An ordinary life in an extra-ordinary place
Photography
Warning: If you have no interest in processing images, then read no further.
—————————————————————————-
Tradition has it that wisdom is passed down through the generations. Well, not in our family; in our family it is passed up.
My main contribution to the upbringing of The Son was to impress upon him the importance of always having a can of WD-40 to hand. In return he has provided me with guidance on a number of topics, including how to make my photos look better. I could pass this wisdom back up the line to my father, but he is long gone and never held a camera anyway, so I will share it with you.
How do you look at your photos? If you are like me you mainly obsess over them on a computer monitor, often zoomed in at 100% so I can fret over the flaws. And how do others see your photos? If you are like me, then they view a reduced version via the web; perhaps on Facebook, Pattaya Days or via email.
If you want your photos to look wonderful full size, perhaps for printing large prints or just to make you feel good when you do your zooming in thing; then I can’t help you. There is plenty of information and many pieces of software that will help you in your quest to produce a wall-sized poster of your art. But if you are looking to produce good looking images at the sort of size you share on the web, then this might be for you.
The Son told me about this after I kept complaining about his photos. We both shot with a GF1 and the same lenses, but his photos always looked crisper than mine. Ignoring the fact that he has a better “eye” for composition than his father, whatever he shot just looked better on the screen. How?
Here’s how:
First, you will need Photoshop. Either the several thousand dollar boxed set of the latest Creative Suite, or a 100 baht copy of some version. Naturally, I recommend the former and use the latter. And you will need a photo to work on.
Whatever software you use to process your photos (I use Lightroom), get the following out of the way first:
1. Make any adjustments you want to the image (cropping, exposure compensation etc.)
2. Remove any noise. If you have noise and have to reduce it, the result will always be a softer image, and the tweak will help resolve that. There are a number of software applications for noise removal, but I find Lightroom to be an adequate solution.
3. If your software has any pre-specified sharpening, remove it. For example, Lightroom has a default 25% sharpening which you should remove by pushing the slider back to zero.
This is how the develop panel in Lightroom looks before I export, no sharpening and some noise reduction:
From Lightroom, I export full-size as a PSD and then open that file in Photoshop.
The tweak has four steps:
1. An initial reduction in the size of the image which will include some mild sharpening.
2. Sharpen
3. Reduce the size of the image again to the final size required, this step will also include some mild sharpening
4. Convert to JPEG and astound the world.
As you work through this, it may seem rather a lot of work to do on every photo. But you only have to do it once. Save the steps as an Action and then just apply the Action every time you want to use the tweak. More about Actions here.
This is the image I am going to tweak:
It was shot in a dark environment at ISO 1600, so I had to remove some of the noise, leaving the image looking a little soft.
So, load it into Photoshop and the first step is to reduce the size. Go to Image/Image size and make the length of the longest side (as this is a portrait image, choose the height) to 2,000 pixels.
Tick the boxes as shown and make sure you choose Bicubic Sharper, this will lightly sharpen the image as it is reduced in size. Click OK.
On to step 2, the main sharpening. First, we are going to change the colour mode of the image to Lab. Go to Image and change the colour from RGB to Lab.
If you want to know more about Lab mode, then Google will keep you busy for hours; all you need to know for the tweak is that it a good colour mode for sharpening.
Next step, head across onto to your menus, select Channels and you will see all the Lab channels highlighted. Click on Lightness so that it is the only channel highlighted, and note that your image has turned to greyscale.
Now it’s sharpening time. Select Filter/Sharpen/Smart Sharpen:
And you will get this:
Make sure you have the various options set as shown above, apart from the sliders which need a bit of discussion.
Radius: 1.2px as shown works well for 12 megapixel Micro Four Thirds size sensors. For larger sensors, like the X100, I find a lower value, around 0.9, works better.
Amount: Play around with this value. You will probably need more than 40 to make a difference, and more than 60 may start to degrade your image. As my test image has been softened by noise removal I am using quite a high value.
