Wednesday, December 23, 2015
Antelope Canyon 2015
Saturday, June 2, 2012
HDR from a single image
We all are aware of the dramatic look that HDR processing can give an image. Some love it, some hate it. I think that it really comes down to using it the right way in the right situations. I have gotten some wonderful results using it with landscapes, sometimes it is just too much. I have found that processing the image using HDF effex pro then toning it down a notch so it isn't quite so HDR ish really makes for a more tastefull result, anyway...
HDR is easy enough when you are doing landscape and have a good tripod with no moving elements in the image, but what about a moving subject, even a person trying not to move, or times when you can't carry a tripod or are in heavy wind or inclimate weather. Small variables like that can ruin an HDR shot. I was out this weekend on a shoot like that. Tripods were restricted- you could not bring one. It was slighlty windy, etc. In the past when i have been in situations like this here is a trick.
#1 capture a good handheld image. Use as fast of a shutter speed as you can to ensure sharpness at an ISO of 200 (good dynamic range and still good IQ).
#2 Get the image home and open it is photshop. DO NOT adjust anything in the raw workflow, move straight into standard photoshop workflow. Increase the brightness by 150 (equall to about +2 on your cameras lightmeter. Save that as 'image' +2.jpg or whatever you want . Use .TIFF if you are worrried about .Jpg IQ issues. I think it works fine as jpg. Don't save over your orinial- us "save as." Close that file, open you original back up but this time decrease the brightness by 150 (about -2 on exposure meter). Save as -2
#3 Now you should have three separate savede images of the exact same picture, just at differant light levels. Now you can merege them into whatever HDR processor you use- I like Nik Softwares HDR efex pro.
There are some real advantages to doing it this way. There is not risk of ghosting or motion artifact becasue they are the exact same image. you may not achive quite the dynamic range you would doing a standard 3 or 5 image somposite,but you will get significantly more than just trying to make adjustments to a single image. In HDR efex pro you again get access to things like "blacks" that you would normally edit in the RAW workflow, but can't access directly in the standard photoshop workflow.Another plus- some photo contests and whatnot do not allow HDR composites. I am really not sure how this plays into the rules but technically this was a single image capture, just extensivly edited so take that for whatever it's worth. Here are some examples of a window I shot at a native american ruin in Arizona. HDR is really fun at these sites becasue it allows the textures of the brick and mortar to really show. But as I stated, you cannot bring tripods here- the concern is that you could hit something with it or that the feet could impact the site and potentially damage somthing that is irreplacable.
Here is the original image, as well as the 2 with adjusted brightness levels, and finally the finished product processed with HDR effex pro.
HDR is easy enough when you are doing landscape and have a good tripod with no moving elements in the image, but what about a moving subject, even a person trying not to move, or times when you can't carry a tripod or are in heavy wind or inclimate weather. Small variables like that can ruin an HDR shot. I was out this weekend on a shoot like that. Tripods were restricted- you could not bring one. It was slighlty windy, etc. In the past when i have been in situations like this here is a trick.
#1 capture a good handheld image. Use as fast of a shutter speed as you can to ensure sharpness at an ISO of 200 (good dynamic range and still good IQ).
#2 Get the image home and open it is photshop. DO NOT adjust anything in the raw workflow, move straight into standard photoshop workflow. Increase the brightness by 150 (equall to about +2 on your cameras lightmeter. Save that as 'image' +2.jpg or whatever you want . Use .TIFF if you are worrried about .Jpg IQ issues. I think it works fine as jpg. Don't save over your orinial- us "save as." Close that file, open you original back up but this time decrease the brightness by 150 (about -2 on exposure meter). Save as -2
#3 Now you should have three separate savede images of the exact same picture, just at differant light levels. Now you can merege them into whatever HDR processor you use- I like Nik Softwares HDR efex pro.
There are some real advantages to doing it this way. There is not risk of ghosting or motion artifact becasue they are the exact same image. you may not achive quite the dynamic range you would doing a standard 3 or 5 image somposite,but you will get significantly more than just trying to make adjustments to a single image. In HDR efex pro you again get access to things like "blacks" that you would normally edit in the RAW workflow, but can't access directly in the standard photoshop workflow.Another plus- some photo contests and whatnot do not allow HDR composites. I am really not sure how this plays into the rules but technically this was a single image capture, just extensivly edited so take that for whatever it's worth. Here are some examples of a window I shot at a native american ruin in Arizona. HDR is really fun at these sites becasue it allows the textures of the brick and mortar to really show. But as I stated, you cannot bring tripods here- the concern is that you could hit something with it or that the feet could impact the site and potentially damage somthing that is irreplacable.
