Photographer's Corner - equipment

[walkinwood]

I use a 27" 2560 x 1440 monitor and even with my eyes about 2 feet from the screen (normally, I'm more like 3 ft from the screen), the image looks great & I can't see any pixelation at all.

Are there other advantages to having such a high res screen?

 

[RonBoyd]

Are there other advantages to having such a high res screen?

Very interesting question. One that a Google search proves that it is not a frivolous one:

advantage of high resolution monitor

What comes to mind is TMI.

 

[walkinwood]

Thanks Ron - it is amaziing how many articles on the internet are nothing but fluff!

In thinking about it some more, there is one possible advantage - and that is the ability to see an image at full resolution, which would be especially identify sharpness artifacts and noise. But you can do that on part of an image at a time too on a smaller res monitor.

 

[explanade]

Sharing I do is that I pick out some images, after processing them, in Aperture and then drag them to an iCloud icon in the left sidebar of the program.

Then Aperture drops down an option to add those photos to an existing Photo Stream or to create a new Photo Stream with the selected pics.

In either case, I could enter the email addresses of the people I want to share those photos with. Email addresses have to be the ones associated with their Apple IDs (same as their iTunes accounts).

So those people will get notifications that there's a Photo Stream they can browse and they would open iPhoto or Aperture on a Mac and it would download what are probably JPGs of the processed images.

It also works on a PC, as long as the person is signed in with the same Apple ID as the one that the sharer entered, the same email address.

From then on, the shared Photo Stream can be browsed on those computers and devices which approved the Photo Stream.

Like I said I select the Photo Streams for the screensaver, both on my Macs and PC notebook. Then it cycles through those photos, from multiple Photo Streams.

Thing I like about this setup is that I get to constantly view photos out of my library, including recent ones without having to go to Flickr or some other sharing site. I haven't printed any photos so this is the main way I consume the photos I spend so much time and money taking.

 

[RonBoyd]

Sharing I do is that I pick out some images, after processing them, in Aperture and then drag them to an iCloud icon in the left sidebar of the program.

Then Aperture drops down an option to add those photos to an existing Photo Stream or to create a new Photo Stream with the selected pics.

In either case, I could enter the email addresses of the people I want to share those photos with. Email addresses have to be the ones associated with their Apple IDs (same as their iTunes accounts).

So those people will get notifications that there's a Photo Stream they can browse and they would open iPhoto or Aperture on a Mac and it would download what are probably JPGs of the processed images.

It also works on a PC, as long as the person is signed in with the same Apple ID as the one that the sharer entered, the same email address.

From then on, the shared Photo Stream can be browsed on those computers and devices which approved the Photo Stream.

Like I said I select the Photo Streams for the screensaver, both on my Macs and PC notebook. Then it cycles through those photos, from multiple Photo Streams.

Thing I like about this setup is that I get to constantly view photos out of my library, including recent ones without having to go to Flickr or some other sharing site. I haven't printed any photos so this is the main way I consume the photos I spend so much time and money taking.

Lightroom should be able to do all that. I don't know for sure because I don't use iTunes or iCloud... or any other Apple-specific products. (I don't have anything against Apple products.) But it sounds to me that Aperture is merely "exporting" (that's Adobe's word for "Copying") the files to an offsite program/application. A "piece of cake" for Lightroom.

 

[RonBoyd]

explanade, I was going to add this to the last post but decided it should be separate.

After you upload an image to Facebook with Lightroom, it will automatically refresh if you make changes to the original file. I don't know if that's a Facebook thing or a LR thing but it is kinda neat. I, also, don't know if the same thing happens with uploads to other entities.

 

[Chuckanut]

What size prints are making?

How about a 30x22. Big enough for 6 mp?

I routinely make very good big prints (like 20 x24) from my 16 mp Olympus. The trick is not more pixels. It's holding the camera very steady. Also, the great lenses that are made for this format. My 45mm f/1.7 is just marvelous all the time and absolutely fabulous in low light.

Of course, the real tool for great photos is located between the ears. And, it's free!

