|
Home >> Old News Items What's New Archives 2008 April 29, 2008 - Boy, what an embarassment to be at work and just happening to go to one of my websites, only to see some outrageous ads being posted by one of the advertising feeds I signed up with to generate some revenue. One day, I see iPods, digital cameras and printers being flogged and the next day I see stupid ads wanting people to test out their IQ or flashing that they may have won something. I've taken down all the offending ads, because they are not what I had signed up for. Speaking of which, I'd be mighty grateful to y'all if you make your purchases through the B&H Photo link found top left of this and every web page of this humble site. Every little bit goes to the equipment slush fund ;^) April 28, 2008 - Okay, call me weak, call me a hypocrite, call me inconsistent, call me whatevery you want, because I didn't have the discipline to hold out any longer. After getting a pocketful full of cash from selling the D200 SLRs, I bought a D300 with MB-D10 grip and a BL-3 battery cover to allow me to use the EN-EL4 battery from my D2X. If things go well this week, I might be able to sell off a couple more lenses and one of the two new Nikkor zoom lenses could find their way into my camera bag too. I know that I said I was in no rush, and truly I was not. I know I said that I wanted to see what Canon is going to do with its 5D replacement and truly, I still do. However, as I pondered what I should do, I decided that I was going to spend this cash sooner or later, so might as well spend it sooner. Plus, I owed my sales guy at my usual shop a favour for helping me with the D200 sales, so why not reward him with a sales commission. The Canon grass is still a factor, but I finally clued in that with the 40D lender fully intending to buy whatever replaces the 5D and that I would have access to it whenever I need it, that there was no need for me to spend any of my money on any Canon gear. As it is, I still have the 40D, 17-55 and 70-200 IS lenses on hand and I can snag the 10-22 wide zoom and 580 EX II flash whenever I desire. I could have actually sat pretty using the borrowed Canon gear until I really needed to buy a new Nikon SLR, but I'm sure you'd prefer that I have something meaningful to compare it to. And, you know, as I pondered my recent spate of purchases, I "could" have afforded that D3 afterall, but then I'd have none of the other goodies that I have now if I had actually bought a D3, e.g. i1 Photo, Nik software, Wacom tablet, etc. One of my other new purchases is a bit out of left field and while it's tangentially related to audio, it's actually more music related, if that makes any sense. It's something I've desired ever since I was a kid after I bought my first record, AC DC's For Those About to Rock, We Salute You. Take a wild guess if you wish 8^) Back to the D300, I've only used it sparingly for family snaps this past weekend, as my oldest turned 10 and I covered his party with the new camera. I'm still evaluating the AF, but that 8 fps is sure nice after the 5 fps speed of the D200. It's very easy to let rip 2-3 frames in a single burst - unintentionally, just like with the 40D. However, my subjective impression is that the 40D still has a slightly more hair trigger than the D300. That three inch LCD is indeed very nice and while I've not done any serious review or pixel peeping (just no time at all and haven't even uploaded the party pics to my computer yet), just going by what that LCD shows, the D300 has a more neutral color cast than the D200 and there seems to be more punch, but that could also be the effects of a more accurate white balance. Obviously, more impressions to come in the weeks ahead. Unlike in 2006, I won't be rushing out to buy a second D300 anytime soon. That I can be strong on at least. April 26, 2008 - My speaking notes for last week's presentation to the Pacific Digital Photography Club is now available. April 24, 2008 - I'm closing down the garale sale. Although I did not sell everything, the two key items, the D200s, have sold and I'm happy enough with that. The lenses are still available if anyone is interested, but I don't see much point in continuing with a dedicated page to try and sell them. April 23, 2008 - I survived my presentation to the Pacific Digital Photography Club. I did a presentation on my digital darkroom, e.g. what kind of hardware and software I use, and it seems to have been well received. The club members were very friendly and welcoming and I hope that I was able to give them an interesting presentation. It's always nice to be able to walk into a room and immediately be able to connect with everyone in it, because we all share the same passion. Later on, as time permits, I will post my speaking notes and the slides used for everyone else to read and see. April 22, 2008 - The two D200 cameras are gone and only the lenses are left in my garage sale. Later this evening I will be doing a presentation at the Pacific Digital Photography Club in Port Moody. It will be the first time that I will speak in front of a large group of photographers. Wish me luck. April 21, 2008 - The Nikon Historical Society was in Vancouver last weekend for it biennial conference. About 50-60 people from around the world get together to meet, discuss and present on the topic of Nikon historical data, principally on the topics concerning Nikon optics used in binoculars. While I was not allowed to stay for the presentations, I was allowed to come to the opening half hour for mingling around and to take a look at the collection brought in by a major collector from the USA. I've posted some pictures taken during that opening half hour. April 16, 2008 - I've added an audio item to my garage sale, the Benchmark DAC-1. Depending on how one potential sale goes, additional items may be added in the next day or two. April 15, 2008 - Interesting news from Adobe employee, Terry White, about Adobe TV. Reader's comment:
Hmm, I think I just got served 8^) Allow me to clarify... For me, a hobbyiest these days instead of merely semi-professional, spending $5000 on a new SLR every few years would be foolhardy. Or, put another way, I ain't got $5k to buy a D3. That doesn't mean that a $5k D3 is not a good buy. If you're able to shoot regularly and make money from your photography than $5k is just a cost of doing business and ensuring that you stay competitive with your rivals chasing the same clients and dollars. It wouldn't take too much for me to change my tune and start thinking about the D3 in a serious way. A couple of big weddings per month during the season would be all that I'd need to do it, but I'm not even at that low rate, because of studying for a blasted course that I'm probably going to fail anyway, has taken me away from being photographically active. Thus, at this time, there is no business justification for a D3, whereas, as a hobbyiest, I can afford $2000 every few years for a D300 class SLR. That could definitely still make me a sucker, but just not as big as the next amateur buying the D3 just because he wants the latest and greatest. Also, the D200 no longer satisfies like it used to. As I've written previously, its AF and speed is lacking compared to the Canon 40D, While this was made very apparent during the close of the hockey season when I was photographing my son, I can't see how an improved SLR won't be a benefit for future weddings and other event photography. However, the real investment is in the lenses and my garage sale is as much about the new Nikkors, as it is about the D300 - while also keeping an eye out on Canon's next move. Again, no rush into any new purchases, as I can take my time this summer to see what arrives. Speaking of lenses, the 17-55 is now sold and the 12-24 has sparked some interest. Send me an email if you're interested in any of the items at the garage sale. And, if you don't want to buy anything from me, hey, I'm cool with that so long as you buy something from B&H Photo using my link ;^) Thanks to everyone that has bought from B&H Photo and have helped to support my equipment slush fund. April 14, 2008 - After getting that tip from a reader that the Nik ColorEfex filters are indeed compatible with Photoshop CS3, I bit the bullet and bought the 52 filter kit for US $300. After installing the filters, I'm quite impressed with the variety available and can see some very interesting uses in the future. Below is a (small) screen shot of the Nik filter screen that provides a before and after review of the image and the filter chosen.
Some of you might be thinking that I've blown some big bucks in recent weeks with the Wacom Bamboo pen tablet, X-Rite Eye One Photo and now the Nik filter set. I also bought some other software as well and all together I think I've blown enough to buy a D300. If my coworker is reading this, he's probably thinking, uh oh, it must be fiscal year end time and bonus payouts are coming soon. Ah, well, yes it is, but it doesn't have anything to do with this...well, maybe a tiny a bit ;^) While I'd love to have a D300 to use right now, what I'm doing is trying to take care of my digital darkroom first and get it as complete as I need it to be. This actually started late last year, when I finally purchased Adobe Lightroom and plunged head first into the way digital photography is going to be edited (along with Apple's Aperture) in the 21st Century. Next up was finally getting myself equipped with the CS3 suite and concluded with my most recent purchases. I have a very nice desktop system, a 64-bit OS to utilize all of my RAM and now the software to take advantage of that power. I also have enough storage capacity and backup systems at the moment with my Drobo and NAS. It's not to say that I'm finished, because there are a few last accessories to look at and decide if I need them, but I'm pretty satisfied with what I have now. The final piece of the puzzle would be a camera upgrade and the D300 is the obvious choice (along with the two enticing Nikon zoom lenses), however, believe it or not, even if I did sell everything in my garage sale, I don't feel the need to rush into making the new purchases. Based on how impressed I am with the Canon 40D, I want to wait to see what Canon does with the 5D replacement, before I make any committments. A wholesale switch to Canon? No, not at all, but more a supplement to the Nikon kit. Look, a D3 would be awesome, but having blown $5000 on a high-end SLR in 2006, I'm in no desire to tread that path again, because this is a sucker's game to always upgrade with each generation of SLR. April 13, 2008 - Garage Sale 2008 is now on. Looking at what's for sale, you can probably make a good guess as to what it is I want to upgrade to ;^) April 12, 2008 - The X-Rite i1 Photo LT arrived Thursday afternoon and as soon as I had the time to install the software and calibrate my Acer system, it paid immediate dividends in providing me with a more neutral and stable profile than my old Monaco Optix XR and EZColor software. Don't get me wrong, the Optix XR is still considered one of the best colorimeters available and the EZColor software is good, but since I've gone with a dual-LCD system with the Acer, the old Monaco software has not been stable in keeping my profiles. The Acer without a second LCD was fine when I profiled with the Monaco products, but adding in the second LCD seemed to throw the profiles for a loop, especially since I profile both LCDs. Profiling the main Acer screen with the X-Rite spectrophotometer and iMatch software now gets me good neutrality and just as important, stability of the profile staying instead of disappearing as it was wont to do prior to the X-Rite profiling. Seen below is the result of the new profile from iMatch:
Curiously, the target luminance (brightness) was set for 120.0, but I ended up with 222.5, which is quite far off the target. However, trying to adjust the Acer's LCD means having to use the nVidia software, which doesn't seem like a good idea to me. However, I'm pleased that the Acer is very close to the desired white point of 6500K with a native white point of 6700K. Profiling the Viewsonic LCD did not result in a match to the Acer, but I profiled using different parameters. Initially, profiling the Viewsonic at its native white point resulted in a very blue profile at 7300K. I adjusted the RGB settings in the Viewsonic's OSD to get it set to my defined 6500K. I also used a luminance setting of 140 instead of the suggested 120 for LCDs, which I find is just too dark for day-to-day use (even 140 seems a bit dim). Notice the curve for the Viewsonic is very linear except in the lower left corner when it drops off sharply to zero in the last cube, whereas the Acer's curve covers more range with less linearity for the blue channel.
