|
|||||
|
Home >> Old News Items What's New Archives 2007 - January to June June 29, 2007 - With all the hoopla about Lightroom 1.1, I downloaded it again for a 30-day trial to see if I was missing anything. As I've previously said, it's super slick and easy on the eyes and the interface is quite lovely. I love the side-by-side comparison for before and after editing views and it does seem less hog-like than before - or maybe it seems that way because I wasn't sitting around twiddling my thumbs waiting for it to import a folder of RAW files into the Library. It has fantastic potential to be an incredible RAW conversion application (it already is according to some high profile photographers), but for me and my particular needs, I still don't see it shunting aside Bibble Pro at this time. While I would love to see stacking and side-by-side editing in a future version of Bibble, the overall feature set of Bibble still makes it a better converter for me. For the last major edit, I processed over 1100 RAW files and did so fairly quickly even though I reviewed each file one at a time and did custom white balance clicking for each image (yah, I'm anal). The benefits are varied:
There are a series of other plug-ins and tools that I haven't messed around with too much at this time, but the tools mentioned above help to minimize Photoshop time for me. Is Bibble ideal? Well, it could be more stable (at least on my current computer) and not crash everytime I try and create a custom set of tools and I'd like a better rendition of highlight details, as it can sometimes come up with some pretty funky colors when using the highlight preservation tool. Also, I would love for every major section of Bibble to be floating window compatible so that I could move them off to the second monitor. What I'd like is a Photoshop-like way of being able to move everything off the main screen so that I can have the entire main screen available for editing the chosen image (or, preferably, to be able to do the before and after viewing). On the second monitor, I would locate the browser of thumbnails, as well as the tools, exposure information, and the file browser/batch processing window. My general way of working with Bibble is to batch edit globally, such as using Perfectly Clear and maybe some Noise Ninja if the folder is filled with images that were taken at a higher ISO. Then I cruise through each file, performing custom WB if needed, and to do more individual edits for fill light settings and exposure, straightening, cloning and lens correction if needed. Sometimes I do batch processing as I edit, but I find that I'm still taking a performance hit even with my dual-processor box, so I tend to do the edits first then do a full batch conversion while I do something else. I can't wait to see what Bibble can do on a new, near state of the art box ;-) Reader's comment: Just a small correction on your comments aoubt Bibble vs Lightroom:
I stand corrected and serves me right for speaking too loudly without knowing much about Lightroom. Ah well, live and learn 8^) June 28, 2007 - Reader's comment:
Most of my personal photographs (I don't differentiate between film or digital, because all are photographs to me) are masterpieces best displayed at the bottom of the trash bin. I admire a former cowoker of mine (who will likely read this soon) for having the bollocks to quit his relatively well paying job to pursue his passion for photography. But, then he's younger, single with no kids anchoring him down. He doesn't have a wife harping about when I'm going to go out and get a "real" job and make some "real" money for her to spend. She's expecting that I should become a CFA before I hit 40 and come July, I'll start my first tentative steps towards that goal and maybe, just maybe, make some "real" money for her. However, knowing myself too well, more income just means more gear ;^) Unfortunately, gone are the days when I used to be able to head out on a weekend morning and just take some carefree photos with good old Velvia in my F90x and just experiment and learn what photography is about. As mentioned earlier, I've got a tremendous amount of crap sitting in archival sleeves in my closet, but it's nice to look at those old slides every now and then and remember what it was like just being a photographer instead of a gearhead pretending to be one ;-) June 27, 2007 - Reader's comment:
That's an interesting observation, but I would want to clarify it a bit. While Cartier-Bresson was not like Ansel Adams, slaving away in the darkroom to produce his masterpieces, he did utilize the services of a master printer. So, even if Cartier-Bresson felt his creative moment was finished after he released the shutter on his Leica, as with Adams, the creative process was really not complete. Cartier-Bresson is like the late Galen Rowell in his approach to photography, wherein he farmed out the technicalities to concentrate on picture taking. Rowell was fully aware of the benefits of digital technology, but he wasn't necessarily going to be as great at the editing process as he was a photographer in the wild landscape. So, I would surmise that Cartier-Bresson would have been a RAW shooter too, just that he would have hired a Photoshop Evangelist to edit his files, whereas Ansel Adams would have been right in there massaging the pixels with a computer just as he did the print with chemicals in the darkroom 8^) Follow-up comment:
Yes, definitely, RAW versus JPEG is getting almost as bad as Nikon versus Canon. After slogging through a couple thousand RAW files from a job, I wished I was the type able to let go of the editing process and just be happy shooting JPEGs ;^) However, the technocrat in me can't let go of the benefits of shooting RAW mode, especially when I foul up an exposure or some other such thing and having a RAW file to edit can sometimes (not always though) pull my rear end out of the fire. But, as you say, to his/her own for their own creative process. What works for me won't work for others and vice versa. A friend of mine abhors the editing process and others I know shoot JPEG only with only a modest bit of post-production editing to serve their purposes. However, that would get us back into the Nikon versus Canon thing and differences in the tonality of some cameras that lead me to one editing approach and another for my acquaintances. And, we don't need to go there at this time ;^) June 26, 2007 - Check out this news posting at Rob Galbraith's site about an Italian fresco captured digitally. It warms the Nikon heart to hear of how the D2X (an "older" model now and certainly not of the highest resolution) was used with the 80-400 VR lens (an "older" lens now and certainly not of the highest optical fidelity) to capture a very serious piece of photography. And, what, the almost 1200 frames were stitched and processed on an eight-core PC, not a Mac?! Egads, what will St. Jobs think? Of course, I say this with my tongue firmly in my cheek 8^) June 25, 2007 - PopPhoto has posted their review/test of the new Canon 1D Mk III. Interestingly, the reviewer referred to "Internet chatter" about the 1D3's autofocus and made mention that no such problems were found in the pre-production sample provided to the magazine. While I'm sure the reviewer put the camera through its paces and it's certainly not inconceivable that PopPhoto received a "good" sample (but then why wouldn't Rob Galbraith be equally deserving?), I really don't think that the PopPhoto reviewer would have been as rigorous as Galbraith. Granted that Galbraith is likely a much more demanding reviewer, but since he's a professional sports and news photographer (the target market for the 1D3), I place far more credence to what Galbraith has to say than PopPhoto's reviewer wandering around New York City doing happy snaps. I follow Galbraith's findings with some mild interest because the 1D3 seems like the camera I've long desired, but I'm in no rush until Canon responds to the AF problems, and also until Nikon responds in kind to the 1D3 in the form of a D3H. Nikon's 90th anniversary is apparently in July, so there may yet be some good things to come forth. I can't recall where I came across this information, perhaps it was the TOP blog, but a person wrote that when test subjects were outfitted with optical devices that put the world upside down, the test subjects eventually adapted and could continue on as if everything was right side up. It made me think back to high school when I played a bit of football. Back then, I wore coke bottle sized glasses and was more or less, blind as a bat without them. However, one does not play serious football with glasses on, so in practice and in games, I went without them and I didn't get contact lenses until after high school. I think back and while there should have been an obvious problem with me being able to see properly on the field, my recollection of that time was that I was able to adapt and function relatively well. Interesting how the human body and its various parts work. However, the best investment I ever made in my life was to do laser surgery on the eyes in the early 1990s and dispense with glasses and contacts for good. Reader's comment and question:
I haven't bought the Lacie or any other NAS to keep the Buffalo company at this time. I was more drooling at the 4 TB Lacie NAS 8^) Even if I buy another NAS, I'll still keep the Buffalo around despite its limited storage capacity (700 GB with RAID 5 configuration) and slow speed (backup device only, so speed is not a major issue). I spec'ed my new box with two 750 GB Seagates to start so the Buffalo can back up one drive and there are enough externals around to easily back up the other in the short term. The new box will also be big enough to accomodate more drives as needed, but I think I'll need another NAS or similar device for more convenient backup than having four or five externals cluttering my desktop. A couple of options besides a NAS would be the Drobo Robot and the Lacie Biggest FW800, a storage box that looks like a NAS, but doesn't use ethernet connections in favour of Firewire 400/800 and I believe USB 2. The Drobo looks pretty interesting because it allows you to use a mish-mash of drive capacities, so I could dispense with the external cases and throw in the 300, 320, and 500 GB drives into one case. June 23, 2007 - Reader's comment:
Always! Although, I'm not looking forward to when the new eight-core box gets delivered...8^) Another reader offered this comment: "With digital, you can take all the pictures you want for free ....it's keeping them that costs you money!" I'm biding my time for more storage devices, to see what I can fit into a new box and then decide what I need to back it up with. It's a never ending moneypit. The Lacie Ethernet Disk RAID looks pretty sexy though, but the 4 TB version is "just" a little bit out of my reach. June 22, 2007 - Yesterday at work, our office had a little barbeque on the roof of one of the connecting buildings. As I was munching away on my burger, a couple of coworkers were talking about computers and the need for storage due to using digital cameras. One person mentioned buying a 1 TB NAS (configured as a 500 GB RAID 1) to store all his digital photo files, while another mentioned having a 250 GB external drive and thinking that it would be all that he would need, even though he was generating a number of files with his digicam. They discussed how file sizes can range 3-4 MB and that how that can add up and require a lot of space. I smiled and kept on munching my burger, sheepish in thinking how my RAW files are 15 and 20 MB apiece and how after conversion to 16-bit TIFF files, the new files end up in the 55 to 70 MB range. So, with a D2X, keeping a RAW+TIFF eats up almost 100 MB of storage space. I was asked about my own storage requirments and I casually mentioned how one wedding can chew through over 100 GB of storage space and that even with over 2 TB of storage (actually closer to 3 TB), I was hitting the wall again. I went back to munching my burger, not wanting to be Mr. Big 8^) Well, I find myself in the wife's doghouse again. She discovered my new 24-inch LCD monitor in my office last night and gave me that look only a wife could give. I didn't say anything; there's no point in explaining that it's a relatively cheap LCD that I bought to give me more screen real estate for browsing image files. Seeing the new LCD, it dawned on her why I had given the kids my old 17 inch LCD for their use (I setup my former hotrod, but now jalopy-like P4 box for them - actually, it's surprising how peppy an older box can be without a load of huge applications installed). At least I'm not forced to sleep on the couch. June 21, 2007 - By now, some of you have probably already read Rob Galbraith's report on the new Canon 1D3's autofocus and its Jekyl and Hyde like personality depending on whether the camera is used in bright sunlight, or overcast conditions. It's a rather sobering and surprising result from Canon for a flagship model that costs almost CAN $6000. However, I've observed that Canon is fairly good at listening to and responding to complaints about its equipment, so hopefully, some sort of fix is being worked on. But, until then, I'd not be too keen to part with such a sizable chunk of coin for one. The high ISO seems like the real deal and is exactly what I've been seeking all these years, but there isn't much point if the camera can't do something as simple as keep focus on a bride walking down the aisle. Incidentally, my buddy Larry seems not too surprised by it because he mentioned he's had issues with focus tracking on his Canon cameras (1v and EOS 3) and the 70-200 IS lens. June 20, 2007 - Here's a couple of snaps taken by my friend Larry last weekend of yours truly in action. The shot with the tripod in it is a crop of a much wider shot. If you can make it out, that's a Manfrotto 322RC Grip Action Ball head sitting on top of the Gitzo tripod. I'm using a Kirk Arca-style quick release clamp screwed on top of the Manfrotto quick release plate. Not ideal, but works for me now for a lot less than a special Kirk plate adapter. I find the Manfrotto head much quicker and easier to adjust than the larger and more stable Arca Swiss B1. For my own personal photos, I'd still use the B1, but for faster pace shooting, such as weddings, the 322RC fits the bill.
The D2X with 17-55 lens is mounted on the tripod and attached to the neck strap is the Nikon SD-8A battery pack. I'm using a D200 with the 70-200 lens for some quick candids as I wait for the groups to form for the tripod shots.
I'm dressed in the now standard wedding photographer's uniform of all black from shirt to shoes. Oh, in case you're wondering about the funky angle of my flash, I was shooting ambient and just left the flash head as is from the last time I was using it. June 19, 2007 - Here's an interesting article at Rangefinder, called Digital Disease. I think I'm afflicted with some of the key symptoms 8^) As I review the files from the weekend, I definitely notice a trend towards "shotgunning" a series of shots to counteract subject eyes being shut, to stem my own sloppiness in technique when I feel rushed, and a general sense of "needing" to capture as much as I can. However, quality always trumps quantity and I need to learn to slow down my pace and work on getting more good shots rather than a series of average shots. I'm also getting really sick of flash photography and I need to overcome my fear of a bit of noise at higher ISO settings. A well exposed shot at a high ISO setting can still produce a fairly nice image - if you have the time to get the exposure right and are rock solid with your handholding technique. I'm also guilty of wanting to do everything myself, which I've been fortunate enough to be able to slowly learn as I go, as well as being able to afford the tools needed. However, time is money and sometimes, doing everything yourself is not always a good use of personal time. June 18, 2007 - Reader's comment:
Ah, if it were only that easy for Nikon to improve the high ISO quality of their current cameras. I love my Nikons, truly I do and if I could get good image quality at ISO 1600, I would be a very happy man. As much as ISO 3200 and 6400 sound really sexy, I'm not looking for "publishable" or "usable" image quality, but good to excellent image quality and in most venues where I might find myself, ISO 1600 is plenty. That's the sweet spot for me and high ISO and Nikon will probably produce prety good quality at that setting in their next generation of pro cameras, but the question is when will these cameras come out and will Canon still be superior in quality? I don't know how long I'm willing to wait. June 17, 2007 - Reader's comment:
Photography and audio pursued at their highest levels are very easy ways to take a large fortune and make it a small one. Not that I would know either, as I've never had a fortune, large or small ;^) So, yesterday I photographed a full-day wedding, starting from a bit before 11 am and ending around 10 pm. The morning started with rain into the early afternoon, which was not good for us wanting to take photos outdoors. The ceremony at the church went well, strict rules and all. The church lady coordinating the weddings that day took me to the minister's office for what I thought would be a stern talking to. The minister looked me over and after a few seconds just said, do what you want, but give me 7-8 minutes to get the ceremony going before you do your thing. Oh, well, ah, okay, thanks. This was essentially carte blanche for me and my buddy Larry (who was helping me out) to do whatever we wanted. However, I advised the minister that we would still respect the church's rules and that we would not at all make ourselves noticeable. We did our thing from the back of the church and I did a few shots from the balcony too. When the official portion of the ceremony ended, the couple went up to the altar to light the unity candles. I slowly crept up the aisle to try and get some closer shots, but then the church lady came up behind me and told to go on up to take the photos. Okie-dokie. After the ceremony ended and everyone's coming out, the church lady thanked us for being so "wonderful" in respecting the rules. Hey, you never know when you might be back at the same church, so best to be on good terms with the officials. Afterwards, the rain let up briefly for us do some group shots outside the church and then we headed back to the bride's condo complex for some more photos, which also happened to coincide with when the rain picked up. We worked with what we had in the rain and towards the mid afternoon, the rain let up again to allow us to ditch the umbrellas for some fun shots. We worked pretty quickly, so we ended up being ahead of schedule and I arrived at the restaurant well in advance of everyone else. I was told by the couple to order whatever I wanted to eat before the main dinner started. Unfortunately, the restaurant refused an order until after 5 pm, which is when I had to start photographing again for the traditional Chinese tea ceremony. After that I was asked to photograph the couple receiving their guests arriving, which took me until 7 pm. Short of it, no dinner for Edwin until the night was over (my buddy Larry was only hired for half the day, so he was gone). And, I forgot my snack bars at home, so I was fueling myself on adrenaline and a bowl of instant ramen noodles from the morning. Needless to say, I went out afterwards and had a steak at Earl's (restaurant chain in Canada). The evening went well and equipment wise, everything went swimmingly. Although, I think I need to find another method of strapping the Nikon SD-8A battery packs to my rig. For this wedding, I taped the two SD-8A packs to my neck straps, because I tend to swap cameras frequently and I didn't want the packs on my belt with cables getting in the way. Unfortunately, my method is a bit clunky and the packs tended to smack me on the head everytime I brought the camera to my eye. However, when shooting events, you definitely need the extra juice that external battery packs provide you with. I cannot imagine having to go back to the days before I had the SD-8A packs and waiting several seconds for the flash to recharge before being available for another pop. As good as the SD-8A is, I'm thinking I need even more juice in the form of some of the bigger Quantum packs. In the church, I was able to keep my ISO at 400, so hopefully, the noise won't be too bad (I've not done a review of all the files as of this writing). However, at the condo complex, due to the rain, we did some shots inside the foyer and I did some shots using the soft window lighting, but I had to bump up the ISO to 800 to get a decent shutter speed. Some definite Noise Ninja action will be needed for those shots. One thing I notice when going back and forth between the D2X and D200 is that the D200 seems to be more forgiving of exposure than the D2X, especially for highlight detail. The D200 also has a warmer tonality than the D2X and I must say, the D200's LCD is far superior than the one on the D2X. However, I never fully trust the LCD and final judgement awaits for the review of the files on my 30-inch Dell. June 15, 2007 - I'm back in town after six days working in Victoria. It was great to get back for a visit, something I had not done since some friends were married way back in 1998. I'll see if I got any worthwhile photos to post and provide some details about the trip down memory lane of my old university town. In the mean time, some news I found interesting or curious:
Bold emphasis are mine to point out the rather dubious marketing claims from Kodak for its newest digicams. In other circles, this would just be described as bullshit. In other news:
$10 to $25 an hour?! Jeez-us! Who the hell can afford to be a photographer at those rates. Absolutely brutal and it destroys whatever glamour people may have about being a photographer (albeit, the article is about event photographers, whereas other segments of photography may pay more). June 9, 2007 - Reader's counter comment to the June 8 posting:
I recall a recent National Post newspaper article stating that the largest of GM's SUVs actually emits less carbon than some of the hybrids. As for which cars make up the sales, for Toyota, I'd expect that it would be nowhere near number one without the bread and butter Corolla, just as GM would not be in its position without all those sales of Chevrolets and Pontiacs. However, one area that I expect North American dominance to continue for some years is in the pickup market. In my home town, every second vehicle is a pickup from GM, Ford and Chrysler, and unlike the "glamour" pickups in Vancouver, the trucks in Kamloops are actually used for their intended purpose. And, as far as my choice is concerned, I don't care for a Toyota or a GM. I'm still pining away for that classic Jeep CJ/YJ/TJ/Wrangler. I would "love" to have one of the new four-door Wrangler Unlimited's 8^) The boss has exiled me to Victoria for next week, so no new postings will be made until I return the following Friday, June 15. But, I have a wedding to photograph on the 16th, so it won't actually be until Sunday before I get a chance to catch up and maybe post a few shots of my week back in my university town. Although I'm out of town, I'll still be checking emails everyday, so send them along if you wish. Everyone be good and happy. June 8, 2007 - A new version of the Bibble RAW convertor is now available with support for the new Canon 1D3, Nikon D40X and the Fuji S5 Pro SLRs:
Additional reader's comment:
Ha! A Lexus over any of the American brands is a pretty easy choice, especially if you got the model with the Mark Levinson sound system 8^) Nikon does have some history, if not extensive, in designing its own LBCAST chip used in the D2H/D2Hs models. I keep hearing that the D3 will continue to use a Sony chip, but after that, who knows? Perhaps Nikon will have to continue development of the LBCAST with higher resolution and throw it open to another manufacturer. I guess, as long as Nikon can deliver then it really does not matter who fabricates the chips for Nikon, but I'm just getting a bit tired of waiting to see what actually comes. June 7, 2007 - Reader's comment:
You're not the only one wondering what Nikon is up to. I think we can be fairly certain that Nikon is working on a full frame SLR, but while I have heard of 24 MP as being the resolution for some time, 18 MP seems to be popping up as a possible first step in the full frame arena. If true, I'm pretty much certain that I'll ditch and buy into Canon (if readers haven't already gotten the gist of some of my recents posts, I'm pretty besotted by the new 1D3). I also think that it is fairly certain that Nikon is sitting on a hoard of new lenses to come with the main consideration for them and the new SLR is timing for release. Are we going to see them in time for some major 2007 sporting event, e.g. the World Cup of Rugby, but if not then you would think for sure before the Beijing Olympics. Unfortunately, for Nikon though, without being a chip maker of its own, it relies on Sony to produce new designs, although some speculate that Nikon has a significant role in designing them with Sony. Ironically, Nikon produces the machines likely used in fabricating the chips (steppers). Some suggest that with Nikon not producing its own chips that it has flexibility to go to any chip maker to specify a new design, and given that Sony is now a competitor to Nikon, what will happen to this partnership? As for medium format back makers, I love that Mamiya has packaged an entire kit with a 22 MP back for less than what a new 16 MP back from the likes of Phase or Hasselblad sell for. While the new ZD back is a bit old now and perhaps lacking in some features compared to the latest European designs, I think it's a significant shot across the bow of the Viking techies that if they're not careful, they could end up as Japanese sushi. However, I don't mean to imply that it will be Mamiya that will be the equivalent of a 1950s Nikon that started the end of European dominance of the 35mm format, but with Canon's new 50 MP chip, is Canon hinting that it might eventually target the high-end photography market? Canon could really clean up with its massive R&D, production capabilities, and scale of economy to bring some sanity to the cost of digital backs. If so, and of course, this is all just idle speculation on my part, it would follow the classic Japanese tactic of gradually dominating the lower end of the market first, the mid-range second, and once there is overwhelming dominance, then they go after the high-end. It's happened with cars (Toyota-Lexus, Honda-Acura, Nissan-Infinity) and it's happened with consumer electronics such as audio gear and televisions. It's not a fast process by any means, often taking many decades to achieve the goal (look how long it's taken for Toyota to reach number two in auto sales), but it's been a consistent business model. I won't comment on Al Gore's politics, but I do love his computer setup - triple 30 inch Apple Cinema Displays. June 6, 2007 - Pixel-peepers rejoice, Canon has announced a 50 MP CMOS sensor in what appears to be their 1.3x sized sensors, the same size used in its 1D series of cameras. Unfortunately, before anyone starts salivating at the prospects of this 50 MP sensor showing up in a 1D camera anytime soon, the new chip is slated for more industrial use such as surveillance cameras. However, it does shudder the mind though...50 MP...in a 1.3x chip. Egads, imagine the noise issues at ISO 1600 and the lens defects that it would reveal 8^) I watched Friday Night Lights the other night and boy, did it bring back memories from my own brief time as a high school football player. Football is religion in Texas, the setting of the movie and of particular interest for me is that the high school team portrayed is the Odessa Permian Panthers, circa 1988, the year I finished high school. Prior to 1986 when I played, our football team was rather sad-sack playing against the big teams from Vancouver. Our coaches took inspiration from the Panthers and devised an offence based on the Wing T. We also took inspiration from the Panthers not being the biggest team in the state, but using their speed and tenacity to make up for that lack of size. We had some success in 1986, but fell short of making it into the provincial finals when we lost to the South Delta Sun Devils in the semis, whereas the Panthers have a long and proud history of being multiple 5A state champions. Some classic sports movies scenes such as the preacher coming in and doing a prayer while all the players are on their knees may not have been big in Canada, but this was a regular occurrance in our pregame preparations when we played at home, as one of our coaches was a real southern preacher. Coach Shock was a transplated American from Arkansas, so we had our own southern drawl in the locker room with the statement, "We all gonna play some football today!" being a regular refrain. One of our other coaches liked to show off his prowess at being able to boot field goals from about 50 yards out...barefoot! Our head coach, another transplanted American, who as a Canadian, almost made the 1988 Canadian Olympic baseball team, showed off his pitcher's arm by having us do drills where we were to run down the field waiting for him to throw the ball. We'd run 30 yards, no ball. We'd run to 40 yards, but still no ball. Then around 50 yards, maybe more, he'd toss the ball to us. There were some other compelling moments in the movie, such as small town kids wanting out of the small town lifestyle, something that I always knew would happen for me, but not necessarily something that would happen for everyone else that played ball. As a little Asian kid growing up being a bit of an outsider, my parents always drummed into my mind that getting a university education would be my ticket out of the hard immigrant lives that they had led when they came to Canada in the 1950s. Not that Kamloops is the end of the world, far from it and given the way it's grown and brought in a number of shops and businesses, the town is actually not a bad place to raise a family. However, I'm a city boy now and it would be difficult to contemplate having to move back to the old home town. June 4, 2007 - So, I throw some of my microfiber cloths in the laundry for washing (a good thing to do from time to time) and after drying them, I brought them upstairs, but for some now forgotten reason, I dropped them down on a bookshelf in the living room and forgot about them for a day. Last night as I'm walking by the dining room table, I see something and do a double-take. It seems my little girls found my cloths and used the bigger one to dress up one of their naked Barbie dolls. So young and yet such virtuous modesty 8^) Unfortunately for Barbie, I reclaimed my cloth and now she's once more showing her wares in all their glorious plastic.