 

[explanade]

I'm sure there are ways to do it but probably more manual intensive, like export JPGs, upload JPGs, download JPGs on other devices.

Or share a bunch of photos to some site, then people can download those shared photos and then save them somewhere for the Screensaver to access.

The exporting a Google Map with embedded pictures sounds interesting though. However, with changes to Google Maps, I wonder if that still will work.

 

[audreyh1]

Thanks Ron - it is amaziing how many articles on the internet are nothing but fluff!

In thinking about it some more, there is one possible advantage - and that is the ability to see an image at full resolution, which would be especially identify sharpness artifacts and noise. But you can do that on part of an image at a time too on a smaller res monitor.

Yes, but now we don't have to work on part of an image at a time.

My image editing experience iimporoved considerably going from a normal res laptop to a retina screen laptop. You can see the details so much better.

I guess we're ruined now as we are used to the sharpness and clarity of all our retina devices - iPad, iPhone, etc. I can't see going back. Which is why we waited for the retina version of a large screen, as we are already 2880 pixels across on our 15.4" laptop screens.

 

[RonBoyd]

I routinely make very good big prints (like 20 x24) from my 16 mp Olympus. The trick is not more pixels. It's holding the camera very steady. Also, the great lenses that are made for this format. My 45mm f/1.7 is just marvelous all the time and absolutely fabulous in low light.

First, let me say that despite appearances, I don't really have an opinion on this issue... yet. However, here is a "quite old" article that addresses it pretty well:

Benefits of a High Resolution Sensor

... Nikon releasing a high resolution 36 MP Nikon D800, many of us photographers question the need for such a high resolution sensor. Some of us are happy while others are angry about these latest trends. Just when we thought companies like Nikon abandoned the megapixel race, instead of seeing other companies do the same, we now see Nikon back in the game with a new breed of product with a boatload of pixels. Why did Nikon all of a sudden decide to flip the game? Why does everyone seem to be going for more pixels rather than better low-light / high ISO performance? Does a high resolution sensor make sense? What are the true benefits of a high resolution sensor? In this article, I will provide my thoughts on what I think has happened with Nikon’s camera strategy, along with a few points on benefits of a high resolution sensor.

Of course, the real tool for great photos is located between the ears. And, it's free!

Could not agree more. Well, except for the "free" part. That I am not so sure of.

 

[photoguy]

How about a 30x22. Big enough for 6 mp?

I try not to go under 150 dpi for a print (6MP would yield ~12x18) but it depends on the subject matter, viewing distance, print surface, and personal preference (i.e. pixel peeping OCD).

 

[audreyh1]

Does anybody up res for really large prints?

 

[RonBoyd]

I try not to go under 150 dpi for a print (6MP would yield ~12x18) but it depends on the subject matter, viewing distance, print surface, and personal preference (i.e. pixel peeping OCD).

Tim Grey wrote about this very issue yesterday:

Resolution for Printing

Today’s Question: I read on a blog post that they thought 150 ppi is enough to print. Wouldn’t a resolution of at least 300+ produce a better image? Or is the print quality and ppi based solely on the size of the final output of the image – can a smaller print be printed at a lower ppi without sacrificing print quality?

Tim’s Quick Answer: If we use the pixel per inch (ppi) resolution as a form of “shorthand” for describing how much information is in a photo compared to the final print size, then we can use that ppi figure to talk about potential output size. To that end, I would consider 150 ppi to be too low a resolution value for most photographic prints. I consider values of around 200 to 250 ppi to be a good threshold for ideal output, and higher values are generally better. However, in most cases there is no need to go beyond about 360 to 400 ppi for output resolution.

More Detail: Part of the reason I think the general topic of resolution causes so much confusion for photographers is that we use so many different ways of explaining the same basic concepts. In addition, we often mean two different things when we use the term “resolution”.

He continues on in great detail (however, brief).

