• 01Nov

    — in progress post — (hope to finish this week) — Here are my initial thoughts:

    I tried UniWB to improve determining exposure when shooting RAW using the RGB histograms.

    The idea behind uniWB is that it addresses the problem with the limitations of the histograms produced from shooting in “normal” mode (not using UniWB). The normal histograms show clipped channels, over-exposed areas, blown whites with no detail as right leaning histograms even if they do have detail in the actual RAW. This is because the histograms are determined using the in-camera generated JPG – which has a smaller dynamic range than the original real RAW.

    So far, I don’t think I like it, I prefer using spot metering, with the in-camera meter and then the Zone system. I am going to post more details about this approach and my results in my blog shortly.

    Tags:
  • 26Sep

    Wouldn’t you like to explore your environment through a microscope? I have wanted to this for a while and been intrigued by the world of Super Macro Photography for over a year now.

    Super macro magnifies subjects and enables you to see the details of the eye of an insect or the texture of a hundred dollar bill or each pollen stuck to a bee’s leg.

    It is surprisingly easy to do – all you need is  (1) a camera (duh!), (2) two lenses and (3) a coupler attaching the two lenses face to face.

    The two lenses should be a combination of a wide angle lens and a longer focal length lens attached face to face.    I used a 105 mm  lens attached directly to the camera and a fifty at the outer end attached in reverse.  The lens directly on the camera (the 105) is in the regular position on the camera and the fifty is attached via a ‘reversal coupler’ facing the camera. The coupler allows me to screw on the fifty like it is a filter.

    Here is a link the coupler that I used (a male 52mm-52mm) – it attaches on the filter end of the fifty. I also had to use a step down ring to fit the thread on the 52mm coupler to my 105 at 62 mm (see this one here). That one attaches to the male coupler and to the filter end of the 105. Although not necessary – I also put an adaptor on the ‘reverse’ end of the fifty so I could put a protective filter on it because I felt is was exposed to the elements.  I got a Nikon BR-3 to allow for that (see link here). After attaching lenses, rings , and filters – make sure that the lens closest to the camera is set to manual focus (the 105 in my case) and the aperture on the outer lens (in my case the fifty) is wide  open – i.e., the dial is set to  (f/1.4 to f/2.8) to maximize the amount of light entering the lens while avoiding vignetting (so f/22 would be too small of a aperture – and surely would create a heavy vignette). … the focusing was strange, you have to be very close to the subject (just an inch or so) and  the DOF was super thin.  I found Nikon’s Live View handy for this.   I also used a tripod since again – the DOF was so thin – and I wanted to avoid camera shake. You may want to use a flash to allow more light and freezing any movements – I used an off-camera speed light to avoid sharp shadows.

    Summary of  Equipment (as attached from  the camera and outwards)
    • 1 dSLR (e.g., D300)
    • 1 long lens (e.g., 105 mm lens)
    • 1 step down ring (if needed)
    • 1 coupler (52-52 mm  male filter)
    • 1 ‘wide or normal’  lens (I used the 50mm f/1.4D)
    • 1 (optional) lens protection kit of outer lens (BK-3) with 52 mm UV filter.

    My  complete setup:

    From left to right:  A D300, a long lens (105mm for my setup), a step down ring (from 62mm to 52mm), a 52mm-52mm coupler ring, a reversed ‘wider’  lens – I used the 50 mm, and then finally the optional kit , consisting of  an adaptor, Nikon’s BR-3, allowing my to attach a filter on the far end of the fifty and a  52mm UV filter.

    Blogs and web pages that helped me get started:
  • 06Sep
    Categories: Geeking Comments: 0

    A quick entry (and test). I just installed “ScribeFire” in my browser to ease the process of doing blog entries – and it works!

    It is a lot easier and more enjoyable to use. I am going try to write more entries, here now. Next up will be an entry (with pictures) on reversing lenses.

    Tags:
  • 08Jun

    I finally decided to clean up the disk space that is currently distributed on 3 computers and 3 or 4 external drives.  I have a Mac Pro and a MacBook Pro – and I will use the Pro for performance and as a “home” for my data and software.

