Software plus Experience

Below are 2 versions of the same photo, taken 2-1/2 years ago and shot in RAW format.  The top frame was converted in DxO Optics Pro and edited the day after I shot it.  The lower frame was converted today using Lightroom 3.  I think Lightroom is a much better product than DxO, and I think my editing has improved in the last 2 years, also.

And that's two of the most important reasons I shoot in RAW.  If your files are shot and saved in RAW, you can always go back to them later and rework them as your skills improve, and you can also take advantage of software improvements as they are developed and added to programs like Lightroom or Photoshop.

The building is the Vista House at Crown Point in the Columbia River Gorge.  The photo was taken with the Sigma 10mm fisheye.

Sometimes It Pays to Have Company

I do a lot of photo trips alone.  I enjoy working by myself, and of course that allows me to set the agenda for when and where to go.

I do sometimes travel with another photographer, Tim Dubois.  Tim is good company, and I enjoy the trips we take together.

On a recent trip to the coast I was struggling to find a subject I thought was interesting when I saw Tim shooting some sea foam on the beach.  It looked pretty cool to me, too, and so I shot a bunch of good stuff that I probably wouldn't have seen otherwise.

I got the idea of shooting some of them as out-of-focus abstracts, which I mentioned to Tim, so maybe Tim benefited from sharing his find with me.

Everything Gets Better with Time

Or maybe not.  But my editing certainly has, and software has improved too.  The upper image is a shot I took in 2006, edited as well as I could at the time using DxO Optics Pro and Photoshop.

These days I do my conversions in Lightroom instead of DxO, and my Photoshop skills have improved, also.  The lower image, which I reprocessed today, shows the scene more as I saw it that day in 2006.

A couple of thoughts.  First, always shoot in RAW so that you can take advantage of all the improvements that come down the pike as time goes by.  Second, hang on to images that look like they have potential, even if you don't know how to realize that potential today.  You might learn tomorrow.

(Note:  I did choose a different frame to work with today, but the earlier frame was similar in exposure, etc.)

Frame for Clarity and Simplicity

Sometimes the difference between a good photograph and a poor one is just a matter of changing point of view by a few feet.  I found this great blue heron standing on a rock at the edge of the Pacific Ocean.  (Curiously, several other people walked with 50 feet of this rather large bird without noticing him.)

I shot a few frames quickly, in case he flew off, but I didn't like the green moss in the background, and I saw that the heron's head fell in an awkward location.  By moving up the beach and then laying down on the rocks, I was able to reframe with the simpler background seen in the lower shot.

This photo was taken with a Canon 60D, the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS zoom, and the EF 1.4X II extender.

A couple of years ago I got into a discussion in an online forum about the wisdom of using a tele-extender on a zoom lens. I was surprised to see a number of people steadfastly maintaining that one could not achieve professional quality results with a tele-extender on a zoom. Just wouldn't work, period, they said.

My own experience contradicts that viewpoint. I've used a Canon EF 1.4X II extender on my 70-200mm F/4L IS USM zoom since 2005, and I've been pleased with the results. I like the combination because it is light, long, compact, affordable, and hand-holdable. Mounted on an APS-C camera like my Canon 60D with a 1.6X 'crop factor', the 35mm equivalent maximum focal length is 448mm with a maximum aperature of f/5.6.

Below is a photo of a 12 spot dragonfly taken with this combo. The upper frame is the final cropped edit. The middle frame shows a 100% crop of one wing so that you can get an idea of the sharpness achieved. The bottom frame is a screenshot showing what I cropped away.

However, I would add that good mechanics are essential.  Either use a sturdy tripod or a high shutter speed, and check your focus carefully.  Use the sharpest f/stop available, usually f/5.6 or f/8.

Tonight I'm working on my new website at www.ashcreekphoto.photoshelter.com. So far I like Photoshelter a lot. They provide tons of support for photographers like me who are serious about creating a website where I can display and sell my work.

What I Learned Today:

I participated in a Canon workshop in Hood River centered on shooting wind sports with long lenses. I learned that pro windsurfers describe people who just go back and forth across the river without doing any tricks or jumps as "mowing the lawn". Very apt.

Another thing I learned today. Shooting windsurfing when the wind isn't blowing is not so much fun. That was a shame, because the Canon reps put lots of work into putting on the event.

I took the above shot a few years ago.

Screenshots, Screen Captures, and Screen Grabs.

The image above is a screen capture of my computer's desktop, showing the GIMP open in the upper right corner and a photo open for editing in the center of the screen.