There are many things that can influence the “amount” settings. Different lenses, perhaps a bit of camera shake, noise reduction, all can impact how much you need to sharpen. After a bit of experience you will learn what values work best for your images. Click OK when you are happy with the preview.
Sharpening done, go back to Image/Mode and change the colour mode back to RGB.
Step 3, and we are now going to bring the image down to the final size and do some mild sharpening along the way.
Specify the size of the longest side. I use 1000 pixels, which is the size you see when you click on a Pattaya Days image. If you are producing an image for Facebook, use 720 pixels. Click OK.
That’s the processing done. Final steps are to save the file as a JPEG. Go to File/Save As and save your masterpiece as a JPEG:
Done!! If you have been following along and creating an Action, now is the time to stop it.
Your Action should look almost like this:
What it won’t have is that little box next to Smart Sharpen. Click on the space to add that box. Now run your action against another image. A dialog box will pop up to allow you to specify the sharpening settings. When you close that box, the Action will finish and you file will be created. Easy! You can also put a flag against the second “Image Size” step if you want to pick different sizes from time to time. Save your Action. Now you can use it anytime without having to step through the process.
Here is the result of the tweak on my test image:
And this was the image before the tweak:
View full size by clicking on them; the improvement is subtle but the processed image has more pop and clarity.
Here’s another one. Shot at base ISO with the GF1, there was only a tiny bit of noise to remove and the image was OK without the tweak. But even so, the tweak gave it a little something extra (click to view full size):
Original:
Tweak:
If I am putting photos on the web, most will go through the tweak process first. I think it is worth the minimal effort. Your mileage, as they say, may vary.
Some additional thoughts:
- You will note that my Action is called Facebook Portrait. This is because, when I defined this Action, I specified height parameters on the two image re-size steps,as we did in the example. You will have to go through the process again and build another Action where you specify the width, this can then be used for landscape orientation images. If your image is square, you can use either!
- This works with shots taken in RAW. If you shoot JPEG; change to RAW, your life will be better in many ways. If your camera doesn’t shoot RAW, buy another camera (and make sure it doesn’t have a flappy mirror).
- Why not just dial in more sharpening in Lightroom? Because this approach gives a much better result for very little additional effort (once you have set it up). It has The Son seal of approval, what more do you need to know?
- Why is this particularly good for Micro Four Thirds cameras? Because many of them have a little noise in the image, even at base ISO. Get rid of that noise, run this routine, and all your photos will look better. Mine do.
- Generating PSD files and subsequent JPEGs will take up space and will be hard to manage? Not if you delete them once you are done. Note that my saves go into a temporary data file. Once the JPEG has been uploaded to the web, the PSD and resulting JPEG are trashed. I can always generate another one if I need it.
- Why don’t I just save you the effort and provide you with these Actions? If you can’t be arsed to work through the above yourself, leave a comment below “Dear Spike, I am a lazy git, please send me the Actions.” Make sure the email address is valid because that is where I will sent them.
Once upon a time, in a land far away, there were two main types of cameras. There was the DSLR, a camera where you looked through a viewfinder and saw through the lens. This required a flapping mirror device which had many shortcomings; but was the only way you could effectively work with different lenses on the same body. And then there was the point and shoot camera for those who just wanted to take snaps and had no interest in fiddling about with lenses.
And Panasonic and Olympus saw this situation, and verily they saw that it was nonsense. Surely there was a market for an interchangeable lens system without the size, weight and complexity of a DSLR? And there was, and they called it Micro Four Thirds (MFT) and it was announced in August 2008.
Cameras don’t have to be big to be good.
Yours truly was somewhat weary of lugging fifteen kilos of camera gear on trips that might involved the use of a camera, so I climbed aboard the MFT train with a Panasonic GF1. What a revelation. The images could be as good as my DSLR, and the photography was so much more fun without all the baggage. She who must be obeyed caught the bug and chose an Olympus EP-1, because it was pretty.
