Saving a photo

Sometimes things don't go well when you are shooting.  But that doesn't mean you can't dig out a decent photo from a lost cause snap.   Here is an example.

I took this shot of the Cape Hatteras lighthouse on a dreary day in the late afternoon under less than interesting lighting conditions.  As you can see, the colors are all washed out, and even though I tried very hard to set up something interesting with the local foliage, it just wasn't working.

I actually sort of wrote this one off, until I had a happy accident one day.  I was playing around with some black and white conversion workflows, and selected this photo as an object to test.  Since it was originally shot in raw format, I opened the image in ACR and started playing with it.  I was attempting to set the max and min black and white levels appropriately, when I accidentally grabbed the exposure slider and pushed it down toward under exposure.  That's when the magic happened.  It turns out that there was a lot of sky color hidden in the file, and underexposure let it show through.  I could have played around with the vibrance and saturation on the original and tried to save it, but that would have introduced too much false color, and really I don't think the result would have been pleasing.  But pushing the exposure down a couple of stops actually converted this into a totally different type of photo, with very pleasing results.  Here's the final after a little sharpening and cropping:

I think this is a nice, dramatic rendering that appears to be a twilight shot even though the photo was taken in the afternoon, facing generally east toward the ocean, away from the sun.

So, a couple of lessons here.  First, shoot in raw - it gives you many more options in post.  Second, look at your failures a second time, and see if there might be a way to save them.  This shot made Flickr explore, and you can see the larger version here.

Do you really need 36 megapixels?

Yes.

No.

Maybe.

How's that for being definitive?  I think I have pretty much covered all the bases there, don't you?

I recently purchased a Nikon D800.  While I do make money from photography, I don't make a living with it so acquiring a 36 megapixel camera is a bit of a stretch for me.  Certainly one does not need that much resolution to make a good photo.  My Olympus PEN E-P3 does just fine in most situations, and it is a micro four-thirds format.  It's only about 12 MP, so that would actually be a little small for making big prints, but otherwise it works fine, especially if you can control the lighting.  It's easy to carry and you can attach high quality lenses to it.

My other cameras have always been APS-C sensors, with about 12 MP resolution.  The larger pixels are better than the micro 4/3 sensor in the Olympus, but not as good as full frame, nor do they have the low noise/high ISO performance of the 16 MP Nikon D7000.

When I decided to move up, I had basically three choices, given that I have so much nice Nikon glass already:  (1) used or new D700, (2) D800, and (3) D4.  I never really considered a D3.

I like the D700, but it's getting a bit long in the tooth and I didn't want to remain behind the technology curve.  The D800 is a bit pricey, but at $3k not totally out of reach for a serious semi-pro.  All my research on image quality tells me that the D4 is the way to go, but at 2X the price of the D800, I just can't justify it.

So, I settled on the D800, even though I had some reservations about the file sizes:  RAW files uncompressed on the D800 are about 77 MB.  My aging iMac had to be taken into account.

Anyway, after searching to find a vendor who actually had a D800 to sell, I finally got it a few days ago and took a few random shots to see how it performed.  I was not disappointed, and I'll show you why.

Here is a full frame jpg at 72 dpi converted from the original photo I took using the D800 with a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 @ f/2.5, 1/160 sec, ISO 1250.  

Here is a crop from the center of the frame, at 120 dpi.

And here is a further crop, still at 120 dpi.  You can see a larger version on the flickr page, here.

So, what's the deal?  Ok, here is what I have seen so far.   The raw images are simply wonderful.  I suspect the noise in the image, which can in fact be seen when you crop down this much, is not as good as a top of the line D4 or Canon 5D MkIII, although I can't really compare myself.  But the noise is very tiny and adds a slight, fine-grain look so it's not objectionable at all.  This photo was shot in relatively dim room light, and so I am very impressed.

Did I need a 36MP camera to make these photos?  Maybe not.  Probably the D7000 might have given the same low-light images in this instance.  But there is something important that the high resolution sensor gives me, and that is....HIGH RESOLUTION.

See, I don't want to go out and buy another $5k of lenses, and this camera pretty much requires nice primes to fully appreciate the tiny pixels.  So, I can, as in this instance, use a 50mm lens and crop down pretty much to my heart's desire and still get good images.

For those who like to display their work in large format, printing 400ppi or 500ppi with these large files is possible, when utilizing an APS-C sensor would probably not be.

The price point on the camera is really a huge selling point.  Lots of D700s, hardly used, are showing up on eBay for about $1800 now, often with the battery grip and a lens, as D700 users upgrade to the D800.  Once the D800s really start shipping, I suspect the D700s will be much easier to pick up.  But it won't give you this resolution.