June 3, 2007 - I have a wedding to shoot in mid June and I just read the photography policy of the church where my clients will have their ceremony. It is the most restrictive I've come across in my years photographing weddings. I thought Catholic weddings were tough, but they're a walk in the park compared to Anglican and some other Protestant churches. I gathered that I'm allowed to be at the front to photograph the wedding party walking down the aisle, but as soon as the ceremony begins, I have to disappear to the back of the church. At no time am I allowed to come between the sight line of any of the guests and the wedding party. And, I'm not allowed up front until the signing of the registry, right at the end of the ceremony...to preserve the sanctimony of the ceremony. Sanctimonious is more like it; however, it's not for me to break the rules of the church, so I'll certainly do the best I can. Equipment wise though, I have some concerns with the severe limitation in the use of flash in a dimly lit church, even if the ceremony is in the early afternoon. This is the type of situation where the new Canon 1D3 would seem to be a killer tool to workaround the low light venue. Being able to shoot at ISO 1600 without a huge drop in image quality is a luxury that Nikon shooters don't have at the moment, and no, I'm not convinced that the D40 or D40X are up to snuff. I'm sensing at some point, something's gotta give. Either Nikon responds in fashion (very soon) with their own killer, high ISO camera with enough resolution to make it worth my while, or else I'm going to have to take a long hard look at my current tools and determine if they are still up to the task. June 2, 2007 - Last Wednesday, Master Corporal Darrell Priede was killed when the helicopter he was in was shot down in Afghanistan. Priede was a Canadian military combat photographer, so anytime you hear of a photographer killed doing his or her job, most photographers take notice, pause, and ponder about the thought of being killed doing your job. I also have an emotional attachment to the Canadian military, having served very, very briefly in the Army reserves when I still lived in Victoria. I was with the Canadian Scottish Regiment, a unit that goes back to World War I and has several battle honours throughout the decades. If my right eye wasn't so buggered now, I suspect that I may have joined the Seaforth Highlanders of Canada after moving to Vancouver. May 31, 2007 - Reader's question about the Epson R2400:
I think what you’re seeing are known as pizza roller tracks; fine lines seen in light tone areas and especially apparent when using specific papers such as Semi Gloss or Luster, but I haven’t heard of it appearing on matte papers until now. Unfortunately, other than using different papers, not much you can do about these lines because these are the roller wheel marks from the printer itself. The R2400 and smaller sized printers use rollers to move the paper along the print path. I think even the new 3800 uses rollers too. The advantage is very precise paper placement, which means being able to print as small as 4x6 inches, but the disadvantage is that under the right conditions, you will see roller marks. The larger printers, like the 4800, use vacuum suction to hold down and move the paper across the print path, meaning no physical contact on the paper except the ink from the heads. Unfortunately, vacuum suction requires at least letter size sheets and if using cut sheets, a minimum of a half-inch of white space for the trailing edge of the sheet (the bottom of the print that’s last to emerge from the printer). Regular readers will recall that I've been championing a rumour that Nikon's next generation flagship camera would be a near full frame, 24 MP uber camera. Well, it seems that I see the figure of 18 MP pop as being more credible, which if true, would be a disappointment. I had seen the 18 MP figure bandied about with the 24 MP one, but this was on the basis of a 24 MP D3X and perhaps a companion full frame, 18 MP D300. It s disappointing in that at 18 MP, it really only matches the current 17 MP Canon 1Ds Mk II and there are pretty strong rumours of Canon's coming replacement offering 22 MP. Now, to go from 12 MP to 18 MP is not a huge step up per se, and from the current Canon 17 MP to 22 MP is even less of a jump percentage wise, but psychologically, the numbers are significant. If I were to switch, I'd wait out the next generation Canon and jump from 12 MP to 22 MP. I don't think anyone can deny that this would be a significant jump up in resolution and hoped for quality. While Nikon is going gangbusters in the consumer range of SLRs, this is of no interest to me, and really, I do hope that the 18 MP rumour will turn into a 24 MP reality. We'll see what happens in the fall. May 30, 2007 - Could this be the first of a new onslaught of Nikon lenses to come by the end of this year and/or the beginning of the next? Rumours indicate 11 or so new lenses in the works at the Nikon foundaries, so who knows. This one certainly looks to be a worthy replacement to the rather average 80-400 VR lens. Thanks to Eric in Ontario for the tip. I think the end of 2007 will shape up to be a very interesting and meaningful year for Nikon and Canon photographers. One hint are the price drops on assorted Nikon cameras and the rebates available for certain Canon products. Price drops and rebates are usual precursors for new products to be announced and soon rolled out. I just wish Nikon would hurry and get on with it though ;^) I forgot to mention that Monday marked a milestone for me, as I finally got over 35mm film and finally dropped off my beloved F100 at the local store for consignment sale. It's a rather anticlimatic end of the 35mm film era for me, as it was already dying a slow death when I bought the D100 in 2002, and it was de facto dead in 2006 when I bought the mighty D2X. At the store, it was mentioned to me that the new Canon 1D3 was arriving at the store. Two only and both already long sold and I believe paid for in full. An omen of where my future lies? Who knows... May 29, 2007 - So, Michael Johnston has made the good graces of the mighty Erwin Puts, the Leicaphile that does laboratory-quality tests of cameras and lenses – you know, the theoretical test results that no other photographer can achieve in real life. Such as, laboratory tests indicate that said Leica lens has the resolution to resolve every individual hair on a gnat’s ass, but in real life, you can’t actually even see the gnat’s ass. According to Puts, there are three ways to test lenses, Johnston’s method, which is less formal and takes into consideration the entire process of taking a photograph with a lens so that critical review is done with a print. Kind of like a holistic approach to reviewing and writing, which Johnston does quite well…when he sticks to photography. A second method, which Puts is famous for, is to review the lens in isolation through instruments to obtain an objective understanding of what the lens can achieve. In other words, what the theoretical capabilities of the lens is, which may never translate to something achieved in actual photography, even with a large and sturdy tripod, head, and use of a cable release. The third method, which I gather Puts has no use for, is to review or compare lenses by taking photos of real world subjects and then comparing them at 100 percent magnification on the monitor. The criticism being that this takes into account far too many variables such as the camera and its sensor, support used, editing software, and quality of monitor, and anything else that does not meet with approval by Mr. Puts. In short, these reviewers throw in too many variables to truly understand what a given lens is capable of. Unfortunately, not everyone has access to laboratory test equipment and microscopes to review test results. Frankly, I doubt that too many would find such results to be of much use out here in the real world. Reviewing prints though is quite valid because it’s a real world product that you can use provided that the prints are consistent in quality, i.e. digital prints that can be controlled and easily reproducible. As you might have guessed, when I offer “reviews” of lenses, I’m smack in the middle of the disdainful third way. However, I think viewing comparison crop samples on the monitor is no less valid than reviewing prints, because I’ve made test prints in the past and I’ve seen the differences in them, just as clearly as on the monitor. And yes, Virginia, there is a difference between a $200 lens versus a $2000 lens and you don’t need Steve Austin’s bionic eye to see those differences. What I strive for in my tests is consistency. Use the same camera, mounted on a good tripod and head combo with a cable release in hand. I wait a few seconds between exposures to allow the energy from the previous exposure to dissipate. When converting the RAW files to maximum quality JPEGs, I ensure that all the shots receive the same amount of sharpening. In short, I do test shots the same way I would a killer landscape that I plan to print a 16x20 from. It’s real world, it’s repeatable, and it’s nothing that someone couldn’t do with the same kind of kit. It’s not as subjectively lovely as a well-written Johnston review, but offers the straight goods to the best of my capabilities and available kit. May 28, 2007 - Anyone want to take a guess at what the picture below is?
It's an air bubble in the Yellow ink line of my Epson 4800, just one of likely several in the same line that help to make some Epson users lives (including mine) a cleaning cycle misery. Regular cleaning cycles tend not to do anything and power cleaning cycles consume tremendous amounts of ink. About the only you can do is create an image of block colors and alternate between printing that and then trying a cleaning. The idea being that printing helps to move the ink and hence the air bubbles forward and out of the lines. Trouble is, the one you see above is about six inches away from where the ink cartridge sits and has many more inches (24 inches or so?) to travel before it will eventually be expunged. That's a whole lotta ink to consume just to get ride of one, somewhat large air bubble. It would be nice if I could manually clean or power clean just one ink head rather than having to clean through all eight at once with the Epson printing utility. I certainly do hope that Epson will find a solution with their generation of printers. With Canon and HP being serious players in the high-end printing market, offering products that are the equal of Epson print quality without the Epson liabilities, Epson must address their shortcomings. Once upon a time, I was so certain that when the time came for me to buy a larger printer (24-inch capability), Epson was going to be my only choice. Unfortunately, not anymore. May 21, 2007 - Idle Daydreams: Face Detection technology seems all the rage in the most recent crop of digicams with most brands offering some variant of cameras being able to recognize the shapes of faces and focusing on those faces. Useless as far as I'm concerned, but then I got to thinking, what if you took face detection out into left field and utilized it in a RAW convertor or photo editor such as Photoshop. It wouldn't be so much face detection, as it would be object mapping, but bear with me. What if our convertor or editor could map specific objects, say the face of a bride with some blemishes and then the application could search the entire folder of images for the same object, or "face" and then apply the edits you wanted to brush away the same blemishes without you having to do so in Photoshop afterwords. You would likely have to group batches of photo together taken in the same lighting to match the edits and of course, this wouldn't have to apply to just faces, but any object in an image file that you want repetitive edits applied to. I was thinking that this was yet another brilliant contribution by me to the world of photography 8^) Then I remembered that Nikon actually already has something similar, albeit for a different purpose, the Image Dust Off found in Nikon Capture that maps dust spots on the sensor then removes them automatically in the RAW image. Ah well. May 20, 2007 - You'll forgive me if this post seems meandering, I've been feverish and suffering from chills and hot spells for most of the week, so my head is a bit wonked out as I type this. I've recently been thinking of the classic children's tale, The Little Match Girl, by Hans Christian Anderson. It's a story that breaks the heart as it describes the cruelty of poverty, but does offer hope in an afterlife in the good graces of God. Thinking about this story jarred in my mind another story, actually an animated show that I watched but only once as a child many years ago during the Christmas season. Despite only seeing the show once, the basics of the story have never left me, which are of a bird flying south very late, but compelled by a golden statue to do his bidding to help the poor in the city. The statue requests the bird to pluck his jewel eyes and then strip his golden skin and give them to the poor so that they may have bread. At the end of the story, the bird falls dead from the cold of winter, having waited far too long to fly south. The statue is pulled down and smelted, but a lead heart inside will not melt. An angel gathers the dead bird and leaden heart for God to bestow his gifts in the afterlife. Now, if you happen to have a Masters in English like my buddy Rob Greer, then you probably already know the story and author, but since I didn't and Google being as good as it is, it didn't take long to find out that it's Oscar Wilde's The Happy Prince. Both stories have common themes, poverty in the temporal life with redemption from poverty in the afterlife through God. Both are what I would describe as tales of the human condition, an elusively defined term if ever there was, but I know it when I see it or read it. Why such thoughts? Well, maybe the high fever had me thinking of my own mortality and whether or not I've done any good in my life. No, actually, it was a former coworker sending me links to some of his recent photography that made me think about poverty. William quit his day job at our government agency a few months ago to become a full time photographer and much of his work has been editorial and documentary with personal projects mixed in with his freelance work. His current project is Zero Loonie Shelters, of makeshift "homes" created and used by Vancouver's poor. May 18, 2007 - Got my June issue of Stereophile yesterday (best overall magazine dedicated to audio nutburs). The inside cover editorial by Jon Inverson hit home for the way I'm listening to music these days. Iverson commented that high-resolution file downloads is the way of the future and that using physical media such as records or CDs seems like he's tied to a ball and chain. To quote Denzel Washington in Crimson Tide, "XO concurs!" After some false starts and flip-flops on file formats, about a month ago, I finally finished ripping all of my CDs to AIFF format using the latest version of iTunes. I had to buy a couple of new 500 GB hard drives to handle all those uncompressed files (one for main storage and one for backing up), but I feel that long-term, it was well worth the month or so of effort to just sit down and get the job done and over with. My CDs are still stored in the living room, but in such a way that ready access to most of them would be a hassle. I've even thought of hauling the whole lot to a used store to dispense with them permanently, but then I'd probably be held up by local police procedures to ensure that I hadn't ripped them off someone else. I also made MP3 copies of all the AIFF files for portable use and how convenient, my new 80 GB iPod has just enough storage space to store all the files ripped at 320 kbps. My older, resurrected like Jesus, 40 GB iPod is now a "hits" collection. However, I'm faced with a problem in that with no need or desire to playback CDs, my Benchmark DAC-1 sits unused. I'm on the lookout for a DAC with a USB interface, such as the newest version of the DAC-1, or the Grace M902, or the Apogee Mini DAC, or a Headroom Desktop system. Unfortunately, money is an object and the price for any of the above options isn't all that wallet friendly. I'd also prefer a whole 'nother computer to store and playback the AIFF files with instead of slumming it with the iPod and MP3 files (perfectly fine for noisy commutes on the bus, but not the last word in high fidelity at home). If anyone is interested in my two-year old, infrequently used Benchmark DAC-1, I'm open to reasonable (and serious) offers. May 16, 2007 - Interesting article at PopPhoto about parents and grandmother's lives destroyed by overly sensitive prosecutors on the lookout for child porn. For those of us that are parents of young children, who hasn't taken innocent pictures of the kids taking their baths? It's a part of watching the kids grow up and documenting their lives with pictures. However, it certainly does seem like our kids are at greater risk these days than when I was a child, but then again, in British Columbia, we have a sordid past with Clifford Olson, the worse child killer in Canadian history (BC's reputation is taking another black eye with the current Robert Pickton trial, who is alleged to be the worse serial killer in Canadian history). On a much lighter note, my friend Rob Greer sent along this link to an article about art directors and their foibles from the perspective of a pro photographer. May 15, 2007 - Some people contacted me to enquire about Oleg Novikov's website. Oleg is a friend that looks after the Chinese and Russian NikonLinks pages, but being as busy as he is with his travels inadvertantly allowed his domain to lapse for a week. I'm happy to say that Oleg's website is now up and running once more with some great photos of China, where he lives and works. May 14, 2007 - Thanks to everyone that wrote in about blog sites. Based on those comments, I'm going to keep going with the status quo. However, do keep coming with suggestions and comments for improvements that can or should be made. I will also stay away from commenting on things I don't know too much about, such as financial analysis of companies ;^) May 12, 2007 - What do reader's think about CameraHobby being mirrored, or even replaced by a blog site such as LiveJournal or BlogSpot? It was suggested that being on a dedicated blog site would make it easier for readers to interact by posting comments more quickly. I'm always open to ideas that would make the site more useful. Nikon has posted its year end financial statements and once again Nikon is doing well. In financial analysis, the layperson often looks at the balance sheet for assets and liabilities and then the income or revenue statement to look at operating profits. However, the key document to review is the cash flow statement, because this statement reveals how much actual cash a company has available at the beginning and ending periods with all the uses of cash in between. What you want to see is a company being able to cover all operating expenses, investments and financings (short and long-term debt) with cash generated from its operations, i.e. the business the company is in. Looking at Nikon's cash flow statement indicates that Nikon is more than able to meet all of its operating and financing expenses handidly with cash left over at the end of the fiscal year. Companies that cannot fund their operating costs, investments and debt must borrow more money and/or sell more shares on the market, neither of which is desirable. Companies that must sell assets in order to generate cash are also on shakey ground, which is why the recent Pentax news is a red flag; however, I've not reviewed Pentax's financial statements, so I'm speculating. Interestingly, in reviewing the notes to the financial statements, I see no mention of operating leases, which is good in that Nikon's stated liabilities on the balance sheet are accurate. US and Canadian GAAP allows leases that do not exceed a certain percentage to be struck off the balance sheet and buried in the notes (don't know about Japanese rules). Most analysts will add operating leases back to the liabilities for a more accurate look at a company's liabilities (think airline companies). May 11, 2007 - Imaging Resource posted a news article about Pentax selling its headquarters to help increase profits. I just can't see this as being good news for a company to have to sell its HQ and think that it just sends a signal to the market that Pentax is in play. Will Hoya make another attempt at taking over Pentax? Is there another white knight in the wings? If no suitor comes by, will Pentax survive? Sorta, kinda related is this article by Dirck Halstead at the Digital Journalist. Halstead predicts in 10 years time, only Canon will survive as a major photography company thanks to its video division that produces camcorders. Halstead predicts that still photography will cease to exist for journalists and that high definition video cameras will become the tool of choice. Just jogging my memory, but was it not Halstead that is alleged to have claimed that Canon had 90-percent of the pro market, which seems a bit too much even if we acknowledge that Canon is very strongly in the number one slot for market share. If video does become so good as to replace still photography then does that mean that wedding photographers all become videographers, able to pull out whichever frame caught the right moment and then print it for the couple? Does that mean that everyone will soon be carrying mini camcorders instead of still cameras and doing the same, just print out a particular frame from the video sequence for the album or scrapbook? Will certain pros using still cameras call themselves traditionalists, offering clients the "old school" method of creating a photograph? Will these photographers be considered artisans of a bygone era, just as we are now considering the darkroom printer in today's digital age? Laugh now, but 10 years ago, would you have believed someone if he told you that within 10 years film cameras would go the way of the dodo and that most everyone in the world would be using silicon to capture their images with ones and zeros? May 9, 2007 - Reader's follow-up comment:
Hmm, yes, Canon is very marketing driven, but then they do tend to back up that marketing with products that deliver. I was thinking Nikon and Apple as an analogous comparison, but then Nikon is not as good at marketing as Apple, which is far better at it than Microsoft is and Nikon isn't quite as bleeding edge as Apple has been consistently. Nikon also has more market share in the SLR arena than Apple versus Microsoft, but you'd never know that from looking at the brilliant ads from Canon showing a sea of white lenses speckled by token black lenses here and there. May 8, 2007 - Reader's comment:
Canon is the Microsoft of photography? On an overall, very general sense, yes, I’d agree that Canon is the Microsoft of photography. Canon does not have anywhere near the monopolistic market share that Microsoft has for computer OS and office productivity, but there is little doubt that Canon is the king of photography. Microsoft is somewhere around 85-perecent market share for operating systems, give or take a few percentage points, while Canon is somewhere around 20-percent overall market share as a photography company. For SLRs though, Canon has around 50-percent market share. Michael Johnston of TOP described Canon as being the largest and richest photography company in the world. Canon dominates as number one or number two in just about every facet of consumer photography. Digicams, Canon is number one; best selling SLR in the world, Canon Rebel XTi; dominance of the professional SLR market, Canon with their 1D and 1Ds SLRs. Canon is also a very innovative lens maker with the most comprehensive lens line-up available of any brand, of any format. Canon was first to produce lenses with ultra sonic motors for focusing and first to market image stabilization. Being first is important even if the technology is not exclusive to the company, as Nikon had VR capability for many years before they actually produced a VR lens. Canon has the fastest prime lenses available for SLRs. What other company has the following:
There are rumours that Canon will resurrect the discontinued 200mm f1.8 to match the current and highly regarded Nikon 200 f2 AF-S VR lens. Also, don’t forget that Canon once made a 50mm f1 lens (I think there was also a 50mm f0.95 lens for their 1960s and 1970s era rangefinders). Canon also have a range of tilt/shift lenses covering 24mm, 45mm, and 90mm, while Nikon only has an 85mm f2.8 T/S, albeit, the Nikon lens is very highly regarded, more so than the largely unspoken of Canon 90mm T/S lens. And, of course, Canon has a comprehensive range of IS lenses:
Put it all together with Canon’s public declaration of being the number one photographic company in the world and it’s hard not to see Canon as being the Microsoft of the photographic world. Hell, as I was typing this up and realizing just how comprehensive Canon’s lens line-up is, it had me thinking of a switch J If you were a beginning photographer researching which of the two major pro brands to invest in, it would behoove you to gravitate towards Canon. The majority of news, sports, and wedding photographers are Canon-based, and for good reason. Canon has consistently kept their SLR offerings up to date and have pushed the edge of the art for high ISO image quality, frame rate speed, and high resolution. Once Canon has updated their 1Ds Mk II to Mk III status, there will be no better one-two punch in the SLR market than the 10 MP, 10 fps 1D3 and the rumoured 22 MP 1Ds3 (subject to Nikon producing competitive D3H and D3X cameras). And, you gotta love that Canon has put weather sealing in their flash units, which is a natural progression of putting weather sealing o-rings all over their cameras and lenses. It’s not to say that everything Canon does is perfect, because like every other brand, there have been lapses and a need to build to a certain price point, which limits how good some features can be. Case in point, the Rebel XTi maybe the best selling SLR in the world, but those who care about such things, deplore its poor quality viewfinder. However, Canon is but one guilty party among all the brands making consumer SLRs, although Pentax and Nikon have heard the whingeing and have improved the viewfinder quality in their most recent cameras. The 30D is also another product that while solid and very capable, didn’t catch the photographic world on fire like the Nikon D200. However, on the debit side of the ledger, the 5D is a very significant product, because it brings full frame digital capture to a price point that many serious amateurs and pros can actually afford. Who wouldn’t want to shoot with a high-resolution 1Ds camera, but who amongst the general population can afford $9,000 for a camera? At $2800, the 5D, while still expensive, is not unreasonable for what it offers. And seriously, who but Canon could afford to produce a relatively affordable full frame camera? It’s well known now that Canon develops and produces its own sensors, which provides it with vertical integration of all of the major components needed to produce a state of the art SLR. I think only Panasonic has the same capability as Canon to develop its own sensor for use in its own SLRs, but Panasonic only has one SLR. Fuji also make their own SLR, but need to piggyback on Nikon cameras and lenses, as there is no Fuji system to speak of otherwise. Another debit for Canon is its responsiveness to the needs of its market, specifically, the pro market that gives Canon so much visibility on the sidelines of sporting events and news scrums. For example, the original 16-35 f2.8 lens was an okay lens in the film era, but perhaps so-so in the digital world due to the high demands placed on lenses by capture sensors. Note about debits and credits, in the consumer world, a debit is regarded as a minus while a credit is a positive, but in the accounting world, debit just represents the left side of the ledger column while a credit represents the right side of the column. If one side goes up, the other side must go down. With the third generation of 1D cameras coming, Canon introduced a new version of the 16-35 lens to match lens quality with sensor demands. Another example is the 85mm f1.2 lens. This is considered an outstanding piece of glass, but often considered a piece of something nasty when discussing focusing speed. Again, Canon listened and produced a new version that is now faster to focus. Meanwhile, Nikon users are wondering if their own outstanding 85mm f1.4 lens will ever be updated to AF-S standard from the 1980s era screw drive focusing. With so many positives, you’re perhaps wondering why I’m still a Nikon user. Let me clarify:
I’ve made my Nikon bed and I’ll be sleeping in it for probably many years to come. May 4, 2007 - I'm in a state of depression now that my beloved Vancouver Canucks are out of the NHL playoffs, by some fowl competitors from Anaheim. A state of mourning ensues until I'm over my grief, in the meantime, go Ottawa Senators (the last Canadian team left in the playoffs). Public comment:
May 3, 2007 - Is it me, or did I just read that Pop Photo considers the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC lens as being superior to the much more expensive Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 AF-S? I don't know if I should laugh or if I should cry ;^) A link posted by Mike Johnston at the TOP made for an interesting read. Diglloyd, a photographer with the means to afford and use both Nikon and Canon systems, is contemplating selling a big part of his Nikon kit in favour of going whole-hog to the Canon system based on the potential and expectations of the coming Canon 1D3. I’m sure much of what Diglloyd has written sums up a lot of what many Nikon users have felt or are currently feeling, that Nikon is always behind the times and is not able to keep up with the Canon juggernaut. This is not an incoherent rant, but one that intelligently touches on various issues that have irked many Nikon users over the years. My own observation of the Nikon versus Canon debate in the digital age have been:
I thought it was fantastic that Nikon produced a 200mm f2 lens and when they followed that up with a 300mm f2.8 VR lens, I thought the bubble had finally burst and that Nikon was well on its way to upgrading it lens line up. Unfortunately, instead of a flood, we received a trickle run off in the form of the 105 VR Micro and assorted consumer quality zoom lenses. No big VR super telephoto lenses and no revamping of any of the prime lenses below 105mm. We’re also seeing a slow killing off of the F mount legacy. Instead of taking a big one-time hit as Canon did in 1986 with the move to the EOS EF mount, Nikon is bringing the F mount into the 21st Century by attrition. There is the distinct impression that Nikon would love to kill the manual focus lens legacy and just move straight on into the AF-S and/or VR era. I don’t have any problem with Nikon doing away with their manual focus (MF) lenses; however, with millions of those lenses floating around the world, I also recognize that there has to be some legacy and usability for those users with modern SLRs. The way the D2X and D200 bodies allow for the use of current technology lenses along with old school MF lenses shows that Nikon has the ability to adapt while recognizing and maintaining its cherished legacy. If Nikon wants to do away with the AIS lenses then it should also kill off all the screw driven AF lenses at the same time. Then introduce a whole new and comprehensive set of redesigned lenses that use the AFS focusing motor and throw in VR into as many as the buggers as possible (exceptions acceptable for specialty lenses such as tilt/shift designs). And for goodness sake, if Nikon is going to be behind the curve as far as high ISO quality is concerned, throw us some fast primes to compensate for the noise. It’s pathetic that Nikon users have to look at Sigma (in recent times, a more innovative lens maker than Nikon has been) for a fast, normal prime lens (30mm f1.4). Yah, I know that this all costs money and that the world does not revolve around me, and gosh darn it, Nikon Corp. is doing just fine and dandy selling all those D40 and D80 SLRs. But, wouldn’t it be nice to offer all those D40 and D80 users a clear upgrade path and comprehensive photographic system that will meet all their future needs (pro and amateur alike)? Nikon’s got the consumer range of cameras and lenses nicely covered with more 18-XXX lenses available than necessary, but would it hurt to give users of its higher end products a bone with some tiny morsels of flesh still on it to satiate our hopes of an improved system? What happened to the Nikon of the 1960s to the early 1980s, when it was the leader of the pact with innovation and some wildly fantastic lens designs? Throw us a roadmap as other companies have done and show us what Nikon will do and offer instead of remaining secretive and forcing more of its higher end users to read the tea leaves and decide if it’s worthwhile to switch to a company that really is innovating and producing compelling products for the pro market. If there’s a full frame SLR in the works, I can’t see it as anything but a positive for Nikon users to know that they too will have an uber resolution camera to upgrade to. Actual specs and details don’t have to be provided, just an acknowledgement in plain language that Nikon will remain competitive and ensure that its users will not be left behind. Otherwise more of us will be doing the same as Diglloyd has decided to do. Despite the heart and hand wringing above, I actually do have faith that Nikon will produce stellar responses to the Canon SLRs. Nikon knows how to make good cameras and one of the smartest things it’s done is to keep having Giorgetto Giugiaro design its flagship cameras. While Canon has some wonderful innovations, think of the small and sometimes subtle things Nikon has done over the years that are now standard in other brands.
My big beef is (using one’s best irate grandma voice), where’s the lenses? I have the 85mm f1.8 lens, but I really want to buy the 85mm f1.4, but I really don’t feel like blowing $1200 on a lens that still uses a screw to focus with. I really want an 85mm f1.4 AF-S VR lens and I’m willing to spend the money that such a lens would cost, but instead, I make do with the much cheaper 85 f1.8. Similarly, I had long desired a real macro lens and the 105mm f2.8 Micro made for the best compromise between the three offerings of the 60, 105, and 200 lenses. However, when rumours surfaced about a new AF-S VR version, well, I held tight and waited and was rewarded with being able to buy a lens with all the right kinds of technology I desired. The 105, 200 f2 and 300 f2.8 AF-S VR lenses clearly show that Nikon hasn’t lost its ability to produce outstanding lenses, but why oh why are they seemingly so complacent about revamping the rest of the line up in this very demanding digital age? And, remember, many of the current AF lenses were designs from the 1960s and 1970s that were just given updates over the years for lens coatings and auto focus, but the core designs have rarely changed. I can dream and hope that Nikon is taking its time doing exactly what I desire, redesigning all its lenses to 21st Century standards to work with digital sensors, i.e. preparing for the über resolution D3X. It would be fantastic if Nikon also took some tips from Hasselblad to produce a symbiotic relationship between lenses, sensors, and the software to process the image files, as Hassie has done with the H3D. It would be like having DXO treatment automatically for every file taken in-camera rather than having to use various converters and plug-ins to correct images out of camera, as we do now. May 1, 2007 - Excuse the lack of posting the past week; you know how it is with life with a kid's birthday party to prepare for (not so little boy turned nine last week) and out of town relatives stopping by for a visit. Although the review is a few days old, if you haven't read it, take a peek at Mike Johnston's review of the Leica M8 at the TOP. The pros of the M8 is here and the cons, the more interesting piece, is here. To paraphrase one of the comments posted from the cons piece, Mike Johnston and I are continents apart politically, but I admire his masterful skills as a writer of photography. He's also a music lover and he clearly enjoys fine audio equipment to listen to his collection of jazz music; how can I not like this guy 8^) The man's got a huge pair of balls to be posting a mildly negative review of the M8 in light of the zealous affection many of the Leica-initiates have towards the fabled German cameras and lenses. And, he will need (needed) some mighty flame resistant underwear to protect those balls. Johnston explains some of the things that I thought of for the M8, things that I wouldn't have bothered saying because I ain't got no street cred with Leicas. Sure, I've used a fabulously minty M3 sometime back, but that's piddling and of no comparison to Johnston's credibility as an actual (former) M owner and user. He's been bitten by the Leica bug many a year ago and he regularly recounts those years in his writings. You sense that he regrets selling his M6 despite moving full on into the digital world with his Minolta 7D. So, if he says the M8 is close, but not quite there, that's good enough for me given who the man is and has been in life's journey. For me, I couldn't get past the issue of the IR sensitivity and the need for hot mirror filters on every lens used with the M8. Spend $5000 and you gotta use some filters with the lenses?! However, to be fair, the original Nikon D2H also had IR issues and required the use of hot mirror filters, which is ridiculous for a camera that caters to pros. I suppose that there was an expectation that a Leica M8 would, or should have been a perfect M camera, but I also couldn't get passed the lack of weather sealing, which means the M8 would be the first M camera that could not withstand the elements as well as its predecessors. The usual clichés come out, the worse being the "it's the photographer, not the camera," which is a load of smelly stuff you'd rather not step into, if you were to give Moose Peterson or Arthur Morris an M8 and expect them to take wildlife and bird photos with it. Or, Dave Black and expect him to get that Sports Illustrated cover shot while covering any of the varied sports he photographs. Yes, in the right hands and for the right situations, the M style camera offers some compelling attributes that allow the genre to excel, but the other cliché, horses for courses, is the one to live by. Just as one camera bag cannot fulfill every single need for a photographer, neither can one camera. April 24, 2007 - It was close, but the Vancouver Canucks finally got the monkey off their backs and have made it through to the second round of the NHL playoffs...now back to our regularly scheduled equipment junkie blog (was so depressed for a bit when the Canucks dropped two in a row to the Dallas Stars that I couldn't write ;^) Rob Galbraith appears to be besotted by the new Canon 1D3. There is even a fantastical reference to "publishable pictures" at ISO 12800, but given that "publishable" likely means only in newspapers, that ain't quite as impressive as it may first read. However, that isn't to take away anything from the Canon 1D3, because the realm of ISO 12800 is pure fantasy for Nikon shooters. Canon's been eating Nikon's breakfast, lunch and dinner for high ISO quality in the pro-level cameras and the 1D3 seems to continue that trend. While Nikon has made significant strides in recent years at the consumer level with the D50 and D40/D40X models, we can only wait to see if Nikon can match those strides at the pro-level where few users have expressed any satisfaction shooting in dimly lit arenas and other such venues. There is rumour that Nikon is set to announce the D3H model fairly soon, as in May with fall availability, which while a bit late, isn't too bad of a response time. Nikon definitely has to have something in the leadup to the summer Olympics in 2008, a traditional event for new and beta trials. Ideally, both H and X models will be announced and made available by the end of the year to provide the Nikon using pros with ample time to become familiar with the capabilities of the next generation pro cameras. While I would gladly welcome a D3H announcement, it's not something that I'm looking for myself, as much as 8 to 10 fps and 10 to 12 MP would make the gearhead in me besotted too. I'm still pining away for the full frame, 24 MP D3X, as much as it's still vapourware and a pipedream. April 20, 2007 - Reader's comment:
I tried the whack fix too (A few times), but unfortunately, did not work for me. Also tried the hold switch on and off 10x and then resetting the iPod, but also no luck. I’ve discussed this before, but it’s always fun taking pictures of kids. A long, long time ago, in a place far, far away, when I was kid, my pop use to take family photos every so often on Saturday nights with his old (now mine) Canon FTb, 50mm lens, and some sort of archaic flash unit (can’t even remember if it was manual or auto). He’d set up his rickety tripod (also mine, but tossed away in my closet somewhere), mount the camera, set the self timer and then rush over to where my mother and I were for the Kodak moment. On Monday, he would drop off the film at the nearest film development shop (no Sunday shopping back then) and maybe the following Monday, he’d pick up the prints. Being a proprietor of a little corner store, he didn’t always have a lot of time, so sometimes it might be a few weeks from Kodak moment to actually seeing the Kodak prints. The only instant gratification we had back then were from the Polaroid prints with my camera, but Polaroid prints were something like a buck per little photo, so my dad wasn’t keen to let me blow away his profits on film, and for a time, before I got a matching Polaroid flash unit, disposable flash bulbs. Today, kids still enjoy the thrill of seeing a print, but instead of waiting days, the kids usually ask to see the image on the LCD screen of digital cameras immediately after the picture has been taken. And with my kids, they also know that a print can be made within minutes of me taking a photo on one of the Epson printers. They’re also a bit spoiled in being able to enjoy having prints range from 4x6 inches to 16x20 – not that I have actually printed a 16x20 merely for the kid’s enjoyment. It’s interesting to look at my own progression from film to digital since starting the hobby. The birth of my first child coincided with when I started with photography, so I took a lot of photos from a combination of excitement with having my first baby, to experimenting photographically. With the second child, I was still film based when she was born, but before she was a year old; I bought the Coolpix 950 and started capturing most of the family moments digitally. With the third child, almost all of her photos have been digital. She knows nothing about the film process and the need to wait for pictures to be printed at an outside lab. Computers are another aspect of daily life that has changed significantly over the decades. I bought my first “real” computer at 18 (not counting the more toy-like Commodore Vic 20), which means half my life has been familiar with the computing age. My kids have known about computers all their young lives and regularly boot up an old notebook to play some games and my son is asking about accessing the Internet to check up on his favourite hockey team, the Tampa Bay Lightning, or his favourite cartoon character, Yu-Gi Oh. Sometimes, I think about some of the old stuff and wonder if it wouldn’t be cool to have some retro stuff in the house. Tarantino made the 1970s cool, as impossible as that may seem and some of the old stereo components from back then now have character compared to the ubiquitous black boxes sold in the electronics huts today. My first “real” stereo was a hand me down Pioneer integrated amp that had switches and dials all over it with faux wood panels. Brutal sound, but to a teenager listening to his cassettes and LPs, ignorance was sonic bliss. Accuphase is one brand that has kept that retro, Japanese cool look, unfortunately, no one but early Microsoft shareholders can afford Accuphase gear. Rotel also once had their best gear look like the retro Japanese gear with real wood side panels. Actually, real wood side panels were a hallmark of higher end Japanese components right into the 1990s, as I recall my first CD player was a Sony ES carousel player with those woodies on the sides. My only excursion to retro sound now is just throwing a couple of tubes in between input and output in an otherwise solid-state chain of gear. And perhaps I should qualify all this desire as wanting the retro look without wanting the sound quality of real retro gear, unless of course we’re talking about really old school gear made by the legends of the golden age of hi-fi, such as Fisher, McIntosh, Quad, and Marantz. Back in the day when transistors did not exist as viable input and output devices. I still kick myself for not buying a set of 1980s vintage Classe DR-3 amps. Pure and sweet 25 watts of Class A bias sound that kicked the crap out of 200 watt Class A/B amps of the mid 1990s. Then there was that set of Quad ESL 68 electrostatic speakers that were going for half their retail price that I passed up on too, or a set of Martin Logan CLS electrostatics. Ah, just as well that I never bought them given my lack of time and space for any of those single male pursuits. Sigh… April 19, 2007 - Will wonders never cease to amaze. It took me quite a while to finally pull out my old iPod, the one that seemed to have expired prematurely and caused me to blow 400 clams on a new 80 GB model, and try a fix I read about on the 'net. Seems that hard drives going a bit wonky is a common problem and a free and quick fix is to pry the iPod apart and place a folded up business card between the hard drive and the interior side of the case. Sounds pretty silly, but since it's free and relatively hassle free, why not give it a shot. I used my Leatherman tool with its smallest flat head screwdriver to pop open the iPod. With no business cards within easy reach, I took a piece of 4x6 photo paper and cut a 1x4 inch strip and folded it in half twice for about a 1x1 inch piece. Popped the cover back together, heard a bit of a nasty electronic sound come from the iPod, but then no more clicking sounds were heard from the hard drive after I reset it. Placed the iPod in my dock and lo and behold, music is once again coming out of my somewhat scarred unit. The only quibble is a small warp in the case from where I first started prying open the case, but tis a small thing to have the iPod functional once again. The business card fix, highly recommended for sick iPods! Last
weekend was when one of the semi annual camera swap meets occurred in
Vancouver. Meets are generally held in April and October at various locations
in the greater
I shared a table with a couple of friends, as we were all trying to sell a number of items that we either did not need, or wanted to liquidate for upgrades. I went in with approximately $3000 worth of gear at the then fair market value and thought I’d be pretty happy if I were able to leave with about $2500 in my pocket. I left with all of $500 as I learned the dynamics of a camera swap meet. My observation is that there are two peak periods of activity, first thing in the morning when the doors open at 9 am for the early bird attendees (for an extra $10 more than the normal $5 entrance fee), and after lunch, when the show starts to wind down for the 3 pm closing and everyone tries to make the last hour deals. The early bird attendees pay more for the privilege of getting first crack at all of the items for sale and my friends did pretty well during that first hour, whereas I sold nothing. Oh, did I mention my friends were Canon shooters and had a steady stream of Canon admirers walking by ooh’ing and ah’ing at some of the high priced items such as 1v bodies and some L lenses. Actually, one of the Canon sellers did well, with the other faring about as well as me, because his big-ticket items were the two 1v bodies, which did not sell. Me, I was the black sheep with my gold Nikon boxes on the other side of the table, but I had some nice gear too. Some of the items were the 17-35 AF-S, 18-35, 24-85 AF-S and 35-70 f2.8 lenses, along with some SB28 flash units, Minolta film scanner and sundry items such as TTL cords, flash brackets and soft focus filters. Going by memory, the items I sold were the 24-85 AF-S lens, the film scanner, a soft focus filter, a flash bracket, and a TTL cord. It wasn’t that I didn’t have a steady stream of people coming by, but over the course of the day, it got annoying having to open up the boxed items and show them to people who were obviously browsing and not really interested in buying. Note to self; display the items outside of the boxes if I decide to attend another swap meet. One fellow came by several times to admire the 35-70 f2.8 lens and I could tell he was on the bubble and maybe a gentle prod by me would burst it to allow the cash to exchange hands. I quietly, but not so subtly suggested that he could make me an offer on the lens and that no fair offer would be turned down. The bubble was expanding to near bursting point, but in the end, he walked away, shaking his head. Given his very strong interest, I’m thinking the head was shaking for walking away from a lens that he desired very much and that he could have bought for a reasonable price. The 17-35 AF-S lens was also one that received much attention, but it’s one of those bigger ticket items that seemed to be beyond the reach of most of the people asking about it. That’s not to say that people don’t come around with big wads of loot in their pockets, because right beside me, one fellow was selling a very expensive 85 f1.2 L lens and got what he asked for it in cash from an up and coming photographer. The dynamic I seemed to be attracting were the bargain hunters, those who desire, but are unwilling to part with their cash unless you were willing to be bent over by them. In a swap meet as big as the one I was at, chances are you’re not going to be the only guy selling Nikon gear, and as it happened, there was another fellow selling some similar items as me. The other person also had a 17-35 lens, as well as an SB28 flash unit amongst other items and some people tried to play us off one another. “I see you have a 17-35 lens, but the guy over there is selling his for only X amount of dollars.” Oh, okay, well, if you’re interested in mine then I’ll match his price – but I won’t beat it, or you can make me an offer. I wasn’t about to be baited into a price war for an item already priced at below fair market value. Or, “You have an SB28 flash unit with all the original packaging, case and manual, but the other guy has nothing but the flash and is selling it for X amount less than you. Match it, or else I walk.” Sorry, but you can take a walk. As I said, bargain hunters won’t buy unless they think they’ve screwed you over with a killer deal at your expense. Some other people try to wait you out, like a vulture circling high above a weakened prey. They come in the morning to see what you have and might even talk price, but then walk away. Then you see the person come by every so often to check on your table and see if the item they want is still there. Near the end of the show, they return with anticipation of your desperation to sell, hoping to score a deal. For some items, I did indeed lower the price over the course of the day, but at the end of the day, for some items, the price offered was too low for me to stomach and I preferred walking out with my gear then letting someone boast about getting the best of me. One of the items that I did sell for less than expected was the old Minolta film scanner. The guy who bought had looked at it earlier in the day and when he came around again, he said he only had so much money and would I accept. In the one second it took me to accept his offer, I ran through this thought process: only one person has shown any interest in this scanner, what are the chances that I’ll be able to sell it for more to someone else today with only a few hours left in the show? Slim to none. Sold! Most people also asked why I was selling the items, perhaps wondering if something was wrong with them. My response was that I was upgrading to a high-end Nikon digital system and I wanted to sell off items that would not be necessary with such a kit, which regular readers will know is the truth. The SB28 flashes are not TTL compatible with the current Nikon D-SLRs, and the 17/18-35 and 24-85 lenses are redundant with 17-55 and 28-70 AF-S lenses in the kit. Ironically, I dropped off most of the items that did not sell over to my local shop to sell on consignment. Selling on consignment took a while, but eventually, I sold all my items for more than what I asked for at the swap meet and even after the consignment fee, I did better than if I had sold all the items to the bargain hunters that early spring day back in April 2006. However, I was willing to accept the lower returns for the convenience of selling all at once. It didn’t happen and now that I’m pretty set with my gear, I don’t anticipate going to another swap meet as a seller. Selling on consignment is worth the time and cost for me because I let the store talk about the equipment within an approved range of prices and generally, the store tries to get as high a price for me as possible, which is obviously in their own interest too. I wouldn't mind attending again as an observer of the wares, but my quick look around last year's meet revealed mostly "old school" items 8^) April 17, 2007 - The use of a flash unit seems to be one of the technical facets of photography that few people love, but that most can’t do without. Say you’re a wedding or event photographer, which means that you generally work with a handheld camera. You’re in a darkly lit environment and you need to counteract the too slow shutter speed that will blur your photo, so you either:
You can have your flash brackets, you can have your flash modifiers like a Demb or a Fong Dong, you can use the flash off-camera via a TTL cord, or wirelessly these days with a Nikon or Canon kit, but at the end of the day, your photos will still look (usually, very obviously) like they have been lit with a small strobe unit. The best use of flash is to bounce and/or spread the light over a much larger surface, such as you do with an umbrella, soft box, or simple white walls or ceilings. Unfortunately, most wedding and event photography is akin to paparazzi, except that you’re paid to be a paparazzi and no one is going to come along and punch you in the face, rip your camera out of your hands, and then stomp on it. You just can’t run around with an umbrella-bounced strobe unit to take flash photos. A couple of years ago, when I started paying attention to what the real wedding pros were doing, I kept reading of one particular way of taking photos that seemed near universal; the pros shoot as much as they can in ambient light and avoid flash unless absolutely required. How they do this is usually a mix of using fast prime lenses and bumping up the ISO. I tried this approach for my cousin’s wedding last fall and the results weren’t too bad. I managed to get away with using ISO 400 most of the time inside the church using f2 on the fast prime lenses, but even f2.8 on a zoom wasn’t so bad because the mass of the bigger zoom lenses provided some dampening of their own for the slow shutter speed. Eschewing flash serves a couple of purposes, it’s less distracting for everyone else in attendance, and it allows you to keep going even when the church/minister has forbade the use of flash during certain moments of the ceremony. It’s taken me this long to finally figure out why so many wedding shooters avoid flash like the plague. Speaking of flash technology, ever notice that when you use an intelligent flash system like Nikon’s that takes into account focus point and subject distance, that if your subject is a middle distance away from you, the flash exposure will be fine, but anything in between the flash and the subject will be overexposed by the flash? It makes sense because your intended subject being father away requires more flash pop than a subject closer to the flash does. What if someone made a dual-head flash unit? By dual-head, I mean two small, but individually movable, or telescopic, flash heads in a package the same size as current on-camera strobes. It would require a fair bit of technology or programming to have an intelligent flash unit that would tie into multiple focus points and be able to adjust automatically as it sees the subjects. Default mode be with the two flash heads acting as one big unit, no different than current flash heads, but intelligent mode would see the two individual heads telescope as needed to mitigate subjects in foreground and background. With two individual heads, you could also alter the ratio with one bumping up as needed for subjects father away on its side and the other head ramping down output if a subject were sensed being closer on its side. High ISO is another one of those technical matters that you hate, but is often forced to use because there’s no other choice. While Canon is the acknowledged leader in high ISO quality, other brands are starting to catch up. Unfortunately, being as good as Canon is still means pretty crummy high ISO quality so far as color fidelity and details are concerned. There’s just no way that ISO 3200 quality can touch ISO 100 and describing high ISO images is often qualified with the word “usable.” I don’t want usable, I want excellent if not outstanding quality at any ISO I choose to use. So, I’m thinking, some camcorders have three CCDs, Foveon chips use three CCDs, and Fuji has two CCDs in their Super CCD chips. The camcorders and the Foveon chips separate the primary RGB colors to individual layers for claimed superior color fidelity. The Fuji Super CCD has one set of pixels for normal dynamic range shots, and another set of pixels for highlights to increase the dynamic range of the capture chip. My general observation with Nikon D-SLRs, is that they have a sweet spot range of three stops, e.g. ISO 100, 200, and 400. Anything above ISO 400, and many users start to complain about the quality and many state avoiding ISO 800 and higher. While I try and use the lowest ISO possible, I have certainly been able to produce very good looking 16x20 size prints with files from a handheld D2X at ISO 400 (with judicious Noise Ninja cleanup and the with the use of a Nikkor 28-70 f2.8 AF-S lens to capture the original image). So, if three-stops is about the range of acceptance for high quality image files, what if someone were to create a 3-CCD/CMOS chip with one layer optimized for ISO 50 to 200, a second layer for ISO 400 to 1600, and a third for ISO 3200 to 12,800? From my Lilliputian understanding of digital chips (those in the know are certainly welcome to correct me), a chip really only has one set ISO sensitivity and anything higher is merely amplification (or gain) of the signal. What Canon has done with the new and coming 1D3 is amazing to obtain what some consider to be fairly clean ISO 6400; however, the 1D3’s nominal ISO is actually 100. I have no idea if any of this is feasible, just merely throwing out some random thoughts. April 15, 2007 - Continuing on the theme of old versus new, last week, a coworker asked me about her old manual camera and where she might be able to have it serviced in town. She mentioned one service shop that she’s been using for a number of years to keep her old camera going and after hearing which shop it was, I stated that if this shop couldn’t do it then no shop in Vancouver could. The essence of the problem wasn’t so much the quality of the service and workmanship, as it was the lack of parts to keep the old camera going. Her camera is not a main brand such as from Nikon, Canon, Pentax, or Minolta, so parts availability has become an issue. I suggested that if she’s still into using the old manual cameras that she might consider picking up a Nikon FM or other ubiquitous camera for which there will almost always be parts available due to the sheer number of cameras made. She didn’t go for that because she prefers the feel of her camera and she likes the lens she has. I was thinking isn’t using one manual camera like using them all? Other than the lens, the basics are all the same. She also mentioned that she couldn’t work with digicams because of the shutter lag and lack of instant response. I thought, wow, a consumer eschewing the new fangled technology for quite a cogent reason. I was impressed and I thought it was very cool that she, an otherwise non-photographer, had no problems working with an all manual camera. Okay, maybe she isn’t that much of a non-photographer, especially after she casually mentioned how she really didn’t want another camera because she knew how her camera worked, how it had a really nice meter, and how sharp the lens is. Non-photographers don’t discuss these types of technical matters, nor do they mention how the shutter sticks, which necessitates regular trips to the camera tech shop. Suggesting that she would be the perfect candidate for a Leica M8 produced shock after she asked how much that would cost. In the end, I gave her KEH’s website, as well as suggesting eBay as sources for her specific model of camera to cannibalize for parts to keep hers going. My friend Rob Greer, sent me this link on David Jay’s blog, debating the merits of Pictage versus other ways to order prints for wedding jobs. It was quite an interesting debate and it was so long that I only managed to read about half of it before deciding to move on after getting a sense of what the debate is about. First some background. Pictage was founded by noted and retired wedding pro, Gary Fong, to provide wedding photographers with a one-stop, online presentation and print ordering service. The idea is that after a photographer has done some basic edits, the files are uploaded to Pictage, which will present a web gallery for clients to view and immediately place print orders without having to contact the photographer. The concept is to allow the photographer to outsource the mundane stuff and allow the photographer to concentrate on other tasks such as meeting new clients and shooting more jobs. However, Pictage does charge a monthly fee plus print charges. David Jay (DJ), the blogger and also a noted wedding pro who created ShowIt Web (Flash-based web slideshow program), is big into Pictage’s service, whereas another noted wedding pro, the Becker, isn’t impressed with Pictage and suggests an alternative approach. The two go back and forth in the blog debate, with peripheral posts from other readers, and the already noted, Gary Fong. DJ likes using Pictage because it allows him to have time to focus on other income generating activities, such as ShowIt Web. Outsourcing means more free hours and he considers Pictage’s rates to be reasonable. Becker also outsources the printing for his clients, but he hires a studio assistant to edit his wedding photo files first, which he believes to be more cost effective than using Pictage given the volume he’s doing. In the blog debate, I see both as arguing in absolutes, each believes that his approach is the best, but for most of us, the world is grey and we don’t all fit into one side or the other so perfectly. For me, I like Becker’s approach, because there is more control of the job in-house instead of outsourcing to a service that has questionable customer service and is known to have spotty quality unless your last name happens to be Jay, Reggie, or Fong. In other words, if you’re a big time shooter, Pictage offers champagne service and quality, but for everyone else, it's sparkling wine. I “think” I’ve seen Pictage quality from another photographer showing me some sample prints, and if they really were Pictage prints then I’d say that the quality is okay, but nothing particularly special. They looked about the same as some other prints I’ve seen from FutureShop…and I should probably not say anymore about that less I put my foot in some yucky stuff and then stuff my mouth with it ;-) If you like messing around with editing and printing then DIY is the likely approach, but if you’re like my buddy Larry, then Pictage could be the right approach. Larry doesn’t like spending his time editing and messing around with digital workflow. He’s much rather outsource that grunt work so that he can focus his energy on other activities. While this is just a very general and very stripped down view of all the points raised in the debate, to me, it’s about personalities. Some, like me, don’t mind blowing a weekend sitting in front of the computer editing and tweaking files for printing to their big Epson units, while others would find that to be torturous. But, I also doubt that I'll ever have the volume to make Pictage's fee worth my while. April 13, 2007 - Public comment:
Milk carts...nothing wrong with milk carts; a staple of every university age male student living in the dorms. Vinyl? I ain't got no time for scratchy records. It's bad enough I need old school tubes to mellow out the transistors, don't wanna over do it now. Next thing, you'll be telling me to get some old Quad electrostatics... Both Eric's and Ken's comments had me thinking about iPods and "coke bottle" lenses. Are we so set in our ways that we dismiss new technology for the old tried and true, or perhaps more aptly, for what we know rather take a chance on something we don't know? Wunderplastic cameras and lenses have been around for a generation, but I and many other photographers don't care for them too much, preferring the solid heft and cold feel of metal bodied cameras and lenses. And yet, if one were to drop a wunderplastic camera or lens, we could conceivably get away with dusting it off and continue using it with maybe a minor cosmetic scratch. Metal cameras feel better, but may end up worse for wear in a similar dropped moment. I look at my $40 Nikkor E 75-150 lens and marvel at how well built "crappy" consumer lenses were back in the "good old days." Looking over a mid 1990s 80-200 consumer Nikkor zoom lens and I marvel at how Nikon and other brands could get away with selling such plastic crap - lenses with even plastic lens mounts (gross!) However, that crappy 80-200 zoom lens was once favored by the great Galen Rowell as a lightweight lens that offered "publishable" image quality. Rowell was a photographer who pushed to the extreme many times in his too short life and given that he made his living from selling high-quality images, you'd think that he knew a thing or two about image quality from lenses. Rowell used what worked for him to accomplish the goals he set out and if that meant having lenses as old as a 1960s vintage 20mm f4 lens sitting beside his modern 80-400 VR lens, so be it. He wasn't hung up about having to use the latest or greatest, just whatever worked. There was talk of how before he died, he had been using F100 and stock F4 cameras instead of the F5, because the smaller size suited his style better. I think some consider the 18-200 VR lens to be a "coke bottle" lens and full disclosure, it wouldn't be my first choice of lens for a money shoot, but, overall, it really ain't a bad lens. Or at least, my sample appears to be decent and there seem to be a few real pros that have also discovered that the 18-200 coke bottle won't embarass itself when compared to the big, constant f2.8 lenses. I suppose that after reaching a certain level of knowledge and experience and having the good fortune to be able to afford and use some excellent cameras and lenses may lead us to develop tastes and attitudes leading to champagne wishes and caviar dreams, but to others, it's all just a bunch of sparkling wine and fish eggs 8^) Same goes for the iPod. While some dismiss it as consumer crap, both the leading North American audiophile magazines, Stereophile and the Absolute Sound, have praised the iPod, albeit with some caveats (that's caveats, not caviar, or the Harry Rosen cravates that Eric refers to in his post script ;^). These caveats are to use lossless or full resolution files such as ALC or AIFF, a docking station and a good headphone amp to bypass the internal circuitry of the iPod, and good headphones. Since caviar is just a bunch of fish eggs to me, I just use my Shure E2 buds straight out of the iPod's headphone jack during my commute to and from work in my forty foot limo that seats fifty, but at home, I use the dock for speaker or headphone listening. Now Stereophile and the Absolute Sound can be quite ridiculous for some of the equipment they review. Both magazines have reviewed cable sets that would cost as much as a mid-level BMW and speakers costing as much as high-end Porsche, but if both mags can come back down to earth and appreciate what the iPod has to offer, it can't be all that bad, can it? The iPod is of the here and now, but it also points towards the future which is very quickly coming upon us and that is that we will no longer be listening to CDs or records as source material, but hard drives filled with music files at whatever resolution we desire. Knowing myself too well, I look forward to advancements made in photography, audio, and computing technology and when something new comes along, I'm not so attached to the old that I won't give the new a try. I don't miss floppy disks, vinyl records, or film and I don't care to use my old D100 now that I have the D200. For that matter, it's sometimes hard to pick up the D200 when I've got the fantastic D2X right beside it. Others like their vinyl, their tube amps, the old manual film cameras and that's very cool too and if they can still make their original Pentium boxes chug along today, more power to them, but I like living in the modern era. I also like having and being able to use the right tool for the job, which just might mean using a coke bottle lens for travelling out of town while listening to an evil iPod for musical enjoyment ;^) April 12, 2007 - Public comment:
But I'm funny, how? Funny like a clown? I amuse you? I'm here to f'ing amuse you? What do you mean, funny? How am I funny? In case no one got this, these are lines by Joe Pesci's charactor in Goodfellas ;^) Actually, Ken's comments have me thinking about a few things, which I will try and post tomorrow. April 11, 2007 - Public comment about yesterday's post:
Ah, yes, my first year Poli Sci textbook. I have several textbooks from the "good old days" of university, which seems altogether of a vastly different era now. Much older, but not much wiser. Pentax's board of directors has rejected Hoya's original takeover offer, which was based primarily on issuing Hoya stock. Now Hoya is contemplating a takeover with cash for an outright purchase. I'm kinda curious where Samsung is on this takeover, given the partnership the big Korean company has with Pentax for rebadging Pentax D-SLRs as Samsung cameras. Are there foreign ownership laws in Japan that keep Samsung on the sidelines, because it certainly makes more sense to me for Samsung to be Pentax's suitor than Hoya. Noticed that Vistek, Canada's B&H, has a used Phase H20 digital back for the Hasselblad V system for sale at CAN $7000. While still pricey, this is within the realm of possible ownership for me at some point in the future. Of course, I have to spend another $1000 or so on a Bronica to Hasselblad V back adapter, but at least such an adapter exists and would allow me to utilize the old and forlorn Bronica system. Someday too, I'll add that beastly 500mm f8 lens to the Bronica kit 8^) Now $8000 is about where I expect the much anticipated first full frame D-SLR from Nikon to fall into. So, 16 MP Phase H20 or (expected) 24 MP Nikon D3X...Phase H20 or Nikon D3X...H20 or D3X...hmm? A D3X would be stupendous, but it ain't just an 8-grand purchase, what with an expected 40 MB RAW file requiring an equally stupendous computer to process those files. And what about the lenses needed to extract the best of that high rez chip? Tough call actually, but not one I need to make anytime soon. Whatever money I have this year has to go towards buying some more suits for work (I'm partial to Boss and Zegna) - on sale mind you, as few working stiffs can afford to buy at regular prices from Harry Rosen. Speaking of computers, a host of new apps have come out, or will very soon come out. Vista, Lightroom and CS3 being the most high profile ones that caught my eye. While CS3 is a no-brainer upgrade that will definitely happen later on this year, Lightroom doesn't float my boat and I don't know about Vista enough to trust ditching XP Pro yet. I admit to not seeing Vista yet, but the initial user experiences aren't making me rush out for it. Since my XP Pro-based system is running well with all the devices and apps I run on it, there's no rush and Microsoft will support XP for several more years to come. However, digital-based photographers seem to always want the "magic ring," the one application to rule them all that does three main tasks equally well, which is to say excellent, if not best in class:
Lightroom is one claim to the throne, while Aperture definitely looks intriguing now, but is only available for Mac. Me, I seem to do it the hard way with using Windows Explorer, of all things, to ingest my files from the flash card to the hard drive, then using NikonView to browse and cull the selects, and finally using Nikon Capture or Bibble for RAW conversion. Photoshop is used for more creative edits and preparing a file for printing. I don't caption or rate my files and merely use Windows Explorer to organize my folders. At this time, the process works fairly well for me, but I try to keep my eyes and ear open for the next greatest thing to come out ;^) April 10, 2007 - Easter long weekend meant a busy time cleaning house for the wife as well as reorganzing my home office yet again. Try as I might, I just can't integrate a high fidelity sound system into my small bedroom office space and still have room enough for the computer, monitors and printers, as well as all the other sundry items needed to support the office.
For a day, I did try utilizing my mid 1990s vintage Sonic Frontiers SFL-1 pre-amp acting as the control center for my compromised and desktop oriented hi-fi. Unfortunately, I eventually decided that having three tubed units was too much of a good thing and went back to using a Rotel integrated amp as a pre-amp into some powered monitor speakers (albeit tube buffered by a Musical Fidelity X-10). When I sat back and started listening, I felt something was amiss when listening to the system with my new iPod as a source. Did the SFL-1 make that big of a difference? To certain extent, yes it did, but to another extent, using CDs played back through a Benchmark DAC-1 was also a significant factor.
CDs, remember those? Just as vinyl gave way to CDs over two decades ago, CDs are now giving way to ripped or downloaded files stored on a hard drive. Convenience seems to win out over fidelity most of the time. While vinyl has made a modest resurgence, it's been a dead medium for me ever since I sold off my turntable a little over a decade ago. I wonder if in about two decades time if some mid-50s blogger will wax poetically about the good old days when he actually had to get off his duff to change a CD and not just sit back with his thought controlled playback device with fourth generation Internet access to just about every music track in existence. At least I have my powered speakers located better than the old setup, which was corner oriented and not condusive for imaging. The new setup is still not ideal and I have to do something pretty silly to equalize the sound because one speaker is hidden behind one of the LCD monitors. The other one has open air to my ears, so it tends to dominate unless I alter the balance between the speaker locations. Using a piece of thin cardboard to cover up and direct the sound towards the middle was just the ticket needed to balance the sound again. Hey, whatever works is my motto.
Speaking of LCD monitors, I'm trying a different setup here too. Instead of the usual main LCD in the center and the secondary LCD to the right for Photoshop palettes, I'm trying the secondary LCD to the left of the main monitor. This is to facilitate my natural tendency to look to the left at Adobe Bridge to select the images for edting in Photoshop. I'm working with a very minimal set of palettes on the main monitor to see how it goes. The 30-inch Dell can show a D2X file at 50% magnification and still have some space leftover for some palettes. Short-term, I may go back to the more traditional dual-monitor setup and just switch from Photoshop palettes to Bridge as needed. Long-term, triple monitors, here I come 8^) April 5, 2007 - Readers might find this article at PCWorld.ca interesting. There are some quotes from a person who shall remain unnamed for now ;^) The article is about using third-party refills, or original brand ink cartridges for inkjet printers. Apple finally announced what everyone has long suspected was coming, an 8-core Xeon-based Mac Pro. Only a measly CAN $8300 to build the kind of Mac Pro that I could "live" with 8^) According to research firm, IDC, Canon once again led all camera makers for market share in 2006 with 18.7%. The top five companies are as follows:
So, any guesses as to which company is missing from the top five? Samsung jumped all the way from 9th in 2005 to fifth in 2006 to displace Nikon, which came in sixth with 7.6%. Not very impressive is it? However, that's counting all digital cameras, SLRs and digicams. When taking out the digicams, which Nikon hasn't been a leader since the days of the venerable Coolpix 9xx series, and looking at SLRs, Nikon turns in a more respectable showing, coming in very strong second after Canon.