Thousands of photos, and a few extra lenses, and we still love our little cameras. But times move on and I felt the need for an upgrade. Other companies had seen the sales growth and potential of what are now known generically as Compact System Cameras. Moving away from MFT would involve selling off our lens collection, but what were the options?
Pentax- The smallest of the systems, tiny body and lenses, crap interface and rubbish pictures. No thank you.
Canon – Still sitting on the sidelines scratching their bum, Canon have yet to dip their toe in this pool. The prospect of having to develop a new line of lenses and potentially impact their DSLR sales is maybe why they are yet to commit.
Nikon – Waited a long time too, but finally announced their 1 series. Some very clever technology with great focusing and speed, but a tiny sensor in a body that looks like a Lego brick. To quote DigitalRev: “mainly rubbish”.
Sony – Along with Canon and Nikon, the big player in the camera business and their NEX-7 seems like it is quite a body; although focusing is a little suspect and there are far too many pixels stuffed on the sensor. But lens choice? Nah. Plus, it’s made by Sony.
So that leave MFT, which now has a huge selection of lenses and at least seven bodies available from Panasonic and Olympus. Plus, as I have professed in the past, I love my GF1 and the GX1 is just a GF1 with more goodies, so the choice was easy.
The GX1 is a little bit smaller than the GF1:
As I think the GF1 is a perfect size, making it smaller is not a good idea. The right side of the camera (looking from the back) is noticeably closer to the lens mount; which means Panasonic have had to include a bulky grip so your hand has something to curl round. Overall, I think the GF1 sits better in my hands; but your hands might give a different reaction.
The top of the camera has chunky on/off switch and an equally chunky dial. There is a shutter button, a video record button (1080i if you are interested), a stereo microphone for the video, and an “intelligent auto” knob. Press this and it glows blue to let you know that the camera has taken over full control and decided how it will take the shot. This feature was on the mode dial on the GF1 and I never used it; doubt I will use it now that it is a button.
Heading round the back and we encounter a disappointment, the same resolution screen as the GF1, and it is not articulated.
But once you get over that disappointment, it’s all good. First of all, there are plenty of buttons to play with. Metal buttons too, which work with a satisfying click. There is one more physical button than the GF1; but now there is also a very useable and extremely customisable quick menu which pops out on the screen at the press of one of the buttons (the button marked QMenu, you will not be surprised to know).
You set up the items and display order for the quick menu, and you can then select choices by using the D-pad or just by touching the screen. Yes, the screen may not be higher resolution; but at least you can interact directly with it.
Two of the buttons on the back are programmable (Fn1 and the AF/AE lock button) and if you select a pop-out menu on the touch screen, there are two more.
(Note the green bar, that’s telling me that I have the camera level; another useful little addition for someone who is always having to straighten up photos).
At the top of the pop-out menu there is another icon which allows you to select what happens when you touch the screen in shooting mode. By default, touching the screen allows you to move the focus point around the screen. This is immensely useful and so much quicker than using the D-pad. Choose where to focus, anywhere on the screen, with a touch of your finger; let’s see you do that on a DSLR.
Changing the option on the pop-out menu takes things a step further. Touch the screen and the camera focuses on that point and takes a photo; and it does it really quickly. Great for candid shots.
Talking of speed, the GX1 really shines here. The GF1 was no slouch, but the GX1 is a GF1 in turbo mode. There is nothing that is going to slow you down when taking photos with this little beast. Turn it on and it is ready for shooting almost instantaneously, use the buttons and quick menu to change options, select the focus point with your finger and fire away. Focusing is lightning fast, particularly with more recent lenses such as the Olympus 45mm.
Talking of focusing, the GX1 adds an extra option to the focusing choices. There is single shot focus where you focus on something and take the shot. There is manual focusing which is as elegantly supported as ever, and there is continuous focus which tracks objects as they move. The new option if flexible focus which is intended for subjects that are moving slightly. Not sure how this differs from continuous focus in operation, time will tell.