All in all, it's a spectacular opportunity.

Brenizer portraits

I would love to be able to afford a medium format camera, say, like a Hasselblad, with a digital back and lots of insanely expensive lenses.  That large format can't be beat for landscape and portrait work.

But, I can't.

However, there is an alternative.  It's called the Brenizer method, and it was created by a wedding photographer Ryan Brenizer.  Using this method, you can simulate a much larger camera than the one used to actually take the photo.

Here's how it works.  First, you take a bunch of overlapping images with a very shallow depth of field.  Then you use a post processing program, like Photoshop, for example, to stitch them back together into a larger image.  The result, as shown below, is the equivalent of having a camera sensor many times the size of the one actually in the camera you used.

This is an image of my son, Erik, that was stitched together from about a dozen separate photos. [Here is a larger version so you can see more detail.] Now, you may think it's just a typical photo, but look closely.  The detail is much greater than I could have gotten with a single shot, especially considering the shallow depth of field.  I did crop this down from a larger frame to eliminate some of the distracting background.  If I were trying to do this for money, I would have taken the photo someplace with a better background.  But I was just playing.

I could have gotten a somewhat similar shot using a single frame, but it would not have looked like this.  A normal lens shot this close would have produced perspective distortion, and a telephoto would not have produced the same bokeh.

Brenizer couples this with some crazy lighting, where he has an assistant walk around lighting up different parts of the scene with a remotely triggered flash, then uses additional post processing to blend the images.  The result is an image that really can't be obtained any other way, and it's pretty cool.

Anyway, if you have PS, you should try this.  Just be sure to not change your own location when you take the shots - otherwise the program will give you some strange results.

Black and White photography

I am liking black and white photography more and more.

There are lots of different types of photographs, and the use of color can be spectacular, especially in landscapes.  But lately I have been thinking a lot about portraits, and how much I always liked to see the old black and white versions.  Sure, back in the day it was all that was really available.  But there's something fundamentally interesting about reducing the portrait to its basic elements by eliminating the distraction of color.  Here's an example.

This was originally a color shot from a live performance of Chris Thile and the Punch Brothers.  The lighting was very poor and sort of crazy with all the colored spots.  And there is a certain interest in those color shots.  But I took a crop from the original shot and converted it to black and white, while bumping the contrast and adding noise.  The blurring of Chris' features is the result of a relatively slow shutter speed coupled with his trademark stage action.  The black and white image focuses attention on the subject without distracting colors, and the blurring of parts of the image communicate the frenzied style of his performance.  I think this really captures more of the 'essence' of the performer, which is exactly what we want in an environmental portrait.

There are lots of ways to communicate with a camera, but I am liking black and white these days.

Punch Brothers Wow Crowd on Snowy February Evening

Chris Thile brought his band, the Punch Brothers, to the Jefferson Center Sunday night to play to a sellout crowd.  The only problem was, half of the ticket holders were unable to slog through 7 inches of wet snow to experience the concert.  For those of us who made it, we were certainly not disappointed.

Thile's style of music, and musicianship, continues to evolve into a higher form of entertainment experience.  In it's current incarnation, it is alternately experimental acoustic jazz with classical overtones and traditional bluegrass, but with the sharp edges worn off by Thile's distinctive musical vision.  The addition of an experienced bass player has enriched the music indescribably, and the impeccable skills of the band members truly weave a unique acoustic tapestry that simply cannot be duplicated by any other band.

Thile seems to have a special affinity for Roanoke and the Jefferson Center.  During a break he remarked about how many times he has played the venue.  "I'm so excited, because this time we sold out!" he remarked as he scanned the many empty seats in the auditorium due to the weather.  "It's just that you can't tell...".

The Punch Brothers are not just a backup band for Thile.  They are highly skilled musicians making serious music.  And although the sound is clearly derived from Thile's past, the richness and complexity as well as the addition of significant rhythm elements has taken them to a new level of performance.

Check out their schedule on the website at punchbrothers.com for dates and venues, and whatever you do, make it to one of the concerts.  I drove through 35 miles of blinding snow, and it was worth it.  You won't be disappointed.

Shooting with a purpose

It's great to just wander around in the world taking photos as you go. Once in a while you happen to be in the right place at the right time to get an interesting shot.  However, I find that those opportunities are rare.  To me, the point of photography is more communicating a message than just making pretty pictures.  Don't get me wrong, I like pretty pictures.  Love 'em, in fact.  But I suppose the journalist in me is always looking for something else going on.  The image should pull you into the story and make you wonder what is going on - maybe fill in the blanks for yourself.  Take this series of shots, for example.

