DigiFotoBlog

LION OR IS IT A STRAY ALLEY CAT

2011-07-27T19:22:00.001-07:00

I usually upgrade my operating system soon after a new version has been released and the discovery of any problems have been reported. Even so, I did have a problem with Snow Leopard OS 10.6 because the install instructions failed to warn users to turn off Time Machine before installing and my result was a burned out Mac and external hard drive. Apple replaced the Mac, but I am still inclined to upgrade to at least keep up with my readers, or ahead of them. But with Lion after reading all of the Apple documentation as well as respected expert commentary, I am not going to upgrade to OS 10.7.

I think I have good practical reasons. One is that most older software applications without Intel processor support that rely on Rosetta to run, may not be useable; and even many more applications may have serious problems including quite a number of Adobe recent versions, not to mention problems even with Microsoft’s Office Suite for the Mac. The second reason is that Apple’s obvious interest and OS design of Lion was to integrate iOS for iPhones and the iPad and the desktop computer system. Well that makes business sense because that would make an Apple desktop computer a lot friendlier and more attractive to the millions of iPhone and iPad users. Interestingly as iPhones and iPads are becoming more popular in business use, experts in the IT industry are writing the most favorable comments about the Lion 10.7 Operating System. My third reason is that many of the internal utilities in the new Lion OS 10.7 are radically changed and more like their counterparts in the iPhone and iPad. This is superficially sensible, but does Apple Mail need to be made simpler and less useful compared to the current 10.6 version users. And finally, do I want or need the navigation “style” of an iPhone that favors use on the run, when my computer never leaves my desk? No I don’t want to re-learn the navigation habits I have refined over the last 20 years.

The one exception of course is if you need to purchase a new Apple Mac you will get Lion like it or not. But there are some reasons then to like it because all the performance advantages in Lion like the more efficient Thunderbolt connectivity system are supported by new hardware improvements that make Lion more truly an advantage.

But still, the majority of iPhone and iPad users are a younger population then the more established Apple desktop computer users. So, is a marriage between a 20 year old and a 40 year old a good match for a happy, stable life? No, it’s even a cultural mismatch. There used to be obvious generation gaps between the young and the old, but that conflict has disappeared because today each generation lives in a different universe.

WHAT IS PHOTOGRAPHY TO YOU AND ME?

2011-07-12T13:21:00.000-07:00

I have a book of essays by photographers about photography in my library that goes back to the early 1890s. Since then numerous photographers and scholars have attempted to define what photography is including Edward Weston, Ansel Adams, Susan Sontag, Marshall McLuhan, Roland Barthes and many more; none of which are in agreement. So there really is not a universal and accepted definition of what photography is. I can only speak of my own understanding of what what photography is through what photography has been to me.

Of course half a century ago when I was beginning my life’s work as a photographer I looked to others for guidance and acceptance. But more than once I was confronted by the old axiom “Art is in the eye of the beholder”, which at first I took as an insult and later realized is an excuse for the observer and says nothing about your images. Yes, I participated in shows and exhibitions in my early days seeking recognition, eavesdropping on the comments of my audiences, and I began to realize others do not recognize anything in common with the images of the world I see. Little by little I gave up showing my work, and I sometimes wonder why my colleagues keep showing theirs.

Of course I publish some of my images within the articles I write about photography, but they have a practical purpose of illustrating graphically what the story is about. What are the results of my tests of tools photographic. So of course I choose those images pragmatically for what they display of what has been done technically. They do not represent what I choose to photograph to express what I see of life and this world.

Upon reflecting on over a half century as a photographer I have come to realize for me photography is my way of engaging life, of connecting with people, places and events. So my photographs are reflections of what I see and recognize in this world that has meaning for me. That others have quite different visions is not a surprise to me, we each live in our own worlds of experience. Sure we share mutually recognized elements, as everyone does except those sad few who hate people and this world we live in. We each have our own strengths in how we engage as we all have different talents and sensibilities. Isn’t that what is expressed in the diversity in all the arts. They express the fact we are all individuals separated from each other by our own uniqueness. But shouldn’t that provide a good reason to appreciate the expressions of others and treasure its diversity? If we all made the same images, spoke the same language, sang the same songs, danced the same steps, life would be an appalling bore and not the exciting challenge to engage that it is.

WHAT’S UP? SOME NEW LCD DISPLAYS GOOD FOR PHOTOGRAPHY

2011-06-17T17:11:00.000-07:00

For quite some time after the “prints too dark” problem erupted several years ago, there have been few LCD displays available ideally suited to doing digital photography computing. The first affordable break with this normality was the Dell Ultrasharp U2410 I reported on a few months ago.

Not long after I learned of a new 24 inch wide color range LaCie 324i, currently priced at $1099. So recently I got brave and ordered one for myself. Take a look at http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?id=10524. I did a brief preview of this new LaCie , and am now working on a more detailed report for Shutterbug.

Since then roaming the internet I have found that NEC has an even newer 24 inch Spectraview II 24 Inch LCD display replacing the recent NEC LCD2490W2-BK-SV model. This new NEC Spectraview model is PA241W-BK-SV with a list price of $1249. And it too has a wide color range reproducing 98.1% of Adobe RGB color. The detail information about this new display can be found at

http://www.necdisplay.com/p/desktop-monitors/pa241w-bk-sv

This time I was looking only for 24 inch LCD displays. The one 22 inch with standard 1680x1050 resolution I have reviewed I found does not compare with the 24’s 1920x1200 resolution in reproducing fine photographic detail, and there just isn’t that much higher cost in today’s new 24 inch displays. So lets take a look at the top company of the pro-graphics displays in Eizo Flexscan models. I worked with one 22 inch Flexscan for some time and the color was good, but it also has the 1920x1200 resolution of a 24 inch.

The newest Eizo Flexscan 24 inch is the SX2462W, also sporting 98% Adobe RGB color range. This new Eizo also provides what they call more effective software calibration. In addition Eizo has its own EasyPix version 2 software for their SX displays, and an Eizo EX1 Color Sensor is available with their software.

Of course you can go further with Eizo and consider what a few of my readers have purchased, an Eizo ColorEdge model, and there is much to choose from including 3 different 24 inch versions. The information on them is extensive on their web site at http://www.eizo.com/global/products/coloredge/index.html

Some of my readers have suggested they would like to actually see the displays I talk about. With Eizo for instance you can get a list of dealers on their web site. If you live in the northwest, one dealer, Chromix.com has a lot more than hardware to offer, it is also a reservoir of expert color management help if you go to their web site and click on ColorWiki you will find a library of expert knowledge on the subject. So they do more than sell the best in Eizo displays. But check the dealer list there may be a dealer not too far away.

If you would rather shop for the best price, one place you can check out is Amazon.com, they have listings for both NEC Spectraview II displays as well as Eizo Flexscan and ColorEdge models. More shopping choices are available on the Google Shopping site including listings of the LaCie 324i, as well as the NEC and Eizo models I have mentioned above. Digital photography editing and image adjustment is done entirely by your perception of the image on screen with your computer. So give your eyes a break and provide them with the best image quality you can.

YES, THE LACIE 324i IS AN LCD DISPLAY FOR PHOTOGRAPHERS

2011-06-12T18:44:00.000-07:00

Again my curiosity got the upper hand. I had to try another LCD display to see how well it would work for color-managed photography editing. For a poor writer it was a big gamble at $1099, and I’m a lousy one at wagering. This time it was worth the price.

The specifications give just a few hints that the LaCie 324i will provide the performance a photographer needs in a computer display to do color and brightness match screen for printing. One is that it has a wide color range of 98% of Adobe RGB. Otherwise it is a 24 inch display with a 1920x1200 pixel resolution. The screen is P-IPS and has 10-bit gamma correction to reproduce smooth tones. It also has all the contemporary connection interfaces like DVI, HDMI and Display Port.

What I found that is not very evident, is that besides the usual manual adjustments of brightness and contrast, the LaCie 324i also has a backlight level control. This I found working with the set-up, adjustment, calibration and profiling to be a most valuable variable. Although I had to get to my ideal adjustment by trial and error. For some reason, although I have asked, there is not a scientifically based way to configure a displays adjustment in terms of brightness/contrast balance, although some display companies provide software that does it for you, if that is something you want to afford. They won’t help if you have a display that requires manual adjustment. I’ll let you guess what the reason is for being secretive and not offering any technical advise.

Anyway, after three tries I obtained a balance of brightness, contrast and backlight settings that resulted in a very good Delta-E feedback from ColorEyes Display Pro software using an X-Rite iOne Pro spectrophotometer to calibrate and profile the LaCie 324i. And I’ll keep my settings confidential too, as I have no basis other than my own experimenting that they would work as well if generally applied.

But the color is great and images are reproduced with good detail at all levels of brightness including highlights and shadows. Color saturation is high but not at all exaggerated almost perfectly matching the Adobe RGB gamut. So it is a pleasure to use and a refined tool to precisely adjust and edit photographic image files. I was also surprised that the 324i’s standard resolution in a 24 inch display reproduces detail sharply enough to make doing fine clean up and people retouching easy and almost a pleasure. Well for me it is a pleasure to make an images reproduce the subject to advantage, maybe even a little flattering.

The bottom line is that I am now confident I can put the LaCie 324i near the top of my list of recommended LCD displays for color-managed photography computing. It’s a bit expensive, but not at the top of the price list for pro-graphics LCD displays. You can get more details from the LaCie web site at:

http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?id=10524

A COMPUTER FOR DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY

2011-06-02T13:13:00.000-07:00

First of all, what does a computer do? In our world today the word compute |kəmˈpyoōt| means to make a calculation, especially using a computer: modern circuitry can compute faster than any chess player. So is a photographic image made by a calculation of number values? Yes, to some extent with a digital camera. But graphics, an image on-screen was a side effect of computing, a part of the in and out communication with a computer. It was not what the computer did but how it communicated its answers after the question were typed into a computer with a keyboard. A monitor was just a convenient way to make a computer respond so its output could be read by human eyes.

In the 80’s when personal computers began to be common all they had was a keyboard and a monochrome display that reproduced text and numbers. During the same period Apple computers were used to begin the desktop publishing revolution, probably the first popular use of computers for graphic purposes. Today with computers reproducing all kinds of media and being used as a communications and entertainment device, a computer’s original function and an understanding of how they worked has been lost to all but the few who used computers over a generation ago. We all take them for granted. One of the earliest and most common uses of a PC was to run a cash register in a store.

Today when a photographer begins shopping for a computer there aren’t any that are designated as digital photography models. Nearly all personal computer today can deal with photographic images to some middling effect, and none are attributed with any special photographic abilities. Maybe that is just as well because a photographer shopping for a computer maybe should be looking for the one key part of a computer system that is “graphic”, and that is its display. LCD displays that are designed and made for graphics computing are few, rare and relatively expensive models.

So, a photographer looking for a computer to do digital photography should first select the best graphics LCD display that can be afforded, and it may cost more than you need to pay for the rest of the computer system. Then get a personal computer to run the display. It can be quite modest because digital photography processing and editing involves very little “computing” because photos are not the result of a calculation. The only factors in the computer that are important to photography are a good quality 2D video (card), and the addition of as much RAM as can be afforded.

This may sound like a radical idea from a computer geek’s perspective, but it works for me and many other photographers. What few people realize is that there are hundreds of millions of computers used in offices, institutions and now most homes have a computer or two. But the number of people who are serious digital photography users can be counted in the thousands. That is a radically small part of the computer market, too small to even be considered a niche market. There aren’t any computers made especially for digital photography, so do it yourself.

Which LCD displays should a photographer shop for. Well I have written about the few I can recommend in past articles in Shutterbug, as well as mentioned in my Digital Help column and this blog. But I am currently considering adding another make and model, but also dropping one model from my list. So keep tuned in, that update will appear soon.

“TAKING THE DIGITAL OUT OF DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY”

2011-05-21T19:55:00.000-07:00

What does the quoted title of this blog mean to you? Does it mean you as a photographer don’t really want to do photographs digitally, but do? Does it mean photographers using digital photography don’t understand what digital means? Or does it mean you need to buy a product that makes digital photography look like film photography?

Today digital photography is primarily color imaging, so I must ask another question. Did film photographers of the past using color films really understand the color photography process, or was it done for them without their attention? I think for many the latter is true. If that is the case it’s because photographers used labs to process and print color photographs, so rarely did processing and printing themselves and the result was they did not understand the color photography process. So with digital and a computer photographers have access to the color reproduction process yet few understand how it works. And to some extent because their photographs are on their computer’s they feel they must deal with them. But if they do not understand either the film color photo process or its digital correlate, they want someone to make it easy without having to learn anything. Am I guessing right or wrong?

I am a professional and was taught how both the black and white and color photographic reproduction process works. But honestly after getting out of photo school I did not process my color film, nor did I make my own color prints because it was very difficult, time consuming and required experts doing that work every day to get good results. Although there were exceptions most of my colleagues used one of many pro color labs in my city during the film era. So maybe many of those who did not get a photography education in the days of film may be a bit short on understanding how the photographic process works. However, the basic principles of the photographic process are fairly simple and have not changed because we moved from film to a digital sensor, so why not learn what was missed?

When the first affordable color monitors became available I got a new PC as I had been using a computer on loan from my magazine company. So I was already a bit computer literate in ’89 when I started to explore and understand color imaging with a computer paint program. I gradually learned that digital imaging is simple and predictable because it is all numerical and logical. That was so unlike the complicated endless variables of the film photography world when each make and model of film reproduced reality differently, and each film emulsion batch too; and even though pro labs were good they would also vary on some days and if someone had a bad hangover it was a goof-up time you couldn’t get done over.

So why anyone would prefer the old film world photography and want to avoid digital makes no sense to me at all. Computer editing has made photography for me so much easier, simpler and predictable. I enjoy the art and craft of making photographs so much more since I began doing it digitally because I now get the image I intended and hoped for but often missed at least by a bit on film. Now I can fix that, and find I am a better photographer than I thought I was in the past.

I CHANGE MY MIND OCCASIONALLY

2011-05-16T19:39:00.000-07:00

I have gotten into numerous discussions about how to securely save digital image files. My method of using gold-gold CDR discs for this purpose has not altered, I have an established system so making a change would not serve me well. But the only alternative in the past I could recommend were then expensive RAID-1 mirrored hard drives. They are now affordable, so are a reasonable alternative. This came to my attention in a MacWorld report I received via e-mail, featuring a Mercury Elite-AL Pro Dual mini 640 GB external drive for as little as $180.

So first of all I should explain what a mirrored RAID-1 external hard drive is and how it works. In this instance it is actually two 320GB hard drives in a single enclosure. So you have two identical hard disk drives that total 640GB. When in mirrored RAID-1 mode any data files saved to the system is stored twice, identically on each separate hard disk. This provides the security that if one drive fails, it can be replaced physically with a new one, then all of the data on the remaining drive is copied to the new one. The chance that both RAID-1 drives would fail at the same time is very remote, so you have a good assurance that your data will remain secure.

Although the source for these Mercury Elite drives is Other World Computing, at www.macsales.com, and is an Apple related hardware and software supplier. The OWC web site indicates the Mercury Elite drives are both PC and Mac compatible. These drives have FireWire 800 and 400 connections, and in this interface are Bus powered, as well as USB 2.0 and eSATA, with an input for DC power when the bus powered FireWire interface is not used. A selection of five different sized and configured RAID-1 drives are listed by OWC with combined capacities of 640GB to 2.0TB with prices listed from $180 to $319.

So today if someone asks me for a way to safely store digital photo files I can give them a choice of affordable RAID-1 drives or gold-gold CDR discs. Personally if I were beginning now I might very well choose a RAID-1 drive. But I will go along with that old saying, if it isn’t broken don’t fix it. My old gold-gold CDR system still works fine for me.

COLOREYES DISPLAY EZ HOOD

2011-05-09T19:31:00.000-07:00

I don’t know about you, but I often relied on sunglasses, “shades” when I was driving west in the afternoon. They helped a lot to see the road clearly reducing the extraneous direct light from the sun obscuring my view. The same idea applies to your LCD display. If you keep it shaded from extraneous light in the room where your computer is set-up you will see the image on screen more clearly and free from different and conflicting strays of light. Even in my north-facing room that’s dedicated as my lab, even with special Fobsun LED lamps for my environment lighting, and with a hood protecting the screen, my new Dell Ultrasharp U2410 has a cleaner, brighter screen image now that it has shades.

After receiving quite a number of e-mails from readers that have gotten this new Dell LCD display, a couple included a question, is there a hood made for this LCD display? All I could immediately think of is the EZ Hood ColorEyes began offering not long ago. However I have not used this EZ Hood, so I sent for one. I got it and found it only took about 20 minutes to assemble and install it on the Dell U2410, and it fits very nicely. Immediately I noticed my screen image looked clearer and a better reproduction of what I was working with on the computer. So, even in my rather idealized lab, the advantage of the EZ Hood was apparent. If you have a more typical room where your computer is located, I would suspect you would benefit more from the stray light protection of the EZ Hood, and your display will look even better.

From what I understand the EZ Hood was designed to fit recent Apple iMacs, so it is constructed to fit several sizes including both the 22 inch and 24 inch LCD displays I have recommended. It is made from a black plastic double sided corrugated paneling, so it is both rigid and very light, the shipping weight is just 3 pounds. ColorEyes price is $49.50 which is a lot less than I have paid for hoods for displays, although today few display companies offer hoods custom made for their displays, with the exception of LaCie.

So if like most of us and your computer work area is a compromise and stray light falls on the display surface, you will get better performance from the display with a hood. It is a very effective add-on accessory. So go to www.integrated-color.com, and take a look for yourself.

NEW EPSON R2000 INKJET PHOTO PRINTER

2011-05-03T12:39:00.000-07:00

Almost every day I see announcements of new stuff, and I just pass along because it’s not anything I need. Better quality and more efficient printing of my images will stop me in my tracks. Specially when this new Epson R2000 is an improvement on the Epson R1900 the printer I use most.

It doesn’t look all that different, a box with a paper input on top and output in the front. But although this new R2000 has the same inkset colors that to me are the best for reproducing the kinds of photographs I make, it has a new printhead like its bigger pro brethren, and larger ink cartridges. Yes its a 13 inch wide printer and designed to handle all types of media including printable DVD and CD-R discs, with brilliant long lasting pigment colors.

I’ve been a very satisfied owner of an Epson R1900 printer, so in a way a new replacement model could be a scary proposition. Does this new R2000 do everything my R1900 has done for me? One new thing that has been added is besides the usual wire USB and ethernet connections is you can now print with the R2000 using a WiFi 802.11N wireless connection. So since many of us with broadband use a wireless router we can connect with this new R2000 with WiFi making where we locate this printer easy and convenient.

Some may question my interest because the R1900 and R2000 do not have support for B&W printing, but I have been able to print grayscale images quite accurately simply by changing the file mode to RGB that does support a color managed print that is quite neutral gray, or I can add a sepia tint if I like. And with Epson;s Ultrachrome Hi-Gloss2 ink I am not concerned the neutrality of the gray will shift because of any ink age effect. The R2000 prints should be as archival as any digital photo print can be.

At a $499 list price this new Epson R2000 should be the most affordable access to professional level inkjet printing of the highest quality that will be available. But I will not know that from experience until I receive an R2000 from Epson to use and test for my report on this new product in Shutterbug.

THE BEST IS ON ITS WAY

2011-04-13T19:08:00.000-07:00

The other day a reader was asking which brand/model display measuring device he should get, indicating he wanted the best. That was when I was getting the first news of X-Rites new iOne Pro line of color management tools. That’s the best of what the world’s largest color management company has to offer. But because only a few of my readers indicate they can afford the best regardless of cost, I usually do my work with tools the majority can afford. But this reader said I needed to do a shoot-out of all display color management makes and models. To me “shoot-outs” are just too deadly, so here I am settling for a little less.

I have not yet received a loan of the new iOne Photo system from X-Rite, but do have one that is a couple of years old. So I decided to measure my personal displays with its i1Pro spectrophotometer and the ColorEyes Display Pro software I usually use to adjust, calibrate and profile my displays, and then see if there is a difference in the result I usually obtain with a colorimeter. I started with the Dell Ultrasharp U2410 I reported on in the current issue of Shutterbug. And I followed up adjusting, calibrating and profiling my Eizo Flexscan S2242W. So did the X-Rite I1Pro spectrophotometer improve on my past results using a much less costly colorimeter?

The wider color range LCD displays I have recently been recommending for computers to do serious digital photography editing reproduce over 95% of Adobe RGB (1998). I use the Adobe RGB workspace profile in Photoshop to do editing and my digital camera is set to output Adobe RGB, as well as my scanners; so it is the color range standard I want my display to emulate. As the 2D Apple Colorsync profiles I have included, the top one illustrates the profile made with the Dell U2410 display using the X-Rite i1Pro spectrophotometer, the one under it is a 2D graph of the Adobe RGB (1998) profile. My new display profile is a close match, and to me that’s ideal for my workflow. I also use my other LCD display, they are only about five feet apart I my lab, and the Eizo Flexscan S2242W profiled with the i1Pro spectrophotometer was just as close a match with the Adobe RGB profile.

So if you are like the reader who wrote me and was interested in the best, I hope to be working with X-Rites new iOne Photo system before long, and I will continue to report here in my blog about that experience as it develops.

IF YOU HAVE EYES BELIEVE IN THEM

2011-04-04T15:20:00.003-07:00

Besides photography I enjoy music and just saw an interesting documentary made for PBS called Music Instinct: Science and Song. It was about how the latest in scientific investigation using brain activity scans is indicating humans are wired for sound, that musicality is something that comes with being human. I think the same thing can be said about art, making pictures has been recorded as a human activity way back in pre-history with cave paintings and hieroglyphs embedded in stone cliffs.

In today’s modern civilizations people believe only a very few gifted individuals can learn music or any of the arts. But I think you will find in the literature describing simpler pre-civilized societies everyone participated in what we call music and art. Of course some individuals achieved more than others, but that did not preclude the rest from being involved and contributors.

Today we live in the most informed of all societies ever. We have the Internet, TV, Radio, Cell Phones, Newspapers and Magazines, and of course millions of Books. In our country most people get a lot of their information from television. But what does TV tell you? That you have colored teeth so get whiteners, that you don’t dress cool so get the newest fads to wear. That you are too fat, so get thin using whatever. That you don’t have big enough muscles so got to Joe’s gym. That’s just the ads, so turn to the news, and you find out people are at war, they kill each other, they gang-rape children or they are starving to death in Africa. So you turn the station and you get a misanthrope telling you that you should hate all other people not like yourself. No wonder we are a nation of people who have no self esteem, no wonder as children grow to become adults too many find the only answer ahead is suicide.

This is supposed to be about photography, not the problems of the modern world. But some of the same enters our little escape from the rest, making pictures. In the last decade making pictures got a lot more predictable and better because you could change the result endlessly with a computer. The recent digital cameras are an amazing assemblage of what has been for a long time and what digital technology can enhance and improve. But most camera users never think that with a digital camera they are focusing millions of light measuring cells on a subject to record its reflectance of light exactly, and I mean exactly. The results are so close to perfect only our self-serving perception finds fault.

Most every circus has a side show. And of course their reputation for selling you something that really does not have any value is boundless. The old propaganda maxim persists, the bigger the lie the more people will believe it. Regarding the digital photography circus the big side show lie is that the digital camera is not very good and you need to buy Dr. Hokums elixir to make it right. That’s a really big lie, so don’t buy it, you will just make someone rich who doesn’t deserve it.

I will assume most of my readers use a computer to look at and edit digital photographs. Well if a picture doesn’t look the way you want it to, then there are simple tools to change the brightness, contrast, color, every attribute of an image to be the way you want to see the picture. If you believe in yourself you can believe that is possible and you can make it happen. So don’t believe anyone who says your digital camera is wrong, its not; so just believe you can make it right for you because you can. In other words believe in yourself and that you have a good digital camera, but don’t believe anyone trying to sell you a fix for something that works amazingly well.

DIGITAL SCANNERS & CAMERAS ARE MUCH ALIKE

2011-03-11T19:59:00.001-08:00

Thanks to a remark made by Ansel Adams in the late 80’s to an interviewer, regarding his overseeing the printing of one of his books of photographs that was reproduced by scans of his images, Ansel stated he was impressed that digital editing could accomplish adjustments to images he could not make in his own darkroom. For me that was handwriting on the wall, that the future of photography was in digital imaging. During 1989 I began my shift from analogue film photography to digital. It went slowly and haltingly, there weren’t many products that supported digital imaging with computers. But little by little more and more scanners became available, as well as software to edit images with a computer. So I learned mostly from personal experience using scanners and software and talking with a few colleagues on internet forums about how a scanner worked and the beginnings of image editing with a computer.

How does a scanner work? It has a set of CCD cells arranged in rows with an adjacent light source to illuminate either a print or film that is to be scanned. This bar of sensors is moved very precisely along the length of the area to be scanned by a finely threaded screw. The scanner user controls the size of the area to be scanned and the number of pixels high and wide that will be reproduced as a digital image file. What that setup accomplishes is a virtual matrix or graph of the area to be scanned, projected onto the scan surface breaking it into small, square segments. Once the scan is begun each of these segments is read for brightness by the CCD sensor and that reading is translated into an R,G,or B value from one to 256 for that pixel XY location.

Once a file is made it can be opened and reproduced on a computer display as a picture. If you select a small section of that picture and then zoom in on it to fill the computer display screen the individual pixels will be big enough to see clearly. And what you see is a matrix or grid of different colors and brightness for each pixel. You should also notice that each pixel is evenly filled with a uniform color and brightness value. Each pixel is all the information an image sensor records, its just a kind of light meter, and with colored imaging there are three kinds of sensors, one each for red, green, and blue. However in the final output image each pixel has all, a red, green, and blue value. This is accomplished by the interpolation of the color values from laterally adjacent pixels which is done by the A/D firmware processor, a small limited function computer chip built into the scanner’s hardware.

With the best scanner driver software like Lasersoft Imaging SilverFast the user can obtain a low resolution raw preview image from the scanner. Then that image can be used to perceptually adjust the values of the image to first optimize the raw scan tonal range to fit the 256 level output gamut, use the histogram to adjust the image brightness/darkness, then use the gradation adjustment to balance the highlights/shadow levels of an image, and there is a global color balance adjustment, as well as a selective color adjustment to adjust individual colors, and finally a selection of sharpening options with USM to provide a side by side perceptual magnified windows to select sharpness perceptually. All of these adjustments can be made serially and are additive, put together to provide the scanner driver a model of how the scan output should be adjusted as part of the scan process. By this method you obtain a finished ready to use image file from the scan that requires little or no post-scan editing.

How does a digital camera differ with a scanner? Although a digital camera uses digital sensors just like those used in scanner, they are arranged in a lateral area array instead of of a lineal array that moves to read the subject. With a camera the lens focuses and frames a subject and responds to the light reflected from the subject. Other wise both scanners and cameras work alike, both project a virtual grid or matrix on the subject to be sensed. So lets take a camera, a modern 12 megapixel model framed and focused on a subject 30x40 feet in size. So each pixel is measured as a virtual square: 0.12 X 0.12 inches in size, and the sensor makes an average light measurement of everything in that virtual square of the subject, so any detail within that approximate 1/8th inch square is lost within that averaged light reading. In other words a digital camera of 12 megapixels is really a light meter with 12 million sensors making individual averaged light readings of 12 million segments of the scene the camera exposes when the shutter is released. These light reading are then sent to an A/D microcomputer chip where they are laterally interpolated so each pixel has all three of the RGB color values.

Unlike scanners most digital cameras do not take a raw preview which can then be adjusted with software so the finished file produced can be pre-edited ready for use. But there are exceptions to that, high end dSLR models like Canon and Nikon, as well as most of the medium format digital cameras, can be controlled by a tethered connection to a computer with software much like a scanner driver’s that captures and displays a raw preview that can be edited. Then the software can fire the camera to expose the image to the pre-edited requirements and you get a finished image file output just like I described from a scanner. In other words a high-end dSLR camera can be used just like a digital scanner.

However, most photographers use digital cameras much like they used film cameras, setting camera controls that essentially edit the exposure. For instance with my last dSLR, a Canon 5D, I could select one of several Picture Styles before shooting that would direct the camera to edit the exposures to suit a selected type of subject. This kind of camera pre-editing applies directly to what the camera micro-computer outputs in JPEG format, or if Raw is selected that Raw image file data is accompanied by metadata files that describe the editing the Raw data should receive as part of conversion to a standard image file format like TIFF. But among the selections of different Picture Styles a user can also select Natural that applies no sharpening, contrast, saturation or color balance adjustments to the Raw data and the user gets just what the sensor records and A/D outputs. Many times I have suggested dSLR users should try shooting with a “natural” Raw output and see how that Raw image actually appears displayed by an application like Photoshop. None of these correspondents have replied that they have done what I suggested. And I know of only two colleagues who set up and shoot to get unadjusted Natural Raw image files. In fact most photographers apparently use 3rd party software to convert even though only the camera manufacturer software can actually read the copyrighted metadata. So most photographers only obtain a simulation of what the metadata contains in image attribute adjustments.