Like the GF1, the GX1 has a pop-up flash. Unlike the GF1, the flash can be moved around so you can use bounce flash as well as direct.
This was taken on the street, so I couldn’t bounce the flash off a ceiling, hence the reflection off the nose. Just like the GF1, the GX1 is great at pumping out just the right amount of flash for a correct exposure.
Many people use the screens on the back of these cameras for composing their shots. I have two problems with this. Firstly, shooting in the bright sunlight of Thailand can make it impossible to see the screen. Secondly, I can get less shaky shots if I can jam my camera against my face and stare through a viewfinder. The viewfinder for the GF1 was better than nothing, but that’s about all you can say about it. The GX1 viewfinder is bigger, brighter and with more resolution, a pleasure to stare through. It also has the diopter adjustment hidden away so you can’t keep changing it by mistake, and the LCD/viewfinder swap button is better placed on the back of the unit. But it does add significantly to the cost and it sticks out the top of the camera in a less than charming manner; so you may not feel the need.
More metal than plastic, the GX1 has a sturdy, quality look and feel.The controls are extensive and customisable, the touch screen is more than a gimmick and the whole is a competent camera which retains the spirit of fun of the GF1 and adding more speed and ease of use. So far so good.
But how are the images?
The GF1 takes great photos. Should anyone start going on about how MFT cameras can’t compete with big DSLRs in the quality department, I tell them of the man I know who sold a GF1 image through Getty Images, one of the more demanding of stock libraries, for $11,000. If it’s good enough for Getty, it’s good enough for me.
But it’s true that the smaller sensor size of MFT leads to more noise at higher ISOs, and the GX1 should hopefully improve that. But it has to struggle with a more pixels crammed on the sensor (16 megapixels compared to the 12 megapixels of the GF1), and the base ISO is 160, compared to the 100 of the GF1.
This was my test subject (the line down the back is the edge of a wall):
All the images were shot in RAW. If you shoot JPEG then the camera will attempt to deal with any noise; but I prefer to deal with it myself.
Here’s a comparison at base ISO for each camera, pretty similar result:
Jumping to ISO 800, the GX1 is holding up much better than the GF1.
At ISO 800 I can dial in some noise reduction in Lightroom with the GX1 and still have a useable image, whilst the GF1 is getting a little mushy.
Once we hit ISO 1600, the GF1 is moving into snowstorm mode and trying to remove all that noise would lose you a load of detail.
But the GX1 is still recoverable at ISO 1600 and with a bit of adjustment you can get a perfectly acceptable image:
The GF1 goes to ISO 3200, by which time it is a mess. The GX1 goes to ISO 12,800 and is also a mess by this point; but you can recover something a little blotchy but just about useable:
So, the GX1 gives you more pixels to play with, and provides improved high ISO performance in spite of that. ISO 1600 should be comfortable and higher would be manageable, a decent improvement over the GF1.
But what does all this mean in practice?
Here’s a test for any camera: Take it down Walking Street and capture some street life. You need a small camera like the GX1, because if you point a big Canon at some of the characters down there, you are likely to end up with a broken camera and a broken head. You need something that can successfully track focus in very dark conditions; and those same conditions will need a lens with plenty of light and the use of high ISOs, because you can’t use flash unless you want the same broken camera/head scenario.
So I took the GX1 onto Walking Street last night. I have already posted a couple of shots and will post some more in a separate post; but here is an example I like:
Panasonic GX1 with Olympus 45mm lens at F1.8, ISO 6400.
I used the touch screen to quickly move the focus point to the left had side of the screen. Using continuous focus, the GX1 tracked the girls as they walked down the street. Even with the tiny depth of field that comes with F1.8, the focus was spot on, and I could take the shot with no delay when the girl on the left turned her head. An ISO of 6400 could be cleaned up (I made it black and white because there was an orange glow coming from a Go-Go which didn’t do the colour version any favours). Et voilà, a passable street shot in the most difficult of conditions, with a camera you can (almost) put in your pocket.