These are just some initial results and I'm going to be fussing around a bit more to see if I can't get a better match between the two LCDs. When I posted about the Wacom Bamboo Fun, I speculated that I may be inclined to try out the larger and more expensive Wacom Intuous 6x11 tablet. Having looked a bit more, I'm liking Wacom's Cintiq line a lot more, because these are real LCD monitors that allow direct on-screen editing with a pen stylus. The new 12WX is getting rave reviews as the newest offering from Wacom, but 12-inches is...ahem...too small - I'm sure John Holmes never had that said to him 8^). There is the older 21-inch Cintiq, which offers the traditional TV aspect ratio of 4:3 and 1600x1200 pixel resolution. It's a rather kingly sum though to buy at around $3000. There is also a wide aspect ratio 20-inch Cintiq offering 1680x1050 pixels, but it is princely at around $2100 or so. The 20-inch wide model appeals to me the most, but at $2100, I think I'd rather have that second 30-inch LCD instead and still be able to buy the 6x11 inch tablet to boot. April 10, 2008 - Reader's tip:
April 9, 2008 - In thinking about my comments posted yesterday about the photographer refusing to take a big family photo, there might have been another reasonable explanation. The photographer may have thought that the young lady asking him to take a family photo, may have misconstrued the request as a family photo of the young lady's own family and not of the bridal couple's extended family. The photographer is Caucasian and the young lady is originally from Hong Kong, so maybe something got lost in translation. However, if it were me, and even if the family photo was of just the young woman's own family, if there was nothing pressing to take photos of, I'd have taken the shot and made her happy. Another possibility, but one that I'm treading on thin ice, is that the photographer may have thought the time for group photos was over, because he covered all the groups the couple had wanted after the ceremony (curiously, taking group shots with a 70-200 lens, which required him to be somewhat distant to the subjects). Last weekend, I finally had time to send the person that cribbed my website design, text and photos, a message requesting that he stop passing off my work as his own. I gave the person a week to comply in my polite message. He responded the next day with a short apology and confirmation that my content would be removed. I didn't look at his website again until Tuesday night, but noticed that the whole site was down. I'm glad that an email was all that was required to resolve this matter. Now, take a visit to this photographer's webpage and read his text on the left side of the page under Our Service. Then visit my About Me page and tell me what you think - and again, I assure you that the text on my About Me page came directly from my own grey matter. While I'm definitely cheesed about another dude cribbing my text, this is less egregious than having almost every element of your website copied, as done in the first instance. April 8, 2008 - As seen at left, you can now search the vast inventory of the awesome B&H Photo store, the largest photography store in North America, directly from this website (all the other pages at this website will be updated with the B&H search function). Needless to say, when you make a purchase at B&H Photo from CameraHobby, a little bit comes my way and goes into my D3 slush fund. And, I promise that every red cent that comes through to my paws will be spent on photographic gear ;^) After a recent family dinner, which I did not attend due to being somewhat flu-like and needing to study, my wife told me about one of the conversations that came up about the recent wedding I attended. One of the sisters-in-law of the groom had asked the photographer to take a big family photo, which is standard fare at Chinese weddings, and I suspect most other Asian weddings. The photographer said no and speculation was that the photographer may have felt that he was hired by the couple and therefore only took instructions from the couple and not peripheral family members. Dumb and dumber! Dumb for saying no to such an obvious photo opportunity and dumber for being ignorant of the rather dominant Chinese culture in Vancouver. Family is huge in the Chinese culture and when weddings happen, family photos are taken everywhere by any means. The worse thing for any pro would be to say no, especially if the photo asked to be taken includes the wedding couple. And really, taking family photos cannot just be a Chinese thing either, it's gotta be done at every wedding, no matter the culture or country. If you're old school and still sell prints individually, it's potentially lost sales, but if you're 21st Century and you charge enough to cover lost print sales and give the couple high-resolution digital files on DVDs, you've lost goodwill and some credability. You never know when one of those mothers, aunts or sisters-in-laws will be in on the discussion about the choice of photographer and they pipe up:
So, a tip for all those aspiring wedding photographers, if some nice young or old lady approaches you to take a big family group shot, you don't walk, you run to the key spot, take charge and command to direct all the subjects. Everyone will remember you for it, especially the Chinese mothers, who rule the roost on the home front. I forgot to mention in my posting about the Wacom Bamboo Fun Medium, that it comes with some free software too. Adobe Photoshop Elements 5 and some Photoshop filters from Nik. Since I've never used Photoshop Deluxe and have no intention in doing so now (freebie copies I've received with other peripherals have always been given away to others less geeky than me), I only installed the Nik filters. Unfortunately, the Nik Color Efex Pro 2.0 GE filters kept crashing Photoshop CS3 and it was not until I removed the folder from where they were installed that Photoshop worked properly once again. That's not particularly confidence inspiring and to think that back in January, I was giving some serious thought to buying the whole she-bang for USD $300.
I wondered if I didn't take to it, because I didn't fork over the big bucks to buy one of Wacom's high-end Intuous models, which would have forced to have used it more regularly, due to the cost. However, in thinking about it, I think there were technical limitations to that old Graphire that made the good old mouse a relief to return to. As much as using a pen-type of stylus would seem intuitive (intuitive - Intuous, get it, ah, never mind) I didn't find it to be over the mouse. Pretty much every reviewer states that after using the pen stylus for some time, they much preferred it over the mouse, both for hand positioning to relieve stress, plus the more natural way of pointing. The old Graphire I bought was first, too small at 4x5 inches to make it useful for navigating the desktop, especially as monitors have gotten larger and resolution has increased. Second, the cursor was mapped point for point on the Graphire's pad. What I mean is that if you wanted to click on say, the Windows Start button at the bottom left of the desktop, the Graphire's mouse or pen also had to be exactly at the bottom left corner of the 4x5 inch pad. You could not lift the Graphire's mouse or pen off the pad and reposition it to a more comfortable area, like you could with a regular mouse. The Graphire's mouse, while wireless, could only work within the 4x5 inch sensitive portion of the pad, which also made it less than useful. As I mentioned above, once I gave up on the Graphire, going back to the old mouse was a welcome relief, as the mouse is indeed more intuitive and faster handling - there's gotta be a reason why the ubiquitous mouse has lasted for so long since its development at Xerox PARC in the 1970s, which Apple very wisely copied (along with the GUI and other landmark developments from Xerox PARC that found their way into the first Macs of the 1980s). Today, I'm trying out another Wacom graphics tablet, but this time, in the form of Wacom's mid-level Bamboo Fun Medium - I'm still a bit gun-shy about blowing $400 on an Intuous tablet, but if it's as good as the Bamboo, I may end up being a lot less shy about it.
While, I'm still not big on using a pen stylus for everyday pointing, the mouse action has been much improved over the old Graphire I tried circa 2001 or 2002. The Bamboo Fun Medium provides a more useful 5.3x8.5 inch sensitive pad area and more importantly, the cursor is no longer mapped to specific points of the desktop, so that you can lift up the mouse and reposition more comfortably. However, the pen still is mapped precisely and I don't see any settings to change this. This is probably the biggest thing to get used to if you use the pen, that you must think in terms of mapping your desktop with the tablet's sensitive area. I think I would take to using the pen more if it could be like the mouse and not require precise mapping. For now I made two changes to the pen's default setting, which is to make the first button equivalent to a mouse double-click and to disable the equivalent of the right mouse button click when I hold the pen on the pad. The first change is obvious and convenient for not having to double-tap the pad everytime I want to open up something and the second change makes using the pen just like a mouse in being able to hold and drag to select items or highlight text. However, I still need more time with the pen before I decide if it's something I can live with.
The Bamboo's mouse also has a downside, which is its shape and feel. This is a 20th Century mouse design that has long been superceded by ergonomic designs from Microsoft and Logitech (I have mice from both companies, so I know from experience). The Bamboo's mouse is like a bar of soap and has minimal grooves for the fingers to rest on compared to the sexy grooves from Microsoft and Logitech. The Wacom mouse also seems to lack the snap of my optical and laser precision mice. The Bamboo's base/pad has four buttons and a circular sensor that can be used to zoom in and magnify a page or an image, or to scroll. Since my eyeshot isn't completely shot yet, I changed the sensor's default zoom to scroll for general use, but for Photoshop, this would be handy for zooming in on an image. The buttons can be configured for different functions and in Photoshop, the immediate practical use would be to have one button to reduce a brush size and another to increase the brush size.
