tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25846665629747028982024-03-14T08:22:26.114-05:00Glen Barrington - My Dynamic RangeMostly about photography. There will be an emphasis on editing photos; and to a lesser extent, Micro Four Thirds photography gear, and shooting techniques.Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-23987605823439087432017-09-20T15:15:00.000-05:002017-09-20T15:15:24.980-05:00An Experienced User's Notes on ACDSee Photo Studio Ultimate 2018<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-APAfWlS0VlM/WcLMC39K4bI/AAAAAAAAFkk/F2hhhf2nUbUbp8AoXBDggSBmTkeLWwB3QCLcBGAs/s1600/P4260141_resize.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="625" data-original-width="1000" height="200" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-APAfWlS0VlM/WcLMC39K4bI/AAAAAAAAFkk/F2hhhf2nUbUbp8AoXBDggSBmTkeLWwB3QCLcBGAs/s320/P4260141_resize.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">ACDSee can carry a BIG load!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
There's a LOT to like about this new version of ACDSee, and overall, it is a worthy upgrade I think.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Let's first discuss the elephant in the room, the name change. The next version coming after ACDSee Ultimate 10 is now called "ACDSee Photo Studio Ultimate 2018". I understand why they did this, the various ACDSee still photo products were getting seriously out of sync in terms of version numbers.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The original ACDSee browser/viewer/Dam product, which all subsequent still photo products are built around is on on version 21. ACDSee Pro is on version 11, and even though it used the same naming convention as ACDSee Pro, ACDSee Ultimate was really only on version 3. It was getting confusing to new users, some were thinking one product was "older" than the other when in fact, they were a part of the same generation and build of software. I know I frequently fielded questions from confused users.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
By calling the product line "ACDSee Photo Studio {year}and then either Pro or Ultimate, I think it will be clearer, in the long run at least, that all three products share the same generation of programming and only differ in the extras each title provides.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The New products are:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>ACDSee Photo Studio 2018 - the Basic DAM tool and browser/viewer</li>
<li>ACDSee Photo Studio Pro 2018 - The same as ACDSee Photo Studio 2018 with the addition of a first class raw development tool.</li>
<li>ACDSee Photo Studio Ultimate 2018 - The same as ACDSee Photo Studio Pro 2018 with the addition of a layers capable bit mapped editor which supports Photoshop plugins.</li>
</ol>
<div>
One of the strong features of the ACDSee line has always been that it is possible to upgrade to a more extensive ACDSee title without having to relearn the things you already know, or reconfigure the DAM database since all 3 products use the same catalog and database system.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
The New Features</h3>
<div>
Most of these tools are in both ACDSee Photo Studio Pro 2018 and in ACDSee Photo Studio Ultimate 2018. My comments are intentionally directed towards Ultimate 2018, since that is the program that does the most.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Smart Erase</h4>
<div>
This "Edit Tab" tool allows the user to quickly delete objects based on the ACDSee masking brush technology. Basically to use Smart Erase, you click on the Smart Erase Tool button in the "Edit Tab" toolbar, or press Ctrl-E, adjust the size of the brush to your satisfaction, and draw a mask on the object to be erased. Then the tool tries to figure out the best place in the photo to automatically clone data from, and replaces it with that data.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LGkC0kd6IdQ/WcLBoh5DerI/AAAAAAAAFkI/8Kr6Jm_Y2s4D1aCPlXDae0OMX8QqqwB_gCLcBGAs/s1600/02-09-05StAugustine%2B028.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LGkC0kd6IdQ/WcLBoh5DerI/AAAAAAAAFkI/8Kr6Jm_Y2s4D1aCPlXDae0OMX8QqqwB_gCLcBGAs/s320/02-09-05StAugustine%2B028.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Removing these power lines were problematic with <br />Smart Erase.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
It works better on some photos than on others. I've found that powerlines that cross a variety of trees, and other highly detailed background can confuse it a bit. The places where it works best is erasing an object against a plain background like the sky, a wall, or a beach.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I've discovered that brush size and magnification size of the photo, can make a big difference in how well Smart Erase works. I think repeated passes can also make the erasure more natural looking. Some erasures will still need to be done, or at least supplemented, with a manual clone. Even so, it can make the old tedious methods of erasure much faster and easier.</div>
<h4>
<br /></h4>
<h4>
Liquify</h4>
<div>
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dOk1nyDcvLs/WcKzX6d0h5I/AAAAAAAAFj4/e0-kkxqPyBox4xp-9MDW-sNj30HO-a_XQCLcBGAs/s1600/Liquify%2Btool.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="947" data-original-width="307" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dOk1nyDcvLs/WcKzX6d0h5I/AAAAAAAAFj4/e0-kkxqPyBox4xp-9MDW-sNj30HO-a_XQCLcBGAs/s640/Liquify%2Btool.jpg" width="204" /></a>Liquify is a distortion filter capable of great subtlety, or over the top effects. I haven't played with it much, as I am mostly a landscape and nature photographer, but I found it pretty capable. For instance one can make a child's eyes just a bit larger than they actually are, or make the brim of a hat just a bit larger or smaller.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There are four types of distortion tools, Shift, Pinch, Bulge, and Restore.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Shift</i> moves the point represented by the center of the brush in or out of its normal position.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Pinch</i> creates a 4 sided pincushion effect from the center of the brush.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Bulge </i>creates a 4 sided barrel distortion from the center of the brush.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Restore</i> is NOT a traditional 'undo' feature! Instead, it appears to allow the user to 'walk back' the strength of the other 3 distortions so that the optimum distortion effect is achieved.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Frequency Separation</h4>
<div>
This is an automated layers based function that is particularly useful for portraiture and other photos where minimization of blemishes is desirable. It creates a high pass and a low pass version of the photo.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
High Frequency contains all the texture information, while Low Frequency contains the tones colors and shadows. This allows the user to adjust them separately and then merge them into a useful combination. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Actions Browser</h4>
<div>
This is a pretty useful enhancement to the recorded action scripting tool. It allows you to record a series of actions and more easily select those action scripts and apply them to photos either one at a time or in batch mode. There are 125 pre recorded scripts that come with the tool. Don't confuse Action scripts with presets, these are two different things. Presets are tool specific, while action scripts cross the boundaries of the various tools.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Keyboard Shortcuts</h4>
<div>
Shortcuts have been created for virtually every function within ACDSee, so for the power users, it is possible to control your workflow without searching with your mouse to find the proper icon to "click on". This should speed things up significantly.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Mobile Sync</h4>
<div>
This tool, along with the previously released root level support for Microsoft OneDrive, in my eyes, indicates strongly that ACDSee Systems is thinking about the future of photography and the growing importance of mobile photography to photography as a whole.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As a reminder, root level support for OneDrive means that managing and incorporating photos uploaded to Microsoft OneDrive can be treated by ACDSee like just another folder on your internal hard drive. You don't need the sync folder or store the images to OneDrive in the sync folder. Instead you just navigate to OneDrive and manage the photos you find there just as if they were in your "pictures" folder on your HD. I can't begin to tell you just how much easier it is to manage remotely stored photos now. I was so impressed, I paid for the 1 Terabyte OneDrive upgrade.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Pd22eSLosiQ/WcLKpMqxRkI/AAAAAAAAFkY/bpRtZGrI0RMZcLjD5tFOyEtNx8A8EHJ2ACLcBGAs/s1600/2017-09-20_15-06-49.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="869" data-original-width="1600" height="173" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Pd22eSLosiQ/WcLKpMqxRkI/AAAAAAAAFkY/bpRtZGrI0RMZcLjD5tFOyEtNx8A8EHJ2ACLcBGAs/s320/2017-09-20_15-06-49.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Mobile Sync is fast and <i>EASY</i>!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
Mobile Sync is an alternative way of getting your photos from your Android or iOS device to your hard drive where ACDSee resides. What it does, is connect your phone to the WiFi router that your PC is on, and sends the photos you select from your device and imports them into the mobile sync folder inside of the ACDSee database. Both the PC and the mobile device must be on the same network, and the mobile device must have the Mobile Sync app installed and running.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You might ask, "Why can't I just connect the phone by wire to my PC and drag and drop the photos into whatever folder I want?" Well you can, but this is much easier. It's easy to set up, and very easy to use day to day and I think a bit faster overall.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You also might ask, "Why can't I setup my mobile device to automatically upload my photos to my online storage and download the photos I want to ACDSee?" Again, you can do that. But that eats up your mobile GB upload limits, and that makes it impractical on an ongoing basis.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Besides, with root level support of MS OneDrive, I find I'm now only loading new photos to my hard drive, and once they are "done", I am moving the source files and the "Done" photos to OneDrive. ACDSee is making that easy to do, my photos are backed up to OneDrive and the only photos I have at risk of an HD failure are the most recent which are protected by a conventional back up.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm not a huge mobile photography fan, but there are times when all I have is my mobile phone, and I want to take some serious photos. And these products are a BIG time saver in my mind.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
A LOT of other, more subtle changes as well.</h4>
<div>
ACDSee claims a lot of improvements in performance, lens correction, selection, Pixel targeting, and split tone layers. so my advice is to schedule your free trial download for a time when you can devote a thorough test of this product.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
My Conclusions</h4>
<div>
On the whole, if you are interested in only the DAM portion of the ACDSee tools, there probably isn't a strong reason to upgrade from an earlier version. The DAM tools are mature and there probably isn't a lot of room for improvement in what is probably the strongest Digital Asset Management tool on the market. <i> (Though there is always SOME room for improvement!)</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
However, if your intentions are to rely more heavily on the bit mapped editor tools, either to replace or supplement another editor like Photoshop or PaintShop Pro, then an upgrade to either Ultimate or Pro makes a great deal of sense, in my mind.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-79789707213750276162017-03-30T11:16:00.000-05:002017-03-30T11:16:08.842-05:00New Video on The Histogram<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lXNr1xBlZfo/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lXNr1xBlZfo?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
This is my first attempt at a Video Tutorial. Feedback on overall watchability would be greatly appreciated.Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-78261650597356457472017-02-21T15:38:00.000-06:002017-02-22T08:07:35.718-06:00The General Controls - Getting the basics right.<div>
These “General” controls are the single most important segment of raw development. Often times called the exposure controls, they deal most directly with the information stored in the raw file. They control how much of the captured data we have available to work with, they are an important influence on how we perceive our photos overall. Getting this section "Right" ultimately controls just how successful your photo will be.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I will discuss the controls From the top of the controls window to the bottom. Note this is part 2 of an ongoing series of articles. This article will cover only what ACDSee calls the "General" controls and White Balance. The rest of the Raw development tools will be covered in subsequent articles.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h2>
Color and Black and White Sub Tabs</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
These tabbed controls don’t really do all that much other than desaturate or re-saturate the image with whatever color controls were current at the time the B&W tab was activated. <a href="http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/2016/05/how-to-get-killer-b-conversions-with.html" target="_blank">Getting Killer B&W Photos with ACDSee</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Curiously though, I have found this tab useful for luminance noise control. I suggest you review my article entitled <a href="http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/2014/04/a-quick-and-easy-nr-technique.html">"A Quick and Easy Noise Reduction Technique"</a></div>
<div>
<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Exposure</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
We all understand this control brightens and darkens a photo, but what this slider control actually does is allow you to adjust exposure to as much as an EV of -2 of under exposure, to an EV of +2 on an over exposure. The value settings on this control appear to be a 1:1 comparison of the EV numbers, though ACDSee never says that directly. In my tests, sliding the control to the left to a - .5 corresponds to setting an EV of -5 on the camera that the difference is irrelevant in my eyes.<br />
<br />
Two points you need to remember regarding the exposure control.<br />
<br />
If you need more than an EV spread of -2 to a +2, your ability to set your camera accurately for your desired effect must be questioned. If you are THAT far off on your exposure you have done something wrong, or your camera is broken.<br />
<br />
If you find yourself setting this control consistently to, say, an EV of -.5 (or whatever value), then maybe you should consider adjusting your camera to always underexpose to a value of -.5. Getting it right at capture time is always better than adjusting it later.<br />
<br />
Yes we understand that it makes the photo brighter, but what does Exposure actually DO to the photo? <br />
Try an experiment look at this Histogram of our test photo. <a href="http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-histogram.html">I refer you to the first article in this series for an explanation of the Histogram</a><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-htecAlojJlY/U1Vfg4iuRaI/AAAAAAAABPE/NDi316dIsLM/s1600/Capture-No+Exposure.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-htecAlojJlY/U1Vfg4iuRaI/AAAAAAAABPE/NDi316dIsLM/s1600/Capture-No+Exposure.jpg" width="215" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">NOTE: With all photos, just click on them to see larger versions</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Examine the histogram of the photo we are working with. Note how the shadows mostly reside about 20% to the right of the far left, and that the highlights, while fewer (curve is shorter), also reside about 20% to the LEFT of the far right. This indicates that there are few shadows and highlights that are so dark or light that there is no detail showing in them. And it is a well exposed photo with not much contrast to it.<br />
<br />
Now, slide the Exposure control to the right, note that everything the curve represents slides to the right, and what appears to be the left most anchor point for the start of the shadows also moves to the right. If you move the slider to the left, everything moves to the left, including the shadow anchor point.<br />
<br />
Highlight Enhancement - This control is somewhat misunderstood. What it does, is darken the highlights while ignoring the mid-tones and shadows. It allows you to set the exposure control properly for the shadows and mid-tones and then selectively darken the highlights only so that you don’t lose the detail in them.<br />
<br />
Try a little experiment. Take a photo that you want to work with, and move the EXPOSURE control a bit too far to the right. Notice how the brightest highlights start to go completely white. Also take note of the Histogram. Note how the curves are sort of pushed to the right. The part of the curves that represent shadow (the left side) in the histogram stay about as tall as ever while the mid-tone curves get a bit shorter. But in both cases, the shadow and highlight portion of the curve gets “fatter”as it slides to the right. Also note how the highlight portion of the curve not only is pushed too far to the right, but that portion of the curve gets skinnier and taller.<br />
<br />
What you are seeing is ACDSee trying to brighten the shadows and mid-tones by pushing them to the right of the histogram, Naturally, since we are using the overall exposure control this forces the highlights to an ever brighter position. Leave the Exposure control at the ‘too far to the right’ position you have selected.<br />
<br />
Now, let’s look at the Highlight Enhancement control. By sliding the control to the right, the highlights start to darken a bit, though the shadows and mid-tones don’t change all that much. In the Histogram, notice that the portion of the curve on the far right starts to get shorter and fatter as it moves back to the left. But curiously, while the shadow and mid-tones portion of the curve change shape a little bit, the ‘anchor point’ on the left where the shadow portion of the curve starts to take shape doesn’t move at all. Basic black is already set and isn’t going to change. Any changes to the photo will have to work around that anchor point for the shadows.<br />
<br />
So, what we have demonstrated is that Highlight Enhancement tries to shift the Histogram BACK to the left without adjusting the left most anchor point, and the net effect is that the shadows and mid-tones are affected less by this adjustment than are the highlights.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/CumMejhH19Pfo2tQoLb7btxSS0pSXr88DNKAfmr8S_swfaOrSusE_rR2VIzHH9UK0KXxNmBh12ZTb7lkorOnpoLWK8-vuzm7r_BctK-5XAwD8xDpzrqYjVdeP1HO0WeTAw"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/CumMejhH19Pfo2tQoLb7btxSS0pSXr88DNKAfmr8S_swfaOrSusE_rR2VIzHH9UK0KXxNmBh12ZTb7lkorOnpoLWK8-vuzm7r_BctK-5XAwD8xDpzrqYjVdeP1HO0WeTAw" width="260" /></a><br />
<br />
Fill Light Control - Oddly, this control is very similar to the exposure control, BUT what it does is respect the shadow anchor point as set by the exposure control. So in other words, the leftmost anchor point as set by the exposure control never changes as you slide the Fill light control to the right, everything else is pushed to the right.<br />
<br />
Contrast Control - This is an interesting control from a Histogram perspective. What it does when you slide the control to the right (i.e. increase contrast) is squeeze the middle portions of the curve down and push the extreme left and right sections of the curve to their respective edges of the histogram. In other words, it decreases the intensity of the mid-tones and increases the intensity of the shadows and highlights.<br />
<br />
When you slide the control to the left (i.e. Decrease contrast), what occurs is that the intensity of the shadows and highlights decreases and the intensity of the mid-tones increases.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/R0za4gKMiRaMUTkTqbRqRWoxIgvvCniDINX2MTVToEBgcgfxw-gvfSQzMgpOMuBSPD5NrqmXsUazaXuZyYuIhbKbk1d58J8vpbq74p518lJJQcCzO9QX1VYbyVmkXhpXSQ"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/R0za4gKMiRaMUTkTqbRqRWoxIgvvCniDINX2MTVToEBgcgfxw-gvfSQzMgpOMuBSPD5NrqmXsUazaXuZyYuIhbKbk1d58J8vpbq74p518lJJQcCzO9QX1VYbyVmkXhpXSQ" width="266" /></a><br />
<br />
Saturation Control - This control is similar to brightness but deals with color purity, instead. When you slide the control to the left, the color seems to go away, when you slide the control to the right, the color becomes deeper. In a photo there are 3 colors that combine to make all the other colors. Red, Green, and Blue. if there are a lot of pixels in a given primary color, that curve will be tall. Each color has a value from -100 to +100 with the default of zero (0) . <br />
<br />
A value of +100 for a given color means that as much of that color has been added as possible, and the curve for that color gets fatter.<br />
<br />
A value of -100 means the all the color for a given color has been reduced to nothing, so the color channel curves start to merge with the overall luminance curve set by the exposure control. As a result, the photo now appears to be black and white.<br />
<br />