CHIPS OF CHANGE, TIME DEMANDS THE FUTURE

2011-02-24T14:45:00.001-08:00

A newborn child in Egypt was recently given the name Facebook. In the last few weeks, not to mention last year in Iran, there have been popular expressions of unrest. If there were no cell-phones, no internet , no TV, even radio, would the changes we have read about in the news these last few weeks and months seen on TV have occurred as they have? But the news of the world is not my beat, however what is new and how that technology changes our interest and involvement in photography does concern me and will affect everyone’s interest in photography at least slightly or maybe a lot. Every day I read the technology news of the day and it paints a very different scheme of things compared to what was familiar last year,the year before and would have been unrecognizable and unimagined before the year 2000.

The clock ticks and now it seems to be reeling off the seconds, minutes and hours full of things that make today a different world from yesterday. A very long time ago I was just beginning in photography barely knowing what I was doing. But I did learn little by little and realized you have to know and understand the tools you are working with if you want to have any control over what they produce, whether the image you make is a success or a mistake. Maybe I concentrated too much on how it works and how to use a camera and the photographic process, because today I am not known for the images I have created but for my understanding of the process. But that too may be the result of my own choices going after the challenges I was best suited to meet.

These days I am kept busy helping others stay ahead of the game, and as fast as new technologies emerge and are spread around the world now, more and more photography enthusiasts are being overwhelmed in dealing with the tools and processes before the next upgrade and the last has left them little room to maneuver. Just looking at all of the details, news about yet another version of the iPad or iPhone or a tablet from HP and a new Amazon movie internet service may seem overwhelming, and it is even to someone with years of gathering information like myself. But what keeps me grounded and able to deal with it is the fact that the core processes of photographic reproduction remain intact, the new technologies are really just refinements and embellishments that if fit into place have made it all easier. I would not trade my computer for a wet darkroom of the last century, no way, no how, for any price.

But if for some reason I wanted to resurrect my old darkroom and do photography as I did 20 years ago, the challenges involved in doing so today would be enormous, and the costs unaffordable. Making the clock stop running and going back to the past has an emotional appeal, but the comforts it afforded 20 years ago would be gone because almost every tool and supply you would need would be hard to find if available at all, so whatever comfort you remember from those old days would be replaced with a myriad of irritations and frustrations. For the very few meeting such challenges has its own rewards, and I give much credit and admiration to those who devote themselves to preserving and keeping the past alive. But I don’t think most of us are cut out to be antiquarians, and I for one am too curious natured to not be fascinated by what the next day will bring and what new world the imaginative has waiting for us to explore.

If there is a conflict between the fast moving future and the past, it may be interesting to consider and understand, but there are bridges between the past and future, and they aren’t always recognized and valued. In the last decade or so, I have been receiving and answering mail from Shutterbug readers, and a very large number are from older photographers, some just about to become a part of the senior society, and many already there. A very large number of these readers apparently recognize some distinct digital photography advantages that the format offers, easy storage and duplication so the images they have from their past can be duplicated inexpensively and easily and conveniently shared with relatives and friends. In other words one of the more frequent subjects on reader’s minds is scanning their old slides and negatives as well as prints, so they can easily be stored, reproduced and shared with others. Interestingly, this interest involves one of the universal human values people have in family, which is common to almost every ethnicity and culture in this world. In other words a basic human value overrides the difference between new technology and the past, and allows the past to have a renewed life as part of our history of our own lives, family, friends as well as the events and places in our and our family.

No matter how different today and the future may seem, there are bridges that connect them with what is important to us from our past.

ONCE OVER LCD DISPLAYS, LIGHTLY

2011-02-15T18:56:00.000-08:00

1. I’m a bit lazy and often asked what LCD display makes and models I recommend. So here they are, all three of them that are under $1000. They all provide a high color range reproducing over 95% of Adobe RGB (1998) colorspace, so you see all of the color in a dSLR Raw image file reproduced in your application, whether iPhoto or Elements, Aperture or Lightroom, Photoshop CS or Corel Paintshop Pro.

The first affordable cost LCD in this category I reviewed is the NEC P221W Spectraview 2, which is a 22 inch LCD display with 1680 x 1050pixel resolution. The report can be read at: http://www.shutterbug.net/equipmentreviews/software_computers/0210nec/index.html

This NEC P221W LCD display has caused some confusion for buyers because the display can be purchased separately for under $400, and some have done that and found they also need the NEC Spectraview software MPN:SVIISOFT SKU#1187988, which is available for just under $100. And if you don’t already have a colorimeter, you may have to add that and the NEC Custom Calibrated Color Sensor for SpectraView II added to the software is called a “kit” that makes the cost of both just under $300. In other words the complete NEC P221W Spectraview II system minimum cost is just short of $700. And there is no way around this because the NEC Spectraview is proprietary it only adjusts, calibrates and profiles successfully using the Spectraview II software and a colorimeter supported by the software (some recent models of the Spyder3 and X-Rite iOne II colorimeters will work successfully with the NEC Spectraview displays and software.

It should be noted that there are other, larger NEC LCD displays in the Spectraview II model lineup, but then with NEC Spectraview Kit included the price is over $1000.

2. The next LCD display with over 95% Adobe RGB color range was an Eizo Flexscan S2243W, that is also a 22 inch display but with the same 1920x1200 resolution as a 24 inch display. I bought one and reported on it in my blog on May 16, 2010 in a post called Seeing The Whole Picture, URL - http://blog.shutterbug.com/davidbrooks/seeing_the_whole_picture/ I purchased my Eizo Flexscan S2242W from a dealer in the region and delivered it was a bit over $800.

Eizo has an exceptional web site with just about every aspect and feature of their displays carefully detailed and illustrated. So rather that regurgitate their comprehensive coverage, please go to http://www.eizo.com/global/products/flexscan/s2243w/index.html

I have used my Eizo Flexscan for many months now and have come to really appreciate its features and performance. It’s a fairly substantial price for a relatively small LCD display, but it works exceedingly well for digital photography editing and processing. So it is definitely worth the investment. In addition I like the fact the Eizo Flexscan can be calibrated and profiled successfully using most of the popular software options and any colorimeter recently produced that will measure a wide display color range. In other words your not tied down to a proprietary software/hardware setup to color manage an Eizo Flexscan. So that may make the price a little less steep in the long run. Although I found I had to upgrade my Spyder3 colorimeter to a newer model to obtain an accurate calibration and profile with the wide color range of the Eizo.

3. My most recent find is a Dell Ultrasharp U2410 LCD display with a wide color range in a 24 inch size that has a list price of just $599. I did a preview report and posted it in my blog on October 17, 2010, go to http://blog.shutterbug.com/davidbrooks/preview_the_dell_ultrasharp_u2410_lcd_display/ A full report is in the process of being prepared for publication in a forthcoming issue of Shutterbug.

In the meantime the Dell web site has detailed information about this display at http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&cs=19&sku=320-8277&baynote_bnrank=1&baynote_irrank=0&~ck=baynoteSearch

Shopping for an LCD display requires some searching on the web for the best source at a reasonable cost. Sometimes large, well known on-line stores like Amazon.com offer favorable prices and reasonable shipping costs. To look further you can try www.pricegrabber.com and lately I have found the shopping section of Google has extensive offerings at a range of prices, http://www.google.com/search?q=LCD+displays&hl=en&tbs=shop%3A1&aq=f, and some of the pro-graphics makes and models from NEC and Eizo also provide a list of their dealers on their web sites.Search Amazon.com for Eizo S2243W

IS TODAY BACK TO THE FUTURE

2011-02-07T19:32:00.000-08:00

The other day I received an e-mail press news release about a new handheld light meter. I had not seen any news of handheld light meters in some time, so of course I read it. In style and content it was much like what I probably read twenty years ago. But what struck me strangely, now that virtually all cameras are digital, is the fact a digital camera is really just a light measuring device that records the light readings of millions of pixel sites and records them in an image file. Of course that does not preclude the value of a narrow angle spot or an incident light meter, they are useful in measuring the light on and from a subject to make an informed decision on making a photographic exposure with digital or on film.

Soon thereafter I received a reader e-mail about a high-end digital P&S camera, so I looked at the manufacturer specifications and documentation, and strangely there was lots of detailed data about the camera but no indication whether a Raw saved file was in sRGB or Adobe RGB colorspace. In fact the information about the camera although extensive could almost be as if it were a film camera of a couple of decades ago.

My curiosity was piqued, so I rifled through a stack of recent photo publications to get the feel of what the writing was about. Yes it was about photography, but again other than articles specifically about software, what was being discussed were photographs, pictures and for that matter whether the original was a digital camera exposure or an image exposed on film seemed to be of little concern. In other words much of photography todays seems to ignore whether the image is stored physically on film or is just a computer file of RGB/XY measurement values.

Is there anything wrong with treating all photography the same whether digitally derived or made using film? No, not really although assuming they are the same, and ignoring we are in a digital age can result in serious technical problems and consequences. Regardless the media used, to ignore its nature seems like a dangerous way to work and function. But for photographers who have recently decided to convert from analogue to digital, if digital seems like just another kind of the same photography, old thinking will make it seem comfortable. At least until you have a technical challenge or problem to solve.

I recall about a decade or so ago around the change of the century, there were many boldly designed new digital cameras on the market trying to capture photographers interest. Some of them had really appealing features. Even so, apparently they did not sell very well, because today there aren’t any boldly futuristic camera designs, but multitudes of digital camera models that all look like film cameras popular in the past. Obviously photographers and even novices want a digital camera that looks familiar, the way cameras have for much of the last half century. I was reminded of this by a comic strip inspired movie made in 2004. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, with Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Angelina Jolie set in a make believe, futuristic 1940’s, with Paltrow playing a newspaper reporter with a camera, it was an Argus C3. Cameras in movies always have to be familiar looking!

Photography has been a significant part of our cultural history for over a century. Still photography published in newspapers and magazines played a large role in picturing our country’s story through three major wars, and a host of other events caught on film. So how photography is thought of by almost everyone is common knowledge that is not easily changed in philosophy and meaning by new technology. It should not be surprising that the newest digital cameras, look like cameras we have long found familiar sights. If they looked different would they be recognized for what they are and be purchased so readily?

We live in both the present and our past. But getting lost in the past sometimes makes the present a difficult puzzle to solve, so don’t go missing back in the future, its science fiction and surely not real.

COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ARE GOOD FOR EVERYONE

2011-01-29T13:59:00.000-08:00

I posted a Blog on December 16, 2010 titled What Is Display Calibration & Profiling? There were a number of comments posted and several were questions. So I asked our blog expert if there was any practical way for me to obtain copies of the comments and the address of the comment source. The answer was no.

So in this case I think the comments deserve their own blog, which will follow. However I want readers to have an opportunity to have their comment response or questions answered. So if you want the same thing then: COPY YOUR COMMENT INTO AN E-MAIL MESSAGE AND SEND IT TO DAVID B. BROOKS AT goofotografx@gmail.com. I will respond immediately.

COMMENTS:

Posted Fri Dec17, 2010, 1:29 PM — By Spyder3 Elite-Version 4

David, I have an 24 inch LG monitor and the Spyder2 colorimeter. Can I upgrade to a Version 4 or do I need to purchase a whole new Spyder3? Thank you Bert www.berthoferichter.com

Answer: Posted Thu Dec23, 2010, 7:00 PM — By David B. Brooks

Bert, If your 24 inch LG LCD display is a home/office model, then very likely the Spyder2 will work OK to calibrate and profile. David

Posted Tue Dec21, 2010, 3:22 PM — By DJ

I am glad you posted this...just starting to learn about calibration. Got a new computer & plan to do this for my monitor ASAP!

Answer: If you do digital photography an accurate adjustment, calibration and profiling of a display is essential. Many applications like Adobe’s, Corel’s, Apple’s are color managed so they depend on an accurate profile to display digital photos accurately.

Posted Wed Dec29, 2010, 11:41 AM — By ornanophy

Hi: I've been watching blog.shutterbug.com as being a lurker for some time now. I thought that I need to get involved and communicate with the individuals here. I'm hoping to connect with plenty of insightful people and discover some very good stuff. Hopefully this message is not in an inappropriate section. I am sorry if "Digital Camera Wish List" is unsuitable. - JAMAR MCDONALD Nuclear Fuels Research Engineer

Answer: Unfortunately the shutterbug Forum has not had much support. Personally I think it is because the magazine’s writers do not participate. Anyway my Digital Help function does require me to often continue extended e-mail conversations with interested readers. So be my guest, you are invited.

Posted Wed Dec29, 2010, 7:31 PM — By Diedrik Müller

I like the no-nonsence calibration of the NEC spectraview and the Spyder3 Express as reviewed in Shutterbug. What would you recommend me to buy: the NEC Spectraview or Flexscan with Spyder3 Express? I like the higher resolution of the FlexScan.

Answer: Sadly, although the Spyder3 Express is inexpensive the software will not measure White Luminance so the display cannot be adjusted for brightness. You have to have the Spyder3 Elite to get that capability. I personally own and use an Eizo Flexscan S2242W, and enjoy its excellent performance. I did not purchase a NEC Spectraview II for myself because it is proprietary. In other words exclusive, the Spectraview II display will not work with any other software but NEC’s Spectraview models, and Spectraview will not work with any other brand of LCD display. For me that is too limiting.

Posted Wed Jan12, 2011, 2:59 PM — By Jerry

Have just acquired a new Mac Mini and the Dell U2410 monitor. I calibrated using the Spyder3 Express with no problem. My question is how do I go about calibrating the monitor brightness to the 90 CD/m2 with this combination? Will really appreciate your help, thank you, Jerry

Answer: Jerry, you have a great hardware combination, the Mac Mini, a Dell Ultrasharp U2410 LCD display and a Spyder3 colorimeter. The one thing you need to add is software to go with your Spyder3 colorimeter to do the adjustment, calibration and profiling. What I use that provides superb performance is the ColorEyes Display Pro software from www.integrated-color.com. Expensive but worth it.

For comment responses and questions answered, send comments to David B. Brooks at goofotografx@gmail.com

CES 2011 EVEN MORE BELLS & WHISTLES, OR?

2011-01-15T11:24:00.001-08:00

Each year starts off these times with the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas the city of sad faces. Last year even CES was sad faces feeling the aftermath of recession and no one buying much of anything. But in 2011 after Apple dropped some bombs of super sales of iPhones and their new iPad, the rest of the flock was flapping their wings to catch up. But new 3D and what have you TV’s were still languishing, maybe everyone who can afford a big flat-screen TV already has one, and with TV getting worse every year with dumber and dumber ridicule and more ads....

So other than gadgets and gimmicks what else electronic is there? Computers, you know those boxes that compute things much faster than a human mind and hands. Yes, where would we photographers be without the computers that calculate the thousands of complex optical formulas that have made zoom lenses function efficiently and accurately, with systems that calculate the motion of a camera and correct for it. The makers of the chips that do the calculation, the main processor in a computer, Intel and AMD had some very interesting news, Now after so many years, besides processors that compute they are now going to put graphics support functions in their main processors. I guess they cannot make them faster and better at computing to a degree anyone buying would notice or care, so why not something new, graphics processing? Well at least it serves me an advantage, regarding all of the computer geeks that give me a bad time because Apple Macs don’t have the biggest, fastest computer processors may now realize they have not made all that much difference to digital photography because there is little computation needed to process images, just graphic support and a wide data transfer bandwidth, and of course oodles of RAM.

Anyway Intel is calling this new graphics support processor family Sandy Bridge, and AMD is using the name Fusion. To describe how they are alike I’ll quote Mathew Murray of PC Magazine, “Both Fusion and Sandy Bridge chips represent a major new way of looking at the role of the processor within a computer. Previously, the individual elements—the CPU itself, the graphics controller, the memory controller, and so on—were all separate. This required lengthy communication between the various systems, which slowed down how fast the processor could do its work. Now, AMD and Intel are bringing the various subsystems together, on the same processing die (hence AMD's name, "Fusion"). This means that on-board graphics will now become more ubiquitous and powerful than they've ever been (though power users will still want to have discrete cards), but the everyday benefits are perhaps even more impressive. This makes passing information between them easier and quicker, which boosts performance in almost every application; it also requires less power, which translates to cheaper electricity bills and longer laptop battery life.”

Already the Apple rumor-ologists are telling us Macs will soon be appearing with Sandy Bridge processors. That’s a logical because so much of Apple Mac computer business is used by high-end graphics creators, just about every magazine you read is produced by Apple Macs. With PC’s, users will have to really look at what each of a jillion makers are actually implementing on their motherboards relative to Sandy Bridge or Fusion processors. Are they really advantaging the new processor graphics support considering most PC’s are designed for business use and not graphics production? Who knows, and I am not about to investigate the speciousness of specs on different PC’s; but I am sure some will.

CES 2011 EVEN MORE BELLS & WHISTLES, OR?

2011-01-15T09:15:00.000-08:00

Already the Apple rumor-ologists are telling us Macs will soon be appearing with Sandy Bridge processors. That’s a logical because so much of Apple Mac computer business is used by high-end graphics creators, just about every magazine you read is produced by Apple Macs. With PC’s, users will have to really look at what each of a jillion makers are actually implementing on their motherboards relative to Sandy Bridge or Fusion processors. Are they really advantaging the new processor graphics support considering most PC’s are designed for business use and not graphics production? Who knows,CES20 I am not about to investigate the speciousness of specs on different PC’s; but I am sure some will.

NOT UNDER THE TREE?

2011-01-03T18:32:00.000-08:00

The holiday season this time provided me with some time to concentrate on personal photographs that have been on my mind, but only as ideas. This year I have not had any article projects pending or new products to investigate, so once in a very long time I am doing my own thing. And that has been digging out old film images and making new scans. The goal is to approach the image in ways that correct for weaknesses and frustrations in what the photo was as a film image. Primarily it is much more than just physically scanning the film, but rethinking the image, applying a different sensitivity to what it is, and hopefully producing something both different and the same, but better than the picture I first saw in the viewfinder, and then as an image on film. The final step in this process is to make a test print to see if my on-screen editing actually results in a print that matches my expectations.

Although some of my readers reveal what papers they use in the course of what they are doing when they ask for an answer to a question, inkjet printing paper never seems to be more than a whatever concern. Usually the long lasting cotton fiber papers which respond well to pigment inks are rarely referenced, and one Epson paper, PremierArt Matte Scrapbook Photo Paper doesn’t seem to be known. Yet in a reasonable 205gsm weight for letter size, it is probably the best consumer paper available and at a reasonable cost. I thought it had disappeared but just recently I ordered and received a couple of packages of 8.5x11 inch from the Epson store (it is also available in 12x12 inch size). This Epson Scrapbook paper really is a hot press natural (no brighteners), smooth, firm finished matte paper that is also of the kind used by fine arts photographers in larger sizes. So it is an ideal test paper if images are being made for the best possible reproduction. If you use an Epson photo inkjet paper, the Premium Presentation Paper setting and its printer profile works very effectively with the Epson PremierArt Scrapbook paper.

So why not spend a few bucks and try it and if you like the prints, what do you get that is the same for larger than letter-size prints?

If you decide you like this paper, and I believe you should, what can you get like it in larger sizes? The company is Premier Imaging Products. The Premier product name is Smooth Hot Press Fine Art Paper, and it comes in four different weights, 205, 270, 325 and 500gsm. The 270gsm would be just right for 13x19 inch prints, but unlike the Epson Scrapbook and Hot Press 205gsm, it does not have both side printing surfaces. It is described by Premier as, “the best paper for prints that require Museum Grade quality, especially when Image Permanence is the critical factor.” Its features are, “100% cotton, acid and lignin free, alkaline buffered, OBA free, hot press surface, moulde made, high D-max, and exceptional print quality.”

Where can one find this Premier Imaging Smooth Hot Press Fine Art paper? One source I have used is www.inkjetart.com, and another that is well known is Adorama, www.inkjetart.com. But first try the Scrapbook version that is available from the Epson store, http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/ProductMediaSpec.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&infoType=Overview&oid=-12346&category=Paper%20&%20Media/ its just a dollar a sheet for the best paper they have for consumers.

WHAT IS DISPLAY CALIBRATION AND PROFILING?

2010-12-16T15:38:00.000-08:00

It is what you see on-screen that allows you to perceptually adjust and change a digital photograph. I have said what I believe to be true, if you can’t see it, you cannot control it. So I have thought of all things computer, the display is the most important part for digital photographers. However, some think I make too much of it, but then the display gets me more questions in my mail than any other subject.

Some of those questions of late have me wondering what worse related to the color management of a computer display than misunderstanding terms like calibrate and profile. So let’s begin with what comes in a box that contains a new LCD display. It is much like a new car from a factory delivered to a dealer. Before that car can be sold and put in the hands of a new owner, it must be prepared by the dealer’s mechanics, it needs among other things its first tune-up. In other words many products out of the box from the manufacturer are within production allowed tolerances. But is that enough for them to run efficiently and effectively for the user. All mass production makes items that vary from ideal specifications a little. So to get the best they can offer in performance, adjusting them to that ideal is a significant advantage in the accuracy of what the product does.

LCD display calibration is done with one of several brands of display products that includes a measurement instrument, a colorimeter, or what some call a “puck”. This device in use sits on the front surface of a display and reads the color values of the target samples the software that comes with the colorimeter generates. And, those colors are the values as defined by the ICC, the International Color Consortium; in other words the internationally accepted standards for computer color.

All display color management products that are on the market that have a colorimeter and software do two basic things, produce a calibration file that is part of the computers boot-up procedure; and it also produces a detailed color profile file that describes the displays color reproduction over a wide range of color differences within the visible spectrum. In addition some display color management software products also provide a measurement and display of the display’s white luminance, how bright the display is adjusted to reproduce white.

The calibration executable file and the profile file are two different kinds of files in two different locations in your operating system. The calibration file contains the basic variations from the ICC standards so the display is then adjusted through the computer’s video card to conform to the ICC standard color performance. The calibration file is an executable file that is placed in the computer’s start-up folder and adjusts the color performance of the display every time the computer is started and booted-up to run the operating system.

Each display has its own unique color reproduction characteristics in addition to the basics defined by calibration. These are measured in detail by the colorimeter reading a large number of color target patches reproduced by the display profiling software from the colors defined by the ICC standard, and any differences the display reproduces are noted in the profile file produced. In other words the profile file created by display color management software is a description of how much the display being measured varies from each color in the ICC standard. So, it is a color description of that display’s color reproduction performance.

What does calibration and profiling do for the photographer using a computer? First, without calibration and profiling a computer is blind to the pictures it is reproducing on-screen even though it knows the RGB values in the file being reproduced, but it does not know how they look on-screen. The result is then if you use any image editing software that is color managed, like all Adobe versions of Photoshop, LightRoom as well as iPhoto or Aperture on an Apple Mac, or even PaintShop Pro from Corel for a PC, the application does not know what you are seeing on screen without calibration and display profiling. Nor does one of those applications know what color values are in the image files that are sent to a printer for reproduction. In other words without display calibration and profiling everyone is color-blind, you and your computer, to the images being reproduced and used. Likewise, if the profile of the workspace, like sRGB or Adobe RGB are not imbedded in saved files sent to anyone else, like a print service then the recipient is blind to the color in the image file received. The result is color reproduction digitally then becomes nothing more than a guessing game.

Wouldn’t you rather know what you are doing, and seeing the real color values of your photograph on-screen?

MY DREAM CAMERA

2010-12-02T10:42:00.000-08:00

Most of the dream cameras I have read about concentrate on mechanical attributes of the camera itself. Actually in that vein, I want something very practical, not dreamy.These days of course digital and with a large image sensor, but not quite fill-frame. A 3:4 aspect ratio would suite me better. As for a lens, I would be happy with a modest, fixed (not interchangeable) modest speed zoom with a focal length range equivalent to a 35mm camera a 24 to 150mm range, but with a true macro focus capability at about the equivalence of 80mm. Auto-focus is now quite reliable, so my desire would be to have an efficient and comfortable zoom, optical viewfinder. And even an LCD viewer on the back of the camera I find is not needed if it is replaced with a plug in 7 inch tablet screen. Of course this plug-in screen should be made with a built in folding shade, and has its own separate battery power.

What would make the camera a dream in my view is that the camera controls are user selectable rather than the camera company designed over automated and autocratic regimen. Let the user acquire an application to control the camera in the same way a computer user can select an application to run on a computer.

My understanding is that a film scanner and a digital camera are very much alike. But the design of the senor in a scanner is in a linear arrangement so fewer sensor sites are needed and function repeatedly as they pass by the film surface. While a camera has more sensors arranged in a plane on a chip that are all exposed at the same time. The data received by a scanner and a camera is essentially the same, a raw file of measurements by the sensor sites that form a pixel image. So why can’t a camera then be arranged in the same way a scanner is in the way the image is managed?

You or I can get an application that will open a Raw natural file that we can adjust, color correct and edit to a finished image ready to print. So why can’t we do that with a dSLR camera? We can get Apps for doing almost anything with an iPhone or an iPad, but not for a digital camera. Cameras are closed systems with the manufacturer in complete control. So shouldn’t they be open?

I would like to be able to make a preview exposure, adjust, color correct and edit it and then use all of that to make a finished photo file directly with my camera. It should be possible and just as easy to do as making a finished image file with a scanner. That is what would complete my Dream Camera. What we have now is inefficient and wastes a good part of what a digital camera captures, and it could be much better. But camera makers want to be in control and don’t want you to have any.

UP, DOWN & SIDEWAYS

2010-11-23T15:31:00.000-08:00

I just received one of many statements from photographers that the current digital technology is complex and confusing, so it’s hard to understand. I could assume from that many think digital follows what analog film photography established. But that also assumes that the photographic process was understood as it has been for over a century, but sadly both assumptions are mixed up by many mythical and fantastic ideas and beliefs that have confused many if not most for as long as the 50 some years I’ve been a photographer. And it has not been helped by an industry and technology that now uses terms like resolution, which on film meant how fine the detail was resolved sharply, to its digital meaning that defines the size of an image in pixels.

So let me start at my own beginning. I had an accident my first year in the military (Korea) and asked for a different job, as a photographer. I got it, but no training for it, and was assigned as the only photographer in a large unit, with an office, darkroom and a camera. I had no choice, I had to learn how to do the job on my own. I had been reading a lot about photography as there was little else to do where I was stationed if you didn’t drink or gamble, and I found both boring. And fortunately all of the instruction books that came with the equipment in my office and photo lab were neatly filed, so I had a guide. And I was there to do records of accidents, so for long periods I had nothing else to do but practice photography. My camera was a 4x5, so it was easy to make exposure brackets of all of my test shots, and to develop each sheet individually for different times. So trial and error taught me how to get the results I needed. It worked as I recently scanned some B&W film from my service days and they fit into an article I published in Shutterbug nicely.

After 4 years of service and practicing how to photograph I was discharged and went home with the GI Bill to go to school to study photography and everything associated. My first year was as at a local university so I could spend some time with my mother. But then I came down to California and a photography school where I learned I would just continue to do what I had been up to, learning photography by doing it. But, now I had instructors and expert evaluations of what I was doing, plus new instruments to measure my results, a densitometer. Later on densitometry became popular as the Ansel Adams Zone System, but I never understood why the Zone System was popular and densitometry was thought to be so difficult. Anyway, my training confirmed what I had begun with. You obtain control of how to photograph by learning the process and how the tools like lenses, shutter/aperture, light meters and densitometers provide an understanding of how a subject is reproduced in an image on film and then paper.

You have to experiment with variations, and record what you did, and it will be the errors that will tell you what method to use. As I got to use all kinds of cameras, lenses and films as well as processes as a photo magazine staffer, I learned the tools that really make a difference are those that measure the subject and the film result. So I acquired the best densitometer I could get and also the best light meter, which at the time was the first Minolta 1 degree spot meter. I also learned from a great fine art photographer, Oliver Galliani, that a test reference step-tablet made with precise filters and illuminated from behind provided a longer range of values and more precise test results. So I experienced ever better control over what I was doing, and whether with camera X, Y, or Z, I could obtain pretty much the same predictable results. In other words, if you know the photographic process, know and have control of what the tools do, you have what is needed to get the images you make with just about any camera.

With film there were always unpredictable variables, like one emulsion batch differed from the next, each processing differed some from another because of replenishment and age of the chemistry. This is what I refer to as sideways variation. It can be limited by buying very large quantities of film and keeping the supply in cold storage until used. Processing variation can also be limited I found by using a chemical concentrate, diluting it for use, and then discarding it afterwards. With digital you have the advantage that sideways variation is almost eliminated. The ups and downs of exposure control to match it with subject variation is within what the camera records by varying the range that is recorded with internal camera controls. And all this can be further refined with software after the image is recorded in a file. Although the cameras and lenses look like those used with film, there is nothing comparable between a digital image, which is just pure information that can be changed easily and a film image which is locked into a prison of physical existence.

IN-HOUSE WINTER DIGITAL CREATIVITY

2010-11-15T15:21:00.000-08:00

Usually I do not write about things I read in others writing I receive in RSS feeds. But a blooming new creativity interest using flatbed scanners is something I could not resist. It is called scanography, using a flatbed scanner as if it were a digital camera to take digital pictures of 3D objects. So considering a lot of photographers have flatbed scanners these days, how about getting more use out of it to create photographs when it is too cold and nasty to go and shoot your camera outdoors? You can easily take a look at what others are doing with their scanners by visiting a web site all about it at: http://www.scannography.org. In this new web site you will find there is a Scannography.org .PDF file you can download that provides a detailed look at the work of many people using scanners as cameras with lots of fascinating examples of their images.