Presumably, the remaining 2.8% of SLR sales are divvied up amongst also-rans such as Samsung (really just Pentax SLRs) and Panasonic (in some ways, really just an Olympus SLR). Sony has done really well to go from nowhere to third with just one rather average SLR. However, without any new offerings from Sony for 2007, can it maintain third place? I doubt it. If Sony had more real SLRs available instead of some mocked up vaporware, then it would be interesting to see how the figures would change and which of the big two would be affected more, Canon or Nikon. Unfortunately, one camera a system does not make, even if there are a slew of promising new lenses to come. Nikon had amazing success in 2006 due to riding a wave of consumer SLR sales and it's not missing a beat with the introduction of the D40X, but, and it's a big-ass but, what of the higher end? I believe it was Thom Hogan who pointed this out: all of the success Nikon has had recently have been with products built in their Thailand factory. While I'm sure the Japanses factories are producing a decent number of D2Xs cameras and pro lenses, surely, they cannot be the only items taking up all those resources... April 4, 2007 - Nikon has a way cool Flash show called Universcale, which shows in grid/graphic form the relative scale from the largest thing known, the universe, to the smallest thing known, the proton. What it has to do with photography, I'm not sure, but it shows that someone at Nikon is thinking outside the box to have done all that work to create this feature. Follow-up (as provided by a reader) on the The Walt Disney Story featuring Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln show at Disneyland; the animatronic robot is currently on hiatus for Disneyland: The First 50 Magic Years, and there is suggestion that Disney will not continue with the robotic show that first surfaced in 1964. April 3, 2007 - A friend led me onto this comic strip, What the Duck. Very amusing and a little too truthful at times for photographers. I finally got around to trying the Stone Editions Adamant paper that I was less than thrilled with in the Custom Photo Album article. I figured that even if it was not appropriate for high-quality, critical use, I could get away with using it for family photos. Well, after producing one print from my Disneyland trip, using the Adamant paper, I am now disabused to that idea and now consider the Adamant to be pretty much the worse paper I've ever used in my time as a digital printer. And this is after using the paper with a custom profile created with the PrintFIX PRO. I know the PrintFIX PRO is capable of producing excellent printer/paper profiles and there is of course no question about the qualities of the Epson R2400 printer I used to print with, so anything looking like crap is attributed back to the Adamant paper. I thought maybe I'd try using the canned Epson Heavyweight Matte profile and bypass my normal printing routine, but this produced an even worse looking print. At least the custom profile got the colors within the lofty neighborhood of results I get with Moab Entrada, even if the entire Adamant print looked really washed out and lacking in crispness. The Adamant paper is probably fine for scrapbooking, e.g. to clue or tape your real pictures onto it, but for those use to obtaining excellent prints from their photo quality printers, the only appropriate uses I can think of for Adamant paper is to wrap fish with it, or to line the bottom of a bird cage. To be somewhat fair though, Stone Editions does warn that it isn't the best choice for detailed images, but that's being pretty generous looking at the end result. Adamant isn't suitable for any type of image, period! About the Disneyland article, I've been advised that good old Abe Lincoln (the robot) is still performing after all these decades since my childhood visit. As emailed to me:
Another anecdote that I forgot to mention; whenever I took my youngest, Sally (four years old), to the washroom, she would question why she had to use the men's washroom, when she is a "woman." Her proclamations would at times, be:
Due to her age and vocabulary, she would at times use "take" instead of "took" and miss a word or two in her sentences. Aw, such are the words that come out of babes and my only thought was, dear child, you ll be a woman soon enough to worry your old man's heart out. April 2, 2007 - A little ditty about my trip to Disneyland is now posted.
Very briefly though, I travelled very light by my standards. No tripod and just a single, smallish backpack to carry my gear, which consisted of a standard D200, 18-200 VR lens, SB800 flash, camcorder, and spare batteries and flash cards. How you see me at right (taken by my son, Patrick) is basically how I strutted around Disneyland. The 18-200 lens was mostly a great lens to use and fulfilled my expectations of what an all-in-lens consumer lens should be. However, that's not to say that it is perfect. There were several times that I really wanted to go wider than 18mm and many times that I wanted faster than the variable f3.5-5.6 aperture even after bumping up the ISO on the D200 to 1600 and even 3200 at times. The VR worked quite nicely though and at 200mm, it seemed more effective than the big 70-200, which shouldn't be a surprise given that the 18-200 VR is second generation compared to the older 70-200 lens. I was a bit wary of the lens initially given Nikon's somewhat lax QA for consumer lenses and feared misalignment of the internal elements which would result in the tell-tale sign of one side of the frame being slightly out of focus compared to the other. However, my lens appears to be a good sample and I've no major complaints about the image quality from this trip. I shot off over 1000 frames, but that's quite a misleading number, as I shot a number of duplicates and triplicates of some shots. For photos with the kids posing beside some of the Disneyland characters, I took even more, like six or eight frames. After whittling down the dupes, I was left with a little over 400 shots taken to work with and create some albums. Oh yah, the kids had a blast! March 18, 2007 - A look at some custom photo album options is now posted. Reader's comment about the article: Great article on photo album options, Edwin. Answered some of my questions as well. Supply of the Moab stuff is pathetic in Calgary, so if I'm going to be in "special order" hell I might try out the Unibind system - sounds like Scrapdish is a Canadian co? Without signing into their system (not tonight, too lazy) I can't tell if their prices are in US funds or CDN - am assuming US, is that correct? Did you find their shipping charges to be reasonable? Ken Most of Moab's products are easily available from Vistek in Toronto. It was only the Chinle Entrada 190 Natural pages that were special order. And, if you like the idea of double-sided Kokopelli paper for your album, better buy some from Vistek now before they're all gone forever ;^) Scrapdish is actually in the US, so all prices quoted on their website are US $. The shipping charges calculated by their online shopping cart will not be correct for Canadian delivery, despite being able to select Canada as a destination. For my order of the PhotoBook Creator binding machine and 10 12x12 inch covers, I had to pay another US $25 for S&H, which made the total something like US $40 or so for the S&H. The products themselves were in the US $200 range. Don't forget the 6% GST charged by Canada Customs too (I had to pay 13% because of provincial sales taxes, whereas you do not in Alberta). Since Scrapdish was the only reasonable way for a Canuck to order in the Unibind system, I found the S&H to be reasonable and their turnaround is relatively quick considering they have to order the items first from Unibind before shipping it up (two weeks). Next week is spring break in my neck of the woods, which means the kids are out of school for the week. The clan is off to Disneyland in sunny California for a few days to get away from the typical Canadian winter, as shown in the image above. So have a good one and I'll catch up with what's gone on next Saturday, March 24. March 13, 2007 - Lensbabies has announced a new Medium Format Lensbaby 3G. Available for Mamiya 645 and Pentax 67 systems. Pretty cool! March 9, 2007 - Everyone see the new Sigma lens? You know, the 200-500mm f2.8 constant aperture zoom lens. Weighs a mere 35 lbs. First thought in seeing the pictures is that Sigma should paint it white and call it Moby Dick 8^) Seriously though, I admire Sigma for having the wherewithal to produce a statement lens such as this. They've got chutzpah, something that Nikon doesn't seem to have a whole lot of these days. 30-years ago, it would have been Nikon that would have surprised and shocked the world with such a statement lens and sent out a message to its would-be competitors that Nikon would not be knocked off its perch. Now, to give Nikon its due, as far as I know, Nikon can still lay claim to the largest zoom lens made, the 1200-1700mm f5.6-8. A bazooka-sized lens if ever there was one. However, these days, Nikon seems more interested in solidifying the consumer-end of its product range than its professional-end. The original D2H was already obsolete when it came out and many can recall how agonizingly long it took for the D2X to come out and finally retire a good, but getting quite long in the tooth, D1X. Now, I fully realize that Nikon makes a fistful of money by catering to the mass market, but many of us would like to see Nikon take care of both ends equally. And, really, what's the hold up on those VR super telephoto lenses? Full frame cameras are one thing, but maybe Nikon would not have bled so many news, sports, and nature pros over the years if they had produced VR-capable super telephoto lenses as soon as they had the technical ability to do so. Sometimes, perception is everything. If Nikon does not have the perception of particularly caring about meeting the needs of high-end, but very high profile users, such as the news and sports shooters, what does that say to the potential purchaser looking to buy into a new camera system? Is Nikon's production capacity so limited that it cannot produce enough of anything? How about taking some of those profits from selling all those consumer SLRs and building a new factory? And, while you're at it, how about producing a 500-1000mm f4 G AF-S VR, just to show everyone that not only does Nikon have chutpah, but it also has a huge set of balls 8^) March 7, 2007 - Counterpoint from a reader about Lens and Shutter's service (original comments posted on March 1, below):
March 6, 2007 - Well, Nikon did indeed surprise with a new SLR announcement; however, it wasn't anything having to do with the flagship models and the much hoped for move from the D2 to the D3 generation. Instead, it was an unexpected, but welcome upgrade to the D40 to D40X status and an increase in resolution from 6 MP to 10 MP. I do recall reading something about this a little while ago, but I cannot where. It may have been a Thom Hogan prediction at some point in time. Along with the D40X, is now a VR version of the entry-level 55-200mm lens. I hope that Nikon also tweaked the AF-S motor for this lens so that it isn't so glacial in focusing speed, as the original I tried was. Adding VR to this lens definitely makes sense and one wonders why Nikon did not add VR to their relatively new 18-135 lens too - was it fear of siphoning off sales from the still hard to find and still pricey 18-200? I suspect that these two items are it for Nikon at this PMA show. Nikon Japan just issued their usual pre-PMA news release confirming their participation with a list of all the new goodies the company will be showing. I just don't see Nikon pulling anymore surprises with say a D3H SLR. I did a bit of lens testing on the weekend and it appears that I'm going to have to throw a wet blanket on the much-praised 75-150 f3.5 E lens that is very nearly, if not already, a "legend" lens. Maybe I bought a dud (maybe I shouldn't be expecting miracles for a US $40 lens). Comparing the shots taken with the 75-150 to everything else I had available turned in disappointing results on the D2X and I'm not talking about comparing to the big-buck 70-200 VR, but to a cheap little, early AF era 80-200 consumer Nikkor. The 18-200 lens was at all major focal length steps (except at 18mm) not as bad as I had feared based on the comments of some users. Unfortunately, at 18mm and wide open, it's gauzy soft. The 105mm f2.5 appears to deserve every last bit of praise it has garnered and for such an old design, holds its own against modern lenses. The 105mm VR appears to be deserving of legend status of its own with biting resolution wide open and at infinity, which is not suppose to be its forte. Does country of origin make a difference in lens quality? The cheap little 50mm f1.8 lens was once made in Japan, but is now made in China. Comparing one versus the other indicates the much older, made in Japan lens is better than the current D version made in China. These are all preliminary comments, as I want to do some more testing to make sure that I'm consistently getting the same results that I see from this first go around. I also have to remind everyone that sample to sample variation is a factor for most of us, except maybe Zeiss and Leica users. March 5, 2007 - In getting myself setup and prepared for creating some new custom albums, I needed to create some new profiles for the Moab papers I'm using with the albums. Moab Entrada and Moab Kokopelli Studio Semi Gloss are the featured papers and while the profile supplied by Moab seemed not too bad for the Kokopelli paper, the custom profile I created using the ColorVision PrintFIX PRO is still superior. I hadn't created new profiles in a while, so it was time to check ColorVision's website and make sure I had the latest version of the PrintFIX PRO software. Indeed, there was a whole new number upgrade from the original 1.0 to 2.0. A very pleasant surprise from the upgrade are color charts with individual patches that are larger than from the original software. You can see the difference between old (left) and new (right) below and you might think that a mm or two per square would not make much of a difference, but I assure you it does. The profiling process with the PrintFIX PRO is somewhat tedious with manual reading of each color patch; however, the larger patches provide for a certain "slop" factor in positioning the spectrometer's reading tip. Requiring less precision in positioning means faster profiling, which is definitely a good thing.
Another interesting change from V1 to V2 software is the option to profile additional patches for B&W printing. You can see the three regular color charts for the highest quality profiling option, along with the extended grey chart beside the PrintFIX PRO reader in the lower right of the image below. However, I haven't had an opportunity to compare a print using the new profile and comparing it to one made with Epson's own Advanced B&W driver.
I must say that creating custom albums is quite a tedious process with waiting being a big part of the tedium. Waiting for prints to be produced, waiting for prints to dry, spraying prints with noxious aerosols, waiting for prints to dry from spraying with noxious aerosols, then struggling to put the custom album together. But, more on the process and all my irks when the article is posted. I also had to trim a package of paper in preparation for use with another custom album option, which annoyed me, as I wished for pre-cut 12x12 inch size sheets of paper to make life easier. However, after trimming a package of 11x17 Kokopelli paper down to 11x12, I was able to use the trimmings and create 4x6 and 5x7 sheets for future use. I even had enough left over to create some 3x4 alphabet cards for my four-year daughter to practice with. Waste not, want not. March 4, 2007 - Nikon Canada has dropped the list price of all of the current D-SLRs, including the D2Xs. The last time the price dropped on the flagship camera, it was soon replaced; the D2X for the D2Xs. PMA starts next week; does this portend another announcement from Nikon? Were all those Coolpix cameras just a ruse to get Canon to announce first, so that Nikon could do the equivalent of an "October surprise?" Back in the 2004 US presidential election, some Democrats feared that Bush would pull an October surprise and announce the capture of Osama Bin Laden. The conspiracy theory being that Bin Laden had actually been captured long ago and had been kept on ice until needed by Bush to guarantee an electoral victory. Here's a post at Photo.net, with my only comment being that April 1 seems to have come a bit early. A few inconsistencies in the post does not lend it credence; however, I will be the first to eat my words if Nikon actually does announce something significant next week, but this would not be Nikon's usual course of action after having already announced products pre-PMA. It would also go against other murmurings I've heard that suggests nothing significant from Nikon until at least the end of this year. March 3, 2007 - Reader's comment on the High ISO test comparison:
So, my almost two-year old 40 GB iPod dies and after doing some research, I noticed that my symptons leading to premature death are quite common. The iPod first starts skipping tracks, being unable to play any song for more than a few seconds. Ultimately, it stops doing this and a sick iPod icon shows up on the LCD, which more or less means the iPod's hard drive is hooped. Before trying to wedge in a folded up business card, as per one alleged remedy, I'll have to see if the extra year of warranty that credit cards provide is legit and try and get the iPod replaced. In the meantime, I bought the latest 80 GB video-capable iPod to get me back into the groove again. Interestingly, the package for the current iPod had been trimmed down significantly from my first model. Two-years ago, iPods came in six-inch cube boxes, but today, they come in a box much more appropriate for the iPod's size. I wonder if Al Gore, who sits on the Apple board of directors, gave Steve Jobs some "inconvenient truths" about the wasteful packaging and how Apple was releasing too much carbon into the atmosphere 8^) I also have this big sense of deja vu about all this global warming chatter. About 17-years ago, when I was a second-year student in university, the environment became the rage and the talk was how everyone had to recycle and start looking after the Earth otherwise we were all doomed to early extinction. Watching the US television channels from Seattle was humorous, as each seemed to be in competition to be more envinronmentally-aware than the other. "This is King 5, your environment station," or "This is Kiro 7 news, your environmental station." And, what came of all that environmentalism? It was flavor of the year then everyone started buying SUVs and rest, as they say (with tongue firmly in cheek), is global warming history... ;-) March 2, 2007 - Comment from Eric Hyman, of Bibble about the posting further down the page:
I can hardly wait! Update on the status of the custom albums review: I have all the products in-house, including the Unibind PhotoCreator, the Moab Chinle pages and covers, and the Stone Editions covers and pages. Am currently printing out album pages with the Moab sheets now, but it's a lengthy process due to printing on matte paper and needing to let them dry thoroughly before printing on the other side of the double-sided Entrada 190 sheets. I also have to feed sheets in one at a time because I'm using the Epson Watercolor paper setting with the Epson R2400. I'm not using the Epson 4800, because the big unit is dedicated to printing only on glossy/lustre papers, so I'm taking another speed hit in using the R2400. So far, the prints look pretty sweet using a custom profile created with the PrintFIX PRO calibration package. I've also changed my printer settings in Photoshop to print with Absolute Colorimetric rendering instead of Perceptual to get really nice saturation in the prints. More to come, hopefully sometime next week. March 1, 2007 - Reader's comment about some Vancouver photo stores:
Personally, I’ve not been to the W. Broadway location for some years now, as it is too far out of the way for me. I used to buy film and small accessories at the Pacific Centre Mall location, but they shut it down when the Mall began renovations for the new Holt Renfrew store. Otherwise, I agree that the prices on the big items aren’t that competitive and there’s only so much give on the prices if you ask for better than list. Maybe it’s me (or my computer), but I’m not quite all that enthralled with Lightroom in this early going as a production product. I tried the beta way back and every time I tried to use it, it would turn into a slug that would end up hanging. Off to the Trash Bin. Now that the production version is out and I read much praise of it, I downloaded the trial and while it’s not the slug as before, it’s not going to give Bibble Pro a run for the speed money. It’s probably a little better than Nikon Capture 4.2, but then that’s more damning Lightroom than praising it ;^) I make these comments based on running Lightroom (and the other converters) on a dual-processor Xeon (older Xeons, not the latest and greatest dual core chips) box with 4 GB of RAM running XP Pro. I’ll
watch how Lightroom comes along, because
at this time I can’t say that I’m willing to blow US $200 on it. However,
down the road, if and when I desire to upgrade cameras, Nikon Capture
4.2 will be a dead end road, as Nikon is no longer updating it, preferring
instead to encourage its users to migrate to Capture NX. Except that,
Capture NX is not ideal for heavy-duty batch processing of hundreds
or thousands of images. Nikon Capture 4.2 is a slow beast, but on
my system it seemed able to just chug along until a batch has finished
and stability-wise, it’s been no worse than other apps I’ve used from
big name brands, e.g.
I do have to say though that Lightroom is truly a slick and glossy package that’s easy on the eyes and it offers some interesting tools, but it’s like a new glove that needs to be worn in from hard use, whereas, Bibble Pro is tried and true and is still the main relief from the bullpen. However, I wouldn’t mind seeing Bibble “borrow” a few tricks from the new kids on the block though (Lightroom and Aperture), such as side-by-side comparison editing, stacking, and a free-floating loupe. There’s also the adage of if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Right now, my workflow is not too bad and my only real need is just an increase in speed, which a future upgrade to a quad-core (or better) box should address nicely. I keep the workflow simple (to me):
February 27, 2007 - Reader's comment:
Excellent point Tom and I think I’ve made comments in the past about such a camera (or variation of), but I’ll make them again. I’m dismayed that no other manufacturer followed Sony’s lead with its R1. The R1 had much potential as a camera that was larger and much more capable than the usual digicam, yet was not an SLR. However, the R1 does have a DX-sized sensor, which would allow it to match the quality of SLRs and finally give a digicam potentially legitimate claim to high ISO performance. Unfortunately, if I recall correctly, the R1’s high ISO performance was not all that impressive vis a vis other 10 MP SLRs. I would regard that aspect of the R1’s performance to be a Sony issue rather than a sensor issue, because Sony does not have the breadth of experience with photographic imaging as Nikon or Canon. Consider that Nikon has been tweaking essentially the same 6 MP Sony sensor for five-years now through the D100 to the current D40. In each successive implementation, Nikon has wrung out better image quality and high ISO noise performance. Also consider that with the Alpha, even though Sony is using its own chip (so, you would think they would know all about it), even with expertise brought in from Minolta, the high ISO performance of the Alpha is still not as good as Nikon’s D80, which uses the same sensor. It would have been interesting to see what Nikon or Canon could have done with the R1 design. However, to get back to your point about a silent camera, one of the other best features of the Sony R1 is the lack of a mechanical shutter thanks to the built-in lens. This allows the R1 to be completely silent and appropriate for a great many uses beyond street photography, such as courtrooms and TV/movie production sets, and for lowly wedding photographers not wanting to offend the Almighty’s corporeal representatives, otherwise known as priests. So, yes, an R1 type of camera, whether it resembles a classic FM, or a pimped-up pro-SLR, would be a nice alternative. And, as alluded to above, this camera should have all the trappings to make it a great low-light shooting machine, such as built-in VR, AF-S lens, and absolutely primo ISO 1600 quality. As for the built-in lens, I see two ways of doing it. If in the R1, modern SLR style, then pretty please, make the lens 24-105 f2.8 all the way through. Alternatively, if in the classic FM style, make it a fast 50mm f2 equivalent with screw-on wide-angle and telephoto adapters (24 and 105 again) and I don’t mind if those adapters decrease light by a stop in order to keep them compact. Lastly, don’t cripple such a camera like Sony did with the R1 with its abysmal RAW shooting mode and buffer capability. Make this camera as much an SLR as you can without giving it a real lens mount, meaning, don’t give me a EVF in lieu of a real optical viewfinder and don’t cheap out on the RAM so that after taking three RAW shots, I’m sitting there for a minute before I can take the next shot. So, to sum up and bring some order to this meandering wish list, I’d like to see two types of cameras produced from any brand: 1) A Nikon FM style, fixed focal length digicam (would probably resemble more of the Konica Hexar though after digitization) with:
2) An R1 style zoom lens camera
February 25, 2007 - Pretty sweet looking SLR from Canon earlier in the week. The 1D Mk III (1D3) continues Canon's continued need for speed; the oneupmanship that the company seems to crave just to make sure that they can retain the speed crown. Remember when Nikon produced the D2H at 8 fps and Canon pretty quickly came out with an update to give the 1D something like 0.2 fps more than the D2H. Pretty ridiculous thing to quibble with, but then I've seen Canon marketing way back that encouraged dealers to trump the 0.2 MP resolution superiority of the 10D over the D100. Specmanship at its best 8^) I can well imagine that a whole slew of pros in the news and sports ranks will be upgrading as quickly as they can to the 1D3 and will continue Canon's dominance in this very visible pro market. There's also the large group of wedding and fashion pros that will jump on the 1D3 too. If I were shooting Canon, I would be a very happy camper with two 1D3 bodies and the future 1Ds3 for use with groups, formals, and other shots that call for large prints. Then again, maybe a pair of 1Ds3 cameras would make me even happier ;^) However, as much as the usual review sites are very enthusiastic about the 1D3, in the end, it's still a 10 MP camera and me being a resolution whore, the 1D3 doesn't offer enough. That's not to say that I wouldn't want the other benefits it brings along, such as high ISO quality and the very fast frame rate, but the 1D3 would have been a much more interesting camera (to me) if all it offered were still "only" 8 fps, but with 16 MP. Depending on how things shake out for the end of 2007 announcements and 2008 availability, I'll be sizing up the lineups from the two major brands to see where my future lies. The way I see it and knowing myself too well, when it's time to upgrade, I'll only be happy with the D3X/1Ds3 flagship model, and since it's my belief that these cameras will be so demanding of lens quality, "if" I were to actually be able to afford one of these future cameras, the key lenses would likely also need upgrading too. By key lenses, I mean the trifecta of wide, normal, and telephoto zoom lenses. With that kind of mindset and need to budget for such a largesse, there's no sense in boxing myself in with just whatever Nikon produces. Speaking of whatever Nikon produces, the P5000 seems like a pretty decent little digicam, aside from no RAW capability. However, I'd still have to question the purchase of it when the D40 is available for a bit more money. Larger sensor, superior speed and handling, better image quality (I assume) certainly makes the D40 the choice for me if I were looking for a small camera in the P5000 mode. As, I wondered previously, whatever happened to the FM3A? Of course, what I really meant to suggest is where's the FM4D; a compact, relatively lightweight, and most important, stripped down to basics, manual digital SLR. Now, I have not been one for all-manual cameras when working with the small format that 35mm is. I'm not a grizzled veteran that cut my photographic teeth on an F or F2. I like my conveniences like Matrix metering, Silent Wave focusing, and Vibration Reduction. And, I especially like what digital is about vis a vis film. However, I think in this digital age, a manual D-SLR would be fun, tres cool, and just dandy to have around for kicks when strolling about town. The key for me though is to maintain the classic simplicity of the original FM camera and not get too caught up with all the excesses that digital can bring about. An LCD screen that can be covered up like the Epson RD-1 would be ideal, so that the camera doesn't scream digital would be nice, as well as a combined manual shutter speed and ISO dial, just like the days of old. Of course, it would just be electrical switches under the dial, but that's beside the point. As much as I prefer my modern day SLRs to have ready, direct access to some core functions such as WB, ISO, and image quality settings, I'd prefer my theoretical FM4D to have all those buried in the menu system and my only concession to the classic design of the film FM cameras is to allow the FM4D to have a discreet command dial to allow for scrolling the menu system, as well as to allow the FM4D to be able to use Nikon's G lenses, if one so desired. I suspect that Zeiss would "love" seeing an FM4D come from Nikon to give real meaning to the existence of their ZF lenses ;^) It does seem odd, perhaps contradictory, for me, a modern-age maven, to desire a manual camera, but it's the thought of a manual "digital" camera that actually brings it back to my desire for convenience. It would also be somewhat of a poor man's Leica (relatively speaking of course 8^) February 21, 2007 - What I find quite strange is spam being sent out that requests a link exchange between websites for mutual benefit. I mean, come on now, didn't reciprocal links go out of style in the 20th Century? And, why in God's name would I want to link to some website selling heavy metal scrap, or textiles, or whatever else it is the scammers are trying to sell. At least the penis enlargement spam are funny...sort of. Idle Daydreams - Whatever happened to the good old Konica Hexar? You remember that cute little camera with a fixed 35mm f2 lens in a body little different in size than a classic Leica M, except that it offered auto focus and auto exposure? Yes, I know, Konica merged with Minolta and is now out of the photography business, because there's more money to be made in making photocopiers and fax machines then cameras and lenses. But, you know, maybe Konica coulda been a contenda with a digital Hexar. There seems to be some pent up demand from a few people for a nice little digital camera that doesn't suck like 99-percent of the digicams on the market, yet isn't so damn big like an SLR and its companion lenses. Oh, and make sure that the camera doesn't cost that much, because few of us have Leica budgets. Ricoh tried to do something somewhat close in concept with their GR, which was actually just Ricoh trying to produce the digital equivalent of their much praised, but seldom seen (in North America) GR-1 film camera. Pre-digital, the GR-1 was once a favorite of Nikon-using travel photographer Bob Krist (I hear Bob is using D200's now). The digital GR has the same equivalent field of view as the GR-1 at 28mm, but unlike the GR-1, few people are praising the GR given that Ricoh appears to be using a run of the mill digicam chip. Premium price for (at best) average quality, which is not in the mold of what the Konica Hexar is about. What a Hexar-like camera needs is a DX-sized chip so that image quality rises above the digicam crowd, especially when shooting in low light. Throw in some VR/IS in-camera or in-lens (don't matter to me), as well as a AF-S/USM lens (I know, I know, gilding the lily, especially for a single focal length lens, but this is my daydream 8^) all in a nice metal case with a sensible price and like I said, it could be a contenda. The closest I've seen come to this is the coming Sigma DP1 with the unique Foveon sensor, but it lacks an optical viewfinder, which is too bad, because it forces you to do that awkward and very obvious digicam stance of holding the camera out in front of you by a foot to take a picture. The most practical way to bring the digital Hexar concept to reality is probably to get a little SLR like the D40 and mate it to a Nikkor 35mm f2 lens for about CAN $1000. Not cheap, but not out of the world (don't Leica filters cost as much ;^) Or, get a Pentax K100D or K10D with in-camera IS and one of those little jewel-like Pentax lenses and you'd be good to go, although I think even these SLRs are still a bit bulkier than the Hexar concept. And along this train of thought, whatever happened to the Nikon FM3A... February 19, 2007 - I'm going to try something different, something I normally try to avoid, and that is to comment on a photograph. Commenting on other people's photographs is a dicey proposition, because, speak honestly and you may anger and disappoint the people asking for a so-called critique. I say so-called, because, often, what people really want is praise and when they don't receive it, they huff and puff away. However, in this new, but occassional series, I won't be commenting on any reader's photos, but of those considered classics by photographers who may have already departed to that great darkroom in the sky. I'll try and do this every so often as time permits and for the first in this series, we look at Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother, perhaps the best known photograph taken in Depression-era America and one that seems to have popped up in frequency these days. If you have suggestions of other classics for the series, send them along.