When set to -100, the curve doesn’t go away, because the pixels set to zero are still designated as belonging to one of the 3 primary colors. they just happen to be set to -100 and all that remains is the relative luminance. <br />
<br />
Changing the saturation value of a primary color won’t change the number of pixels assigned to a given color, it will just change the level of saturation, so the height and width of each color channel moves closer or further away from the curve representing Luminance.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/fc9bWlLfg0gHmNhn1_hbc9v6_UGWvq5But2pVPCyj1QURDvjokqfeSbrRnhwIF26KgFDUP71r9C37y1j-x4Nbf3r5gkoT2HvIzsAZsGfqKRSeSEb6pk02pa0yF_M5Z46DQ"><img border="0" height="215" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/fc9bWlLfg0gHmNhn1_hbc9v6_UGWvq5But2pVPCyj1QURDvjokqfeSbrRnhwIF26KgFDUP71r9C37y1j-x4Nbf3r5gkoT2HvIzsAZsGfqKRSeSEb6pk02pa0yF_M5Z46DQ" width="400" /></a><br />
<br />
Vibrance Control - The ACDSee Pro help file claims that Vibrance adjusts the intensity of the colors in the same way as saturation, but that skin tones are less affected. The text doesn't really mention other already lightly saturated objects though many people have always assumed it worked equally well on any lightly saturated object.<br />
<br />
It does seem to protect skin better than non skin objects in a photo, but I'm not sure if that is some sort of illusion. Logic tells me it should work equally for any lightly saturated object, but I just don't know for sure, since the difference is most noticeable for protecting skin when increasing saturation overall.<br />
<br />
Vibrancy seems to work LESS, on less saturated colors, but the effect is much less noticeable when moving the slider to the left (DE-saturating) than it is moving to the right (adding saturation). Its effect is SO much less noticeable when de-saturating that it fooled me into thinking it wasn't working. If I were to want to de-saturate more than just a VERY tiny bit and still prevent significant change to skin tones, I might consider using a development brush to protect the skin tones completely.<br />
<br />
I tested the Vibrance control on a series of photos where the range of skin tones was very wide, from the palest 'white', to the darkest 'black', and everything in between. Apparently, even the darkest skin isn't all that saturated overall, because I felt Vibrance protected very dark skin about as well as the lightest skin. But again, when de-saturating the protection effect was minimal<br />
<br />
The effects of the Vibrance control is VERY subtle. You will want to be very careful and selective in its use.<br />
<br />
Clarity Control - This is both a useful tool and an incredibly sweet confection! What Clarity does is add or remove contrast to the mid-tones only, leaving the highlights and shadows alone.<br />
<br />
Many people think of it as a sharpening control. I know this because when I was writing about sharpening earlier, LOTS of people wrote me asking why I didn’t include Clarity in the discussion.<br />
<br />
True, Clarity can increase the illusion of sharpness, but so can contrast in general. In fact Sharpening is really no more than the technique of adding contrast to the edges of the objects. So why ISN’T clarity considered a sharpening tool instead of a general or exposure tool? Primarily, in my eyes, that is because it simply doesn’t care about the edges of objects. It will increase or decrease contrast to every mid tone it sees, edge or not.<br />
<br />
Let’s take another look at our sample photo and its histogram:<br />
<br />
<br />
<img height="215" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/deBNKlc088wznrhKQpDPB0a6ygrquKrMkr1BUp0YdvUGuYv7AZz6cR4q9XuFvwbOJ5ni4oQROSLgFjaoz-1rlcxu_7HR6IW3E39SxiH-dLRqLCiUKnQcjCb8-FLvcqO-KA" width="400" /><br />
<br />
Note how there aren’t a lot of highlights or shadows in the photo. It is mostly mid tones. Now look at the histogram, almost nothing of the curves actually reach the extreme left or right of the chart. The area of the most shadow is roughly 20% closer to the right edge of the chart than the left. And it seems the highlights don’t really even make it to the right edge! They stop about 80% of the way from the left edge to the right. I would say, that for the most part, this is a photo with very little washed out highlights or solid blacks. Just about everything resides in the mid tones area.<br />
<br />
Just for fun, try a little experiment. With your favorite photo, invoke the clipping view (That little triangle icon just above the Histogram and below the word “Tune”) and slide the Clarity tool all the way to the right. Notice you won’t see much clipping, if any. (In my sample photo I don’t see any.), Now reset the Clarity slider and move the Contrast slider all the way to the right. <br />
<br />
There’s a huge difference, isn’t there? What is happening is that by concentrating on just the mid-tones, very little of those mid-tones are forced into either the highlights or shadows. And THAT is what makes Clarity such an important and useful tool. We can either add or remove contrast in just those tones that carry most of the photo’s information.</div>
Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-41661143115869404802016-12-22T13:27:00.002-06:002016-12-22T22:20:58.921-06:00HDR Utilities Compared <h3>
Photomatix Pro 5.1 vs Affinity HDR vs PSP X8 HDR</h3>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-74G3DdqgfXc/WFwEwhljjpI/AAAAAAAADsY/4KPQG7DnThsPoYVYx9y87K8hKkfvFnTMgCLcB/s1600/P3070501-Photomatix%2BFused_resize.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-74G3DdqgfXc/WFwEwhljjpI/AAAAAAAADsY/4KPQG7DnThsPoYVYx9y87K8hKkfvFnTMgCLcB/s320/P3070501-Photomatix%2BFused_resize.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Produced with Photomatix Pro 5.1<br />
This looks very much how I remember the scene.<br />
click on the image to see a larger version</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
There is an inherent unfairness in these sort of 'shootout' type articles that I don't really know how to overcome completely. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>The person doing the comparisons, generally knows one product better than the others, so the final product of the less well known products always suffer.</li>
<li>The person doing the comparisons, generally has one of the products successfully incorporated into their post production workflow, and runs the risk of just complaining that the other products aren't the favored products. I've seen it happen in other reviews, and I really hate that!</li>
<li>The person doing the comparisons, generally brings a whole host of other unstated assumptions and prejudices to the table that can complicate and shade his or her evaluation, but that the reader can only guess at.</li>
</ul>
<div>
Be advised that I am aware of these shortcomings in myself and have worked hard to overcome them. While I can't get rid of them completely, I think I have kept them under some level of control!</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My favorite HDR photos are the more subtle more naturalistic photos, and not the 'over the top' tonemapped photos. Don't get me wrong, I do the other sort too; but I think modern HDR software makes it <u>so</u> easy to get those sort of Dramatic, 'kitschy' photos, that I think a test to produce more natural looking photos gives the HDR software a more thorough work out. I TRIED to get the final output from all three to look as much alike as I could. I was only modestly successful</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Photomatix Pro 5.1</h4>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BqtE2lxo3qI/WFwE6QIj7QI/AAAAAAAADs4/Yx-IJarOHow1e6P8PVpj7ml9EMYxyPjVwCEw/s1600/Photomatix%2BPro%2BHDR%2BScreenshot.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BqtE2lxo3qI/WFwE6QIj7QI/AAAAAAAADs4/Yx-IJarOHow1e6P8PVpj7ml9EMYxyPjVwCEw/s400/Photomatix%2BPro%2BHDR%2BScreenshot.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A screen shot of Photomatix 5.1<br />
click on the image to see a larger version</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
To be honest this was, and is still, my favorite. I love the level of control it offers and it allows me to produce almost any sort of HDR photo I want. But most importantly, it fits into my ACDSee centric PP workflow almost seamlessly.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
All three HDR utilities will work with raw images, but Photomatix 5.1 also allows me to select a series of exposures in ACDSee, right click on the group and send them to Photomatix 5.1 for processing. This alone is a time saver for me. I will explain how the other two don't work as well in their respective sections.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It has a high degree of control in how it processes raw, a high degree of control in how it processes the merged photos, and a nice selection of color, tonality, and sharpening tools after the merged photo has been finalized. It is frequently possible to get to a finished product with JUST Photomatix 5.1 without any further editing in ACDSee Ultimate 10 or any other bit mapped editor.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Photomatix 5.1 comes with canned presets and allows the user to create his or her own presets as well.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The sample finished photo looks pretty much how I remember the scene when I took it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Corel PaintShop Pro X8 HDR Utility</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-My6OJfc0sMk/WFwE5_kZjFI/AAAAAAAADs4/OKng9VGAcCoAPtOyAn4gZfaCQ2kHWbfJACEw/s1600/P3070501-PSP-HDR_resize.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="295" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-My6OJfc0sMk/WFwE5_kZjFI/AAAAAAAADs4/OKng9VGAcCoAPtOyAn4gZfaCQ2kHWbfJACEw/s400/P3070501-PSP-HDR_resize.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Produced with PaintShop Pro X8 HDR Utility. <br />
I particularly liked how the water looks in this version.<br />
click on the image to see a larger version</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This was my first HDR utility, and it is surprisingly good. It's biggest drawback for me is that while I can select a series of exposures for processing and send them to PSP from ACDSee, I can't send them to the HDR utility. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I end up sending them to the Corel Raw Lab utility (the PSP Raw developer) if they are raw images, or to the PSP editor directly if they are tif or jpg images. To use the Corel PSP HDR utility, I have to find and select the images from the very basic, built in, PSP organizer.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GSLOmVKb8_s/WFwE6Qut-AI/AAAAAAAADs4/oQCR8PM0wQ4OhQ8Cj7O5EJELKoPZSgpOQCEw/s1600/PSPX8%2BHDR%2BScreenshot.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GSLOmVKb8_s/WFwE6Qut-AI/AAAAAAAADs4/oQCR8PM0wQ4OhQ8Cj7O5EJELKoPZSgpOQCEw/s400/PSPX8%2BHDR%2BScreenshot.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A screen shot of PSP X8's HDR Utility<br />
Click on the image to see a larger version.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
I think if Corel wants to remain competitive with PSP, one of the things it needs to do is alter their HDR utility to accept raw images from any source, not just the PSP organizer or Aftershot Pro, which I believe also comes with the HDR Utility. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Software publishers seem to be terribly short sighted when it comes to doing things that might attract new users, so I don't expect this to happen! But hey! you never know with certainty!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What I like about PSP's HDR utility is that it sort of shows you what it is doing every step of the way and allows you some input in how each step occurs. The other two products, in an effort to make thing easy, kind of take automation further and you don't really get to see the 'sausage being made'!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It comes with a few standard presets and allows you to create your own. But when I upgraded from PSP X6 to X8, I don't recall any effort to bring my saved presets over from X6. (I haven't upgraded the other two to a new version, so I don't know if they are any better in that regard.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-daRLAi2jHdM/WFwUFL7HZjI/AAAAAAAADtE/U0FflnwOak84F7B61a1BJouOIBSfOoWDwCLcB/s1600/PSP%2BX6%2BSingle%2BRaw%2BPhoto.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-daRLAi2jHdM/WFwUFL7HZjI/AAAAAAAADtE/U0FflnwOak84F7B61a1BJouOIBSfOoWDwCLcB/s320/PSP%2BX6%2BSingle%2BRaw%2BPhoto.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Single Raw Photo, produced with<br />
PaintShop Pro X6 HDR Utility<br />
click on the image to see a larger version</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
Another thing I REALLY like, is the Single Raw Photo option in the PSP X8 HDR utility. It literally creates 3 separate exposures from a single raw photo, and merges them as if they came from a series of three separate photos. As near as I can tell, Photomatix 5.1 just does tone mapping to a single raw image, I don't think it is creating multiple exposures from the raw and merging them. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The increased tonality capability of PSP's Single Raw Photo HDR utility is pretty amazing, and can match, if not occasionally, beat, ACDSee's Light EQ tool for squeezing out all the dynamic range a raw photo can offer. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yes, the user interface can be a bit intimidating, especially to a newbie, there are a lot of options you won't see in other HDR utilities. But it isn't something the reasonably intelligent digital photographer can't get comfortable with in an hour's worth of practice. I consider it a useful tool in my toolbox.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Affinity HDR Utility</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7wbSG1Fb-5Q/WFwE5zov2ZI/AAAAAAAADs4/pczWNY4_h0U0kriee-xcyYJNiGl10FYcgCEw/s1600/Affinity%2BHDR%2BScreenshot.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="215" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7wbSG1Fb-5Q/WFwE5zov2ZI/AAAAAAAADs4/pczWNY4_h0U0kriee-xcyYJNiGl10FYcgCEw/s400/Affinity%2BHDR%2BScreenshot.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Affinity is getting all the buzz and chatter right now, especially since, from what I've read, the OnOne raw product seems somewhat disappointing to many people who were looking forward to seeing the production version (at least the buzz and chatter seems more negative, I haven't tried it), and everyone always seems to want to take Adobe Photoshop down a bit. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Affinity's raw development leaves a lot to be desired, but it's bit mapped editor is fairly good, though still a bit buggy. The Affinity HDR module which needs elements of both seems to reflect this disjointed level of completeness, in my mind.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In many ways Affinity gets many HDR things right, and certainly, it is the only HDR utility of the three that offers a Curves tool for controlling tonality. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's a pretty automated process, and that makes it VERY easy to create HDR photos. It also has the ability to use and create presets.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The problem is, I can't tell if the controls are a part of the post merge, pre finalization step or are just the standard bit mapped controls showing up to do THEIR thing!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It also can't accept a series of raw files from ACDSee and process them as HDR. They go automatically to the raw develop persona as multiple instances of the persona, and I can't figure out how to get them to the HDR input window without going through the very primitive, standard Windows open file popup window.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rgSREvPqkHE/WFwE6dwISRI/AAAAAAAADs4/Gbawdso9vqo8GWxWOSZsY1xMQzTprj5GwCEw/s1600/P3070501Affinity%2BHDR2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="298" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rgSREvPqkHE/WFwE6dwISRI/AAAAAAAADs4/Gbawdso9vqo8GWxWOSZsY1xMQzTprj5GwCEw/s400/P3070501Affinity%2BHDR2.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Produced with Affinity Photo's HDR Utility<br />
click on the image to see a larger version</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
To the good, once you get past the Windows selection popup window, creating HDRs is incredibly easy, and the output looks pretty good. I don't think it is as good as Photomatix or Paintshop pro, but it is a whole lot easier to produce.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My suspicion is that Serif (the software developer and publisher of Affinity photo), sees the HDR utility as something that is designed to produce a fairly decent HDR exposure that you can finish up in the Affinity Photo bit mapped editor. That is as valid an approach as Photomatix's "do as much as possible inside Photomatix" approach, I think since the Affinity Photo bit mapped editor is so complete. But I do think it complicates things for people trying to do product comparisons!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
My Conclusions</h4>
<div>
I would rate the output of this test to be:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Photomatix Pro 5.1</li>
<li>Corel PaintShop Pro X8</li>
<li>Serif's Affinity Photo 1.5</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div>
Photomatix Pro 5.1 works well for me and fits well within my normal workflow. I can do HDR quickly and easily with an ACDSee/Photomatix combination. PSP X8's HDR utility while not as convenient to use as Photomatix, offers me a different approach to HDR that I like to have available.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Affinity's HDR module is not likely something I will use much. While it is really easy to use, and produces fairly good results, I don't think it offers me, who is about to make the transition from a beginner HDR creator to an intermediate HDR creator, much that the other two products don't offer in better, more efficient ways. It would be good for people who want to explore HDR without spending much money though.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I don't see this as a negative about Affinity Photo, overall. It is a remarkable product in many ways, though it has a long way to go before it can offer PSP or Photoshop any serious competition. I'm glad I purchased Affinity Photo, and I look forward to using its non HDR functions in the future, especially as Serif brings it up to a tested ready state.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-65640738759106802312016-12-01T09:20:00.000-06:002016-12-03T18:19:11.693-06:00Win 10 Alternatives to ExifToolGui<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-97AxP4DL1uk/WEA8B2wXLzI/AAAAAAAADiw/B0BiX-OQCqoM9B6dJRjZT5kHRk3xlPZDACEw/s1600/Stop%2B-%2BEventually.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-97AxP4DL1uk/WEA8B2wXLzI/AAAAAAAADiw/B0BiX-OQCqoM9B6dJRjZT5kHRk3xlPZDACEw/s320/Stop%2B-%2BEventually.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<i><b>[UPDATE12/2/2016]</b> I have to withdraw my support for PhotoME and instead will now use ExifPilot for my Gui based exif editing. I have discovered, one day after publishing this article that I am unable to export data from my ORF files to other files. The export/import capabilities of PhotoME are primitive and incomplete at best. I have changed this article to reflect this. My apologies to any who this inconvenienced. <b>[END UPDATE]</b></i><br />
<br />
Embedded metadata in a photo is pretty important. Most people want, at the very least, their name and copyright information embedded in the photo. They want the camera, lens, and exposure information embedded within the photo. <br />
<br />
Many photo managers, like ACDSee and Lightroom, allow one to search on that information, so it makes finding very specific types of photos pretty easy.<br />
<br />
The problem is, many photo editors strip all or some of the exif data from the photos when they save it. This is particularly true when you send photos to the editor on a 'round trip' from a photo manager. (Yeah, I'm looking at YOU PaintShop Pro!).<br />
<br />
So a very common need is to copy the metadata found in the source photo (such as the raw or the Out of camera jpg) to the completed photo that comes back from the editor.<br />
<br />
And that's where ExifTool comes in. It is an Open Source library of commands written by Phil Harvey, that allow other programs to manipulate, add, change, and delete embedded metadata such as the Exif and IPTC data that the file format you are using allows. You can learn more and download Exiftool at this website: <a href="http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/">http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/</a><br />
<br />
The problem is, its own interface that everyday users can access is pretty primitive, it is a command line interface.<br />
<br />
That means one needs to know how to invoke the command line interface of your operating system, and then enter a command similar to this one:<br />
<br />
<pre style="background-color: white;"><pre class="western"><span style="color: black; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;">exiftool -artist=”Glen Barrington” StAugustine001.jpg StAugustine002.jpg StAugustine003.jpg</span></pre>
</pre>
<i>The line above inserts the name "Glen Barrington" into the metadata field callled "artist" in the three jpg photos called StAugustine001, StAugustine002, and StAugustine003.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
To me, the command line is only a viable solution if I have a batch of photos to alter. I want an easier, quicker way to modify the metadata, especially if it is only one photo at a time. It is very powerful in that a command line interface allows for many subtle changes on a batch of photos. BUT, that can be a lot of typing! <br />
<br />
I personally found it to be a pain in the neck for one photo at a time. I wanted a point and click type of user interface.<br />
<br />