Besides being an attractive use of a flatbed scanner to get more out of the hardware than the usual, of course I had to try scanography myself. I searched around my place for likely stuff to scan with my Epson Perfection V500, and then sat down with the scanner and began to make some scans of 3D objects. Previewing and then adjusting the scan was about the same as it would be for flat prints, so I made some scans. Technically they were OK, but creatively just scanning objects doesn’t produce an interesting picture. Later that day while out shopping I noticed the store was already selling Christmas decorations and lighting, so I bought a set of multi-colored LED lights. Back in my lab with the scanner I bunched the LED lights up in a tight package and then moved them back and forth from one side of the scan platen to the other as the scanner progressed to make a scan. The result was encouraging, and after a little Photoshopping it was an abstract worth pursuing if I had the time to experiment more.

Of course scanners make exposures differently than the single shots of a digital camera, so with this in mind what you can do knowing a moving subject will distort as its being scanned is just one of the options you can employ to obtain differing image affects. In a way I wish I had the leisure to play with scanography more to see what else I could come up with creatively. But all I can do is suggest it has great potential and the many images on the scenography.org web site should be encouraging. I would have liked to try the scanner’s transparent mode, but there is an interlock that prevents the scanner running without the lid in place, so that possibility was not investigated. Maybe other model flatbeds with film scanning options may be more flexible. It would be interesting what could be done with small LED lights with some objects scanned using the transparent scan mode.

If looking at the scannography web site, as well as reading their PDF document, is as fascinating as I found it, and you try this and get some results, let me know. This could become another interesting facet of digital photography. e-mail me at goofotografx@gmail.com

IS CHANGE AN IMPROVEMENT REVOLUTION?

2010-11-13T15:38:00.000-08:00

Up until now software products have been dominated by elephantine applications like Microsoft Office Suite and Adobe Photoshop. Software companies have made them huge, full of functions and features one individual may never need or want; but to get the essential core you need you have to buy an expensive package. I need some of both of these huge applications but never use more than a fraction of what they contain, and of course have to buy the whole to get just the part I need. This is an advantage to the companies that own these monopolies, but not to the individual users.

At the most recent public Apple event Steve Jobs spoke of the next major Apple Operating System “Lion” upgrade and that it will integrate some of their computer OS 10.X and iPhone/iPad iOS 4.2 functions. That makes obvious practical sense, but what he added to it that the Apple App Store would become open to developers to offer applications for the OS 10.6 computer operating system within the next 90 days is a revolutionary change of the business model for software. Reactions to this news were both welcoming and fearful – what will this new sales structure bring to the future? One place where you can shop for all independent software applications? The iPhone and its competitors as well as the iPad have attracted a huge variety of small modular Apps and has surely been a significant business success for users, developers and Apple of course.

Just recently Apparent Software (http://www.apparentsoft.com/) partnered with other small developers and has offered a bundle of graphics applications, the MacGraPhoto 2 bundle (http://www.macgraphoto.com/) for a fraction of the total cost of all nine applications. Of course my curiosity got the best of me, so I purchased the bundle at $40. It includes:

• Sandvox by Karelia Software - Apple Design Award Winner Website building application

• AtomicView by AntZero - Digital content management

• Posterino 2 - a new release by Zykloid Software - Compose posters from multiple photos

• Sketch - A new vector drawing application by Apple Design Award winner Bohemian Coding

• Swift Publisher by BeLight Software - Page layout application for designing fliers, newsletters, brochures etc.

• Layers by Wuonm - Capture screen as a PSD Layered Image

• Snapshot by LateNiteSoft - Photo-lab on a Mac: Image editing and printing

• ImageFramer 3 by Apparent Software - A brand new re-design of a popular image and photo framing application

• Hydra by Creaceed - Easily create HDR images

• DVD-Library by iSkysoft: Bonus application for building a photographic DVD Library

I immediately downloaded all of the applications, licensed and registered them, but that was just the other day so of course I have not used them all enough to get more than an idea of what I purchased. But already some of these applications have been helpful, and I am sure most will be over time. So I am glad I took advantage of this bundle offer that only lasts until the end of November. But more important, whether intended or not, maybe it is a look into a better future for computer users tomorrow if what Steve Jobs description of what is coming is the reality in the immediate future. Will the new expanded App Store be just for Apple users or will it include applications for all platforms? We will just have to wait and see, but if this is a breakthrough in the establishment model of the past and it becomes popular, anything is possible.

As a precedent for a possible future there is presently a lack of a module application that could be used as the home of different application pieces, plug-ins. There is a standard for plug-ins already and there is little reason many of the small, specialized applications could not be programmed to be plug-ins, So where is the module to plug them into, it sure isn’t the too big, too expensive Photoshop CS5. I have an idea the modular software may be coming, but this not anything I really know, so you’ll have to wait along with me to see if it develops and becomes real. In the meantime you might be amused by the Macalope:

http://www.macworld.com/article/155686/2010/11/macalope_care.html?lsrc=nl_mwnws_h_crawl

LACIE 324i LCD DISPLAY

2010-11-07T12:29:00.000-08:00

For too long there have been few LCD displays available that fully support a digital photographic color managed workflow. Now LaCie has added another, their 324i with desirable specifications in a P-IPS 10-bit 24 inch LCD display. The screen image should be sharp and detailed too with a 1920x1200 pixel resolution. Most important of course is its color range that is specified at 98% of Adobe RGB. But these days with ultra-lite and flimsy un-adjustable home-office LCD displays in the box stores, the LaCie 324i has a solid, full-featured stand and supports portrait orientation. Like any good, current LCD display the LaCie has a wide range of input connector options like Display Port, DVI and HDMI.

Other important advantages include the display’s support for on-board calibration adjustment, and as La Cie has done in the past, professional options include a hood made and designed for the display as well as La Cie’s own Blue Eye calibration and profiling software and colorimeter. Unlike some professional LCD displays, the LaCie displays are not limited to their own software and colorimeter, either X-Rite, DataColor or ColorEyes Display Pro will work effectively if a buyer already has them. But with such a wide color gamut the La Cie will need a current type-2 colorimeter that can accurately read a wide color range.

I don’t plan to test and do a full report on this new La Cie 324i LCD display, but I have tested and found La Cie displays are exceptional, and bought one for my own use five or six years ago and it is still providing fine performance. My only reason for just doing this brief report is the La Cie is on the high side of the price range at $1249. A very complete description and all specification for the 324i is on the La Cie web site at: http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?pid=11570

YES, YOU CAN CUSTOM PROFILE YOUR PRINTER

2010-11-03T12:58:00.000-07:00

Many of you have mentioned printer profiles as a part of your digital photo workflow. Sometimes it is a problem that you find you have to work around. And most of you have a computer with a calibrated and profiled display, as well as often one of the many flatbed scanners I have reported on in recent years. You may even have Lasersoft Silverfast software to run your scanner. That’s all to the positive side towards getting a way to profile your printer, you are part way there already. That includes the Epson Perfection photo scanners, the Canon Canoscan photo scanners and all the recent Microtek photo scanners as well as the Artixscan M1.

That’s right Lasersoft SilverFast scanner software for all kinds of flatbed scanners can be upgraded to a SilverFast Ai IT8 version with Printer Calibration. I covered this briefly as part of my test and report on the Epson Perfection V500 flatbed scanner. I purchased that scanner, so now I upgraded the SilverFast Ai IT8 Printer Calibration software to the latest version and did some more printer (Epson R1900) calibrations and profiled with Premier Watercolor and Hot Press Fine Art papers - and then lots of prints to test the results. The Pinter Calibration is really quick and easy to do as the instructions in a Acrobat .PDF file on the SilverFast web site are simple to follow. And you get a lot more than just printer profiling with the software, as the IT8 version provides the ability to custom profile your scanner, which you can extend to film scanning by getting a 35mm IT8 target slide.

Because I really don’t have the room to detail and explain all the instructions, and Lasersoft’s are very good, I’ll just list the web site addresses below:

For basic information about Printer Calibration:

http://www.silverfast.com/highlights/printer-calibration/en.html

For Instructions on how to use Printer Calibration:

http://www.silverfast.com/showdocu/en.html?docu=1136

For the full details on Printer Calibration:

http://www.silverfast.com/show/printer-calibration-information/en.html

If you do not have any Lasersoft SilverFast software for your scanner, the Silverfast Ai IT8 Printer Calibration version will provide the best and most effective scanner driver for your flatbed supporting both reflective and if the scanner has it, film scanning control and scan editing, with IT8 scanner calibration and profiling as well as Printer Calibration. For most of the scanners I have reviewed and some others too, the list cost of the software is $317.00 to get all the capabilities in a new package. For those who have a version of SilverFast for your flatbed scanner, the upgrade cost varies, so you will have to check into it. Many readers have remarked the silverfast.com web site is complicated. Yes there is a lot on it, but once you log on, just goto the “Products” tab and then to Scanners. To get the specifics for any make and model flatbed scanner, click on the brand and the model and a box of all the details will appear at the bottom of the page, including features, versions of SilverFast and their cost for a new purchase or an upgrade.

It is not cheap, but SilverFast is good and much easier to use and more efficient than Photoshop. So don’t be afraid to learn new software. Once you have you will appreciate the advantages. Personally, I just wish Adobe would learn something from Lasersoft or better still SilverFast would become a full replacement of Photoshop. For me proof of that is something from Lasersoft that is worth adding to the package. Lasersoft has a SilverFast Print Tao printing utility that’s so much easier and efficient to make color managed prints with compared to Photoshop. On silverfast.com just go to the Printer Software tab, there is all the information you’ll need to be convinced at $49 SilverFast Print Tao is a wonder.

ARE YOU SHOOTING HISTORY?

2010-11-01T19:27:00.000-07:00

When I am not doing something for a column, article or testing equipment and software, I relax at night watching movies and some occasional TV dramas. The most recent I found fascinating because it was about photographs, but thankfully there was not a badly cast photographer role in the piece. Nothing like the famous Michelangelo Antonioni blow-up with David Hemmings, Sarah Miles and Vanessa Redgrave, which I am sure inspired many to become photographers, sadly. This is another British drama that is about photographs, not people who make photographs or who model for photographs. It is a 3 part BBC Masterpiece Drama called Shooting The Past. And it s really about a huge collection of photographs whose future is in doubt and the mystery of the story.

Like so many great British dramas it is cast with characters that are anything but stereotypes and play out a fascinating story about a library of photographs housed in an old mansion that is threatened by a "corporate" takeover. It’s entertaining and kept me interested and involved for three enjoyable hours. But Shooting The Past also made me think you and the many photographers who read Shutterbug may be doing more than entertaining yourselves with a fascinating hobby. What you produce may become important to history. It makes me think how many things I have photographed no longer exist or have been changed significantly during my lifetime. Will they become important to history? You can't predict that or the future, but you can add something more than self-interest as a reason for every time you press the shutter button of your camera. If for no other reason, experiencing Shooting The Past will provide a good ploy to answer anyone questioning your interest and activity as a photographer - maybe you’re contributing to the documentation of our history.

Shooting The Past is available to purchase from BBC America at this web URL:

http://www.bbcamericashop.com/dvd/shooting-the-past-13840.html?gclid=CLHL1_nJgKUCFRBzgwodxWG4ig I rented the DVD's from NetFlix, and I am sure other sources for obtaining video programming also have this BBC production on DVD or for a download.

PREVIEW: THE DELL ULTRASHARP U2410 LCD DISPLAY

2010-10-17T19:08:00.000-07:00

A Shutterbug reader, Tracy Valleau, e-mailed me suggesting I take a look at the Dell Ultrasharp U2410 LCD display. I did and found it to be one I can recommend for digital photography. I purchased one to test and for my own personal use. This Dell U2410 is a 24 inch widescreen LCD display with 1920x1200 pixel resolution. What makes it suited to digital photography and professional graphics is its wide color gamut of 96% of Adobe RGB and its white luminance is adjustable to 80-90.0 CD/m2 providing a high reproduction screen image quality. Its 12-bit internal processing assures a smooth rendition of tones on-screen that’s in a bezel and stand that is sturdy but light with an excellent design that’s carefully manufactured. In all respects this Dell Ultrasharp U2410 is much more affordable at a list price of $599 while entirely competitive with more expensive brands favored for a color managed digital photography workflow.

In addition the connectivity support includes a full range of connectors from traditional D-sub, two DVI, an HDMI and Display Port, and also includes a powered USB hub and media card reader. Equally significant the Dell U2410 can be adjusted, calibrated and profiled using all the popular systems including ColorEyes Display Pro (www.integrated-color.com), DataColor Spyder3 Elite (www.datacolor.com), or X-Rite iOne Display 2 (www.xrite.com). However, if a user has a profiling colorimeter and software over a year old they may need to upgrade the hardware to a colorimeter that has a wide band width that will read the 96% Adobe RGB color reproduced by the U2410 LCD display. As part of the fine design of the U2410, Dell has positioned the adjustment control button on the vertical bezel at the lower-right corner and it has an on-screen control dialog that is adjacent to the control buttons. This makes the entire adjustment procedure with a color management application on-screen, accessible at all times and very easy to read and manipulate to set the U2410 up for digital photography work. Some of my readers have complained that at a brightness with the white luminance at 90.0 CD/m2, their screen is darker than they would like when used for other than photography computing. With the handy access to the controls and on-screen readout adjacent to it, a user should set the top control to Adobe RGB for photographic work, and then could switch to another mode for a brighter setup for home/office computing very easily.

WORKING WITH THE DELL ULTRASHARP U2410

From the moment after the Dell box with the U2410 arrived, the installation and setup was a gentle breeze. But then I’ve done this bit how many times? Regardless it should be easy even for the inexperienced. I already had a DVI cable connected to the Display Port adapter Apple supplied with my computer, so it was quick connecting the power, the video to a year old Mac Mini, and USB as well. I booted up, and found the display worked fine reproducing the desktop I had been using with my Mini, so I left it running to warm up the U2410 thoroughly while having lunch. After that respite, I quickly re-booted and was set to use the ColorEyes Display Pro with a new Spyder3 colorimeter I had gotten a few months ago (I now have two, an old sRGB Spyder3 I now use with my office computer and LCD HD TV).

After using the top control button and setting the Dell to run in Adobe RGB mode, adjusting to obtain a 90.0 CD/m2 white luminance readout with ColorEyes, was really simple, just moving the Contrast % lower until the ColorEyes readout went a bit below 90.0 CD/m2 (Brightness adjustment was at 50% and not adjusted). Then I clicked on ColorEyes’ Profile button with my aim points set at gamma 2.2 and a color temperature of 6500K, and the U2410 was calibrated and profiled in just a few minutes. The resulting screen appearance looked even and clean and not as dark as some might expect at less than half the white luminance many who leave the settings at default would find. In fact my environment lighting for the desk the U2410 lives on, is a Fobsun 90 LED Downlight I wrote about in my Blog not long ago. It is mounted on an old Century stand with an arm that holds the Fobsun LED about a foot above and six inches behind the U2410, and the lamp is turned to shine down and back on a wall 3 feet behind the display. The result is plenty of illumination for the desktop ideally balanced in brightness and color with the display.

This was all done almost a month ago, and since, I have used the Dell Ultrasharp U2410 to edit and process a large digital camera shoot, scan dozens of slides, E-6 and Kodachromes, as well as negatives. Each image was fully color corrected, adjusted and edited including cleanup and retouching, and I even took a spell to build a layered composite image from two slide scans in Photoshop. Working with the Dell U2410 almost every day for a month I was fully assured by the experience, if I had no other display available I would be quite happy and satisfied. The Dell Ultrasharp U2410 LCD display has all the essential qualities needed for color managed digital photography computing and provides very good print matching between the screen image and an Epson R1900 13x19 print on fine art paper. My conclusion has to be nothing less than exuberant that there is finally an affordable, full 24 inch LCD display that fully meets the needs of photographers in all dimensions of performance.

VISTA BLUES STILL PLAYING

2010-10-15T16:57:00.000-07:00

In just a few days after the November Shutterbug hit the streets, I have received 3 questions reacting to the following comment I made in Digital Help, "That you are working with Microsoft Vista, considering it does not support using a color managed display, is also curious." This is not the first time I have said as much about Microsoft Windows Vista since I first reported on the operating system in 2007.

From my own text of the report on Vista, "But that does not mean that all is well for photographers using Microsoft Windows Vista as there is at least one bug that although not deadly will be a daily annoyance, I can confirm from experience. This was brought to light by Steve Upton, President of Chromix in a newsletter published on February 14 I mentioned up front, in an article titled “Vista’s new Color Management System: WCS”. This article is quite thorough and detailed although demands some reader technical savvy, and may be accessed on the web at: http://www.chromix.com/ColorNews/index.cxsa?-session=tx:47CAC497054031C3B6xgT34BDA90

The bug I referred to that Steve Upton identified is due to Vista’s more robust security system which frequently pops up a dialogue requiring the user (with administrative privileges) to “authorize” an action. This pop-up is accompanied by a dimming of the display screen that also deactivates the calibration curves which are used to adjust the display to calibrated performance on boot-up. The affect of this is that it will interfere with editing or printing by making normal screen matching predictably impossible. And the work-around solution is to re-boot the computer after each incidence of the pop-up for security authorization, which I am sure everyone will agree is a pain in the posterior and no solution at all. The article from the Chromix newsletter does indicate that once supported by the industry, theoretically Vista’s WCS Windows Color System has some positive advantages, but the current bug and drawbacks that will remain until a Service Pack is issued by Microsoft to fix the problems, Vista as an operating system can’t be recommended at least for serious color managed work.

If you want to read my entire report on Microsoft Windows Vista that was in Shutterbug, and it is available on the web at URL: http://www.shutterbug.net/equipmentreviews/software_computers/0607microsoft/index.html/

In today's reader question I was asked, "Does that mean that if I'm running Vista I can't achieve a good print to screen match regardless of the monitor?" And my answer is yes, display calibration and profiling is defeated by Vista's user screen warning system.

Without calibration to an ICC color standard if your display is profiled, the profile will read incorrectly. So in reality if you are running Vista and you get a user screen alert that darkens the screen, the calibration, and the profile that is based on the calibration foundation is made useless, non-functioning in terms of accurately defining where the image originated making print matching to the screen image impossible. To get back to a functioning calibration and profiled display you have to re-boot your computer.

The solution many who got new computers during the reign of Windows Vista was to have Windows XP installed instead. Or now, you can install Windows 7, but you have to turn off the user security screen warning system to avoid the Vista problem. This should not be such a problem because OEM copies of Windows XP or Windows 7 are available at an affordable price. Although I get e-mail ad notices frequently of download resources for OEM software, some can be phishing sites so I'll only recommend one source for OEM Windows software on a CD or DVD I have used reliably, and that is TigerDirect.com

EVER ASK WHY?

2010-10-03T13:58:00.000-07:00

Personal introspection, thinking about who you are and why you are that way, has a bad name in America, it’s like “gazing at your belly button”. In other words American culture is outer directed and tends towards the practical. People should not waste time thinking about themselves, do something useful. But then, can you answer the question of why you like this and not that? Do you know why you enjoy taking pictures of some subjects and others don’t interest you. That is a part of you just as much as anything is, yet you take it for granted and give it little thought.

I am inclined to be a thoughtful person as I am curious about how things work and want to understand how to do interesting things. But like most others, I have not been particularly introspective. At least not until a dozen years ago when health risks told me to stop running like a headless chicken to every trade show and event with hordes of people. About the same time the digital darkroom became the focus of much of my activity and writing. And I had at the time 40 years of collected film images. so why not learn as much as I could by scanning and editing what was in my image library? And how can you not help but think about the images you are working with, the open doors to a lot of memories. And although I have been eclectic about how I photograph avoiding any fad or style, I have also been selective about subjects and how to make then look good in a photograph.

We are all the result of our own history in which we learn we like and enjoy some things and not others. Going back to long before I became interested in doing photography I realize it was an influence in my early years. I grew up in a small city in the middle of a Canadian prairie as flat as a billiard table, in many ways a plain and dreary atmosphere with little in it from the world outside that was pleasant, it was the middle of the 2nd World War. But the movies I went to on Saturday afternoon and the magazines I saw from America, Life and Time and many more waiting in a dentist’s office or at the barbershop provided a picture of that world outside beyond the wheat-fields of the endless prairie. Many pictures and to me the most attractive we would call glamorous in their simple dramatic style.

Some might say oh, that’s why you ended up in Hollywood, but they would be mistaken. That journey was caused circumstantially and unintended in its destination. My family moved me out of Canada with them to Oregon after the War, and my move to southern California was set by the fact that’s where the two photography schools I wanted to attend were located. I stayed there after school because there was opportunity and it was the location of a new wife’s family home.

Yes a photographer’s artistic taste is the result of personal history and what one likes and does not like, but circumstance plays a large role too. Some have questioned why I photograph so many pretty women, not always hiding the question was a bit snide. But Los Angeles is a particularly ugly city with few photogenic features, but the one natural resource is a constantly fresh set of pretty women who migrate there in hope of fame and fortune. I also like to photograph flowers as they have similar attractive attributes to pretty women. So visually and photographically I am a bit of a romantic, and that may have some influence too on the fact I like to travel by car and find many subjects to capture on the road.

Finally looking back I have to acknowledge once I became seriously interested in photography in 1952 what others photographed well caught my notice. It was the height of the magazine photography period and Richard Avedon and Irving Penn among others played a part in what I liked and disliked in photography. Even my interest in jazz music through his powerful and dramatic record covers earned Pete Turner my appreciation as a photographer. And there have been many more, some who I have gotten to know personally, and also appreciate their vision and photographic skill and talent. We are all a mix of many different influences, some we like that encourage us and others we don’t and we shun. Even if you have never done so, it is well worth thinking about, why we are the photographers we are.

CONFUSIONS IN TIME, SPACE, AND COLOR

2010-09-15T10:45:00.000-07:00

There was a time in my life when Will Rogers often stated, “I know only what I read in the newspapers.” had a resonance with people. No one has taken his place in American culture and spoken for what can be learned from TV, or what they read on-line. Maybe it is just changing too fast to make any sense. It sure is when it comes to managing color on a computer system. When that began to become popular, to buy a sensor and software to measure and color manage the differences between a computer monitor and a color printer, it worked for a few of us pretty well. I had been reading, studying and experimenting with color management for years hoping it would finally be realized for most of us with computers and then Adobe released Photoshop 5.0/5.5 and it was then a real possibility for everyone.

But shortly the landscape began to change, CRT monitors began to be replaced with LCD displays. At the time I was beta testing for a maker of screen sensors and calibration and profiling software and with LCD’s saw a potential problem because they were much brighter than CRT monitors. As usual I was ignored being the troublesome gad-fly that is my nature, my view of things was not considered a real view of the future. That I was on to something even I did not foresee entirely until it became evident by all the hits on Google’s record of what was being posted on the Internet with as many as two million posts about “my prints are too dark.” Then I had to really dig into what computer users were doing and why it was producing unexpected dark print results, to understand the details of why and how this actually happens.

I have written about this problem in a long series of developing articles and blogs, so I will not repeat the details. However, it was just pure chance that a CRT monitor’s typical brightness almost exactly matched the paper white users were printing on. Only when LCD displays that were two and four times as bright as a CRT’s did the dark prints problem mushroom. The confusing part was even for some using the printer driver to control color rather than having Photoshop control color did not get dark prints, but those using Photoshop and color management did. Even so some thought it was a color management problem, but it did not involve profiles or the functions of color matching directly. And a lot of people did not realize that some printer drivers automatically re-adjust the image file sent to it for printing, often correcting for the disparity in images adjusted perceptually via a too bright LCD display.

Today there is a certain awareness that LCD displays are much too bright to be used to edit and adjust photo image files and get correct print brightness in color managed prints. Even so, some of the software and sensor industry include instructions from the old CRT days as to how to adjust a monitor/display that results in calibrating and profiling at much too high a white luminance, or the manufacturer has kowtowed to photography users setting a much to high white luminance aim point because some photographer “like” their screens bright. While just a few companies in the Color Management and LCD display businesses guide users to effective screen white luminance adjustment that matches paper white. And sadly no one I know of has pointed out, if you calibrate and profile a display to a brightness that is much greater than the equivalent of paper white, the resulting color profile will be seriously skewed and incorrect for printing. Everyone can get a digital copy of an ICC IT-8 and open it in Photoshop and then just change the brightness or contrast adjustment and see on screen how much difference in brightness/contrast change color values.

So besides some computer color display products that are misguiding, commentators that are only partly informed and a consumer LCD display industry that is indifferent and selling products that can’t be adjusted and profiled in brightness for color print matching, the users are between a rock and a hard place, as well as being part of an economy that can’t afford unnecessary waste. But fortunately a reader I must thank here, Tracy Valleau http://www.aperturef8.com/, recommended an LCD display that does work, and at a much more affordable cost. I received shipment of a new Dell Ultrasharp U2410 LCD display and am checking it out thoroughly to report on it as soon as possible. Keep tuned in, and before you jump into anything ask and maybe I can keep you steered in a good direction.

NEW MEDIA ACCESS

2010-09-11T18:38:00.000-07:00

As the FCC is embattled between consumer advocates and media corporations for net neutrality, that access to broadband should not be controlled by private profit interests, the media itself is changing. Yes broadcast TV mostly delivered by cable, remains the dominant source of information and entertainment. But how people access the content is no longer so much with a traditional TV set in the living room, but with cell phones and most recently the iPad. But this popular media source is also rapidly shifting to access through the internet. TV programs, movies and music are now streamed live or downloaded over the internet, making broadband access by computers evermore important to many Americans.

Now you can get all kinds of media content in every form from an on-line source whether it is Apple iTunes which now has much more than music, even digital books, TV programs, and movies. A similar kind of catalogue of content is now available from internet vendors like Amazon,com. And recently the USPS purveyors of movies on DVD’s has more and more that can be live-streamed over the internet. Even the cable companies like Comcast are making access to media content via the internet to TV programs, as well as cable channels and movies through their own web sites. Then there is Hulu and I don’t know how many new on-line services that are offering both movies and TV programming, some of it free, but more is expected to be available for moderate fees. I won’t even mention how much of politics is available in every format on-line.

Not long ago I mentioned that I turned in my cable TV box and replaced it with a basic model Mac Mini and now get as much TV as I want and all the movies I like from all over the world , mostly supplied by my membership with Netflix. And I just went a step further, with a retired Mac Mini that had been used for my office work and had been turned on 7 days a week all day for at least three years but developed a video output problem, so I replaced it with one of the new model Mac Mini’s. Even without any LCD screen output the old retired Mini still ran and I could access it with any of my other computers on my WiFi network. So I cleaned out ll of the office applications and the data storage on the hard drive to make it ready for another job.

I got a mini stereo to RCA cable, usually used by iPod people to connect there stored music and play it through a regular stereo amplifier and speakers. So I connected this old cleaned-out Mini to my stereo system. And now with the latest version of iTunes installed I am in the process of putting all of my music CD’s in its iTunes library. So now another Mini replaces an old media device, my stereo system’s decrepit CD player. What’s the advantage? With itunes I can connect and control what is playing on the stereo from all the computers in my house and arrange a playlist that will run all day without any further attention. Of course if I want to buy some new music recordings, I can just connect to the iTunes Store and download whatever I want for a reasonable fee.

For me it is a convenience as well as a use of an old retired computer. However, I bring this to anyones attention and interest who would like to get more use and value from their computer. And for me it has been a kind of savings as well, as in the small town I live in, the cable company TV box access to traditional programming, and far too much advertising, costs much more in fees each month than I pay for a fast business-rate broadband service.

NEW CAMERAS, BUT IS ANYTHING REALLY NEW?

2010-09-09T12:16:00.000-07:00

We are now on the eve of the hoped for shopping season and the trade shows that precede them. But many of the digital camera makers are already on-line with announcements of what new to find in the stores shortly.

Digital photography is still a new phenomenon, but many of the photographers who have converted from a 35mm to a dSLR camera have done so, and the marketplace is looking for new enticements, but still closely associated with the camera concepts that have been familiar for the last 50 years. Most people don’t stray far from what they are familiar with and many of the pure digital prosumer concoctions of this last decade did not catch on and even the high-end of point and shoots look much kick a film camera of a generation ago.

The companies that are putting the most effort into capturing a larger market share, and have the resources to offer new cameras are largely adaptations of what has already been accepted just with added capabilities and more attractive physical handling. What really inspired me to look at what’s new more seriously is one new Sony Alpha 55 dSLR, with a feature that is really not new at all. This new dSLR has a fixed pellicle, partially transparent reflex mirror that does not move, shades of the Canon 35mm Pellix and later EOS version the Canon RT. But Sony being one of the most serious producers of video cameras has a new reason for a translucent-fixed reflex mirror, this new dSLR is really a mix between a digicam and a still camera. The viewfinder fed by the reflex mirrored image is much like those found on current digital video cameras. In other words you can virtually switch directly from still image to video photography using the same viewfinder.

