

At the moment Canon are also saying that the EOS-M won’t be getting an add on viewfinder – so, I can put my £10,000 EF600/4 IS lens on it, but I’m still expected to use it like a glorified phone?

Whilst in a suitably curmudgeonly mood, I also wondered what impact this was having on photography in general.

I don’t really like using cameras on phones and I’d always assumed it was the poor image quality, but really, it’s the need to hold them at arms length and then not be able to see much on the screen in anything other than heavy shade, that I dislike more.

I see cameras and phones being held at arms length all the time, and not just by people without glasses – how do these people attempt anything but the most rudimentary composition. Sharing photos may be a big thing in the social media world, but the truth is that it’s sharing of a lot of pretty poor quality images…

However most people don’t seem to notice or mind that their shared photos are technically dismal… Filters like Instagram may add polish, but you can polish a bad photo as much as you like, and it’s still a poor photo.

• On a good day this makes me glad that as a working photographer, the efforts and expense I go to makes a real difference and is valued.
• On a not so good day it makes me wonder why I bother ;-)

Today is a good day, so I’m welcoming these changes in photography ;-)

What’s been really helpful though, are two talks I’ve given to photographers groups in Nottingham and Coventry. I do a few of these presentations [...]]]> Producing better photos and prints without spending much money

This week has been a busy one, with all the work on fixing this site, and fitting in several architectural photo shoots.

What’s been really helpful though, are two talks I’ve given to photographers groups in Nottingham and Coventry. I do a few of these presentations each year, and it’s a chance to pass on some information and get feedback about some of the issues facing keen amateur photographers in following their interests. One talk was about ‘Colour management’ and the other about ‘Digital black and white photography’.

It’s very easy as a professional photographer, having the luxury of test equipment and media supplied by manufacturers, to forget that most people have to pay for this stuff, and would ideally like to see some benefit from the expenditure.

Thinking about what was discussed, I’ve put together a few brief suggestions for getting better results, ideally free, or at least without breaking the bank…

These are very much personal observations and I know my approach won’t suit everyone ;-) YMMV

Look at more photos

Many years ago, one of the architectural images that inspired me was “Sea of Steps” – taken by Frederick H. Evans in 1903 at Wells Cathedral. This is taken from the same spot, but with a modern (17mm) shift lens.

Every so often I’l take a magazine and flick through it very quickly, maybe only a fraction of a second per page. I’m looking for images that catch my attention and make me pause to look at them a bit longer. Note that I don’t have to like the photo, just find it interesting.

That’s when I think about the image, its subject, composition and technical execution (lighting, focus etc). The key is that by doing this quickly I’m relying more on my sub-conscious analysis of the image, rather than trying to over-think things.

Over the years I’ve found that much of my compositional ability and feel for a shot that ‘may’ work is very rapid. This may be tempered, as in my commercial work, where I’ll think more about composition and the technical side of the photograph, and have to set the camera up, but that initial go/no-go choice is not something I over analyse.

Note that I said ‘may’ above… In my landscape work I’ve never been one for the slow considered analysis of a scene before taking a photo. Typically I’ll take 4-5 shots with maybe a pause to reconsider my viewpont (does the foreground work with the background – should I move a bit).

All those ‘rules’ of composition you read about are something I might be able to apply retrospectively, but rarely think about at the time of shooting.

My approach to a location is very much a guided exploration. I see nothing wrong with checking shots on the back of my camera, it’s a great feature, I wish I’d had when using film. That doesn’t mean I pore over every shot, but it does give me a feel for if what I thought might look good, is on the right track.

Digital photos are cheap – take lots more of them, but then do actually look seriously at what you’ve taken ;-)
…see also my ‘3 (9) quick tips for improving your black and white photography‘

Editing images

Look on your process (aka workflow) in going from RAW camera image to a final print as a chain. Have you any weak links?  It’s not necessary to do everything in the RAW converter – sometimes it’s better to leave some adjustments until later.

BTW I’m assuming you’re shooting RAW files in your camera, not JPEGs? Personally I’m after image quality, as well as subject and composition – that means I’ll always shoot RAW. It takes more effort, but has an awful lot of advantages.

See an article I wrote some time ago: ‘Why use RAW‘ for more of my thoughts about this.

Colormunki Smile used for laptop screen calibration

When evaluating your images, it really does help if your monitor is profiled and calibrated. This is one of those areas where you really can’t do a good job of it ‘by eye’.

Calibrators  have got cheaper and more effective over the last few years and at around $90 the new ColorMunki Smile  or the slightly more expensive Spyder4Express will meet many people’s needs for setting up their screens. I’d note though that neither offer accurate setting of screen brightness (luminance), so some care is needed in not having your monitor too bright (can lead to prints coming out too dark although there are a number of ways round this issue)

If you are producing prints, then it is important to remember that the print is the final result, and that the best looking image on screen may not automatically lead to the best print. The image on screen is not the print, just an intermediate step.

Consistent lighting helps with evaluating prints

In comparing prints to screen, remember that they are entirely different means of showing images – effectively, you can never match a print to a screen. Aim for effective print viewing conditions when evaluating prints and don’t just put them side by side to compare.

I’ve written a lot more more about this when I reviewed a specialist print viewing stand – most people don’t need this level of equipment (and expense), but the principles are important, even if you use a simple Ott lite based light

When it comes to printing, many people make the mistake of evaluating their printer (or company making prints) by using one of their own images. The problem with this is that how do you know that the image is OK in the first place? Use a known test image, such as the Datacolor one for colour (on our test images page), or our own specially created black and white test image.