That's when I discovered ExifToolGUI written by Bogdan Hrastnik. You can read about it here: <a href="http://u88.n24.queensu.ca/~bogdan/">http://u88.n24.queensu.ca/~bogdan/</a><br />
<br />
It was great! It allowed for that point and click user interface and even allowed one to access the command line interface of ExifTool directly from within ExifToolGUI itself!<br />
<br />
Exif Tool works with Win 10, but ExifToolGui does not, though some claim to have gotten it to work. At least I haven't been able to get it to work in spite of following the directions of people who have gotten it working.<br />
<br />
I'm not entirely certain if it is an ExifToolGui issue or a Windows 10 issue. I've seen odd issues with Win10 and other software that make no sense to me. At any rate, I've given up on ever getting it to work and set about finding something that DOES work for me.<br />
<br />
I have found two products that work reasonably well for me on Win 10. They are ExifPilot and PhotoMe. I will discuss them in sequence.<br />
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
ExifPilot</h3>
<div>
<br />
ExifPilot is a free, but commercial, product published by TwoPilots Software. You can find it here: <a href="http://www.colorpilot.com/exif.html">http://www.colorpilot.com/exif.html</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I like this product very much.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lToz6Z7uGFA/WEAet28unhI/AAAAAAAADiQ/SMynbovOjEwGSF9XowL8y15e1wJGiUlegCLcB/s1600/2016-12-01_6-57-19.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="272" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lToz6Z7uGFA/WEAet28unhI/AAAAAAAADiQ/SMynbovOjEwGSF9XowL8y15e1wJGiUlegCLcB/s400/2016-12-01_6-57-19.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">To see a larger image, click on the photo.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
For free, it will edit metadata on a single photo. If you want to add batch processing, they charge $79.95 USD. To me, that seems kind of pricy. I might consider a $25 price to upgrade but not at $80. I can't help but wonder if they would make more money on this product with a lower upgrade price, but I'm sure they have had someone run the numbers for them for optimal pricing.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
While batch metadata processing is a great convenience, I only need batch processing outside of what ACDSee provides, maybe 2 or 3 times a year. For that sort of money I will use the command line interface of ExifTool. But ultimately, that is a decision only you can make for yourself.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's a pretty straightforward user interface consisting of 3 columns with your folder hierarchy on the left, the file selection column in the middle and the column on the right, stacks the thumbnail image above the metadata display column.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Usage is pretty intuitive. You launch the program, and the last folder you were in is the default, and if you want another folder, you have to wait until that folder is fully displayed before you can switch.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
After that, the operation of the program is straightforward. The only surprise, which made sense after thought about it, was that one can't click on the field in the right hand column to change the field being displayed. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Instead, the user has to click a button at the bottom of the column to bring up a change window. <i>(see screen print with superimposed arrow) </i>This is a good thing in that the user can't accidentally click on a field and change a field without meaning to. The user has to make a conscious decision to change a field.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I tried to set it up as an external editor from within ACDSee Ultimate 10, that didn't work so well. While I could select a photo from within ACDSee, and right click on it, Exif Pilot would launch, but it did not take the photo. Instead, it opened the last folder used the previous time you used it.<br />
<br />
Things I wish Exif Pilot would Fix/Change<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Allow ExifPilot to function as an external editor for photo managers</li>
<li>Allow the user to control what default photo folder to open the program in.</li>
<li>Change presets would be great, one could create a preset and apply it to as many photos as we want.</li>
<li>As I said earlier, I like this software very much, but the $79.95 upgrade price for batch processing is simply too high for me to pay. <i>(It costs more than ACDSee 20 which will do batch metadata editing on SOME metadata, but not all) </i></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
But if you are content with single photo metadata editing with a standalone editor, it is an excellent product.<br />
<br /></div>
<h3>
PhotoME</h3>
<div>
<br />
I found this to be an odd and interesting application. <a href="https://www.photome.de/">https://www.photome.de/</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is a free program, the web page doesn't say anywhere that I could find that it is open source, just that it is freeware.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It has some great ideas that I wish were incorporated into other exif editors. However it has serious flaws that make it unacceptable for any but the most primitive metadata editing.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EdgwJu72dr4/WEApDxoyDlI/AAAAAAAADig/jCq2fTtW16g8TCPXwPYqzXWFP06TVAZPACLcB/s1600/2016-12-01_7-43-11.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="321" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EdgwJu72dr4/WEApDxoyDlI/AAAAAAAADig/jCq2fTtW16g8TCPXwPYqzXWFP06TVAZPACLcB/s400/2016-12-01_7-43-11.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Click on the image to see a larger version</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
PhotoMe will display a miniature icon in the upper right hand corner of the window, of any OTHER applications that are identified as the default program for that file type.<br />
<div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
It does not do batch editing, however it can be set up as an external editor from within ACDSee (and I assume other file managers) so incorporating it into my workflow is very easy. If I can't make a particular metadata change from within ACDSee itself, I can just right click a photo and send it to PhotoMe directly. Unfortunately, it still only works on one photo at a time, and if you try to send more than one photo to PhotoMe, it won't load ANY photos. However for one photo at a time editing, it is convenient to launch as an external editor from within ACDSee. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It seems to display all the Exif tags and fields even the ones that it can't edit. The great thing is, it identifies the official tag ids, which can be useful at times since not all applications that display metadata use the official names that the tag id represents. To learn more about EXIF tags, go here: <a href="http://www.exiv2.org/tags.html">http://www.exiv2.org/tags.html</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It also groups the Exif data by its function, and has navigation tabs to facilitate the user editing the exact data that he or she wants to edit. I think this makes great sense, when we think of a photo's exposure information, we don't think about it's tag ID or its storage location in the metadata portion of the file format, we think about "exposure info" and we are going to want to make sure that all the exposure info is correct. PhotoME's method makes the sort of data you are looking at very clear and obvious.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The fields that it can change are highlighted in blue, one just clicks on the content column where the content is blue. If the field is blank, you won't know if the field is editable until you click on it. if it is editable, an edit window will appear, if it isn't, nothing happens. I think the field name, the Tag ID should also be highlighted as well as the content field for easy identification.<br />
<br />
PhotoMe doesn't support IPTC data, but I don't personally use that info very much, and I can change most of that from within ACDSee anyway (and in batch mode)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
PhotoMe's support for raw is in need of an update. To edit a raw image, you open the standard Windows 10 "Open File" window and select an image. </div>
<div>
<br />
However, while open file dialog window will display ORF files from my E500 and my E30 cameras, it will not display ORF files from my newer E-M10 (which is about 3 years old). However, once either set of raw files are opened, both display for editing. I have current Windows codecs installed, so it isn't a codec issue. If I use ACDSee as a front end for PhotoME, this won't be a big issue since I can use ACDSee to view and select files for editing in PhotoME.<br />
<br />
I have found it impossible to Export metadata from a photo to an intermediate file for import into another photo. Right now it's pretty useless. I can't export or import ANY info from a raw file, and while I can export from jpg or tif files, I can't import the exported files. This is VERY problematic for me. <br />
<br />
This is completely unacceptable in my eyes. The ability to edit ONLY the data that PhotoME finds in a given photo makes the application completely unusable to repair metadata issues where that data has been stripped from an image. <br />
<br />
The things I wish PhotoMe would fix/change. <br />
<ul>
<li>Finish the metadata import/export functionality</li>
<li>The raw files discrepancy.</li>
<li>Add support for IPTC and XML data</li>
<li>Add batch capability.</li>
<li>Add the capability to accept multiple instances of selected photos from ACDSee or other photo managers, and either go into batch mode, or even just open multiple instances of PhotoME.</li>
<li>Change presets would be great. one could create a preset and apply it to as many photos as we want.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
My Conclusions</h3>
</div>
<div>
<br />
ExifPilot seems more complete and less . . . tenuous. While PhotoME offers the PROMISE of integrating into my ACDSee based workflow better, it simply is not in a tested ready state I expect. <br />
<br /></div>
<div>
With an ACDSee/PhotoMe combination, I could do much of my batch EXIF/IPTC editing needs from within ACDSee itself. Then for photos that require editing ACDSee can't do, select photos for a round trip to PhotoME for individual attention.<br />
<br />
But at the current state of affairs, PhotoME is all promise and no delivery. I will likely use ExifPilot. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I would have no problem paying $25 - $30 USD for the perfect Exif editor. But so far, the perfect Exif editor doesn't exist. At least not for Windows 10.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br /></div>
Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-73029474930154174322016-09-15T14:13:00.000-05:002016-09-16T08:43:51.490-05:00ACDSee Ultimate 10<h3>
A Quick Review from an Experienced User</h3>
As I write this, ACDSee Systems has released, just today, ACDSee Ultimate 10, ACDSee Pro 10, and ACDSee 20. <i>(Click <u><a href="http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/2015/09/an-experienced-users-notes-on-acdsee.html" target="_blank">HERE</a></u> for a brief explanation of the 3 different products, and a quick review of ACDSee Ultimate 9)</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEpp3p10FNt54mAnyyLenP4czwdbsJ9NMEj8arJ7GfeKF7WaFuK-S5RpfwaOJIIQ13tFCiYWQ_i5e7giVp87WtUbYZGxwaHCChhF1ZeKvYJK73vdhO5spHRRjoCvvX2RHV75X0-ZlPgcI/s1600/Finish+the+Blackberries.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEpp3p10FNt54mAnyyLenP4czwdbsJ9NMEj8arJ7GfeKF7WaFuK-S5RpfwaOJIIQ13tFCiYWQ_i5e7giVp87WtUbYZGxwaHCChhF1ZeKvYJK73vdhO5spHRRjoCvvX2RHV75X0-ZlPgcI/s320/Finish+the+Blackberries.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<i>Please note that this is a review of ACDSee Ultimate 10, I have not had time to examine Pro 10 or ACDSee 20. While I am reasonably confident that shared features between the 3 products will be roughly similar, if not identical, I can not guarantee that will always be the case. If one of the other two products interest you, please download the trial version for that product and verify it meets your needs before purchasing. It's the smart thing to do!</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<br />
I like this version, and I believe that someone who is looking for a tool to manage raw development, and bit mapped editing will find this a worthy new purchase or upgrade. However, for existing ACDSee users, who are primarily interested in the rich media management environment that ACDSee already offers, the need to upgrade is less immediate. V9 was already a very good media manager, and V10 is pretty much the same media manager.<br />
<br />
I think the addition of the ACDSee Dashboard and the Smart Brush technology, strongly indicates that the level of aggressive creativity that ACDSee Systems has demonstrated over the last 3 or 4 years, has not diminished.<br />
<br />
I also think that the addition of enhanced noise control via the new Preserve Detail sliders also illustrates ACDSee's commitment to making solid enhancements to the existing infrastructure.<br />
<br />
The noteworthy changes in my mind are as follows:<br />
<ul>
<li>In the Selections menu there is now a "Delete Selected Pixels" item. This will set selected pixels transparent if the currently selected image is a layer image, or set mask pixels black if a mask is currently selected. A convenient feature, in my mind.</li>
<li>The blend modes now work with actions. I haven't tested this as yet, frankly, I don't use actions much; but this should enhance the ability to more completely automate the editing process.</li>
<li>Enhanced Noise Control with the addition of the Preserve Detail sliders. This is a much needed enhancement, and it increases the quality of native Noise control in ACDSee.</li>
<li>Smart Brush technology shows up in both the Develop tab and in the Edit tab. It seems to show up in the masking tools and in the selection tools. I found this technology to show great promise in improving the speed and convenience of selective editing in ACDSee Ultimate 10.</li>
<li>The ACDSee Dashboard - There is a lot of useful information stored within your ACDSee database that you can use to help you make decisions in your photographic practice. This is designed to help you more easily access this information.</li>
</ul>
I will discuss the last three points in some detail below:<br />
<br />
<h4>
Enhanced Noise Control</h4>
ACDSee has never been famous for its noise control. It isn't BAD noise control, but up til now, it has been pretty basic, not really capable of any subtlety in its noise control efforts. <br />
<br />
The net result is that long time users might be willing to use ACDSee for the really EASY noise control but then would use a third party noise control tool like Topaz Denoise for the more challenging stuff.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
However the addition of the Preserve Detail slider and the Preserve Detail Threshold slider allows one to fine tune the noise control efforts a bit.<br />
<br />
This addition does NOT make ACDSee as good as Topaz Denoise, but it does change the point a bit where where one would feel the need to use a third party tool. </div>
<div>
<br />
I can only applaud this effort and want it to continue.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Smart Brush Technology</h4>
<div>
I LIKE the tools that use this technology! This might be the single most important addition to ACDSee series 10 versions. The smart brush is added to the Develop Brush Drop Down Panel and in the Brush selection tool for the Edit tab.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My comments below, specifically address the implementation found in the Development (i.e Raw development) tab.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrEDWWoEtrvI3dHqbWRzJpR8yhQ21J1gXXMtxXNMAFPFFCj-EglfIPCDA7cFqwUrV_12EfTP9EsZxLcykdGDzR9TzRCSpYRvh7KflQ65W3CDbKMcJdbH4_2-rrrbhhBMU9TyLgxDz4dWw/s1600/Smart+Brush+Panel%25232.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrEDWWoEtrvI3dHqbWRzJpR8yhQ21J1gXXMtxXNMAFPFFCj-EglfIPCDA7cFqwUrV_12EfTP9EsZxLcykdGDzR9TzRCSpYRvh7KflQ65W3CDbKMcJdbH4_2-rrrbhhBMU9TyLgxDz4dWw/s400/Smart+Brush+Panel%25232.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Smart Brush Panel in action.<br />
Click on this photo to make it larger.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br />
<br />
There are 4 smart brush algorithms that you can choose from. <br />
<br />
1. None - essentially the "off" mode.<br />
2. Color - Appears to lay down the mask according to color differences.<br />
3. Brightness - Appears to lay down the mask according to brightness level differences.<br />
4. Magic - Appears to be some sort of proprietary selection algorithm.<br />
<br />
There is also a "Tolerance" Slider that can vary from 1 to 100. I suspect in time we will learn to value this slider very much. It seems to be the secret to successfully using this new selective edit tool. What I THINK is occurring <i>(based on my observed behavior of the tool, no special information on my part. So I could be wrong!) </i>is that a value level is determined by the initial Nib width size of the brush. And this value is the comparison value of the smart brush technology.<br />
<br />
A slider value of '1' means there is very little tolerance for differences. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What appears to be happening is, that when the brush lands on a new area of the photo, it compares the value of the new area to the original comparison value. Essentially, with a slider value of '1' there can be no differences in the comparison values for the mask to be applied to the photo at that location.<br />
<br />
A slider value of '100' seems to mean that the comparison differences to have the mask applied to the new area of the photo is VERY broad. In effect, it practically turns the Smart brushing off and allows almost everything to be applied to the Develop brush.<br />
<br />
The user can adjust the brush size at any point.<br />
<br />
So far, My testing of this tool is VERY preliminary. These are my initial notes on this tool.<br />
<ul>
<li>Set your Develop Brush size before entering Smart Brush mode</li>
<li>Only then, move then move the Smart brush algorithm from 'None' to one of the other 3 algorithms. If you are in doubt as to which to use, start with 'Magic' it works pretty well as a general purpose selection tool, I think.</li>
<li>Set your tolerance (I suggest starting at about 20). You can change the tolerance in the middle of mask selection, but it won't reconfigure those parts of the selection mask already applied, only the future selections. I suggest if you think your tolerances are too high or too low, that you back out, and start over.</li>
</ul>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0NJICA2GnSUmr6LbwdX0O73gQlxxKsK3GOI9gVhkeQPdFUk3DV0NvuC8obafs2h83h7AcoObyykZwS4QFnNgx6rz57sDqJ7dHG7CB4UGTZ_d2ngxpOQytNqgZn-wIPaVa_M4GZloq7QE/s1600/Edit+Tab+Brush+Selection+Tool.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0NJICA2GnSUmr6LbwdX0O73gQlxxKsK3GOI9gVhkeQPdFUk3DV0NvuC8obafs2h83h7AcoObyykZwS4QFnNgx6rz57sDqJ7dHG7CB4UGTZ_d2ngxpOQytNqgZn-wIPaVa_M4GZloq7QE/s400/Edit+Tab+Brush+Selection+Tool.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Edit Tab's Brush Selection Tool<br />
Click on this photo to make it larger.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<h4>
</h4>
<h4>
ACDSee Dashboard</h4>
</div>
Essentially this is a database statistics tool It provides information both statistically and graphically. There are 4 sub-tabs within dashboard.<br />
<div>
<br />
<b> Overview</b> - This gives you a summary of the information found in the other 3 sub-tabs.<br />
<b> Database</b> - This gives you information like Database size, Last backup, File information, Folder Info, Number of orphaned files, and thumbnail information. <br />
<b> Cameras</b> - Information on the cameras you use, graphics and and statistics on ISO photos are shot with.<br />
<b> Files</b> - Statistics and graphics on number of images and videos, the file formats and the image resolution.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiu9pQvKXgxtNRpFLflPN0smK8GAxBUJSjVCH9NzbVk_6GaY1r80OgT3_tfUI7HkWNVd1W_IA23v6Tl6d2woBhD37tWHVBnjawzGeYlLoT16hTULLnAC5SsqGkCTvMgWSqUcMM4nifNuXg/s1600/Dasboard+Camera+Summay.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="174" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiu9pQvKXgxtNRpFLflPN0smK8GAxBUJSjVCH9NzbVk_6GaY1r80OgT3_tfUI7HkWNVd1W_IA23v6Tl6d2woBhD37tWHVBnjawzGeYlLoT16hTULLnAC5SsqGkCTvMgWSqUcMM4nifNuXg/s320/Dasboard+Camera+Summay.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Dashboard's Camera Summary<br />
Click on photo to make it larger.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br />
<br />
This is a VERY important new tool, I think. However there is plenty of room for improvement. For instance, I'd like to see information on the focal lengths used. And maybe in a future version there could be a way to add a limited number of user defined statistics. <br />
<br />
But overall, this is a really useful new feature in my mind.</div>
Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-46184779780608209162016-09-06T21:42:00.000-05:002016-09-06T21:43:05.767-05:00Big Shots<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UgWlFK6kqPs/V899rypP-8I/AAAAAAAADZs/HilBfPnmJ3YVbv1KRwpJw0CNitRyOZnvgCK4B/s1600/P9051488_resize.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UgWlFK6kqPs/V899rypP-8I/AAAAAAAADZs/HilBfPnmJ3YVbv1KRwpJw0CNitRyOZnvgCK4B/s400/P9051488_resize.jpg" width="400" /></a><span style="background-color: white; color: #141414; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; line-height: 20.5333px;">I was visiting Lincoln Memorial Gardens just outside of Springfield, Illinois this morning. It is the place I go to whenever suburban life and the smell of mown grass and heavy automobile traffic becomes too much for me to bear. Its efforts to recreate the woods and grass prairies of Illinois offers a wonderful renewal of the soul.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #141414; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; line-height: 20.5333px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141414; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; line-height: 20.5333px;">It is, of course, a great place to take a camera. I came across a man who must have been lugging what had to have been 30 pounds of weight in the form two cameras, big white lenses, tripods a couple of camera bags and what looked like an ammo belt peppered with what looked like lens pouches around his waist. His wife was struggling to carry a suitcase sized and shaped aluminum camera case. (I assume it was his wife, she had that bored, resigned look mixed with repressed anger on her face that I associate with women married to photographers).</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #141414; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; line-height: 20.5333px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141414; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; line-height: 20.5333px;">I was equipped with what I consider my 'heavy' gear. My OMD E-M10 with my old Olympus 14-54 mm zoom lens with adapter.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #141414; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; line-height: 20.5333px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141414; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; line-height: 20.5333px;">We nodded as we passed, I got the impression that he was wondering HOW I could take pictures with that gear. I know I was wondering that about him!<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wJzyBYAqe9M/V899xD5ps3I/AAAAAAAADZ0/VHyqjosjqs8GSUuusEOvS6UU4yhZLGeKACK4B/s1600/P9051525b_resize.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wJzyBYAqe9M/V899xD5ps3I/AAAAAAAADZ0/VHyqjosjqs8GSUuusEOvS6UU4yhZLGeKACK4B/s400/P9051525b_resize.jpg" width="400" /></a></span>Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-13831269057264852132016-08-26T10:38:00.000-05:002016-08-26T10:53:06.986-05:00NIK and Topaz Tools Strange Color Shift!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNjKxtgrm-6yVFCt9ie306Kq1m5cXNufrO7swhHD7BX48xInJV6Bi2fUoo-6lgPs-1NL_n_ehOom1Oqb2qtJudPbCpBAwoeutqJS0GTtE_H2_dXhe6YckgGt6qtwuAYj2457tQASz7320/s1600/P7211357_resize.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNjKxtgrm-6yVFCt9ie306Kq1m5cXNufrO7swhHD7BX48xInJV6Bi2fUoo-6lgPs-1NL_n_ehOom1Oqb2qtJudPbCpBAwoeutqJS0GTtE_H2_dXhe6YckgGt6qtwuAYj2457tQASz7320/s320/P7211357_resize.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
I've discovered an anomaly when using NIK Color Efex Pro 4 quite by accident. It's not restricted to just NIK tools, as I've also seen it In Topaz Detail 3 and Topaz Adjust 5. I have NOT seen it in Topaz Denoise 6, But to be fair, Denoise underwent a major rewrite lately and I wonder if that is why it doesn't exhibit this flaw.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Let me give you some history.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When I installed the NIK tools in ACDSee Ultimate 9, I noticed that color and tonality from within NIK Color Efex was different from the color and tonality of the photo I sent to NIK Color Efex from ACDSee Ultimate 9. It was driving me crazy!</div>
<div>
<br />
Note the Sample Image Below:<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhG9AKjFe9OizuwyogYldWS9rpn9hJaw_3LhfswLLd7hWFeL7jSxBP2NsDW6ds0CWMCzqjSsdr87ztBDOBS2oETHQ0xLQXOripCIeziTInTHEuU3nIy56XbYDxJrYsMazNthDiMnjSeDcU/s1600/2016-08-25_21-09-08.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="215" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhG9AKjFe9OizuwyogYldWS9rpn9hJaw_3LhfswLLd7hWFeL7jSxBP2NsDW6ds0CWMCzqjSsdr87ztBDOBS2oETHQ0xLQXOripCIeziTInTHEuU3nIy56XbYDxJrYsMazNthDiMnjSeDcU/s400/2016-08-25_21-09-08.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The comparison between ACDSee Ultimate 9 and NIK Color Efex. The difference is quite noticable. Click on any photo to see it larger.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhV5VGO37t_7o7nQfgtuM1G2MweAfkLgqOb5VNnO4FY3cvZflnV1m9yPYI46Y6HvMDdIMHysN1CIGbrh0y4Kb-Z3sCVUYB-VF9PEG7HD_O_VT_HYq_17MU9ye4Jzi-EK1redtVKoalu1HI/s1600/2016-08-26_10-18-52.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="236" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhV5VGO37t_7o7nQfgtuM1G2MweAfkLgqOb5VNnO4FY3cvZflnV1m9yPYI46Y6HvMDdIMHysN1CIGbrh0y4Kb-Z3sCVUYB-VF9PEG7HD_O_VT_HYq_17MU9ye4Jzi-EK1redtVKoalu1HI/s320/2016-08-26_10-18-52.jpg" width="320" /></a>I discovered that if the photo's color profile was set to Pro Photo RGB then the color difference between the version displayed in ACDSee and the version displayed in NIK Color Efex was quite pronounced.</div>
<div>
<br />
So I tried to invoke Color Efex from Corel PSP X8, and the colors were the same! At first, I was calling ACDSee all sorts of names, but then I noticed that PSP was ALWAYS converting the ProPhoto version to SRGB upon receiving the photo. (I checked and apparently PSP X8 doesn't support Pro Photo and defaults to SRGB!)<br />
<br />
So I converted the Pro Photo color profile for my test photo to ARGB and to SRGB, and then invoked NIK Color EFEX 4 from ACDSee Ultimate 9 as a plugin.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCPa2tYWrpHSQIhKHeXb1Sn88vT1A7BOU7xPw1srxpaeJgU8oB9m3gMdvIGLfqRgHUQ3npLs5Y3p-_4zYBddhCv8df-fp-eevW623I1EXj-aokIUyOmVr1KX1sYK33om199N4wfpe_FAY/s1600/2016-08-25_21-14-29.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="173" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCPa2tYWrpHSQIhKHeXb1Sn88vT1A7BOU7xPw1srxpaeJgU8oB9m3gMdvIGLfqRgHUQ3npLs5Y3p-_4zYBddhCv8df-fp-eevW623I1EXj-aokIUyOmVr1KX1sYK33om199N4wfpe_FAY/s320/2016-08-25_21-14-29.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">All three color profiles look roughly the same When displayed in ACDSee Ultimate 9. Click on any photo to see it larger</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
ARGB in NIK was very close but not identical to the sent ARGB version. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6NaGcSk8MewCKvugeNELa5XXwSww5IvqlmE5_ISFAyrIi3xyuKUcCYWCjKgoJu4j6qbfI4dZBDqtDFYctHFjkXE1gGc3fwu6u1Ukm2jHogd3mrZwjDsNfOF8aAaNmlSvrdhb3swYRhec/s1600/2016-08-25_21-11-24.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6NaGcSk8MewCKvugeNELa5XXwSww5IvqlmE5_ISFAyrIi3xyuKUcCYWCjKgoJu4j6qbfI4dZBDqtDFYctHFjkXE1gGc3fwu6u1Ukm2jHogd3mrZwjDsNfOF8aAaNmlSvrdhb3swYRhec/s400/2016-08-25_21-11-24.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I don't know if this screen print shows this, but there is a slightly extra amount of yellow in the NIK version, though I doubt the color shift is enough to make the NIK version unreliable, or even noticeable in most cases. Click on any photo to see it larger.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The SRGB in NIK was virtually identical. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg40G9Mlk7sQfmm_sd6eqFAipvuxAxDcr0DjdZ7QZlVKdNGFV9PppHMSS773D_CvwnNwsj8Ff25OpD-TYg3vfDt_vc9oUxlqWqNF7CWa3RA1415w_IV28BSd7RMLErJKjh83De0vfhp-ms/s1600/2016-08-25_21-18-10.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg40G9Mlk7sQfmm_sd6eqFAipvuxAxDcr0DjdZ7QZlVKdNGFV9PppHMSS773D_CvwnNwsj8Ff25OpD-TYg3vfDt_vc9oUxlqWqNF7CWa3RA1415w_IV28BSd7RMLErJKjh83De0vfhp-ms/s400/2016-08-25_21-18-10.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Click on any photo to see it larger.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I brought this up on a popular photo forum, and another user reported the same behavior on Affinity Photo. So, apparently this goes beyond ACDSee and Windows.</div>
<div>
<br />
I'm not sure what the right thing would be for ACDSee to do in this case (if ANYTHING, is this really their problem?) But if you are experiencing this odd color shift with NIK or other plugins, you might want to look into this possible cause!</div>
</div>
Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-7989653847088720142016-06-24T09:05:00.001-05:002016-06-24T09:23:51.274-05:00More on the importance of the Hasselblad X1D . . . <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Eix4soVMuiA/V209RYRi-YI/AAAAAAAADVE/a9EzpxUxuNEltPJM7NT_eQ8fXiu-FENOwCLcB/s1600/Engine1-FrameCredit2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Eix4soVMuiA/V209RYRi-YI/AAAAAAAADVE/a9EzpxUxuNEltPJM7NT_eQ8fXiu-FENOwCLcB/s320/Engine1-FrameCredit2.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Will ALL current cameras become museum pieces?</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
I've owned and operated many Medium Format cameras over the years. I've owned Bronicas, Mamiyas, and I still have a much loved Yashica Mat 124G. What can I say about that last one? Some cameras just speak to you, regardless of comparative quality. </div>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
The dialog around the X1D is starting to separate out into two camps. Those who see the X1D as an expensive, and conspicuous show of wealth, with no real impact on photography, and those who see the X1D as something that is inherently a game changer and a threat to the FF DSLR. I am in the second camp.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
Modern photography is now very much a part of the consumer economy. The X1D isn't important because it is a good camera, indeed, it may or may not be a successful new camera introduction, the results are not in on that. There are many reasons why a given camera may succeed or fail.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
The X1D is important because of what it means for the future of photography. What we are seeing is that sensor/film size no longer has as direct a correspondence to camera size and usability that it used to have.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
The X1D is only a tiny bit larger and a tiny bit heavier than the Sony A7RII. And as much as I love my m43s E-M10, the X1D isn't THAT much bigger and heavier than the larger m43s camera bodies. The gap between 'big' and 'small' is narrowing.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
It may be too early to tell until we get the camera into hands of the early adopters, but It seems that it is not just 'reasonably hand-holdable', it is VERY hand-holdable! We've all seen MF SLRs, they are NOT ideal hand held devices. People use them for the image quality, and NOT for how convenient they are. Hasselblad seems to be trying to develop a convenient MF camera.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
Is the X1D a threat to the current crop of FF DSLRs? Probably not, at least at list prices. But I remind you it uses a SONY sensor. What if Sony decides there is a market for a lower priced MF mirrorless camera similar to the X1D? It would seem a 'doable' project for Sony if the design and build costs work out.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
What if Olympus decides the "M" in m43s should actually stand for "Medium"? </div>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
I think the need to differentiate the quality found in dedicated cameras from the cameras found in smartphones may force manufacturers to seriously consider upsizing their sensors, and when/if that occurs, the mirrorbox will be discovered to add a lot of size, weight, and mirror flop tortion for no good reason.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
What we are seeing is a result of the success of the smartphone as a "go everywhere" camera. The recent smartphone offerings are getting pretty good, and no one thinks the image quality of the smart phone cameras will stop getting better. </div>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
Hasselblad has given us a possible way to keep the stand alone dedicated camera a viable photographic tool. I think the other manufacturers would be foolish to ignore it.</div>
Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-90033680002612982562016-06-23T13:13:00.000-05:002016-06-23T18:54:37.373-05:00Does the Hasselblad X1D Change Things?Do you remember in the absolute very first Star Wars movie, when Han, Luke, and Leia are in the garbage pit of the Battle Star, and the walls start closing in? I imagine that must be how Canon and Nikon feel.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VpIHFFoG1Xg/V2wlPRdNolI/AAAAAAAADUs/CVtQeI_lGBY6jheDKin0cFtMEleFr4yXwCLcB/s1600/_9023287-2_resizeb1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VpIHFFoG1Xg/V2wlPRdNolI/AAAAAAAADUs/CVtQeI_lGBY6jheDKin0cFtMEleFr4yXwCLcB/s320/_9023287-2_resizeb1.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Is how we will come to think about the DSLR?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
My very first reaction when I saw pictures of the camera, was a yawn. So it was a big version of what I already had with my Olympus E-M10! Big deal! Yeah it was a much bigger sensor, but it WAS essentially a 4:3 sensor, and I DID have a better selection of lenses. And the price, while something of a bargain, considering the format and manufacturer, is so far out of my financial capabilities that I saw the thing as irrelevant to my life and my photography.<br />
<br />
However, once I started thinking about what the X1D actually meant to photography and photographers, in general, I realized that this just might actually BE the game changer, we all like to talk about but never really see!<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.hasselblad.com/" target="_blank">Click to go to Hasselblad Web site.</a><br />
<br />
A medium format mirrorless camera that weighs only a small bit more than the Sony A7RII is a very remarkable thing. And while the price is high, it is priced low enough that it will undoubtedly draw some sales away from many FF DSLR cameras particularly those higher cost, and presumably higher margin camera bodies. Particularly so for those who are interested in studio work, or possibly, landscape photography. <br />
<br />
I think Nikon and Canon have to start thinking about what this means for the DSLR camera format. Is it SO absurd to think that DXO/Mamiya, Pentax, Sony, or even possibly Olympus could produce a similar camera at a lower price? A price that skirts dangerously close to the upper end DSLRs?<br />
<br />
Canon and Nikon MUST see that the walls are starting to move. The area in which they are free to operate just got smaller, and once some manufacturer recognizes that there is a market for a less costly camera, their ability to move freely will be even further restricted.<br />
<br />
I would remind you that our Star Wars heros, ultimately got out of their shrinking prison, but they found it a rather unpleasant escape. Will Canon and Nikon escape their newly encountered situation?<br />
<br />
I don't know, but I do believe this is one more nail in the coffin of the DSLR. the DSLR isn't going away for a while yet, but I believe the handwriting is on the wall. And that wall is moving towards Canon and Nikon, it is their actions that will determine how well they survive.Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-58353579024576760872016-06-18T10:26:00.002-05:002016-06-18T10:27:28.377-05:00Psychological and Attitudinal Implications of Photographic Gear Choice<i>During a conversation I had with a new adopter to m43s from a FF system, he mentioned that he felt that his photos were different from the photos he had been taking, and when he made a conscious decision to shoot his "old style", he felt the composition and overall quality of the photos were not as good as they had been. Overall, he felt a bit dissatisfied with his change to the new m43s system.</i><br />
<br />
<a href="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5836/21424396350_d1f201a3d2_b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5836/21424396350_d1f201a3d2_b.jpg" width="400" /></a><i>I wasn't sure how to respond to his complaint immediately, so I let the comment slide past me. However, it kept nagging at me, and this post, however inadequate, is an attempt to respond to his complaints.</i><br />
<br />
In looking back at my photos taken over the years with other cameras and other formats, I see a significant difference in the type of photos I take with 4/3s and m43s cameras than I did with 35 mm cameras and other cameras with other aspect ratios.<br />
<br />
The photos taken with 4/3s and m43s cameras all seem to be more, "intimate" in nature than do the photos taken with other cameras. Those photos, the ones not taken with 4/3s of some sort, all tend to be more 'sweeping' in nature. I acknowledge that the terms "intimate" and "sweeping" are rather indistinct and not defined by me, but those are the feelings the various photos evoke in me.<br />
<br />
However, I first adopted 4/3s roughly at a time when I was<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Acknowledging that I was not, and never would be, the next Ansel Adams. </li>
<li>Concerned that maybe I was using photography to separate myself from my life. That maybe that viewfinder was a convenient tool to prevent me from experiencing my life, so I could just watch it like a CinemaScope movie.</li>
</ol>
<div>
With the 4/3s formats, I tend to create a lot of square format photos and do a lot of close ups, both of which, in my mind at least, are features of a photographer trying to connect with his subject. And my landscape photos seem to be less sweeping and more focused on the details of the natural world. Even my 'sweeping' landscapes tend to have little details in them than really only get noticed on close examination, and they are frequently stitched panoramas since I don't associate 4/3s with 'big sky'. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5741/23824176296_8f88589c69_h.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="101" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5741/23824176296_8f88589c69_h.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">In Memoriam</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I think I have grown as a photographer since I switched to the 4/3s formats. I can't say, if that growth would have occurred anyway, or if my adoption of 4/3s accelerated that growth, but I do know they are connected in time. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My point is, I think I unconsciously selected 4/3s because I associated it with the qualities I wanted to develop as a photographer. Whether 4/3s actually has those qualities or not is almost irrelevant. In my mind they did, and still do have those qualities. M43s helps me SEE the photos I want, and it helps me create the photos I want.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I think our choice in hardware is far more complex than we want to acknowledge. And I bet that photographer I mentioned in the first paragraph isn't having problems with the format, as such, so much as he is in reconciling his attitudes about the gear and what he expects from himself.</div>
Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-88007462088895521972016-06-16T08:43:00.000-05:002016-06-16T08:43:27.755-05:00The Inevitability of Change<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gkmCDyjCYks/V2Kr6upU4HI/AAAAAAAADT8/QlELJoOaQNUeeVwQ1KYXDJKcUC2frtrCgCLcB/s1600/Completed%2BB%2526W_resize.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gkmCDyjCYks/V2Kr6upU4HI/AAAAAAAADT8/QlELJoOaQNUeeVwQ1KYXDJKcUC2frtrCgCLcB/s320/Completed%2BB%2526W_resize.jpg" width="320" /></a>On a forum I frequently visit, I asked a question about wireless charging of our cameras. I like the idea of wireless charging. I have it on my smartphone and on my smart watch, and it is VERY convenient. </div>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
The way I use my camera, is that there are weeks of idleness, that are punctuated by a few days of frenzied photographic activity. Then more idleness as I sit down and try to figure out what I want to DO with the photos I have taken.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
The problem I face is that the batteries in my idle Olympus cameras gradually fade until they are empty. And I run the risk, at some point, where my custom settings cease to be. When the capacitor that holds a small charge to keep the camera functional when the batteries are removed, also fades away.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
A wireless charging system would keep the batteries topped off and eliminate the need for me changing the idle battery for a fresh battery once a week or so. This isn't a major problem for me, but it WOULD be a minor convenience that I would like to have.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
Naturally, in that forum, I got all sorts of detailed explanations of why such a thing would never come to pass, why it was impractical, that the the technological differences between cameras and smartphones are too great, and why the manufacturers would never be so stupid as to even try such a thing. I also got a lot of suggestions that I should just shut up and continue to rotate batteries the way God intended.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
It is my belief that anything that sells cameras is good for digital photography in general. We no longer have consumables that can drive the ongoing profitability of companies involved with photography. We don't have film, or developing chemicals, for example. We do have printer ink and printing paper, but in this online age of photo sharing, their value is greatly diminished.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
All the photo industry has for ongoing profitability is new technology and gear churn, and that is why we see annual model changes in camera model lines. This isn't greed or venality on the part of the photo industry, it is basic survival.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-e_UP_tSGN1k/V2KsqZkD8XI/AAAAAAAADUI/lqBxNuSq3ew7vF8EKF-V6B5mscRLH7LwwCLcB/s1600/ClipDollarsign%25232.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-e_UP_tSGN1k/V2KsqZkD8XI/AAAAAAAADUI/lqBxNuSq3ew7vF8EKF-V6B5mscRLH7LwwCLcB/s320/ClipDollarsign%25232.jpg" width="277" /></a>As a result, I think wireless charging is an inevitable feature in the quality cameras aimed at the consumer and professional users in spite of all the very valid and technological reasons as to why (some people think) it will never happen.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
