• 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:
  • 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: , , , , ,
  • 24Dec

    After over a week of fun with a rented 5DII (review upcoming), I played with my almost one year ‘old’ D300.

    Today, I played with the “Live View” mode and setting the white balance. Live view is a great resource to get direct visual feedback on different white balance settings as you can see the scenery change on the LCD in real time.

    Live view is really easy to  use – just turn on live view then while viewing the scenery on the LCD you change the camera settings and get direct feedback of the effect of changing camera on the camera LCD screen/monitor.

    (1) Turn on live view (use the camera dial under the ISO/QUAL/WB buttons – same dial where you set shooting mode – single/remote timers and set it to Live View (Lv).

    (2) Push the shutter release button down once – now live view is activated.

    (3) Look at the LCD screen and compose the image or change setting such as WB and

    (4) push the shutter again and hold the shutter to take the shot.

     

    Turn on Live View by moving this dial to Lv

    Turn on Live View by moving this dial to "Lv"

     

     

    Try it!

  • 26Oct

     

    The Secret Workshop is a photographers’ workshop focused on child photography hosted by Cheryl Muhr. This is my review of the workshop I attended in June, 2008 in Flint Michigan.

    Cheryl is a fun person to be around. She has managed to integrate her business into her family life, she treats life and her profession as a hobby, as something to live and strive for. Her motto is that if you don’t enjoy something — get rid of it and maximize the fun factors in life. Cheryl is a joy to listen to and she keeps your attention. Cheryl’s enthusiasm made the workshop inspiring and helped me to see things in a new light.

    This is not just a motivational workshop, it also teaches you how to price yourself and your work; get clients in different target markets and how to break into new areas of the photography market (commercial, editorial and portraiture). She also covers portrait photography and processing techniques.

    The Secret Workshop is a two-day workshop:  One “secret” about the workshop is that you don’t know who the guest speaker will be before you arrive. We were treated to Brianna Graham, a Grand Rapids-based photographer.

    The first day began with a lecture by Cheryl about how she broke into the business, what inspires her and her philosophy on photography. It was followed by a presentation by Brianna Graham where she explained her lighting and studio techniques. She did not discuss her post-processing techniques.

    The first day ended with a two-to-three hour shoot-out. 15-25 child models were shared among 45, mostly women participants (there was one male). We were split into groups by table – so we ended up with about 5 groups with 7-8 women/men per group. This part of the workshop was also the weakest – it was chaotic – the jungle law ruled: eat or be eaten – you had to recruit the models on your own – if there was a free and un-tired one, pose her or him and then get your shot. Each group was on their own practicing their skills.

    In retrospect, for this part, the most valuable way to spend your time here is to stalk Cheryl or linger at Brianna’s studio shot station and to forget about getting your shot. After all – I was there to get a good sense on how to create an image from their point of view, what to look for (in terms of light & setting & pose) and how to reach a final product.

    The final day was about post-production, setting up a business, including pricing and selecting supporting products or companies (printing companies, accessories and more). Cheryl illustrates her technique with images she shot from the day before and accommodates her thought process in creating them.

    As with any workshop – there were a few weaknesses: My chief complaint is that it was too crowded. 40+ photographers are too many for the price of the workshop and there is really no one-on-one time with Cheryl. The crowdedness is especially a problem at the shoot-out session. The workshop could probably improve if the models had certain tasks or stations – and a rotation scheme was implemented. I suspect that this is not unusual when you have a number of models and photographers. But despite the somewhat chaotic shootout and difficulties overall the workshop went smoothly. Second – I think it would have been nice if Cheryl attempted to spend some time per group – this could mitigate the need for one-on-one time per participant. Most of us left the workshop wishing for more one-on-one time. However, Cheryl had recruited a number of volunteers from previous workshop and they were at hand. I appreciate that forethought. Amanda – was especially helpful.

    The workshop concluded with door prizes and awards – two of them were Blu Domain web sites (OH and I wish I had won one of those) – there were some actions sets awards (Nichole Van and MCP Actions –and Jodi of MCP actions was an attendee) and other awards. We got a goody bag with coupons, a workbook with the stuff we covered (slides) and a CD that includes pricing and Cheryl’s workflow actions.

    My results – despite the period of chaos during the model shoot-out – were several nice images. I also came out of the workshop feeling more confident in my photography and that I could start a photography business if I wanted to. But for now I am a hobbyist – so that aspect of photography will probably not be for a while. The pricing and strategies in setting up a business was valuable, however. Cheryl’s greatest strength is that she inspired you and she creates a positive atmosphere just to be there – and that in it self is priceless.

    Secret Workshop: Secret Guest Studio Portion

    Secret Workshop: Secret Guest Studio Portion

     

    Secret Workshop: Model Shoot Out.

    Secret Workshop: Model Shoot Out.

     

    Secret Workshop

    Secret Workshop

     

    Secret Workshop

    Secret Workshop

     

    Secret Workshop: Day 1 - Model Shoot Out.