Depending on how I get along with the Bamboo Fun Medium with my everyday Acer computer, I may consider the 6x11 size Intuos for the desktop system, but I'm in no rush at the moment.
One benefit of buying the Bamboo Fun Medium and then registering it online is a discount on an X-Rite Eye One Photo LT. At 25% off, I bit and finally gave into my longstanding desire to own an X-Rite (formerly GretagMacbeth) spectrophotometer to profile my monitors and printers. While 25% seems pretty generous, upon further research, I found that it was not quite as generous at first glance. The price of the Eye One Photo from the online X-Rite store that I made the purchase is $995, minus the 25% for a price of $746. Add in the UPS Expedited delivery and the price goes up to $795 (all USD $ except as noted) - having been bit bad by standard UPS delivery and its high brokerage fees, I paid the extra for Expedited, so that there should be no brokerage fee charges upon delivery. However, I will still have to pay 12% PST and GST taxes when delivered, which means that my final price is going to be around CDN $900. Going to the regular, non-Wacom tied page for the Eye One Photo LT and I see that the Eye One Photo LT is listed at $895, or $100 cheaper than the Wacom-associated X-Rite webpage that I ordered from. Thus my 25% discount is actually only a 17% discount. Bogus! Rubbing more salt into the price wound is that some US retail outlets sell the Eye One Photo LT for only $800, so now the discount is a scant 7%. Double bogus!! Ah well, a discount is a discount and I think I still saved money from having to buy from a Canadian retailer, but my spending on the Eye One Photo LT won't end there though. The Eye One Photo LT is the standard Eye One Photo package that comes with the much revered and coveted Swiss-made spectrophotometer, the much improved backing board and ruler system to make printer profiling quick and easy and some accessories to place the spectrophotometer on an LCD for monitor profiling. So far, so good, but the reason why the Eye One Photo LT is priced at $995 (or $895 or $800) is because the iMatch software only allows for monitor and printer profiling without the ability to profile scanners, projectors or digital SLRs. I'm fine with that, because I don't need to do any of that, but the iMatch software is also basic in that the printer profiling software is the small test chart type for making RGB profiles instead of the large test chart type that comes with the higher priced versions of the Eye One Photo. No CMYK profiling capabilities either, which I'm also fine with, as I have no use for this feature. The difference between the small and large test type technology is something like 250 color patches for the small test target versus almost 1,000 for the large test target. While X-Rite is trying to make a big deal about its small test chart technology, especially with its new Colormunki, serious users still create profiles with many hundreds, if not, thousands of color patches. Consider that the HP Z series of printers can come with an optional X-Rite spectrophotometer built-in to create custom printer profiles. The base color target has 500 patches and the advanced target has almost 1,000 (reference, Luminous Landscape review of the Z3100). And, I don't know how many times I've mentioned this now, but noted photographer and color management expert, Bill Atkinson creates profiles using 4,000 or more color patches. Technology does advance, so perhaps fewer targets are needed as the software and hardware improves, but I'm not convinced yet and there has to be a reason why there is a price discrepancy between the Eye One Photo kits that only offer the small test target versus those offer the large test target (aside from the increase profiling capabilities for scanners, projectors, cameras and off-set CMYK printers). I just hope the upgrade price won't be as inconsistent as X-Rite's pricing on the Eye One Photo LT. I also wonder how long it will be before the itch sets in to buy the Eye One iO Scan Table, which automates the scanning process. A robotic arm takes over the tedious part of scanning color patches for you, but for a hefty cost at CDN $1569 from Vistek. Spending that much money to save about five or ten minutes of time doing manual scanning is maybe too much even for me 8^)
I was just messing around with some photos (one of which is at right) I took the previous weekend, using some Craig's Actions to add some glamour to the photos, but I used the JPEGs I rendered from Lightroom, which led to some brutal looking images. Normally, when doing edits in Photoshop, I prefer working with 16-bit TIFF files tagged with the ProPhoto RGB color space. The JPEGs were files that I rendered for burning to a CD for the couple and I was only taking a look at some different looks available with the actions. After seeing the ugly artifacts, I rendered 16-bit TIFF files from Lightroom to see how they would fare. Below we see the two versions side-by-side and it should be pretty obvious which is which:
Close-up of the same image:
Notice the splotchiness of the JPEG at left compared to the smoother tones at right, although, even the TIFF shows artifacts from this initial phase of the particular action I was using. Although this example might be somewhat extreme, if you plan to push an image hard in post production, there's little doubt that you will need a 16-bit file to keep the integrity. There are good reasons why so many people recommend shooting RAW and then rendering to 16-bit TIFFs or PSDs for editing instead of shooting in JPEG mode. April 4, 2008 - I didn't mention another upgrade in Lightroom Beta 2 that could have some significant implications for photographers, as opposed to retouchers. Lightroom 2 will offer localized edits, whereas Lightroom 1.x only offered global edits. Before, if you needed to get really deep down and dirty and muck around at the pixel level, Photoshop was still the only effective way to do this kind of editing. For example, if you wanted to change the color of a person's shirt from bright red to baby blue, you could give it a shot in Lightroom, but by changing the red in one part of the scene, you had to effect a change to red everywhere else in the whole scene. Whereas Photoshop allows you to select and/or mask the shirt and make changes just to it and not to every other part of the scene. With localized editing supported in Lightroom and with a spotting tool already available, we're getting to the point that one application can do it all. There's still room for improvement though and this is where third-party plug-ins can play a role. Lightroom already offers good capture sharpening thanks to the efforts of Jeff Schewe, who is part of the Pixel Genius group that gave us Photokit Sharpener. There are hints that Pixel Genius are working on a sharpening routine for Lightroom that will cover the creative and print sharpening aspects of image editing, just like Photokit Sharpener does for Photoshop. For photographers that don't mess around in Photoshop too much (like me) with every upgrade and update to tools such as Lightroom and Aperture, I can import, browse, edit and output files quickly and efficiently and never touch Photoshop for the basic workflow. This was actually how I handled the almost 5,000 hockey photos I ended up with over the winter. I probably took close to 10,000 photos, but whittled them down to less than 5,000 in Lightroom. Did the basic edits and output to sRGB JPEG files to burn to DVDs for the other parents. The only time I used Photoshop were for one offs and for printing enlargements of the players at the end of the season. Wedding photography wise, there are still times that I'd want to do further editing in Photoshop, whether for blemishes or using some of my Craig's Actions to glamorize the brides - you know, that soft, diffused glow thing that blurs the skin and hides blemishes. If I want to design a custom album, well, that's another Photoshop thing too. So, there's still a place for Photoshop in my digital darkroom, but it's not as much the go to app anymore. However, I'm stoked that Adobe plans to make Photoshop CS4 64-bit compatible for PC users and surprisingly, Mac users will have to wait for CS5 before they get a 64-bit version. CS4 is exactly why I built a new desktop running 64-bit Vista Ultimate, so I'll be itching for it when it does arrive. April 3, 2008 - Lightroom 2 is available as a beta download and trial. While there are a number of little tweaks, the biggest one for me is dual monitor support. I'm trying out the 32-bit version on my Acer notebook system and after importing some files, I was taken back to those very unimpressive early days of Lightroom 1 beta. Which is to say slow, incredibly slow and buggy. I tried one little white balance tweak in beta 2 and I immediately got a spinning circle that would not go away. After 6-7 minutes of waiting, I shut it down and started over, which, while a bit slow, at least worked as expected. Below are a couple of screen shots of my notebook system, the larger one being an external 24-inch LCD and the smaller one being the notebook screen, used as the secondary while the external acted as the primary monitor (the screen shots are not exactly to scale).