 

[RonBoyd]

And speaking of Tim Grey:

Top 10 Tips For Optimizing Photos in Lightroom

Yeah, it is almost two hours long (much shorter than the 24 hours of Julianne Kost) but... From DIYPhotography.com

Tim Grey took the time to provide 10 killer tips on enhancing your photos in Lightroom. Unsurprisingly, you can get a lot done to your photo in Lightroom and move from an OK photo (not that Tim’s photos are “OK”) to a much more refined photo.
Since 90 minutes are way too much time for just 10 tips, each tip is broken to mini-tips and those are broken again probably making “10 tips for optimizing photos in lightroom” a more suitable title.

Here are the very highlights of the clip, you can get much more by watching the entire thing.

1. Start with the basics
2. Embrace “Presence” (Clarity, Vibrance, Saturation)
3. Isolate colors
4. Don’t ignore noise
5. Check for chromatic aberration
6. Correct for the lens
7. Crop (almost always)
8. Go (virtually) black and white
9. Clean up and more in photoshop
10. Get targeted

Working this workflow once learned can almost certainty improve your photos and I suggest that you use it on a few photos and see if it makes sense for you, and if it does, incorporate it in your workflow.

 

[photoguy]

Does anybody up res for really large prints?

I prefer to do my printing in lightroom (instead of PS) and it automatically up-resses photos and you can set it to the printer native DPI (there's a print resolution setting).

I remember back when I used to get prints on a lightjet the "recommended wisdom" was to not up-res and let the printer interpolate. However, a quick search now seems to suggest up-ressing in software before sending it to the printer (assuming an inkjet).

This article by Schewe suggests that up-ressing is indeed beneficial and he has scans to prove it. But you may need at 10x loupe to see it: The Right Resolution | DigitalPhotoPro.com


Ron Boyd -- I definitely notice the difference printing a capture at 150 vs 200 or so (referring to the resolution of the original capture not upressing to meet printer native resolution). Personally for me, I still find 150 acceptable although not optimal.

 

[RonBoyd]

I'm looking at this pretty closely (still haven't chosen a replacement for my 5dii). But it's not clear to me if it improved on dynamic range.

Canon EOS 5DS / 5DS R First Impressions Review: Digital Photography Review

As far as dynamic range is concerned, we're told that the new 5DS and 5DS R should give the same performance as the current EOS 5D Mark III. If true, this means that the new cameras won't be able to offer the same industry-leading dynamic range of Sony's current APS-C and full-frame sensors, but at least it isn't a step backwards. And hey - 50MP!

 

[explanade]

Has anyone ever tried Capture One?

DSLR sales are shrinking, mainly because of the expense and people using smart phones more for snapshots. Most DSLR sales are probably replacement sales.

One thing which might broaden the appeal of DSLRs would be software that automates and streamlines the processing.

On smart phones apps. can enhance or apply effects instantly, with a few taps, and them share them. You can't make large prints of smart phone photos but people don't care, they like the immediacy, including many Former and current DSLR shooters.

They need like a one touch processing software which will recognize scene types and get at least 90% of the processing which an experienced user might do. Some specialized programs like Perfectly Clear, claim to do so but they're over $200 and you still need Lightroom.

And probably better integration with mobile devices. There re apps by Nikon and others but they're barebones. They should have APIs to allow third parties to make better apps.

I'm sure they'll sell millions of new DSLRs but every year, the market is shrinking.

 

[RonBoyd]

Has anyone ever tried Capture One?

DSLR sales are shrinking, mainly because of the expense and people using smart phones more for snapshots. Most DSLR sales are probably replacement sales.

Oh, how this sounds like 1949... Polaroid was going to put Kodak out of business.

Anyway: Lightroom or Capture One Pro, Which Raw Processor is Best?

Both are similar in many ways yet fundamentally different. Neither product is right for everyone and neither one is a clear winner overall. My impression is that Capture One is a better professional or prosumer product while Lightroom’s ease of use make it more suitable for the consumer market. Capture One is designed to work the way most professionals do and its rich set of customizations reflect that.