Perceived convenience on the part of the consumer is really all the justification that is needed for offering this feature and making an investment in the R&D. I suspect that the minute it becomes do-able, or even kinda/sorta do-able, it's going to happen. </div>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
The early models will no doubt be of marginal value, and all the nay-sayers will say, "See! I told you so!" But if there's any merit to the idea, and in this case, merit, means an affirmative answer to the question, "Will it SELL more gear if we make a few tweaks?", then the second and third generation devices will be produced and improved.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
This is the same path that smart watches have taken. And is the path that Smartphones took from the original Palm Pilot, to the Apple Newton, to the Treo, to the iPhone, to the Samsung G7 which DOES have wireless charging, btw. Please forgive the missing steps in smartphone development, but you get the idea, I hope!</div>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
It is also the path that Auto exposure, Auto focus, and image stabilization took within the camera industry. I was there, back in the days of the dinosaurs. There were people back then who also gave detailed and very well reasoned explanations as to why those things would never work either!</div>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
I believe that ultimately, the need to sell me, and you, new gear will overpower any technological reasons of why "it can't be done." As a result, we will not only have wireless charging in the near future, but several new convenience features we haven't even thought of.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
I don't care all that much what sort of engineering and technical design issues the Camera manufacturers face, so long as they give me the convenience I seek. We are long past having to worry about basic image quality in cameras, even the cameras with one inch sensors produce pretty good images, and the 4/3s and APS cameras produce downright outstanding images.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
The future for photographers is going to be great and more convenient, I think!</div>
Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-43851286087439540052016-06-01T07:34:00.002-05:002016-06-01T07:34:55.765-05:00The Best Explanation of Pixel Targeting I've seen, so far!The tutorial I link to is so good, I wish I had produced it! Several people have tried to explain ACDSee's Pixel Targeting tool, and have not done so well. I did one early on when PT first was released, but It wasn't very good and I removed it from this blog because I was ashamed of it!<br />
<br />
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9Ir2hIY8nZg/V07V3vZ6T_I/AAAAAAAADS0/FzbE3KG3ULESWLfKNy7zHI_3rdijySkJQCLcB/s1600/2016-06-01_7-30-02.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9Ir2hIY8nZg/V07V3vZ6T_I/AAAAAAAADS0/FzbE3KG3ULESWLfKNy7zHI_3rdijySkJQCLcB/s320/2016-06-01_7-30-02.jpg" width="110" /></a>I won't call this the best Pixel Targeting tutorial ever, because who knows, a better one might come out tomorrow! But it is the best so far!<br />
<br />
LINK BELOW:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDs1LOjQvlY" target="_blank">The Best Pixel Targeting Tutorial so far!</a>Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-35525253005028984092016-05-27T13:11:00.000-05:002016-06-01T20:51:21.477-05:00How to Get KILLER B&W Conversions with ACDSee<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-G4q9nSpficQ/V0hEnveka3I/AAAAAAAADQA/FaWvRQWHvnMNVlrnnncypbeVB85TsdgCACLcB/s1600/2016-05-27_7-57-08.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="175" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-G4q9nSpficQ/V0hEnveka3I/AAAAAAAADQA/FaWvRQWHvnMNVlrnnncypbeVB85TsdgCACLcB/s400/2016-05-27_7-57-08.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
One of the great mysteries of digital photography, to me, at least, is the popularity of special Black and White conversion software. On the surface, it would seem to be one of the least needed categories of software, yet its popularity as a category is perennial, and many people have clear favorites and argue endlessly on various forum sites as to which particular B&W conversion software is better.<br />
<br />
B&W conversion software is expensive for what it does, and what inexpensive conversion software that is out there frequently limits the user to a selection of filters that force the user to compromise their vision of what their B&W conversion should look like, in favor of quick and easy canned conversions. And that software which DOES offer a high degree of customization is usually as expensive as the user's other editing software and does no more than what that other software already does anyway.<br />
<br />
Regardless of the software used, really GOOD B&W conversions can be done with just about ANY Editing tool, Workflow tool, or DAM tool on the market. All it really takes is about 5 minutes for an internet search on B&W conversions for your software, and reading 2 or 3 tutorials on the subject. Of course you will need to practice, but with any competent specialty tool, you'll still need to practice anyway, unless you are content to mindlessly accept whatever a filter throws at you. <br />
<br />
As a rule, blind acceptance of other people's judgement requires a LOT less work than thinking for yourself. If you are ready to think for yourself, you REALLY don't need B&W conversion software. Chances are, you've already got all the tools you need, and the level of effort will be NO GREATER than using Special B&W conversion software.<br />
<br />
This article is about doing B&W conversions with ACDSee Pro, and ACDSee Ultimate from within the Develop Tab. (i.e., Non destructive development.) As opposed to the Destructive method found in the ACDSee Edit tab and in most editors like Photoshop, and Paintshop Pro. <br />
<br />
I will not cover destructive B&W conversions in this article, mainly because I prefer non destructive methods, and it is what I use on a daily basis.<br />
<br />
<h3>
What Makes a Good candidate for a B&W Conversion?</h3>
Clearly, the first task in a good Black and White conversion is selecting a photo to convert! In my experience, the best candidates for B&W conversion have the following characteristics:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>The photos place an emphasis on lines, shapes and shadows. I'm not talking about JUST actual lines and shapes, but lines of sight from subjects to something else, leading lines, etc. The thing is, if you feel that the color inherent in the photo weakens or diminishes the lines, shapes, and shadows, it is a candidate for B&W conversion.</li>
<li>The photos already have a sense of 'texture' about them. I don't want to leave the impression that this is just about feathers, or the bristles of a hair brush, But it could also be a sense of . . . 'granularity' between living subjects or living subjects and inanimate objects. This granularity can be emotional or physical distance, but in all cases the photographer feels the sense of distance is weakened by the inclusion of color. We could also be talking about repetitive patterns here.</li>
<li>Photos that take on an entirely different meaning or 'feel' when converted. </li>
</ul>
<div>
That last point is a lot harder to explain than the first two. Such a photo might not have either of the first two points, but you, as the photographer, suspect that there are hidden layers of meaning and emotion buried in the image, and that a good B&W conversion might expose them. I think the demonstration photo I've used for this tutorial is a good example of this. In its color format, it is an interesting experiment in color and shapes. But In black and white, I think it transforms into an illustration of hard work and sweat, with just a hint of mud. A lot of that context is lost when you have the color competing for your attention. It's not as pretty as a black and white photo when compared to color, but I think it is a bit more powerful as an image.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
The Conversion Process</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Zpb3kAQC-Mk/V0hVpCIeOvI/AAAAAAAADQQ/BSpzpoV4MAkqre3XSXKoXvxIqeIiY0GZgCLcB/s1600/1Wheel%2BBarrow_resize.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Zpb3kAQC-Mk/V0hVpCIeOvI/AAAAAAAADQQ/BSpzpoV4MAkqre3XSXKoXvxIqeIiY0GZgCLcB/s320/1Wheel%2BBarrow_resize.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
Consider this photo displayed, to the right (click on any photo to see a bigger version):</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I have selected a 'done' tif file for my B&W conversion even though I intend to use the Development tab, which is normally viewed as 'The Raw Development Tab'. Which it is.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But, the Development tab can be used on any non layered photo, not just raw. It will perform bit mapped like edits on bit mapped files like tif and jpg photos. The only difference is, instead of actually editing the photo itself, it saves the changes to the "sidecar" file and applies those changes to the photo whenever that 'developed' image is displayed in ACDSee.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is a good thing for me, and I think, for you, in that experimental and extra editing like B&W conversions can frequently be completed without using any sort of destructive editing. This is an additional reason to use ACDSee Pro or Ultimate rather than a B&W conversion utility, since I have never seen one that claims to be anything but a destructive editing process.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
The Conversion Steps</h3>
<div>
This is how the image looks when I bring it into the ACDSee Develop Tab:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-N3N9E1mCoNQ/V0hbmx3f7JI/AAAAAAAADQg/tG_h1tlQV3ssgwmnN82Ju5U5ENzA0KuoACLcB/s1600/Base%2Bpre%2Bconversion%2Bscreen.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-N3N9E1mCoNQ/V0hbmx3f7JI/AAAAAAAADQg/tG_h1tlQV3ssgwmnN82Ju5U5ENzA0KuoACLcB/s400/Base%2Bpre%2Bconversion%2Bscreen.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The first thing I do, is click on the Black & White Treatment tab in the General Control set. All this does is desaturate the image color, nothing more. Don't worry about losing your saturation information if you change your mind, being a non destructive editing process, your saturation information is saved and you can go back to the EXACT same level of color saturation as before.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
But it does one extra thing, it changes the Color EQ control to the Advanced Black and White control. Even though they look very similar, their purpose is very different. I will explain the Advanced Black and White Control in just a bit.</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Np8sObHfNK0/V0hqHdvLqsI/AAAAAAAADQw/RbgZscLodCADlviId5VBnuEPpFmZxhvoQCLcB/s1600/1Wheel%2BBarrowAfter%2BDesat_resize.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Np8sObHfNK0/V0hqHdvLqsI/AAAAAAAADQw/RbgZscLodCADlviId5VBnuEPpFmZxhvoQCLcB/s320/1Wheel%2BBarrowAfter%2BDesat_resize.jpg" width="320" /></a>But let's go back to the desaturated image. Note that it is a pretty bland conversion. Straight desaturation doesn't take the tonality into consideration at all. If a blue object and a red object reflect the same amount of light, they have roughly the same tone in a desaturated image. Note that how the red frame of the wheelbarrow, and the blue box of the wheelbarrow seem very similar in tone even though the color version of the photo displays them very differently. <br />
<br />
Clearly, we need to do something more to this photo for it to achieve what I think it is capable of.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There are three things I don't like about this photo. First, as stated before, the red and blue colors are displayed as almost identical shades of gray, turning the wheelbarrow into a very boring object. Secondly, the image is too flat overall. And thirdly, the wheelbarrow simply doesn't stand out from the background to the point that it is the subject of the photo.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
The Remaining Steps</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Set the black and white point via Tone Curves.</h4>
<div>
Many people find this intimidating, but all this step does is define the point that says, "Beyond this point on the grayscale, everything should be pure black", or "pure white".</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To be honest, there is no great secret in doing this. It is entirely a guessing game on your part based on your tastes, judgement, and experience. There is no rule of thumb and it will vary from photo to photo.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
See the tone curve control. Note that what I did was slide the black point a bit to the right, and the white point a bit to the left of the screen. Just a bit, What that did was actually narrow the distance from the blackest black to the whitest white. The white line represents the black and white points</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In other words, what I did was increase contrast a bit. Could I have adjusted the contrast control instead? Yes, but by being able to set the black point and white point separately, I was able to control the contrast to a much greater degree than I could with the contrast control which uses a predetermined algorithm to set the black and white points. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WavO_VKroDQ/V0h2CAe9gKI/AAAAAAAADRk/KjseCriG_4IW7ki-1Jy8xL3igZdnlycFQCLcB/s1600/Black%2Bpoint%2Bcontrol2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WavO_VKroDQ/V0h2CAe9gKI/AAAAAAAADRk/KjseCriG_4IW7ki-1Jy8xL3igZdnlycFQCLcB/s400/Black%2Bpoint%2Bcontrol2.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">I rather like how this increases the separation of the wheel barrow from the background. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Remember, you can click on any photo to see it full sized.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
In this case, I ignored the Midtone point, but I could have adjusted it as well. Mid tones are represented by the yellow line. If you change the mid tone, say to the left, what occurs is that the distance from the mid point to the black point is shortened and the distance from the mid point to the white point is lengthened. And where the yellow line intersects with the White line moves UP, forcing the lighter tones to brighten even more, In this case, I think it flattens the image rather than forcing the wheel barrow to be the dominant object. However I can see that maybe the dark tones could be moderated a bit.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-heaWtd0uOTI/V0hzTt_kfWI/AAAAAAAADRY/HlQjm0Q4AIMyrSA7nCv3IaJQTFpcUkQEwCLcB/s1600/Mid%2Btone%2Badjustment.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-heaWtd0uOTI/V0hzTt_kfWI/AAAAAAAADRY/HlQjm0Q4AIMyrSA7nCv3IaJQTFpcUkQEwCLcB/s400/Mid%2Btone%2Badjustment.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The image is even flatter, and the brightness makes the scene a bit too 'happy' for my tastes.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<h4>
Use Light EQ to Adjust Lighting Bands.</h4>
<div>
I won't go into great detail on this step since I have written an in depth article on Light EQ, <a href="http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/2015/04/maximizing-dynamic-range-with-acdsee.html" target="_blank">HERE</a>. It is, without a doubt, one of the single most important tools found in ACDSee Pro or ACDSee Ultimate.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Light EQ control divides the photo up into between 2 to 9 separate lighting bands with separate light and dark controls for each band. I normally leave it set to 9 bands unless I have a strong reason to use less.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CLtiJypb3Cg/V0h22cR1KvI/AAAAAAAADRs/sTuqt0VlxVwGAT84W4GSfwJTk7x0E5aVQCLcB/s1600/Light%2BEQ%2BAdj.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CLtiJypb3Cg/V0h22cR1KvI/AAAAAAAADRs/sTuqt0VlxVwGAT84W4GSfwJTk7x0E5aVQCLcB/s400/Light%2BEQ%2BAdj.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now THIS image moderates the Too Somber tone with the Too Happy tone, and finds a good median I think. Note that if you look at the sliders, only the darkest areas are moderated. However we still have no tonal separation between the red and blue sections of the photo.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Advanced Black and White Control</h4>
<div>
What the Advanced Black and White control does is allow you to adjust the tones in a photo based not on their relative brightness or on their black and white control points, but on the colors found in the photo.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TwAonnV6Kxk/V0iHwIu6qQI/AAAAAAAADSI/MjrUdarOa2cl9us1Ud3X8P83DdxfVi1FACLcB/s1600/Advanced%2BB%2526W%2BColor%2BControl.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TwAonnV6Kxk/V0iHwIu6qQI/AAAAAAAADSI/MjrUdarOa2cl9us1Ud3X8P83DdxfVi1FACLcB/s320/Advanced%2BB%2526W%2BColor%2BControl.jpg" width="281" /></a>When you slide a color control to the left of the screen, any object that contains that color gets darker, and when you slide that color control to the right of the screen, that color gets lighter. Look at the wheelbarrow in the Pre color adjusted image and compare it to the completed photo below. Then look at the position of the sliders on the screen print of the control on the right.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You will notice that by moving the Red slider to the right, I lightened the red in the photo considerably. And by moving the Blue slider considerably to the left, I darkened the blue considerably. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I could have done just that and met the goals I had for the photo. But I don't think it would have been "Done" by any stretch of the imagination.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
No object is ever just one color. Most things are a mix of several colors, either from impurities in the color of the paint or dye, or from reflections from objects that are physically close to the object whose tonality you are trying to control. By working through the other colors.and adjusting their sliders experimentally, you will learn exactly how the colors interact with each other. And I recommend that you do this for many years until you are a grizzled B&W professional who simply can't learn anything else about this subject, or until you die, whichever comes first.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For this photo I found that adjusting the colors that were close to red and blue seemed to affect the photo's tonality for the better. I particularly found that darkening Cyan added an extra bit of 'grittiness', from stains and water marks, that kept the blue from being perceived as some sort of 'circus color'.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DuasQzhNiNo/V0iLuy1RU0I/AAAAAAAADSU/qXx2PDjPW-MYX3cLEtERCQtJMp7p3_sRACLcB/s1600/Completed%2BB%2526W_resize.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DuasQzhNiNo/V0iLuy1RU0I/AAAAAAAADSU/qXx2PDjPW-MYX3cLEtERCQtJMp7p3_sRACLcB/s400/Completed%2BB%2526W_resize.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
That's pretty much it. Unfortunately, describing the process takes far longer than actually doing it. As a result, I fear this article makes B&W conversion seem too difficult to do quickly and easily. But in truth, I had produced this image in about 1.5 to 2 minutes. Finding the perfect image to use as an example took FAR longer!</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
However, I DO think I've made my point that you don't need to buy expensive add-on tools to get good Black and White conversions. In fact, I don't think any of the add-on tools could have done as well. They might have come close, but they would have needed further tweaking, whereas using your native toolset allows you to get exactly what you want with usually less work and certainly taking no more time than when using an external tool.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Have fun!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-17124008443216108172016-05-22T06:27:00.002-05:002016-05-22T06:27:27.117-05:00My Noise Control Workflow<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DIex-qJffl4/V0GXNSKqZzI/AAAAAAAADPQ/C0glAIB0d2kUDS4VjKZD4dqxrV2v9rBkgCLcB/s1600/P4210191-colorAftTopaz_resize.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DIex-qJffl4/V0GXNSKqZzI/AAAAAAAADPQ/C0glAIB0d2kUDS4VjKZD4dqxrV2v9rBkgCLcB/s320/P4210191-colorAftTopaz_resize.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
As an m43s shooter, noise is something I'm aware of. As a rule though, I'm not a 'noise nazi', I'm comfortable with a little bit of noise so long as it isn't distracting. And frankly, there are times when a little noise can add a bit of texture especially to large patches of a single color. </div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
I tend to use the built in ACDSee noise control tool for photos with no significant noise/non problem photos. Say, photos shot at ISO 1000 and below and in 'reasonably' good light. And I tend to use Topaz Denoise 6 for photos with problematic noise (usually, stuff over ISO 1000). Though sometimes, the iso limit is higher or lower depending on the specific photo.</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
My Raw workflow concerning noise, </div>
is as follows:<br />
<ul style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 1em 0px 1em 10px; padding-left: 20px;">
<li>Conventional raw development (exposure, contrast, Light EQ, cropping, etc)</li>
<li>ACDSee Noise Control</li>
</ul>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
With Noise control, I first desaturate the image, and then address luminosity noise. I've found that it is easier to identify L noise when I don't have to see it through any color noise. Then I go back and resaturate the image, and address color noise. At this point the only noise I should see is color noise and any L noise I CHOSE not to address.</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