However, for most of that decade, the Depression conjures up images in the mind of the mid west being a dustbowl, forcing many farming families and intinerant individuals westward in search of employment. John Steinbeck captured the essense of that decade in words with his novels, Tortilla Flat, the Grapes of Wrath and Of Mice and Men. Steinbeck had first hand experience to draw upon for his classic novel, the Grapes of Wrath, as he travelled with photographer Horace Bristol to some migrant camps in 1937-38 and used that experience to develop the novel, published in 1939. Horace Bristol, was in turned moved by Dorothea's Lange's Migrant Mother to solicit Steinback in joining him in a collaboration of the visual and written mediums. Bristol was also a member of the famed Group f/64, which included Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Dorothea Lange, among other notable photographers of the era. Like Bristol, I and many others, have been moved by the image taken by Dorothea Lange. The woman in the photo, Florence Thompson, is all but 32 years old at the time of the photo and yet she looks haggard and worn down, aged prematurely by the conditions she's been placed in. The three children in the photo are but less than half of her brood of seven. And yet, looking at this image, Florence Thompson still has some resiliance in her eyes. She must be strong to keep her family together and as if having seven children in the midst of the Great Depression were not enough, she lost her husband in 1931. Florence Thompson was known as a head strong woman by her husband's family and I can only imagine that it took all of that strength to keep the family together under such trying conditions. It is no wonder that the Farm Security Administration (FSA), the federal agency that hired Lange to document the plight of the migrant workers, chose Migrant Mother as their show piece photo and used it to secure food and funding for migrant workers. Unfortunately, by the time food shipments made its way to the camp Florence Thompson was in, she had already departed. We cannot deny that the smell of politics is everywhere with Migrant Mother and how the FSA used it to bring about a more activist agenda by the government. The taking of the photo and its use is manipulation on the public, but so be it and I'll let my heart bleed freely because of it. Migrant Mother speaks to humanity just as another famous photograph, taken by Steve McCurry, did in the mid 1980s - Afghan Girl, the most famous photo published by National Geographic magazine. Looking at the face of Florence Thompson provides a glimpse of the human condition and a je ne sais quoi of what it is that makes humanity be able to continue on in light of the most trying circumstances. Perhaps, it's from biblical times, when Job is thrown one test after another by God (in a bet with the devil), but still Job refused to lose his faith. Florence Thompson, in the end, didn't need the FSA to pull her out of her predicament; her family helped her along until the economy rebounded in the 1940s. And as much as she resented having her photo taken and published everywhere with nary a penny given to her (I think she was more resentful that Lange never even asked for her name - the identity of Thompson did not surface until the 1970s), I'm thankful that the photo was taken and shared with the world. Migrant Mother is an iconic photograph and while others have commented on it from a technical perspective, describing how Lange moved in closer and closer to take her series of six photos with Migrant Mother being the last, the photograph itself seems beyond the realm of technicalities. We just do not need to know that Lange used a 4x5 Graflex, or how the negative was souped and then printed. It matters not, for it is Florence Thompson that strikes us right at the heart.
February 15, 2007 - Following the last posting about Joe Buissink returning to film to help keep his life simple and my friend wanting to do something similar by having me do editing work on his files, it reminded me of another great photographer in a similar situation. Galen Rowell recognized the importance of digital technology, but did not become too involved in the digital editing process with his own files. Even great photographers who have amazing vision can find it difficult to get their heads around the process of photographic editing after capturing the image. In the days when shooting stock meant shooting slide film, the editing process for Rowell was to review the slides on a light table with a loupe and start separating the wheat from the chaff. Good shots were kept, labelled and catalogued into his inventory of stock images while the rest were thrown away in the garbage bin. As technology progressed, drum scanning 35mm slides and the outputting to LightJet printers offered Rowell the best potential for printing very large prints (up to 50 inches diagonal). Galen set out to learn about the new digital process with none other than Bill Atkinson. Atkinson is famous first for being one of the creative geniuses at Apple and helped the company develop the first Mac computers and the software that ran on those “cute” little boxes way back in the early 1980s. After Atkinson left Apple, with all his moola, he pursued photography as a passion and is now famous for being a fine art photographer, a photographic educator through his workshops, and an expert in color management. Many large format Epson users benefit from his generosity in him giving away the “bouquets” of custom profiles that he creates with the best X-Rite color management tools. In the consumer world, we create custom profiles by sampling hundreds of color patches. In the professional world that Bill lives in, he samples many thousands of patches to create a single profile. Atkinson led Galen through the process of scanning film using his own drum scanner and then editing the file through high-end Mac computers. At the end of the session, and here I have to read between the lines a bit from Galen’s writing about this session, Galen wasn’t quite "getting" it. So, Bill suggested to Galen that instead of spending time to learn the digital process, he should just concentrate on the photography and hire someone to work in his gallery/studio for the post production work. A lot of photographers have the skill and discipline to be busy photographers and their own editors, but many others do not and there’s no shame in this, because it’s good to recognize one’s limitations. Some of us also lead very busy home lives that limit the time we have to do anything, so prioritizing where we do our best work helps too. I personally want to do it all, from the photography, to the editing, to the printing, and while I’m confident enough that I believe that I can be competent in those three areas, it doesn’t mean that I have enough time to practice and work at it often enough to actually be competent. Practice and plying the trade are mantras you often hear about in photography, with Cartier-Bresson being a classic example. It’s said that Cartier-Bresson would shoot two rolls of film before breakfast as a matter of course to keep his skills sharp (Cartier-Bresson is another great who didn't do any of the technical darkroom development and printing, using, instead, as Buissink does now, a master printer). In another field, author Mordecai Richler, would on Mondays to Fridays, from about 9 am to 5 pm, would lock himself in his upstairs office and type away for his latest novel. Regular and routine whether he really wanted to write or not and his five children knew well enough to never disturb him during those times. Something I wish I could implement with my three kids and my wife when I'm working away in my office ? February 13, 2007 - Last week, in the Photo.net Wedding Photography Forum, there was a thread about famed wedding photographer, Joe Buissink, returning to film. Buissink, as some may know, had a big splash last year when he switched from Nikon to Canon (allegedly, on the insistence of his friend Denis Reggie, another famed wedding pro and likely Canon sponsored). Buissink made the switch and Canon in turn, also allegedly, gave him some free kit (couple of 5D's and lenses), as well as making him a Canon Explorer in Light (Nikon has its equivalent Legends Behind the Lens). There was no mention in the thread what gear Buissink is currently using, but the last time he was shooting film heavily, he was using Nikon F6 cameras with an N90s for infrared. He still does digital capture on his shoots, but it's his assistant doing the digital shots, as well as groups and formals while Joe does his own thing. Joe's workflow nowadays is apparently, shoot Saturday, relax with the family on Sunday, and on Monday, take his bag of film to the lab. Oh yes, he also has a master printer to produce his prints. Based on this information and what I heard about the his endorsement of Apple's Aperture, I get a sense that Joe is a pure shooter and has little interest in the technical side of photography whether it be film or digital capture. During a presentation Joe presented to a group of photographers, he was questioned about using Aperture and he eventually admitted that he didn't actually use the program despite what the promotional video posted on the Apple website indicated. He actually had an assistant do his digital post production work. The video link is no longer available on the Aperture website, but can still be viewed at this direct link. When I heard he had switched to Canon, I wondered if this was just another Aperture-like endorsement deal. Ah well, no matter and it was more the information about him returning to film and his now once again, relaxed workflow and life that caught my attention. I mentioned this to a friend, who has been struggling with getting a handle on digital workflow and he totally accepted what Joe is doing as being appropriate and analogous to what he wants to do now. My friend is a smart dude and quite capable of learning digital editing, but he hasn't got the workflow down right yet and that's what's killing him when he's looking at over 1000 image files to edit. He became frustrated and computer issues didn't help either, so now, he wants me to take on all the editing work for jobs we work together on (with commensurate remuneration for my time, of course ;^). Basically, he wants to shoot on Saturday, relax with the family on Sunday, and on Monday, drop off his flash cards at Edwin's place for post production work. I'm no master editor or printer, but it might be good way to go about it, because I am the self-confessed egghead while my friend is more of the smooth and outgoing salesman that can schmooze the clients with the prints I produce as samples, which we've already done before. So far, we've been using my kit, but given that he wants to buy the next generation Canon 1Ds camera, I don't know what he's going to do with those files because I told him I would not edit any Canon files ;^) Reader's comment:
I wouldn't mind seeing a 24 MP Fujikon using the Super CCD technology. A very high quality ISO 1600 would be fantastic, as much as it is no longer absolutely necessary for me anymore. February 12, 2007 - Kodak announced a couple of weeks ago that it would be getting into the inkjet printing business, but with a different economic model than what the established brands are using. The big brands of HP, Epson and Canon use the King Gillette model of selling the razors (printers) for minimal to no profit, but make up the profits from the consumables of razor blades (ink cartridges and paper). Kodak wants to sell its printers for higher cost while selling the inks at lower costs. If you think about it, this makes logical sense for saving money in the long run, because the consumables cost a heck of a lot of money. For example, a full set of Epson ink cartridges for my CX4800 costs almost as much as the printer itself (about $100). Since these consumer level printers come with a full set of cartridges, one could literally toss away the printer when all the inks run dry and just buy a new one instead of continuing to buy more ink cartridges (these consumer printers tend to run out of inks all at once, or very closely together). However, how many consumers actually think long term and count every last ml of ink and its cost per sheet of paper? I think only egghead digital photographers (such as yours truly) do that. Regular consumers don't think long-term like the way I did in deciding whether or not the Epson 4800 made sense for purchase. But, does Kodak have what it takes to make an impact? From what I've seen and heard, Kodak offers nothing new in the way of technology, so what makes it think that it can storm the beaches heavily defended by three brands that do constantly offer new advancements in the state of the art? Or, is this all an ego trip for the Kodak CEO, who once worked for HP and may simply be doing this out of spite for not being named the HP CEO when Carly Fiorina got canned? There's also been talk of Kodak selling its film business and severing the ties that made it famous. As much as that would seem to be an affront to all that is Kodak, this makes economic sense to me given the shrinking sales projections for film. Fuji is in the same boat, but both Kodak and Fuji make digital capture sensors, and what both need is an outlet for those sensors. An outlet that can generate good revenue and profit; an outlet with a long established name brand so that there would not be any market rejection of the buyout; an outlet that is still independent and has not been bought out or partnered up with another large company; a company...like Nikon. Both Kodak and Fuji have had some recent ventures with Nikon. Kodak with the short-lived full frame SLRs using the Nikon F80 film camera as its base and Fuji with an even longer and still current relationship that now finally gives it access to a great camera body to put their digital components inside of (the D200 is the base of the new S5 Pro SLR). Nikon is doing fine at the moment, thank you very much, but still, to me, it would seem like a good fit for one of the two venerable film companies to buy out a venerable camera and lens maker. However, Fuji would seem like the better suitor at the moment, given the ongoing relationship between the two companies. Reader's comment:
Touché, but would you really want me to get into discussing politics as openly as he (Michael Johnston) does 8^) February 11, 2007 - Read one of the recent postings by Michael Johnston at the TOP Blog about the Leica DMR and R series of cameras and lenses. Even though I'm not a Leica man, I admire what the company is about and what it represents in the history of photography. This despite the snob attitude of some of the brand's users. I also appreciate the knowledge and experience that Michael Johnston offers the photographic world. He is, in spite of the occasional lapses into leftwing political discourses, a treasure trove of photographic information, much of it from an historical perspective. I have an appreciation for the historical, because I am afterall, an historian (undergrad degree, which has absolutely nothing to do with my day job). So, it was enlightening reading Johnston's response to a reader's question about the Leica R and the DMR being cancelled - at least, it was enlightening to me 8^) If you've been a regular reader of this website then you know that I think very highly of Thom Hogan, arguably the foremost expert on things Nikon, who writes the best overall reviews about Nikon on the Internet. If it was anyone else other than Thom posting comments at DPReview, I wouldn't have the time of day, but Thom makes some thought-provoking comments about the state of Nikon. Some of the postings need some context with earlier comments, so you may need to search out some of Thom's earlier comments to see how the current thread developed. Reader's comment about an high ISO comparison between Nikon and Canon:
I saw some test shots between the D2X, D200, and the D80 and while the D2X had the most noise, I agree that it was still the least objectionable to the eye compared to the D200 and D80 with their splotchiness. I've added a section to my Vancouver Photo Stores article, with comments about mail order shops I have dealt with before. I received some information from an Internet retailer that confirmed my suspicions about UPS's extortionate fees, "UPS costs way too much to ship to Canada for our purposes. When I had them quote these type of packages, they came back with fees that cost more than the whole order which is ridiculous." I assume that the retailer was asking about UPS' Ground delivery service. February 10, 2007 - In last Tuesday’s National Post newspaper (Canada’s only newspaper worth reading), one of the editors wrote a column that highlighted Hitachi’s new 1 TB hard drive and questioned whether we (humanity) have gone too far in technology. Jonathan Kay questioned why anyone would need so much capacity, using an example of the new Hitachi being able to store more books than a local library. Kay also highlighted how a particular industry has been the main reason why some technologies achieve mass appeal. The new high definition video format is currently being contested by Sony and its allies on one side with Blu Ray and Toshiba and its cohorts on the other side championing HD-DVD. However, it may not be consumers, Hollywood, or the music industry that decides the winner; it may be the porn industry. Whichever format the porn industry favours may be given the edge it needs to win out. For those that aren’t quite familiar with the formats, distilled down to my almost less than nothing knowledge of them, Blu Ray offers the potential for huge storage capacity, some 50 GB or more once it matures and adds in more layers. Unfortunately, Blu Ray is not backwards compatible. HD-DVD does not offer the huge storage potential of Blu Ray, but it is backwards compatible with the existing DVD format. However, to paraphrase a quote in Kay’s article, why would anyone want to see so much high resolution detail in a porn, with its, ahem, in your face viewpoint? Anyway, I bring this up, not to discuss the titillating delights of pornography, or Blu Ray versus HD-DVD, but to answer the question of who needs so much storage capacity. Me! And, I suspect more than a few of you readers out there too. We as photographers living in the digital age, require ever more storage space. While a 1 TB hard drive might store as many books as the Vancouver Public Library, it will, on average, store less than 10 full-day wedding shoots for me. The amount of data I generate and need to store is over 100 GB per wedding, assuming some 1500 RAW files captured, and the way I’m going with my shooting habits, that 1500 will likely turn into a few thousand by the end of the year for a full day shoot. Also, consider that I’m just a piker compared some other shooters doing some 5000 or more shots per job. That’s a helluva lot of files captured and even if you don’t keep every one and trim down to 500 or so files, it still requires a good chunk of hard drive space to store it. I shoot RAW with conversion to 16-bit TIFF files and then 8-bit JPEGs from the TIFFs. The RAW are the originals, kept for posterity; the TIFFs are for later editing and printing for albums (if ordered); the JPEGs are for the clients. In between all those files are additional sets of JPEGs for proof CD and web gallery purposes. I keep all files and folders intact until the job is completely finished, i.e. if the package includes an album, I may be waiting several months before the couple decides which photos to include. With all that, 1 TB does not actually go too far and what with backup requirements, I need another TB to mirror, and to really play it safe, yet another TB off site. Too often, we look at new products and technology through our own limited prism or field of view. We need to understand that just because we may not see a use for something new, does not mean that others cannot. I have little doubt that the “average” consumer off the street would regard a 1 TB hard drive to be overkill, but I, and I think most of the readers here, are not average consumers. February 7, 2007 - For local (and not so local) readers, a resource/forum website has been resurrected again, www.aperture.ca. The site creator and moderator wanted a website that catered to Vancouver-area photographers, so check it out and join the fledgling community. February 6, 2007 - Readers' comment:
Follow-up information from Mike about Blurb:
Thanks for the tip; looks quite interesting and it twigged my noggin about Lulu.com, used by Michael Johnston of TOP fame to finally be able to sell his long promised books. So, I stand corrected in self-publishing real to goodness books as opposed to more custom options from Moab or Unibind (and now Hahnemuhle too). Or, as another reader did, in spending some $25,000 on a few thousand books printed in China (as Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape fame, also did with his Bangladesh book, which I bought and enjoyed).