If the test image comes out wrong, then there is something to fix with your printer setup. If the test image comes out fine, but your own photos don’t, then there are issues to address with other areas (camera settings, RAW conversion, photo editing)

Sharpening for print

There is one area of image editing, that taking the time to master, can potentially have a massive effect on how good your prints look. I believe that failure to master aspects of print sharpening is one of the most common ways of lowering print quality, after lack of attention to colour management (use of ICC profiles for printing).

For myself, sharpening is the final step applied to any file before it is printed. The amount and type of sharpening depends on the print size, the printer, the paper used and most importantly, the image content.

Sharpening is not a ‘one size fits all’ approach. The benefits of not just hitting the sharpen button become more apparent as your print sizes get bigger.

Print quality isn’t just about paper and ink

A simple example would be a large landscape print. Normally I’d apply virtually no sharpening to the sky, since all it’s going to do in large flat areas, is amplify any noise in the image.

I use a Photoshop plugin called Nik Sharpener Pro 3 to handle sharpening – it’s pricy, but well worth while for my work. I’ve included lots of general background information about print sharpening in my review of  Sharpener Pro 3 (and also its predecessor Nik Sharpener Pro 2).

I’d note though that you can do a lot of sharpening directly in Photoshop (or Elements) and that learning how to apply it as a masked layer is a really useful skill to acquire. I’ve outlined some of this in the worked example of Making a big B&W print that I’ve written for our tutorials section.

–o–

Just a few observations that I hope are of some help?

I’m always looking to write new articles, reviews and tutorials for the site, so please do feel free to ask if there is something you’d like to know about?  I do a limited number of talks for photography groups each year (ideally based within an hour or so’s drive from Leicester) since I’ve always found that there is no better way of knowing if you actually understand a subject than trying to explain it to someone else ;-)

–00-00–

Absolutely anything whatsoever you order from Amazon helps us run our site – thanks to everyone who has purchased items, however small.

Amazon UK link / Amazon USA link / Amazon France / Amazon Germany / Amazon Canada link

It also supports multiple monitors, which I’d not really expected from an entry level product that only produces profiles at [...]]]> Review of X-Rite ColorMunki Smile monitor calibrator

I’ve just finished a review of the new ColorMunki Smile. It’s actually shorter than many of my monitor profiling reviews, since the device is so simple to use!

It also supports multiple monitors, which I’d not really expected from an entry level product that only produces profiles at one setting (D65 and G2.2)

Review Link: ColorMunki Smile

Whilst it was fairly good in its time, the huey performs less well on modern wider [...]]]> X-Rite announces ColorMunki Smile

Some time ago I reviewed the Pantone huey, very much intended as an entry level monitor calibrator. This was followed by the huey Pro, which has carried on as the entry level product ever since.

Whilst it was fairly good in its time, the huey performs less well on modern wider gamut and LED backlit screens. Partly to address this, X-rite have announced their new ColorMunki Smile

I now [Oct. '12] have a full review of the ColorMunki Smile.

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich., (September 18, 2012) – X-Rite, Incorporated, the world leader in color management, measurement and communication technologies, announces today a new addition to the ColorMunki family of color calibration solutions – the ColorMunki Smile. Ideal for photo hobbyists, design enthusiasts, gamers and any other users looking for the easiest way to color correct their computer monitors, ColorMunki Smile offers a simple and affordable option for beginner color perfectionists.

ColorMunki Smile includes a color measurement device and very simple software. Thanks to a wizard-based user interface that uses graphics and video animation, users just need to follow the on-screen instructions that walk them through the quick and easy calibration process. Best of all, users don’t need to know anything about color science to get good quality results with the ColorMunki Smile.

“ColorMunki Smile features advanced color measurement technologies that X-Rite is known for while providing beginner color enthusiasts with an easy-to-use solution for calibrating monitors,” said Thomas Kunz, X-Rite’s Market Manager, Imaging. “With the introduction of ColorMunki Smile, users can now be sure that their monitors always accurately display the true colors of their photographs, videos, games and web browsing experiences.”

Using the same color profile technology as X-Rite’s professional-level color calibration products, ColorMunki Smile provides color accuracy on commonly used LED and LCD displays.

Users can also calibrate multiple monitors to accurately show colors. ColorMunki Smile software automatically detects when multiple monitors are connected to a single Mac or PC computer and allows users to color correct each one.

ColorMunki Smile extends the X-Rite portfolio of Display products by now offering an entry level display product. Also available for more advanced users is the ColorMunki Display and for professional users – the i1Display Pro.

Availability
ColorMunki Smile is available now from X-Rite (North America) and Pantone online stores and also from the company’s worldwide network of resellers for an MSRP of $99. ColorMunki Smile includes a colorimeter with counterweight, ColorMunki Smile software for calibrating monitors, and Quick Start Guide.

Myself, I went down to Devon in the UK – superb weather, and all the summer [...]]]> So, where next in the world of photography?

It’s that lull after Photokina, where all the assorted photography tech press make their way back from Cologne and file their numerous ‘hands on reports’ about the latest kit on show.

Myself, I went down to Devon in the UK – superb weather, and all the summer crowds are gone ;-)

September beach – Beer, Devon UK

Some might have actually taken some photos on their trip to Photokina, but the stock in trade these days does seem to involve writing 400 250 words on what it felt like to pick up some bit of kit, and in the case of new cameras, try and meaningfully judge something (anything!) from the display on the back.