My daughter and her husband were visiting yesterday, and at some point decided to break out the instruments and play a little music.  Guitar and banjo, in the old time style.  They are both good musicians and it's great to hear them play together, particularly when they are working on an original composition, like they were when I took these shots.

Now, I was really just playing around with my Olympus PEN camera with a Nikon 50mm lens, shooting totally manual, and I decided to use one of the built-in art processes and get some grainy black and white shots.  But when I looked at the proofs, I decided I would string them together like this to try to communicate a little bit of what making music is about.  You can begin to understand a little when you look at this arrangement.  It's fun and it's work.  Music demands some precision, and of course skill, but the point is to have fun creating something ephemerically beautiful.  You weave a tapestry of auditory color that hangs in the air for a moment and then exists only in your memory.  And when it's over, both the performer and the listener walk away a little richer.

Olympus PEN E-P3 review

I recently purchased an Olympus PEN E-P3 mirrorless micro four-thirds (m43) camera to carry around with me.  I know most of my photographer friends use DSLRs now, as do I, but there are times when I have needed a decent camera with me and did not have the ability to lug all that DSLR equipment.  See the photo for my reasoning...

As you can see, the D300 with grip and 17-55 f/2.8 is a monster compared to the PEN with it's pancake 17 mm f/2.8.  The PEN is not a shirt-pocket camera, but I can pretty much carry it wherever I go and get good photos with it.

There are a number of m43 cameras out there.  Prior to purchasing the PEN, I tried a Fuji x100, for example.  I absolutely loved the retro styling (it resembles the Leica M9) and many of the features, but the cost ($1200) combined with the inability to change lenses (the X100 has a 35 mm) just made it a no-go.

I also compared a number of other cameras in the m43 world, and finally decided the PEN was approximately equivalent to all of them for the price, and with a suitable adapter, I can attach most of my old Nikon film camera lenses (see photo).

This shows my old Nikon 50mm f/1.8 attached to the PEN.  It's a great combination and the quality is fantastic.  The 17 mm lens (35 mm equivalent) is ok - perfectly serviceable, but the quality of the Nikon is clearly superior.  The 50mm converts to 100mm so it's a perfect portrait lens.

So how is the quality of the images out of the PEN?  Very good.  The sensor is 12.3 mp but of a previous generation build, so it's a little noisy in high ISO operation.  There are a lot of comparison reviews floating around on the web, so check those out for extreme pixel peeping.  Your mileage may vary.

I will give one comparison to demonstrate a practical head-to-head in an actual photo situation.  I was writing an article about a local business with some neat new technology and I had to get a quick shot to go with the copy.  I loaded up my D300 with SB800 flash and I also brought along my PEN so I could determine if it was good enough to use professionally if I didn't have the larger rig with me.  Below is a comparison shot of the two images I took.

D300 image SOOC, jpg, 1/160, f/5.0, ISO 400, 20mm (30mm eq)

PEN image SOOC, jpg, 1/60, f/2.8, ISO 500, 17mm (35mm eq)

The D300 shot was taken with flash while the PEN was not.  Both shots are directly from the camera converted from raw to jpg using Adobe Camera Raw without any processing.  The Nikon image is wider because the PEN at full sensor is in the 4:3 proportion.  I used 160 shutter on the D300 so I could set the white balance to flash and eliminate contributions from the overhead fluorescent lights.

So, in my opinion, either of these images is useable with only minor sharpening and contrast adjustment that I do in post.  In fact, I sent both of them to the editor and let him decide which one to use.  The PEN is no replacement for a quality DSLR, but quality and practicality make it a very nice tool to have in the bag, and definitely is a lower-cost option for those who would like to move up from a point and shoot to something with more flexibility.

I won't go into all the cool features of the PEN camera controls.  But most importantly, I can shoot raw and I can shoot fully manual.  There is no optical viewfinder (you have to use the nice live view screen), but I can tell you the touch to focus aspects of the control are a dream.  There is no need to focus lock and recompose a shot - just touch the area of the screen where you want the focus to be, and the camera takes a photo.  Done.

For about the same price, you can now apparently buy a Panasonic Lumix GX1 which is a very similar camera, but which has slightly better high ISO performance and a 16 mp sensor.  I think either of these cameras is worthy to be in the bag with your gear, and unless you need the high IQ of a D3 or 5D Mark II, you can make great photos with these mirrorless cameras.  In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that the next generation of pro cameras will dispense with the bulky and expensive pentaprism optical finders and look more like the Leica M9.