I love the GF1 because it is fast and fun. I love the GX1 because it is even faster and even more fun. There is nothing that gets in the way of taking photos and I am itching to go out and have an extended shoot with it somewhere. I haven’t talked about video or the various JPEG and creative photo options, because I don’t use them. I haven’t talked about many of the other neat new features, because I think I have already written too much. Suffice it to say I think the GX1 is the best compact system camera on the market right now.
So, should you get one? Possibly not.
If you are not into processing RAW files, have a look at the Olympus offerings which produce beautiful JPEGs, although watch out for fairly pathetic high ISO performance. Alternatively, the Panasonic G3 is almost on par with the GX1 and has an articulated screen and a built in viewfinder for a lot less money; but with far fewer controls and a plastic body. Or spend more money and look at the Panasonic GH2. Or wait until February 8th and check out the new Olympus OM-D; and the Panasonic GH3 can’t be far behind. The agony of choice; just don’t buy anything that uses a mirror, that is so yesterday.
Thanks for reading, and here is some camera porn to finish off with:
GX1 and Voigtlander 25mm F0.95, the ultimate MFT combo?
GX1 with the impossibly cute Schneider-Kreuznach Xenoplan 25mm F1.9
GX1 with the impossibly cheap Navatar 75mm F1.3
When I was seventeen I started work for the grand salary of thirteen pounds a month. Feeble recompense, even in those days; but somehow I managed to save some cash and eventually bought my first camera, a Russian-made Zenit-E for the sum of seventeen pounds. It was an agricultural monster of an SLR, with a mirror that would make the room (and the photo) shake every time you pressed the shutter. But it was mine and I had paid for it and many rolls of film passed through its sprockets until it died and was melted down to make a tractor.
After that, I had Canon SLRs for most of my adult life. Come the digital revolution I bought a Canon 300D and then a move to a 30D when I retired. Then everything got a little out of hand.
I used to enjoy shooting sports, and soon people started offering me money to shoot sports in various locations. As the money came in I started to upgrade my gear, and by 2009 I was up to a Canon 1D and a load of lenses. A trip to shoot a round of the Indian Rally Championship found me checking in for my flight with fifteen kilos of camera and (some of my) lenses in a rucksack. Fortunately, nobody bothered to check the weight of my carry-on baggage, they just assumed that I always walked as if I had a sack of coal on my back. Holiday trips with she who must be obeyed found me hauling similar weights around the place; just ridiculous.
Then, in December 2009, I bought this:
A Panasonic GF1 with a 20mm F1.7 lens. The camera and lens cost me half of what a decent Canon lens would cost. It weighed nearly nothing and would fit in your pocket if you didn’t mind the bulge. And what a performer. Fun to use with images that delighted me. After a lifetime of flappy-mirror SLRs, this was an epiphany. Cameras didn’t need to be big to be good.
By mid-2010 I had kept the big Canon and one lens for my income-generating sports shooting, but the rest of my Canon lenses had been sold. I would like to say that the money I made from selling them was wisely invested; but of course it went on buying more lenses for the GF1. Now when I went on trips, I still carried a camera and bunch of lenses, but they all fitted in a small bag and were light enough to carry around all day.
I now have three cameras. The Canon 1D which is an efficient machine at knocking out beautiful, lucrative sports shots. The Fuji X100 which is an occasionally frustrating beast, but it compensates by excellent image quality even at high ISO. And finally the GF1. It’s battered and scratched, but every time I pick it up I want to go and take photos. It’s by far the most enjoyable camera I have ever owned. If I was going on a trip and only allowed one camera, the GF1 would be it. The way it fits in your hand, how all the controls are easily available, it just feels exactly how a camera should feel. If you own a GF1 you will know what I mean.
So I would like to wish my GF1 belated birthday wishes. Thank you for two years of fun and thousands of images. I love you.
P.S. Regretfully, you are soon to be replaced.