The benefit of having a second monitor is to be able to do larger image views or comparisons without having palettes getting in the way. You can make adjustments on the main monitor and the image on the secondary monitor will immediately reflect those changes. Alternatively and perhaps more useful, you can have the second monitor show all the images in a grid view for selection to edit in the main monitor. Coming hard on the heels of the recent Aperture 2 updates, Adobe has rather impeccable timing to ensure that it instills FUD amongst those wanting to take a bite out of that white fruit. My only beef is why it's gonna take so long for beta 2 to become production 2, because I want it now! April 2, 2008 - I haven't found the time to deal with the person that ripped off my wedding website design, text and photos, but I will in a couple of days. Another photographer also ripped off my text from the wedding website's About Me page. I noticed that others have also plagerized my short article about the Rule of Thirds and past it off as their own either partially or wholly. It's the wild west... On another note, I just clued in on an interesting juxaposition of events the previous weekend. As mentioned previously, I attended a wedding on Saturday night, a celebration of life and new beginnings. The day after, I was at the cemetary to pay respects to some aunts and uncles and my grandparents. Right around Easter (but not always coinciding with it) is a time when Chinese go to the cemetaries to pay their respects to the ancestors. The ritual can be quick and simple with placing flowers on the grave to rather elaborate with some families having what amounts to a picnic at the grave site. As a child, whenever my mother and I visited Vancouver, we would visit the big cemetary in Burnaby and place flowers on my grandfather's grave. With our visits rarely lasting more than an overnight stay, a ten minute trip was about all that we could spare, as we met up with and paid our respects to the living relatives and friends. Now that we live in Burnaby, my parents have gotten a little bit more ritualistic in bringing a cooked chicken, hard boiled eggs, and pastries to the grave site and making a symbolic offering to the ancestors. My dad places little cups in front of the food, pours some alchohol and then burns paper money in a metal pot. You gotta make sure the ancestors have enough food, drink and money for those heavenly games of mah jong. However, we sure as heck do not have a picnic in the cemetary. We do the symbolic thing, pack up then go home. As a kid, visiting the graveyard conjured up thoughts of ghosts and ghouls, but as an adult, it only serves to remind me of my own mortality and that some day, I'll be six feet under and hopefully, the kids will at least lay a flower or two on my own plot. When we arrived last Sunday, my father carried my youngest in his arms so that the youngest could be around his great grandparents. There we were, three generations of Leongs visiting a fourth with my eight month old being held by his nearly eighty year old grandfather. April 1, 2008 - So, my buddy Rob Greer from California, sends me an email with the subject line "Site Raping." Well, quite provocative, so I opened it up to see what was up. Turns out another wedding photographer ripped off much of Rob's website and passed it off as his own. I suppose this fellow being from the East thought that he wouldn't be found by Rob over here on the west coast. Unfortunately for him, Rob did find out (try www.copyscape.com if you want to see if you've been ripped off) and contacted him directly about the matter. The fellow claimed that his hired web designer was at fault, right down to ripping off Rob's photos and passing them off as his own. All I can say is BRUTAL! Actually, I was saying a lot worse once I got to the guy's website and noticed that he had copied so much of Rob's original design. Ironically, the budding photographer also claims to be a website designer, which Rob is also - guess whose website designer description he also ripped off... What's even more brutal is that Rob posted about his website being copied and ripped off on DWF, a pay-for forum catering to wedding photographers and frequented by some well known pros, such as Joe Buissink. Coincidentally, the fellow is also a member of DWF and started a thread trying to explain away his actions. Shortly after he started the thread, Rob posted with a straightforward, "I'm a member of this forum" message. DWF has apparently banned him until all the offending pages have been removed. Now, Rob's a fine photographer and unlike me, he's put in a lot of work to build up his site with galleries. There's a lot of content available and I guess it was too much for this person to not steal it away. He claims to be starting out in the wedding photography business and geez, isn't it so much easier to use another person's hard earned work and pass it off as your own. After things had settled down, I was thinking, well, at least Rob has worthy content to steal, unlike me...then, for a chuckle, I used copyscape.com to check out my own wedding photography website and lo and behold, three websites popped up that had used some or much of my text from my About Me page. I thought, well at least they didn't steal my photos...then I checked out one of the three websites in detail and well, I don't know about you, but I'm feeling like I've been bent over now and without even a kiss. And no, this is not an April Fool's day joke. Look at my website, then look at his and tell me what you think (tell him too ;^) And, I assure you, my website design, such as it is, is all my own work and those photos, such as they are, were taken by me. I'll be sending Mr. Roy a note soon requesting that he try designing his own website and using his own photos instead of taking mine and passing them off as his. Such is life in the Internet age. March 31, 2008 - I was at a wedding on the weekend, but for a change, I was just a guest instead of a photographer. I brought along some gear, but I kept my gearhead tendencies to a minimum and never left my seat to snap a few shots here and there during the ceremony or the dinner. Having the equivalent of a 300mm lens does that to you, as I was using the 40D with the 70-200 IS lens. I brought along a D200 with 18-200 VR lens and SB800 for another person to use, as it was his brother getting married, so I thought I'd let him be the "man" this time around. Despite being a guest, I couldn't avoid watching the hired photographers work and seeing what tools they were using and how they were using them. One fellow used a Canon SLR and a few different lenses with the same 70-200 lens being the most used, while the other used a very familiar looking kit, a D200 with the 18-200 VR lens. Both used flash at various times, but it was how they used them that made me somewhat curious, as both tended to bounce the flash...with 30 feet ceilings that are not white or neutral. Without knowing what their exposure settings are and without seeing the files in detail, I can't comment on this technique. However, they did produce a slideshow using photos taken earlier in the day and during the ceremony, so I did get to see a few of those shots from afar and truthfully, they didn't look too bad, but I just wonder if they wouldn't have been better off shooting ambient, as I did the whole time. Just to be clear though, I shot ambient, because I wanted to see what the 40D would do at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 in a setting other than a hockey arena and also because the owner reclaimed his new 580EX II flash for his own photographic project. Taking a look at the venue where the ceremony and dinner were held at, I was noting where some nice photos could be taken to incorporate some of the interesting features. However, after a little while, I beat up the inner geek and stuffed the bloody corpse in my mental trunk, as I mostly hung back and enjoyed the night. As a guest I could observe and note that the working pros, whether photo or video, do in fact tend to get in everyone's way and view in doing their jobs, but the guests trying to get their happy snaps are even more annoying as they get up from their seat and obscure what little view was left. Digicam flashes were going off everywhere and I wonder if perhaps, subconsciously, I abhor on-camera flash, because of this regular occurrence at every wedding I attend...nah, it's the actual photographs produced by on-camera flash that does it in for me. However, after shooting everyone in just ambient light, unless I cough up the big bucks to afford the D3 that can shoot cleanly at ISO 3200, flash is going to be a necessary evil for me. While shooting ambient only tends to be easier, the low light in most reception halls is going to wreck havoc with one's ability to get sharp photos without motion blur. I found that I could reliably handhold the 70-200 IS lens at 1/20, but going any slower killed the majority of my shots due to subject motion blur. Nothing like getting that static bottle of wine sharp in the image only to have your subjects look like so-called ghosts from photos of old. I would have loved to have been able to see what a full frame SLR could do at ISO 3200 in the same venue and light setting. Match it up with some f1.4 or f2 lenses and I'd expect that some nice photos would result. March 27, 2008 - By now most that are interested in it will have heard about X-Rite's new ColorMunki. It's a way for X-Rite to broaden its marketbase from the middle, dominated by X-Rite's Eye One line, as well as the high-end, which are covered by the reminants from its takeover of Monaco and GretagMacbeth. Both images courtesy of X-Rite The ColorMunki will allow X-Rite to compete head-to-head with ColorVision, which has done quite well at the entry to mid-level color management market. At USD $500 for the ColorMunki Photo, it's very competitive to ColorVision's USD $600 Spyder3Studio. Whereas the Spyder3Studio separates the monitor calibration and printer profiling tools into two devices, the ColorMunki does it all in a device that looks like and is about the same size as a good tape measure. It appears to have the functionality of a stripped down GretagMacbeth spectrophotometer, which is a device that I covet, but lack the CDN $1700 to afford. The ColorMunki can read the ambient light, profile projectors and even measure color in the real world so that you can plug in the numbers in Photoshop to ensure that you see and use the right color. When I heard about this feature, I immediately thought of a friend and former co-worker that is now making his way in the real world as a professional photographer. Last time we met, he was telling me about how he had some jobs for painters and how difficult it can be to get the colors in his photos to match exactly to the colors in the painting and that the artists are very demanding of color accuracy.