    Secret Workshop: Day 1 - Model Shoot Out.

  • 27Sep
    Categories: Photoshop Comments: 0

    Photoshop CS4 at Amazon

    Adobe announced their new photo editing suite, CS4 at Photokina.

    The primary differences between Photoshop CS3 and CS4 are the access to tools (curves, layers, saturation and more) and masking out objects directly by clicking on an image’s pixels. When the dialog is launched it accounts for the selected pixels by setting default values and selection points.   There are at least three reasons to upgrade:

    • An Adjustment Panel to access tools more directly by a point and click interface. You access the panel by clicking on the the photo itself (as opposed to getting to tools from to the layer interface). For example while you click on the image, you can directly access the curves dialog and it defaults to a starter point (tone) that is the ‘darkness’ of the pixel that you clicked on the photo.
    • Mask Panel – Easy access to masking functions (selections, feather, etc), again by clicking on the image – makes it easy to to selectively mask out selected objects.
    • Transformation Interface –  resizing and skewing the image is more direct and more immediate.

    Links and resource:

    Adobe Summary of Features
    Adobe Compare Features (CS3 & CS4)



  • 06Sep


    7-Point System at Amazon

    learn more at amazon.com

    I enjoy Scott’s pedagogy – he has a flair of writing in a tone that is approachable to the novice but with a few nuggets for the more advance users. This book is in a nutshell Margulis secret weapon arsenal: (1) Curves, (2) Channel Blending, (3) Sharpening, (4) Highlight and Shadows, (5) Apply Image and the use of (6) LAB space but with a few additions, masking in “painting with light” and RAW. Here, Scott diverts from the Margulis philosophy of only making global edits; and diving into “RAW processing.”

    However, the story is re-told in the classical, engaging and always humorous Kelby voice making his books a joy to read and well worth the money. I hope what comes next is a joint adventure with the big three photoshop masters – Scott Kelby, Karen Eismann and Margulis in a narrative trialog.



     


  • 30Aug

     

    Boutwell’s Totally Rad

    After being on a hiatus from using actions – to force myself to learn photoshop better – I am now using actions again – and I have to say that Boutwell’s Totally Rad action sets are fabulous – well designed, modularized, thought out, reliable – they are just simply well done. They are worth having.

    I have many many other, and most of them – I don’t use. They were still worth buying (barely) as they provided a good learning experience, in particular giving insight on how photographers got certain effects.

    What is the difference?

    The most important is modularization; Totally Rad enables the independent use of effects of layers and/or group (sets) and effects within groups. For example, an effect called “Prettyizer” that I have tried for portraits, make color look more rich, increase contrast, boosts saturation and softens for a portrait glow kind of feel. Here Totally Rad creates a group so that you can easily adjust the cumulative effect and then there are added layers to adjust both light and shadows separately but within the Prettyizer group. In a layer within the group, Prettyizer finds & selects the highlights in an image and offer the opportunity to adjust the highlights if needed and to what extent. I find this very useful and quite sophisticated compared to other available action sets out there.

    Further in Totally Rad you can reliably run an action set and then another on top of the other and then easy adjust the effect of both the action group set and the actions (layers) within the set.

    Another difference is the *money-value* factor – with Totally Rad you get a lot of variation, a lot of different effects within one package, e.g., in the original Totally Rad set you get different monotone effects (B/W, sepia, blue cool tone and green tone), different cross processing effects, a retro color scheme, sharpening techniques and many many more.

    In comparison other vendors sell their actions as separate sets, e.g., monotones (sometimes packaged per tone – sepia and b/w), sharpening, color pops, cross processing, vignetting as separate sets, priced a la carte between $5-$90 each – offers some combinations, but the resulting set is not comparable to Boutwell’s money / value – and not as easy to use.

    What about Light Room? It is $300, for the non-academic version and it is still worth it. Lightroom is a preprocessor RAW converter and it does its job nicely. It also enables you to duplicate the effect of some actions and image adjustments (e.g., exposure, WB, sharpening, color pops, retro color, even cross-processing if you are adventurous).

    I do think that it does blow some available actions out of the water, but I believe Totally Rad is still worth it. It complements Light room nicely and it gives you more effects that are not as easily reproducible in Lightroom and/ or not appropriate at that point in the workflow (e.g., different sharpening effects) and the Totally Rad actions are of-course easily adjustable after the fact enabling refining the tweaks after running them.

    Disadvantages – right now I can think of only one glaring one and that is that you need to know a bit more photoshop before using them, otherwise you just don’t get as much out of them.

    Which actions to get next? I would like to try the Kubota set – I heard a lot about them and I suspect them to be built similar to Totally Rad — but that will be sometime down the road.


  • 28Apr

    Here are my random thoughts and what I have learned so far (mainly through reading Bruce Fraser, Fred Bunting and Chris Murphy’s book on “Real World Color Management” and numerous web resources and discussions with friends. Insights are welcomed and appreciated.