If you’re in the chosen few, you may even get an interview with someone sufficiently senior, where they will tell you the current company ‘thoughts’ on product X or Y.  Of course, this stuff is usually well rehearsed and you can bet that any ‘hints’ that might appear are also well planned ;-)  That said, have a read of these and you’ll see some very different attitudes over what can be said…

A few of these interviews are doing the rounds – Also worth reading also for what they don’t address ;-)

• Behind the scenes in developing the 6D – Canon reveals all a bit.
• Nikon and the D600 – Actually feels more like an interview than a prepared statement.
• Samsung and the connected camera – ‘Connectedness’ one of the things that camera companies have decided is a great ‘new’ way for them to move.
• Pentax – lots more on the way – really… (see also another interview at IR)
• Leica – a company that understands the importance of its market, brand and image (see also the ‘S’ interview and at AP)
• Sony talks AF and full frame – some of the subtleties you may have missed in their new products. (See also the Sony Interview at AP)
• Sigma – actually quite a lot from a company I still mentally associate with a lens I bought in 1980 ;-)

Hasselbling

My own highlight of the show was the preposterous Hasselblad Lunar.

To say that it was received somewhat less enthusiastically than perhaps their marketing department had hoped for is something of an understatement.

The launch info describes the reworked Sony NEX7 as:

 ”Italian-designed ultimate luxury mirrorless” model. “The Lunar is a celebration of the passion that the company’s founder, Victor Hasselblad, had for photography,” says Luca Alessandrini, Hasselblad’s new business development manager. “We’ve developed this model in the traditional way, using handmade wooden prototypes to ensure superior ergonomics and functionality. This is a camera for both serious photographers and enthusiasts who aspire to shoot with a Hasselblad.”

The company went on the defensive, talking to the BJP  (read the comments ;-)

What really struck me was the difference between how Leica handled the introduction of ‘cheaper’ cameras and how it’s existing user base might take to the new stuff. Hasselblad managed to give the impression (even if not true) that they were taking an approach akin to Rolex producing their own range of knock-off (fake) watches.

Where next?

Try a few of the other links in the sites with  interviews above to get a bit more of a feel for what was at Photokina. I’d suggest though, that you only normally see a small subset of what’s there reported. There are numerous smaller suppliers showing their gadgets, gizmos and software. I’ve not yet looked in detail at lens announcements, but the new Zeiss primes aimed at very high res sensors are interesting (and very $$$)

The bigger camera companies tend to move around as a crowd, with leaders, hangers on, and those who make attempts to wander off on their own for a bit. What they are always looking for is that ‘something new’ factor. This year the ‘newness’ seems to be with connectivity and the magic of ‘Full Frame’.

Now, leaving apart the fact that connectedness does not equate with actual usefulness (i.e replacing a wire with ‘wireless’ doesn’t necessarily do much extra) I see most of this driven by the encroachment of phones with cameras, and the feeling that we should all be wanting to share our every snapshot with the world. Years ago, such sharing was much more formalised and consisted of luring people round to your house, and just happening to have your slide projector set up, with a stack of rotary slide magazines to hand…

I noticed that Canon (like others) has it’s own project in this area (1709) – however, if you use a Mac or iPad/Phone to access their site – you get an ‘unsupported browser’ warning. Obviously someone at Canon has decided that Apple users don’t do any of this new fangled ‘sharing’ stuff ;-)

Whilst on the subject of ‘sharing’ it’s interesting to hear the almost universal concern from users of Nik plugins, upon hearing of their assimilation by Google (see my Silver Effex pro 2 review if you’re not familiar with the plugins). Google is obviously after Nik’s Snapseed software, and although there have been reassuring noises from Google about the plugins, their past history in handling acquisitions is not a good omen.

My next question is a simple one – why do you want full frame?

Canon 6D

With the major players announcing cameras with 35mm sensors, you’d think that there is a solid advantage for photographers to choose larger sensor sizes?

Well, from the manufacturers point of view, it encourages people to buy more expensive lenses (with concomitant ‘lock-in’ ) and the cameras are likely to have better profit margins and distance themselves from the encroaching hoards of phones and small sensor cameras.

For most photographers though, the answer is much less clear cut.

The other day at the seaside, I saw a photographer with a Nikon D800E and a fairly standard (consumer) zoom lens on the front – I’ll be charitable and assume he was taking test shots to show just how bad the lens turns out to be when moved from your D40 to a D800E…

For myself, I use wide (and expensive) lenses, such as the EF8-15 and TS-E17 – but that’s part of my work, and I often produce huge prints.

D600

One other ‘feature’ often pushed for larger sensors is that it’s much easier to use small depth of field with wide open lenses and equivalent fields of view. Useful for wedding and portrait photographers, but rather less generally so than many might like to think – it certainly helps push up sales of Canon’s 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 lenses amongst those with deep pockets ;-)

There is still a great reserve of photographers who equate better kit with better photos – unlike some, I believe that this can (sometimes) be the case, but it relies on having the skill and experience to make use of what the equipment brings.

So, with Nikon not updating the D300S and Canon leading its crop sensor range with the 3 year old 7D, it seems that crop sensors are not in fashion for anything but ‘entry level’ DSLRs.  But at least all the new cameras have video… (news to manufacturers – many of us don’t give a … about video in our cameras. If I wanted to shoot a video I’d get a proper video camera, and hire a good sound recordist, and editor, and director)  For more about this see the excellent Photokina summary by Thom Hogan (who was there)

Anyway, that’s enough ramblings – my next ‘real’ visit to a trade show won’t be until next Spring when it’s Focus in Birmingham – only a 30 mile trip from my home ;-)  In the mean time I’ll keep updating our rumour pages for the odd hint about what’s on the way ;-)

I’ll leave with my favourite new camera (maybe because a Russian Zorki4 was my first 35mm camera and a Zenith my first SLR)

The Zenit Horizon Panorama D-L3

Zenit panoramic

Info at EZ …although a camera in a display cabinet hardly makes for a ‘Hands on Preview’ IMHO ;-)

Not for much longer

No effect on the rest of their film business for the time being, but for a company that has made more of digital photography than Kodak managed, it’s not good [...]]]> Another film maker bows out.