I bought my Panasonic GF1 on the 15th December 2009. Twenty thousand images and nearly two years later, it is scratched and dirty, but it still knocks out great photos.
I have a Canon 1D which takes amazing sports shots and a Fuji X100 which takes beautiful photos in all levels of light (when it isn’t behaving like a total bitch); but if I could only take one camera on a trip, it would be the GF1.
It’s small, intuitive to use, great for both manual and auto focusing, and it turns out images that please me. It’s by far the best camera I have ever owned and I love it.
But two years is a long time in the camera industry and GF1 owners have been waiting for a replacement. The naming of the GF2 and GF3 promised an evolution; but instead we got increasingly smaller bodies with dumbed-down controls. The G3 is a step in the right direction, but there’s too much plastic and not enough buttons to play with, and the GH2 looks too much like an SLR. What we wanted was better image quality, more dynamic range, a built-in viewfinder as an alternative to the stick on piece of crap on the GF1, and we would have liked an articulated LCD panel; all preferably presented in an elegant, metal body.
And today what we got was the GX1.
Photo from DPreview
The good news is that it looks very much like a GF1. The bad news is that it looks very much like a GF1, with the same add-on approach to a viewfinder and no articulated LCD panel.
Still, although the LCD panel has not improved in quality or function, the viewfinder has, which might make it acceptable if not exactly elegant. The sensor has gone up from 12 to 16 megapixels which in principle is not good news, but a new processing engine may make the images the best of the current Micro Four Thirds cameras. It looks well-built and the auto-focus is extremely fast (see the video below).
The price is not bargain basement, $700 for the body only; and you can add another $250 for the viewfinder. But if you want to continue the photographic love affair that the GF1 provided, the GX1 may just be the upgrade you need. Probably won’t be seen in Thailand till the end of the year; which gives me some time to get some photo jobs done and save up some baht. Anyone want to buy a GF1, slightly soiled?
Video preview from DPreview:
Been a while since a company called Lytro announced they were going to produce a light field camera.
Naturally, I signed up to hear the latest news, and this week they sent me an email inviting me to pre-order the camera which will be available early next year. All I needed was a spare $399 and to live in the USA. As I didn’t satisfy either of those requirements, I ignored their offer; but it does look a very different sort of camera.
There’s a button to turn it on, a button to take a shot, and a slider to zoom; with an LCD panel on the back so you can view your creations.
No idea how popular it is going to be; but good to see a small company pushing the boundaries of photo technology. More about it here.
There has always been one lens that you have to own for your Micro Four Thirds camera, the Panasonic 20mm F1.7. Why? Because it is small, light, takes great images and can be had for a reasonable price. And now there is a second must-have, the Olympus 45mm F1.8. Why? Because it is small, light, takes great images and can be had for a reasonable price.
I don’t have it yet because I couldn’t find any stock in Pattaya or Thailand my finances do not permit another lens purchase at the moment; but Nik has acquired one and lent it to me for a couple of hours this morning.
First impressions; this thing really is small and it really is light.
Here it is next to the Panasonic 14-45, set at 45mm:
Although it is light, it feels well built, and the focusing ring is silky smooth. Time to take some photos. This lens has been touted as being good for portraiture, being an ideal focal length and with F1.8 to help throw the background out of focus (if you don’t understand that, read this). Sadly, I have nobody to take portrait photos of at the moment and I reckoned that the cats didn’t count; so I headed out to Nong Nuch for yet another flower shoot.
The lens was quick and accurate to auto-focus on my two year old Panasonic GF1, it must really fly on the latest bodies. Manual focusing was easy, with a crisp in-focus position being easy to spot. And having only 12 grammes of lens on the camera amplified the light delight that is shooting with Micro Four Thirds.
Image quality? Impressive. Here’s a shot with a 100% crop shown after, the details on the insect’s wings and legs are quite clear.
Panasonic GF1 with Olympus 45mm at F3.5
Click on the image to see full size.