I know all about sample-to-sample variation with pro-level lenses (17-35 AF-S experience ;-) People interested in color management reviews may find this website to be an interesting site. So begins a new year and with it comes my annual lament about how some retailers and merchandisers charge larcenous S&H charges. I've whipped the UPS horse enough in the past that I won't dwell on it, but will comment on how some shops charge S&H that bear little relation to reality. I just ordered a couple of small items from KEH, a shop that generally gets really good comments for their conservative ratings on the used products they sell. Indeed, I'm one of those people that likes KEH's ratings; a bargain grade lens from KEH can sometimes be the equivalent of excellent at another shop. KEH is also often used as a reference for a fair price on used gear, but I think (opinion only) that KEH is making up on the lowish prices with highish prices on the S&H. It makes no sense to me that two boxes of about the same size and about the same weight, coming to me from the US by USPS express delivery differ noticeably in S&H costs. It's rather galling that the S&H charges make up a significant portion of the overall cost of the shipment. And the cheaper S&H charge of the other store included insurance on a much higher priced item. What's really tragic about this story is that despite the ethically-challenged S&H charges of some US shops, and despite me having to pay taxes (duty) and brokerage on that shipment coming into Canada, I still end up saving significantly enough money to make it worthwhile rather than buy the same used items locally. Which just doesn't say much about living in Canada with our high taxes and service charges for mediocre social services - but, I'm digressing into politics, which is something I promised I wouldn't do, so I'll end it at that 8^) Moral is, when ordering items from out of town, whether it be across the border, or even within the same country, make sure you look at the total costs, including the taxes and S&H and not delude yourself into thinking you got a deal from not buying locally. After all that, what did I end up ordering? Well, let's just say I'm satisfying my curiosity about some "legend" products ;^) February 5, 2007 - Watching the Colts versus the "da Bears" at my brother-in-law's place yesterday, I had a look over the 16x20 inch family portrait I did for him last Christmas. The frame size is a little larger than 20x24 over the matted 16x20 print and it certainly looked good if I say so myself, but I got thinking that it was still too small for his wall space above the family room's fireplace. The previous year, I did an 11x14 inch family portrait in a matted 16x20 size frame, which seemed okay at the time, but most inadequately small compared to the 16x20 from last year. Now, I'm thinking I gotta do a 20x24 size print for next Christmas and it should be an easy enough task to do as another brother-in-law has access to some big-boy Epson K3 printers like the 9800. I actually had a wedding client decline a 16x20 print from her engagement photo package because she felt it would be too big for her wall. She settled for a couple of 8x10 prints after thinking about and then also declining 11x14 size prints. I tried to explain to her that while 16x20 print in a 20x24 frame may seem big at first blush, once mounted on the wall, it really wouldn't be because the wall is so much larger, but no dice. February 4, 2007 - Super Bowl Sabbath is upon us and as a very nearly religious celebration, I will be embarking onto a home with a big-screen TV to partake of beer, chips, beer, pizza, beer, chicken wings, and, well, more beer. The stakes are high as I'm taking the Vegas line of Indie beating "da Bears" by the 7 point spread; loser buys a steak dinner and tickets to a BC Lions football game. After today, which I consider to be the true New Year, I resolve to post actual content on a more regular basis and in a sign of the today's video times, reviews and articles "may" be enhanced from just the usual posting of text and sample images ;-) I promised a photo album article many moons ago, but to my chagrin, Moab, which makes one of the products I want to review, has been unable to supply its Natural Entrada 190 12x12 inch Chinle pages. After four-months, I've given up and asked the retailer to get me the Bright Entrada 190 Chinle pages instead. So, hopefully, sometime next week, I will finally be able to get down to producing some custom albums. The reason for wanting to order the Natural over the Bright versions is that the Bright pages, as you may surmise from the name, uses optical brighteners and over time, those pages will eventually fade to the Natural finish. I thought I would just dispense with the fading immediately and work with the, er, natural, Natural pages. I never actually wanted either of the matte Entrada papers, preferring Moab's Kokopelli semi gloss paper instead. Unfortunately, Murphy crossed my path and Moab can no longer source the double-sided Kokopelli paper, but if you're keen on double-sided gloss and semi gloss (luster) papers, you can still source some from InkJetArt.com. I'm also in the process of ordering some Unibind products for creating albums with a different process and hopefully, I can get the order worked out next week. In the meantime, to let everyone see what kind of album I'm hoping to create, you can view a sample Flash show here (turn on your speakers). Keep in mind that this is my fledging effort in designing an album, so go gentle on my lack of design skills 8^) The Flash show was created with ShowIt, a rather expensive application at US $200, but essential for those of us with zero capabilities using Flash. I'm still learning all of its capabilities and will have more to say about it in the album article to come. The album itself was designed specifically for 12x12 inch pages and the wider views are double-page spreads (also more details about the process in the article). Although my emphasis is on wedding albums, none of the products mentioned above need be typecast as wedding tools. The albums and even ShowIt can all be used to create custom albums and shows for whatever your subject matter. For those of us that have dreamed of publishing a real book, The Chinle and Unibind albums are as close as we can get without spending tens of thousands on self-publishing a real book. February 3, 2007 - Readers' Comment to original posting further down:
Or, maybe the 18-200 is another one of those lenses allegedly made by Tamron, like the older 70-300 lenses ;-)
I've been thinking about getting a couple of manual focus lenses myself now that I've got some D-SLRs that can meter with them (unlike the D100). Less for "serious" applications than for satisfying my curiosity about how good the much vaunted 75-150 and 105 f2.5 lenses. Following the last posting about the 18-200 lens, a reader had this to say:
So, what do others take with them when the emphasis is on lightweight travel instead of "serious" photography? Submit a public comment and share your experiences. Speaking of travelling light, it calls to mind the British slang of horses for courses; use the best tool for the job. Which seems apros pos given that the eternal debate about the carpenter or the hammer has popped up again recently at some websites and forums. If you didn't quite get the analogy, it's the old saw that it's the photographer, not the camera that takes the photo. I don't think anyone in their right mind would ever say that the camera or lens makes the photographer and the PC version would always be that no matter what the gear, a great photographer is still a great photographer and could produce a masterpiece with a Holga while a rank amateur would produce dreck with a Hasselblad H2 and Phase digital back. Me, I've swayed a little here and bent a little there on either side, but sooner or later, I spring back towards the middle, sit on the fence, offend no one, grey zone of saying...horses for courses. Yes, a great photographer is a great photographer, but Cartier-Bresson would not have captured the delightful images that he did with an 8x10 view camera. And similarly, while Ansel Adams was certainly familiar with 35mm format, he didn't go around taking his best photos of the American southwest with a Leica. More personal, and a comment that I've made a few times before here, while I like and enjoyed the four years of use from my Nikon D100, I kept on shooting weddings with my F100 because the thought of using just a D100 gave me the heebee jeebees. Could I have shot a wedding with a D100? Sure, I think that my skills and experience would have gotten me through it, but the reason why I never wanted to find out is because I never thought of the D100 being a good enough camera to let me do all the things that I could with the F100. By now, most familiar with the D100 know it as not being particularly fast in frame rate (certainly not the 3 fps claimed by Nikon) and not being particularly good for burst shooting (3 or 4 RAW files plus a lengthy write time). Compare that to the F100 with its 5 fps for as long as I have film available, which is the only downside to the F100: only 36 exposures (actually, I almost always got 37 frames). The D200 on the other hand shoots at the same 5 fps as the F100 and has enough memory buffer to allow me shoot for some 20 odd frames at once, which is even better than the D2X's burst shooting abilities. Buffer flushing is much more robust and an 8 GB flash card means 488 RAW files without having to change cards. I've never even gotten close to taxing the D200's or the D2X's capabilities. So, my take on the carpenter or hammer argument, is both are important and symbiotic. Just as I wouldn't want to lug around a D2X in Mickeyland, neither would I want to be without it (or my D200's) for an event shoot. February 1, 2007 - Reader's comment:
Thanks for the link; very promising for the Fuji S5 and its high noise performance. Maybe we Nikon users will finally have something to match up against the best Canons (entry-level Nikons are actually already a match for entry-level Canons). I think it's excellent that Fuji has finally got a hold of a great camera to utilize for their Super CCD sensors, but I would have thought that Fuji would have produced a true 12 MP sensor to utilize with the D200 shell. Instead, it appears that the S5's sensor is just a refreshed S3 sensor. The speed performance of the S5 is also lagging compared to Nikon's D200, but I'm still looking forward to seeing what the S5 can do in real world shooting environments. I still see plenty of postings about the 18-200 lens still being in short supply, but funnily enough I had zero wait for getting mine last week. I was emailing my local contact and when I expressed an interest in the lens, he immediately had one on hold for me (I won't get into how he had one on hold for me so quickly though, but I'll just say that after all the money I blew last year at the store, it was the least he could do for me 8^) My point though is that when you're loyal to a local shop and they know you, sometimes good things can happen, whereas if you're constantly online shopping to save every last dime possible, like Mick Jagger, you can't no satisfaction. I still remember as a teenager, driving my mother to the other side of town just to save a few measly bucks on groceries. Driving a huge and old V8 probably blew more in gas than we ever saved on those groceries. I've not used the 18-200 lens much at all and I'm a bit ambivalent about spending that much money on a lens that probably won't satisfy the sharpness/resolution nutbar inside of me, but a family trip to Disneyland in March had me rethink the idea of hauling a D2X / 12-24 / 17-55 / 70-200 / SB800 kit that would be my normal mainstay kit. A standard D200 with the single lens seems like just the ticket to capture the kids enjoying the delights of Mickeyland. January 31, 2007 - Reader's comment: Having once been in the "audiophile" realm (for far too long) there is one difference between that world and photography: photo equipment delivers the goods. Too often the latest mondo expensive audiophile toy is vastly overrated and unworthy of a fraction of it's price and typically breaks down sooner rather than later. I still use my last audiophile system (it's a fine one) but frankly mostly as background - "serious" listening i.e. while running or commuting is via iPod (gasp). Excellent point about the law of diminishing returns for high-end audio gear. Somewhat related is how in the "old" days, big buck gear look like they were built in a garage (because, they mostly were) and also tended to blow up ;-) If you read between the lines of some of the reviews, what you sense is that today's audio gear from the good name brands with a proven track record, is so good that reviewers grasp at words to describe one really good product after another. How many times are we reading that the best tube amps sound remarkably like the best solid state amps and vice versa? However, the professional audio reviewer still has to find something to write about and justify the continued borrowing of all that high-end reference gear. The Lilliputian differences talked about in audio is very much like the pixel-peepers of photography. At most regular print sizes, differences amongst all the usual brands probably won't amount to much, so we have to view at 100% to see actual differences and gawk at so-called noise issues, etc. And, of course, I'm as guilty as anyone else out there, but at least I don't go around looking at my prints with a loupe 8^) January 30, 2007 - Brooks Jensen of LensWork magazine just made a resolution on his latest Podcast that he will not buy anymore photographic equipment in 2007. As will be readily obvious in the Podcast, Jensen has a hard time trying to stay serious about this committment, but, as hard as it is for him to keep a straight face about it, I think he's quite serious. Me, I've already sinned and can't make such a resolution even this early on in the New Year 8^) January 29, 2007 - I’ve seen some recent postings about how expensive the newish Nikon 105mm f2.8 AF-S VR Micro lens is compared to the now discontinued 105mm f2.8 AF Micro lens. Some people throw out a ridiculous price difference and exclaim that while the new lens certainly seems nice, it’s not XXX amount nicer than the old lens. Then we find out the guy was comparing his lens bought used, years ago to the new retail price of the VR Micro lens. Simply inappropriate, but the thread started a chorus of postings by others, most stating variations of the same thing, that the new VR Micro is too expensive for what it is compared to the older version, or even a highly regarded and much cheaper third-party lens in the Tamron 90mm macro lens. I had a chuckle when I thought back to the time that I bought my VR Micro lens. At the time, even with the lens being very new to market, it was still only about $100 more than the older version when comparing new retail prices. It made little sense to me to scrimp on $100 and miss out on the AF-S and VR benefits – yes, I know the two are of little use in true macro shooting situations as you get closer to 1:1 magnification. Add to the chorus the less than outstanding reviews of some high profile reviewers and we get the usual Internet chatter of a couple of reviews being considered as perceived wisdom by people who have never even seen the lens, let alone used it. However, given the experience, knowledge and background of those reviewers, their opinions do carry much weight, but that doesn’t mean that they are infallible; the suggestion of Nikon recalling every D200 to fix the banding issue comes to mind. I, for one, am delighted that Nikon is slowly moving towards the 21st Century by updating lenses with the best of the current technology. My only beef is that Nikon should be doing it much faster and update all of their lenses in time for the introduction of their full frame camera. In my world, every Nikkor would have AF-S and VR, including wide-angle primes, and incorporate the best of current lens design technology. On a related note, I sometimes see reference to Nikkors being more expensive than Canon by US photographers. What may be true in the US doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s true elsewhere. Until fairly recently, Canon lenses have usually been more expensive than Nikkors in Canada. The last price reduction brought greater parity to the two brands, but Canon is still more expensive in some instances, such as the f2.8 constant aperture zoom lenses, and, in other instances, the Canon is cheaper, such as the 300mm f2.8 VR/IS lens. However, the differences are usually within the range of price discounts available from most stores if you shop in person and if you’re considered a loyal customer. And, continuing the thread on costs, people are always bitching about the high cost of photography, usually about cameras and lenses, but in the digital age, also about computers, printers, and other accessories needed to support the process (color management, etc.) Yes, a Canon 1Ds Mk II is very expensive at almost CAN $9000, but it ain’t nothing but a spit in the bucket compared to the prices seen in high-end audio, a hobby that I can no longer afford to dabble in. The fact that I’ve blown all my money on photography being the reason why I cannot afford to be an audiophile is beside the point ;-) I’m not suggesting that photography is a cheap and affordable hobby, although it certainly can be, depending on just where you want to go with it, but because photography is an equipment intensive pursuit, it will cost some money if you pursuer it at a high level. Due to the equipment intensive aspect of the hobby, photographers most often discuss equipment and as a sidebar, equipment related techniques (wireless camera and flash triggering, flash lighting techniques, etc.) As Brooks Jensen remarked once in his LensWork podcasts, painters don’t go around discussing the finer aspects of brushes, whereas photographers think nothing of discussing the merits of using a UV filter or not. By the way, Brooks Jensen’s magazine and podcasts are amongst the tiny minority that discusses photography as art instead of as equipment pursuit. Visit and read one the various photography forums, and it doesn’t matter which brand you fancy, but there are always posts along the lines of, is the D40 or Rebel XTi right for me, and which kit lens should I get with that camera. You can excuse the newcomers because they’re learning and are seeking help in understanding the nuances between, say a D40 versus a D50, but other times, you get posts like, I want the D200, I could probably afford the D200, but I don’t want to spend the money on the D200, so please convince me that I’ll be happy with a D40 instead. Those people you wish you could virtually slap on the side of the head and say make your own damn decision based on what you need, because no one else is going to know or be able to make it for you. Then you get people who always throw in the qualifier, I’ve been shooting since the Nixon administration and damned if I’m going to spend $1500 on a D200, not when my first F camera only cost me a few hundred dollars – in 1972! A lot of people buy gear, use it to great use for many years, then come back into the equipment fray when needing an update or upgrade, only to be shell-shocked by the way prices have changed. People never seem to consider how technology changes and especially how inflation erodes purchasing power. Their minds are still in a time warp of when they last bought their camera and they cannot fully fathom that after adjusting for inflation, maybe that D200 is actually cheaper than that 1970s vintage F2. For me, I’m not offended by what a top of the line Nikon D2Xs or Canon 1Ds Mk II costs, because I’ve been continuously involved in and following photography and its trends for almost a decade. I haven’t bought and then fallen off the map, so there’s no sticker shock because I’ve witnessed the evolution of the industry and what it means for the consumer. I understand what it means for Canon to produce a full frame sensor and put it into a state of the art camera body. I understand that larger sensors generally mean lower yields from 8-inch wafers and that that translates into higher costs. I know that you don’t get something for nothing, or for really cheap as many others seem to believe. Back in the early days of the Canon full frame camera (the original 1Ds) there were any numbers of Nikon users wanting to switch brands, thinking that Canon would soon be mass producing full frame cameras for the same cost as a Digital Rebel. It’s now been what, five-years, and those users are still waiting for full frame to cost in the D-Rebel range. However, as an audiophile, clinging rather tenaciously to that title by dental floss-like ropes, I am definitely offended by the prices of high-end audio equipment. I left the hobby behind me for about ten-years, coinciding with getting married and having kids. My assorted magazine subscriptions that kept me in the loop were allowed to lapse and I stopped visiting the websites – not that there were that many back in the mid 1990s as the Internet was still in its toddler stage. In 2005, I caught the bug again due to the influence of a couple of people that had the same passion for audio as I once had. Looking over my hi-fi, is like looking at a time capsule of what audio was like in the early to mid 1990s. In 2005, most of my purchases were about high-end headphone listening, because headphones have grown up and become mass market chic thanks to the popularity of the iPod. When I started reading the audiophile rags once more, I was taken aback by the amount of money needed to build a decent rig. Back in 1995, spending $5000 per component would have built a damn fine hi-fi that would not have to apologize to any, but the most expensive Levinson and Krell-based systems. In 2005, the new $5000 was $10,000 and that amount is steadily going up year-by-year. I had become one of those curmudgeons grousing about what my old Classe power amp cost me back in the good old days of the first Clinton administration, compared to what a mid-level Classe amp would cost me now in the Bush Jr. years. Now that I’m back in the loop once more, my sticker shock has subsided somewhat, but it’s still a head shaking moment when I read of uber high-end systems with cabling costing more than what an entry-level home would cost in my home town of Kamloops, BC. For that kind of quid you’d think that the cables were made of solid gold, but copper still appears to be king as the base conductor for cabling – I’m partial to cables made from pure silver though ? So, when people bitch about what a top of the line Phase digital back costs (CAN $40,000), I just think about those Tara Labs the Zero cables that would put the Phase in its place. Or the Wavac tube amp from Japan costing as much as a very nice home in my hometown (over US $300,000). Or, how about the custom order 1000 watt Krell amps – if you gotta ask, don’t even bother… The way photography is going, more in line with the computer industry because of digital, the costs are actually on a downward slope relative to the capabilities one receives as one upgrades. High-end audio is the opposite because it is slowly becoming an extinct pursuit. Digital photography means our cameras are more computer than classic picture taking devices in the mold of a Leica M (before the M8). Computer chips, as most know, follows Moore’s law of providing double the density for the same costs every two-years (some state every 18 months). Translate that to digital cameras and it means that resolution doubles for the same cost every two to three years. When the Nikon D1 first came out in 1999, it offered 2.7 MP of resolution for around CAN $7000 (US $5000 at the time). When the D1X replaced it in 2002, it offered 5.4 MP for the same money and in 2005, the D2X came out with 12 MP for actually less money at CAN $6000. The basic law may not hold when the D3X with an expected 24 MP finally becomes available, as some are speculating at least $10,000. But I think Canon set the precedent at US $8000 with its 1Ds series and I can’t see Nikon varying from that target figure too much. Although, I would dearly love to see the original law followed with the D3X coming in around CAN $6000. Now, any camera costing $5000 or more is indeed an expensive purchase. This is what a lot of people spend to buy a used car, which is certainly a whole lot more substantial than a high-end D-SLR (and would probably hold its value better than that D-SLR). High-end audio doesn’t follow Moore’s Law and while its pricing structure is not the inverse of the Law, when audio companies introduce new models, the successor is almost always more expensive than the predecessor. Audio reviewers always point out the exceptions in their reviews, or make positive note that the successor is “only slightly more expensive at $12,000 instead of the former $10,000.” And then later wax poetically that the severely minor differences in sound between the new and old most enthusiastically justify the price premium, as they were able to hear Glenn Gould’s warbled humming with ever so slightly better pitch when listening to the Goldberg Variations. From what I’ve read, high-end audio is slowly dying because there’s a lack of new blood flowing in to sustain all the companies producing those expensive components. To steal a line from an erstwhile Stereophile writer, high-end audio is run by a bunch of “old goats” for another bunch of old goats. Unfortunately, we’re not talking about the massive consumer base of old goats that belong to the baby boom generation, but of a very tiny, select percentage of old goats that can actually afford to spend $50,000 plus to build an “average” audiophile approved hi-fi. When the old goats die, who will replace them? The generation (mine) that should be getting involved right now, are too busy with work, family and paying off the mortgage to be concerned about two-channel audio systems. If we’re going to blow a decent amount of coin on a sound system, we’re more likely to splurge on a home theatre system, which is why so many traditional high-end shops now look like they came out of Audio/Video Interiors instead of Stereophile or the Absolute Sound. The next generation over couldn’t even care less as they’re perfectly satisfied with their compressed 128 kbps files. Apple may be the most dominant brand in music today, but they’ve done nothing for sound quality with their compromised, lowest common denominator downloads from their iTunes outlet. So, as less and less consumers have an interest in good audio, the prices have to go up to make up the difference for all the brands wanting a piece of a diminishing pie. With high end brands coming and going and the state of audiophilia, I’m very much into only the brands that have stood the test of time. Companies like Levinson, Classe, Quad, McIntosh, Audio Research, and B&W have been around for decades and have already gone through ownership changes for stability. I have far more confidence in these classic brands being around for the next few decades than companies that will live and die (literally) with their founders. Having been exposed to high-end audio first before photography, is probably another reason why I’m a bit nonchalant about what good photography costs. If I had not caught the photo bug then maybe by this point in time I’d have a nice Levinson-based system powering a pair of Quad electrostatic speakers, but I have no regrets. Being an audiophile is necessarily a solitary pursuit because there’s only one sweet seat to enjoy the full presence of a good hi-fi. But being a photographer means being able to share with any number of people and it’s always a treat to see people enjoy the photos I take for them. January 26, 2007 - Yesterday, I was at my usual local camera store picking up a couple of items and took the opportunity to demo a Canon Selphy CP720, a printer that my sales guy was big on for producing 4x6 prints. I've been looking for the "right" printer to do 4x6 prints for a little while now to enhance my wedding photography package. The rationale being, a lot of couples still desire 4x6 prints to create a proof album of their own, but people being people, as much as you advise them where to go with their discs full of image files for printing, they don't always follow your advice. Instead of going to a professional lab, or even a real, if consumer-oriented, mall photo store like Blacks (national chain in Canada), many couples might think, why bother. Why not just drop off the files at the photo kiosk of their supermarket and then pick up the prints when finished shopping? Rather than trust couples to print out my files properly and potentially damaging my reputation, I was thinking, why not try and find a solution to allow me to