Here is the original image, as well as the 2 with adjusted brightness levels, and finally the finished product processed with HDR effex pro.
Notice the inceased level of detail you can obtain with the HDR.The original image is nice, but all the color looks very much the same. There were no filters on this, just red stone and red clay and a very red image. The HDR allows so many more colors to show up and I feel gives a better representation of what the human eye would see if you were there. Enjoy & have fun.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
4/3's Olympus: What I use and Why
In a world of Canikon users I have chosen to be the fish swimming the other direction. There are endless sites talking about why they like Canon or Nikon, and don't get me wrong- they are great camera systems- but I would like to have one that toots the horn of the Olympus 4/3's system. Here are some pro's and con's from the perspective of a true user of the system. I am not a photographer with an load of disposable income to spend on the highest end gear in the world. I am like many of you and have to make my purchases count so I hope this gives some realistic insight from the world of the rest of us.
Let's start with the con's just to get them out of the way. Low light- everybody knows that the smaller the actual size of each pixel (not the pixel count mind you) the harder a time the camera will have getting good IQ in low light. Using an E30 with an FL50 at ISO up to 800 with a fast (2.8 or less lens) I have obtained many good exposures in low light (weddings, etc) where subjects were moving as well. Here is the question you need to ask yourself. Is low light the majority of what you will be doing? If so than 4/3 may not be your best choice. That said, it is a viable contender. In post processing I use imagionec Noiseware professional for noise reduction.I find hat I can get very useable prints, esspecially if you have spoken to the subject about trying to pause slightly for the photo. I use manual focus in these situations so that I can catch that moment when it occurs. I use a sigma 30mm f1.4 and it is a superb fast prime. I have also used an OM 50 1.4, but have found that this is really not a viable option as you need to factor in some conversion of f power. In reality you need to about double your f value so it really ends up about 2.8,which is still decent, but not anywhere near the sigma.
That is really the only con. One thing i think that is not emphisized strongly enough is that of shutter speed. Yes ISO is a big factor in IQ when you are talking noise and color quality, but those things can be , to a point ,corrected with post processing. Blurred images cannot. There are plugins (e.g. focus magic) that say they can, but they really cannot give you an acceptable image that you would want framed on your wall. I go for the right shutter speed, everything else is secondary to that when I am in low light.
Now on to the pro's of the Oly system.
#1- Egronomics. I have owned Nikon, used Canon, and others. I would never trade my Oly body. I love that my E30 has dual control dials and that all the primary functions (ISO, WB, AF) are right there without having to go through menus. Yes some of the higher end Canikons have this as well, but they are expensive when you get into those bodies, and the overall feel is still not better (to me).
#2 Build quality. My wife uses an E520. This is just beyond your entry level camera. Compared to other camera in it's price range the feel of this camera is so much more solid. I took a friends T3i out once and I felt like the thing was going to fall apart on me. There are some Canon models I really like (e.g. the D50/60's) but again, they are significantly more expensive. For a camera this durable, with in body IS, the E520 is a really great camera. The E30 and E3/5 are even more durable if not bulletproof. I have taken my E30 in water, desert, slot canyons like the Subway (Zion). She has never failed.
#3 Lenses. The quality of many kit lenses offered with other brands leave a lot to be desired. If I have a friend buying a Canon or a Nikon for anything beyond kids Soccer games I advise them to just buy a body and to invest one of their higher quality lenses. The kit lenses that Olympus produces are actually pretty impressive for being kit lenses- especially the older Japanese made lenses (the ones sold with bodies such a the E-500). The mid level lenses such as the 14-54 mkII are, I would say, on the same level as the Canon L lenses and they can be obtained without too much dent in the pocketbook. Zuiko has always been know for producing some of the best optics in the world, and in my(cameras) eyes they are still living up to that tradition. That said, the highest of the high end Oly Glass are extremely expensive, something like the 300 mm f2.8 for $7000- but as good as the mid level lenses are I have never needed to go for the more expensive glass. In addition to the Olympus lenses Sigma produces some phenomenal lenses for the 4/3's mount. They are built like tanks, sharp as a tack, and priced right.
All in all, for what I do, Olympus has been a great choice. In a way I fell into Olympus because I found a good deal on Craigslist for my first DSLR. Had I not, I may have looked into other brands such as Pentax & Sony (I state those because of the compatibility of their legacy glass). The Oly lenses and bodies are small enough to carry while backpacking, produce great images- big enough to blow up on my wall (I do use alien skin blow up 2 for enlargements beyond 8x12). The equipment is durable- and that is huge for me. It works well in my hands ergonomically- no fiddling with menus- just go out and shoot.