I played around with the lens for an hour or so and really enjoyed using it; definitely a must-have piece of equipment. Problem is, I already have a 45mm lens, the classic and wonderful Contax 45mm. Takes lovely photos, but it is manual focus only so it does not get used as much as it should.
Fortunately, there is a solution. The most excellent Spacefruit; polo player, bon viveur and possessor of enormous genitals (allegedly), has taken it upon himself to gather around his ample girth the world’s production of Contax 45mm lenses. If one appears on eBay, he buys it. His intention is to produce a shortage such that prices skyrocket; then he can dump the whole lot for a fat profit. He was happy to buy my Contax for nearly the same price as an Olympus 45mm would cost me; and so I hope to be a proud owner soon and further photos will follow. In the meantime, here are some more from this morning, all taken with the Olympus lens.
Tasty bokeh:
Panasonic GF1 with Olympus 45mm at F2.5
Panasonic GF1 with Olympus 45mm at F1.8
Panasonic GF1 with Olympus 45mm at F1.8
Panasonic GF1 with Olympus 45mm at F1.8
Panasonic GF1 with Olympus 45mm at F1.8
Panasonic GF1 with Olympus 45mm at F1.8
Panasonic GF1 with Olympus 45mm at F5.6
Thank you Nik for the loan of the lens. Please buy the new Olympus 12mm next so I can borrow that too.
There is something different about a black and white photo (Ed: yeah, the colours are missing, dickhead). The absence of colour leaves only the subject and the composition for the eye to ponder; and of course, with the right subject matter, black and white can evoke the photographs of old.
Modern photo processing software allows you to easily create a B&W image by clicking on a button. Lightroom has a number of presets that will produce variations on a B&W theme, and quite honestly that is enough for an amateur idiot like myself.
If you want to get serious about B&W processing, then you probably need Nik Silver Efex Pro; but it looks far too complex for an ancient pensioner to master, and far too expensive at $199 for an ancient pensioner.
But now, salvation is at hand for those who fancy dicking around with B&W without the cost or complication, thanks to Topaz B&W Effects.
I already own Topaz Adjust 4, and it is a load of fun for creating interesting looking images. Now there is B&W Effects for creating interesting looking black and white images. Even better news is the price, only $29.99 for an introductory period; even an ancient pensioner can afford that.
The interface is the same as Topaz Adjust. On the left you have a large (about 150) selection of presets that you can use a starting point for your conversion, and on the right are the detailed tools you can use to fine tune your masterpiece.
I have the same problem as I had with the presets in Adjust. I click one and think it looks good. I click another and think that looks good too. Try another, maybe even better than the first two. And so it continues for some time until I find a view I decide I like best. I expect familiarity will lead you to presets that are preferred for specific types of photos.
Of to the right hand side, and the tools you find there are really very powerful. The Conversion tools allow you to change the overall look of the image including manipulating exposure, curves and the changing the look based on the underlying colours of the image. Creative Effects offer goodies such as posterize (sic) and even Camera Shake, although why you would want to add a camera shake look I am not sure.
Having created the overall look of the image the way you want it, the local adjustments tool allows you to change parts of the image. Sharpen up the eyes of your subject perhaps, colour in a part of the image, dodge and burn like a darkroom zombie; it’s all there. And there is an “edge aware” function which makes only affecting the area you want to change very easy.
The Finishing Touches tools allow you to change the look based on paper and siver tone and grain type. Add a border and some vignetting. Last of all, and potentially very powerful, you can alter the transparency of your conversion, such that some of the underlying colour image creeps through.
I have only had a little play, but I am very impressed. This is a fun tool to make some cool looking images, and a serious tool if you really want to do some extensive work to produce a perfect black and white image.
My first few attempts:
I let some of the colour in the brickwork come through:
Using one of the painting style presets. I like what it did to the tree:
Used the brush tool to bring back the colour in the monk’s robe, and sharpen up his eyes:
Finally, she who must be obeyed’s little sister with a rather too shiny apple. Tweaked a preset which gave a heavily vignetted, dreamy look. Left in a little of the colour:
Topaz B&W Effects is easy and fun to use, and extremely powerful if you feel you have the need to be extremely powerful. At the current price it is a steal. Get it here.