Fujifilm have announced that they are to stop making cine film as from next March.

Not for much longer

No effect on the rest of their film business for the time being, but for a company that has made more of digital photography than Kodak managed, it’s not good news for film fans.

Announcement on Motion Picture Film Business of Fujifilm

September 13, 2012 Fujifilm has mainly provided negative films for shooting and positive films for projection in its motion picture film business operations. However, in order to adapt to the recent rapid transition of digitalization in the shooting, producing, projecting and archiving processes of motion pictures Fujifilm has decided to shift its business operations to provide products and services designed for digital workflow of motion picture production and projection.

Digital cinema camera shooting has been gaining momentum, and digital editing that heavily uses CG composition and VFX processing has now become common in motion picture production. There is also an increase in the number of movie theaters that converted to digital projection, following the increase of 3D motion pictures, implying the dramatically advancing digitalization in the motion picture industry. In such trend, Fujifilm has strived to reduce the costs of the production process for its existing negative films and positive films and continued to supply such films. However, the dramatic decrease of demand in the last few years has become far too great a burden to be covered by corporate efforts. Therefore, it has been decided to discontinue the sales of negative films, positive films, and some other products of motion picture in a prospect of March 2013.

Fujifilm will continue to provide films suitable for long-term archiving, high-performance lens for motion pictures, and other products and services designed for digital workflow of motion picture production and exhibition. Fujifilm will strive harder than ever to provide such products and services in its continuous contribution to the motion picture industry….  [Full press release]

DxO Viewpoint is a new piece of software from DxO, who’s DxO Optics Pro and DxO FilmPack I’ve reviewed in the past, and find useful adjuncts to my image processing toolbox.

Whilst I like to use shift lenses for my big architectural work, I still end [...]]]>

DxO Viewpoint announced

New image geometry correction software

DxO Viewpoint is a new piece of software from DxO, who’s DxO Optics Pro and DxO FilmPack I’ve reviewed in the past, and find useful adjuncts to my image processing toolbox.

Whilst I like to use shift lenses for my big architectural work, I still end up using non shift lenses for some applications. This is where correction may be needed.

It’s also useful if you want to take wide angle shots of groups of people, where it can eliminate some of the ‘face stretching’ you get at the edges of images. However I don’t photograph weddings or groups of people very often ;-)

The software (Mac and PC) is available as both a Photoshop/Lightroom plugin (CS3 onwards, LR 3 and 4), or a standalone application.

Having used the geometric correction features in DxO Optics Pro for some time, I’m very familiar with the issues I can get from using wide angle lenses, and the limitations of fixing geometry within Photoshop (although this has improved over the years).

I’ll have a full review, once the final software is released later this month.

More info at DxO, where if you register, there is a chance to win a copy when it comes out.

UPDATE – I’ve now written a full review of ViewPoint 1.1

In an announcement, they say they have “initiated sale processes for its market-leading Personalized Imaging and Document Imaging businesses.”

Now that includes a lot more than just films, but the film business is the one that will have some photographers worried (I note that the [...]]]> Kodak to sell its film business

How much longer?

In an announcement, they say they have “initiated sale processes for its market-leading Personalized Imaging and Document Imaging businesses.”

Now that includes a lot more than just films, but the film business is the one that will have some photographers worried (I note that the cine film business is not included).

The reason for all this is Kodak’s dire financial situation, where they need money fast, and if that involves selling off the silver, then so be it. It’s already looking as if they will fall far short of the $2.5 billion they’d hoped to get from the sale of patents, so more is needed.

In the last week or so I’ve been making major changes to the layout of the Northlight site, and been updating quite a few old articles (checking links are still alive etc.) – it’s interesting that in 2004, when I moved to digital in a big way, that I thought film had at least 10-15 years of demand, even if it was in more specialised areas. The recent drop off has been sharper than I thought – I’d forgotten the way old technologies can crumble away quite rapidly as a critical level of interest and support is reached.

Of course any death of film story (as I  saw it on BBC news) wouldn’t be complete without wheeling out someone from the photography establishment to suggest that film is alive and well… (I didn’t see the ‘undergoing a resurgence of interest’ line this time).

In this instance we have that venerable organ, the BJP. This from the BBC

The British Journal of Photography said the news would concern the industry.

“A lot of professionals still shoot with film and like the quality it gives them,” Olivier Laurent, news editor at the journal, told the BBC.

“The resolution is still a thousand times higher than most digital cameras can offer so long as a good scanner is used.

“A film photograph has a different mood thanks to its grain – it’s about the love of the image and digital still has a hard time trying to reproduce that feeling.”

Oh really?

What proportion of working photographers still use film? Actual working photographers that is, not just BJP readers?

A thousand times higher? I’m presuming this would be all those pro photographers who shoot 10×8 large format – did you see their massed ranks at the recent Olympics?

As to the grain… well, I’m happy to add it afterwards ;-) [DxO FilmPack review] if it makes a shot look better (and it can in some instances).

Nothing wrong in saying that any loss of film is a loss to photography, since photography benefits from a variety of means of expression. What I don’t like is that contrived story about just how serious it is, and that from a work point of view, many professional photographers are really that bothered – much as I thought at the ‘Death of Kodachrome‘.

I’m optimistic, and believe that some of the products will live on, when the business is sold. However, my business brain says, why should someone else be able to make a profit from the current (film) business, when Kodak themselves haven’t got close for several years.