I do hope that Olympus will continue to develop the 4/3's line and the E-Seires of Camera (E7 please...). I am excited to try an OM-D but do hope to someday see a real OM Digital- a full frame Olympus camera with full controls on the lens just as the old ones were.That's my soapbox. I dig Oly.
Let's start with the con's just to get them out of the way. Low light- everybody knows that the smaller the actual size of each pixel (not the pixel count mind you) the harder a time the camera will have getting good IQ in low light. Using an E30 with an FL50 at ISO up to 800 with a fast (2.8 or less lens) I have obtained many good exposures in low light (weddings, etc) where subjects were moving as well. Here is the question you need to ask yourself. Is low light the majority of what you will be doing? If so than 4/3 may not be your best choice. That said, it is a viable contender. In post processing I use imagionec Noiseware professional for noise reduction.I find hat I can get very useable prints, esspecially if you have spoken to the subject about trying to pause slightly for the photo. I use manual focus in these situations so that I can catch that moment when it occurs. I use a sigma 30mm f1.4 and it is a superb fast prime. I have also used an OM 50 1.4, but have found that this is really not a viable option as you need to factor in some conversion of f power. In reality you need to about double your f value so it really ends up about 2.8,which is still decent, but not anywhere near the sigma.
That is really the only con. One thing i think that is not emphisized strongly enough is that of shutter speed. Yes ISO is a big factor in IQ when you are talking noise and color quality, but those things can be , to a point ,corrected with post processing. Blurred images cannot. There are plugins (e.g. focus magic) that say they can, but they really cannot give you an acceptable image that you would want framed on your wall. I go for the right shutter speed, everything else is secondary to that when I am in low light.
Now on to the pro's of the Oly system.
#1- Egronomics. I have owned Nikon, used Canon, and others. I would never trade my Oly body. I love that my E30 has dual control dials and that all the primary functions (ISO, WB, AF) are right there without having to go through menus. Yes some of the higher end Canikons have this as well, but they are expensive when you get into those bodies, and the overall feel is still not better (to me).
#2 Build quality. My wife uses an E520. This is just beyond your entry level camera. Compared to other camera in it's price range the feel of this camera is so much more solid. I took a friends T3i out once and I felt like the thing was going to fall apart on me. There are some Canon models I really like (e.g. the D50/60's) but again, they are significantly more expensive. For a camera this durable, with in body IS, the E520 is a really great camera. The E30 and E3/5 are even more durable if not bulletproof. I have taken my E30 in water, desert, slot canyons like the Subway (Zion). She has never failed.
#3 Lenses. The quality of many kit lenses offered with other brands leave a lot to be desired. If I have a friend buying a Canon or a Nikon for anything beyond kids Soccer games I advise them to just buy a body and to invest one of their higher quality lenses. The kit lenses that Olympus produces are actually pretty impressive for being kit lenses- especially the older Japanese made lenses (the ones sold with bodies such a the E-500). The mid level lenses such as the 14-54 mkII are, I would say, on the same level as the Canon L lenses and they can be obtained without too much dent in the pocketbook. Zuiko has always been know for producing some of the best optics in the world, and in my(cameras) eyes they are still living up to that tradition. That said, the highest of the high end Oly Glass are extremely expensive, something like the 300 mm f2.8 for $7000- but as good as the mid level lenses are I have never needed to go for the more expensive glass. In addition to the Olympus lenses Sigma produces some phenomenal lenses for the 4/3's mount. They are built like tanks, sharp as a tack, and priced right.
All in all, for what I do, Olympus has been a great choice. In a way I fell into Olympus because I found a good deal on Craigslist for my first DSLR. Had I not, I may have looked into other brands such as Pentax & Sony (I state those because of the compatibility of their legacy glass). The Oly lenses and bodies are small enough to carry while backpacking, produce great images- big enough to blow up on my wall (I do use alien skin blow up 2 for enlargements beyond 8x12). The equipment is durable- and that is huge for me. It works well in my hands ergonomically- no fiddling with menus- just go out and shoot.
I do hope that Olympus will continue to develop the 4/3's line and the E-Seires of Camera (E7 please...). I am excited to try an OM-D but do hope to someday see a real OM Digital- a full frame Olympus camera with full controls on the lens just as the old ones were.That's my soapbox. I dig Oly.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)