Spend the morning introducing a friend to the delights of Lightroom, surely the most competent and complete photo processing program on the planet.
I take him through the elegant cataloguing, keywording and search facilities, more than sufficient for me to ensure that I can gain easy access to any one of my more than 50,000 photos in my library, and where I can select, process and where necessary delete, more than 1,000 photos at a time after a heavy photo session.
He declares himself not really interested in that because he can already manage his images by keeping up to three copies and renaming them and fuck knows what else he does; but it sure as hell is not nearly as elegant as Lightroom. Anyway, I abandon further discussion on the cataloguing features and start on the develop module where he perks up and declares himself interested, whilst reminding me he can do pretty much all of this already, albeit using three or more ancient programs, none of which offer non-destructive editing I am sure.
Developing his images is not as good as it could be because he only shoots JPEG. When I suggest RAW might give him better photos, he complains about the file size. I refrain from pointing out that the 3 JPEGs of the same image that he maintains nowadays might be smaller than using a single RAW file and Lightroom; it’s just not worth it.
Get Lightroom installed on his laptop and send him away, doubting he will ever use it again.
After a frustrating morning, I spy a rather attractive plant on the balcony and decide to point various cameras at it:
First up is the Panasonic GF1 with a second-hand Yashica macro lens, total value of the gear; around 24,000 baht. Lovely, manual focus; easy to shoot.
Next is the 33,000 baht Fuji X100. Auto-focus with an attempt at manual focus refinement. A bit of a click and hope exercise.
Last, but by no means least when it comes to weight and price, we have the Canon 1D with the 300mm F2.8 lens and an extension tube; a 300,000 baht combination. Manual focus using the rather clunky Liveview feature.
Which is best? Not much to choose between them. Looking at the full size images, the Canon has a certain crispness to it; but not 267,000 baht’s worth of crispness. Plus it’s a massive, ungainly combination. Using the Fuji is a reminder that it doesn’t shine with macros, and using the GF1 is a reminder as to what a bloody wonderful little camera it is, even with a 3,000 baht second-hand lens on the front which wasn’t even designed for use with that camera. By far and away my tool of choice if I was going out to shoot flowers and the like.
The GF1/Yashica combination celebrated its win by taking a couple of even closer-up shots. Rather pleased with the second one, after I had tweaked it a bit in Lightroom:
When the light is low, the ISO on your camera has to be raised, and the result is varying amounts of noise in the image.
The Fuji X100 copes with high ISOs better than any other camera I own. Not surprisingly, better than the GF1, but also better than the Canon 1D which tends to lose colour definition at higher ISO ratings.
The light at Doi Suthep temple this weekend was appalling. The whole area was covered in mist and clouds, and high ISOs were required.
This shot was at ISO 3200. Not only was most of the noise removable with only a small adjustment in Lightroom, but the camera also did a fine job of retaining all the colours.
Very impressed Fuji, now sort out the abysmal manual focusing please.
Once you get up close and personal with subjects, the depth of field you have to play with is very small. Consequently, to make sure you have focused exactly where you intended, it is best to use manual focusing. And manual focusing is something the X100 does not do well.
So it was with little hope of success that I spent some time this morning shooting exclusively in macro mode, and indeed the camera was nowhere near as easy to use close-up as the Panasonic GF1. No problem with grabbing focus, but I was never sure what had been grabbed. I could zoom in and confirm that indeed it had not focused exactly where I wanted, but then trying to spin the useless manual focusing ring was a waste of time.
Still, when it did work, the shots looked OK (to my eyes). But if I was going out to shoot macro again I would leave the Fuji at home and take the GF1 (if I can stop she who must be obeyed from “borrowing” it).
Some Fuji macro shots, mainly at F4:
Recent Comments