When trying to communicate about software techniques, it's often useful to display and share an image of one's own screen. There are a number of programs that support this function, including one or more that may already built into your operating system.

This page has a useful tutorial on basic screen capture functions in Windows.

Gina Trapani's blog has a nice tutorial on captures in Vista with an integrated MS utility (which, unfortunately, is missing from the Vista Basic version).

I've been using Gadwin Systems' popular 'PrintScreen' freeware for years.

Typically screen grabs are captured in .bmp (bitmap) format. I convert them to .jpg in GIMP or Photoshop.

NOT Born to Blog

I was shocked, SHOCKED, to see that I haven't posted anything for 10 months. Between shooting, editing, maintaining 2 websites, a job, and a home, it seems to be hard to execute on the blog mission.

This morning I added a subtitle to the header of this blog; "What I Learned Today". One interesting aspect to digital photography vs. film photography is that there is just so much to learn. The instruction manuals for my Canon DSLR camera bodies have roughly 10 times as many pages as my old manual film cameras, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

My plan is to start adding content about my own learniing experience on a much more frequent basis. I hope it is of some value to you.

An APS-C Sensor Advantage

For more than 2 years I've been using Canon DSLR cameras with the smaller APS-C size sensor rather than the 'full-frame' sensor that is about the size of a 35mm frame. While I wouldn't quarrel with anybody who chose to go with the larger sensor, I made a very deliberate decision to go with the smaller sensor.

One reason that I chose to build my system around the APS-C sensor is that the lenses used with APS-C have shorter focal lengths for equivalent fields of view than the lenses made for full frame sensors. The advantage is that the shorter lenses have greater depth of field, everything else being equal.

I do a lot of landscape photography, and extra depth of field is a big advantage, especially when shooting scenes with wide angle lenses where I need to focus on the near foreground as well as the horizon.

More on DIGITAL ICE on the Epson V500

Using DIGITAL ICE does add a significant amount to a scan, and the amount of time added seems greater on some photos than others. For example, on a simple 645 size transparency that I scanned recently, the scan without DIGITAL ICE took 43 seconds and the scan with DIGITAL ICE took 155 seconds.

The scanner resolution was set at 1200 dpi, 24 bit color, and the 'Unsharp Mask' was on; ICE was set to 'Quality' rather than 'Speed'.

DIGITAL ICE Technology in the Epson V500 Photo Scanner

The Epson V500 Photo Scanner that I'm now using came with DIGITAL ICE technology built in. This is a 'hardware-based' (and I'm not sure exactly what is meant by that phrase) process designed to automatically remove dust and scratches in film images.

I usually don't switch DIGITAL ICE on because it significantly slows down the scanning process. However, tonight I had to scan a color negative that turned out to have an incredible amount of dust imbedded in the emulsion during processing.

I re-scanned the negative with DIGITAL ICE (their caps, not mine) turned on, and the results exceeded my expectations. This post shows a 500 x 350 pixel crop from the first scan. The post below this one shows the same crop with DIGITAL ICE turned on. I did no retouching to either scan.

If you want to see the 100% size crop:

http://www.ashcreekimages.com/files/BLOG/withOUT_ICE.JPG

DIGITAL ICE Results

Here is the same crop with DIGITAL ICE employed during the scanning process. I have not done any cloning or other retouching of any kind. All spotting was done completely automatically by the DIGITAL ICE process.

Unbelievable.

Here is the 100% crop:

http://www.ashcreekimages.com/files/BLOG/with_ICE.JPG

Epson Perfection V500 Photo

More on the Epson V500:

Compared to my old Epson 1200U, the user interface on the new scanner is much quicker and easier to use. Interestingly, the menus look very similar to the ones on the 1200U, which shortens the learning curve a bunch, but somehow you get to a finished scan more quickly and easily.

I use the 'Professional' mode, which allows the user maximum control and reduces the amount of work that needs to be done in Photoshop (or in my case, GIMP). At this point, I am primarily using the machine to scan Velvia transparencies that I shot in the 90's. I need to replace some really rotten old scans on my website with better quality scans.

Typical old scan:

http://www.ashcreekimages.com/files/licfernroof.jpg

New scan:

http://www.ashcreekimages.com/FernsLicoriceRoof.html

Gee, Whiz...

This weekend I bought Epson's newest scanner, the Perfection V500 Photo.

First impressions:

It looks waaaay cooler that my old Epson 1200U, which was long overdue for replacement. On paper it's supposed to be larger than the old scanner (which went in the dumpster on the way to CompUSA to buy the new one), but on my desk it seems to take up less room and seems more compact.