    Color confidence and color reproducibility across different devices depends on a combination of (1) using an accurate and reliable calibrator/profiler and (2) the capability and limitations of the monitor itself (e.g., is it calibratable and to what extent – RGB voltages, contrast, luminance; What is the gamut size/color space, LCD versus CRT, and how the monitor is ‘calibrated’ – LUT only, in hardware). But realizing this is not enough to solve my current color issues — the same image still looks different depending on the monitor that I am using – even if they are calibrated and profiled with the same device and in the same environment (light conditions). I do have LCD monitors (MacBook Pro with a LED backlight display – GeForce graphics card and a Power Mac G4 with a Cinema HD monitor – ATI graphic card).

    For example, consider a photo of my daughter playing in our backyard where the backdrop is green foliage (see here). In one display the foliage is displayed as lime green, vivid and almost a nuclear green, while in another the background is rendered in a calm pleasing avocado green. Skin tones in one monitor look red and flushed in one but in another I see a yellow cast (around her right ear area). Lips look magenta in one and a rusty red in another. Brightness varies as well (e.g., blown highlights in hair in one display but not in another). This image is on flickr and has been converted to the sRGB color space I am viewing my images via color managed – Safari or Ominweb browsers (I have also tried firefox -unmanaged – browsers).

    I am curious where my problem is, and how I can solve it. Is the problem my calibrator and profiler system or is it the limitation of my monitors – or is it, can it be, the catchall: an operator problem?

    How do I know which monitor shows correct color? Is it possible to know?

    If I had a reliable calibrator/profiler system enabling transformation to and from a device independent system such CIE XYZ or LAB will the image look similar across different devices even if one monitor is not as capable? How do I know which monitor is closer to showing accurate color, how do I know if the calibrator is faulty?
    I have a Spyder2Pro (a hardware calibrator and profiler system) and it is supposedly accurate and reliable. I thought it would solve the color inconsistencies I have been seeing across my platforms both at home and work but I am still stuck with color inconsistencies.

    One thing I have discovered – for sure- is that people see the web with many different colored spectacles – and there is no way they see what you see ‘unless’ you are using the ’same’ reference system. You can, presumably, control your own environment, even if your calibrator/profiler uses the ‘wrong’ reference system – it then ensures, I suppose, that the monitor outputs are consistent among themselves (albeit consistently wrong). But I am not seeing that either – my output differ. So I cannot make any conclusions: – wether my monitors are faulty or not as capable? Or is my calibration system not reliable?

    So in conclusion: I think it is a combination of the capability of the monitor, its gamut, and the calibration system and right now I don’t trust my calibration system… help – I am getting deeper and deeper into the infinite depth of color spaces and I can’t get out.

  • 27Apr

    Color Management Woes

    Larger Image: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2314/2446212886_d7032f3faf_o.jpg

    Figure (created in Omnigraffle) – is part of a discussion that I am having with myself and others regarding color management :-D HELP!

    My laptop – calibrated and profiled with a Spyder2Pro
    My desktop – calibrated and profiled with a Spyder2Pro

    Possibly my Spyder2Pro is not generating the transformation consistently across different platforms. I calibrated both my laptop and workstation in the same room (same lighting conditions) but I am still not getting consistent results.

    Differences between monitors (that should be adjusted with a calibration / profile system ).

    • Contrast (my laptop has more contrast than my desktop)
    • Color shifts for certain colors- e.g., nuclear vivid green – looks avocado green on another.
    • Brightness – blown highlights – may not be blown in another monitor. Gamma should compensate for this – I use a gamma curve of 2.2 (it is a non-linear correction). More details here.
    • Overall temperature - this should be adjusted by the white point setting – here the photo itself may look OK while the display as a whole may have a cool feel to it. I use the same for all monitors and so far I have tried D50, D65, and the monitor’s ‘natural white point’. Here is description from Wikipedia.

    Resources:
    Norman Koren’s tutorial on Color Management.
    Gary Ballard’s site
    Andrew Rodney/Digital Dog (also check out his comprehensive book).
    Chris Murphy (co-author Real World Color Management).
    www.color.org/index.xalter International Color Consortium.
    www.color.org/version4html.xalter Is your system ICC Version 4 ready?
    www.apple.com/safari/”> Safari, a color managed browser for free (works on Vista).
    Firefox 3 BetaDoes now have a form of color management (Vista/ Mac).
    Rob Galbraith seems to think that the MacBook Pro LED-backlit display would help- but I may need an Eye-One Pro ($3,500) for this work (Right (: lol! $$ – I rather get a D3 before that and live with colorshifts).

    Wish List: EIZO CG211 or NEC 2490 – monitors optimized for the sRGB gamut. There are monitors for the wider gamut, aRGB, e.g., EIZO 221 and NEC 2690 with 93.4% coverage of aRGB (a wider gamut) – but sRGB is best for web work and gives you finer tonal control. So NEC 2490 is the most reasonable without much sacrifice in quality (if any) (: so it will be the one on my wish list.