This is what’s currently in the range – come back in a few years and see what’s left? (not to mention what it costs and where you can get it processed).

As a working photographer, I need to be able to rely on the equipment I use on jobs. Someone is paying for my time and what I’m taking photos of may not be repeatable.

The kind of [...]]]> Should I only buy ‘pro’ cameras?

Does it help me become a better photographer?

Keith in Seattle

As a working photographer, I need to be able to rely on the equipment I use on jobs. Someone is paying for my time and what I’m taking photos of may not be repeatable.

The kind of kit people usually refer to as ‘Pro’ is typically better built and made for heavier use as a work tool.

I want equipment that I can trust – so I look for ‘Pro’ kit?

Well… no, I’ll admit that I dislike the term ‘Pro’ – it’s become just a marketing label to indicate more expensive or more complex ;-)

I’m looking for tools that help me do my job, tools that help my business create the product it sells. As with many other tradespeople, ‘pro’ photographers are producing products to be sold, and like a master carpenter, I like to know I’ve reliable chisels, and that I know the right chisel for the job.

A Canon 1Ds mk3, TS-E24mm and TS-E17mm in the bag – over £8,000 of kit

If anyone has the money and inclination, then buy what you like – compared with many hobbies, spending £5000 on some kit is not that expensive (sailing and cars come to mind)

Unlike some, I do believe that having a better camera and lens can enable you to produce better photos. The big caveats are that:

1. You know how to use the equipment
2. You understand how the technology affects the types of images you can get
3. The image is going to be used in a context where the difference will show

The most obvious example is where I’m not going using my iPhone, when I know a client wants a 60″ x 40″ architectural print… ;-)

Note that I’d never say you can’t take good pictures on a rubbish camera, just that their overall usefulness may be rather limited – Lomography, yep, heard of that… ;-)

Let’s envisage 2 camera setups

1. Canon EOS 7D (8 frames per second(fps), fairly good autofocus (AF)) with EF400mm f/2.8L IS II USM
2. Canon EOS1100D ( 2 fps, basic AF) with Canon EF400mm f/5.6L USM

The experienced nature photographer could get good photos with either setup, but will likely get a higher proportion with the much more expensive kit (the 400/2.8 is over £8000)

The photographer new to nature photography will also benefit from the more expensive kit, since the image stabilisation (IS) and higher FPS will give them more sharp photos (they just may not be very good)

The difference is that the experienced and knowledgeable photographer will derive much more benefit from using specialised equipment. Experience becomes a multiplier for the technical advantages.

The lenses I’ve got in the photo above only really come into their own when you know how to use their special features (see -using tilt and shift)

As a working ‘pro’ photographer, the tricky bit is deciding which new expensive bit of kit will really be of benefit for our business… but that’s another question altogether (see the photographer in the orange hat)

I’m often asked to provide commercial macrophotography services for capturing images of quite small items, and whilst the images may convey all the detail required, they may not give an idea of size to the casual viewer.

Look at these [...]]]> Creating a sense of scale for photographing small objects

Very small, but how small

I’m often asked to provide commercial macrophotography services for capturing images of quite small items, and whilst the images may convey all the detail required, they may not give an idea of size to the casual viewer.

Look at these two semiconductor microchips – they are  a few millimetres square.

Unless you already know this, then so what?

The photographs were taken using a very specialised macro lens.

The Canon MP-E65 is an unusual lens, in that it has no focus adjustment. You move the lens and camera back and forth after setting how much magnification you need.

Last year I borrowed such a lens from Canon UK and wrote up a few notes about it

Not long afterwards,  I found one available used and  in excellent condition, but considerably cheaper than new.  As I mentioned in the notes, it’s well worth getting the specialised lens hood (via eBay in this instance) and some diffusers if you are using it with a flash like the MT-24EX

Here’s an even smaller chip – around a millimetre square.

A millimetre or so square

Ok, it’s small, but how about in the eye of a needle?

Chip and sewing needle

or on the head of a match…

Not a giant match

Quite a lot of our commercial work in this area starts off along the lines of: “I don’t know if it’s possible, but…”

The two biggest problems are moving the tiny items, when you can hardly see them, and the ever present studio dust.

Technical challenges are always welcome… one of the reasons I do this for a job!

In particular there’s now a lengthy review of Unified Color’s HDR Expose 2 and the Float 32 photoshop plugin.

The software is a standalone package for merging individual images into one new image that covers a wider dynamic [...]]]> I’ve recently been looking at developments in High Dynamic Range (HDR) software.

In particular there’s now a lengthy review of Unified Color’s HDR Expose 2 and the Float 32 photoshop plugin.

Review Link: HDR Expose 2

The software is a standalone package for merging individual images into one new image that covers a wider dynamic range (from dark to light) than is normally captured in a single photograph.

The new merged image can’t be fully viewed on any existing display technology, so you need to apply what is known as tone mapping, to produce a usable image.

Three images with different exposures selected for merging to HDR

Personally I don’t much care for much of the brightly coloured images that have, in some quarters, got HDR a bad name. With sufficient care in the original image capture, and restraint in the tone mapping, I find HDR techniques a useful addition to my normal work.

The software also works as a plugin for Lightroom and Aperture, where some of my issues in using it with a Bridge/Photoshop based workflow are lessened.

Available as a fully functional trial, so worth a try if you want to explore some aspects of HDR, although I found the documentation rather thin.

Note – we should also have a review of Nik HDR Effex 2 in the next week or so.