    The Mac Pro has 4 bays for disks. The two first bays will be for my two 150G WD VelociRaptors (WD3000HLFS — blackplane ready) for my bootable OS, applications and home directory – I will receive these two disk tomorrow morning from newegg.  The two other bays will be for 2 1T WD’s caviar black disks and they will host images and other media files AND a photoshop scratch disk.  I am considering RAID 0 for these two disks as well, but I am still undecided – maybe it is too risky.

    WDs VelociRaptor 150G SATA disk.

    WD's VelociRaptor 150G SATA disk.

    A Speedy VelociRaptor

    A Speedy VelociRaptor

    My backup will be a three tier process with (1) Time Machine on a Drobo/DroboShare – nightly backup (2) SuperDuper bootable & Media backup weekly – and cycling two external disks and (3) Off-site/backup.   I have three tiers because my main computer will be setup for performance (RAID 0).  Drobo uses a proprietary RAID like system and allows for variable size disks that can be replaced as needed.  The DroboShare allows the DRobo to be treated as network attached storage (with a gentle hack).

    Drobo FW800 & USB 2.0 4 Bay Storage Array with DroboShare

    Drobo FW800 & USB 2.0 4 Bay Storage Array with DroboShare

     

    I will use Shirtpocket’s SuperDuper both to make a weekly bootable copy of my OS and apps and a clone of my media & cycle two disks for each (so a total of 4 disks). I got Other World Computing external firewire 800 disks and also also Western Digital My Book Studio disks to accommodate this cycle.

     

    Shirtpocket

    Click here to get an overview of SuperDuper

     

    For offsite, I am seriously torn (and waiting for suggestions here  and elsewhere). I have a lot of data, close to the terabyte range – and it will continue to grow at a rate of 200-400GB per year. I would like a place that is both reasonably priced and doesn’t take ‘forever’ to transfer the initial copy,  preferable a place that accepts a disk(s) for the initial backup. So far I have looked at, Mozy, Carbonite, Backblaze, Carboncopy and Safecopy. I found this review here via a quick google:

  • 13Apr

    I have a 1 TB LaCie D2 Quadra Hard Drive and its power supply ** is not working right now (blinking blue light) – just when I need it. So I may be looking for a replacement. I could of-course send for another power supply – but somehow I lost trust in this product so I am looking alternate external hard drives. 

    I just called LaCie and their customer service was superb! and they have agreed to send a new power supply to test out. I like good customer service! 

    If I do get a replacement – the Seagate’s FreeAgent  looks promising and reasonably priced –  looks like ‘Go’ and ‘Desk’ are both varieties that work with Macs Time Machine. I am leaning towards the Desk model as it is a bit larger at 1 TB and 1.5 TB.

     

    Update – I decided to cancel my SeaGate order  after I learned that new technology (coating and electronics) enabling managing a large disks have a few problems (discovered in the Barracuda drives – but FreeAgent, I believe are made up of Barracuda drives.  One problem is a firmware problem and SeaGate has come out with a fix, others are not convinced the fix is not enough because in addition to the firmware they think the new coating on the platters causes problems. One is that  the coating flakes from the coating and obstructs the read/write heads – that in turn can ruin sectors that in turn aggravates the problem. 

    Interestingly, LaCie also includes Barracudas and that is the drive that failed for me in the first place.  I will hold off a few days before deciding which disks to get – who knows I may return to SeaGate if the Firmware solution is working.

  • 15Feb

    I have attended two of the leading workshops on child photography – the Secret Workshop by Cheryl Muhr that I attended in June 2008 and Brianna Graham’s workshop that I attended in October of 2008. With price tags at $1,100 and $1,300 respectively they are both rather expensive, so one needs to consider their value carefully before committing.

    In this post I review Brianna Graham’s workshop. I first became interested in attending Brianna’s workshop after she served as the “secret guest” at Cheryl’s workshop (you can read the review of Cheryl’s workshop here). I was intrigued by Brianna’s approach to studio lighting, her philosophy to keep things simple, and her rapport with the models. When I met Brianna at Cheryl’s workshop I did not know that she was “famous,” that she had already made a name of herself. She was very down to earth and approachable.

