CONFUSIONS IN TIME, SPACE, AND COLOR

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

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?

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 LensSony 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

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

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.ViewSonic’s VX2250WM-LED 22-Inch (21.5-Inch Vis) Widescreen Full HD 1080p LED Monitor with Integrated Stereo SpeakersNEC LCD2490WUXi2-BK 24" WIDESREEN LCD MONITOR 24 INCHEizo Shows Five FlexScan Displays.(EIZO Nanao Technologies FlexScan L465, L375, L685)(Product Announcement): An article from: Display Development News

FILM SCANNING REMAINS POPULAR

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

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.