The molten steel could fracture the mould. Unlikely, but this is not a place for the close up wide angle lens ;-)

Pouring molten steel into a mould at a steelworks

Time to fill up the freezer, last shipments due in the UK in December.

I’d not count on a re-launch [...]]]> I see that Fujifilm is stopping production of Fujichrome Velvia 100F in 35mm, 120 and 4″x5″ formats
It’s also halting 4″x5″ and 8″x10″ versions of Velvia 50 (still to be available in 35mm and 120)

Time to fill up the freezer, last shipments due in the UK in December.

I’d not count on a re-launch some time in the future, in the way that Velvia 5o was reintroduced in 2007, two years after it was last cancelled.

I note that the announcement only mentions 50 and 100F, not Velvia 100 and Provia 100f / 400F.

The full range of reversal films are on the UK Fuji web site.

See also:

• Film, the numbers say goodbye
• The end of Kodachrome 

One of the traps that many new photographers fall into is the ‘Pictures for credit’ ruse.

It goes like this:

“We’d love to feature your work in our website/brochure/magazine, but we’ve no budget. If we can [...]]]> As a pro photographer, is there a place for ‘free’ work?

Is this a free lunch?

One of the traps that many new photographers fall into is the ‘Pictures for credit’ ruse.

It goes like this:

“We’d love to feature your work in our website/brochure/magazine, but we’ve no budget. If we can use it, then we’ll make sure that your name is there as a picture credit”

Well, apart from the fact that your name appears in 2 point type, possibly nowhere near the picture, surely this must be good for ‘exposure’?

Only thing is… how many people do you think actually read picture credits?  How many of those do you think go to the trouble of noting down the photographer’s name, looking it up on Google and think of using them for future photography work?

I suppose it might have happened, but this really isn’t very different from the lottery approach to photographic business success I looked at a while ago.

For myself, when it come to paying for work, I’ll charge, and I’ll try and charge our full rates.

A client that gets cut price (or worse ‘free’) work from you, will only see any return to ‘normal’ rates for subsequent work as a massive price hike, and not think of the previous job as a ‘special’ introductory rate.  Do you think the ‘picture credit’ approach worked when the client’s heating failed and they needed an engineer?

The only real credit you are likely to get, is noted as a source of free photos…

‘If you work for peanuts to start with, don’t expect a four course meal for the next job’

BTW Working for free is covered in Nos. 13, 14 & 15 of my 50 Photography Business Tips - just remember that those tips are a collection of bad advice.

So, nothing for free then?

Well, there is free, and there is free…

If you’ve read many of the articles and reviews on this site, you’ll know that I also test printers, papers and colour management kit for several manufacturers.

Testing a new paper

One side effect of this is that I have a lot of high quality prints in desk drawers. All sizes, from A4 to big panoramic shots.

An important aspect of getting new commercial work for us, are people’s personal referrals.

At one local business networking group I visit, I’ll often take a few prints and give them away (they do have my name and contact details on them). I also make sure that the prints are good quality – first impressions count.

People tend to take images that they really like, and they now hang in offices and homes far and wide – all part of trying to make my name the one that first pops into mind when someone they know needs commercial photography.  It also generates a steady stream of follow up print sales and image licensing – not large, but worthwhile.

What else is nominally ‘free’

There’s that old adage: ‘There’s no such thing as a free lunch’

Well, I’ve always taken the attitude that free lunches do exist all over the place, you just need to think of them in the right way.

The articles on this site are free – the cost (if you choose to see it as such) is that I have adverts on the site.

These articles ‘give away’ expertise for free – I don’t expect a direct return on them, but with over 5 million visits a year, I know the site will generate an income that helps ‘pay’ for my time, not to mention the knowledge and expertise I gain in the process.

Every so often I’ll take some photos or donate a print or two for causes that personally matter to me. That said, I’m always wary of charities who phone up and try to get work for nothing (or perhaps a picture credit). If I don’t know them, then this gets the same response as anyone else wanting work for free ;-)

If you are going to provide any aspect of your work or business for ‘free’, take a close look at what it really costs you, and the benefits it can bring, such as how you can use it in your marketing. Remember that free stuff can just end up attracting people who won’t ever pay.

Living in the middle of Leicester, it’s very easy for me to get to local clients, so I make a point of not charging travel costs in the city. The converse of this is that it helps establish that I do charge them for work further afield. Likewise for our minimum half day rate outside of the county.

I’m looking to increase our collection of local photographs, for print and licensing.  If someone locally wants a shot we don’t have, then I’ll sometimes offer to get the shot myself (for ‘free’) and only charge the license for its use. Given that it may well be a shot I’d have taken myself anyway, if only I’d known of it. I’m not losing anything, and also establishing in the mind of the client that image licensing costs money.

Free is one of those words that catches the attention in marketing copy – I just make sure that if I’m not charging for something, then there is a tangible benefit for me and that the recipient feels they have got something of value.

I’m always wary of the fact that much free stuff is worth everything you paid for it – choose your offers with care.

…and now a word from… ;-)

–00-00–

Absolutely anything whatsoever you order from Amazon helps us run our site – thanks to everyone who has purchased items, however small.

Amazon UK link / Amazon USA link / Amazon France / Amazon Germany / Amazon Canada link

Last year I wrote a lengthy review of HDR Efex Pro, and was very pleased to see, how with care it was possible to avoid much of what I’ve long considered the more obvious excesses of much [...]]]> I notice that Nik software have just announced an update to their HDR software ‘HDR Efex Pro 2′

Last year I wrote a lengthy review of HDR Efex Pro, and was very pleased to see, how with care it was possible to avoid much of what I’ve long considered the more obvious excesses of much of what gets labelled ‘the HDR Look’. I’m looking forward to writing an updated review, looking at what’s changed.