Everyone's situation is a bit different so it’s up to you to weigh the pros and cons I’ve described above and decide if the product offers enough benefit for you to make up for the steeper learning curve and inability to work with Smart Objects. For me, the more I work with it the more I’ve grown to appreciate the areas where it excels and the customizability it offers. These benefits were enough to make me switch to Capture One Pro as my primary raw processing tool with Lightroom playing only a secondary role in certain select situations. Despite my initial reservations and objections, it’s superior image quality and other benefits ultimately won me over.

 

[explanade]

Thom hogan has written several pieces on the grim outlook, based on recent sales and financial data, including this one:

Nikon Third Quarter Financials | byThom | Thom Hogan

DSLRs aren't going away soon but the companies are seeing the business declining, with nothing to indicate that the trend could reverse.

They seem to be doubling down though. Besides the 50 megapixel Canons, Pentax has said they're coming with a new full frame. The high end may insulate them a bit from smart phones but for how long?

 

[ggbutcher]

"SLR" was a mechanism designed to put a WYSIWYG viewfinder in front of a film shutter. A digital focal plane provides the opportunity to design out the flappy mirror, hence "mirrorless". When the mirrorless lens selections and auto-focus catch up with the SLR equivalents, I think DSLR sales will tank for good.


That said, nothing 'I think' ever pans out. S'why I don't trade stocks...

 

[Walt34]

"SLR" was a mechanism designed to put a WYSIWYG viewfinder in front of a film shutter. A digital focal plane provides the opportunity to design out the flappy mirror, hence "mirrorless". When the mirrorless lens selections and auto-focus catch up with the SLR equivalents, I think DSLR sales will tank for good.

The main reason I bought a DSLR was shutter lag on our first digital camera. It wasn't until I started shooting RAW and processing in Lightroom that I [-]stumbled across[/-] figured out what else I was missing.

Since no one has mentioned it, is it correct to assume that the mirrorless cameras do not suffer from shutter lag?

 

[explanade]

Sales of mirrorless are declining as well.

Again, the idea was that higher end cameras were insulated from smart phone cameras, at least as of a couple of years ago.

Canon and Nikon going to mirrorless would not necessarily cure their problems. Some are arguing that it's not just the bulk and weight but the user experience of smart phones, with apps. making things easier.

For instance, I played around with the time lapse feature on my iPhone 6 Plus for the first time and was surprised, seemed more interesting that just shooting a few seconds of video.

Now you can obviously make time lapses with cameras but it's a more manual intensive process. So just as they simplified things like panos and HDRs, they're making formats which are not easy to put together accessible to just about everyone.

What hurt a lot of consumer electronics giants like Sony was their ineffectiveness with software, with making better UI and so forth. American tech companies exploited this disadvantage in many ways.

The Japanese camera companies may be succumbing to a similar phenomenon.

 

[Walt34]

Canon and Nikon going to mirrorless would not necessarily cure their problems. Some are arguing that it's not just the bulk and weight but the user experience of smart phones, with apps. making things easier.

That is probably it for the mainstream user. I think of people like my other relatives, say ~25 on both sides. Three of them own DSLRs, including myself. Few have even heard of Lightroom and only one (me) uses it or anything even remotely like it.

I'm surprised that so many are satisfied with phone camera output even for family events that everyone used to make the effort to bring a camera to. As long as it is good enough to post on Facebook it is good enough.

And the long slow decline of civilization continues....

Maybe I'm just too picky.

 

[explanade]

Yeah but remember, a lot of people grew up on Kodak Instamatics.

They bought those film cartridges and those flash cubes, dropped off their film at the drug store and got a bunch of 3 x 5 prints and people were happy with that.

I'm not sure smart phone photos, uploaded in web-friendly resolutions, are any worse.

For many people, the priority isn't image quality but just capturing the moments they want.

 

[audreyh1]

I honestly cannot take a decent photo looking at an LCD on the back of something, or at the screen of an iPad or iPhone. We gave up on the smaller digital cameras long ago as their viewfinders were hopeless. I need to look through the lens and clearly see the focus, framing, etc. I'm sure there are tons of folks who don't need DSLRs, although I don't understand why they would have them anymore or would be buying them now.