This has really helped with noise control. I don't get much in the way of color noise, as a rule, for 'conventional' photos, so for me, L noise is what I'm most aware of.</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
Once I'm done with the ACDSee Noise control, I examine the photo at 100% and determine if I'm happy with the results. If not, I use Topaz Denoise 6. I tend to use one the Topaz Light noise control presets as a start and then adjust the controls on the right of the screen. I tend to pay close attention to the blue and red channel noise controls and the detail controls the most in Denoise.</div>
<ul style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 1em 0px 1em 10px; padding-left: 20px;">
<li>ACDSee sharpening with a possible side trip to Topaz Detail 3.</li>
</ul>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
In general, I haven't found that it makes a LOT of difference in the final product if I sharpen before or after noise control, and in the past, I did tend to sharpen before noise control. But I'm finding that it makes more sense to do noise control first if you are willing to consider noise as a design element the way I sometimes do (see my noise as texture comment, above).</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em;">
Overall, I'm pretty happy with my noise control efforts.</div>
Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-51582210198213351972016-04-29T13:32:00.000-05:002016-05-16T11:58:48.063-05:00Photography Simply Doesn't Matter Any More<h3 style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
Convergence and Culture Shift</h3>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I guess at some point, we all have to come to terms with the idea that the very nature of photography is changing. Never again will there be a small 'priesthood' of people who control access to photography because they are the ones willing to take the time to learn all the arcane stuff it takes to make great photos.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-A6iZhJrkGrY/VyOoTI0Ly4I/AAAAAAAADLQ/VBklnwQkN1cBQXPD3eAAQmjJcw9s5hfSgCLcB/s1600/Engine1-Frame.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-A6iZhJrkGrY/VyOoTI0Ly4I/AAAAAAAADLQ/VBklnwQkN1cBQXPD3eAAQmjJcw9s5hfSgCLcB/s400/Engine1-Frame.jpg" width="400" /></span></a><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">True, there is STILL a lot of arcane stuff to learn about photography, and there are still people like us who take the time to learn it. But the truth is, no one but us cares!</span><br />
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In the past, there were cameras and other infrastructure to bring 'photography to the masses', but even so, the premise was that the masses consisted of snapshooters, and the hard stuff had to be done by 'experts' who took the exposed film and turned that into photos. The expert people were there at almost every step of the process, and it supported the, perhaps irrational, belief that photography mattered.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Now, the experts involved with the photographic infrastructure, the "priesthood", no longer stand between the user and their photos. The Smartphone camera has changed all that. And more importantly, it has changed how photography is viewed culturally.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">We no longer even need to print the photos and use the postal services to send them to our loved ones, friends, and family. We don't even need to attach the photos to an email anymore. It used to be that photography was a sequentially shared experience. The photographer got the photos back from the lab, and then sent the photos he or she was proud of to others for them to enjoy. And those subsequent people enjoyed them on different days and at different times of day. The enjoyment was a solitary experience, and then one sent the photo on to someone else, or kept them. Either way, it was a conscious act on the part of the viewer. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Now, we just let the camera automatically upload the photos to Google, or Apple, or Flickr and let the people use their phones to either view them directly from our online account, or download them to their phones so THEY can alter or repurpose them, or keep them unaltered, as a part of their personal collection of photographs.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">But the enjoyment is no longer completely sequential. Instead, the illusion that we are all enjoying it together at the same time is created. Through the use of comments and the ubiquitous 'thumbs up'/'Thumbs down' votes we perceive that our photo viewing is now a shared experience. Then too, we no longer need to take active steps to send the photo to others. We might post the photo on social media, but it too, is a shared experience with comments and the ability to vote on a photo's worth.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The photograph is out there, in the ether, waiting to be 'discovered' by other viewers. Roughly 113 billion photos get 'published' on the internet each year. I speculate, that only millions are ever actually seen. and of them, only a few hundred actually resonate enough with us to be remembered. Even fewer are remembered well enough, by enough of us, to make that transition to some sort of cultural significance.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2381188/Revealed-happens-just-ONE-minute-internet-216-000-photos-posted-278-000-Tweets-1-8m-Facebook-likes.html" target="_blank">(citation here)</a> <a href="http://www.internetlivestats.com/one-second/" target="_blank">(2nd citation here)</a> <a href="http://www.jeffbullas.com/2012/04/23/48-significant-social-media-facts-figures-and-statistics-plus-7-infographics/#e5fZgwTPL4wacMHt.99" target="_blank">(3rd citation here)</a> Note: You'll have to do a little math to get the annual figures!</span></i></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Is it any wonder then, that even established names in the camera manufacturing industry are struggling to sell enough cameras to survive? Should we be surprised that no one wants to PAY for photographs that other people have taken? When was the last time you saw one of those little wire display stands that held picture postcards of women on waterskis, or a picture of the local tourist trap on one side and which said, "wish you were here!" on the other?"</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">There are no non photography oriented magazines that feature good photography any more, and few people actually clip photos from paper magazines because: </span></div>
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Open Sans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px;">There aren't that many magazines any more.</span></span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Open Sans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px;">If they want to save a photo, people just go to the online article, and 'right' click the photo of their choice.</span></span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Open Sans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px;">What's the point? When billions of photos get published each year, saving a photo that will only be considered inferior to some other photo that will get published tomorrow or next month seems meaningless, and it devalues what we are seeing even when we view the photo.</span></span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">News organizations are firing staff photographers and are pulling photos off of Twitter for free, with which to illustrate their stories. Apparently, it's cheaper to deal with the occasional minor lawsuit, than it is to pay for a staff photographer.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Then too, photo editing technology has helped weaken the economic value of photographs either for news, editorial, or legal applications. The truth is, an expert retoucher can alter a photo in such a way that can fool another expert, or at least create reasonable doubt in that expert's mind. This has served to weaken a photograph's ability to function as a reliable witness.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I would estimate that not a week goes by that on some photography forum site, someone complains that their photos have been used without permission. Or that someone makes dark charges that some commercial entity is only out to grab photo rights from photographers. And given the evidence, that is not an unreasonable assumption. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">But the point is, no one respects a photograph any more, or the work that can go into making a good one. And as a result the concept of protecting intellectual property for any, other than giant corporations, is now becoming seen as anti-social. If you doubt me, go to any social media site and make a complaint about stolen intellectual property.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I think the only conclusion we can draw from this is that photography is losing the cultural significance that it had acquired during the 20th century. Photography has been devalued culturally, and once that occurs, it loses its economic value, since culture and the economy are linked. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The gains that the American "Photo Secessionist" movement of the early 20th century to get photography considered an art form, have been seriously eroded (not that I agree entirely with the photo secessionists, that was a different time and place). But I bet Steiglitz is spinning in his grave!</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Anything that is as ubiquitous as photography now is, simply CAN'T be "Art". Photography has been turned into that music which plays in the supermarket to get you to buy that extra can of spaghetti sauce.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Am i just an old curmudgeon wishing for the days of my youth? I don't THINK so. Certainly there are things I miss about the old days, but on the whole I think things have never been better for people driven to make photographs. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Image quality has never been higher, the gear and the software has never been easier to use. I don't miss developer stains on my clothes or the foul odors of the darkroom. And I sure don't miss the era when "Cut and Paste" meant literally one had to cut something out of paper and paste it to another piece of paper.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I'm fully aware there is something of a movement to embrace the old legacy photo technology. I suspect it is minor, and will be short lived. However, if it is a permanent thing, they will have to do without MY embrace! I'm NOT going back!</span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">As far as I'm concerned, bring on the new technology and the culture shift that comes with it! And bring it online FASTER! At my age, I can see that mandatory check out time on the horizon, and I want to see and to </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">do MORE before that event happens. Just make sure I have a way to take the kind of pictures I want to take, and I'm goo</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">d!</span></span></div>
Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-51732031801172690242016-04-26T12:54:00.000-05:002017-09-12T18:22:19.900-05:00Do You Need HDR for Natural Looking Photos?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aJisGGz394g/Vx-dhvDoSbI/AAAAAAAADJU/ImZtukoem2k9L_B4n0_IifGdpi1g1sVMACLcB/s1600/Original%2BUdndeveloped%2BNormal%2Bphoto.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aJisGGz394g/Vx-dhvDoSbI/AAAAAAAADJU/ImZtukoem2k9L_B4n0_IifGdpi1g1sVMACLcB/s320/Original%2BUdndeveloped%2BNormal%2Bphoto.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">As I wrote earlier, I recently purchased Photomatix Pro 5 HDR software. And I am experimenting with it, trying to figure out when and how I might want to use it. So I've been shooting a lot of 3 and 5 shot exposure sequences, trying to get a 'feel' for Photomatix. (let's just call it PM, for now!)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I've been pretty happy with it, overall, I found that I CAN get natural looking photos from properly exposed photo sequences. However, I began to wonder if I'm actually gaining or losing anything by using PM compared to using a well exposed raw shot and developing it conventionally via ACDSee Ultimate 9. So I set out to figure out a way to test the two programs out.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">My methodology was as follows:</span><br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Shoot hand held, a standard 3 raw photo sequence at Normal exposure, -2 EV and at +2 EV.</li>
<li>Process the three photos in Photomatix Pro 5, and adjust the image with the controls found in that program to make it look as natural and as pleasing as possible given my current beginners level of skills.</li>
<li>Use the "normal" exposure described in step one, and develop it in ACDSee Ultimate 9. I expected to cheat a bit, and try to replicate the image I found In PM as best I could given my intermediate skill level in using ACDSee U9. However, I decided that if I could use ACDSee and make the image better to my eyes, I would not hesitate to do so. My reasoning was that I want the best photo possible not get two programs to give me identical results. Because of this reasoning, I also ran the HDR version through NIK Viveza 2 to modify a couple of areas that I thought could be improved a bit.</li>
</ol>
<ol>
</ol>
<ol>
</ol>
<br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">What I learned from this experiment, is that the answers can't lead us to a clear winner, It's going to settle out to a matter of taste and skill, I think.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">First, let me show the two "done" photos, I'll describe what I like about them and then what I might like to change.</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">The HDR Image, Below: </span></b></div>
<div>
<b> <span style="font-family: inherit;">note: </span></b><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">As always, click on any photo to see it displayed larger.</span></i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_PCrHj3c4kc/Vx-fNRPIIOI/AAAAAAAADJg/qi34b5wy27gZ0VcCHvt8ePRNq0QGwSLHACLcB/s1600/P4211044_5_6_Wetland%2BfoliageHDR-WNIK.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="298" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_PCrHj3c4kc/Vx-fNRPIIOI/AAAAAAAADJg/qi34b5wy27gZ0VcCHvt8ePRNq0QGwSLHACLcB/s400/P4211044_5_6_Wetland%2BfoliageHDR-WNIK.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">This was clearly the easiest photo of the two to produce, and I was quite satisfied with how it looked straight away. The detail and tone of the photo is very good, and, I think, it reflects how the scene looked to my memory. As a reminder, I did use NIK Viveza 2 to lighten the detail in the shadows of the fallen logs a bit, to darken and add contrast to the footbridge, along with lightening the water level roots of the tree in the center.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"> The ACDSee Only Image, Below:</span></b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OJUwdtP_RZw/Vx-gdzsO-UI/AAAAAAAADJs/ZJqu3fJmvIU2HwkzjgA6j2t1L58JatI9ACLcB/s1600/P4211044-ACDSeeDone.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OJUwdtP_RZw/Vx-gdzsO-UI/AAAAAAAADJs/ZJqu3fJmvIU2HwkzjgA6j2t1L58JatI9ACLcB/s400/P4211044-ACDSeeDone.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Frankly, I like this photo overall, just a bit better. While not quite as 'perfect' as the HDR photo, I think it more accurately reflects the . . . "emotional content" of the scene better than the HDR version. However, it was MUCH more difficult to produce. Instead of a simple 4 step process to get a completed photo, I had to resort to a somewhat complex 8 step process to get the photo to where I wanted it to be, that included multiple passes with Pixel targeting, and development brushes. I could have cheated and used NIK Viveza 2, but I wanted to see what an all ACDSee version would look like. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;">My Analysis:</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I always thought ACDSee's selective editing was pretty good compared to the competition, and I think, for the most part, it is. However, if ACDSee could invent a way to handle multiple pixel targeting, ahh, targets in one pass, the way they do with the development brushes, I think they could be VERY competitive in the selective editing department.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Out of curiosity, I did try to subsequently 'fix' the HDR version to better reflect my preferences however that added another 6 or so steps to the process, and I never did really capture the 'feel' of the ACDSee version. I suspect as I gain more experience with Photomatix, the quality of my HDR photos will improve as well.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<b><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">Pixel Peeping</span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><i><br /></i></b>
Let's first look at an area that HDR excels at, problematic exposures.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sL6IqcC-R9I/Vx-k9wK0xeI/AAAAAAAADJ4/lBIqIUKnpy0zxeRI-mXQECkTrlnMjsILwCLcB/s1600/ACDSeePhotomatix%2Bcomparison.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" height="215" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sL6IqcC-R9I/Vx-k9wK0xeI/AAAAAAAADJ4/lBIqIUKnpy0zxeRI-mXQECkTrlnMjsILwCLcB/s400/ACDSeePhotomatix%2Bcomparison.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Above: The HDR version is on your left. As you can see, HDR does an excellent job of capturing detail out of the problem photo areas. The branches of the trees against the cloudy sky are more numerous and more pleasant to look at.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hFRENpYU9qY/Vx-mWxy9AqI/AAAAAAAADKE/qCRc-YSGOMoIoA19_TpZ0jULCpKr-PN6ACLcB/s1600/ACDSeePhotomatix%2Bcomparison2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hFRENpYU9qY/Vx-mWxy9AqI/AAAAAAAADKE/qCRc-YSGOMoIoA19_TpZ0jULCpKr-PN6ACLcB/s400/ACDSeePhotomatix%2Bcomparison2.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Here, above: I found that ACDSee's Light EQ did a better job of pulling out detail in the shadows of the water level roots than Viveza did. Though Viveza did a pretty decent job of it, I think, the HDR version might not have provided all the detail Viveza needed..</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MUt4JF2l8XM/Vx-mZTg6NPI/AAAAAAAADKI/jM-nZk8JOTURw5t1KhKwSALUx41adCd1gCLcB/s1600/ACDSeePhotomatix%2Bcomparison3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MUt4JF2l8XM/Vx-mZTg6NPI/AAAAAAAADKI/jM-nZk8JOTURw5t1KhKwSALUx41adCd1gCLcB/s400/ACDSeePhotomatix%2Bcomparison3.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Above: is once again a comparison of the two images, side by side this time. While both appear quite natural, I believe the ACDSee only version seems not only to adhere to the emotional spirit of the scene as I saw it, but I believe in the HDR version, the brightness relationship of the standing trees in relationship to the overall scene seems a little out of balance. That might be a personal taste decision though.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I DO wish however that I could have captured a bit more of the detail those trees that were silhouetted against the sky in the ACDSee version compared to the HDR version, but the compromise I made in that regard is something I can live with.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">All in all, I don't think there is a huge benefit to using HDR for natural looking photos unless I am facing a challenging lighting situation. In which case, It costs nothing to fire off a 3 or 5 exposure photos sequence to get insurance that I have adequately captured the scene.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I didn't illustrate it here, but HDR's don't really work well with even slow speed action shots. The Ghosting, (where the faint images unique to each shot can bleed through enough to the final composit image that not even the strongest anti ghosting measures can remediate.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<br />Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-91072138251733672322016-04-15T09:36:00.003-05:002016-06-27T19:40:41.254-05:00An HDR newbie's comparison of NIK HDR Efex and Photomatix Pro 5<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Talk about bad timing! I bought Photomatix Pro 5 the day before I left for a 3 week visit to Texas. My intention was to go to Hamilton
Pool, near Austin, and shoot some HDR sequences for a proper test of
Photomatix Pro. During that 3 week stay, Google announced that they were releasing the NIK Tools 'out into the wild'.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In all honesty, if, when I decided I wanted to explore HDR, NIK
HDR Efex had been available for free, I probably would not have
purchased Photomatix. It is certainly an excellent tool with which
to explore HDR photography. It's pretty good software, overall. Certainly its little quirks are quite forgivable considering it is now free.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">That being said, after using it a bit, I think I would also
have outgrown NIK HDR Efex eventually. I think Photomatix is simply
easier to use, particularly if you are interested in the less tone
mapped, more natural looking photos, as I am.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I don't think it is quite as easy to get natural results with NIK HDR Efex as it is with Photomatix. However, HDR Efex is probably the best FREE HDR software option out there right now (and I tried a LOT of them!), and you can get natural results with it, you just have to work a bit harder, I think.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">See the two
photos attached to this article. I used the same source photos shot
at Hamilton Pool near Austin Texas, and tried to get them to look as
much alike as possible. Please remember, I am not an HDR expert, and have minimal
skills with either software package.