Will this new Alpha 55 with its translucent, fixed mirror have the same limitations and potential problems that the Canon RT that is in my own seldom-used closet of goodies has? Probably some factors like the effect on exposure and the brightness of the viewfinder image was easily resolved digitally, but is this new Sony pellicle microscopically thin, delicate, hard to clean that must be protected with great care? But with my Canon RT in a studio or on locations using multi head electronic flash lighting, I found my RT’s greatest advantage was I could see the flash fire and illuminate the subject through the lens for each exposure. But that is a minor advantage, what the Sony does is allow a single TLR viewfinder that works for both stills and video. So the limited appeal of Canon’s pellicle film cameras may not adversely affect the Alpha 55 because it has a new purpose to make a dSLR an effective video camera.

I am much less impressed with the Sony Alpha Nex the new interchangeable lens point and shoot. If I had one I know I would use a HoodLoupe Pro as part of the viewfinder, but then the camera’s small size and low weight would be compromised. Then I wouldn’t be shooting like the ugly weekenders I see every days as I drive through a local tourist trap. In other words the Alpha Nex is still just another P&S camera with a new gimmick, interchangeable lenses.

But what both of these new cameras and the Panasonic versions indicate to me is the market attachment to old film cameras may be loosening a little, we are getting old some of us; and finally the industry might have some luck designing a digital camera free from the constraints of the past half century of tradition. I just hope they are more amenable to serious camera handling then the current P&S cameras, it is almost embarrassing to see people taking pictures with a camera at half arms-length weaving about trying to frame and fire the shutter to get a snapshot.

Sony Alpha DSLR-A550L 14.2MP Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm Lens Sony Alpha NEX-3 Interchangeable Lens Digital Camera w/18-55mm Lens (Black)-14.2 Mpix

Now that this old curmudgeon has had his rant, will the camera industry surprise me with something I could say I really need that, yet this fall?

A PHOTOGRAPHER’S GREATEST CHALLENGE TODAY

2010-08-28T16:57:00.000-07:00

If the bulk of what is written and read is considered, one would have to think having just the right, even the best, camera and lenses is the secret to making good photographs. But although some of the mail I receive from my Digital Help column does involve shooting hardware, most of it is spread over other issues like printers, scanners, and software, as well as a bit about computers used for photo processing. However, the stumbling block that gets in the way for many trying to find a way to make better photographs are limitations of perceptual experience and understanding.

It is not a problem of vision. Even with today’s science there is really little understanding if two people are looking at the same subject, standing side by side, are the visions in their minds the same, even similar. In other words what our eyes see and our brain perceives can be very different. I became aware of how profound this difference can be many years go when I read about a US Information service trying to help Africans fight against mosquito born illnesses like malaria. The US agency produced a film using native environments and players to demonstrate what needs to be done to reduce the mosquito population. To make the story short the film didn’t work. Many of the Africans thought it was about a chicken, because a chicken was in one corner of the opening scene of the film. The Africans not having experienced film before had never learned where to focus their vision and perceptual attention to see a story as told on a movie screen. Nearly all modern, western people have all kinds of early experiences and learn how to see and perceive all kinds of media presentation before they even have any school experience. But native peoples all around the world who have not become part of our modern world do not. Many in the world don’t get the same perceptual education our children acquire in their first years of life.

From a similar perspective how can an aspiring photographer learn how to make fine quality prints if that photographer has never seen an Ansel Adams original, the prints of Edward Weston or the images of W. Eugene Smith. I would guess most Americans have never had an opportunity to see any original samples of the great photography that has been made in the last century. My first opportunity to see good photography was in the 50’s when The Family Of Man exhibit toured the country. But it wasn’t until I was a photography school student several years after that and began doing photography seriously, that I made a trip to Carmel, California and saw original prints made by Edward Weston, Ansel Adams and other fine photographers. Then I began to realize and understand a little of what a good photograph looks like. Thereafter I visited museums and galleries to see the best in photography whenever it was a possibility. It wasn’t frequent, I had no desire to follow in anyone’s footsteps, but it was encouraging to know how I needed to improve my skills and techniques, to understand what a good photograph should look like and realize when my own fell short.

For many of you this may seem like preaching to the choir. Everyone, when they begin making photographs, learns the range of what the eyes see doesn’t fit the much smaller range of sensitivity a camera records without adjustment, even though today a lot of that is automatic, a built-in adjustment by the camera’s designer and manufacturer. But anyone serious about photography has a long historical access to how the differences between the human eye and what a camera can record can be understood and controlled. There have been popular techniques that have been learned, whether it is the 9-around, over-under exposed, over-under developed to reproduce a comparison to see what works best; or it was the more advanced Zone System of exposure and development control.

But the really big challenge today with digital photography is not the difference between reality and what exposure the camera records and the eye adjusts for naturally, but differences in color that the human brain accommodates to provide a mental perception of what is seen. This color perception and what the individual's mind actually experiences perceptually, is really not recognized and understood popularly. What you think you see with your eyes is not what the eye senses but something different influenced by perceptual adjustments based on memory and mental habit. Think of it: if we had to pay conscious attention to everything our eyes see, the detail would overwhelm us and we couldn’t get much else done to be driven mad by billions of perceptual thoughts. Much of what we see and have seen before is ignored by our perceptual consciousness; we know what it is and at the moment, if it has no importance, no conscious attention is given to it. And, of course some things remind us of bad experiences we would not like to be reminded of, so we may not perceive these sights at all in our daily experience.

For instance a gray box seen by the eye is compensated for in its objective brightness by the eye's self-adjusting pupil for brightness, but the light cold be warm at dawn or sunset, or bluish at noon, however to our perception it is recognized as a gray box regardless what color the light cast it in, as seen by your eye. Your perception sees “things” the same based on what your mind remembers and knows it should look like. Things look the same unless they are seen in different ways at the same time, in comparison, like the warm light of incandescent electric bulbs in a window of a house on a foggy, bluish gray day.

Another example is if you are driving on a sunny day and you left the car’s headlights on, you cannot see the warm tungsten light they are shining out in front of you, the colder light of the sun on the street is much brighter. If time instantly changed to night, you would see the street in front of you clearly because your eyes would adjust immediately to this much lower level of illumination and the street would look much like it did in daylight; but your headlights are much warmer colored than the sun, but with no comparison, the light from your headlights looks white, not the yellow-red of tungsten illumination. In other words your eyes accommodate great differences in brightness, and your mind's perception accommodate great differences in color.

This was made relative to the ongoing conversation I have had with many readers about LCD displays for their computer a few days ago. About a year ago I purchased one of the best home-office LCD displays made by one of the largest manufacturers in hopes it might work for a color managed digital photography system. It didn’t, so I put it in a corner of my lab, where it sat unused until I decided to install it next to my Eizo Flexscan S2242W on my Mac Pro. I wanted it to provide extra screen space for dialogue windows, utilities, etc. So I adjusted, calibrated and profiled this home office display separately and individually to a brightness I knew it could handle. the result is a direct comparison of a new home-office LCD display beside one that reproduces over 95% of Adobe RGB color. Although this home-office LCD is better than many, it reproduces only a little more than an sRGB color range, and with the two displays set to show the same screen image, and Adobe RGB photo open in Photoshop, when side by side WHAT A DIFFERENCE! Just that comparative view could save me hundreds, thousands of typed e-mail words trying to explain, of you have Adobe RGB images displayed by an sRGB LCD display you cannot even see all of the color in your image file, so how can you visually control and adjust that image accurately if you are blind to 1/3 of its color content?

WHAT’S NEW IN FALL 2010 COMPUTER LCD DISPLAYS

2010-08-21T11:46:00.000-07:00

One of the larger marketing names, Viewsonic, was the first to hit the streets with a new VX2250wm-LED 22 inch LCD display. So I checked the web site of the world’s two largest producers Samsung and LG Electronics, and it seems their new models also have one leading new feature LED backlighting. That’s a good move from some perspectives, LED’s use less power, and are free of any contaminates so are eco-friendly. They also allow thinner, lighter weight models relative to screen size, so shipping costs to American and other worldwide markets is reduced a bit. So far, nothing to complain about other than the fact these new LED LCD displays are like last years, reproduce essentially an sRGB color gamut and if anything are as bright or even brighter, so the “my prints are too dark” problem remains a negative factor still caused by displays that are too bright.

As you may have noticed recently in this blog space I have written about LED lamps, also made in Asia, that are almost ideally suited to providing digital darkroom environment illumination. And from my limited investigation of LED as a light source It is apparent manufacturers do have the potential for control, for instance the lamps I am now using are rated to work with voltages from 90 to 250, and of course at a lower voltage emit somewhat less light. So it would seem with LED backlit LCD displays it would not be au difficult to design a backlight that could be lowered in brightness for use in reproducing photographic images that are going to be color managed prints. Sadly the specifications for these new LED LCD displays don’t offer such a control, but the two main manufacturers both rate brightness as 250-300 CD/m2, and that needs to be cut by 2/3rds if the display is adjusted to match the white of high quality printing paper.

I also looked at the NEC and Eizo sites, and other than the 24 inch NEC LCD2490WUXi2 Spectraview 2 that came out about the same time as my review of the 22 inch NEC P221W Spectraview 2, there isn’t anything in the under $1,000 cost other than the Eizo Flexscan S2242W or 2243W I recommended in this blog. But Eizo just announced a new 19 inch Flexscan S1902 that has an interesting Paper Mode, that may be indicative this little office model could be color managed and used for digital photography. But it is not listed by any Eizo sellers yet so I could not get an idea of its expected retail cost.

So unless someone surprises me in finding another make and model of LCD displays that can be adjusted to 90.0 CD/m2 and also provides a color gamut much wider than sRGB, there aren’t many affordable LCD displays to recommend to serious digital photography enthusiasts. Sadly the industry thinks there are just too few of use to offer anything but the few less costly models of professional displays, most of which are way beyond my means, and from what I hear many of my readers also. So, if you have a new recommendation, let’s know about it: write me at goofotografx@gmail.com - and I’ll check into it.ViewSonicâs VX2250WM-LED 22-Inch (21.5-Inch Vis) Widescreen Full HD 1080p LED Monitor with Integrated Stereo Speakers NEC LCD2490WUXi2-BK 24" WIDESREEN LCD MONITOR 24 INCH Eizo Shows Five FlexScan Displays.(EIZO Nanao Technologies FlexScan L465, L375, L685)(Product Announcement): An article from: Display Development News

FILM SCANNING REMAINS POPULAR

2010-08-11T16:40:00.000-07:00

Logically, some would think because digital cameras are now so popular and have replaced the use of film to a great extent, that film scanning would decline proportionally. But the reality is that there are enormous personal collections of film images people have created over much of the last century. Most realize these film images will decay and deteriorate in time, but the history they tell should be preserved if for no other reason than preserving the history of their making.

Digital camera buyers and users realize a photograph in digital form has many advantages film and printed paper photographs never enjoyed. And, of course if the image files are stored securely they will not deteriorate in time. The result of an understanding and awareness of digital photography by owning and using a digital camera has encouraged many that it would be a great advantage to have their old film libraries in a digital format, it would make it possible to duplicate that image history on CD’s or DVD’s too, and share the library and its history with friends and family members.

Is this some hair-brained theory I dreamt up? No I can’t even take credit for the idea that the digital camera has inspired a new and growing interest in scanning film. I have received hundred’s of e-mails from Shutterbug readers saying they recently got into digital camera photography and would like to scan and digitize their library of film images from the past. And I am sure it inspired among older photographers who have a history of their family on film, but the kids now have their own lives, sometimes far away, and it would be a good thing to give them a record of their earlier home and life for themselves and their children to know and keep.

But of course marketing experts in the photo product business knew better, that digital cameras were the future; and not thinking for many pictures of the past are as important if not more so than new photos taken today. So Canon, Nikon, Minolta and others have abandoned making and selling dedicated film scanners, although the capability has been built into flatbed scanners made by both Epson and Canon, and recently they are now truly competitive with the dedicated film scanners of the past. That is fortunate as it provides more choices to photographers interested, as well as the ability to also scan120 size film as well as prints.

How long will this popularity of film scanning last? That is hard to tell how long it will take for people to remember they have a shoebox full of cartons of 35mm slides, and then get a scanner and digitize them for history. I think it may be awhile before all of the “baby boomer” photographers retire and spend part of their new leisure time recovering the images from their previous pastime activities.

PREVIEW: NEW CANOSCAN 9000f & SILVERFAST

2010-07-25T16:05:00.000-07:00

When Canon announced a 9600 optical resolution Canoscan 9000f flatbed scanner, I got on the phone and got a loaner to test and report on. For all the enthusiast photographers with film collections they want to scan into digital files, this new Canoscan made me wonder, is it an ideal answer? It’s priced right with a list of $249. But how well does it work and what quality of scans does it reproduce from 35mm film? Of course from my mail I knew many readers would be interested, but I didn’t get an assignment to do a user report.

THE CANON CANOSCAN 9000f FEATURES

This new 9000f model Canon flatbed photo scanner is not essentially different from their 8800f model, it looks a little sleeker and has higher resolution and scans 8.5x11 inch reflective documents and prints (at 4800dpi), as well as both 35mm and 120 photographic film (at 9600dpi). Film scanning is supported by an infrared FARE 3 sensing of dust, dirt and scratch for automatic software cleaning. Like the most contemporary scanners, the Canoscan 9000f uses white LED’s for scan illumination. The scan sensor is a 12-line CCD. The 9000f scans in 48-bits and will also output 48-bit files. It connects with your computer via a USB specified as the fastest available your PC’s support.

I also contacted Lasersoft and obtained their new version of SilverFast for the Canoscan 9000f in the most complete Ai6 version. My first scan was made with Canon’s ScanGear software, a scan of a letter-sized portrait print. Easy and quick, but then there is little ‘interpretation’ between different media involved scanning a good print. The result without any manual adjustment was pretty accurate. Then I switched to scan four different color negative film images, and quickly found that quick and easy has its limits. All the preview scans, presented in four thumbnails on one screen were usable, and pretty good dynamic interpretations of different color negative film bases.

USING LASERSOFT SILVERFAST TO RUN THE CANOSCAN 9000f

The first thing I did before making a scan with the 9000f and SilverFast was to use IT-8, and put a 35mm target slide in the scanner and ran the profiling of the scanner, It didn’t take even a few minutes or any effort, it was done automatically with the software in seconds. Let’s then get on with scanning. Since I tested the Plustek 7600i I have been doing a lot of personal scanning of my 35mm film library, a job I will never live long enough to finish. I had a lot of 35mm film frames selected, a wide variety of subjects and different kinds of films, and I just grabbed a bunch, maybe 100 to 150 images, and dove into scanning with the 9000f using all of the methods supported by SilverFast; using the software conventionally and traditionally, making high-bit raw scan files, and using the newest and most efficient kind of batch scanning, the SilverFast Archival Suite method. This is something a large number of readers have written about, what is an efficient and fast way to get scanning done. Quick and easy alone doesn’t do it because the price is poor image quality or very long and tedious work color correcting 48-bit scan files with an image editor. I think many experienced photographers don’t realize that color correcting and translating between different films both positive and negative is far from straightforward and simple as film images vary in density and with negatives making an inversion to a positive image, and also eliminating the dye color in the film base, is a complicated path to get to a digital image that will make a high quality print or display on-screen.

But lets start with the most common, scanning positive color slides to a digital image that will make a good print reproduction. With SilverFast the first step in color correction and adjustment is the one that is done easily by automation to get to the Histogram process that maps the much greater range of typical slide densities to the 256-step gamut of a digital image. Once an image has been previewed, and the scan frame is adjusted within the image leaving just image information inside, at the top left of the SilverFast control window click the second from the far left icon that looks like an aperture. Then open the Histogram with the third icon from the left, and in the window and at the bottom is to me the most valuable adjustment for Removing Color Cast. Many film images may have a colorcast from light reflections, smog or smoke in the atmosphere, and frequently a color in the film base or a tint from less than perfect processing. The Color Cast slider allows adjusting the color cast removal by perception seeing the adjusted image free of any colorcast.

RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Canon Canscan 9000f looks and feels like a really well designed and finely made machine. And once you begin using it, it is smooth, quiet and quick unlike many scanners I have used in the past the scanner self-initialization and calibration has been made extremely efficient, so little time is wasted between scans, and depending on the file size of output, it scans very rapidly. I think a lot of photographers with film libraries have hoped for a flatbed that will scan prints, as well as both 120 and 35mm film as well as a dedicated film scanner, has just been a dream. Well the Canon Canoscan with SilverFast running it is just about there – the dream has been realized to a very large extent. I did most of my testing with 35mm film images including a lot I know are difficult to scan. The results are so close to those I have obtained with the Plustek OpticFilm 7600i it is hard to tell which is better. But there are differences, some odd and older films reveal that the Canon Flare 3 works best with newer E-6 and C-41 process films, but not as well with earlier process films, and of course not at all with silver B&W or Kodachrome, but no infrared cleaning sensor does.

Another flatbed distinction is the unusual design of 12 line CCD’s that produce a raw file that requires twice to four times as much software sharpening compared to a traditional 3 line CCD sensor of a dedicated film scanner. Is this a problem? Mostly not, but it does create an image appearance that is a little different, and can be an advantage because graininess is less apparent. In other words I have encountered problems getting good scans with some films with both dedicated film scanners and this new Canoscan 9000f, no more or less, just a little different with each, as both have their advantages and disadvantages, just somewhat dissimilar and distinct. The bottom line is the Canoscan 9000f with SilverFast is really a good scanner especially considering it does prints, medium format and 35mm and the total cost with SilverFast SE added is under $300. That’s really good news in times like these.

The complete report that will be published in Shutterbug is fully illustrated and more detailed, but you don’t have to wait, this is the best in flatbed film scanning.

THE ALMOST IDEAL DIGITAL DARKROOM WORK LIGHT

2010-07-18T17:37:00.000-07:00

About a month ago I wrote a blog here about a new LED lamp made by Fobsun in China. And here is the essential information I had at the time: “I took interest in Fobsun because they sent me a news item about a downlight they make that has a standard lamp socket as used in America and white light output near 6500K color temperature. This lamp is also about as bright as a 40 watt incandescent lamp. To me its color temperature close to that of an LCD computer display and moderate brightness makes it an ideal candidate as an illumination source for environmental lighting where computer digital photography is done and prints are being made, in a light source matching the computer screen. It is a Fobsun Horizon Down Lights Adopting SMD LEDs, FLB-E27-90W-H, E27 base SMD bulb, 38*160mm, 90LEDs,7W,100-260VAC, white color, 6000-6500k，630lm.”

A business friend helped and joined with me to order 5 of these lamps for test and trial that were shipped directly to me by air. When they arrived I was quite positively impressed with the fine quality and features of the 90 LED lamp design. It is about six inches long and about one and five/eights inches wide, so the light panel of LED’s is four inches long. The E-27 is a standard US-type lamp screw in with a collar to grip to install. And the lamp also turns on axis around 180 degrees so once installed in a socket it can be adjusted in light pattern direction.

For me making fittings to use these lamps only required a few dollars in standard lamp parts at a local hardware store, and some odds and ends of studio clamps I had kept from the days I owned a photo studio. The actual work of making sockets and attachments to hold two of the Fobsun E27 LED lamps was easy to do and I had them installed in my digital darkroom in short order. One was attached to he end of a “C” stand arm and the other to an above desk, steel bookcase where one of my computers is installed. This second one is located over and extension of that desk that is used for for one of my printers, and the lamp provides illumination for the printer output. After turning on the Fobsun LED’s I was surprised how bright they are, measured about ⅔’s of a stop brighter than my computer screen. In addition the area illuminated is quite even in brightness with little fall-off at the edges of the illuminated area. But the color of the light is cooler than the 5000K lamps I had been using, so it was perceptually very evident. Then after using the Fobsun LED’s for a few days my perception adapted.

To adjust the light level on the desktop of the first unit installed on the “C’ stand I just raised the lamp height a little. With the other lamp over the printer I could not move it higher so put a half-silk nylon ripstop filter under it and got the illumination level to match the computer LCD screen brightness. finally I put a 14x10x7 inch black box around this lamp to shield the side light and provide a holder for the silk. I measured the color balance of the Fobsun LED lamps compared to the computer LCD set at 6500K. The difference was small, just 2% cyan and 2% blue would make a balance; or I could lower the color temperature of the computer LCD a couple of hundred degrees. There were no gels as thin as I needed available, and after trying the computer LCD at a lower color temperature, I decided the difference was perceptually not worth adjusting. My evaluation of prints compared to the image appearance on-screen confirmed this. The difference between projected illumination of an LCD screen and the reflected light from a print obscure the small difference in the color balance. In other words close enough is in reality ideal.

After years of never having an affordable and comfortable light balance between my darkroom and my computer displays, the Fobsun LED’s have provided a very comfortable environment for viewing prints and seeing how well they match their on-screen image. It is such a pleasure to have this light match, and now that I am getting comfortable working with it, I also feel comfortable recommending anyone interested to give it a try. Just take a look at www.fobsun.com for their section on Horizon Downlights. It would be better of course if Fobsun had an American distributor, but maybe that will happen some day.

BAD LUCK - GOOD LUCK

2010-07-10T13:27:00.000-07:00

Not long ago I wrote a blog about the new Mac Mini just announced. The improvements Apple made were encouraging that the Mini would now be an even better mainstream option for computer users. But I had no plans to get one myself when I wrote that blog. But a bit of bad luck changed the situation. My relatively old office Mac Mini was knocked out of business by a “mini” external hard drive, one of several brands designed for convenience with the same lateral dimensions as a Mini and intended to sit under a Mac Mini. For some reason my little “mini” external hard drive failed and got very hot, and that damaged the Mac Mini sitting above. That was the second time I had one of these “mini” external hard drives involved in a problem with a Mac Mini. So a lesson finally learned. Convenience sometimes has a price. Oh! well, the new Mac Mini is a larger shape, so those old “mini” external hard drives are a thing of the past, and that will be a matter of deliberate choice in my case.

Of course wouldn’t you know I had this breakdown occur during the 4th of July holiday weekend. So instead of taking an extra day off on Monday after the 4th, I got on the phone with the Apple on-line store to order a new Mac Mini. I called even though I usually buy from the Apple on-line store over the internet because I wanted to get the quickest delivery of a new Mac Mini they could arrange. A very understanding and congenial Apple representative arranged my order of a new Mini and put me in touch with customer service. It worked, my new Mac Mini was delivered the following Wednesday, and by the end of the day it was installed and all of my applications, settings, and data from the old Mini were installed in the new one. Of course anyone who has had to replace a failed computer with a new one knows there is still much more to do to catch up on most of a week of lost time doing other things.

So, now that I have a new Mac Mini running my office; Is it everything Apple touted a short time ago. I am not at all disappointed. Although the new Mini is a bit larger in overall size and a might slimmer in height, it is barely different enough to notice. But I do notice no more white power brick of the old one, so my desk is cleaner. And this new one boots up quickly and even though just office stuff on screen the improvement in the new one’s video is evident. The screen is sharper and easy to see and read documents opened. I’ve done a couple of days of mail, checking news of the photo industry, answering queries,and getting addresses entered and posting to snail mail done, all the everyday office stuff. What is amazing beyond the fact this new Mac Mini runs quick and quiet, is that the migration from the old broken Mini has been so fault free, making the transition completely painless and everything works. It is like there wasn’t a disaster the other day, just an easy rebirth to a slicker, better running computer world.

For my office, I just got the minimum package Apple offers in a Mini, and it is quite enough for the job. A fully loaded new Mini with 8GB of RAM to run photo applications and processing I am sure will be equal to what might be imagined would be much bigger and more expensive. For sure now the Mini is a bit misnamed, its now a full-blown working computer from Apple, and an advantage to photographers who need a professional level LCD display better than the sRGB home-office models in the discount stores. I like it because I can recommend this new Mac Mini as a fully competent computer solution for the serious photo enthusiast, and without any reservation.

A BACKDOOR ADVANTAGE FOR FILM SCANNERS

2010-06-26T15:19:00.000-07:00

I got some of a drubbing due to my opinion there is not much new in Adobe Photoshop CS5 for photographers. So I took it upon myself to look at all of the evangelical video on it at www.tv.adobe.com. What I found were lots of new things art directors, ad producers, designers and many other professionals who use Photoshop will surely like for all kinds of photographic manipulation needed for production projects. But still little or nothing new a serious photography enthusiast would need or want unless it’s someone devoted to making highly modified and distorted photographic fantasies. And I have done a little of that myself, in fact it was the record industry rock and roll part of my career. But I do digital photography editing and processing today and everyday, particularly of scanned film images, and have a copy of Photoshop CS-5 I use. So far I have found nothing new in it I can’t do with CS4 in my everyday work with photographs with my computer.

However, one of the videos on www.tv.adobe.com by Russell Brown about using Camera Raw to do retouching set me off into an exploration and discovery I am thankful for. I usually don’t write about what others publish, but in this Russell Brown piece he acknowledged “stealing” the idea from a couple of colleagues, so I don’t mind admitting he opened a door for me I will relate here. However my interest was not retouching photographs as Brown’s video details. But for anyone scanning photographs on film, especially some old or less popular and often faster films that are not current E6 or C-41 process emulsions, all too often you can get graininess, emulsion defect artifacts and skewed local color that is difficult to edit with any standard photo application to get the usual, smooth, sharp and balanced color most contemporary popular films will reproduce in a scan.

So, if you have some finished scan files you would like to improve by adjusting to reduce graininess, noise and local color that is shifted or skewed, open the files in Adobe Bridge. Then any file you would like to make better with editing adjustments, click on it o its marked and if on a Mac type in Command then R, ( Control key and the letter R key on Windows) and that file will be opened if it is a JPG, or even a large TIF file, by Camera Raw. On the right side of the Camera Raw screen where your image has been opened, there is a tall window with eight different icon buttons at the top. Camera Raw usually opens to a general adjustment set of sliders in three sections: at the top are Temperature and Tint. The center group of sliders includes, Exposure, Recovery, Fill Light, Blacks, Brightness and Contrast. The bottom block contains three slider adjustments for Clarity, Vibrance and Saturation.

Obviously the Camera Raw image adjustments are designed for digital camera produced images, not images scanned from film, so all of the adjustment sliders don’t really apply to any advantage. But if an opened image is too warm or cool that can be neutralized with the Temperature adjustment. Or if the Red/Green hue balance is off, like the reds are too strong and the green of foliage too weak, a little shift of the slider may help. Some of the slider adjustments in the middle section I found the most useful. For instance in some film scans getting a neutral black is difficult with standard editing tools without affecting the color balance of the lighter tones in the image, and I found the Camera Raw black can be increased and the black is shifted to a neutral tone without affecting the balance of the lighter colors. This may make the image shadows too dark, so the Fill Light can be adjusted to open them back up to see more detail. The most valuable adjustment is in the bottom section and it is called Clarify. If your image is too grainy and noisy, move the Clarity slider to the left. If you need a lot of Clarity adjustment to clean up the image texture and smooth the tone, it may cause the image to loose contrast and look lighter. Then the Brightness and Contrast adjustments above can restore those values. And if the result of these adjustments makes the color weak, you can add both Vibrance and Saturation or just one or the other as your image appearance demands.

If your scanned image is too light or dark in some segments of the image tone range, then click on the second icon at the top from the left that will open a Tone Curve dialogue. If you are not used to adjusting curves, use the Parametric option and then use the sliders below for Highlights, Lights, Darks and Shadows to lighten or darken those segments of the image range. In addition you can modify the segmentation of the tone curve range by moving the segment tabs at the bottom of the graph.

An interesting and advantageous set of adjustment tools is opened by the third icon at the top that sets up the Detail window that has two sets of sliders. If you have some distorted color noise in your scan file, which is a frequent artifact from scans of older and odd kinds of both slide and negative films, the Color Noise Reduction may lessen this odd color in your image. And, if the Clarity slider adjustment did not reduce the surface texture noise in your image enough, try the Luminance Noise Reduction. I found this very helpful with film images that record noisiness in very light tones adjacent to specular light sources in a picture, like a sunset shot. The top Sharpening section is basically conventional with sliders to input the Amount of sharpening, and Radius to select how many pixels in the original the sharpening is to include. The Detail slider seems to be like the control in scan software that limits the range of tones the sharpening is applied to. But I found that at the end of my Camera Raw image tweaking adjustments, I could simply add sharpening if needed, but without adding noise artifacts next to sharpened objects in the image, which is often a limit in applying an Unsharp Mask enhancement in scan software.

So far I have adjusted about 15 scanned image files I found from recent scans were still lacking ideal qualities even after tweaking them in Photoshop. Most were improved noticeably using Camera Raw in one or more dimensions of quality making them better images that are as good as the scans I obtain from newer E-6 and C-41 process films. From this little experiment with Camera Raw applied to scanned photographs, you can be sure I will be using it more for what I would call image tweaking, in the future. And, I am sure I will learn even more capabilities as more experience is gained. So, if you have not tried this, do some experimenting, the Camera Raw adjustment tools solve problems standard photo editing tools can’t cope with easily or effectively.

If you do try this, let me know, my e-mail is goofotografx@gmail.com.