    One thing that resonated with me then, and that I learned more about at this workshop, is Brianna’s philosophy to remove as many parameters as possible from your shooting and production workflow. As one example, she typically uses one large light instead of two small lights. It is simpler, of course, but still effective because a large light source can wrap around smaller subjects. She creates great results using a fairly simple set of techniques. She still encourages experimentation, but suggests you change only one thing at a time.

    The 3-day workshop was held in Grand Rapids, close to Brianna’s studio. Patrick, Brianna’s husband, helped run things. The first day was focused on natural light in an urban setting, the second day was in the studio and the third day centered on editing, workflow and marketing.

    On the first day we started by getting to know each other: Learning why we were there, and what we wanted to get out of the workshop. I really enjoyed the diversity of participants; we were two dozen photographers at various levels of expertise and backgrounds. There were 2 men, and the age distribution included folks from their early twenties to mid fifties. After the personal introductions Brianna gave us a 90 minute overview of her approach, ranging from planning, laying out the shot, finding and controlling the light, compositional elements to complementary clothing.The second part of the day consisted of shooting with models; there were about 20 models. Before cutting us loose to shoot on our own, Brianna spent about 45 minutes showing us how she selected locations and posed models. She illustrated 3-4 different settings near the area of the workshop.

    I teamed up with my neighbor and we grabbed a model. Most photographers were grouped in teams of two or three, but there were a few singletons as well. As we roamed a few blocks in downtown Grand Rapids, near the workshop site, we occasionally switched models. We set up the shots ourselves – trying to learn the new tools that we had (hopefully) learned. Our first model was a spunky girl with colorful clothes and we asked her to change into more neutral clothing to give us more flexibility of the outdoor settings. The models were mostly beginner models and some got tired easily – and that was a slight disadvantage, but on the other hand I also respect that they were out there with 20+ photographers.

    Later in the day I decided to forget about shooting to shadow Brianna and observe her shoot and listen to her narration. After all, I came to the workshop to learn how she got her shots. This turned out to be a good decision for me, and I learned a lot.

    Shooting ended around 5 PM. We wrapped up the day at a neighborhood restaurant with Patrick and Brianna. This may have been my favorite part of the workshop. They (Brianna and Patrick) stationed themselves at opposite ends of a long dinner table so everyone was close to one of them. The dinner provided a great venue for us to learn more. I was towards Brianna’s end, and I was pleased to hear her “let her hair down” and give us more insights into her experiences.

    The topic for the second day was studio lighting. We started with a lecture. Brianna covered various lighting setups, ranging in size, number of lights, direction and light modifiers. Brianna encouraged learning by experimenting. That rang well with me – I like to just do it and see what happens. She re-emphasized her philosophy that the key is to remove or control all the variables. The studio is all about controlling the light. I think this part was very helpful and provided a nice introduction to light and how it affects the subjects.

    After lunch we practiced what we had learned in the morning. The workshop now was set up with 6-7 studio station elements –with different light sources and backgrounds. Brianna started off by illustrating how to trigger the lights and pose the model with the light. We were divided into groups of three then we shot on our own. This portion was a bit chaotic. It was hard to grab fresh models for a station and I hardly got a turn to shoot in my group. Although I have experience with shooting multiple speed lights in studio I got a bad start and initially had technical difficulties. Neither Brianna nor Patrick was available to help. We rotated to a different station every 20-30 minutes, but a lot of that time was spent on finding a fresh and willing model and familiarizing ourselves with the new station – or waiting for the next station. I think this was the low point of the workshop and unfortunately people seemed to get anxious here –- with each other, other groups and taking turns, finding models and lack of guidance.I think Brianna and Patrick have recognized the problems with the studio portion of the workshop. They have changed this portion so there are only 10 participants in the studio at a time. This sounds about right to me.

    On the third day we focused on editing and business. We met in Brianna’s studio. When we arrived Brianna gave us a studio tour – including an overview of her marketing material and business approach. Her studio was impeccable and so was her marketing material. We later sat down and went through workflow and editing techniques. We wrapped up the day with portfolio reviews. I could not attend the last portion due to time constraints with my “day” job.

    Bottom Line: Even though there are a few points that need polishing, this is a good workshop, and I felt my money was well invested.