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The source photos were taken with an Olympus E-M10 in HDR 5 photo burst
mode using raw images. Click on the photos to make them appear larger
and look their best.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">This first HDR image, below, is from NIK HDR Efex. I like it well enough,
but I see the sky and and the overhang of the dome starting to look a
little too 'tone mapped' for my tastes. Also note the rock at the lower right, I've
lost a LOT of detail there. And to make matters worse, NIK also stripped significant Exif data
from the final photo image. This is one of my pet peeves, I hate, absolutely HATE losing the EXIF data when photos come back from a round trip to an external editor.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uvaKw7Ln3MM/VxD3tIbDaQI/AAAAAAAADHw/2eRJ3lrWLkUT8Jl6Pn7e1RkRC7wA_gKiwCLcB/s1600/NIK%2BVersion.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uvaKw7Ln3MM/VxD3tIbDaQI/AAAAAAAADHw/2eRJ3lrWLkUT8Jl6Pn7e1RkRC7wA_gKiwCLcB/s400/NIK%2BVersion.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The second photo, below, is from Photomatix Pro 5.1.2. The sky and the
dome look very close to how I remember it. The color of the water is
purer, and the rock at the lower right, has quite a bit of detail.
And of course, the Exif data from the primary photo was transferred
to the end result. <i>(Again click on either image to make it bigger so you can see it better)</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-K54ypkaxyyk/VxD4Kzw0gKI/AAAAAAAADH4/n13r1ZgFvggPreoWD2-nJNqrpHbgeY2RwCLcB/s1600/Photomatix.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-K54ypkaxyyk/VxD4Kzw0gKI/AAAAAAAADH4/n13r1ZgFvggPreoWD2-nJNqrpHbgeY2RwCLcB/s400/Photomatix.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I spent about the same amount of time on each composite photo.
From my basic determination, I would say, that Photomatix is a bit
easier to use, especially if one is looking for extremely natural
looking photos. That being said, NIK made it very easy to get those
super tone mapped, over the top photos many people like. Not surprisingly, Photomatix Pro 5 made me work a tiny bit harder (though not significantly so) to get strong dramatic tone-mapping.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I suspect this difference is a result of Google not actively developing HDR Efex for the last few years and thereby not keeping up with changing tastes in HDR, while Photomatix has done so with its products.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I was unable to get NIK to accept the raw image, the only way I
could get it to work was to convert the raw to tiff files in ACDSee
before sending them to HDR Efex. I could send the raw photos directly
to PhotoMatix with ACDSee without converting them to Tiffs or jpgs.
Both the HDR Efex and PhotoMatix software could function as external
editors or as Photoshop plugins with ACDSee's bit mapped editor tab.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I'm sure some people will point out that I haven't practiced
enough with NIK HDR Efex to make getting the more natural look in an
HDR possible. And I am equally certain they are correct. However, I would still give a slight nod overall to Photomatix in terms of functionality and ease of use.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">People who have bought Photomatix Pro 5, should not feel stupid for buying it. You still have the superior product, I think. However those people who want to explore HDR without spending money should seriously consider NIK HDR Efex. It is FAR superior to the other free options. You can always buy Photomatix later, once you are sure that you want to make HDR a part of your work.</span>Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-78288258238953542212016-04-07T15:47:00.002-05:002016-05-16T12:06:07.182-05:00Using Smart Collections in ACDSee<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Wc5Ghoc3tfI/Vwanv83u3iI/AAAAAAAADD4/h6IIijo4hnk2G0DZ9R807Qq0Cc83YsnsA/s1600/P8280054-b_resize.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Wc5Ghoc3tfI/Vwanv83u3iI/AAAAAAAADD4/h6IIijo4hnk2G0DZ9R807Qq0Cc83YsnsA/s320/P8280054-b_resize.jpg" width="319" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><i>Updated with new information on search criteria logic, on 4/19/2016</i></b></div>
<br />
In photo management, we often times have to create regular collections of current photos for a variety of reasons. We might want to identify all the photos that have been taken by an E-M10 camera and cropped, for instance.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We could do this with a series of saved searches and this would work fine. However, if you have a large number of searches saved, it might be difficult to find the exact search you are looking for because all the saved search names sound alike, or because they are listed in alphabetical order and the first search you need to run, is separated by 50 other saved searches.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is where ACDSee's Smart Collections come in handy. These are really nothing more than saved searches, but they have a hierarchical storage infrastructure associated with them. This allows the user to group the Smart Collections (i.e. the searches) in ways so that similar Smart Collections are easy to find and are physically close to each other because they are in the same category of smart collections. See the screen print below (note: click on any photo/screen print to make it bigger):</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5cBQu73zWjE/Vwaw6UnG34I/AAAAAAAADEI/mZ_v4Tiv5GU0OIvpbG_kecmFTbywMqNug/s1600/Smart%2Bcollection%2Bstorage%2BHeirarchy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="244" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5cBQu73zWjE/Vwaw6UnG34I/AAAAAAAADEI/mZ_v4Tiv5GU0OIvpbG_kecmFTbywMqNug/s320/Smart%2Bcollection%2Bstorage%2BHeirarchy.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The results of a smart collection search can be selected and used in a variety of batch processes including placing them in a regular Collection (a collection without a saved search associated with it). So, with that capability, you could run a series of smart searches, and after each smart search is run, you could place the results into a regular collection, and thereby build up a larger collection of similar results built on that sequence of searches.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Unfortunately, none of the ACDSee software programs have the ability to run all the smart collections in the collection set and then treat them as if they were the results of a single search. So for now, we must manually run each search within a collection set and manually process the results. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>HEY ACDSEE!</b> That would be a good idea for some future update! It would ALSO be a good idea to allow ACDSee Action Scripts to be created for the manage tab as well as the edit tab. Think how cool it would be to be able to batch process the results of a search or a smart collection with an ACDSee Action script!</i><br />
<i><br /></i></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
How to Create a Smart Collection</h3>
<div>
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NL52XyP3uiw/Vwa66tY-wuI/AAAAAAAADEc/cDzHkY9jo3YLxxFVAy_Fcml12Iuhzn-3g/s1600/Create%2BSmart%2BCollection%2B%25231.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="210" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NL52XyP3uiw/Vwa66tY-wuI/AAAAAAAADEc/cDzHkY9jo3YLxxFVAy_Fcml12Iuhzn-3g/s400/Create%2BSmart%2BCollection%2B%25231.jpg" width="400" /></a>The first thing we need to do is right click on the Collections bar in the collections window (See the screen print below). From the drop down menu, select "Create Smart Collection" When you have done that, the creation window appears.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What you do with this window should be intuitive, plus it pretty much looks like the saved search window.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Below, is how to fill out the fields in such a window:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<u>Name: </u> This should be the name of the smart collection you are creating. In the example below, I have yet to type in the name of the Smart collection. It should read, "E-M10 Photos that have been cropped", but sadly, I neglected to do this.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<u>Location:</u> If you check the "Inside a Collection Set" Check box, you then need to specify the collection set under which your new smart collection will reside. You don't have to do this right now, since you can create the Collection Set later and then drag and drop the collections to rearrange them later. But you can do that at this point if you want to.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<u>Match: </u> This is where you describe the search criteria. Click on the "Add" button and a list of virtually every attribute that the ACDSee supports will appear. Select attribute that you want to search on and it appears in the window.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dfPmlFmRuP4/Vwa67CaS6rI/AAAAAAAADEs/CkZyxZ_fgwUy6HeY7JM74gRrGcsB1Vt0Q/s1600/Create%2BSmart%2BCollection%2B%25234.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="318" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dfPmlFmRuP4/Vwa67CaS6rI/AAAAAAAADEs/CkZyxZ_fgwUy6HeY7JM74gRrGcsB1Vt0Q/s320/Create%2BSmart%2BCollection%2B%25234.jpg" width="320" /></a>You will note that if you click on the word "is", a drop down selection menu will appear giving selection logic options. The exact search criteria options will vary according to the metadata field you are searching on. The search criteria logic list is:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>IS</li>
<li>IS NOT</li>
<li>IS LESS THAN</li>
<li>IS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO</li>
<li>IS GREATER THAN</li>
<li>IS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO</li>
<li>IS BETWEEN</li>
<li>IS ANY OF</li>
<li>CONTAINS</li>
<li>STARTS WITH</li>
</ul>
<div>
If you click on the "0" after the "IS" Then a text box will appear allowing you to specify the value you want the search criteria to look for.<br />
<br />
I find the "IS ANY OF" particularly useful in that it will allow you to select a series of values separated with commas. <br />
<br />
You can add as many of these "Match" clauses as you want. However, all multiple 'matches' will be considered 'AND' logic. there is no "OR" logic, and no "AND IS NOT" logic linking the series of match clauses (though that logic may be allowed within the search clause itself). You can eliminate and identify groupings within the Smart Collection results in the Filter menu above the Smart collection results.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zBf87-x2d7Y/VwbBNCWb7bI/AAAAAAAADE4/QthwcMAQteEaTyxPM73-pqq4J1_1UI4Ug/s1600/Filter%2BScrnPrt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="7" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zBf87-x2d7Y/VwbBNCWb7bI/AAAAAAAADE4/QthwcMAQteEaTyxPM73-pqq4J1_1UI4Ug/s400/Filter%2BScrnPrt.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<h3>
<br />How I found my 'Cropped Photos'</h3>
<div>
I now shoot a micro 43s camera called the Olympus E-M10, and I shoot raw mostly. So I know that the uncropped size of my camera's raw image is 4068 pixels wide by 3456 pixels wide. If I want to find the photos that are cropped, I know that the width has to be LESS than 4068 pixels wide, and the Height must be less than 3456 pixels high. if they equal those sizes, they are not cropped. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now the problem is I've shot with a Canon G3 in the past and my wife's cameras as well and those tiny sensors make pictures SMALLER than the m43s image (in terms of pixel size). And the problem with that is THEY will all be included in the dimension criteria whether they are cropped or uncropped, because their default size is something less than the larger m43s size. So I need to also specify that the model name stored in the data base to exclude those cameras from the search.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If I want to find the cropped photos from the other cameras as well, I need to figure out what the default image sizes for those cameras are and create a Smart Collection for them, and store them in the same collection set as the one for my E-M10.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To find those that have only been cropped for the width, but not the height, I would also have to create searches for the specific camera and only specify the width parameter but not the height, and place them in my cropped collection set.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Then to find all the cropped photos I have to run each smart collection individually, select the results from that Smart collection and manually place them in a regular (i.e. "dumb") collection common to all the related smart collections. It can be a bit of a hassle to do that process 3 or 4 times to compile a collection of all cropped photos. This is why ACDSee needs to figure out a way to automate running all the smart collections in a set and treating them as a single common result set.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
On the whole, while smart collections have their faults, I would estimate that more than 80-90% of the time, the way smart collections are currently configured, the user will have no problems getting what he or she wants from them. However, that last 10% or so is going to prove problematic.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-34665507125948411882016-03-24T12:10:00.001-05:002016-08-15T11:19:10.951-05:00Can a Tablet Replace a PC for Photography?<h3>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">
The Problem</span></h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FIc8pUyNxzc/VvQ6d3i6YcI/AAAAAAAADBw/AxiJqXxmO2se6jjZGIc2hu24RSM3RP7Fw/s1600/P4210238_resize.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FIc8pUyNxzc/VvQ6d3i6YcI/AAAAAAAADBw/AxiJqXxmO2se6jjZGIc2hu24RSM3RP7Fw/s400/P4210238_resize.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Lately, I've had to travel a bit to Texas from Illinois, in the USA, for family reasons. And it has occurred to me that while a Desktop PC is a wonderful tool for processing and presenting photos, it makes for a terrible travel companion.<br />
<br />
Laptops have been the traditional substitute for travelling photographers, but they have problems of their own. The ones good enough for photography, are heavy, HEAVY! If you've ever had to run from one terminal at O'Hare airport in Chicago to a distant terminal in 15 minutes, you will know exactly what I mean. I won't even discuss the problems of short battery life and screen calibration. <br />
<br />
The funny thing is, I really don't need all that laptop processing power when I travel. I rarely have time to do any sort of editing of my photos during that time anyway. I'm lucky to have the time to save the contents of my media card and cull the terminally bad photos. I might do a quick edit and share of a photo with family, but my REAL processing still waits until I get home to my digital darkroom set up. What I need is a sort of coordinating software/hardware hub for my travel photography.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
So it has occurred to me, along with millions of others, that a cheap Android tablet, while not a perfect travel companion, might be at least as good, if not better, than a heavy laptop with its OWN set of travel problems. However, whenever I see this issue brought up on various photography websites, the general consensus is that this is a bad idea. The tablets are underpowered, the memory anemic, and the upload to online storage is abysmally slow.<br />
<br />
I have felt great frustration at this information. I hate travelling with laptops, but I didn't see a viable alternative. Then one day I realized that I was accepting this general consensus without doing any investigation of my own. I had become sheeple! I hate being sheeple.<br />
<br />
So I set out to see if I could get away with using an Android tablet as my photo hub.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">
Software Choices</span></h3>
I own a very generic, first generation Lenovo Idea Tab A10 - 70 with 16 Gig of memory and a micro SD expansion slot along with<span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span>MediaTek MTK 8121 1.3 GHz quad-core processor. It has a 10 inch screen, and uses Android 4.2 (Jelly Bean) OS. It supports OTG USB accessories (pretty common, anymore); and I hasten to add that this is not the upscale Lenovo Yoga tablet. This is a very common, mid tier, name brand, generic tablet. I paid about $180 USD for it, and a matching USB keyboard that doubles as a cover for travel.<br />
<br />
The first thing I looked for was software. I discovered there was a lot of what I call "toy" photo apps. Things that allow adolescents to add 'cool' filters to photos taken with smartphones, but not much for the serious photographer using a tablet I did find two titles. Lightroom, and Photo Mate R3 that looked interesting to me.<br />
<br />
Lightroom had the advantage of being free, but it did require that I convert my raw photos to dng, which would be a significant alteration to my digital darkroom practices when I got home. I don't really WANT the dng file format as I like how my orf files are handled by ACDSee on the PC. And while Lr doesn't really REQUIRE you to subscribe to the Adobe online environment, it's effectiveness is really enhanced by that subscription, and I wanted to use either my grandfathered in "50 gig free for life" subscription to Box.com or my other paid for, Amazon photos subscription.<br />
<br />
Photo Mate cost $10, but it did not require a conversion to dng, and it allowed me to upload files anywhere I wanted. Plus it offered a remarkably complete editing environment, including layers. I thought the cost was acceptably low especially when compared to what I paid for PC based photo tools. So I bought it and I don't regret buying it.<br />
<br />
Photo Mate is not perfect however, Using it to edit photos on a 10 inch touch screen is kind of difficult. My fat sausage fingers did not offer the sort of fine control that a mouse can offer. (more on this in a bit). Also there is a bit of a lag between the change in a control and the time it takes to display that change. Clearly, a faster processor and higher spec'ed tablet would make it run faster. I think it is obvious that PhotoMate is held back by the technology currently found in low to mid level tablets.<br />
<br />
Fortunately, my editing needs on Android are pretty simple, so the auto enhance feature is really all I need to edit a photo to a point suitable for sharing it with family. I find the lag acceptable in this case.<br />
<br />
Also, while Photo Mate does an excellent job of managing a single photo, it's rather weak when managing a batch of photos. I tend to use the Box.com android client app to transfer photos to Box. it's better and faster, but I DO wish Photo Mate could do that for me!<br />
<br />
Could I have used something OTHER than Photo Mate for my limited editing needs? Probably, but it offers an almost unlimited editing and raw development pallette. For just $10 I know I can handle just about anything fate tosses my way when I travel.<br />
<br />
I have also found that the Lenovo File browser useful at times for batch file manipulation. There are several file manager apps available in the Google Play Store if your tablet doesn't come with a native file manager, or if you don't like your existing manager.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">
Hardware Choices</span></h3>
<div>
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-r95mWtcvGNM/VvQ4sDwKCFI/AAAAAAAADBk/Beo5qCHTezIDdGY5obNPI_zUETsK74VZQ/s1600/20160308_073001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-r95mWtcvGNM/VvQ4sDwKCFI/AAAAAAAADBk/Beo5qCHTezIDdGY5obNPI_zUETsK74VZQ/s320/20160308_073001.jpg" width="320" /></a>Once I had my software selected, I needed to figure out how to get my photos from my camera to my tablet. My Tablet doesn't have an SD card slot (though it does have a micro SD slot), so I can't just move the media card from my camera to my tablet. My camera (Olympus E-M10) can upload jpgs to my smartphone via the Olympus Image Share app on my phone. But I want to shoot raw, and OIS is kind of slow anyway, I needed a better way to get my photos directly into my tablet.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
After some research and some kind advice from others, I knew that an OTG USB hub was the way to go. basically it allows one to connect what appears to be a combination of USB hub and media card reader to the tablet via the mini USB port most Android tablets use to charge the battery. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I bought one from Amazon.com. It's a no name generic, I THINK. The brand might be Costech, but I'm willing to bet the thing sells under a variety of vendors at a variety of prices. I believe I paid around $12 USD for it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is an interesting device in that you can connect a conventional USB Mouse and Keyboard to the tablet via the hub. I admit, I haven't tried a USB mouse with this, even though it might make editing photos with Photo Mate easier. I have been reluctant to use such a mouse because of power draining issues with the hub. I've seen bluetooth mice advertised, and I'm thinking that might be more useful to me overall for editing than a hub based solution.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When you use this hub, you need to make sure the tablet's battery is fully charged since it uses the mini USB port for access eliminating your ability to power the tablet while in use. There is a USB power cable that comes with the hub, but it seems to power only the hub itself preventing the tablet from having to power the hub. When connected, the tablet doesn't indicate it is receiving power by displaying the charging symbol. Fortunately, you only need to have the hub connected for the transfer of files, once the photos are safely in your tablet you can disconnect the hub and reconnect the power supply to the tablet.<br />