AN ALL NEW APPLE MAC MINI - THE FUTURE IS HERE

2010-06-19T13:58:00.000-07:00

Wouldn’t you know as soon as I admit a typo mistake about 8 gigs of RAM in a Mac Mini in the July issue Digital Help, the following week Apple Announces an all new Mac Mini that will allow just that much RAM to be installed. No , I did not know about the new Mini, I did make a mistake. Ahead of the times? Well, that is usual for me, but I did not see a new Mini coming in my psyche.

I have owned and used Apple Mac Mini’s from the beginning of the model. I now work three of them pretty hard, and they do it all very well. Even so, I have been reserved in my recommendations to users. But with this new model I believe if it runs and lasts as well as my previous Mini’s, it is now an ideal computer for any photography enthusiast. Besides now coming with 2GB of RAM expandable to 8GB, it also has a 2X faster NVIDIA GeForce 320M integrated video graphics support to the display. It also has built-in support for the latest 802.11n Airport Extreme WiFi networks, as well as Bluetooth 2.1. A 2.4 GHz Intel Core Duo processor with 3MB of shared L2 cache, runs this new Mac Mini computer.

The package is a bit wider at 7.7 x 7.7 inches, but is only 1.4 inches tall, and is now encased in a cast aluminum housing, with easy access to the interior from a removable bottom panel that provides easy access to the RAM installation. And unlike previous Mini’s, this new one has a built-in power supply, so the far left side of the rear has a household power input socket. The connector interfaces on the rear are somewhat different, still with a Gigabit Ethernet socket, FireWire 800 socket, and then a new HDMI socket for direct connection of video and sound to an HD TV, and the Mini DisplayPort, as well as four USB 2.0 connectors, and also a new SD card slot, and both in and out audio connectors.

The one main component in the new Mac Mini I have not mentioned is the 320GB hard drive. It can be upgraded by Apple in a sale to a 500GB unit, but that is really not that much larger. Some of the tech expert writers in hardware suggest a better way to expand Mini hard drive capacity is with an external Hard Drive. From my experience I would agree with that as I have used several brands of external FireWire connected and designed to sit under the original Mac Mini drives. The most recent one I have purchased through the Apple Store is an Iomega, unit and like others adds a powered hub of USB 2.0 connectors as well as additional FireWire sockets. If an external drive has a problem, replacing it is easy and you can do it yourself, and does not require an expert Apple technician to go into the guts of a Mini.

There are three functional, necessary items not supplied with an Apple Mac Mini. One is a display, so a photographer buyer has the option of selecting a good LCD display that supports color managed and brightness adjusted performance for matching printing and other output of digital photographic files. If you already have a keyboard and mouse, most USB models will work with the Mac Mini. However, I have found Apple’s latest keyboard very comfortable and efficient, and the USB wired models are affordable for their high level of quality. I was once an exclusive PC Windows user, and still use the Microsoft Office Suite of applications for the Apple Mac. I find the Microsoft made mice with their Apple software support for right button functions is an advantage and works well with a Mini for most mousing needs.

The basic Apple Mac Mini now comes in just one model instead of two, but there are many upgrades and additions that are available. The basic price now is $699, but for a serious digital photographer I would recommend ordering a Mac Mini with 8GB of RAM which adds $500 to the price. I have been doing fine with the older version and 4GB, so at least that much.

For a current PC Windows computer user making the switch is easy and and there really is not much to learn to adapt from one to another, Why do I say that? Well, I run both Apple and Windows applications on one of my Macs. There are two basic options, either install a copy of Windows you own as a dual boot setup using Apple;s Boot Camp; or my choice is to use a virtual software method, one of which is offered by Parallels (www.parallels.com) at a modest cost. Parallels supports running Windows in its own window, or running Windows applications in the Apple screen workspace. In addition other than Microsoft, many software companies publish their applications in both Windows and Apple versions, like Adobe, and if you are a registered owner and don’t have an Apple version installation disc, many of these companies will provide an Apple version for a modest fee for the additional Apple installation disc. In other words you can have all you have with Windows, and much more with an Apple Mac Mini.

I don’t yet have one of the new Mac Mini’s, but I already run my HD TV with a Mac Mini that replaced my cable box.Something to think about! The cost savings without the monthly bill for cable TV will pay for the Mac Mini I purchased in just a few months.

FOBSUN LED LIGHTING PRODUCTS

2010-06-13T15:08:00.000-07:00

Fobsun is a Chinese manufacturer of LED lighting with a wide selection of products listed on their website www.fobsun.com. I took interest in Fobsun because they sent me a news item about a downlight they make that has standard lamp socket as used in America and white light output near 6500K color temperature. This lamp is also about as bright as a 40 watt incandescent lamp. To me its color temperature close to that of an LCD computer display and moderate brightness makes it an ideal candidate as an illumination source for environmental lighting where computer digital photography is done and prints are being made, in a light source matching the computer screen. It is a Fobsun Horizon Down Lights Adopting SMD LEDs, FLB-E27-90W-H, E27 base SMD bulb,38*160mm, 90LEDs,7W,100-260VAC, white color, 6000-6500k，630lm US $16.98

I was interested in obtaining a couple of samples for test and evaluation. And the international marketing department at Fobsun was very congenial and helpful, although they are not inclined to supply journalists with free samples. But I would buy some and their web site was recently set up to handle Visa credit card purchases. Unfortunately all I have is an American Express card, so that didn’t work out. Something will I am sure, and maybe I can get a couple of these LED lamps to work with.

But the experience brought something else up you might find interesting. I live in a small town so I make many purchases on-line if for no other reason than not going into our local Walmart. I like to cook my own meals, so found recently I can buy many French food products from www.straightfromfrance.com; as well as fine Italian food products from www.ditalia.com. It seems that the whole world is beginning to have stores on-line. This of course is a convenience to any small-towner like myself, but it also says something about Marshall McLuhan’s idea of a global village. If you still enjoy photographing with B&W film, I am sure with the Internet you will always find a source somewhere for the kind of film you need, and much else too I suspect.

Of course some people do not like change and make it into a political agenda, but maybe there will be a bit more practical freedom and democracy in a world that is fully accessible to shoppers on-line. The whole world becomes a market square for anyone who wants to shop and chat a bit. This is a change that could be interesting, and computers don’t use much fuel, especially oil.

STILL NOT CONVINCED?

2010-06-02T15:54:00.000-07:00

That Apple has overtaken Microsoft in size may be easily rationalized by Windows people claiming 80% of PC users are using Windows. But just because so many are is not a necessity to conform, in fact it may be a bad idea.

At least one really major company may think that. The Financial Times reported today that a number of Google employees have stated that Google is now requiring their 10,000 employees to us another operating system. That may have a little to do with the fact Google is working on their on operating system Chrome OS. In the meantime apparently most Google workers are switching to Apple Macs.

That may be logical because Apple Macs are not prone to hacking and virus infection, and Google bad experience with hacking in China may have been a incentive to make the change now, even before their own Chrome OS is released.

But just because Google is possibly moving away from Windows maybe for security reasons, is that good enough reason to follow suit. From my experience since I moved from Windows to Apple Mac, I would agree it is enough of a reason. But Google also knows I am sure as soon as their own Chrome OS is ready their employees can add Chrome, still use the Apple operating system and Chrome simultaneously on the same desktop with just one machine, You can do the same thing, but with Windows by adding it as a virtual operating system, so it is protected from hacking and viruses behind the Apple Mac, and you still have your Windows application available on the Mac desktop.

Yes, with an Apple Mac you can have an Apple Mac application running as well as a Windows application at the same time and with both windows open on screen. This is done most popularly with Parallels software to run other Operating Systems and applications virtually, but there are others as well.

THE EASTMAN KODAK BOX BROWNIE CONCEPT CONTINUES

2010-05-27T15:39:00.000-07:00

Early in the history of photography in America, well before the year 1900, Eastman Kodak invented the concept of “you snap the picture we will do the rest”. Kodak designed and made simple, easy to use box cameras, as well as better models, and the box Brownie was sold at a very low price to make it accessible to a wide audience. Kodak expected to, and did, earn their profit from the sale of film and processing. By the time I was a kid in the 30’s cameras, film and processing (negatives and a set of prints) were available through just about every corner drugstore.

Today, in the digital era, that basic concept continues with point and shoot digital cameras. Just about all of them save image files in JPEG and sRGB color, and the files can be sent in or inserted in a vending machine printing kiosk, often located in a drugstore, and prints will be produced. These cameras are all automated to obtain well exposed and focused pictures, and contain built-in processors that edit the images for good image quality.

Contemporary home/office computers of almost every make are in lock-step with point-and-shoot digital cameras with easy-to-use JPEG download utilities and operating systems that have an sRGB default colorspace. Photo printers made to be used with these cameras have a driver that adjusts the image to make what the pinter manufacture considers is a good reproduction of the image information on file and downloaded to the computer. Essentially none of these computers in the marketplace have the capacity to be used by a serious photo enthusiasts to be set-up for color managed image adjustment, color correction of raw photographic images that reproduce the full information capacity of digital cameras that save in Raw format, and the current LCD displays that come with home/office computers cannot be adjusted to match paper white brightness to make color managed prints that match an on-screen image.

Yes there are work-arounds and added peripherals that will accommodate the serious photographer, but they involve considerable added costs, like color management hardware and software and an expensive professional LCD display.

COULD THE INDUSTRY PRODUCE AN AFFORDABLE DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY COMPUTER?

Yes. all of the needed technology is already available. But the few million Americans who are serious photographers are not enough in numbers to interest the industry, not even one computer company, to make computer models that support serious digital photography. A couple of years ago one of the largest LCD manufacturers made an LCD display model with over 90% of the color gamut of Adobe RGB that was quite affordable, but after just one year the model was discontinued. LCD displays for home office computers are too bright, but it would cost little to produce a model with half the intensity of backlight. All LCD displays have DVI connectors that include a DDC (Direct Digital Control) segment, but none of the LCD manufacturers would agree to a DDC standard; so the operating systems, the video card manufactures and computer companies have never supported DDC, except one professional LCD display maker who uses DDC for their proprietary system, that’s NEC’s Spectraview 2.

Otherwise most contemporary home/office computers can be configured to support serious digital photography with a color managed workflow. And, probably more applications for photography would add color managed support if it was supported by the LCD display industry.

But sadly digital photography customers are not demanding that the industry supplies what they need. Sadly too many computer buyers assume they are getting products that support their serious photography interest, and do not realize that if you cannot see all of the image and color information in a digital photograph on-screen, you cannot control it with software applications like Photoshop. Photographer are missing a boat they could have if they would just demand it and quit buying inadequate home/office computers.

MICROSOFT LOOSES NUMBER #1 TO APPLE

2010-05-26T14:58:00.001-07:00

This Wednesday, May 26, 2010, Apple Computer overtook Microsoft as the leading technology company in the world. In todays trading the result was that Apple reached a value of $227.1 billion over Microsoft’s $226.3 billion for Microsoft.

This to some is a surprising turnaround since Apple was struggling not that many years ago. But by providing more advanced and better technology for its users Apple has continued to progress. Apple defies the illogic of cheaper is better that has become the American mainstay. Apple offers a better product and even if it cost a little more it is apparently worth it as more and more customers obviously have turned to Apple.

Yes, the new Apple technology is different and involves new kinds of communications and a kid of user-friendly control many people prefer. So now maybe, Americans will take a different look at what works best for them. Is it the cheapest toy or the best quality product. aye in the human dimension good actually costs less if cheap don’t do as much for you.

THE OBSOLETE CAROUSEL

2010-05-23T20:03:00.000-07:00

Yes, digital technology change is like a merry-go-round. Everyone who participates in the technology is on board. But if you will notice watching a merry-go-round some of the “horses” go up while others go down and some have higher trajectories, for the older kids to ride. And, there are no parents sitting in the seats between the “horses”. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are still in a race no one can win, but cheap in America always outsells good products, and nothing good ever comes inexpensively.

Back in the early 60’s cynicism took hold with the idea of “forced obsolescence” as the annual new cars got more chrome and bigger tail fins and little real improvement as vehicles. A few today try to accuse digital technology companies of the same kind of scam. But it doesn’t stick. In the 1960’s automobiles were already a mature technology, although one that could be improved much more than it has, even today. Markets, the people who buy products, aren’t any more adult than corporate marketeers.

The digital arena is populated by youngsters growing up fast, and that is a realm of necessary change. But it is unlike any other population of products we have seen in the past, it is completely interconnected by the technology itself, because it is now almost completely integral, it all has to work together. In the beginning there were many different kinds of computers that could not talk to each other, but the disadvantages of incompatibility soon eliminated the odd-balls and left some giants that can now all speak the same language, more or less, Microsoft, Apple, and Linux/Unix. Of course the internet and the World Wide Web played a crucial role in consolidating the digital industry, but commerce helped with an advantage to companies making products that would function with all systems, it’s a larger and more predictable market.

When I first started using computerist the mid 80’s to do writing and editing for publication. Computer uses soon expanded to graphics, all kinds of business; to now just about every aspect of cultural life. This expansion of functions involved all kinds of peripherals and connections to the internet and the web. These additional functions need support by the computer operating systems, so as each function was added new software applications were programmed and new requirements were put on Microsoft and Apple as well as Linux to support things like on-line shopping and banking, buying insurance, paying utilities and more. The consumer digital computer world has expanded enormously and every digital company to stay competitive has had to upgrade. It is not like 60’s cars tail fins and chrome; it is not forced upon us it is what we have demanded by embracing the convenience of a digitized life.

Of course I write about this from a very particular interest, digital photography. But now with even cell phones with built in cameras, digital photography is a small, niche in the overall marketplace. Very recently I went through all of the documentation I could find describing most of the popular computer brands being sold in America, like Dell, HP, Sony, Gateway, Acer, eMachines, SYX, Lenova, CybertronPC, Asus, MSI, Viewsonic, and many more, but not one was described as a digital photography computer, although a few mentioned multimedia in passing. Not all that long ago companies like HP, Dell and Gateway offered lines of graphic workstations, mostly for professional use, but CAD and Gaming workstations are about all that remain at this high end of computer choices. Does that reflect a lack of demand, or do computer makers assume home/office computers are sufficient today to do digital photography? Well for the bulk of digital camera sales, the point and shoot automatics they are partly correct, but there are two factors that get in the way of using a home/office computer for serious digital photography, and they both involve LCD displays.

The LCD display industry is essentially independent of the computer industry because the bulk of their sales are television and other larger video displays. Computer LCD displays, although they may have the brand name of the computer are made by the few very large factories that make TV displays, and are an offshoot of those designs, and are now more like the LCD HDTV sets that are sold by often another group of companies although there is some cross-over. Nearly all of the home office LCD displays sold with computers reproduce a lower color range (gamut) comparable to the sRGB colorspace, and have very bright backlight so typical applications, including an internet browser can be viewed with high, bright contrast even in brightly lit rooms. In fact this was very evident to me when I cancelled my cable TV subscription and added a small computer to run a 42 inch HDTV. The setup, including calibration and profiling reproduces an image quality close to the same as with a smaller LCD made for computers. In fact movies on DVD either played directly to the HDTV from a DVD player, if also reproduced through the computer’s DVD and computer screen function are closely matched, although the color is a little cleaner due to the calibration and profiling when the computer is driving the HDTV.

So is this another of my frequent arguments that favor Apple computers? No, it is not, because all Apple computers like the MacBooks and iMacs that come with Apple LCD displays are home/office displays with very high brightness and an sRGB color gamut. But with these Apple LCD displays including their desktop Cinema Displays have an additional limitation, just a brightness control that does not reduce the white luminance sufficiently to do color managed printing.

On the LCD display side there are two relatively expensive hgh performance digital photography choices I have previously reported on: NEC Spectraview 2, and several of the Eizo Nanao LCD display models. There are others like some of the LaCie LCD displays, but LaCie does not manufacture LCD displays. There might be others, but none I have been able to find in the American market.

SEEING THE WHOLE PICTURE

2010-05-16T14:36:00.000-07:00

There are some things worth repeating. For serious digital photographers who edit their images with a computer until recently you could only see a little more than 2/3rd’s of the color in the original on-screen image displayed, and if you can’t see it you cannot control and adjust it accurately. What I am talking about is that a dSLR set to record in raw format or a scan of a color transparency produces a range of different colors about what the Adobe RGB (1998) profile will support, but until just a short while ago all but some very special and expensive LCD displays only reproduce sRGB color that is a colorspace that has about 30% fewer colors. In other words most of us have been working with photographs that contained many fewer colors on-screen than the original.

The first affordable, well under a $1000 LCD that reproduces over 95% of Adobe RGB color was the NEC 22 inch Sprectraview 2 model. Since I wrote about this new NEC LCD display many have purchased it and and seem to be pleased with using the display. Of course if you have a much fatter than normal wallet there are many larger and more sophisticated LCD displays that reproduce more than 95% of Adobe RGB made by NEC, Eizo and Mitsubishi.

I needed a new LCD display recently, as one of mine with over five years of heavy use needed replacement. But I did not choose the NEC P221W Spectraview 2 for two reason. One is that I have to work with all of the different display adjustment, calibration and profiling software and colorimeters to write about the subject, and the NEC Spectraview is proprietary. And second, I do a lot of retouching of scanned images and the NEC P221W has the normal resolution for this 22 inch size of 1680x1050 pixels, and I need a higher, finer resolution. (I am used to older 3:4 format 20 inch LCD models with 1600x1200 pixels that are great for retouching but no longer is that format produced.)

So, looking for a new 22 inch wide color gamut (95% + Adobe RGB) that has higher resolution and is also in the under $1,000 class, I found an Eizo Flexscan model. The Eizo Flexscan S2242W is a 22 inch display with 1920x1200 pixel resolution , a wide color gamut; and that is similar to the specifications of much more costly 24 inch professional LCD displays. It has a very sturdy metal bezel and stand that is fully adjustable, and includes performance adjustments for Brightness, Contrast, Gamma, Temperature (in 500 K increments from 4,000 K – 10,000 K including 9,300 K), Saturation, Hue, and Gain. In addition for those who need software and a spectrometer to adjust, calibrate and profile this display there is the Eizo EasyPIX system at a competitive cost. So, I ordered an S2242W from a nearby Eizo dealer and it was delivered for a little over $800. I have been using this display ever since with a lot of scan work and am entirely pleased with the performance and am obtaining color managed prints that are extremely well matched in color and brightness.

About the same time I learned that Eizo had announced a new version of this LCD display the S2243W. It is essentially the same display but has an added input connector, the new Display Port design, but seems to be the same display in all other respects. And I have also learned the new S2243W is not available at least until the stock of the S2242W models has been sold.

Another thing I learned about wide color gamut displays is that older colorimeters do not provide an accurate profiling result with these LCD displays that have 95% plus of Adobe RGB color. I got very clear proof of this after getting a new Spyder3 colorimeter from DataColor. I re-profiled the S2242W with the new Spyder3 and compared the 2D graph of each profile from my older Spyder3 with the new one and the older profile had a very large and noticeable skew in the color it recorded and profiled. So if you plan to purchase a new wide color gamut LCD display and have a display colorimeter much more than a year old, plan on replacing it with a new model that is designed for wide color gamut displays.

As I final note, the purchase of my Eizo Flexscan S2242W LCD display was the most rewarding investment I have made in any product since I began doing digital photography 20 years ago. And anyone who knows me also knows I do not make statements like that lightly or for any reason other than my own experience.

SOMETHING OLD SOMETHING NEW

2010-05-08T14:17:00.000-07:00

Photography is approximately a 140 year old technology, but among the younger set using the latest cell phone models photography is often an integral part of this newest communication mode, take a picture with the phone and send it to someone else. When I first began doing photography almost 60 years ago it was a lot more of a challenge to participate than pushing a button or two, there weren’t even any reliable light meters then to use to calculate the film exposure, plus the many other things that all had to be done individually like focusing the lens on the subject, setting the aperture relative to the shutter speed, all relative to the ASA speed and type of film you were using. In other words photography in the 1950’s was a demanding technology to perform and of necessity had to be a concentrated single-minded experience.

In that era, although already modern in many respects, what the rest of the world looked like was not familiar to most people, so magazine like Life and Look, large pictures books brought the visual worlds from afar into people’s lives. The photographers of the print media like Bresson, Capra, W. Eugene Smith, Avedon, Penn were well-known heros inspiring young photographers, I was one of them you can be sure. But technology gradually changed culture, and as TV became common photography in another form, it made a living, moving world out there available to everyone in there living rooms. Today miniaturized digital technology has made media portable and accessible wherever you go and photographic pictures has become a part of everyday life. A small avatar of my facial countenance accompanies all the e-mails I send out, as it joins my comments in Facebook. The world and its use of photography has changed during my lifetime, it has become an inclusive part of everyday life instead of the rare and difficult to access medium I learned to use in the early 50’s. Is it now less important or significant. Interestingly not really, other than it is taken for granted now. Young people do not dream of being a famous photographer, because there aren’t any today like Ansel Adams was in his lifetime.

For the photography enthusiast today it is technically easier to produce high quality images, but I think a part of its attraction is still a usually solitary, single-minded experience. Personally, I believe this will not change. Photography that is part of the multitasking world of young people today, will produce a different kind of image with a much less significant perceptual impact, because photos have become so frequent and easily incorporated in common conversation the iconic pictures that helped disillusion people about war that came from Vietnam, aren’t likely to have such singular impact today and in the future.

That brings up a question some are studying seriously at MIT and Stanford University, do we derive the equal value from a multi-tasked experience as from a single-minded one? The scientists so far are finding that the quality of thought that is part of multi-tasking experience is possibly much poorer in quality than traditionalists derived from single-minded concentrations of thought. College student today do not write contiguous essays, but a series of unconnected paragraphs, according to many of their professors. So what are your thoughts? Photography of some sort will survive, but will it have the same qualities we have valued? Will any of the young people multi-tasking their way through life experience photography as you and I have enjoyed and valued, or are those days numbered?

NEW DATACOLOR SPYDER3 ELITE VERSION 4

2010-04-28T16:55:00.000-07:00

In the old days of computer digital imaging those big heavy CRT monitors at least matched printers and printer paper in brightness, so no too dark prints. With today’s LCD displays most are now made as cheap as possible for home/office computing and are two to four times as bright as those old CRT monitors, which for most computing is is an advantage, but not for digital photographers who want to color anD brightness match screen and print.

Originally Color Vision with their Spyder products made monitor calibration easy and affordable, and many are using a Spyder sensor and software to calibrate and profile their display to a color matching advantage. But only the top-end software allowed measuring the White Luminance brightness of the screen reproduction, and that function was pretty well hidden except to the most demanding “experts”. Now in Version 4 of the Spyder3 Elite software the screen brightness measurement and readout is easily accessible and there are a group of preset terms available for every computing purpose to easily conform the aim points for calibration and profiling including a dialogue that assists manually adjusting the display controls to reach a particular White Luminance goal.

In addition this new version 4 provides a lot more information on the adjustment, calibration and profiling result, as well as extended evaluations of display performance that can be measured additionally with recorded results. I made a quick trial of this new software, and it works easily and well providing users with everything they can do except buying a high cost display and matching color management system that allows the computer and software to make all of the adjustments directly to the display by a DVI/DDC or USB interface.

Recently I have written about new professional level wide color gamut LCD displays that reproduce over 95% of the Adobe RGB color gamut. Some of you have purchased one of these display, or another, and a few without the proprietary sensor and software, hoping to save money by using their old sensor and its software. Usually if the sensor and software is more than a year or two old it is filtered and configured to respond to the much smaller color gamut of home/office monitor and displays; and using it with a new wide color gamut display can result in a poor or even skewed, inaccurate calibration and profile. I have found the most recent Spyder3 sensor and software will work very effectively with new wide color gamut professional displays and provide accurate calibration and profiling, and the latest Spyder3 sensitometer will also work with other brand software effectively like NEC’s Spectraview 2.

The upgrade cost is very modest, and you can even upgrade from the Pro version to Elite reasonably, so this DataColor upgrade is one that serves users well and is extremely worthwhile.

A PHOTOGRAPHER'S PURPOSE

2010-04-10T15:40:00.000-07:00

When I became interested in photography, the photo magazines of the time were the most ready source of information. They were at that time many years ago, full of inspiring images made by the photographers popular at the time like Pete Turner, Irving Penn and Richard Avedon, as well as the famous photographers of the immediate past like Ansel Adams, Edward Weston and William Mortensen. Even some how-to books by Adams and Mortensen were helpful to a very serious enthusiast.

If you were really involved with photography, like any other interest the most successful and renowned photographers were what you wanted to emulate, and be like. Like a basketball player today, an enthusiast's hope is to make it to the status of professional. That is success.

Thanks to the military during a war, I got to a position of being paid to do photography rather easily. But I found that to e really accomplished and competitive, using my GI Bill benefit after the service to go to photography school, was the best ay to advice and get established in civilian photography,But once you have established your self professionally what you have become is someone else's photographer, not your own, The skills and abilities you have acquired in service to whoever is paying you to make a photograph for them. Now that has its rewards in profit and accomplishment, but the images are not what you would make for yourself. So, the goal of becoming a professional can be personally disappointing.

So what options are there to make photographs for the reasons that interested you in the beginning? You might be lucky and if you make photographs for yourself and then offer them for sale people will buy them. So you are lucky and some images are purchased. If this encourages you will the future images you make also be popular? If some images sell and other don't, won't you chose to make more like those that are popular? Of course, you sure won't make more like the ones that didn't sell. As this goes on are you making the images you would make for yourself, or those your customers would like to buy? Can you really be your own photographer and a professional? Or is making your own photographs and what you make to sell two different worlds. Of course this not an all or nothing balance, it is for most somewhere in the middle. But if you are photographing for other, they are part of the game.

So, the amateur enthusiast does enjoy an advantage in being true to photographing for the personal inspiration and one's own satisfaction in the image made. But although economic pressure and purpose do not influence the lone photographer following their own eye and inspiration, are we ever truly independent? Does the idea of what is good photography in the opinion of others have any influence? As much as people share their photos over the internet these days, I am sure whatever reaction is obtained might be encouraging or discouraging. Are we waver entirely free to be ourselves and express ourselves candidly, Not really unless we keep it all to ourselves.

Today I don’t get out much to photograph very often, not because it wouldn’t be enjoyable, but I’m old and tired and just getting out is more of a burden than a pleasure. But I have almost 60 years of memories and a library of photographs made in those years. I have culled out nearly all the photos I made professionally and kept those I made for the pleasure of it when I wasn’t working. There is not a great photo among them but the reason I was inspired to make the image remains, and is relived every time I do something with the image. Time and its perspective tells me what my purpose was, and I am afraid mine was rather self-serving as often as I could afford to play as a photo enthusiast. Being professional just paid the bills.

DOES HAVING THE MOST TOYS WIN OR LOOSE?

2010-04-03T16:01:00.000-07:00

Today was the first one that the Apple iPad was delivered to customers. That was interesting considering there were long lines at every Apple store of people who had pre-ordered an iPad. They could just as well stayed home and their new iPad would have been delivered to them. So why stand in-line? There were also reams of commentary in my news gathering this morning, mostly vacant observations of course. But there was one telling insight of the fact unlike computers which are used to work and create stuff, the iPad is designed as a consumer of stuff. My computers are used mostly to do research, process and edit images and write articles and blogs. But I must admit I just bought another iMac, this time to replace my cable box to download entertainment, and that is consumption.

Of course that does not answer the question although the iPad is another toy. What does answer the question is the purpose to the individual a toy has, how is it used and why. Cameras in this respect are toys and some photographers collect more and more, better toys. Sometimes I see them displayed at greatly known and visited tourist attractions. I seldom visit these congregations of popularism, places like the south rim of the Grand Canyon, but some years ago I did because I had a traveling companion who had never seen the southwest of America. While my guest was enthralled by the view I was captivated by the tourists with 35mm SLR cameras hung around their necks, nearly all festooned with long telephoto zoom lenses. To capture the Grand Canyon on film you need the shortest wide-angle possible to even get part of its expanse on film. I never saw one of those cameras with a large phallus attached lifted and pointed at a subject, so I had to assume the gear was some kind of symbol, a badge of recognition. Look I have a big professional looking camera so name me photographer. Maybe that is a little crass, but I think toys have an identity purpose for many who collect them.

When I was a photo student I had one instructor I took very seriously. His name was Boris Dobro, and he was a European who had escaped the Nazi scourge in the 1930’s. He was highly prized and respected in salon photography exhibitions that were popular in Europe between the Wars. And, was particularly appreciated by many students who wanted to learn the art of printing photographs. But occassionally he would get reflective and take a break to tell stories from his past. The one that stuck with me now for 45 years was about a group of camera clubs that made large salon prints for exhibition and competition. It involved an unusual membership rule that everyone use a Zeis Ikon box camera for all their photographs submitted to the clubs for show and contest. Now the Zeis Ikon box camera was no Baby Brownie camera but had a multi-element lens, and aperture and shutter speed control. But of course the idea was to require a basic camera everyone could afford and that the purpose of the members activity was to create competitive, fine, photographic prints based entirely on the members talent and craftsmanship, and not on whether they could afford the best and most sophisticated equipment.

I am sure the clubs did not survive the Nazi regime as they were just too idealistically egalitarian and democratic.