    Pros: Great overview of lighting and composition rules of thumb from a successful photographer. It is a good introduction to a useful shooting philosophy. The workshop benefited from having a smaller group of participants than the Secret Workshop. That helps a lot. There were 26 participants so it small enough for some one-on-one interaction with the organizers.

    Cons: Still not as much one-on-one interaction with the organizer as I would have liked. I suppose this is an issue with most workshops of this size and it is probably even worse at larger workshops. The studio portion especially needed improvement, but it seems like the organizers for future workshops have addressed those issues.

    Suggestions: I think the organizers should figure out a way to reach all the participants individually (as mentioned before I think they are moving in that direction). Or at least make the participants feel like they are reached on a one-on-one level. A challenge for them is that the market that they are targeting their workshop towards are the folks just starting in this business so they may not have the money to spend on a more expensive workshop.

     

    My result – set up the shot myself and minor post processing – (after studio hints from Brianna of-course):
    ~ Green Eyed Paris ~

    Studio portion (Day 2):
    Brianna Graham's 2008 Grand Rapids Workshop (Studio Day)

    Urban day – Day 1 (Brianna in action illustrating how to see the light):
    Brianna Graham's 2008 Grand Rapids Workshop (Urban Day)

    Urban Day – Day 1  (I think you can tell here how involved Brianna gets with the models (: and workshop – she brings it!):
    Brianna Graham's 2008 Grand Rapids Workshop (Urban Day)

  • 14Feb

    One factor that is important when picking a camera is its auto-focus (AF) performance. Cameras differ on both accuracy and responsiveness (or acquisition) of focus and also tracking or keeping a subject in focus while the subject is moving. Accuracy means that the camera thinks it is in focus but it isn’t really (you end up with out of focus images even if the camera told you that it was in focus). Responsiveness is the lag between being out-of focus to being in-focus.

    It is a challenge to assess a cameras performance as it depends on so many factors such as power from a driving processor or battery, available light and particular lens.  Does the camera have a processor, or two? Does the camera perform in dim light and how does it perform in bright light?  How can you separate the cameras native autofocus capability from that of the capability of the lens? But perhaps lens choice is irrelevant to separate, because you may choose a camera because of its lens anyway – and perhaps one should assess autofocus with  the fastest  lens available.

    I looked at two sites to get insight on autofocus performance of Nikon, Canon and Sony cameras – both resources use scientific rigor when assessing performance  - Popular Photography and Imaging resource and found  conflicting results.

    Popular Photography below (higher better performance) favors the autofocusing systems of the D3X and Sony A900 while imaging resource favors the Canon.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Data Source: [D300] [D700] [D3][D3x] [A900] [5DII]

    Popular photography.. more to come.

     

     

    Based on Imaging Resource Data:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Note that the Imaging Resource data above shows over a 2X difference between the D3 and D700 (D300) for the “Shutterlag, Full AF” numbers while the “pre-focus and shutter” numbers are pretty close between the cameras. We noticed that they use two difference lenses while testing between the D3 and D300/D700, namely the fast focusing 24-70 f/2.8 on the D3 and D3x but the slower focusing lens, the Sigma 70 f/2.8 EX on the D300 and D700. We asked the Imaging resource researchers about this issue but they believe that lens choice should not make a significant difference as they test iteratively or multiple times- so the lens is already in focus in the final measurement. In this manner they claim that they isolate the cameras performance the lens performance, i.e., they measuring the camera’s ability to ‘determine’ focus instead of the lens’ autofocus performance.

    Personally, I challenge that assumption, for two reasons – first the data from popular photography seem to differ and second removing possible variables (such as lens choice and power) in experiments is more fair and it is only one way to eliminate lens choice as a question and that is to not use different lenses.

    The focus engines between cameras (the D3 and D700) are the same, Nikon’s Multi-CAM3500FX system. The real difference is that the D3 has two processors giving it more ‘power’ while the D300 and D700 have only one. So the question is whether the D3 performs true parallel processing or not. Leveling the field between the cameras by adding more power to the D300/D700 or add battery grip with AA.