<br /></div>
<h3>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">
My Workflow</span></h3>
<div>
<ol>
<li>I connect the Hub to the tablet and insert the camera's SD card into the hub.</li>
<li>I use the Lenovo File Browser app to select and move the photos to a special folder on the micro SD card permanently installed on my tablet.</li>
<li>I disconnect the USB Hub from the tablet</li>
<li>I use Photo Mate R3 to browse the photos and cull obvious photos that I know I will NEVER want. (Though I do tend to keep everything).</li>
<li>If there are photos I want to share with people immediately, I edit them via Photo Mate, convert them to jpg, and upload them to whatever sharing location I have selected. I could print, if I wanted, and have access to a wireless printer and an appropriate network.</li>
<li>I upload the orf files and any edited conversion files to Box.com via the Box.com client app. When I get home, I will then download those files to my hard drive. Once I am certain my photos are securely uploaded to Box, and I will not need to edit them further, I feel free to delete them from my tablet. I haven't decided yet if I will delete the stored online photos once I download them to my HD at home. </li>
</ol>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bZRjGiWQhVU/VvQ6_1bc-QI/AAAAAAAADB4/N8LkDHb2WN8ND7rCylBdsjqgYFWDGru5w/s1600/20160308_100712.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bZRjGiWQhVU/VvQ6_1bc-QI/AAAAAAAADB4/N8LkDHb2WN8ND7rCylBdsjqgYFWDGru5w/s400/20160308_100712.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">
My Performance Analysis</span></h3>
</div>
<div>
Performance, while not spectacular, is better than I expected. This is NOT the equivalent of a PC connected to a wireless LAN, but I do believe it is an acceptable compromise for those times when I am travelling.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I downloaded 431 mostly orf files that combined, totaled 6.3 gig. Individual photos ranged in size between 12 and 20 mb in size. The transfer time to to the tablet from the SD card was 40 minutes long, the power remaining in my tablet's battery went from a 100% charge to roughly 89% in that time. The screen did black out during that time, but that did not stop the transfer.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The upload of the 431 images to Box.com took around 50 minutes. There was no need to track battery power usage, since at that point I had placed the tablet on the external power supply.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I found that I prefer Box.com to the Amazon Photos, or Google environments for uploading to online storage. The upload speed wasn't really any faster, but both Amazon and Google required that I manually select each and every file individually, while Box.com allowed me to select ALL the photos in the folder. In a batch of 300 - 400 photos, this is a significant savings in time overall.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Photo Mate has a benchmark utility to assess your particular tablet and make set up suggestions for Photo Mate. However I found the results confusing. The scores delivered in text format don't seem to correlate to the graph that comes with it. The text results indicate my tablet is one of the slowest tablets ever. But the chart sort of indicates it is the fastest. I suspect the chart needs updating. At the very least it needs to be reviewed for clarity and ease of understanding.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The utility recommended that I set Photo Mate's preview quality to low, and the raw decoder quality to fast (bilinear). I tried all those sort of settings, but I saw no difference in my response time. I suspect I could use a better set of tablet specs!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So, what's the verdict for me? I think I'm going to continue using my tablet for this purpose, I like being able to upload my files to Box so I can clear my SD card for the next day's shooting (If I can find the time for more shooting, that is!). And I REALLY like not having to carry a laptop around with me.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
Yeah, it's slow, but I can schedule the tasks for during the night or other down time, so I don't have to be around or awake when it is happening.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-32252314104979694202015-10-23T08:04:00.000-05:002018-07-05T13:48:23.789-05:00The Cultural Significance of Google Photos<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OO5LRovbL_I/ViovFkL3swI/AAAAAAAACpw/MZP_CEtERd8/s1600/Send%2Bto%2Bgoogle.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="239" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OO5LRovbL_I/ViovFkL3swI/AAAAAAAACpw/MZP_CEtERd8/s320/Send%2Bto%2Bgoogle.jpg" width="320" /></a><span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px;">On a photography forum site I frequent, there is a discussion about Google Photos. Naturally, there is the usual paranoia about how 'Evil' Google is, complaints about data mining, complaints about the lossy compression (and from a photographer's point of view that IS awful). I think the problem is few people understand what problem it is that Google is trying to solve. Even Google's own promotional stuff doesn't really mention the KEY problem that people have, it merely mentions the symptoms.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px;"><br /></span></span><a href="https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2015/10/11-things-to-know-about-google-photos.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2015/10/11-things-to-know-about-google-photos.html</span></a><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px;">Google leaves it up to us to try and figure out what it is up to, and that is why we are so suspicious of Google.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">In this case, after some thought, I have come to the conclusion that Google's goal is really that of preventing your phone from filling up with casual photos you want to keep, but won't need immediately. It replaces the shoebox in the closet, full of snapshots. It doesn't take the place of a photographer's archive, or a well thought out personal website complete with a domain name and personalized logo. It isn't even really trying to be the photo album on the coffee table in the living room.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 11px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Google seems to be the first to understand the cultural importance of that shoebox in the closet. It is the combined story of US, The story of not just the United States Of America, but of Canada, Britain, Australia, Japan, India, China, Brazil, Dubai, Mexico, Zimbabwe, the entire globe really. </span><br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">
And in 200 years, when all of us are dead and no one remembers the photos we stored on Google Photos, and they are legally abandoned intellectual property, then Google, or the company that succeeds it, will have control of an incredible historical archive of a place and time that no longer exists but which will be important for understanding that future "now".</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">
Will Google benefit from all that? Probably. But I'll be dead, my future family might not have any interest in me, or even my name, much less any photos I might have taken. Maybe this is some small way for me to remain relevant to the world long after I'm gone. The atheist's chance at immortality, and the believer's chance to send a message through time.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">
<br /></div>
Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-55899352936160235822015-10-21T12:03:00.001-05:002018-07-05T13:49:25.245-05:00Using The Vivitar 75-205 f/3.8 on an OMD E-M10<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LMmO9dK2xr0/VieW4A8HHcI/AAAAAAAACoA/Mc-Ewx9kae0/s1600/PA200251.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LMmO9dK2xr0/VieW4A8HHcI/AAAAAAAACoA/Mc-Ewx9kae0/s400/PA200251.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Conventional wisdom indicates that, when discussing the use of legacy lenses on modern cameras, it is generally best to avoid zoom lenses in favor of prime lenses. However, I came into possession of an elderly Vivitar 75-205 mm Zoom lens in a Canon FD mount that makes me question this 'wisdom'. Note that I am talking about the ubiquitous, less expensive Vivitar "SuperZoom" lens and NOT the legendary Series 1 lens.<br />
<br />
I found this lens to be sharp at all focal lengths and very sharp at the macro setting.<br />
<br />
However, I doubt that I will use this lens very much on an Olympus OMD E-M10. It's just too big for the E-M10's body. I found it extremely difficult to hand hold at the extreme level of magnification that the 4/3s sensor offer. (A reminder, the 75-205 Vivitar is effectively a 150mm - 410mm lens when mounted on a camera that uses the 4/3s sensor size.). <br />
<br />
It seems that the "macro" setting uses a close-focusing enhancement of the 75 mm focal length. Hand holding the E-M10 with the lens in Macro mode is extremely difficult, I think. Below, is a hand-held macro shot, it's better than most of the macro shots I got hand held, but if you look close, I think you can still see a bit of camera movement.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5aYfI-BGVxk/VifCOr0K0QI/AAAAAAAACpQ/N1JDmc4ULSM/s1600/PA150193.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5aYfI-BGVxk/VifCOr0K0QI/AAAAAAAACpQ/N1JDmc4ULSM/s640/PA150193.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Macro mode, hand-held, 1/1600 sec f/5.6 ISO 200</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Jeraa_mpTf0/ViexprQ7sMI/AAAAAAAACos/_oHfQAMWy20/s1600/Zoom1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Jeraa_mpTf0/ViexprQ7sMI/AAAAAAAACos/_oHfQAMWy20/s320/Zoom1.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Taken with a Samsung S5 Camera phone, <br />
The ergonomics make it impossible to hold<br />
steady. Camera phones, UGH!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Using it on a tripod works relatively well though. But I personally find that I don't enjoy using the E-M10 on a tripod. To me, the appeal of a camera this size is the ability to hand hold it for almost every shot. And a tripod for macro shots, while essential with this lens would be GREATLY enhanced with some sort of focusing rail. It was too hard to position the camera lens assembly by physically picking up the tripod and moving it a fraction of an inch.<br />
<br />
I had an optional external grip installed on about half the shots, and without for the other half. I was surprised to discover that using the grip didn't work any better than not using it. One needs to support the camera/lens assembly by that non moving part of the lens barrel for maximum steadiness and support, so the 'grip-ability' of the body itself doesn't really factor into the way the camera and lens assembly is held and supported.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tEBEDpXw-nM/Vie4zBx4MYI/AAAAAAAACpA/2gBqBazxxeU/s1600/PA200257.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tEBEDpXw-nM/Vie4zBx4MYI/AAAAAAAACpA/2gBqBazxxeU/s640/PA200257.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Hand held 205 mm 1/2000 sec f/5.6</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
This lens is prone to flare in situations where more modern lenses would not. I have taken the photo above, several times with modern Olympus lenses at various times of day, and never saw this much flare in them. I would recommend that a lens hood of some sort be purchased if you intend to use this lens with any regularity.</div>
<br />
I have heard that Ponder & Best, the company that owned the Vivitar line back in the day, contracted out the manufacture of these lenses to other manufacturers, and the quality varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. <br />
<br />
In my research, the common belief is that one can tell which manufacturer made the lens based on the first two digits of the serial number. I don't know if this is true, or not, but most of the internet web sites that deal with legacy lenses all seem to accept this as 'probably true'. <br />
<br />
The most useful link I found that deals with Vivitar serial numbers was the <a href="http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Vivitar_serial_numbers" target="_blank">Camera-Wiki.org pag</a>e. This web page also deals with the persistent rumor that Olympus made lenses for Vivitar. Apparently, it did not, though my basic test of this particular lens indicates there would be no shame in such a move for Olympus. My Vivitar 'superzoom' seems to be at the very least, a solid second tier lens of that era.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iOJJH4R_CEY/VifDZtmbiaI/AAAAAAAACpc/_IQ1tFrQI-o/s1600/PA200255.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iOJJH4R_CEY/VifDZtmbiaI/AAAAAAAACpc/_IQ1tFrQI-o/s640/PA200255.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">75 mm 1/640 sec f/5.6 iso 200</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The serial number on my lens is 22713212 which indicates that it was made by Kiron. In my serial number research, I found some legacy lens forum sites where users make the claim that the most desirable lenses were the ones made with the serial numbers of 22 - Kiron, 28 - Komine, and 37 - Tokina. I have no way to verify these claims, so use that info at your own risk.<br />
<br />
In summary, I think this is a fine legacy lens that is unfortunately prone to more flare than modern lenses. It is worth seeking out and using on a fairly regular basis, but I question its value as a companion for very small camera bodies.Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-13942814766693307972015-10-14T14:54:00.001-05:002015-10-23T11:24:36.249-05:00Focus Peaking is Not PerfectIt appears that focus peaking uses some sort of contrast detection methodology. While it is very useful and improves manual focus in digital cameras considerably compared to what other manual focus methods offer, it most definitely NOT perfect!<br />
<br />
I've discovered that scenes where the edges between one object and another object are hard to see because the two objects are essentially the same color or reflect the same amount of light are difficult for focus peaking.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KffRV82jUh0/Vh6x-KId2iI/AAAAAAAACmA/IYUcAoaXb00/s1600/Best-OOF.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KffRV82jUh0/Vh6x-KId2iI/AAAAAAAACmA/IYUcAoaXb00/s400/Best-OOF.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Try selecting your "best" OOF image sometime!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Another type of photo that I've discovered poses problems for focus peaking is situations where the areas you want to be out of focus also have areas of high contrast scattered about the scene. In this case, I've found that it isn't that focus peaking can't SEE the contrast, so much as it is that halos appear around the out of focus areas as well as the in focus areas, and the differences in the halos between the in-focus areas and the out of focus areas are so small that I can't tell exactly WHAT is in focus with any reliability.<br />
<br />
I've learned not to fight with FP in situations where it doesn't do well. In both cases, I've found that switching to auto focus and selecting the appropriate focus point manually generally works well for me.Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-70634533178523075532015-10-13T11:38:00.002-05:002015-10-23T11:26:32.064-05:00An ACDSee User's Perspective on DXO Optics Pro 10<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5812/21176817563_598ee5a435_c.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5812/21176817563_598ee5a435_c.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A Good Tool</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I'm an ACDSee Ultimate 9 user, but I just completed a trial of DXO Optics Pro 10. This is a VERY brief discussion the DXO product. This is NOT a review of DXO, merely a description of my perceptions of the product.</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Actually I liked it pretty well. I was particularly impressed with the CA/Purple fringing control. And, the auto correction tool shows a maturity that ACDSee Ultimate 9, which just introduced auto correction, simply doesn't have yet. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Lots of lens and camera combinations in the DXO lens correction database that ACDSee doesn't have. Especially in the area of Olympus 4/3s DSLR lenses teamed up with m43s cameras. This will improve, I'm sure, when ACDSee comes out with the infrastructure on how to add lenses to the database ACDSee is using.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The image quality of the finished product was quite high, however I am used to a more minimalist approach to the raw development software automatically adding in auto sharpening and noise control whenever an image is accessed via the program. DXO made some things too crisp and sharp, I thought, for images that already had sharpness and NR already added. I found myself backing that stuff out a bit on those sort of photos. Not a major issue to be sure, but it was one of those minor irritants I could get used to if I had to.<br /><br />You need to remember, DXO is a pure raw converter, that means there is NO database or DAM management tools built into it. So you will need some sort of front end to handle that sort of thing. I should think that if I were to use DXO, I would use ACDSee 19 (Their basic viewer/DAM software) instead of Ultimate, though Ultimate 9 worked well enough during my testing.<br /><br />Overall, however, I don't feel DXO offered me enough reasons to incorporate it into my workflow. Image quality was VERY good, but so is ACDSee Ultimate 9's IQ. And by staying with one vendor from import to organizing, to raw development, to bit mapped editing, and then to distribution, I have a single set of color control tools at all times and most importantly, a single user interface. To me, the idea of a consistent user interface is a major productivity asset all by itself.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In summary, I think DXO is a fine product. I could recommend it to someone who is dissatisfied with their current processor so long as they understood that they would have to provide a separate DAM tool and bit mapped editor for a complete workflow set up.</span></div>
Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-53726709947751131852015-10-09T09:11:00.000-05:002018-07-05T13:51:21.788-05:00Legacy Lenses and the "Prime Shooting Style"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I'm having great luck using my ancient Canon FL series lenses on my E-M10. They offer a subtle difference in color and tonality that we don't see with modern lenses. The only drawback with m43s is that even my WA Canon primes are effectively normal lenses or longer.<br /><br />I'm using focus peaking, and I shoot with the lens stopped down all the time even during framing and focusing. I get confused by having an open/close ring on the lens, and an open/close ring on the Fotasy adapter.<br /><br />With these 'all manual' lenses I have the viewfinder set to automatically brighten to accommodate the stopped down state of the lens.<br /><br />These lenses are fun to use and offer unique image qualities I don't think I'd get with the Zuiko lenses.<br /><br />I'm also experimenting with 'one body', 'one lens' shooting as a result of using these lenses. I select one lens, attach it to the camera and, taking just that I go out and find some way to make that body/lens combination work to make a good photo. . . somehow. If I encounter something I simply CAN'T shoot with the gear I have, I come back another day, with a different lens. I think of this as a 'layered' approach to photography. <br /><br />I enjoy this sort of shooting so much, I'm thinking of getting a couple of modern Zuiko primes to see how I like shooting wide in this way.<br /><br />Below, a few examples of what my Canon FL lenses can do. Click on any to enlarge:</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HMNSAenRLn4/VhfIxWOMS9I/AAAAAAAACjg/WLTXfqpl0pY/s1600/Alien%2BLogging%2BRights.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HMNSAenRLn4/VhfIxWOMS9I/AAAAAAAACjg/WLTXfqpl0pY/s400/Alien%2BLogging%2BRights.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<a href="https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/724/21853328179_db451ee0bb_c.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/724/21853328179_db451ee0bb_c.jpg" width="200" /></a><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Above, taken with Canon FL 50mm f/1.8</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">To the left, taken with Canon FL 100mm f/3.5</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<a href="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5659/21893129425_747b60cbd7_c.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5659/21893129425_747b60cbd7_c.jpg" width="320" /></span></a><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">To the right, and below, taken with Canon FL 50mm f/1.8</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DPOUdv9XvNU/VhfKelqeJAI/AAAAAAAACjs/oNWNP3vDCkw/s1600/Tools.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="332" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DPOUdv9XvNU/VhfKelqeJAI/AAAAAAAACjs/oNWNP3vDCkw/s400/Tools.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Glen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.com1