But the concept and the Zeis Ikon box camera club’s placing value on skill and craftsmanship instead of the idea you need the best equipment remains. And it has been proven to me as I got to know many of the best photographers work over the years including, Edward Weston, Ansel Adams, Morley Baer, as well as William Mortensen and W. Eugene Smith, to name just a few that used minimal equipment and great creative craftsmanship.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND NOT!

2010-03-24T16:16:00.000-07:00

Recently I have reported on products I have tested and used. If a product works for me I will recommend it as I assume if I can make it work, others should also be able to do so. This may involve hardware and software used together, one being supported by the other, and may include additional products designed to be used with the primary product. Some of these products are designed to be proprietary, to work only with the recommended additions as advertised. I am usually strict and limited about my recommendations and do not include options for substitutions.

Some readers, wanting to save money have chosen to use older products with the primary new product, and have written to me criticizing me for not recommending such savings shortcuts. The reason I don’t recommend them is I have no evidence the results I have obtained that I base my recommendation upon will be achieved using some substituted product the reader already owns. I can only recommend what I know works and works as the manufacturer intended.

A very short time ago I reported I had purchased a new large color gamut Eizo Flexscan LCD display. It replaced an older standard, smaller color gamut LCD display. So I used software that is current and up to date to adjust, calibrate and profile this new Flexscan. The colorimeter I used to work with the software is one I have used reliably for several years and has achieved good high quality calibration and profiles with several older displays I own as well as some newer models I have tested. But with this newest Eizo LCD display was different with the result of the calibration and profiling that seemed a little off even though the profile file checked out as being OK.

So I asked DataColor the company that made the Spyder3 colorimeter I used if I could purchase a newer more recent model to replace my old sensor. I received a new colorimeter yesterday. I saved my old calibration and profile, and then made another set with the new colorimeter. I then used Chromix Color Think to compare the two and found the profile made with the older sensitometer was skewed quite noticeably, and it was also irregular compared to profiles made with my older, lower color gamut LCD displays.

This test experience confirmed the information I obtained from a color management designer, not long ago, that the new wider color gamut displays require using a sensitometer with a matching sensitivity range and different filtering for measuring the light from these new displays. And from my own tests I have found that LCD displays made by different manufacturers, although the color gamut size is similar may include differences in the chromatic attributes of that range of color reproduced. So, there is more than product exclusivity in some maker’s proprietary policies that is based on assuring a greater accuracy of color matched results and the calibration and profile quality created and used by users.

The bottom line is that as performance is extended in more refined products, the demand for adjustment, calibration and profiling accuracy becomes more critical. So, the bottom line is reduced by any economic saving from using older color management tools designed for lower performing LCD displays. In other words I cannot justifiably support economic savings when a user makes an investment in a higher performance LCD display if it is not accompanied by matching color measurement and calibration/profiling support, because you will only be getting part of the potential advantage of that higher performance display.

CONFUSION: TOO MANY FORKS IN THE ROAD

2010-03-03T19:55:00.000-08:00

No this is not an article about politics, the Progressives against the party of NO!, both confronted by those apparently drinking something stronger than “tea” that want to blow up, destroy, or whatever to everything governmental. The computer world is beginning to also be a tangle of conflicting paths going in different directions with a mystery goal no one is talking about.

I started following this meandering and increasingly complicated issue because many digital photographers want to make digital slideshows and show them on their TV, or send the slideshow to relatives and friends to show on their TV’s. Initially photographers had to get software to create slide-shows in 1080 resolution video format so they would play with a DVD player through a TV. But since then both Microsoft with Windows 7 and Apple with their Snow Leopard OS 10.6 have basic support. But with Windows you have to download the photo-video software from the Microsoft web site and install it. With Apple to obtain application support you will need to add iLife 09 at a very modest cost, and install it.

In the interim, I suggested just getting an HDMI cable one end to connect to the HD TV set and a DVI plug on the other end that can be connected to a computer, either Mac or PC, and show your computer’s screen image on and HD TV and play slideshows directly from a folder of image files. Apparently few liked that idea, although I spent a little change and tried it and found these easy slide shows are rather spectacular.

Many who have broad-band internet connection use a router that is WiFi so you have a wireless connection to run the internet to any computer anywhere in your home. This fact has been understood and in a 2009 model Samsung BD-P3600 Blu-Ray player WiFi is built into the player, so you can connect your TV to some internet sites like Hulu or NetFlix and get downloaded video content on your TV. Soon to be delivered is a LG Electronics Blu Ray player model LG BD570 with advertised greater support for more internet video sites and purported live video feeds from a computer with WiFi internet connectivity. Even though it is being sold, but I’ve not heard delivered as yet, I am not going to drop close to $300 to find out if it works.

The WiFi Bu-Ray players made me curious if there might be another way to use WiFi to connect a computer to an HD TV. There are several companies, which look like they are European, that have less costly WiFi receiver/sender units with USB connection to a Windows computer and an interface like HDMI for an HD TV. One company is Cable Unlimited Wireless and another Warpia Wireless both with kits between $100 and $150 and available on Amazon.com. I’d give this a go but I don’t have a PC although I do run Windows on one of my Macs.

During the same time-span there has been a hot debate involving the FCC about the proposed Comcast buyout of NBC/MSNBC, that would merge content provision with TV’s largest cable provider. There is much opposition to this kind of extension towards monopoly. But American corporations seem intent on getting bigger and charging ordinary citizens ever more for services. On the other hand the government’s Stimulus Bill has provisions to try to expand the provision of broadband for more people affordably, but maybe that is too European and “socialist” to some, so may not materialize.That could be just as well, in my estimation, as cable TV has more and more channels chalk full of mostly advertising and a little, mindlessly bad entertainment.

So, I’ll keep my fingers crossed that I may soon be able to access what I want to watch on my TV over the Internet - but don’t tell my cable provider as they provide connection to my modem supplying my broadband connection!

Of course there is more to this as the slideshow issue illustrated. To me it is unfortunate photographers have to convert a selection of images and program them into a video to be able to show a series of slides on an LCD HD TV. Easier and more effective options should be available. In addition, a more generally supported cross platform interface between TV and computers could make the two better partners in educational and communications functions that could benefit many people. This should be supported rather than hindered purely for corporate profit interests, because much good is gained by these services being more accessible and affordable to a wider part of the population. Some of the help I try to provide my Shutterbug readers could be improved and made more useful to many more to make use of digital computer photography more easily and be more rewarding. I have researched I am sure just a little of this, and I am sure there are others who can contribute additional information, so let’s hear from you, so write me an e-mail at goofotografx@gmail.com

ADOBE PHOTOSHOP 20 YEARS?

2010-02-28T15:06:00.000-08:00

In the last issue of Shutterbug I reported on Adobe Photoshop Elements 8, and this week Adobe is celebrating their 20th anniversary of Photoshop. Usually when I have a product report like Elements 8 in an issue it results in some questions in my e-mail box. This time most were whether Elements 8 has any more 16-bit file support than previous versions. The answer is that Adobe for now considers 16-bit support professional and so the user should have Photoshop CS 4 which does offer that and much more. Are there any other options? Yes, fortunately we still have many competing manufacturers making many products like automobiles, so we are not stuck with one choice of what to drive.

For the Elements user who wants more support yet does not want to or can’t afford Photoshop CS 4, Corel just made the PaintShop Pro Photo X3 application available. And although Corel has owned this software for just a few years, it has a solid history as an image editing application for Windows users as long or longer than Elements. So how does it compare? Well for the readers of Shutterbug who have questioned me and probably many more who want to move to doing “professional” photo editing, this new version of PaintShop Pro Photo X3 does have support for 16-bit image files.

In addition it has new and improved features that an Elements user may want and need, like a new Organizer, support for Raw format with their Camera RAW Lab so digital camera files can be converted and adjusted, a multiple photo adjustment feature that makes batch processing easier, a Smart Carver image object remover to eliminate unwanted bits and pieces of a photograph, Express Lab that bring the more frequently used image adjustment tools into one window on your computer screen, an Object Extractor that makes masking complex image objects more precisely and easier, and finally amongst the new, Project Creator to output your newly made photo files as books, collages, cards, and most importantly photo slideshows. It supports HD video format slideshows and provides also easy ways to share on YouTube, Facebook and any new internet media to come probably.

Most important to serious digital photographer computer users, PaintShop Pro Photo X3 has all of the image correction and adjustment tools, including gamut optimization or as Adobe calls it Levels, brightness/contrast, color balance, color hue and saturation adjustment, about everything you are used to and expect. The off-side of that is the names and dialogues can be different; but, with just a little effort and thought you can do all the image color correction and adjustment and practice will make the process as easy as using any other software, and there are others, that have also offered advanced manual control of the attributes of digital photographic image files. Corel PaintShop Pro Photo X3 is now about the most complete of serious photo image applications, and the least costly with a list price of $99.95, (and often offered for less) - take a look at
http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite/us/en/Product/1184951547051#tabview=tab0

UPDATES - NEW STUFF THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE

2010-02-02T21:22:00.000-08:00

In my last post I mentioned that I had just purchased a Sigma DP1s that has just been released to the market. Don Ellis informed me that Version 5.6 of Adobe Camera Raw, I had not yet installed, had support for this odd camera with a Foveon 3 sensor chip - that’s fast and indicates Sigma’s use of the Foveon is catching on even in a camera design that is not the usual but with a fixed focal length lens. I tried using Adobe Camera Raw with some DP1s files and had to agree with Don Ellis, that like most 3rd party convertors, it falls short of the camera manufacturer’s software.. But that does not fully satisfy me so I went to Lasersoft and they were interested in providing support for the camera with their SilverFast DC and HDR, so I did what I could to help them with the project.

Of course the dominating news was the Steve Jobs presentation of Apple’s new iPad. Another “tablet” and this time hopefully a fully successful small, portable and very affordable combination of computer and internet media device with WiFi and cell connectivity. What just one commentator suggested is the iPad’s potential for students is it’s a real learning device including book reading capacity that goes way beyond what some have attempted to do for children and students with cheap, small laptops. Now the question is will the education establishment get on board and help students use this new access to the world of knowledge to learn and expand their curiosity beyond social networking.

Of course you may have heard Google is trying to move ahead with scanning and digitizing the books of the world’s libraries with much opposition, fair and unfair. But lets all hope the information in the serious world becomes more accessible. But that is just a part of it because a lot of people with skills and knowledge to share have not learned the ePub standard is readily accessible, for instance simply using the Adobe Acrobat PDF-A format, so everyone can become an author if they have something to contribute. What have you learned in a lifetime of living?

NEC MAKES ANOTHER LARGER PA-SERIES DISPLAY AVAILABLE

NEC Display Solutions of America, a leading provider of commercial LCD display and projector solutions, announces the new MultiSync® PA Series, successor to the critically acclaimed MultiSync 90 Series, by introducing the MultiSync PA241W. Designed for professional graphics applications, this 24-inch desktop display is ideal for digital photography, video editing, print production and any environment in which color accuracy is crucial.

The PA241W continues the MultiSync 90 Series’ tradition of delivering crisp, accurate images while adding improved color coverage, sleeker industrial design and enhanced connectivity. The display features 102 percent coverage of NTSC and 99.3 percent of Adobe® RGB, an increase from 72 percent in the MultiSync LCD2490WUXi². With a 38 percent smaller footprint size, the display provides users with more desktop space and decreased costs in shipping and storage. Improved cable management enables simpler setup of the monitor, while its new 10-bit DisplayPort and USB hub add to an already diverse set of input connectors.

“NEC’s MultiSync PA Series is a flagship desktop monitor family that carries market leadership in the color, medical and professional industries,” said Art Marshall, Product Manager at NEC Display Solutions. “The MultiSync PA241W, the first model in this series, focuses on both workflow productivity and color accuracy, with the aim to improve upon the success of the MultiSync 90 Series. Users that require a reliable display for color precision will want to take advantage of the sophisticated technologies used in the MultiSync PA Series, starting with the PA241W.”

Below is a partial list of features included in the MultiSync PA241W:
. 1920 x 1200 native resolution in 16:10 aspect ratio
. 10-bit IPS LCD panel with 14-bit lookup table, which increases color depth to more than one-billion possible colors
. 360 cd/m² brightness
. 1000:1 contrast ratio
. 102 percent coverage of NTSC and 99.3 percent coverage of Adobe RGB
. Improved connectivity with 10-bit DisplayPort, DVI-D with HDCP and USB hub
. Improved cable management and smaller stand size
. Ergonomic stand with tilt, swivel, height-adjust and pivot
. DisplaySync Pro, which controls two computers with only one keyboard and mouse
. 3D lookup table, which enables accurate representation of hard-to-match color spaces
. ICC profile emulation, which loads ICC color profiles to accurately support manufacturer color spaces
. Color Vision Emulation, which allows a quick preview of colors that emulate color vision problems
. Ambient light sensor and automatic backlight adjustment for use in any lighting condition
. Carbon footprint meter, which allows users to easily track carbon savings

The MultiSync PA241W is available for shipment with an estimated street price of $1,079 and ships with a 4-year parts and labor warranty, including the backlight. Additional models in the MultiSync PA Series will be announced throughout 2010, including models with the award-winning SpectraView 2 Color Calibration Solution.

EIZO HAS A NEW LCD DISPLAY, AND I WANT ONE

Quite a few months ago I tested and reported on an Eizo ColorEdge display that was ideal in every way except it was far beyond my budget. Now they have a Flexscan model S2243W that has all the essential features a serious digital photographers needs, and should sell for well under a $1,000. But I have not been able to find one yet at any of the web dealers I frequent.

Here are some particulars: This 22" monitor for home office, business, CAD, and digital photography presents a cost- and space-saving alternative to 24.1" monitors by offering the same 1920 × 1200 resolution in 10% less desk space. This is a fine screen resolution that has been missing since the high-end 20.1 inch LCD displays were discontinued. It also comes with three inputs including DisplayPort.

* 1920 × 1200 native resolution
* 1200:1 contrast ratio
* 350 cd/m2 brightness
* Digital/analog inputs

Wide Color Gamut

Color reproduction area of this monitor reproduces 95% of the Adobe RGB color space. This means it can display most colors of a photograph taken in a camera's Adobe RGB mode including many shades of cyan and emerald green that fall outside the color gamut of typical sRGB monitors.

Simple Color Matching with EIZO EasyPIX: EIZO easyPIX image, The optional EIZO EasyPIX color matching tool is ideal for digital SLR camera users looking to match colors between their monitors and photo prints. With the EasyPIX software you can match the monitor’s color and brightness with that of the photo paper and then create a monitor profile with the bundled EX1 color sensor. No expertise in color management is required and the profile can be shared with image retouching software to ensure accurate results when printing.

A DEBATE ABOUT WHAT IS DIGITAL CAMERA IMAGE QUALITY

2009-12-18T22:55:00.000-08:00

Almost every paper and web photo publication has reported on Canon’s newest G-11 model high performance P&S camera. Some have noted that this new model has a lower megapixel count of 10 MPX, compared to the 14.7 megapixel G-10, that is still featured for sale on the Canon web site. One pundit even quoted without naming his source at Canon “They have also changed up the sensor, keeping it the same size, but making the pixels bigger. The result is a lower 10-megapixel resolution, but they claim the trade-off is better image-quality, especially in low-light situations. A Canon rep mentioned that it's because the G-11 is focused on providing the best quality in the form of a still image.”

This has come back to me from readers that Canon’s lowering the G-11 megapixel count was to improve image quality, and another assuming a similar kind of logic, that maybe the G-10 was not a very good performing camera. What comparisons of the reports of both G-10 and G-11 cameras reveals is that at the highest ISO speed rating, the G-11 produces less image deterioration at these inflated speeds, even at one stop greater ISO rating.

What is clear from the specifications is that the new G-11 captures almost 50% less image information than the the previous G-10. So if both cameras exposed the same image at a rated ISO setting of 80, wouldn’t the G-10 capture more information? And if both the G-10 and G-11 images were made in Raw format and printed to a letter-size print image wouldn’t the resulting G-10 image be based on more sensor information, with more detail in the image?

With the highest-end EOS cameras with full-frame sensor’s, isn’t the higher megapixel rating a measure of superior imaging quality?

So what is really in discussion out there between the G-10 and G-11 is maybe really about differences in image sensor quality about which camera’s processor can reproduce better images from under-exposed shots taken in low-light? So, is that a reflection of image sensor performance or how much the capture can be processed differently to get a result from inflated ISO ratings? I say this because the very first dSLR cameras I worked with did not offer much if any higher than standard ISO ratings. The camera cannot change the physical sensitivity of its sensor chip, and make it actually more sensitive to light. The image processor is just squeezing and re-interpreting the information the sensor collects when it is intentionally “under-exposed”.

In a sense it is not all that different than it was in film days. If you wanted the best image quality you loaded a standard or relatively low 64 0r 100 ISO speed rated film. If you chose a 400 or i600 ISO rated film the higher the number the more grain, excessive contrast and distorted color were usual side effects of the greater film speed. With digital it is a loss of image information and noise especially in darker areas of the image.

So , maybe if you are a photographer that shoots mostly in full daylight and want as much image information in your pictures as possible the G-10 would be a better choice if you are going to shoot at low ISO speeds. But if you are taking shots of sporting events at night the new G-11 might provide better picture information at its higher ISO speed ratings.

Don’t be misled, there is still good reason for the megapixel race, more megapixels produce more image information and better picture quality is the result. And if you want the best image quality any digital camera can reproduce, use the lowest ISO rating the camera offers.

STUPIDIUM

2009-11-29T10:36:00.000-08:00

I have to admit I borrowed this word from a MacWorld writer commenting on the tech bloggers of the day, it’s a good word. But I want to use it in reference to so many photographers for not researching and understanding the basics of digital technology based pixel imaging. It’s not that personal computer digital imaging is all that new, I’ve been working with it for 20 years. But the average photographer of the past, and used to film, have been led to believe it is just another kind of photography, much like film photography, and the same mind-set works as well with digital. Well it does for the camera companies, but not for their customers, because they are being encouraged to buy what they may not need and are not demanding more of what digital can provide, and they could use if available.

With film the light that is focused on the frame that exposes the film and records the amount of light exactly as the lens has focused it in fine detail, forms a physical latent image recording three layers of color film to make a Red, Green and Blue image superimposed on top of each other. Then after exposure the film is developed and you have a film emulsion of layers developed into physical dye blobs that represent what the lens focused and recorded.

Does a digital sensor capture images similarly. No, it doesn’t, absolutely not. So let’s say to keep the numbers round the sensor chip has 3,000x4,000 sensor sites, that’s 12 megapixels, or 12,000,000 sensors. To keep it simple lets assume that the sensors are equally divided between Red, Green and Blue, that’s 4 million each. But with a 12 megapixel camera you get a file image that has 12 million pixels, each with an RGB value. So how does that happen? Well, the lateral association of the sets of 3 different colored pixels is calculated in relation to the surrounding pixels and an “educated” guess is made by a processor chip as to what the color balance of each pixel should be.

So now lets consider what is in each of these educated pixels and where the information came from. Lets say you are taking a picture across the street of your neighbor’s house and yard, and lets say at your lens setting the image area measures 60 feet high and 80 feet wide. When the camera is focused and framed to measure the value for each sensor site, the camera is projecting a virtual matrix upon the scene. So, each section relative to each sensor site is 1/4th of an inch square in the matrix of the scene. So then when the exposure is made each sensor site measures the Red, Green or Blue light value that is the average reflected by each 1/4 inch square of the scene’s matrix. If a pixel area has a part of a green leaf and a part of a brown fence within the area, the measurement is the average of those light values. So is your digital camera recording an image or is it measuring a pixel matrix, sensor site by sensor site, and recording the average value for each pixel area within the matrix? Yes, a digital camera is just that, a measuring device recording number values for the average value of light reflected from each separate pixel area in the matrix of the scene. Does any physical picture result? No, just a file of numbers.

So what does this recording look like. If the file is read by a digital editor it is line after line of numbers, with an XY number for the location of each pixel in the matrix, and a Red, a Green and a Blue number for each of those colors. If the camera is a high-end dSLR a Raw file can be made pretty much as the information comes off the sensor (called neutral or faithful), if the camera is set for no sharpening, no contrast and no saturation, in other words an essentially unprocessed Raw image as the sensor records it.

I am a curious person, so the first dSLR I used that had this option I used it, and with the camera on a tripod also shot a picture in normal mode with average sharpening, contrast and saturation enhancement. With both images opened in Photoshop there was only a vague similarity between the two, the neutral unsharpened and un-enhanced image was extremely soft, very flat in contrast and had little color saturation. In fact, using the tools in Photoshop I spent many hours trying to make the off-the-sensor image look like a “normal” shot of the same scene, and never even got close. Taking a small part of each image and then zooming in so each pixel could be seen clearly, the pixels looked a little alike in that every pixel in an image is an even flat square of tone, but the off the sensor unprocessed pixels were extremely low in value and differed little from one another.

What conclusion can one come to looking carefully at what a dSLR image sensor records, and what the images look like when ”normal” settings are used? I have asked this in several items I have written, and no photographer has acknowledged that they have made the tests I have, nor ever examined what an unprocessed off the sensor raw image looks like. Apparently no one has read about how the scientists at NASA use computing, and how the images made by the Hubbel telescope are processed. I think the answers are rather obvious, but it seems to me photographers want to believe using a dSLR is no different than what we did with film well back in the 20th century. I’d like very much to hear what you, and what your thinking is, just send a note to David B. Brooks at: goofotografx@gmail.com

LGE LCD DISPLAYS

2009-11-11T21:35:00.000-08:00

LG Electronics is one of world’s two largest producers of LCD screen products, and supplies many of the computer displays that brandish all different kinds of brand names. You can get a picture of their wide range of products, including numerous models of computer displays at www.lge.com/html/gate.html. On that globals site there is one fairly new model professional 24 inch RGB LED LCD display with exceedingly robust specifications, the W2420R model. It is apparently available in Europe, but you will not find this display included on the LGE web site for the United States.

I am not writing this to complain, as LGE, closest competitor makes a similar professional RGB LED LCD display that is available in the US. My guess is that LG Electronics does support a modest LCD display marketing effort in the US, but from my contact with their PR department, it is largely focused on consumer home/office products. So, it may very well be that LGE is not making this new high performance RGB LED LCD display, the W2420R available in America entirely because of their own limited US marketing strategy. In other words, I have no reason to complain the USA is being left out for any but a practical reason. But considering the range of good professional LCD displays for photography is so limited, having LGE’s new display added would be a possible blessing.

A new LGE display model that will be found listed and specified on their US web site is another 24 inch LED LCD display, the W2486L. From the limited specifications that LGE associate with this relatively new model for the US, I think I can fairly describe it as a better grade home/office model. Sadly I can’t say anything about what its color gamut size is as LGE provides a percentage figure for color, but does not say what the base of the percentage is. Confusing, yes but that is standard for most LCD display sellers except a few that specify a percentage of Adobe RGB (1998) colorspace if the color gamut is greater than that!

Anyway, I have not tested this display although I did test one 22 inch that was similarly classed and was a 2008 model. I am currently using it installed on my office Mac and enjoy its good performance, but at a brightness of 120.0 CD/m2. It does not perform very well at a lower white luminance that matches paper white.

Obviously, part of the reason I bring this LGE display subject up is because the business news press a few months ago let it be known that Apple Computer made a $500 million prepaid deal with LGE for future LCD supplies. Are the new LED iMac versions at all related to the W2486L I mentioned? The specs, what little Apple reveals, would have one guessing a little. But what if Apple offered an iMac with LGE’s RGB LED LCD display, and with an added contrast as well as brightness adjustment? Well then that could very well be a professional photography iMac I would be happy to recommend - and of course the price would give the Windoze geeks a real basis for complaining about pricey Apple products. RGB LED LCD displays that can now be purchased in the US are expensive.

THIS WEEK THAT WASN’T

2009-10-24T15:05:00.000-07:00

With the first photography show of the season open in New York, this 3rd week of October, many companies took the opportunity to showcase new products. And they have been both generally and specifically prevalent with all kinds of release e-mails added to my new product folder. I can’t say that I paid detailed attention to them all. Even though Mamiya for instance had significant new digital camera models with alluring features. More general and broader new products affecting how digital photography is edited and processed got a much deeper perusal in my reading and some digging to get below the fluff to the real stuff.
After recently releasing Apple OS 10.6 Snow Leopard and my installation of one of the new Mac Mini’s, Apple announced two new iMac models with new, larger LED backlight LCD displays. Many of the shortcomings of some previous iMac model’s displays have been addressed, by improved overall computer performance and capabilities, but I found these new displays are as bright or brighter than previous. However, Apple advertises them for digital photography without any company recourse made available to prevent “prints too dark”, if a color managed print workflow is used.
After recently releasing a new Adobe Photoshop Elements 8 for both Windows and Apple Mac platforms, that I have installed but barely acquainted with yet, Adobe just provided public access to beta test a new Adobe LightRoom 3 and you can go to http://labs.adobe.com/downloads to get more information and download this beta version. With public beta’s, photographers using the new application, more attention is being paid to processing image quality, as well as making the input portion more effective and efficient. But being able to publish finished images easily including to the latest web facilities, but also to arranging easy print output has been added. It may be more widely applicable as a photographer’s application and not just a shooter’s tool when the results of the beta are seen in a production version, in the not too distant future.
Although Epson is best known for printers and scanners, and they have new models recently at the extremes with professional wide format printers and most recently a new 4x6 inch printer for the home users, this week of photo in NYC, Epson chose to make real the earlier news of providing camera tethered operation support for some Canon and Nikon dSLR cameras with their P-6000 and P-7000 Photo Viewers. I know some photographers who use laptops tethered to their cameras, and have observed others, and it is a rather involved and in some ways not very elegant way to function, although it is an answer for digital to replace the shooting of a Polaroid back to check and give snap prints to the art director on the scenes of days gone by. But there are a lot of uses of cameras, sometimes in difficult remote situations, in technical conditions, and many more I can’t imagine, where tethered operation is an advantage. The Epson Photo Viewers as a replacement of a laptop in smaller size, less costly, and much more transportable and easier to set-up and operate, so it should fill many serious needs. Will it catch on, maybe not immediately with those using laptops, but initially with many others who may find tethered shooting with an Epson Photo Viewer is a solution to all kinds of challenges.
But back to the basics, Microsoft’s CEO led the opening Thursday for the release of Windows 7 to the public. You’ve probably heard enough as both Microsoft and Apple have been running ads knocking at each other on TV - hey guys just because it works for loud politicians….. Anyway, there has been more than enough written about Windows 7, now and for months. And what is it, what Vista should have been for the last three years, and not much more. I particularly liked what the New York Time’s David Pogue had to say, and that is rare for me, “Finally, out of fear of antitrust headaches, Microsoft has stripped Windows 7 of some important accessory programs. Believe it or not, software for managing photos, editing videos, reading PDF documents, maintaining a calendar, managing addresses, chatting online or writing e-mail doesn’t come with Windows 7.

What kind of operating system doesn’t come with an e-mail program?

Instead, you’re supposed to download these free apps yourself from a Microsoft Web site. It’s not a huge deal; some companies, including Dell, plan to preinstall them on new computers. But a lot of people will be in for some serious confusion — especially when they discover that the Windows 7 installer has deleted their existing Vista copies of Windows Mail, Movie Maker, Calendar, Contacts and Photo Gallery. (Mercifully, it preserves your data.)”

All I can say in conclusion to this week of mostly quiet steps into a fearful future, is who is most likely to benefit, the users or the companies trying to survive in a marketplace that has shrunk very obviously. The digital photography users, not much advantage, particularly those still affected by “too dark prints” none of the companies have even acknowledged is a problem, to not just photographers, who want to make excellent color and density matched prints, but surely a deficit to ink, paper and printer sales. Oh! Well for some there is another week ahead?

If you have a comment, they are welcome, so please post it. If you have a question you want me to answer please address an e-mail to David B. Brooks at: goofotografx@gmail.com

WINDOWS 7 - ARE WE PAST VISTA OR JUST MAYBE?

2009-10-18T20:31:00.000-07:00

I have been following the various commentaries about Windows 7 for almost a year. There were lots of user annoyance complaints that have gotten nearly all of the attention and to an extent seem to have been resolved. Most technical experts reporting on Windows 7 have been positive based on testing both beta’s and the early release version more recently. Most were positive as far as they went, but that was superficial. When you get into particular features then there is much less review feedback, or almost none. And so far the performance that effects serious digital photography editing and processing is not apparently an issue of any concern. In fact I was surprised some of the key color management experts have not given Windows 7 that much attention.
You may ask why I have not tested Windows 7 myself to see if the problems Vista caused have been fixed. The answer is simple, I use Apple Mac computers and run Windows as a virtual operating system, which precludes the very issues that have been a problem, in fact I can run Vista without difficulty, but choose not to for all the other reasons so many find it undesirable.