    I offered imaging resource my equipment for retesting (my camera, lens and battery grip) for further testing – they responding by saying they would get back to me but so far I have not heard an additional response. Possible because of they are busy with the upcoming PMAi.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Review Site Data:

    http://www.popphoto.com/

    http://www.imaging-resource.com/

    http://www.dxomark.com/

    Tags: , , , , ,
  • 30Jan
    Categories: Predictions Comments: 0

    I love making predictions and my predictions for 2009 are as follows:

    • Best Picture: Slumdog Millionaire, no contest.
    • Best Director: Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionair).
    • Best Lead Actress: Close between Winslet (The Reader) and Streep (Doubt) – both are great actresses but the best is the one and only – Meryl Streep. She already won two Oscars and the Oscars don’t seem to like repeat winners. But the best should win.
    • Best Lead Actor: I am rooting for Rourke (The Wrestler), he is a ’strangely’ good (and weird) actor (e.g., his role in Angel Heart).  Penn (Milk) will be at his heals.
    • Best Supporting Actress: Penelope Cruz (Barcelona).
    • Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight) – what a fantastic performance. 
    What are your predictions/thoughts?
  • 12Jan

    It is time for an informal review – I had hoped to do a more thorough review but it is not happening.  I am just too busy with work, traveling, mothering and moving part of our household to the left coast (CA) – so this will have to do for now.

    I have tested both cameras – I initially rented the D700 in July/Aug of 2008 when it first came out and a couple a weeks ago I rented the 5D II.   I was considering becoming a bi-shooter, he he he – but that too is not happen.  There are different advantages of each camera (i.e., between a Canon FX and Nikon FX). I think it boils down to a responsive focus engine and resistance to noise [Nikon] OR better resolution and slightly better tonality [Canon].  Both camera manufacturers have great lenses –the 85 f/1.2L is outstanding (and I suspect also the 50 f/1.2L) for Canon, and on the Nikon side the 24-70 f/2.8 is fantastic & the 105 f/2.8 macro is WOW and so is the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 zoom lens.

    So – if you look at just the image quality given perfect focus and exposure, Canon may have a slight edge (in terms of resolution & tonality) BUT in practice, when you have fast moving kids and/or pesky low light, the Nikon gives you an edge with its better ‘hit-rate’ due to its responsive focus engine and seemingly more resistance to noise. I also enjoy Nikon’s built in speed light system (CLS) – (e.g., I have the light weigt and far reaching SU-800 to trigger my off-camera lights (SB-800s). 

    And for me that (the focus engine) sealed the deal so I finally decided to upgrade to the D700 – wohooo (I did say this is an informal review). I do like both cameras, the video capability on the 5DII was nice to have – and I miss that – and I miss the 85 f/1.2 L lens… and the extra resolution was nice so I admit yes I want BOTH but no I don’t think it is worth it. But maybe I should try the D3X. Nikon please send me one.

    IN the end I recommend that anyone considering both should TRY both, maybe via rentals as I am sure it is a personal decision – so stop the suffering in wondering if one is better than the other (like I did).

    For me the D700 is the BEST – YEAH! 

     

    Canon 5D Mark II:
    Green on green

    Canon 5D Mark II:
    Pondering: What do I need for Christmas?

    Canon 5D Mark II (ISO 64,000):
    Just a quick check at ISO 6,400

     

    Nikon D700:
    Retro Swing

    Nikon D700:
    3, 2, 1, Blast Off!

    Nikon D700:
    "Come on in: Best Ribs &  Blues on Beale Street"

  • 31Dec

    I just got my Nikkor 50 f/1.4G and I love it. It is fast focusing – but not as much as I had hoped – it may be  slightly slower than the original f/1.4D, and definitely not as fast as my 24-70 f/2.8 which is strange as it is longer/larger lens. The best part of it is the creaminess and beautiful contrast. It reminds me of Canon’s 85 f/1.2L II lens – which I loved! The Nikkor version is way faster focusing though.  In summary, the focus is fast, not blazingly fast, the bokeh is rounded and the out of focus areas are creamy.

     

    Creaminess at 1.4 and sharp where it needs to be:

    Honest

     

    Rounded bubbly bokeh:
    Happy New Year!

    As a comparison, here is the 1.4D at f/3.5 notice the more edgy bokeh:
    Profile of a Daughter