produce high quality 4x6 prints at home. The major stipulation was that this solution had to be somewhat cost effective. I eyed the various professionally-oriented dye-sub printers that can output a 4x6 in a few seconds from the likes of Kodak, Shinko, Sony and Mitsubishi, but at costs at or above what it cost to buy the big Epson 4800, I wasn't too keen on that. Dye-sub seemed the way to go for a low-maintenance printer that I wouldn't have to worry about running every so often to prevent clogging, but all of the dedicated 4x6 sized printers seemed awfully small, and awfully cheesy with dubious quality potential. However, I kept an open mind to see what the cheap little Canon CP720 could do for a little over $100 CAN. Quick of it is that it wasn't too bad. I used a file that I had already printed on 4x6 sized Epson Premium Semi Gloss paper and compared the two prints in the store. The Epson print, of course, matches what I see on my color managed computer system at home, so it's an ideal reference to see how well the Canon can print the files without having to tweak the file further. I did have concerns about how a printer that can't be profiled would work in a color managed system, but first impression is that it wouldn't be too hard. BUT (you knew this was coming, didn't you), the Canon paper is larger than 4x6 size and you have to tear off perforated end pieces after the printer has spat out the print. While appropriate for consumer use, it is most certainly not appropriate for professional presentation. End of demo session and as cheap and as cute as that little CP720 is, I have no use for it for what I desire out of a 4x6 printer. The paper also felt pretty lightweight and cheap compared to the Epson print, and the manner in which the paper is fed backwards and forwards to coat the three colors made me question just how long the printer would last if called upon to print 500 to 1000 proofs per job. While the CP720 was a disappointment, I wasn't really that put off by it given the low expectations going in. However, that wasn't the case for some sample prints I was able to beg from a high-end Sony UPDR150 some time ago. If the print quality was excellent, I would have tried my damnedest to save up the money for one. Unfortunately, the quality was not what I had hoped for. Using the same files used to print my reference Epson 4x6 prints, the color was off, which I could accept as just a printer configuration issue, but the Sony paper, similar to the Canon, was lightweight and cheap feeling. But worse of all, when viewing the prints at an angle to a light source (similar to checking inkjet prints for bronzing), there was banding seen throughout the print, not unlike the "pizza roller" tracks seen from Epson prints (usually seen on Semi Gloss or Luster finish papers, but not matte or glossy). For a $3000 printer, this is not acceptable. I think my only hope for a relatively low cost, relatively maintenance-free 4x6 printer, is not a 4x6 printer, but perhaps the letter sized Kodak 1400. The 1400 is a dye sub unit that prints on 8.5x12 or 8.5x14 inch matte or glossy paper. Of course, one has to manually cut the paper for 4x6 size, which begs the question of why Kodak didn't make the media eight inches for easier cutting, or for producing a full-bleed classic 8x10? The 1400 is CAN $550 and media runs about $100 per 50 sheets, which works out to $0.50 per 4x6 before taxes and any applicable S&H. For that kind of cost, and the fact that in Vancouver, prints can be done at a pro lab for $0.29 per print before taxes, it does seem like folly to piss away that much profit. However, labs sometimes lack consistency and you have to trust in a third-party to produce your prints. This was a big reason why I bought the Epson 4800 in the first place, so that I would never have to trust in someone other than myself. I would also add that one nice aspect of dye sub printing is that it is a bit kinder in the quality of prints it produces. Using an audio analogy, Epson inkjet printing is like listening to a solid state amplifier, whereas dye sub printing is like listening to a tube amp. The Epson print, when faced with extreme to burnt out highlights, will essentially be paper white with a somewhat harsh transition. A dye sub print transitions more smoothly and is less harsh to look at than an inkjet print; very similar to how tubes take the edge off high frequencies. Also analogous to audio is how some dye sub prints get a little messed up with deep blacks, mainly because dye sub printers are CMY devices, not CMYK. The black has to be produced by combining cyan, magenta, and yellow, which in a perfect world would make black, but the world isn't perfect, so you get less than perfect blacks with dye subs. In the audio world, many tube amps don't do bass very well (bass = black or shadows) and get a little ripe and flabby (kind of like my body as I age not so gently). I've seen the little Epson PictureMate units being suggested as a cost effective way to do 4x6 prints. Indeed, for well under CAN $200, you can buy a little dedicated 4x6 printer with pretty competitive cost, but I need another Epson inkjet printer in the house like I need another hole in the head. I don't want to deal with more inkjet cartridges and more ink sets than the three I'm already dealing with. Plus, how the heck would I profile a dedicated 4x6 printer (same problem with the Canon and other 4x6 dye sub printers)? At least with the Kodak 1400, I can profile it easily because of its letter-sized prints. At this rate, I'll probably just hold off and consider it some more and see how much demand I really have and whether a Kodak 1400 is justified. January 20, 2007 - Reader's comment:
January 19, 2007 - After the January 15 posting, I was asked why I needed an external 500 GB Western Digital drive with an NAS in tow already. It's a good question and it would initially seem like I'm trying to have too much of a good thing, but not necessarily. Even with the NAS, I was still using a couple of external drives for backup purposes. At least one 300 GB drive kept off site and another floating around as a quick backup solution if I didn't want to boot up the NAS. I did have a couple more external drives, but the hard drives either died or have became unreliable for safekeeping my files. While some use an NAS as a 24/7 device, I don't and only use it for major backup of my files as I go along with my projects. The Western Digital My Book Premium Edition external drive offers 500 GB (actually only about 465 GB), which is the boring and uninteresting part of the drive (1 TB version also available). The WD My Book comes with software that allows you to back up your internal hard drive, or specific folders to the My Book. Once you've slogged through the lengthy backup process then you can do incremental backups of just the files or folders that have changed since the last backup. The software will keep track of it for you without you having to remember which file or folder have the changes. The software is not anything more than offered by other brands, but it's the first time I've given this type of backup process a shot. I've seen similar software sell for pretty cheap, but by this point I cannot recall the software company that once offered a New Year's special of buying its backup software for pennies (for use with your own hard drive). Once the WD My Book is connected to the PC (USB 2 or Firewire - Firewire requires connection by USB first to install the Firewire drivers), it will turn on automatically with boot-up and shutdown automatically when you power down the computer. You can also turn it off manually via the button surrounded by a blue LED status light on the front of the My Book. I do warn you though that backing up using the WD software is brutally long. A mere 350 GB of data took almost eight hours to backup to the proprietary file format used by the software. I started backing up at around 10:30 pm and then checked on the status at around 6:30 am the next morning and noticed that the backup process had only finished about 15 minutes before I checked it. Using the My Book as a regular external drive results in the usual speed expected from USB 2 or Firewire 400 connection, meaning the same 350 GB of data would take about three-hours to mirror. We'll see how the WD My Book works for the incremental updates and how having two different types of backup processes work; NAS for major mirror backups and the My Book for daily, incremental backups. January 17, 2007 - At the beginning of the year, I was advised that a local photo store, Inter-Pro Photo had gone out of business at their long-time Howe St. location. Like an over-excited teenage boy with his first Penthouse magazine, the notion that Inter-Pro Photo had succumbed to market forces, was a tad premature. Inter-Pro Photo still exists, albeit more modestly size inside ritzier locales, the Sinclair Centre located at Granville and Hastings - yes, the same place where Vancouverites have to suffer horrible lineups to submit our Canadian passport applications. Now it made sense that when I checked out the so-called going out of business sale, the only items that were really up to 70% off, were all the crap items. The good stuff, i.e. items that people would actually want, seemed to be still selling at full retail. Those items, I suspect, made their way to the new location. Speaking of shutting down stores, Dunne Rundle, a long-time staple of the Vancouver photo store scene, shut down their venerable Granville St. location some years back, but like the "new" Inter-Pro Photo, still operate an outlet in a mall-like setting in the corridors that connect all the Bentall office towers together. There are only a few "real" photo stores in Vancouver now, shops that have been at their original locations for decades and where you might still catch a whiff of D-76 (Leo's and Kerrisdale). Ah, the good old days...not that I really knew anything about the good old days ;-) January 16, 2007 - I was checking out the news coming out of the recent MacWorld and was less than thrilled that the major buzz was all about the iPhone (or whatever it will be known as after the patent lawsuit gets settled). The iPhone looks slick and I'm sure it's a very well thought out gadget for the general consumer, but what I was really hoping for was news on the next set of upgrades for the Mac computers. Specifically, quad core processors being implemented in the iMac and Mac Pro desktops. I want to see how Apple will implement and what they will offer and then decide if it's worth taking a bite out of. Will it be ripe, juicy and sweet, or will it be sour crabapples? Not that there's any rush, as I'm waiting for how Vista will shake out before deciding how the computing future will unfold for me. Maybe by then the "octo" core will be out. January 15, 2007 - Shopping at Costco is not a particularly enjoyable experience. Good prices and all, but what a gaggle of humanity you have to weave your way around to get what you need. Lineups to get into the parking lot, lineups to get into the store, lineups to get what you want; lineups everywhere with a constant stream of shoppers coming and going. Now, I'm just a good old boy from the sticks and even after over a decade in the big city, I'm still like a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming semi, about to be turned into hamburger helper roadkill. I like peace and quiet and being away from a mass of people, so shopping at Costco is about the last thing I'd want to do on a Sunday afternoon, most especially when there's beer to be drunk, pizza to eat, and Lord Almighty, NFL playoff football on the tube. However, I got dragged in by the wife and as punishment for her sins, I had her buy me a 500 GB Western Digital external hard drive. It was CAN $250, which seemed okay for a 500 GB drive along with a USB 2 and Firewire capable case. You can never have too much backup storage. I also took note of what Costco charges for a 12x18 inch print, $3, matte or glossy paper. I invoked the Almighty's name again in my mind, but in a more colorful fashion when I saw that price. That price leaves precious little margin after covering the cost of the paper and ink, or at least it leaves little in my system. Costco also only charges 18-cents per 4x6 inch print, but I don't know about trusting Costco with any proofing needs, or the 12x18 inch print for that matter. Costco also offers scanning services, with a rather beat-up looking Epson 2450 available beside the digital print ordering stations. Digital certainly makes it a challenge for old school photographers trying to eke out a buck selling expensive enlargements. Reader's question:
Sure it can. I've had no problems using the Lightspheres with Nikon iTTL (SB800) and the D2X/D200 cameras - but only within the limitations that the Lightsphere places for shooting in relatively close quarters. If the subjects are within 10 feet and you have nice white ceilings and walls, I think the Lightspheres are very good in throwing a quality of light that's better than just bouncing off the ceiling and without the harshness of direct flash. The Lightspheres also suck up a lot of juice and drain your flash's capacitors with almost every shot, resulting in waiting for a few seconds before you have enough juice to take the next shot. Using the Lightspheres essentially requires using an external battery pack to juice the flash quick enough for use in action sequences. The Nikon SD-8A is not bad, but with only six AA cells in use in this pack, it can only provide so much juice. I'm thinking a Quantum or other pack is what's really needed to recycle the flash quick enough for 3-4 shot sequences. January 12, 2007 - A great RAW converter just keeps on getting better, as Bibble has been updated to version 4.9.5 and adds support for the new Nikon D40 SLR. My enthusiastic review from October 2005 (and beyond). January 1, 2007 - These are thoughts that are being pulled randomly from the cobwebs of my mind. I’m sure there are plenty of other happenings and comments to be made, but here’s what I can recall and my thoughts on them. 2006 – The Year in (Brief) Review Nikon,
et al. With the professional class taken care of with the D2X (does anyone actually own and use a D2Hs?), Nikon turned its attention on the consumer market by upgrading the D70 with the very well received D80 and surprisingly, took a turn in being the price buster with the even better received D40, their smallest and lowest cost D-SLR. If anything, the D40 appears to be even better received than the D80 because it brings the cost of SLR ownership to the price point that will allow many consumers to bypass higher end digicams. Who doesn’t doubt that in 2007, a digital SLR will hit the Can $500 mark and by 2008, that $500 will also include a kit lens? It begs the question of how much longer higher end digicams can remain on the market as a viable product when D-SLRs with a lens, will soon be available for similar cost. However, I do grant that digicams still retain an advantage in being able to offer a super zoom lens with IS/VR/OIS whereas the D-SLR user still has to shell out in the range of Can $900 to buy a super zoom like the Nikon 18-200 VR lens to use with the SLR. I know that I’m preaching to the converted for most of the readers when I make the obvious statement that I would much prefer a D40 with 18-200 lens than a super zoom digicam like the Nikon Coolpix 8800, even if it costs nearly double the amount over the CP 8800. Actually, the CP 8800 is not even available anymore, so I should use a current super zoom camera like the Panasonic FZ30 for comparison purposes. The FZ30 is Can $670, which is about where the D40 is for camera alone sans lens. Adding in the 18-200 lens more than doubles the cost of the FZ30, but I’d still rather have the D40/18-200 combo, costs be damned, for the superior flexibility, performance and image quality. Ever notice that many digicam photos look like refugees from consumer video camera output? You gotta use an D-SLR to get away from that rather ubiquitous look and approach some of the color palette that film is so good for. Nikon is hitting its stride, showing that despite being one of the smaller brands on the market, it can still hit ‘em out of the ballpark. However, 2007 should also be a big year for its primary competitor, Canon. Surprisingly, Canon has been floating for the past couple of years, producing solidly good cameras in regular intervals, but aside from the 5D, nothing really exciting and compelling. Many had expected the 30D to be more than a repackaged 20D with some minor parts and performance improvements; more of an “n” type upgrade than deserving of a full blown numeric designation. Even the 5D itself seems like a floater with its only significance being the full frame chip; otherwise, the camera itself is little more than what Canon had already been producing in the 10D/20D/30D series. But, many expect that the 1 series pro cameras will be replaced with new units and some have indicated 26 MP resolution for the third 1Ds camera to come. Nikon has apparently been ready with its own full frame 24 MP next generation camera (with perhaps the last Sony chip used in its pro series?), but is waiting for the Canon shoe to drop before release. Nothing is expected until at least late 2007. It’s all of obvious interest to me, but just as it took me quite some time before making a significant D-SLR upgrade in 2006, I’m just going to sit back and watch it all play out when things start rolling. What of the other brands? Sony had a great start, but appears to be stalled and losing momentum with their Alpha. Hindsight is always 20/20, but one camera does not a system make. The Alpha is built on the remnants of the Minolta 5D, but where is the Sony version of the Minolta 7D and presumed 9D? Where does the Alpha purchaser go when he/she is ready to move on up to a better specified camera? What does the interested Alpha purchaser buy if the Alpha is too rich for their wallet? Sony’s gotta get the ball rolling and produce more models at different price ranges in order to make a serious run at Canon, Nikon, and even Pentax/Hoya for that matter. Or, will the Alpha be another expensive white elephant in the corporate history like Betamax and the Palm-compatible PDAs that suddenly disappeared off the market after a few short years of production. I might even throw in SACD onto that trash pile given the lack of consumer acceptance of this improved digital audio format and Blu-Ray is another contender if it ultimately loses out to HD DVD. As good as Nikon is doing with D-SLRs, it’s Coolpix offerings have the whiff of regurgitated penguin chick food, i.e., they seem a little too me-too compared to other brands and aren’t very exciting to behold. While I have absolutely no hesitation in suggesting people to look at the Nikon SLR offerings first (along with the Pentax K10D), I’ve been telling people to look at Sony, Fuji and Canon digicams if they’re interested in a small, carry everywhere compact camera. The
Missing Reviews and Articles I can offer that as much as the D200 is a wonderful camera, as good as everyone says it is, the D2X is still the ultimate Nikon camera and best I've ever owned and used. The difference in 2 MP seems like nothing and normally it is, but I do see better resolution in D2X files than D200 ones of the same test subjects. BUT, I don't want to make more this than is appropriate because those improvements are hardly earth shattering and would not be make or break situations to decide on one camera or the other. I need to borrow phrases from the world of high-end audio reviews, wherein, minute differences are explained in high detail because that's all that the reviewer can do to explain the difference between say the best Krell and Halcro power amps. The D2X has a filigreed level of detail resolution that is not produced by the D200. It's noise structure is also much more appealing to the eyes than the D200's even if the D200 offers a bit more detail. The D2X noise at high ISO really does look like film grain whereas the D200 noise is contaminated with color splotches typical of many other D-SLRs. The 12-24mm and 17-55mm lenses are excellent, but I say that after having done only cursory testing way back when I first bought them. The 17-55 is a workhorse lens because of its wonderful range from acceptably wide to moderately telephoto on the DX format cameras. When doing portraits though, my lens of choice is the also excellent 28-70mm AF-S lens. It goes wide enough to cover a family of five, while going long enough to do single person portraits (with a bit of judicious moving of the tripod backwards and forward). Speaking of family portraits, the 600 w/s Visatec mono lights I bought from a friend are wonderful to use. With the D2X set to ISO 100, I'm still only using half the power available on tap from the Visatec strobes for the typical in-house portrait session. For very large group shots though (30-40 people, four deep), you need full power and a bump up in ISO to 200 on the D2X. The large 60-inch umbrellas that I got with the Visatecs are great for spreading out the light, but a pain to deal with when shooting in house environments with the usual eight foot ceilings. The pain comes from photographing people wearing glasses and the lack of height creates reflections that take time to edit out and sometimes are so severe that editing isn't even worth the while. Other products of note are the Gary Fong Lightspheres I purchased earlier in the year. These Tupperware-like products really do produce wonderfully soft light, but only in the right settings. Outside of these settings and they become useless power sucking devices. The right conditions are close quarter photography, within ten-feet of the subject, and the need for white ceilings and/or walls to allow the light to spread around the subjects. More effective than regular bouncing, but this comes at a cost of major juice sucking and waiting for long recycle times. Which is why I ordered some Nikon SD-8A battery packs for my SB800 flashes, but Nikon has production problems, such that it was not until late November before I received my two packs. This from having ordered them in the middle of summer and far too late to be of any use for the weddings I had in the late summer. Thus, I've not really tested out the SD-8A formally to see how much of an improvement they offer, but I can say that it is meaningfully better than the stock SB800. I suspect though that a Quantum battery pack is a better buy for performance but for a lot more money. I still have to put the Sigma 30mm f1.4 lens through its paces, as well as the new Lensbaby 3G. All in due time and hopefully sooner rather than later. The
High End The cost to even nibble at that fruit is so prohibitively high that I have no fear of selling my soul at this time, but then again, how many times have I sold it already over the years of equipment purchase in medium format and 35mm film systems and now 35mm-based digital systems? However, I do recall that some brand, perhaps Phase, perhaps Hasselblad, announced plans to introduce a 16 MP back for the masses. But, the masses for these high end brands still means a price tag hitting five-figures of US $10k. Sorry, but for that kind of quid, I’d much prefer to get a camera included with the chip and buy a top line, next generation Canon or Nikon. And, I’d get more resolution to boot with far superior functionality and usability. But, what if Phase wised up and figured out that they would be able to sell a helluva lot more 16 MP backs at US $5k instead of $10k? Hell, even I’d be burning the midnight oil to figure out how to scam…er…borrow from the kids’ education fund to buy one and an adapter for my idly sitting Bronica system. In case you’re wondering how I’d be able to use a modern day digital back with a discontinued camera system; everyone would expect that the default mounting system for a lower cost back would be the classic Hasselblad V system and there is (was) a company that made adapters to mate V system backs onto the Bronica SQ cameras. For a small US $1k price... Printers The 3800 is priced so attractively that the R2400 is either going to have to be severely priced down or eliminated altogether, because it makes no sense to have an R2400 at Can $1000 while the 3800 is available at $1500. Checking out the prices at Vistek indicates that the former is happening with the R2400 being available for under $900, but this prices needs to come down further. What might make sense is to eliminate the R2400 and come out with a letter-sized K3 printer for around $500. I know the 3800 lacks certain features that some desire such as roll feeding, but come on, a 17-inch wide printer that comes with a full set of expensive ink for around $1500 makes the R2400 pretty redundant in my books. I am, however, a cut sheet printer only, so I would never miss the roll feed feature. While the new HP printers are intriguing with their built-in X-Rite (formerly GretagMacbeth) spectrophotometers, my preference would be for a separate spectro unit for the best flexibility. On my wish list for 2007 is the GM Eye One Photo package, or whatever X-Rite packages as its equivalent. Computers I like
my new “old” HP computer, but its compact size is a pain for expansion
capabilities, but it’s a good way-stop to wait out the quad core processors
dropping in price and for
I’m not
so sure I like Microsoft anymore and its constant demand to validate
legit installations of XP every time an update becomes available.
Vista is apparently even worse and questions are being asked by how
sensitive
I’ve been wondering what the Kool-Aid made from Apple(s) would taste like… Weddings As of this writing, I’m still waiting for clients to submit their enlargement and album orders from weddings that happened in the late summer of 2006. Talking to a friend indicated that this is quite normal and I recall reading an interview of Joe Buissink wherein he’s had to wait a year and half for some clients to come back to him for orders. I also learned that while it may seem like you’re giving the client the world when you hand over discs containing over a 1,000 files, the norm is more of 500 images no matter how many shots were taken during the day. And, of course, now I know why you don’t overload the couple with so many photos; so they can submit their orders sooner rather than later. It’s still a learning process of how to run a business and my biggest problem is that there are only 24 hours in a day to try and do all the things I’d like to do to redesign the website and create better galleries. There’s also a small thing of wanting to continue improving as a wedding photographer with every job. Photography I need to find my way out of the wilderness of complacency and start doing some projects that I’ve had germinating in my mind for a few years. Not to make excuses, but time is always an issue with a young family that demands near-constant attention. A change in jobs within the same organization I’ve been at for almost ten-years has also demanded more time and a need to take some night courses and eventually try my hand at achieving a designation, the better to add some letters after my name on my business card for some “street” cred. I need to become better organized, more motivated, and manage my limited time to fulfill my professional and personal lives. 2007 However, other than maybe a few minor pieces here and there, I don’t see or feel a need for any major changes to occur in 2007. I’m quite comfortable and confident in my ability to take the photos that I desire with what I have and any disappointments or failures can be directly attributed to the dumb ass behind the viewfinder J Happy New Year and all the best for the coming year! |
|
Correspondence & About this website Copyright © 1998-2010 Edwin Leong |
|
  |
|
In the other shot, I'm using the same D2X and 17-55 combo for shots of the couple in the rain (they had an umbrella, while I obviously did not). The cameras and lenses came through like champs in the rain. 
March
27, 2007 - I'm back and somewhat refreshed or as much as
I can be refreshed after helping to shepherd six young kids through
Disneyland over three days. Some snafus occurred at the end of the
journey that tried my patience, but I'll have more to say in a wrap-up
article of what it was like to visit and photograph in the world famous
park and its companion California park next door.
Dorothea
Lange's Migrant Mother, taken in 1936, is what is called an archetype.
This single image summarizes all that is thought of the Great Depression
that hit America in the 1930s after the 1929 stock market crash exposed
what we now call a bubble of speculation. The Depression took down a
sitting President (Herbert Hoover) and would not end until World War
II pulled the US out and revealed its incredible manufacturing capacity
that helped to turn the tide for the Allies to achieve victory.