WINDOWS 7 USER ACCOUNT CONTROL
The main reason when I did test and review Vista I could not recommend it was an effect the Vista User Account Control warning pop-up window interfered with the video reverting it to monitor color space by inactivating calibration adjustment setting made during boot-up. This was discovered and posted by Chromix:
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Vistas_New_Color_Management_System_-_WCS#The_Authorization_bug
A more serious problem, and this one is a show-stopper in my eyes, is the authorization bug. As you use Vista, you are occasionally interrupted by the OS as it confirms you have the admin-level privileges required or confirms certain actions. As a user-interface effect, Vista dims the screen slightly while offering the user a password dialog. Unfortunately, this dimming of the display clobbers the calibration curves in the graphics card and they are not replaced. So you startup Vista, your 3rd party utility loads your display calibration correctly but then 5 minutes into your session Vista requests some authentication and your calibration is gone... so you restart Vista, reloading the calibration and start out again.... It will be difficult to have confidence in a system's state of calibration.

Many users do not realize that display calibration and profiling has two results: the display is tested for consistency with ICC color standards and to set it to run consistent with that color adjusts by the video card for proper configuration with the calibration setting, what some call an “LUT Loader”, a file that is an executable placed in the Start-Up folder. The actual display profile, has not been affected by the UAC pop-up screen implementation, describes the display color characteristics after calibration, and is only a reference used when color images are used for other actions like output printing and by the launching of a color managed application like Photoshop. There was no apparent change after a UAC pop-up window that put the display back to pre-boot pre-calibrated operation, but the affect on color managed operation would be severely inaccurate.

With the new Windows 7 the User Account Control can be adjusted or even turned off, which was not offered by Vista.

The reaction by Windows technical commentators has been almost entirely negative because a less alert UAC level would make the system vulnerable to security problems. One well known in particular, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes titled his criticism as, ” Time to ditch Windows for online banking and shopping “. Quoting Brian Krebs “ businesses not to carry out online banking on Windows-based machines and to use a Linux-based LiveCD.” According to Kingsley-Hughes, “the risk of using Windows outweighs the convenience.”
But if a user wants assurance a UAC pop-up will not invalidate display calibration and default color management, one would want to set UAC to “NEVER”, at least for any serious digital photography editing and processing. So Microsoft has responded to the user problems with Vista’s always on User Account Control by providing a user adjustment from maximum to never, but at apparently some security risk to the system from external threats (viruses and other infections). Sadly there was no Microsoft or tester information whether the pop-up UAC alert window still invalidates display calibration.
In addition I could not find that any of the credible testers and commentators have taken any interest in Windows 7 color management. According to the Microsoft web site on the subject Windows 7 continues at least a mix of what was only partially offered in Vista’s running, which the 3rd party color management industry has not supported with software or hardware implementation I have seen to this date. A couple of Microsoft web site users had reported problems with display profile handling, but there were no official MS responses to these complaints. Whether serious digital photography and color functioning will be a part of Windows 7 apparently will remain a question until after the operating system gets in users hands this week, and the results come to be published. I hope no news is good news for the many users out there either still clinging to Microsoft XP or suffering with Vista. But if you are averse to risk, wait and see before upgrading to Windows 7. In general it is better but the Windows 7 affect on digital photography and color management is still to be realized and known.

LIKE TOPSY

2009-10-14T22:52:00.000-07:00

In 1769 about 60 Spanish settlers gathered together in what was to become in 2009 a multi citied conglomerate from the Pacific to the desert, north and south almost 200 miles now generally called Los Angeles, California. As more and more people arrived it grew from a village to hundreds of towns and cities without any plan or particular design, as many have said it grew like Topsy. Good, bad, indifferent, it is a place so many came to and more stayed, but why? I lived and worked in Los Angeles a good part of my life, and left out of a need to preserve my sanity and humanity. Most I have met who have had a similar experience I think would find it difficult to explain Los Angeles, and few would want to return willingly.

Get in a car in Los Angeles and travel east to Boyle Heights, Pasadena, Arcadia, and south to San Pedro and Long Beach, west to Santa Monica and Beverly Hills, north to Studio City and Tarzana - there is no telling what town you are in, lost cities for lost souls.

The Topsy turvy city of southern California just grew however and wherever it was convenient and profitable. The digital world of modern culture began to show up with personal computers in the mid 80’s, some 25 year ago, just a generation out of the quarter century it took Los Angeles to evolve. But think of it, the digital world has encompassed every country and culture on earth in that short time with no more plan, regulation or direction than Los Angeles, it just grew and expanded like Topsy and everyone believes it an expression of freedom, it’s real democracy at work, or rather a Topsy turvy world of lawless anarchism that has brought us the worst of human detritus: spam, viruses, phishes and really fluky caricatures of the species that prey on the unsuspecting and innocent.

When half the population is looking in their rearview mirror for those good old days that never happened and the other half betwixt and between FaceBook and Twiitter, twiddling an iPhone or Blackberry hoping for inspiration they aren’t all on a road to nowhere, where are we? There is no plan, no roadmap for Topsy to continue to grow into anything we can proudly call our American culture, its all the gushing gruel of the grotesque celebrity world trying to dance their way to a new kind of glory - hey kids they rolled up the golden road of Oz and sold off the ruby slippers at auction years ago.

In the meantime those of us who follow the direction of a lens focused on something interesting are missing the boat. No one is demanding that the toys they are sold really work as they should. They are just thrown together in pretty plastic wrap in hopes you’re too stupid to know what you are buying because it has all kinds of meaningless large number specs attached. So if no one else has a plan, choose one for yourself and demand if some sleaze is eyeing your pocket book he is going to have to offer more than pizzazz to get at your credit card if you are fortunate enough to still have one that isn’t frozen. The mindless wonders that have grown Topsy so far can also put the pieces together to do what you need done. But it is up to everyone to learn what it is they want to do and the tools needed to get it done, and then you have to demand it be offered and delivered to get it made and in your hands,

Oh! I just read a pundits view of the new Microsoft Windows 7 - his advise: its time to ditch Windows, and that comes from a ZDnet PC wonk.

If you have a comment, they are welcome, so please post it. If you have a question you want me to answer please address an e-mail to David B. Brooks at: goofotografx@gmail.com

DREAM

2009-10-04T13:25:00.000-07:00

That the one piece of equipment I dream of is an ideal LCD display should not be a surprise. It is what I have been most concerned with of late. And it is also what I look at most to see my photographic images.

However what I dream of is not some exotic, superior new level of device performance at all, but one that is inexpensive and is based on already existing technologies that could be put into a very affordable LCD display. In other words I am dreaming about something that would work well for anyone using a computer to do digital photography editing and processing.

Why such a display is not on the market presently is in part because customers have not demanded it, mostly because they are not that aware of what they need, nor are they aware of what the contemporary industry could produce. Another reason is that the graphics computing aspect of the technology industry is a mix of unrelated items, much of which is controlled by sometimes different, alien and contrary items. LCD displays are not made by companies that make computers. They are made by companies whose largest market is the home television and similar kinds of display devices that have no dependence on computers to function. So LCD displays for computers are just slightly modified TV displays, and what works best for computer users is very likely unknown to the scientists and engineers who create the LCD displays.

So, exactly what do I have in mind? It would be an LCD display like many now seen in stores that sell computers. It wold be the largest size that sells at competitive, affordable prices with a 22 inch diagonal in HD format with a 1920 by 1050 resolution. It would be different in some very important senses, first that the maximum white luminance brightness would be half of the usual 250-300 CD/M2 that is currently popular. This would be accomplished by reducing the brightness of the backlight. The backlight source would be white LED lamps, because they are efficient, uses less energy and remain consistent for a longer period of time. The color gamut would be slightly greater than 90% of the size of the Adobe RGB (1998) color profile, a feature that is not uncommon today and has been offered in a lower-cost affordable brand of LCD displays recently.

What would be most different is that there would only be one control with two settings, a bright setting that would provide a white luminance of 120.0 to 140.0 CD/m2 and would be intended for normal office/home computing use. The second setting would be a lower brightness with a white luminance of 90.0 CD/m2 for digital photography image editing and processing. At this setting the standard parameters for computer video would be applied of color temperature of 6500K and a gamma of 2.2. But in addition the display would be factory calibrated and profiled to achieve a neutral gray, and both the calibration file and profile would be fed to the computer through the DDC channel of the DVI interface connection.

In other words this LCD display would do well both for most home/office computing and by simply click of a switch to the “photo” setting would provide a consistent, reliable adjusted, calibrated and profiled parameter for color managed digital photography editing and processing.

I believe with an LED backlight lowered to half of the present LCD display level using the LED source the “photo” setting calibration and profile would remain sufficiently stable and within a range that would be effective for all serious digital photography needs for an extended use period. The display would be “self” adjusted, calibrated and profiled to be effective in a color managed image computing environment without requiring any user adjustment, sensor testing and profiling, or any additional expense.

I would particularly like to see Apple Computer make such an auto profiled LCD display available for both Apple computers and PC Windows computers as well, it could be another Apple sales success. But more important, combined with the Apple Mac Mini it would be an ideal digital photography computer setup many users could both afford and enjoy the best digital photography editing and processing experience.

If you have a comment, they are welcome, so please post it. If you have a question you want me to answer please address an e-mail to David B. Brooks at: goofotografx@gmail.com

NEW APPLE MAC MINI

2009-09-25T20:47:00.000-07:00

I always like to work with the newest and best, but the reality of my budget is always the deciding factor. So I upgrade a bit less often than I would like. This time I had no say in the matter. A freak accident wrecked one of my Mac Mini’s and its external hard drive with backup in one fell swoop. Panic time and calls to Apple for help. Even though not responsible Apple was generous in helping with the recovery, although I had to spend some money too, plus invest a lot of work time. But the recovery is almost complete.
It makes me happy to have my tools functioning again and even more so because this newest premium model Mac Mini with its new video NVidia GeForce 9400M and now 4GB of RAM running Snow Leopard is a high step above the previous model. I have been recommending Mac Minis to photographers because they allow choosing a good pro-graphics display and be able to afford the combination. With this latest model, the display quality is definitely superior, and the overall performance is no compromise at all to the much more costly Mac Pro for what a photographer needs on a daily basis. Now, I can readily recommend the Mac Mini premium with the full allotment of RAM as a first choice to do digital photography computing.
There are other differences as well with this model. One is the fact it uses the mini DVI port like the MacBook models, but a mini to standard DVI adapter is included. In addition the one FireWire connector os now a 9-pin 800 model, so an adapter is needed to connect to many external hard drives, that is not suppled, nor could I find an adapter that had both a 6-pin and 9-pic connector and nothing offered in the Apple store, so what I could get that works conveniently I found on Amazon.com. In other words the support accessory hardware for the Mac Mini also needs some upgrades.
It is my understanding that the Mac Mini is maybe not as popular as it should be. Can’t blame Apple for not pushing it harder as I am sure some iMac sales would probably suffer. It would be much easier to promote if Apple had a version of their 24” LED Cinema Display that were more amenable to gain/contrast adjustment so it could be calibrated and profiled for both color and density print matching. But so far I have not acquired an open ear to my thinking that for the average serious amateur photographer a mac Mini with a well matched display might be the best choice in performance for the money. But it’s so small, how could that be. Yes it uses the kind of components that are used in MacBooks that are compact, but being made for a portable computer they are surely designed for reliability and efficiency. And the Mini is not so small really as it is accompanied by a good sized external power supply, so heat inside the computer is even less than is a laptop. People. Please think outside the box and you will realize a small box can pack a big punch.
But an ideal and affordable display that has a wide color gamut and good resolution that will work ideally for digital photography is missing from the larger consumer market still. There are a couple that are close. The NEC P221W, that by itself is reasonable, but add both the NEC Spectraview 2 software and colorimeter and it does in a $1,000. And with the P221W, you do need the whole kit to get its full potential. But I am writing more fully on this for a report in Shutterbug, so enough for now.
If you have a comment, they are welcome, so please post it. If you have a question you want me to answer please address an e-mail to David B. Brooks at: goofotografx@gmail.com

EQUIVALENCE, UNIFORMITY, CONSISTENCY, CORRESPONDENCE, CONGRUITY, COEQUALITY

2009-09-16T14:37:00.000-07:00

There are so many words which are available to express the idea of balance between things in nature and life. There are also many practical considerations, like if you want to use a swing in a playground, the other person on the far end of the swing must balance your weight if you want to use the swing enjoyably. If you are on a lake with a canoe on a camping trip, you take care loading the canoe so it sits in the water evenly from stem to stern if you want the canoe to be easy to paddle and control. If you have a truck you are careful loading the cargo area so the front part of load is a bit heavier than the rear so weight is not taken off the front wheels of the truck making it steer poorly. On and on, balance is an essential part of ideal functioning.

The same is true about computer LCD displays and printing. The display brightness must match the brightness of paper white if an image adjusted on-scren can be expected to print with the correct density. The one thing I did not mention regarding the “prints too dark” problem before is why digital photographers calibrate and profile their display, so the colors they see on screen can be matched in the colors reproduced with a print of the image on-screen. Here again a matched balance between display and print brightness is crucial.

Many, many photographers with computers get a sensor, colorimeter and software to calibrate and profile their display. Some of the software packages suggest putting the display at the factory default setting to begin the process, others offer different suggested white luminance target setting of 120.0 or 140.0 CD/m2 as the target display brightness goal. The white luminance equivalent of printing paper white is between 80.0 and 90.0 CD/m2, so these suggested display brightness goals will not provide a match for printing in either density or color. When a color profile is made at a high brightness and then used to make a print that is at a lower brightness, how can the color match - it can’t, not as it would for balanced brightness between display and paper.

But even more if you calibrate and profile a display for a brighter level than paper, the color balance will not be correct for printing. The brighter the display the further out of balance the color matching will be. In other words most of the Color Management products sold for calibrating and profiling displays cannot provide either precise color matching or a good brightness match between display image and a print made by a color managed work flow from that image. In other words, the bottom line is that to some extent if you are calibrating and profiling a display, the display brightness must match paper white if print matching in either color or print density is to be expected.

How this obvious need for balance between display and printer paper was ignored by almost everyone is hard to imagine. Maybe because the native brightness of CRT monitors and paper white just coincidentally matched did not cause anyone to think about it. And when LCD displays arrived, being able to make them brighter and easier to see in brightly lit rooms was more important to selling displays than the consequence of being out of balance with printing.
If you have a comment, they are welcome, so please post it. If you have a question you want me to answer please address an e-mail to David B. Brooks at: goofotografx@gmail.com

IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO

2009-08-23T14:26:00.000-07:00

I cannot say I have been at all successful with these last months trying to understand and find a solution to the “prints too dark” problem so many have reported. Oh! Yes! A few have reported that what I have written has been helpful to them and they have resolved the problem for themselves. But many more either do not get it, do not want to understand, or really don’t care all that much and are just happy to make prints the way their printer driver tells them it should look. But right now, is not a good time for reality, for truth with today’s politics and economics putting everyone at each other’s throat battling realities and fantasies, lies and truths with much confusion. I am maybe expecting too much.

But let me give it just one more try. Maybe seeing an image made by a camera and a print like two dancers going through the intricate steps of a tango, yes it is a bit complicated, it is definitely interactive, and if serious even a bit dangerous. The tango is a dance to a particular kind of music. There are many kinds of songs, music, poems and stories told by the countless tangos written during its long history, as there are many different subjects a camera can reproduce that can eventually become a print. That a tango, the music, and the movement of two dancers together interacting to the music, the rhythm, the mood and its story; is to me very much like a photographic image once captured by a camera can become after much interaction within a computer reproduced as a printed image on paper that tells a unique story.

With just a photographic image file on your computer, it is like one hand clapping. With just one dancer there is no tango, just a solo dance that is something else. If the two dancers doing a tango are not closely matched it is like Mutt & Jeff attempting the impossible, it is not a tango, it is some kind of farce. That is like a computer display that is very bright 200.0 - 300.0 CD/m2, looking way over the head of printing paper that is about 90.0 CD/m2. The dancers need to be a match, the same brightness or height. The paper cannot get brighter it will only reflect a little less than 100% of the illumination falling on it, but the display can be made less bright, so do it.

A calibration and profile for a very bright display cannot match that of what a paper can produce through a printer, so even if you use software and a sensor to calibrate and profile a very bright display, you have not created a color range that can be printed - they will not dance together. I learned this in the many hours I have spent since getting my displays to 90/0 CD/m2 completely re-color correcting, adjusting and editing hundreds of archived image files done with brighter displays. The difference is much greater than one would expect, the image must be re-adjusted for brightness, but once that is done the saturation is too low, and the color balance is off, and some colors need a different adjustment than others It is a job I will never get done, they are files I have made over that last 20 years, and I don’t expect to be doing this till I am age 96!

So, what I am saying is that the tango dancers of digital image capture and print reproduction, must be matched closely and precisely, not just by the color translation of a profile, but also by the other factors of brightness, contrast and tone distribution that is saved as the parameters of a photographic image file by a computer. They are the two tango dancers, there is color matching in the profile of a display that is set at 90.0 CD/m2, 6500K and and gamma 2.2, and the brightness/darkness, contrast and tone distribution of an image file corrected and edited by a computer. The two must match at the particular parameters that define what paper is upon which the image will be reproduced.

But you say you have never seen or paid any attention to a couple dancing the tango very well. I chose the tango because it more closely exhibits the principles I am talking about, but any kind of dance, ballet, jazz, samba, rock ‘n roll, where two people interact to play out a precise form on a floor, it is the same thing, the two dancers have to be very much alike or it will look incongruous, comical , a mismatch. For someone who has no appreciation of dance it is is in sports by taking the two forms of football/soccer and trying to play either with a team of the opposite kind, American Football, and a soccer team in the rest of the world - the players must match the rules of the game. Basketball players don’t usually make ideal tennis players, golfers are different from wrestlers.

We have a very serious problem today because most of the LCD displays made in the world are constructed for the needs of offices and brightly lit homes - too bright for digital photography. Color Management with profiles was designed when there were only CRT’s monitors available, and all of them had a very limited maximum light output on average about 90.0 CD/m2. Technology advances, like LCD displays screwed that system by now offering LCD displays that are extremely different and much, much brighter. So the challenge everyone now has is doubly complex through no fault of anyone.

If you have a comment, they are welcome, so please post it. If you have a question you want me to answer please address an e-mail to David B. Brooks at: goofotografx@gmail.com

A BRIDGE TOO FAR?

2009-08-05T12:43:00.000-07:00

As I have written before, my holy grail is an affordable LCD display that supports digital photographic editing and printing. I just recently discovered one that has some essential attributes, and even bought one, and LGE L227WGT. A reader just commented he purchased a display he is pleased with that was quite affordable, an AOC Verfino 22 inch with LED backlight (http://us.aoc.com/lcd_monitors/v22). But even the added new feature of LED backlight, which has distinct advantages, still leaves the basic problems that can cause “prints too dark”, as well as the added expense costing as much or more than the LCD, a colorimeter and software to calibrate and profile the display.

There has to be a better solution. In part the deficit is a failure to communicate both between computer and display, but as much between display designers and producers, and computer designers and makers while ignoring what is going on in the digital photography community. If it were just the serious photographer enthusiasts and professionals, which is a small niche market, not getting any consideration might be justified, but these days I think there must be few computer users who don’t have some kind of digital camera.

So what’s this crazy coot talking about now, you are thinking! Well lets just go back to the days of CRT’s when prints weren’t too dark. Everyone who calibrated and profiled a CRT, set the gain (contrast) to maximum and if the white luminance measurement happened to be 88.0 or 92.0 CD/m2 that was not a difference of much concern. But then along came LCD’s and the manufacturers could push as much light through the screen as they wanted, which was a great advantage to users in brightly lit office environments. So that’s what they did, the brighter the better, more sells better than less.

Unfortunately if the backlight is bright and not adjustable independently, the only way to get the white luminance down to a match with paper white is to use the screen’s adjustment capability. But sadly a very bright backlight with a maximum white luminance of 300.0 CD/m2, if adjusted to 90.0 CD/m2 using the screen adjustment capability uses up much of the screens potential range and often screen color and image reproduction performance suffers. With the newest LCD displays that have white LED backlight, these problems in some cases seems to be even more serious.

Bigger is not better, SUV’s get lousy gas mileage, are hard to park if you can find a parking space big enough. Brighter screens are only better for some in bright offices. Plus brighter uses more energy so is anti-environmental and contributes to our energy dependence on foreign oil and the use of dirty coal. Why do I say that? Simply to convey that you don’t have to have more brightness to sell LCD displays. More megapixels helps make better photographs of course so helps sell cameras, but more display brightness has done just the opposite for photo printing. This understanding needs to be conveyed to and realized by those who make LCD displays.

Considering the fact, unlike CRT’s, LCD display screens material that reproduces the image, is the most costly part of an LCD display, and is quite separate and independent from the backlight . It should be both relatively easy and relatively cheap to offer displays with a less bright backlight, just call them environmental friendly photo displays, instead of some meaningless model number. Then those of us writing about digital photography aware of the problem too bright displays have caused can identify the models with lower level backlight and we will do the selling for you.

But Mr. LCD display manufacturer, how about also being supportive of digital photography users by including specifically named and identified display settings that reflect the needs of users, a setting that conforms to sRGB and one that conforms to Adobe RGB automatically setting the display gamma to 2.2 and the color temperature to 6500K. In addition, I would think the display setting could also include discrete settings for specific white luminance levels, like 120.0 CD/m2 and 90.0 CD/m2, then at least a user doing Photoshop can obtain a reasonably compatible adjusted screen environment without having to invest in a high-end color calibration and profiling software/hardwre package. That would leave more of their budget that could go towards a choice of a larger screen size!

If you have a comment, they are welcome, so please post it. If you have a question you want me to answer please address an e-mail to David B. Brooks at: goofotografx@gmail.com

I GOT LUCKY!

2009-07-26T18:37:00.000-07:00

No my sex-life has not improved. I haven’t been looking for a new squeeze. But I have been looking for an inexpensive LCD display that will work for digital photographers. Actually I discovered it among numerous models LG Electronics has listed on its web site awhile ago. But a request to LGE for a loan to review it for Shutterbug was denied because it is a 2008 model that is not being offered in the 2009 product lineup.

The model is a L227WTG, a wide screen 22 inch, wide gamut, with 1680X1050 pixel resolution using a (TN,IPS) panel, with a 2MS response time, and a pixel pitch of 0.282, with a recommended price of $360. I have seen this model LGE advertised by a number of on-line vendors like NewEgg, Amazon and Tiger Direct usually under the price listed by LGE. The other day I saw a price of $219 plus shipping and I could not resist, although I have no need for another display. It was delivered a couple of days ago.

The next morning I had it unpacked, and installed on one of my systems in about 15 minutes. I turned the system on along with the new LGE display, and went for my second espresso of the day while it warmed up. After answering a couple of e-mails, I went back to my lab and proceeded to adjust, calibrate and profile this new LCD display using ColorEyes Display Pro and a DataColor Spyder3 colorimeter. With the ColorEyes application on-screen the first item is monitor setting, selecting what kind of display you are connected to, so I tried the top selection for DVI-DDC displays, and after waiting just a bit the software confirmed that the connection had ben made and there is support for DVI-DDC that allows screen adjustments made via ColorEyes as part of the process of calibration and profiling. (I didn’t have to deal with manually adjusting screen contrast and brightness controls the software did that to the 90.0 CD/m2 aim point I selected in the CEDP software application, along with the selection of L* Gamma, and a color temperature of D65. With all my aim points selected, I clicked on the Profile button and sat back while ColorEyes did its work; almost half an hour and this was on my fastest computer.

But it seemed worth it. Once the calibration and profiling was done I re-started the computer and checked to be sure the new profile was now set as the boot default. With a largely blank medium grays desktop the gray was neutral and even across the screen, at least as even as any display I use with CCFL tube backlight. Then I launched Photoshop and opened my standard personal print test image. There was nothing in the display image reproduction I could find any fault with, but this display has its own look. That may be in part due to the fact it has a much shinier screen surface than I am used to, but nothing like the glass mirror finish of the new Apple iMacs and 24” Cinema display. I wasn’t concerned at this point as every new display I test takes getting used to perceptually. So I set about color correcting and adjusting Raw camera files from a recent shoot. I soon felt fairly comfortable with this new display, and after finishing a good number of files I did some color managed prints to see if both color and density matched what was displayed on-screen. Not bad at all. A little varied but learning how to anticipate results with a strange new display takes more than a handful of processed images. I expect to have it zeroed in after a couple more days living with the L227WGT, and I also expect I will like this display even though I am not a fan of wide format sizes and screen proportions. But that’s all there will be in the future as new 3:4 aspect ratio displays are being discontinued at a rapid rate.

The 3rd day with this new LGE display, and many more images color corrected and adjusted with increasing accuracy and ease. So I decided I should be sure of this experience and move the display to my least powerful Mac Mini computer, and re-calibrating and profiling the display. That proved to be just as accurate. And I will take advantage of my use including e-mail and writing at the lower display resolution, 1680X1050 with a 22” provide larger font display, versus a 20” with 1600x1200 pixels. As I have said before I like the older 20” displays and their high resolution, for the sharpness and its advantage doing retouching.

The bottom line is that this L227WGT display provides the essential attributes of a large color gamut, most of Adobe RGB, DVI-DDC support for more beneficial adjustment to achieve a brightness match to photo inkjet paper white, about 90.0 CD/m2 white luminance, as well as accurate calibration and profiling. This performance supports screen to print matching in both color and print density. However, even though the screen appearance is as good as more costly LCD displays, the affordable price is achieved in part by very light weight construction and limited adjustment capability, particularly this display cannot be raised or lowered, as well as only two connection inputs, a digital DVI interface and an analog D-sub connector for older computers.

How many of these LGE L227WGT displays remain in stock and available for purchase is unknown, but it is limited number and will not be increased by LGE as this model has not been continued in 2009. So, if you want a very affordable display that is an effective solution to avoiding prints that are too dark, get on the Internet and make your search for an advantageous price.

If you have a comment, they are welcome, so please post it. If you have a question you want me to answer please address an e-mail to David B. Brooks at: goofotografx@gmail.com

And visit my web site at: https://sites.google.com/site/davidbrooksfotografx/

COMPUTER USER ANONYMITY

2009-07-19T18:36:00.000-07:00

“I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image.” - Stephen Hawking (1942 - )

Would computer viruses (as well as spam) be created and distributed at all if the owner of a computer used to create and distribute a virus or spam were tied irrevocably to the computer by name and address? Oh! There would still be a few malignant souls with a grudge against everyone who would try, but they would soon be caught and have to pay a price for their destructiveness.

Why should computers be any different than automobiles? In all civilized countries, cars have VIN’s, Vehicle Identification Numbers, that are unique to each automobile; and to drive a car you own on a public road, (is not the internet a virtual public road?), you have to register and license your car using a valid personal identification as well as a verifiable residence location. If your car is in an accident you cause you can be easily identified and held responsible, or if your car is stolen it can be identified and recovered. There are exceptions, but they would be much more numerous if cars were not registered and licensed.

So why don’t the governments of the world do the same with computers? Why not require a license and verified identification as well as address to get ISP service and access to the internet? Well, the excuse I hear from many is it would be an invasion of a person’s privacy. Really? In America your privacy is protected to some extent by the Constitution, the auto license information with your name and address associated with your license number is not accessible to the public, only authorized personnel are allowed access to that information by law. But, there is no right to anonymity, in fact is some towns in the Old West masked bandits were so common the towns passed laws no one could go in public with a mask over their face that would obscure their identity. In other words anonymity is an invitation to steal and do other things against others without fear of being identified, so why are computers unlicensed when automobiles are, when a photo ID is essential for identification to open a bank account, or to obtain a deed to a house you have purchased?

I think it is clear that we behave better towards each other in society when our identity is known, and much worse when we have the freedom to assume anonymity. Life is better for all well-meaning people when the others we have to live with are known to us. In the earliest days of colonial times if a person transgressed upon another and did harm they were put on display, bound hand and foot, to reap the shame of public condemnation for the offense. But we see that now as cruel, but it was effective in those times past. And in the mass society of strangers we have today, all of us have to suffer some fear that someone unknown to us is likely to do us harm. Every day drive-by shootings and home invasions are reported warning us we live in a dangerous world.

So why at least when it would be so easy to do because every computer is like an automobile, it has its own unique number, do we allow a few ignorant, misguided people that mistake anonymity for privacy prevent us from making computers and the internet a much safer community? If people, individuals are not honest enough in their intentions to identify themselves, why should they be allowed to remain a part of our virtual internet community? But sadly in America we do not even have a way to secure our personal identities, they are easily stolen every day. And, a few who are again confusing anonymity with privacy have been able to block a national secure personal ID system from being enacted. Are we all that ignorant and unthinking to believe there is some positive value in anonymity that we must all tolerate an unnecessary risk at the hand of the unknown other?

If you have a comment, they are welcome, so please post it. If you have a question you want me to answer please address an e-mail to David B. Brooks at: goofotografx@gmail.com

And visit my web site at: https://sites.google.com/site/davidbrooksfotografx/

PHOTOGRAPH OR SNAPSHOT

2009-07-12T11:55:00.000-07:00

As happens every so often, I was taken to task for presumably denigrating an individual’s photo activities by my use of the term “snapshot’ in reference to the on-line services that provide inexpensive printing from JPEG files. Although there can be considerable crossover between snapshots and photographs, the pictures serious photo enthusiasts refer to, in my perspective of things, is not a value or status distinction.