For me, like I mentioned already, I covet the ColorMunki's cousin, the Eye One Photo, which is the 800 lb gorilla of color management. Hmm, I suddenly have a craving to watch King Kong and eat some bananas... The ColorMunki has a two-part printer profiling process. Print out one 50 color target sheet then measure, then print out a second 50 color target based on the readings from the first target, then create a profile. X-Rite has been making a bit of a deal about its small target technology, whereas the traditional process has been to print off sheets with hundreds, if not thousands of color targets to be measured by a spectrophotometer. Bill Atkinson, the noted fine art photographer and teacher (and former Apple programmer) creates profiles using many thousands of color targets. So, I'm rather curious as to how good a mere 100 color targets will do in producing a high-quality printer profile. While I have made a request for a review sample, I don't know if this will come to past. March 26, 2008 - I was ribbed about one of my posts last week, about how I would do an event shoot compared to what a real pro actually did at the hockey tournament I've been talking so much about lately. In my post, I mentioned how I declined to be the tournament's photographer, because I didn't think I could do it right, but it had less to do with my photographic skills, so much as the logistics of being an event photographer trying to make sales at the event. However, a coworker took my comments to mean that I didn't want to cover the tournament because I didn't think I'd be able to produce good photos and thus his ribbing was that what I consider as "bad" or less than ideal surpasses what most people would be happy with. It was an interesting comment to make and I think quite accurate. What I strive for in my photography is merely to be as good as I can be, damn whatever other people might think...well, actually, if I'm photographing a wedding, I would care very much what the bride thinks of my photos ;^) Anyway, I think it is accurate that what I would consider so-so would probably make others very happy. The parents that received the DVDs of all the game photos I took over the course of the season were very happy to receive the files and be able to print off photos that are likely better than anything they would have been able to do on their own. Througout the season, I noticed the occasional parent on the other teams taking photographs of their kid playing hockey, but only one ever had anything near what I was using. Consumer D-SLRs and consumer tele zoom lenses were generally as good as I saw compared to the D200 with 70-200 VR lens, or the 30D and 40D with the 70-200 IS lens that I used. The one parent that did have as good a rig as me had the same 70-200 VR lens and what appeared to be a D200 SLR. Curiously, he used a full sized external Nikon flash, as did some of the other parents (alas, only the pop-up found on all consumer SLRs). While I'd have some confidence in the parent using the good Nikon rig, I'd be pretty skeptical of the quality produced by the other parents. I shudder at the thought of what all the digicam users got from the stands 20-30 feet up, using their slow zoom lenses and tiny little flash. One of the parents commented that it was obvious I used an SLR because of the quality of the photos I had given to them. However, I was somewhat sheepish, because I took all the photos at ISO 1600 and f2.8, which are not the kind of settings needed to get the best out of my kit. Due to my lousy composing at the beginning of the season, Lightroom's crop tool was my best friend to edit the files, which often meant some pretty severe cropping and throwing away a lot of resolution. My silient wish was that no parent would try and enlarge any of the files to anything bigger than 8x10, so as to keep some measure of quality. I've tried taking a small crop from one of the 10 MP files and printing it to 11x14 inches and what I got was a print that looked less like a photograph and more like a watercolor painting. Great if you actually wanted the effect, but pretty damn lousy if you wanted a real photograph (and only passable as such from at least three or more feet away). One of the coaches, who has graphical skills, used my photos to produce laminated posters for all the players. It was a great idea and very well received by everyone, but I cringed at some of the images used, because even at the small poster size, it showed off all the lousy attributes of a high ISO D200 file. I wanted to give the kids real photos, worthy enough to frame and hang on the wall if they wanted to, so when an opportunity presented itself that had all the kids in their game uniforms, but without a game to play, I lined up the kids and had them come in front of me on the ice, one-by-one so that I could photograph them in a static pose. I used the 40D with 70-200 IS lens set to ISO 400, which on Canon SLRs means pretty much noise-free quality. I tried to maximize the framing as much as I could while keeping in mind that I wanted a final 11x14 inch print. Even though I handheld the camera and lens, what I ended up with were photos that are night and day difference in quality compared to my high ISO files and sharp and crisp enough that I could have probably printed quality 16x20 sized prints. With the kids posing on the ice, if I say so myself, the photos are much more pleasing to me than the professionally shot, studio style photos taken earlier in the season for individual and team photos. For those photos, the individual players were taken in front of a fake hockey net backdrop and white carpet that just smells of fromage. The only good aspect of these photos is the soft box quality lighting, but again, clearly artificial compared to my naturally lit portraits (with plus 1.5 compensation to keep the ice white). If it were me doing the individual and team photos, I'd do them on the ice like the pros do. The major problem would be trying to get a clean, natural background that isn't marred by the detritus usually found in municipal arenas. I'd probably get around that by hanging up large backdrops behind the glass instead of letting the background go to black as seen in many pro team photos. All this is just a verbose way for me to say that yes, I think my idea of passable is probably a layperson's idea of good. March 25, 2008 - I need some help from those more knowledgeable than I am about CSV files. Is there an easy way to get CSV data into HTML format or tables? I'd like to create a page to display a large number of items from the CSV file, but I'm a techno-fool when it comes to more complex web editing. Any help would be much appreciated. March 24, 2008 - More D200 vs. 40D comparisons - the files were processed in Adobe Lightroom at default settings with only white balance adjustments made to the files. Some images were cropped from 100% screen captures of the Lightroom work space, as Lightroom provides very easy and convenient side-by-side comparison views. The D200 has a noticeable red/magenta cast to images taken in Auto White Balance mode. It's an easy fix in Lightroom to neutralize the color cast, as seen below, but in the conditions I've been photographing in recently, the 40D is closer to neutral with its AWB mode.
After correcting the white balance, I brought up the 40D image for a side-by-side comparison. The histogram display for each image has been copied and pasted below the respective images. You can see that the D200 has a slightly slower shutter speed than the 40D (1/160 compared to 1/180), but that the 40D image is still slighty hotter than the D200, as the histrogram nudges closer to the right than the D200.
With the net centered in the viewfinder and using only the centre focus spot, I focused on the vertical cross bar at the back of the net. At this small size, both images appear to be in focus, but have a look at the 100% crops:
The D200 image at left is softer and noisier than the 40D image on the right. This is consisetenly seen in other image files. While the goalie and player images below are not identical, I kept the subjects centred and again, only used the centre focus spot.
The shot above is the back of my son's hockey pants and while not identical in position (taken within seconds of each other, as I quickly shot with one rig and then brought the other one up for more shots), they are consistent with what I see when comparing other D200 vs. 40D files. Basic exposure settings were the same as the others (ISO 1600, f2.8 and +2 compensation). The D200 is again, noisier and lacking in shadow detail, however, the 40D shows blooming along the edge of the black pants against the white ice, which the D200 does not exhibit. Caveats - as is always the case when showing some sort of head-to-head comparison, someone will inevitably point out discrepancies and inconsistencies, so let me try and get some of those out of the way:
Handling wise, when both cameras are equipped with their companion vertical grips, I find both feel good in the hand, but I do find the D200 to a bit better. The MB-D200 grip is also more flush with the D200 than the BG-E2N with the 40D, especially on the left side of the camera. The MB-D200 also has a very slight recess where the index finger would rest, which makes it more comfortable than the straightline of the Canon grip. Interestingly, when I took the BG-E2N grip off the 40D, I noticed that it had a side slot to store the original 40D battery cover door. I thought, hey, great idea and handy to have the little door with you all the time for whenever you want to go from a big camera to a small one and vice versa. I wondered why Nikon didn't do the same, but then curiosity got the better of me and I took the MB-D200 off the D200 and sure enough, there's a side slot to store the D200's original battery cover door. I find it curious that Canon did not include an AF-On button on the BG-E2N, which was a Canon innovation from way back in the earliest days of EOS. I normally disengage the AF from the shutter release and just use the AF-On with my Nikon SLRs. Having the AF-On on the vertical grip keeps this shooting style consistent, but with the 40D, I had to keep the AF tied to the shutter release, so that I could AF when shooting in portrait mode with the BG-E2N. Weight and size wise, both are very similar and while I could make a subjective comment about the D200 feeling more substantial, there's nothing in that other than long-time brand bias for Nikon. Neither camera is bombproof like their bigger, professional SLR brothers. Ergonomically, I find the Nikon UI to be more intuitive and easier to use, but again, that's nothing more than a long-time bias in using Nikon SLRs for over a decade. I generally do not need to refer to the manual to understand what a button does on a Nikon SLR, but the same is not true of Canon. While I can figure out the majority of the settings and functionality on the 40D, there was one button that I didn't figure out, which is the * button. Embarrassingly, the * button is the exposure lock button, but where Nikon makes it simple and intuitive to figure this one out on the D200 (AE-L), Canon is rather cryptic using symbols instead of letters for some of its buttons. The exposure compensation button is another one that I think could be more clear. The large rear command dial serves as the exposure compensation dial, but only when the camera's power switch has been set to the top-most setting, which resembles a 7 lying on its side. Selecting an AF point can be done three ways on the 40D, which for me, is two too many. On the D200, use the rear selector pad that the thumb falls naturally on. For the 40D, use a small little joystick operated by the thumb, or press a button and use the top command dial, or the rear command dial. Whichever method used, I would have liked an option to be able to cycle through the AF points continuously by holding down the joystick in one direction like I can with Nikon SLRs. With the 40D, pushing the joystick in one direction, say to the right, locks me to the far right AF point and does not cycle me through to the left point then centre and then back to the right. It's a small thing, but I find it quite useful. More to come once I've taken some static test shots and printed out some sample photos to determine what differences there are between pixel peeping at 100% and actual prints. March 23, 2008 - Reader's comment:
Yes, you’re right that it would be more appropriate to compare the 40D to the D300 and I do hope that in a few months, I will be able to write about that experience, but in the meantime, the D200 will have be the guinea pig, as much as it is not a fair comparison for the two-year old D200 to be compared to the current 40D. Working this theme of comparing a current SLR to one that has now been superceded, one aspect of the D200 that I always did find suspect is the AF module used by Nikon for an otherwise fine camera. In the Nikon world, the higher the number for the AF module, the superior the performance. Look at these examples:
What we see here is that the D100 had a relatively low-grade AF module and the D200's module is not that much higher rated. Compare the D200 to the comtemporaneous D2X with a CAM 2000 module, which had a highly regarded AF module. While the D200's AF was superficially similar in layout to the D2X module, the D200 only had one crosshair AF point in the center of the AF array compared to 9 crosshair AF points in the D2X module. This would not be so bad if that single crosshair point offered good, reliable performance, but as I found in comparing to the 40D using its centre AF point, it does not. While the 40D's AF is certainly not perfect, in the same shooting conditions (a hockey arena), photographing the same subjects (fast moving hockey players), using as similar settings as possible (centre AF point, AI Servo or Continuous AF, High Speed frame rate) the 40D was superior and not by a small margin either. In the last game, I used the D200 during the warm-up and found it sluggish and near useless, as I had already been spoiled by the 40D. It was actually a relief for me to put the D200 down (horrors) and pick up the 40D instead when the game started. I switch again during the second period and found the D200 just could not pick up on the moving players and track them with any success whereas the 40D was swift in acquiring focus and keeping focus locked much more consistently than the D200. Based on everything I've read so far, the D300's AF is much improved and if/when I get my own D300, I'll be sure to see how it compares to the 40D. March 22, 2008 - It's the end of the season for my son's hockey team. They fell short in the tournament playoff and lost both games played. Losing the first game meant no shot at the trophy and losing the second game meant no bronze medal for the players. As a parent, it was tough watching the kids play their hearts out, but fall short and I knew that the dressing room would be subdued, what with this being the last game and all. When I walked in I could see my son was emotional. His eyes were a bit red and he was near tears as he told me he really wanted a tournament medal to finish the season. I like to think that he learned some life lessons throughout the season as the coaches encouraged all the kids to play hard and have fun and that winning was not the most important thing. Patrick's already talking about the next season and which of his teammates will be back in Atom division as ten year olds like him. It's also sad that many of his teammates will move up to Pee Wee and it will be another year before he has a chance to play with them again. Throughout the season, many remarked at how well Patrick was progressing and that he was the most improved player on the team. The coach said he's a very smart player and once he picks up some speed, he could be a very good player in a few years, which gives me encouragement knowing that Patrick had a tall wall to climb over in his year of playing organized hockey. I won't be making the same mistake of starting late with my other son Harrison, and as soon as he's old enough, I'll be putting him into skating and hockey lessons ;^) With the season a wrap, I have some semblance of a life and weekends back again...well, actually no, as I still have much studying to do for a coming exam and the past month has been a waste for that aspect of life. However, the past week has given me some good time with the Canon 40D and I'll have more to say about this camera along with some comparisons to my D200. The 40D will probably be my last gasp before I lock myself down into strict study mode until the first weekend of June.