Key improvements/features are listed (Nik Info) as:

• NEW: Improved Tone Mapping Engine — Better colour rendering and improved natural styles
• NEW: Depth Control — Added depth and realism in images and helps with the new and proprietary Depth control, which helps counteract the flattened look commonly associated with HDR images
• NEW: Full GPU Processing and Multi-Core Optimization — Faster performance with GPU processing
• UPDATED: Ghost Reduction — Improved ghost reduction algorithm ensures that artifacts created by moving objects are removed with a single click
• NEW: Chromatic Aberration Reduction — Reduce colour fringes around objects
• UPDATED: Interface, Interaction, and Workflow — Improvements to the merging interface, tone mapping and enhancement controls, visual presets, and more
• NEW: Graduated Neutral Density Control — Access the full 32-bit depth of the merged image, providing a natural effect especially on images with a strong horizon line
• NEW: Full White Balance Control — A new Tint slider, which along with the Temperature slider, can be applied both globally as well as selectively using U Point technology
• NEW: History Browser — Review adjustments and different HDR looks via the History Browser which records every enhancement used in an editing session
• NEW: Extended Language Support — Addition of Brazilian Portuguese and Chinese (Simplified and Traditional) to a list of languages that includes English, French, Spanish, German, Italian, and Japanese

It’s software I do like for night time use, with this (HDR Efex Pro and Nik Silver Efex pro 2) image featuring in my own recent architectural photography exhibition.

The Guildhall and Cathedral, Leicester

Not what’s on offer at UK camera sellers

Figures in a [...]]]> Cameras, a seriously shrinking market?

What’s this got to do with me as a pro photographer?

Although there’s an underlaying recession here in the UK, I was surprised to see just how much the UK camera market has shrunk  between 2006 and 2011.

Not what’s on offer at UK camera sellers

Figures in a new report suggest a 29% decline in sales over the period, with similar declines in camcorders.  At the same time we’re seeing a big increase in people using camera phones for both stills and video.

Film is not dead yet, with some 8% still using it – declines in this area are likely to continue as decreasing supplies and places to process film make it more difficult for general use.

As with all such market reports (even if you spend the small fortune required to buy the full versions) there are an awful lot of numbers tied together to make sense of.

Looking at the ‘what people do with pictures’ numbers, I was pleased to see that over 40% of people still print out images.

• 78% save on a computer
• 53% send by email
• 50% upload to social networks
• 42% print at home
• 36% burn them onto CD or DVD
• 35% just leave them on the device

I’m not sure how I should factor data like this into my own business plans – my own impression is that photography is now more ubiquitous and people are using it in a wider range of ways.

How does this change the perceived value of photos, when people just email them to friends or post them on social networking sites?

One area of professional photography where this is having a big impact is stock photography. From a business POV, this is an area I don’t work in, but I know that returns have plummeted and many people who once made a tidy living from it are having to look elsewhere.

I do license some images for 3rd party use (particularly our local Leicester photos) and have noticed a downward pressure on prices – although people asking for my work in royalty free (RF) packages will get a polite but firm No.

It just so happens that Alamy have published a white paper [PDF] based on recent discussions about the future of stock imagery.

One comment that tied in with some of the findings in the Mintel report was that:

The stock photography industry has felt the impact of dramatic changes in technology, culture and economics. Digital photography has transformed the way images are created, stored and distributed. The internet is a global shop front that makes it easy to access and share images, but is also difficult to control and regulate. Image sharing is a pervasive online activity, made popular by social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, and photo-sharing sites like Flickr and Pinterest. The result is a generation of young people for whom image sharing is second nature and image rights are an alien concept. These so-called “freenagers” consider almost anything online – images, music, video, games, text – to be freely available and theirs to share.

Working as a pro photographer?

Once again I’m reminded that my business profits are tied to things that will happen in the future, and I ignore changes in the market at my peril.

I don’t do wedding work, but I know that photographers are facing increasing levels of disbelief when clients are told that they don’t ‘own’ the images taken of their wedding.

For smaller business clients I’m adopting simpler licensing and pricing models – it’s easier to explain and enforce.

I’ve had new clients that have complained about other photographers trying to extract more money from them in licensing. It’s a balancing act between earning a decent return from my work and alienating clients – particularly the smaller companies that make up much of my client base.

So, read the reports and see what might be coming soon to your photo business…

–00-00–

Absolutely anything whatsoever you order from Amazon helps us run our site – thanks to everyone who has purchased items, however small.

Amazon UK link / Amazon USA link / Amazon France / Amazon Germany / Amazon Canada link

I hope this note about some of my own considerations is of help to those [...]]]> When does a new bit of equipment become worth buying?

New toys are nice, but… it’s about time I listened to some of my own advice I give to people who write in and ask ‘should I upgrade my camera’…

I hope this note about some of my own considerations is of help to those wondering if the latest and greatest camera has rendered their existing one in need of ‘upgrade’. Do remember that what I say here is very much based on what’s important to my own business as a photographer. YMMV as they say.

New toys anyone?

Through our rumours and camera information pages I’ve been following new Canon cameras, before and after they are announced, for several years.

Back in November 2007 I received my nice new EOS 1Ds mark 3, as a replacement for the EOS 1Ds I purchased  in  late 2003. By skipping the EOS 1Ds mark 2, the jump in performance was quite noticeable. Particularly resolution (11MP to 21MP) and image quality (low ISO noise, useful dynamic range, and ISO range).

Last year, Canon announced the EOS 1D X, and now (9 months later!) it’s shipping. So, 4 1/2 years after I started using my 1Ds mk3, is this new camera one for me?