Some years ago I believe it was Sony that had a billboard advertising a new video cam in which video was likened to “moving snapshots”. I thought that astute and apt, because most people who make personal home video do so for a social purposes, and I believe that is the purpose distinction that differentiates snapshots from the photographs photo enthusiast make. A photographer’s purpose in making images is to create photographs for their own sake, or as part of an interest in taking pictures of animals, flowers, landscapes or auto racing. In other words, what distinguishes snapshots and photographs is NOT that one is better than the other, or the person behind the camera is superior or inferior, but the purpose in using a camera in one case is social, about people in the picture taker’s life, or events like family trips or an outing at the park, a day at Disneyland; while the purpose of making a “photograph” is the image, the picture that is created and sometimes what is involved in the process of image creation as well.

In the 30 some years I have been in the photo magazine trade, I have looked at an awful lot of pictures made with a camera, both “photographs” and snapshots. Among them, in both categories, snapshots and photographs, I have seen examples of superb technical craft and skill as well as artful composition and sensitivity to the subject, as well as a multitude of mediocre images in both snapshots and photographs, to really dismal failures as pictures of any kind or description. But there is one distinction the makers of snapshots do have and that is they outnumber serious enthusiast photographers by many times. So of course business tends to favor large numbers when it comes to customers, and most of the print services cater to the snapshooter, while those that cater to photographers are fewer and usually because volume is less charge higher prices.

The same kind of numbers dominance also affects technology. The default settings for most digital cameras, even dSLR’s is to save files in JPEG and the often associated sRGB colorspace (and for that matter computers and image editing software). So likewise the bulk of print services expect or demand image files from customers conform to the JPEG format, and usually their printer driver computer use the sRGB colorspace to print from. There is nothing wrong with that if the customer is pleased and satisfied with the print results, the customer is always right.

But for the fewer, the serious digital photography enthusiasts, one has to go beyond the default setting, and use non-lossy file formats like TIFF and a working space profile like Adobe RGB (1998). These differences cause confusion for novices, and newcomers from film to digital, as well become more bones of contention in themselves and inadvertent complications between the snapshot and photograph crowds. It generates almost as much invective and vitriol as the PC Window versus Apple Mac user debates.

So what is the reality. As I said the customer is always right, if a camera user is happy with JPEG/sRGB results who is to argue. These happy campers, whether they are aware or not accept the price JPEG/sRGB imposes in lost image content data for the conveniences of being a part of an established crowd. But for the record let’s take another look at the reality (and history) of both JPEG and sRGB to understand why they are established and play the role that they do.

First of all, as the web became a significant part of the internet, and photos became content included in web pages, the file size of those images was an issue, which if too big slowed the internet to a crawl. And in those days not that many years ago hard drive and mobile storage space for files were small in capacity and expensive per megabyte, making both JPEG and sRGB because they both reduce file size a double advantage. But some of us (serious photography enthusiasts) argued realistically that the cost in terms of lost image data content and quality was too high a price.

As an example let’s look at each of these two different strategies, JPEG and sRGB individually. The sRGB colorspace was promoted by some like Microsoft, Intel and Hewlett-Packard, not just as a solution to the limited bandwidth of internet transmission, but at one time as a cheaper, simpler, and of course more profitable way to dispense with the need for color management, to get a printer to make color prints that match the color on screen. Those companies did not succeed in getting sRGB to be the international standard for all hardware and software that reproduced color because many powerful factions like printing and publishing, the video and motion picture industries and all the professionals that supported that level of work were vehemently opposed to being put in a color straight jacket. The sRGB colorspace profile is a simplistic solution to achieve color matching, by just reducing the size of the color gamut to the lowest common denominator of what the least adequate color monitor could reproduce, then all color images look the same on every monitor. But the price of that approach is if you convert a dSLR Raw image to sRGB you discard, throw out, a third of the color the image sensor recorded!!!!!

The purpose of the JPEG compressed file format is different and simpler, to reduce file size, but the effect on a photographic image is similar to sRGB. Image information is thrown out, lost forever, and color is simplified. The reason is the strategy that allows reducing the file size is, in oversimplified fashion, to re-write the file information not as individual pixels, but a grid of blocks of pixels, lets say 4x4 pixels or 16 pixels in a block. Then if a block of pixels is part of the sky in a photo, the JPEG processing recognizes all of the pixels in the block are similar, so it says the differences are actually redundant and not needed, so let’s instead of writing 16 lines of code, one for each pixel, write just two lines to say all the pixels in the block of sixteen are the same RGB color value. Depending on whether High, Medium, or Low compression quality is chosen more or less color differences are made to be the same, reducing the variation in subtle color differences in the image.

Camera users seldom complain about this loss because the visual effect is that as color variation is reduced, color looks more vivid and contrast more bold. I call this effect “cartoon color”, because cartoon movies to make each frame in a film consistent in color throughout the movie used a very limited palette of colors to create each hand painted cell that is copied on film to make films like Disney’s now famous animated movies. And like a cartoon color image sRGB/JPEG images with their simpler and smaller color palette are also a step away from reality, like the reproduction of a subject a dSLR camera captures when set to record in Raw format.

Of course the more realistic advantage of greater color fidelity to a subject Adobe RGB (1998) from a Raw dSLR camera file provides has the down side of requiring the individual photographer to color correct, adjust and process the image using an application like Photoshop manually instead of having the camera’s internal auto processing do it for them when the JPEG file save option is chosen.

If you have a comment, they are welcome, so please post it. If you have a question you want me to answer please address an e-mail to David B. Brooks at: goofotografx@gmail.com

And visit my web site at: https://sites.google.com/site/davidbrooksfotografx/

CURIOSITY

2009-07-04T20:49:00.000-07:00

curiosity |ˌkyoŏrēˈäsitē|
noun ( pl. -ties)
1 a strong desire to know or learn something : filled with curiosity, she peered through the window.
2 a strange or unusual object or fact : he showed them some of the curiosities of the house.

Three generations ago when I was a public school student Charles Dickens “Ye Olde Curiosity Shoppe” was one of his novels that was required reading. And in those days a young pupil’s curiosity was encouraged by teachers. Today I think if a student is too curious it may be reason to be prescribed Ritalin; our schools are not preparing young minds to be critical thinkers, but passive, obedient worker bees for corporate employment at some mindless task.

What does that and curiosity have to do with contemporary digital photography? Well, my last post elicited a reaction from one reader asking why in my discussion of digital image quality I did not mention acuity, resolving power what most refer to as sharpness. And for that matter, neither did two of the authors with articles on lenses in the August issue of Shutterbug mention image sharpness. I did write about it at least indirectly several years ago when the first 18-55mm “kit” lenses for APS-C dSLR cameras appeared. The first one of these $100 lenses I had in my hands I tested on a new dSLR camera body against a $1,000 top rated pro lens covering roughly the same range of focal lengths. Although a 10X differential in cost the two lenses produced virtually pixel for pixel identical images. The “kit” lens produced an image just as sharp and detailed as the $1.000 pro lens. However, I don’t think anyone believed me or took my test seriously.

Part of the reason for that is many Shutterbug readers still think in an analog film mindset even though they may be using digital. The other reason is something I learned beginning over 30 years ago writing for photo enthusiasts: few photographers read the manual or published guide that comes with a new camera, at least beyond finding which buttons to push to make the camera take a picture. Very young children are inherently curious, as soon as they learn to speak the word they use the most is WHY. But that inclination seems to lessen to almost nil as the years pile up for most people. I am apparently an odd ball. As soon as I get something new and different I want to know and understand how it works, and I am not comfortable until my curiosity is satisfied.

So, what should one find in a new camera user guide/manual booklet that will provide a better understanding of how a digital camera actually works? It was 2-3 years ago that I purchased the personal camera I now use, but when I got it and unpacked the box one of the first things I did after putting in a battery and putting the camera on a table in front of me for reference, was crack the user guide manual. My first curiosity was what controls are there to use to adjust this camera to make it do what I intend. Those answers I found in a section called Image Settings. There I found that the camera’s LCD screen menu contained selections that allowed me to choose different camera settings for a variety of subjects and kinds of picture making operations. One was named “standard” and was recommended as the general all-purpose setting to obtain vivid, sharp images, and the setting intended for use when the camera is used in full automatic mode. The next optional setting named was “portrait”, and obviously self-explanatory for a somewhat softer, and flattering to skin tones image response. Then the next setting option was “landscape”, again somewhat self explanatory, to produce very vivid color and sharp images of scenic subjects. Then there is a setting without reference to any particular subject called “neutral”, that does not enhance any picture characteristic value and does not sharpen the image. And there is another similar setting called “faithful” that is also neutral but involves a set color temperature (white balance) and colorimetric image adjustment to match the subject color, and again without any sharpening. In addition to these described settings, each has an adjustment scale to customize image capture performance, to add or subtract values on a numbered scale for sharpness, contrast, color saturation, and color tone (balance/hue). And finally, for the subject settings, standard, portrait and landscape, there are specific manufacturer specified default value number settings for sharpness (only).

From this information I could make some logical assumptions. That even set to save images in Raw format the camera uses internal processing to adjust the information collected by the image sensor, so in any of the Settings, standard, portrait and landscape, the Raw file is adjusted and is not limited to what the sensor captures. To obtain a Raw file that is limited to what the censor captures as true to the subject as possible the “faithful” setting must be chosen. And from what the guide/manual describes, unless neutral or faithful setting are chosen the camera’s processing applies a considerable amount of sharpening to all image files.

Even after gleaning as much useful information as possible from the user’s manual, I remained full of curiosity. The only way to satisfy my need to understand was to run a series of tests with the camera which would provide a set of photographic images using all of the options in Image Settings so I could compare one with another as photographs, visually. So, I made a charts which identified every setting and variation of settings with different sharpness, contrast and saturation value choices. With this chart in hand I put the camera on a tripod and chose an area as a subject with both vivid and subtle coloration, light and darks, shadows and highlights, as well as smooth areas and fine lines and detail. Locked down on my tripod and focused on this subject I made a series of exposures with each of the settings and variations recording the frame number on the chart so I could associate each exposure frame with each setting choice once all of the Raw files were processed.

This was of course a lengthy and tedious process, but once the files were all done and available for viewing using Adobe Bridge I could put the default standard image up and open another next to it for visual comparison. All of the subject settings like standard, portrait and landscape had image quality attributes consistent with what the user guide description led one to expect. Then if the sharpness setting or the saturation setting was increased or lowered the image reflected a moderate expected difference. But then comparing the default standard exposure frame with either the neutral or faithful default setting frame revealed a very different picture of the subject, no real image sharpness at all to the extent some of the fine detail in the subject was not even visible, and contrast was very much flattened, as well as little saturation, a virtually pastel image. Finally, I opened the default faithful image file in Photoshop to see how much adjustment was needed to color correct the image to match the image made with the default standard setting. The amounts of sharpening (using not just one but most of Photoshops sharpening tools), increases in contrast and saturation were all very large adjustments to get the attributes of the faithful image setting file close to matching the standard in basic photographic image attributes we call quality.

To be candid I was surprised by this test experience. From the documentation of the camera companies who laud the finished in-camera processing when you set output to JPEG, and their suggestion that when you choose to output in Raw format the image file is just what comes off the image sensor, is definitely not the case. Even saving in Raw the camera using “normal” image settings enhances all of the basic image attributes, particularly sharpness, as well as contrast and saturation.

Recently, I came back to this after “the Kodachrome look” became a topic of reader interest, and some third party “filters” to apply this Kodachrome look came out. So, I wondered if I created a new “custom” setting in the camera, adjusting sharpness, contrast, saturation and color tone if I could make my camera output files that mimic the Kodachrome look. Yup, no sweat after a bit of experimenting and tweaking the settings adjustments.

If you have a comment, they are welcome, so please post it. If you have a question you want me to answer please address an e-mail to David B. Brooks at: goofotografx@gmail.com

DIGITAL CAMERA IMAGE QUALITY

2009-06-30T21:38:00.000-07:00

I try to be as aware of as many reviews of digital cameras as are published, particularly on the web. That is natural as it is a significant aspect of what my work as a digital photo writer involves. A recent imbroglio with a photographer about dSLR image quality got me thinking that most of what is written in reviews of camera is largely subjective, or comparative, one camera against another regarding image quality performance. But that is not all that helpful to anyone, so is there a way to measure dSLR image quality performance objectively? I think so if we can first agree on a definition of what photographic image quality is. What I believe would concern most photographer is how accurately a digital camera capture represents reality. In other words what degree of color fidelity to the subject is there in a dSR created image file?

MEASURING COLOR ACCURACY IN PHOTOGRAPHY

The measurement of color to determine the accuracy of the photographic reproduction process was common in film days long before digital photography. Back in the 60’s I had a fashion catalogue account I serviced, shooting medium format color transparency film. The color of a garment fabric as reproduced in the catalogue had to be as close as possible to the reality of the garment’s color as possible to avoid mail-order patrons from being disappointed in what they purchased from the catalogue if the garment delivered was a different color. The matching was not done at my level but by the color separator and printer getting the images ready for printing. A garment fabric swatch was measured with a color densitometer, and then the press proof was similarly measured and if they were not a close enough match the separations had to be re-done and adjusted.

A few years later after I joined the Petersen PhotoGraphic magazine staff I had assignments to test new color films and always ran a set of exposures of standard color targets made by Kodak and the Gretag-Macbeth Color Checker, and the Color Checker even in those days had RGB color numbers for each color patch. However, at that time in the late 70’s I had an electronic color densitometer capable of making either reflective or transparent readings, so densitometer readings of a transparency made by exposing a Color Checker could be compared to the values of the Color Checker itself. But, in those days no slide or transparency film were particularly accurate in reproducing fidelity to the colors of a subject. I was more interested in having some evidence as to what the color bias of each film was to back up a visual assessment of how the film looked on a light box.

However that habit of using color targets testing film carried over with me when I began testing digital cameras for reports published in magazines. And now we have Digital Color Checkers that are made by X-Rite since that company took possession of Gretag-Macbeth; as well as a very useful letter-size ICC IT-8 target for digital cameras published by Lasersoft Imaging. And, in Adobe Photoshop the Info display palette and the Color Picker tool permits obtaining the color value readout of any pixel(s) in a digital photo image on-screen open in the application. This leads to the possibility of taking any subject, measuring its color value, exposing the subject with a digital camera and in Photoshop measure the reproduction of that color and see if the readings match. Well theoretically at least, in actual practice making that test is a bit more involved, as I learned from technical experts in color management, the RGB scales cannot be used for the purpose, you have to make the measurements in LAB values, and the Photoshop reading of an image in LAB colorspace.

But with this idea running around in my head it made me curious. so I ran a test with my current dSLR. However the LAB readout numbers by themselves don’t mean much, they didn’t obviously if not exactly the same value, tell me visually how different the color in the target color patch taken with my camera and displayed in Photoshop LAB space differed from the original target. So using the LAB value for the target original and its reproduced Lab value from Photoshop measurement, you can fill a couple of small window spaces (new images opened) in Photoshop with each color value, and see how much visual difference there is on screen. Perceptually the difference was so slight that if they were not separated by a window frame you would see them as being the same color. Just to be sure this was not a fluke with just one color, I had measured a number of the different color patches in my target and recorded them. I checked the same color patch in Photoshop, and made comparison windows on-screen. Same thing, very little perceptual color difference.

Sadly this did not satisfy my curiosity entirely and to do that I had more work to do. Since I have been testing digital cameras I have stored archive Raw files from each which contain exposures of the same color targets. So I began opening these files in Photoshop LAB space, and reading the values for the matching color patches I had measured, and recording them. I repeated using these lAB values to make PS new image windows filled with the colors. To make a long and laborious exercise short in description, the difference were small, barely visible color difference between several different makes and models of dSLR cameras.

THE BOTTOM LINE ON dSLR COLOR PERFORMANCE

Although I am sure a color scientist uses more sophisticated tools and methods than what I described, I think dSLR color performance can be measured objectively by the test method I described above. This kind of measurement of digital camera performance in how much fidelity the image has to the subject I think should be a part of the information photographers have available to them. As far as I have been aware this kind of testing is not being done nor is it reported on.

However, the limited evaluations I have done suggest to me that compared to the color transparency films of the immediate past, dSLR cameras provide image information that has a much higher fidelity and reproduces subjects much more accurately than film. And possibly most of the major brand dSLR cameras today may not be very different in performance one from another because they all potentially reproduce reality with a high level of accuracy in color. Maybe the camera makers and the writers testing and reporting on dSLR cameras are not talking about image color performance because it is all so good there is nothing to distinguish one make/brand/model from another?

If you have a comment, they are welcome, so please post it. If you have a question you want me to answer please address an e-mail to David B. Brooks at: goofotografx@gmail.com

LCD HD TV FOR SLIDESHOWS

2009-06-27T13:26:00.000-07:00

In the July issue of Shutterbug my answer in Digital Help to Rich Zahren’s question about HD format slide show authoring elicited a good number of suggestions from readers. One involved maybe the easiest, cheapest to implement and best ways to present a slideshow using a large LCD HD TV that are now so popular. Set up your LCD HD TV as a display for your computer:
__________________________________________________________________

It's very easy to use your personal computer to present digital photo "slide shows" on HDTVs. Connect a 15-pin VGA cable from the computer's "monitor" connector to the HDTV's "PC Input". Make sure you've set the computer's Display Properties settings to match your TV's resolution (1920 x 1080 for full-HD 1080p sets; 1280 x 720 for 720p TVs). Most computers made in the last 10 years can be set to these resolution values, including some laptops. (If your TV lacks a "PC Input", buy a cheap computer video card with a DVI output connector, and use a DVI-to-HDMI cable to connect the computer to one of the TV's HDMI inputs.) Then run one of the many free photo-viewing programs on the computer (they're packaged free with most cameras, or can be downloaded on the Internet). The full-HD results can be spectacular--much better than trying to view the photos via a DVD player or a card reader connected directly to the TV.

Vincent Andrunas, San Diego, California
__________________________________________________________________

My immediate response to Vincent’s suggestion was: Hey, I have a spare Mac Mini and a fairly new Toshiba Regza LCD HD TV, let me try this with an Apple Mac and see how it goes. First I ordered a DVI > HDMI cable from the Apple Store ($19.95 6 foot, $29.95 12 foot). While I was waiting for the delivery of the cable I made a selection of images for a slideshow from my digital photo archive files, opened each and resized the images (all landscape format orientation) to 1080 pixels in height, and left the width proportional, which was always less than the 1920 pixel width of the HD format resolution, and Saved As to a new “slideshow” folder.

When the DVI > HDMI cable arrived, it took just minutes to connect the HDMI end to my LCD TV and the DVI to the Mac Mini’s display output DVI socket. Then I have to admit referring to the TV user guide to find out how to set it up to display a digital computer input. With my Toshiba the Picture Size setting should be on “Native”, and I was encouraged to select the Standard Picture Mode, and of course to set the Input selector to the HDMI channel I had plugged into. So with the TV turned on and set as described, I turned the Mac on and eureka, I had a computer screen display image that looked entirely normal, but very much bigger than usual for me. The Apple Mini on booting up recognized the display and set itself in System Preferences to a display resolution of 1080x1920 pixels.

Before playing the slideshow I had created, I wanted to equalize the playing field further between the display performance I am used to with my computers and LCD displays and using my LCD HD TV as a computer display, so I used a ColorVision Spyder2 Pro to calibrate and profile the LCD HD TV. This process to calibrate and profile was done in the same manner as a computer LCD display and with the same basic aim points of 6500K color temperature and 2.2 gamma I use with my computers, but at the TV’s standard brightness (for the time being).

Now ready to try displaying the slide show image files I had saved to a folder,and transferred to the Mac Mini now running my TV, how would I show them? Some time ago I found in Apple System Preference/ScreenSaver you can select a folder of images and they will be displayed by Screen Saver at full screen, and the image will, if there are several files in the folder, change every few minutes from one file to another. This is an easy way to do a slide show without any programming whatsoever. And once turned on the Screen Saver slide show will run continuously, at least until you move your mouse and the screen saver turns off. The images fill the screen top to bottom and if not as wide as the full screen, the edges are left black. But the important thing is that the image quality in color, and contrast was comparable to viewing the images on any of my computer LCD displays. Although, if you view the slides from a vantage point closer to the screen than you would normally watch TV, they are not quite as sharp as they are displayed full-screen on a computer display because at 1080 by 1920 pixel resolution for a 40 inch LCD TV display compared to 1200x1600 pixels of a 20 inch computer display, the pixel size of the LCD TV is much larger. Bt of course at a normal TV viewing distance image sharpness looks comparable.

As I indicated when I calibrated and profiled the LCD TV I left it at its standard default brightness, which measured almost twice the white luminance CD/m2 value my computer displays are adjusted to. So why didn’t the images then look too light? At the greater normal TV viewing distance the light of the image shown has to travel further, and incident indoor illumination falls off in intensity at an inverse square of the distance from the source. In other words because as artificial light travels from its source its brightness is diminished by of the distance from source to where it is viewed, you need more light at the source (the LCD screen backlight), to obtain the same perceptual brightness/darkness at a greater viewing distance.

I don’t really know if Windows offers anything similar to the Screen Saver option the Apple OS does, so not to come off as an Mac snob, there is another option most digital photographers probably have whether PC Windows or a Mac that supports slide show presentation. It is an Adobe Acrobat utility that is in all the recent versions of Photoshop Elements, and is also in several Photoshop CS versions as PDF Presentations. With Photoshop running just go to File/ Automated Tools/PDF Slideshow in Elements 6.0. Then with a folder of image files (on your HD), whether resized for screen display as I did, or not, use the PDF window dialog to select the files, choose the kind of transition you prefer, as well as the number of seconds each image should be on-screen, click OK and select the filename and location where this new PDF slideshow should be stored, and in a short time its done. Then if you have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed on your computer, and most do, just double click on the PDF slideshow file you created and it will run full screen or in a window if desired. The screen image quality is as good as it gets.

If you have a comment, they are welcome, so please post it. If you have a question you want me to answer please address an e-mail to David B. Brooks at: goofotografx@gmail.com

FINDING PHOTOGRAPHS

2009-06-21T15:28:00.000-07:00

A friend recently forwarded a link to a web site that had a detailed listing of some 40 on-line photo magazines. Many if not most of them were as well done as any paper magazines of the recent past when the internet was still an idea for the future. Like in days of the past some are largely focused on the tools of the trade, cameras lenses and now software for computes, other were about images, and some about photographers and what they do, like photojournalism. Exploring many of the 40 was interesting and occassionally enlightening, particularly for an old-timer like me, that todays photographers make images distinctly unlike what previous generations. I think part of the reason is that so much of the world and what is in it has already been made familiar by iconic images made by the great photographers of the past. A young contemporary photographer, to grab attention and become recognized has to create images that are unfamiliar, that stop the viewer and holds their attention, and photographs of subjects already familiar can’t do that, as soon as the image is recognized as familiar the viewer moves on. You aren’t likely to see a portfolio of photographs of Yosemite in any web photo-zine, unless it is a retrospective of the work of a long dead lensman.

There is a lot of really good material of interest to most photographers whether interested in digital camera gear, in looking at inspiring photographs or becoming acquainted with new and emerging young photographers in the on-line magazines I explored. So as not to just tantalize and leave everyone hanging, here is the URL with the listing that was sent to me: http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/04/17/40-amazing-online-photography

But the reason for writing this blog was not so much what others are publishing about photography today on the web, but what they are not talking about that concerns me. What is missing is any discussion considering how a photographer is able to perceive reality and recognize a photograph in what is seen, and then make the decisions that result in actions applied to using the camera to capture that image as seen in the mind’s eye and obtain a photograph which replicates that personal vision. Some will of course chalk this ability up to some innate talent, and talent is a factor. But talent alone is often like the singer-song writer who produces a song that becomes a one hit wonder. It can’t be followed up with another because that demands a disciplined knowledge of music. In photography Ansel Adams referred to it as “visualization”, and what he meant was through an understanding of the photographic process and how it works, a photographer learns to see as a camera does. This means that how a lens focuses a subject (on film in his day), how the latent image is recorded, developed and printed had to be understood and learned thoroughly; sufficient to become second nature to a photographer, to be able to control visual perception to look at a scene, recognize a picture in it and know what photographic factors must be applied to reproduce that picture as perceived so it would become a photograph. By knowingly controlling an exposure, and processing the image with understanding so what will result is a print image that realizes the mind’s eye perception that inspired it.

Inspired talent can result occassionally, but rarely, in image gems that are like the songwriter’s one hit wonder. And of course there is the shotgun approach to creative photography, shooting everything you see. But then you have the task of culling out all of the exposures that don’t make it as a picture. That’s a bit like gambling in Las Vegas. Although called “fun city” the many times I have been there for trade shows and conventions, when I have been out on the streets or walking through the casino in my hotel, I’ve seen lot’s of people and by and large they are the saddest, unhappiest faces anywhere. That’s because most are loosing, few are winning; very much like editing a shotgun photographic result, mostly a loosing proposition with few winners does not produce happiness, fun from photography..

So the alternative to relying just on inspiration and talent for some, is NOT to invest in a more expensive and a supposedly better camera, but in yourself by learning to understand the digital photographic process as thoroughly as possible and to train your perception to see like a camera does. One of the biggest problem involved in learning this is the confusion that persists between analog film photography and digital photography. Yes there are similarities between digital camera and film cameras, even the lenses for film cameras work quite well used with some digital cameras, but when the camera makes an exposure on film or with a built-in image sensor chip the similarity ends and the results are very unlike. This can be even more confusing when the same words are used in both film photography and digital, like “resolution” for instance. In film photography resolution refers to the resolving power of lens or film in its ability to record fine subject information, specifically so many parallel lines equally spaced per millimeter. While digital resolution refers to the size of a digital image in pixels, applied to an image, how many pixels in height to so many pixels in width. Applied to digital cameras, its megapixels, how many pixels in millions are captured by the area of the image sensor.

I began my career in photography in 1952 so obviously most of a life’s full-time employment has been in film photography. Of all people Ansel Adams writing about his experience with Acme Press publishing his Monograph and being able to get more out a scan of his images in the printed pages of his book than he could do in his darkroom, was handwriting on the wall for me the future of photography was digital. So I made the switch and have done almost nothing but digital since 1990. At that time it wasn’t easy because everyone was flying by the seat of one’s pants, there were no experts with experience to turn to for guidance. But after just a few years of being on that bleeding edge of technology, I found I had better control of what I was doing than I ever enjoyed with film. Digital photography has many fewer variables to deal with like the fact almost every emulsion batch of film is different from the previous batch. Besides being infinitely controllable, digital photography is consistent and much more predictable because a digital image is just numbers - think about that and don’t assume what is true from film experience applies to digital and your photography life will get simpler.

If you have a comment, they are welcome, so please post it. If you have a question you want me to answer please address an e-mail to David B. Brooks at: goofotografx@gmail.com

And visit my web site at: https://sites.google.com/site/davidbrooksfotografx/

CONVERGENCE

2009-06-03T20:58:00.000-07:00

Converge: to gradually change so as to become similar or develop something in common, is the usual meaning of what convergence is as it has been the topic of much contemporary writing about the media. But that coming together between computers and television, for instance, has been spotty, incomplete and often contentious from a business and government perspective. The partnership between AOL and Time-Warner although touted as having a goal of melding content and internet delivery was never achieved and Time-Warner and AOL have now gone their separate ways again.

Although many countries like Japan, the leader, and more in Europe enjoy low-cost, fast, broadband internet service, while America lags behind even though during the dot com bubble a massive high sped optical data delivery network was constructed. Today little of it is being utilized. Numerous communities have attempted to put free or low-cost broadband WiFi systems in place and have been undermined, blocked or sabotaged by the communications industry. In many low population density areas, a good part of America, broadband is unavailable, in small towns access is monopolized and outrageously expensive, while in major metro areas costs are kept in check but by an inefficient balkanized system.

Meanwhile, separate technologies and systems for cell phone, land line phones, DSL or cable internet, cable or dish TV compete to no one’s advantage other than the bill collectors who are obtaining fees for three different kinds of access to many homes.

For digital photographers using their computers to access and edit their images on screen, being able to then present those images as a “slideshow” on a digital HDTV television is possible, but with complications, limitations and a confusion of means and methods. Although Apple TV makes it easy to show what is on your Mac on your TV, it requires having both an Airport WiFi network installed and a $300 set-top box for your TV. On the other hand, if you want to record your slide show on a DVD and obtain the full advantage of high resolution HD, you have to use a Blu-Ray DVD recorder, and they have only just been announced for installation in the next generation of new computers. But at least one company JVC has announced a new Xiview model LT-42WX70 monitor that;s 42 inch and has a wide color gamut, 96% of Adobe RGB colorspace which will do justice to your digital camera’s capabilities, if you want to afford a list price of $2,399.95; for more information visit http://www.jvc.com

The bottom line is we still have a long way to go to fully enjoy affordably the benefits in the meaning of convergence.

If you have a comment, they are welcome, so please post it. If you have a question you want me to answer please address an e-mail to David B. Brooks at: goofotografx@gmail.com

And visit my web site at: https://sites.google.com/site/davidbrooksfotografx/