March 20, 2008 - Okay, this is getting ridiculous when Sigma, a third-party lens maker, can beat Nikon in producing a lens-motor driven, auto focus 50mm f1.4. What's up with this and where are the heck are those new prime lenses rumoured about? I know, I know, my own suggested timing would be in the summer in the lead up to the Olympics, but still, it rankles when Nikon is so laggard in updating a number of old lenses. If Sigma has any sense, it would pump out this new lens as quickly as possible to take advantage of some pent-up demand for a fast focusing, quality prime lens, just like it did with the 30mm f1.4 HSM lens. Continuing my look at the Canon 40D, one of the last games I photographed, I set the exposure compensation to +2 stops and have now brought them into Lightroom for a look and edit. Geez, it gives me no pleasure to say this, but the files are easier to work with (or are cleaner) than from the D200. Most of the files require little in the way of post-production edits. I still do a few defaults for cleaning up a bit of noise (like the D200, the 40D shows more noise when underexposed necessitating a bump up in exposure, hence why I wanted to try +2 stops instead of my previously used +1.5 stops of compensation). I also set Clarity at 50%, throw in a bit of Vibrance and Saturation and a touch of sharpening and there's nothing left to do except crop the images or fix my off-kilter way of seeing the world (diagonal instead of straight lines). Throw in the cleaner ISO 1600 files and the D200 is looking to be put out to pasture. Now, I don't want to make it seem like a huge night and day difference between the two cameras, because it isn't, but there's enough of a difference that I'm happier with what the 40D offers, even if the UI still bothers me. There's also the reverse direction for zooming and focusing, which gets me every now and then, but those are minor things to get used to. Less editing and fussing around means more time to move onto other things, which is a good thing. I'm certainly not afraid to sit in front of the computer for a few hours and edit my files, but for the working pro, time is money and the less fussing around, the better for the bottom line. Battery life seems very good, but I haven't figured out if the 40D offers the same preciseness as the D200 for battery life information. I'm using two cells in the 40D's grip, and I've taken some 1400 frames without any indication that the batteries are dying yet. The same cannot be said of the D200 with its voracious appetite for juice. While the AF is a definite notch up from the D200's sometimes sluggish performance, it's not perfect, but then one shouldn't expect Canon 1D3-like performance in a camera that costs 1/3 as much. However, I'm still able to get more sharply focused photos than the D200, especially in sequence shots. There are times when I would take the camera down from my eye then back up again to activate AF, as I see something develop. Unfortunately, with the D200, it would at times be unable to acquire focus on a fast moving player and I end up with four or five shots of out of focus garbage. Doing the same with the 40D has resulted in a lot less aggravation that the camera is not ready when I am. Who says the equipment doesn't matter... 8^) Our last round-robin game ended up as a tough loss against another suburban team, one that our team had not played against during the regular season, as they are in a different league. Some of the other team's parents were the types of hockey parents that make people cringe, as every little slight against their kids is seen as a penalty, even if the kids trip over their own skate laces. They noticed every little slip by the referees that went against their team while ignoring any that favoured them. If one of our kids accidentally brushed up against them, well that should have been a five minute major, the kid tossed out of the game and the coach burned in effigy. While any organized sport is competitive and you want your team to win, in the hockey world, there are house teams and rep teams. Rep teams compete at a high level and are expected to go far with each kid committed to hockey the whole year. These are the teams that the best players try out for and hope for a shot at the big leagues via major junior or a full ride to a college when their amateur playing days are over. House teams are for players that don't make rep teams, or don't want to put up with rep team politics and the tremendous time committment required of players and parents. House teams are also for newer players like my son, that have to learn the game and the positional play required of the game. House leagues are meant to be more for fun than competition and no matter what the skill level of the players, everyone is supposed to get equal ice time. For the most part, I've seen a lot of respect and comaderie amongst the parents from the Burnaby, Vancouver, Richmond and New Westminster teams our team has played against. Everyone that came out for our team last night (including other Burnaby teams) was taken aback by the parents being such poor winners (as opposed to being poor losers, which I would not have liked to have seen from this group). The irony was that despite losing badly to them, our team still ended up in top place in their conference for round-robin play and we edged out this team by a point, a point that was awarded to us for having six minutes or less in penalties. In house league rules, a safety point is awarded to teams, win or lose, that have no match penalties and six minutes or less in minor penalties. We squeaked by with the six minutes and got our point, which carried us over other teams with the same 3 and 1 record as us. The team that beat us lost out in being able to play in the playoffs, because they lost out to another 3 and 1 Burnaby team that beat them, which incensed some parents that cried foul for the rules that were known and posted at the beginning of the tournament. I heard one excuse being, but our team just beat the so-called best team and you're saying we're out on the basis of a safety point and losing to another Burnaby team? The organizer facing the heat, said put it in writing and we'll consider it for next year. Is it the best way for teams to go on or lose out, on the basis of safety points? I don't know, but given the way those parents acted throughout the game, I consider it poetic justice (I suppose you could consider this as sour grapes on my part, but in fact it isn't, because as long as we kept the penalties down, we were guaranteed to go on and losing made no difference to us in that regard). March 19, 2008 - Hockey season is winding down for my son's Atom division team. We didn't do so sell in the playoffs and thus are not destined to play in the championship game at the end of March, but we are in the hunt for a Spring Break Tournament hosted by our local Burnaby Minor Hockey Association. The team sits pretty on top of the round-robin at 3 and 0 with a final round-robin game later tonight. We're in great shape to be amongst the top four teams to continue playing on Thursday when the championship and consolation games will be played. My son, Patrick, got a nice treat on "his day" Monday, which was St. Patrick's day. He skated hard and was chosen MVP for the first game and later that day in the second game played, he scored a goal, although, when he did, I detected a foul aroma wafting up to the stands where I was positioned, taking photos. In hockey parlance, when a goal is jammed in through a scrum gathered around the goalie's net, it's called a "garbage" goal, hence the odor wafting up. I don't think Patrick even knew he jammed it in until the ref's gathered, conferred and noted it for the record on the score sheet, however, one of the grandparents watching said he saw Patrick put it in, so who I am to disagree. Our coach, a tournament organizer who more or less lives at the arena for the four days of the event, asked me some months back if I wanted to be an official photographer, which would give me photographic access to the games and the right to sell the photos during the tournament. I begged off, because I know nothing of how to photograph an event properly - I don't mean the photography, I mean the logistics of being able to edit and make available images quickly to make sales. My assumption of covering an event like a hockey tournament is that you need to be able to turn around photographs during the game itself, so that when the game is over and as the parents and kids leave the arena, your table is strategically located so that they walk by and will notice the images on display. It's trying to make sales while the moment is fresh and the kids see themselves and beg the parents for a print. My idea of how to do this is this:
What I actually saw the photographer covering the tournament do was this:
A big difference between how I would like to cover an event versus the actual reality by the pros ;^) The photographers were using Nikon SLRs and they looked like D200s, but could have been D300s - I was not close enough to see for sure and I'm no longer keen enough to approach working pros and shoot the breeze with them. One, I'd come across like another geek, pro-wannabe (which I am) and two, pros are usually too busy to be able to give you a few minutes of their time. One fellow clamped a White Lightning strobe to a railing to fire off the dull aluminum foil-like finish of the ceiling in one arena. Pocket Wizard transceivers were used to fire the strobe from the camera. However, I only saw this setup once, while other times, I saw another fellow use an on-camera SB800 to light the subjects. Both were using the 70-200 f2.8 lens, one shot handheld while the other used a monopod. It was interesting to see both use some flash to augment the exposure and the contact sheets looked okay and I could see that there was some flash lighting the subjects, but more of a fill flash effect rather than key, which is rather obvious given the distances involved. Given the speed a which games are played and how I like to shoot a sequence of photos, unless the flash is firing at pretty low power, I don't think it can recycle fast enough for me unless a big-ass battery pack is used to supplement the flash. If my son's team does make it to Thursday's final games, it could be interesting and maybe awkward having the pros show up in the same place that I've been standing to take photos of the games. March 17, 2008 - Reader's comment:
Why I or anyone else would consider doing a brand switch, is what I hope would be about problem solving. Moose Peterson wrote an article many years ago about buying equipment that help to resolve problems he faced out in the field photographing critters. Sometimes, you give into desire and buy something that isn't really necessary, but for the most part Moose buys or upgrades equipment based on tangible needs. The 600mm f4 AF-S is an obvious example, as Moose bought the new 600 f4 VR lens to replace his original AF-S version. He gets the VR benefit and closer minimum focusing distance, both of which are important for his wildlife photography. Another example would be changing from an Arca Swiss B2 head to a Wimberley, because it makes it easier and more efficient to use big telephoto lenses. While I love my Nikons, it's no secret that until recently with the D3 and D300, Nikon was lacking compared to Canon when using high ISO settings. This feature is not important to all photographers, especially those that shoot with a tripod all the time, for which at low ISO settings, Nikon and Canon are even. Having clean high ISO image files helps to solve problems for me photographing in low-light venues, such as cave-like ball rooms, churches or dark hockey arenas built 50 years ago. It also helps to reduce the use of flash, which I find is disruptive and unattractive unless I can bounce the flash output off a wall or ceiling. The question to consider though, is the 40D output good enough to spend that much money to supplement an existing and incompatible kit? Is the output, combined with the faster 6.5 fps and 14-bit RAW output good enough to turn the tide into a full-blown brand switch? At this point I don't know and thankfully, I don't actually need to know (but, I will try to answer that as I use the 40D more), because there is a D300 available that is even better than the 40D, per the recent review posted at DPReview. While an $1800 D300 is expensive, it's a helluva lot more cheaper than having to buy over $5000 worth of Canon gear. So, as you pointed out, economics plays a big role in any decision making process, but at the end of the day, one also has to consider whether the present equipment is solving current problems. If it isn't then one may well have to spend some big bucks to resolve them. March 16, 2008 - I took the Canon 40D with the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS lens out to a morning hockey game to do a little test run and compare it to my D200 with the 70-200 f.8 VR lens. I used the Canon kit for the first and third periods with the Nikon kit in the second period as a control and comparison. All of this is subjective at the moment, until I have some more shooting time and experience using the 40D, but a few things stood out for me during actual usage of the cameras:
I set both cameras as similarly as I could, but I'm mindful that I may have missed something here and there with the 40D. The lenses, I believe, are even, given how well-regarded both brands' 70-200 f2.8 lenses are, although the Canon is slightly older in design and does not offer a removeable tripod mount like the Nikon lens does. I set ISO 1600 on both cameras with plus 1.5 exposure compensation to counter the ice fooling the in-camera meters. As already mentioned, I shot in RAW mode and ran a couple of files through Adobe Lightroom at default settings to see what both cameras had to offer. My presumption, before seeing the image files, was that the 40D would offer better quality files, as it is newer than the D200 by a couple of years. I was correct, the 40D does offer cleaner image files than the D200, but at this point, it's hard for me to quantify by exactly how much cleaner the 40D is, e.g. one stop or half a stop or a third of a stop. Pixel peeping at 100% with both files open side-by-side, I thought the D200 extracted more detail than the 40D, but I need to do more shooting to determine if this isn't just the noise fooling my eyes into thinking I'm seeing detail. The 40D file also seemed sharper, as in accutance than the D200 and while I could bump up the Sharpening settings for the D200 files, I would also be bumping up the visibility of the noise. From this first trial of the 40D, there's not much doubt that it produces better looking high ISO images than the D200, which helps to make up for the clunky user interface. Of course, I really should be comparing the 40D to the D300, but that will have to wait until maybe bonus time at work ;^) March 15, 2008 - According to Japan's PEN News Weekly, Canon has regained number one spot in Japan for D-SLR sales with almost 47% market share. Nikon follows with 42% share with Pentax taking 4.9% with Sony unknown. Now remember in previous discussions about Japanese market share, I talked about how Nikon and Canon had about 80% between them with the remainder being fought after by the also-rans such as Sony, Pentax and Olympus. Now we see that 80% was being too conservative and that Nikon and Canon command 89% of the market with only 11% available in Japan for the other brands. While both Sony and Olympus have long-term, five-year plans to gain market share, the thought that either one could gain 20% seems like pie in the sky, or maybe a few too many Lucy in the sky with diamonds trips by the dreamers coming up with such fanciful figures. There's a mild peeing contest going on between Luminous Landscape and Ken Rockwell, about a hoary old chestnut of a statement: it's the photographer, not the equipment. As a third-party observer, it's amusing to read and watch, especially Rockwell's changing response to Michael Reichmann's rebuttal to an article written by Rockwell. First, there was a relatively reasoned response by Rockwell on the same night that Reichmann posted his article (he usually posts the evening before the date of the article), then the next morning, Rockwell's response had been amended to become a jingoistic, America is great diatribe that had little to do about photography (it incorporated the Apollo moon missions and Lance Armstrong's testicles, as symbols of America's greatness). By the evening, the response had morphed back to being more or less the same as the first response. Bizarre, is all I can say for Rockwell to make it seem like Reichmann had slighted God, stolen the girl next door, dissed mom and apple pie and then burned the stars and stripes. At some point, Rockwell referred to Luminous Landscape as a gear-oriented website (which, also seems to have disappeared in the latest response), which is rather ironic given that...er...Rockwell's website is just as much if not more gear-oriented than Luminous Landscape. Both Reichmann and Rockwell have their supporters and detractors and seem to polarize people. Reichmann because he's wealthy enough to buy whatever he pleases and he's not afraid to spend his money, which I think generates a lot of jealously and resentment. However, who wouldn't do the same if they had Reichmann's kind of money? I know I would be doing more or less the same as Reichmann if I were in his shoes. Rockwell...gawd, where do you start with a guy that you never know if he is serious or just trying to pull a joke on you. I think the less I say about him the better for me ;^) March 13, 2008 - I HATE camera phones...
March 12, 2008 - Reader's tip:
March 10, 2008 - Writing and publishing a blog website (or pseudo blog site like this) is akin to being like a newspaper columnist in that often, you write opinion pieces to go along with any reviews or technical commentary that one might have to offer. What I've noticed in being a regular subscriber to the National Post newspaper is that the columnists often write about something they've read in another newspaper or publication. That is, they usually don't agree with the opinions offered by the other paper and they offer their own opinions about why they disagree. It's kind of a point-counterpoint style of debate and it's one that I've copied from time to time wherein I'll post a comment or opinion about something I've come across elsewhere. As one who also posts photography and audio-related comments that strike my fancy, sometimes those comments and opinions will strike some the wrong way and I'll get blasted for making them. You take your lumps, learn and move on, but hopefully you keep the style that got you noticed in the first place. Sometimes though, the heat generated from the opinion pieces gets so hot that you feel like you need some flame-resistant underwear. I've felt the heat a time or two in the years I've been publishing this website, whether it be about an opinion offered, or perhaps a review that someone did not like. When the heat is on someone else though, I feel for them, even if I did not agree with the opinion or comments offered. It can be a tough business, especially for most sites that do not generate anywhere near enough revenue for the writer to quit a day job and do it full time. You basically publish and post, because you enjoy it, not because you'll get rich from it, and really, the websites that probably do make decent revenue are usually the most annoying websites to visit (content words hyperlinked like mad to pop-up ads; content that requires you to view a full-page ad before allowing you to read it; a review spread out over dozens of pages, more to show ads than for any organizational purpose, etc.) Right now, it seems Johnston over at TOP has had the heat dialed up to 11 (to butcher an audio analogy) over the past week. While he has much praise and support from a slew of readers, there appears to have been many unkind comments thrown at him that he did not post in his comments section. While I did not agree with his, I believe, not particularly accurate comments about Galen Rowell's use of graduated filters (insinuating that Rowell used colored grads to get brown skies in his photos), like the reader's comments below, there is much to like and admire in Johnston's writings. I'm sure he'll get over this storm and continue making thought-provoking comments in short order. March 8, 2008 - Reader's comment:
As a photographer, I acknowledge my mediocrity rather than revel in it J The attack against Galen Rowell is classic armchair quarterbacking. This story has been told many times, but his most famous photo of the rainbow over the Dalai Lama’s Potala Palace, required Rowell to run for several minutes (about a mile away) to line up the rainbow so that it would appear to emanate from the palace. However, once he finally reached his ideal vantage point, the sun appeared and Rowell got off his last few frames of a convergence of sunlight, rainbow and storm clouds. He got lucky for sure, but he made his luck by first visualizing the kind of photo he wanted and then running to a location to make it happen. I have little doubt that even at an altitude of 12,000 feet, Rowell probably ran that mile in four minutes or less. Many photographers aren’t so willing to be such active participants in their photography and having read a few of Rowell’s books, I find the attack presumptuous and especially ignorant, as it goes against what Rowell was about as a photographer. It’s certainly true that Rowell used filters, but these were not the less than classic Cokin Tobacco filter, but high quality, neutral density filters. So, if indeed some of Rowel’s photos had brown skies, I’d be more inclined to believe that Rowell photographed what was before him than accuse him of contriving a scene using gimmicks. March 7, 2008 - David Cardinal (developer of Moose Peterson's favorite DigitalPro file management program) posted a news item that Nikon is being sued by a company known as e.Digital Corporation. Nikon is not the only one, as there are several other huge and well-known companies being sued by this unknown company, which reminds of the NTP patent trolling against RIM. TOP has another interesting posting about how some photographers have lost perspective on realistic colours and expect photographs to be punched way beyond reality. I don't know if it was just coincidence, but as I surfed over to another website that shall go unnamed (and is one that I only visit in my capacity as owner of NikonLinks, as I otherwise don't agree with much of what is posted), I was visually blasted with two super saturated photos that had colors punched up to the extreme and remind me more of cartoons than photographs - not that there's anything particularly wrong with that, as I've done a few extreme, cartoonish colored photos too. Interestingly, in the TOP thread, there was reference to an old article written by Michael Johnston about hating infrared photography, because Johnston feels it's a gimmick. Ouch! Infrared photography is a popular flavour-du-jour, because digital has made it so much easier to do than in the film days when Kodak HIE had to be loaded and unloaded in the complete dark. This is why I much prefered shooting Ilford SFX film with a red 25 filter. SFX was so much easier with much cleaner grain structure and while not truly infrared, was close enough to get the desired white foliage and black skies when shooting in sunlit conditions. Anyway, in that old article, Johnston rails against one of my photographic heros, the late Galen Rowell, due to the adventure photographer's use of graduated neutral density filters in many of his landscape photographs. Double ouch!! The article was written while Rowell was still alive, so it would be interesting if there was ever any response or acknowledgement of the criticism by Rowell. Some quotes from Johnston in his article:
Hmm, never heard of controlling contrast and holding highlights while exposing the shadows? Something you would expect an experienced B&W photographer to know something about, because isn't using graduated filters akin to dodging and burning in the darkroom? Brown sky? Well, actually, Galen Rowell wrote a short essay about using graduated neutral density filters in his book, Galen Rowell's Vision: The Art of Adventure Photography, wherein Rowell discusses using expensive Singh-Ray filters for their neutral color fidelity and mentioned that cheaper filters have a magenta or...brown shift. Should we now skewer Ansel Adams for all his darkroom shenanigans... ;^) Came across this interesting tidbit of info about Microsoft being pressured by Intel to dramatically water down the technical requirements for a "Vista Ready" PC. Intel had a slew of 915 chipsets that it wanted to sell off, which were not suitable for Vista's Aero graphics. March 3, 2008 - Sorry for the lack of posts; been quite busy with the day job. I did receive this comment from a reader though, about my last update:
That is indeed an impressive picture to compare differences in size, but do remember that the Sigma is a zoom lens and the Olympus is a fixed focal length lens; it is not entirely an apples-to-apples comparison. However, I do grant you that even if PopPhoto had more appropriately used a fixed focal length Sigma or Canon lens in this type of extreme comparison, the Olympus kit would still win out if physical size is the key criterion. Comparing less exotic kits would find less difference in size or cost between Olympus and the other brands. I would also say that f2 versus f2.8 lens speed is wash, because as you say, the faster speed allows the Olympus to shoot at one stop faster shutter speed, whereas Nikon or Canon can bump up the ISO by a stop (probably more like two stops) to compensate. There is little to no penalty for Nikon and Canon users to bump up the ISO, because, as you state again, the high ISO quality from Olympus "aren't great." While many consumers may be satisfied with what Olympus can offer for high ISO, I don't think I would be one of them if I were to use an E3. If I could afford the Nikon D3, I'd have one by now, because it addresses many of my practical needs for photographing in low light with fast AF and handling. While Olympus can take advantage of coming technology to improve its wares, it will not have a monopoly on those advancements and the other brands will not stand still either and allow Olympus to encroach on their market share. It's a nice effort by Olympus to design a wholly digital system from the ground up and as you pointed out, at the extremes, there are definitely some advantages available size and weight wise, but with the expectant arrival of the successor to the Canon 5D, plus high expectations that Nikon will eventually offer a similar type of SLR, a 2X factor sensor in the 4/3 system just does not have much appeal, given what I do photographically. However, I'm cognizant of the fact that what I need out of a camera is different from the needs of many others. I'm reminded that my co-worker that borrowed my D200 with 18-200 VR lens found it too big and heavy after a few days of use, whereas I consider it my "lightweight" travel kit. This hit home that a lot of people won't put up with larger and more capable SLR kits, even if they would enjoy the benefits, such as faster speed and handling. On another extreme, another friend took his new D3 on vacation to Hawaii along with a some pro-grade lenses, including his new 200-400 VR lens. Even for me, that's a whole lotta gear to be hauling along for a vacation, unless of course, the vacation was meant to be a photographic one, in which case, I'd do the same thing. I was advised that a number of sales have already been made through the B&H banners, for which I thank everyone for. It is much appreciated and I will be working on a little "store front" type of page, which will display Nikon and Canon cameras and lenses for sale directly from B&H. It may take a me a little while to set it up, so in the meantime, please keep shopping at B&H through the regular banners. If you would like me to add other brands, such as...Olympus...please let me know 8^) Also, don't forget the fine folks at Lensbaby that sponsor this website and NikonLinks. Cheers to eveyone! Over the past couple of months, as I've gotten into using Vista with my three computers, I found that Dreamweaver 8 would crash unexpectedly, especially when I would be trying to post an image that I've buried deep in layers of folders. It would sometimes be very frustrating as Dreamweaver 8 would crash and close itself, then I start it up again and try to resume work, only to have it crash and close again and again. Research into the matter found that Dreamweaver 8, which predates Vista, just won't play nice with the newish OS, especially for doing exactly what I do, which is to browse for files or images. Dreamweaver 8, in some instances even kills the main Windows Help and Support link found in the Start menu. This requires a download from Adobe to fix some registry changes made by Dreamweaver 8 on some Vista installations. I had this happen on my Sony notebook running Vista Business, but not on the Acer, which runs Vista Home Premium. Now that I've finally gotten around to upgrading to the full CS3 suite, I hope those crashes will soon become a dim memory. February 25, 2008 - Over at TOP, Michael Johnston has posted a two-part defense of the 4/3 sensor/system from Olympus (and Panasonic, which appears to be using much Olympus parts for its own SLRs). It's the usual robust and thoughtful commentary that we expect from Johnston and on his salient points, I agree that the differences between the 4/3 and the APS-C for sensor sizes is much ado about nothing for the casual photographer. The basic argument is that the sensor differences between the two competing formats is largely irrelevant and digital technology is still progressing so that 4/3 will eventually offer the same quality as APS-C. However, currently, as high ISO and low light levels are pushed, the 4/3 system appears to be lacking compared to APS-C. And, while many thought that the 4/3 would lead to smaller SLRs and lenses, that really hasn't been the case, as the leading brands have pushed the smallness of their SLRs quite impressively. Conversely, the Olympus E3 is just as big, heavy and expensive as its competition from Nikon and Canon. But, my thinking on the 4/3 system is always asking, what does the 4/3 system offer that APS-C does not? What problems does the 4/3 system solve that APS-C does not? If the 4/3 system doesn't offer anything more than what is already available from APS-C, for me at least, everything else is irrelevant. In the beginning, if I recall correctly, Olympus, to its great credit, did offer some problem-solving technology and features that were not available from Nikon or Canon. An automatic sensor cleaner was definitely a great problem solver and in-camera IS was definitely an excellent feature to allow all lenses in the system to enjoy stabilization. Unfortunately, the photographic industry is very competitive and a feature that sees commercial acceptance and success will be very quickly copied by the others. While Nikon and Canon are holding out for the time being in implementing in-camera IS/VR, both have adopted the automated sensor cleaning, while Sony and Pentax have adopted both technolgies for their APS-C SLRs. Given the market acceptance of in-camera IS, I don't expect that Nikon and Canon can continue to hold out and I'm hoping that they can come up with some kind of Super IS/VR that will allow in-camera IS/VR to work with existing IS/VR lenses for even better results than either one acting alone. Olympus claims that the E3, combined with certain of its lenses, offers the fastest auto focus of any brand...that is until you need to shoot in low light, at which point, the E3 lags behind the competition. Johnston talks about reaching a level of sufficiency that the majority of consumers will not feel the need for something better. However, it's clear that after reading the DPReview review of the E3 (which is the level, I generally live in), Olympus is not meeting the level of sufficiency that would allow it to fully compete against the likes of the Nikon D300 or Canon 40D. In the world of high ISO settings that I find myself shooting in more often than not, Olympus is also not meeting the level of sufficiency to warrant a further look from the "Canikon" duopoly. If I were a betting man, I wouldn't put much money on the 4/3 system being a long-term contender. For a system that goes against the grain, as the 4/3 system does, it's got to be markedly superior to what's available from the usual suspects, either in technology, or in truly reducing the size and weight of a capable SLR and its companion lenses. And, really, what's up with 4/3 as an aspect ratio? If Olympus had made it 4/5 (or, should that be 5/4) so that it aligns with traditional print enlargements, I'd be more excited by that because it means being able to compose and shoot full frame without worrying about cropping later on (sorry, but Nikon scooped this capability with the D3). As it is, 4/3 is close, but not quite there, but I do acknowledge it's closer than 4x6. So, is all this fair? No, but it just goes back to my original question, what does 4/3 offer that isn't available from APS-C. Looking at the system as a whole and then looking at the type of photography I do, I keep coming up with not a lot. So, even if all things were equal between 4/3 and APS-C (currently, they are not), I would still choose an APS-C SLR from Nikon, Canon, Sony or Pentax before I would l |
April 7, 2008 - Years ago, I tried out a graphics tablet to see if it might help alleviate some stress I felt in my right arm (wrist and forearm area). It was an entry-level 4x5 Wacom Graphire model, which I never took to and abandoned shortly and is now relegated to a storage bin in my closet, ritualistically dubbed the "coffin," because this is where my unused items go to die.
April 5, 2008 - Some people like shooting JPEGs only, even when they can shoot RAW mode. If you're careful with your exposure and other settings and don't edit too much in Photoshop, shooting JPEGs could work, but if you plan to do some post production work, editing JPEGs can be really ugly.
The ColorMunki could be right up his alley for an all-in-one color management suite that can profile his notebook, printer and any difficult to deal with color in paintings.
