DIGITAL SCANNERS & CAMERAS ARE MUCH ALIKE

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

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

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

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

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?

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?

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,CES20 I am not about to investigate the speciousness of specs on different PC’s; but I am sure some will.