What do I need?

I’m a professional commercial photographer and the truth is, that I use my 1Ds3 most of the time at 100 ISO and quite often with manual focus lenses or with AF turned off for the shot. Where I do use AF, it’s for relatively static or slow moving objects – the 1Ds mk3 auto focus is superb – then again, so was the 1Ds.

My 1Ds3 and original 1Ds. The 1Ds LCD screen is quite small…

I’ve no interest whatsoever in producing video, and only rarely have I ever pushed the burst rate of my old 1Ds, yet alone the 1Ds mark3.

Many of my shots are manual exposure, and where the light varies, the 1Ds3 metering, coupled with an actual understanding of exposure, is rarely fooled.

Having used an EOS 5D mark2 a bit, I want the heft, build quality, and usability of a 1 series (big hands help here ;-) )

If I’m on a a wet building site or working foundry, then the build quality of the ’1 series’ means I’m worrying far less about protecting my camera from damp and dust.

What’s available in the 1D X?

When Canon announced the 1D X, they pointedly said that it was the successor to the 1D mk4 and the 1Ds mk3.

It gets rid of the crop sensor (1.3x) found in their sports/action camera, the 1D series, and goes for a 35mm full frame sensor, as found in the 1Ds series.

Let’s have a look at the key specs of the 1D X (+ is ‘interesting’, – is ‘really not bothered’ )

• Full Frame 18.1MP (?)
• Dual DIGIC 5 – 17 Times The Processing Power of DIGIC 4 (-)
• ISO 100-51200 Native (+)
• 100,000 Pixel RGB Metering Sensor; EOS iSA (Intelligent Subject Analysis) (-)
• 61 Point AF: 21 f/5.6 Cross Type Sensors; 20 f/4 Cross Type Sensors; 5 f/2.8 Cross Type Senors (-)
• EOS iTR AF (Intelligent Tracking & Recognition Auto Focus) (-)
• Dual CF slots  (-)
• 12 Frames Per Second (-)
• 14 Frames Per Second JPG Only (-)
• 400,000 Shot Rated Shutter (-)
• Ethernet Connection  (+)
• Full HD video (1920×1080: 24/25 fps)  (-)

There are two features here that are of potential interest to me. The ISO range and the ethernet connection.

• Sometimes I shoot the 1Ds3 at 3200 ISO – that improved range would be of real use.
• Ethernet would be really useful in studio and tethered shooting

But hold on… I’ve been reviewing our entire archive over the last few weeks, as part of a planned update to the commercial section of this site.

How much photography did I do at 3200 ISO with the 1Ds3? – quite a bit. How much of that was actual paying work? Hardly any. Seems that high ISO would be most useful for my personal work. I’ve no desire to get into wedding/portrait/event work with the business, so the high ISO isn’t looking a particularly key buying factor.

Ethernet and tethered? Sounds great, but I use a long USB lead in our studio, and even on location, I’m generally pretty close to the camera. Wireless control would be useful every so often.

But what about megapixels?

In real life print terms, the difference between the 21MP of the 1Ds3 and 18MP of the 1D X is pretty irrelevant – both can give a good A2 sized print with good lenses. If I want a much bigger print for display use, then both should be capable of upscaling to 36″ x 24″ with no problem.

If I need a big print with a lot of detail then I either need some much more expensive kit (top end digital MF) or I can use our Gigapan to capture multiple images to stitch together. I did this yesterday for a client who wanted a very big print, with -lots- of detail. 280 megapixels takes a few minutes to capture, and won’t work for some subjects, but it’s way beyond what we’ll see in a 35mm DSLR for a good few years yet.

If you look at the few reviews of the 1D X so far, everyone compares it withe the 1D mk4 – lots of high ISO images and people running towards the camera.

Let’s face it, the 1D X is the 1D mark 5, but with a full frame sensor.

Nothing in these reviews (so far) addresses dynamic range and image quality at base ISO under varying lighting conditions – which, when it comes down to it, is the only new feature of real interest to me (I assume that all other features in common with my 1Ds3 will be at least as good in the 1D X)

Resisting upgrade pressure

The 1Ds mk2 appeared only a year or so after I got the 1Ds, and the jump from 11MP to 16MP, along with sensor improvements was noticeable, but not enough for me at the time. By 2007 and the 1Ds mk3, the jump in performance was quite noticeable (although I’m happy with my 1Ds as backup on most jobs).

For various business reasons, the cost of moving to the 1D X isn’t much of an issue so I’m not interested in a 5D3 for example.

Since someone is bound to mention Nikon… I really like my 8-15 fisheye zoom and TS-E lenses (I’ve the 17mm, 24mm and 90mm) Lens choice is often what makes a shot for me.

My 1Ds3 shutter is rated at 300,000 operations, which at current rates gives me a good few years life yet.

So, no pressing need to change.

I’m sure the 1D X will sell really well – it meets the needs of a lot of professional photographers. I can see so many uses for it, just not ones that interest me :-)

After all that, I’m hoping to get a 1D X for a short while to actually see the differences for myself, but that depends on availability of review equipment and may not be for a while.

When will my 1Ds3 be retired?

Perhaps when Canon once again addresses the side of their ‘pro’ market, that’s not bothered by 14FPS and shooting sports by candlelight, but still wants a camera of  ’1 series’ quality.

When there is a 35mm full frame Canon camera that offers a noticeable improvement in image quality over the 1Ds3 (for the types of use I’ve mentioned)

1D Xs anyone?  I hear rumours of something more fitting my requirements, but they are just that, and not something I’m pinning any hope on in the near future. ;-)